Wednesday, December 29, 2010

E=boybad girlgood squared

Like my first thing posted; Written around '97. (I posted first at a now dead site connected to my old isp and then later at delphi forums.) It has many of my general motifs in it, in early demo form.

I reposted it to usenet like half a dozen years ago with a little intro. I found that version with the intro through google usenet now.  

(I had a HDD crash in 2001, losing all my early everythingS --writings, art, music, photos, porn.) 

 Here it is. Make of it what you will.


In the begining I wasn't as, um, able to get my ideas out as, um, concisely as I do now (ehem). (I'm a tortured genius and the torured part comes across in my prose. How impolite of you to notice.)

I am self taught at everything I do (a remarkable list of skills, trust me), including speaking properly and writing. I was raised like most by a single fem parent and I was a bit of a social victim (like most) and a wanna be hood [dropped out while still in freshmen year of HS, dealt drugs, "ran with the wrong crowd" and etc].

When I first matured in the mid 90s (becoming say 25), I was full of ideas (which had been brewing before that even) but I didn't know how to write properly and I didn't know how to type. So my early sorties into the great wide open called the 'net were sort of, um, "interestingly formed up"; and spelled less well than I do now, if that's even imaginable.

"E=boybad girlgood squared" was my first literate attempt to make sense of what has happened here and to fight back. It is a general open response to the anti male demonization that defined and defines our world; my goal was attempting to counter the myth of female cosmic justice saintlyness (which is apparently the main left rally standard that motivates them [: "males have fucked 'it' up. Now lets let wymyn try"]).

(Some might notice that some of my schpeel has become part of the anti fem [my coinage too] lexicon now)

To da schpeel...

E=boybad girlgood squared

OR Hedonism Uses Sophistry To Legitimize Oppression.

Its relativity dear Watson...

Has anyone noticed that 19 Cent. 'phrenology' and anthropolgy and Nazi-science were subtle and sophisticated compared to the modern anti male bigotry "sciences".

Contemporary society has a multitude of non-compatible gender assertions about Nature, mammalology, primatology, paleo-anthro, anthro, history/archeo and psyco/soci babble. Most are cult delusion or hedonism and most of the rest are embarassing displays of academic hack conformity, relativism and ignorance. One particular contemporary paradigm says males are mean. Other paradigms say Nature is female controled utopia; e.g. bonobos (fading pygmy chimp species). What these paradigms say instead is gender science is very, very relativistic. The people who assert the "demonic males" thing should debate the "matriarchies of the past" crowd.
As for males being bad... Yes, I agree-- males ARE other males. Males fight each other to the death over females overtly far more often than females do over males. To the extent males are bad to--controling of--females, males are protecting themselves from other males by preventing the female's purposeful selectively-bred flirtation from enticing other males into the arena (of male against male death) and secondly males are reacting to her stress inducing allusiveness and control-tactic provocation (in human parlance= "Head games"--emotional abuse). females have their strategies and males have different ones; female strategies are for hurting the males while male strategies are for hurting other males, over females as catalysts.

female hammer hitting male knee. Contemporary relativism blames kicking foot for breaking vase but doesn't trace causation back to hammer. Why? Simple: female value deserves payment; for humans this payment is obsequious, hipocritical (down right delusional) connotation of female character and male self effacing and abasing chilvalrous self-imolation (e.g. man throwing himself into the water around the sinking Titanic etc.). That is, its self effacing self-imolation when the payment isn't directly fighting to the death over female value and female provocation (and her RICO Statute crime commissioning).
Dimorphic Sexuality-- 800-500 Mill.Yrs for animal kingdom:

It is a stuntification (emasculation) attack. "I got your nose" on the scale of Sexual Reproduction. This impulse was selected as efficient in some niche of hermaphroditic critters and has been variating into different organisms ever since. [vertebrates: 450MYR]

females don't volunteer this and they don't remain female if given a choice--they become males and stunt their own underlings.

Gender is not static/permanent (hardwired), even if it appears so. It is constantly branching into different things over the long haul. We can see it unfolding "over the short haul" in the gender-softwired organisms (from some, the vertebrates come). E.g. some mollusks ( They're born hermaphrodites and the ones that mature first stunt (emasculate) and enharem their younger siblings. If something happens to the mature sibling --the male-- the second most mature sibling of the harem --a female-- will, unstunted, mature into the male and continue to stunt "his" females(stuntoids), including the ousted ex-male; Or if you remove and isolate a female from a harem, she will continue growing and become an hermaphrodite again until it is pit against competitors and the whole Ugly-truth [crushing Beautiful-lies] plays out all over again [whether academia and media likes it or not].

females are reproductive portals and therefore unwittingly more valuable than males and males are better at doing stuff, because of this. Males are fighting each other to get through the "bottle neck" and this is a selection pressure.

The modern anti male "sciences" conjure narratives about dimorphic sex social-sexual dynamics without explaining underlying dimorphic sexuality fundamentals because, I assert, they stupidly don't know them or are egregious censors.

Or some anti male "scientists" conjure their narratives but contest emasculation-attack-dynamic as the vector of dimorphic sex (for political empowerment reasons more than any other) and assert in its stead that dimorph sex is a voluntary partnership symbiosis. Well of course dim. sex. is a symbiosis, thats obvious, but females[immature hermaphrodites] obviously, don't voluntarily give up their male appendages. If the left's belief--"dimorph. sex. creation is voluntary"--is true then the females are even Less excusable for the male under-value problems and violence in the male eschelon and certainly less excusable for the "male redundancy" praying mantis-like dynamics which abound.

Exclusively, the dimorphic sex dynamics which include death during the breeding event are female controled dynamics; E.g. praying mantises, black widows, lighting bugs, hives, scorpions, spiders, etc etc. (maybe a majority of arthropods[2Mill spp] and maybe some fish and birds[which is the redundant male potential getting way to close to home]). Misandrony passes itself on more easily than misogyny, because of the reproductive mechanics of dimorphic sex--sperm egg ratio and females' seminal reservoir.

Many "science" venues that point this "male redundancy" out do so in a "BEHOLD... the mighty female--she is strong and wise" way. This exposes the contemporary cult-like political relativism once again: if the contemporary pro female chivalrous relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel females--strong and cruel is a positive--females (killing males) are mighty and good; if this relativism sees Nature filled with strong and cruel males (strongly and cruely beating each other, over female value)--strong and cruel is a negative--males are cowardly and bad or demonic even.

And certain male humans--often ones who lost their battles against other males in childhood(practice fighting over females, ultimately)--use this "male-is-bad" paradigm as a courtship display. Many male humans throw pro female grenades at competitor male humans. These chivalrous males can't see this grenade has a kill radius larger than its throw radius.

Along with those female-bads above, the "boy bad girl good" "sciences" ignore, or spin into pro female narratives, the following:

females engage in parasitism more often, injecting their eggs into all manner of victims(the young eat their way out): males of their own species, siblings, competiting females, children, other species.

Hives are overwhelmingly matriarchies yet hives are perpetually warlike and non self-aware dumb, selectively breeding kamikazees, slaves and males as infantile sex fodder and food.

female mammals abuse children and the weaklings around them. E.g. female lions kill others' children but don't eat them--and females of other species--incl primates--do this same thing, And female hyenas, when not eliminating other's young, kill each other and males from childhood to adult hood, over status. And of course human females beat and kill their own children more often than biological fathers do; first violence human child experiences is at female hands, say left studies. And "gendercide" political belief is exclusively a female construct and option.

A key male-as-demonic narrative, while ignoring the above female-bads, looks at males that kill young. Just like when the females do it, this is unwitting way of increasing individual reproductive--evolutionary--success (Nature is unwitting variations being unwittingly selected). Nature is always--and will always be--red in tooth and claw -- period. The left believes--in delusional cult like fashion--that it has some solution to Nature; the left --and america in general-- believes in cosmic justice utopia like a religious cult of loonies--a cult that goes uncontested as it brainwashes.

Yes, getting rid of the males Will cause the males to no longer be 'perpetrating' the unwitting acts but it won't change the underlying pressures (Nature) that selected him to be the way he was from then selecting out the same traits again in the next dominant type to ascend. As stated immediately above, females eliminate competition too(female hyenas for example). Its the unwitting way Nature does business: Limited/finite amount of energy(food) available, too many extended sibling variants fighting over it; the siblings are energy(food) too.

One point the relativism overlooks in the "male as killer of young" narrative is that the mother of the young being killed enticed the male on to the territory with her sexual display. E.g. female lions spray all over the place and cause new males to come to the territory and fight the established males to the death(female is oppressing males) and if the new males win they proceed to kill previous males' cubs (eliminate the competition) the mother bode them to (aint Nature great?). This is female lion's unwitting way of passing her own genes* on more successfully by tieing them to the best possible males--males selected as best or worst by arenas she unwittingly created. (*chemical chain reactions creating impeteuses[e.g. impeteus to spray all over])

female mammals and reptiles are generally weaker and slower, smaller, stupider(for relevant species) and more timid than the males (as a side effect of males fighting over females). This is an echo of the emasculation battle that created dimorphic sex. But female weakness, which is at once denied and praised, is not more noble its just weak and sneaky and obviously outside of Man's chivalrous relativistic lensing.
Relativistically processing relatives. Historically, male strength in primates etc was once denied by the left while the right (hint: not the GOP or christians) used male strength in primates etc as example of male supremacy. Now, in classic political flip flopping fashion, certain portions of the left agree--males are strong in Nature(at least in hominoids) but now strength is bad --unless of course the females have it.
liberalism's latest "poster chimps". Hedonists and humanists find their latest "golden-calf" to support their "sacred cow"(feminism) in bonobos. Bonobos(pan paniscus), according to contemporary relativist's assertions, are female dominant lovers and don't fight. The fact that the male paniscus do fight--leading to acute or atricional death--over female sexual provocation and the fact that paniscus has the best food supply of the hominoids--leading to less acute competiton--is not developed by the boybad girlgood "sciences"(its not the supposed female dominance that causes their supposed peace, its the economy, stupid). To show how flip flopping relativism works just look at history: most of the species asserted as bad--especially normal chimps(pan troglodites)--were held up as exemplary utopianites during the 1960s and before; now the boybad-ites say they are killers--demonic killers. Of course they are! Everything stomps and kills in Nature (one way or another) its just a question of political spin. Eventually the antiseptic eye of reason will study bonobos and the hedonists and humanists and hacks will move their relativistic false-utopia myopic lense somewhere else.

Hedonism disclaimer: I am not a moralist. I'm simply not delusional or insane. I'm NOT a mindless gland without a brain, like hedonist cultists are.

As far as gender utopia primates, Gorrilas have the least chaotic and least violent social sexual dynamic. Autocratic Patriarchal Polygyny [APP, yeah you know me]; One breeding age male per territory, approx 20 females per group. Infidelity--i.e. female emancipation[choice, "divorce", status, control]--is not possible.
Political propaganda, physchological warfare. These non compatible "modern science" narratives are examples of the endless ubiquitous derision from all caste of society stigmatizing males.

Even if female dominance does create a world of peace without killing (it doesn't everywhere else though) why would a man want to be controlled by a female? Why would a high IQ man want to be a bonobo? A bonobo male is an isolated loner on the outskirts of his tribe who has no children he knows and no control over the conspiring manipulating females. You, as males, never felt the stress in your chest over being an isolated male in a world of cliquish misandronistic females teasing and controling you with secretive conspiratorial betrayful manipulation? And FYI, female dominace for humans is much closer to hive dynamic than to anything seen through relativistic interpretations of mammals. Why would a man want to be an idiot droned slave , disposable --"redundant"-- laborer in an ant hive?

There is no reason to let the human females get above the men, because the females will do the same to men men did to females only the men won't have as much leverage because of the sperm egg ratio--females will be in a cliquish sorority conspiracy against men. females will have the reproductive advantages, unless of course the females are successful at becoming men and making men females--ala softwired hermaphrodites(bio techs or freaky variations getting selected and replacing original Mankind could do this). But that defeats the whole narrative which claims "female is oppressed and freeing females offers the Universe(Nature) something different--a cosmic justice utopia". It doesn't -- no reason for the males to abdicate.

It could also be easily said that male humans don't have the power to abdicate in the first place. The human female is the most dependant female mammal ever(excluding mole rat); shes like a baby. The human female is the only mammal on the planet that crys as an adult, because the male human is a born protecter and the female human is a born manipulator. It is obvious that one would be hard pressed to find another female mammal with the kind of leverage against her species' males that the female human has against male humans in our species' social sexual dynamic. One would be hard pressed to find any creature with the life the female human has. The male human, other than his genius, is not dissimilar to other males as far as the way he fights and dies over females--his wounds, scars and battles and such; the time scale and scope has changed very recently, from males fighting to the death one on one/few on few every season, to males fighting every couple of generations in huge hive against hive slaughters. We are not talking about the men abdicating power in the name of an unachievable delusion called equal/freedom, we are talking about eliminating the male as the service class in favor of a female exclusive caste structure--protector and protectee--leaving the males without Any leverage and protection against the obvious real misandrony which is always more abundant than misogyny. All of this wrapped up in the blather of Fair/equal utopia.

Life is not fair. Fair--like equal, freedom justice, rights--is a political euphemism--a tool of war for achieving victory, superiority and dominance, unwittingly or not. Different variations form in a world with not enough to go around and these variations fight in sibling rivalry battles; some variations(species) snowball down the path of "strength-in-numbers sibling rivalry" strategy--"hatfields and mccoys". Freedom/equal etc etc demagoguery is simply a tool for holding together the strength-in-numbers coalitions; ants have pheromones and humans have bullsh!t narrative-- "liberte e' equalite".

Our fore fathers--normal men--were very silly for being so sappy and decent--er ah... I mean demonic--that they fought and slaved so hard  for the "equal *time* under the law", utopia we are now enjoying.


Sunday, December 26, 2010


I'm going to go to a blog style of "permanent pages of fundamentals" in one section (as pages at right) and "occasional entries" as another section (the column of posts you're reading now).

I have things to say which I don't want muddying up the fundamentals.

I sometimes read different online news sites or current event blogs. There are things there said and done which often piss me off. Having access to a voice now too (ie the web), gives me a chance to shout back.

Some of these occasional entries might make it into fundamentals. You ALL SHOULD KNOW these fundamentals ALREADY you dopes of a culture of dopes.

...Once there were words. Caveman says: "me cup". Then there were sentences: "pass your cup to me" or "here's my cup". Now there is "paradigm as parts of speech": "Energy Conversion Principle(ie 'finite force/matter') makes equality rhetoric ultimately empty and therefore simply tactical whether the sexually displaying speaker knows this about his module-induced altruist compulsion or not". Man is just coming to that "paradigm as parts of speech" place now--but the masses aint keeping up.

I will link to the fundamental pages when the "occasional entries" demand it.

In keeping with this format change, my first "occasional entry" follows.

The "pages of fundamentals etc" will develop as I desire.


Interesting that the article doesn't include a link to the offending works.

Things that should make you go hmmm...

Typical media slight of hand.

I will [google] search the titles to see what the fuss was about.

The accused and now sentenced filmmaker(s) might be of dangerous crackpot ilk.

I know in the west crackpots have taken over. And you are all in a kind of alliance with each other; kinda like a racism of stupidity and insanity vs those who aint of said. But for the rest of the world, crackpots are still seen as dangerous crackpots.

Unfortunately we don't know whether the subject was a crackpot or not since the article --typical for such media stories-- is not a complete story.

(It was a movie about "sexually repressed wimmin in Iran having it rough".)

The west puts people in jail etc all the time in the west for being part of the wrong beliefs. We certainly make it more than a little difficult to live for people who don't conform to western mores --especially if those non conformists are genetically white men. (Eg child erotica, mormon types; academics or media upstarts who don't conform to feminism etc; people who are in "non compliance" with various unconstitutional "equality" etc polices.)

Not to mention the west is absolutely guilty of creating VICTIMS of the single female parent (a uniquely western phenom); and the no pair-bonding thing (simply, regular sex for _everyone_ thing) the west has done to itself and now tries to infect the world with through war and underhanded lies (NGOs etc --many of which ARE illegally state/"spook" sponsored).

Then there is the serial killers; and victims of crimes unique to western culture's unique level of balkanization.

This is a balkanized society the west prides itself on being and studiously censors the downsides of. Eg crime, future civil wars if /when economies fail, "snake in the trench" political complexity(eg groups fighting _each other_ instead of say feminism or their local representative corruption).

The crackpots and ignoramuses and liars who have taken over the west and now most of the world in the last few centuries simply say that shutting down --or worse-- the heterodox types is necessary for "freedom".


"No one any where on this earth.... should be killed-imprisioned-stoned-be-headed etc. for anything they believe in!"

I "believe in" the FACT that female humans are not intellectually, physically or --importantly-- "morally" equal with male humans. (Also fem humans get many unique special privileges which are unconstitutional and rooted in lies and delusions.) As a consequence of that, I believe fem hums should have their rights and freedoms fundamentally infringed and controlled by overseers who view them as profoundly dangerous citizens.

I want to make movies about that that are hip and romanticized, geared towards upwardly mobile youth. And I want state sponsorship in the forms of grants and protection (from tax payers ultimately) while I do it.

Do you still believe what you just said now?

(This "freedom" "justice" "rights" "equality" nonsense is empty rhetoric of a cult that has imbibed and profited off the delusions of the "enlightenment" for so long they can't see how hypocritical and uneducated and dishonest, ultimately, they really are.)

The Men's Rights Movement is loaded with milquetoast.

The Men's Rights Movement is loaded with milquetoast. The below-aptitude and uneducated nature of anglo democracy (or Irish/Scot run continents or however you want to frame it) causes the "why fem is happening" theories, and arguments made (to either wimmins or pro fem males) and solutions proffered to be a waste.


Note to evil whitemale empire:

Yes “Killa Magilla” is/was me at the spearhead. (Welmar already knew that though, I think.)

I have been blocked there more times than I care to count; and banned out right at their forum pages a few months ago. On the main blog comments’ pages my stuff is lost in “moderation limbo”–I can see my posts there but no one else can). So that Killa Magilla handle (a nod to pro-rasslins’ fixed fights) is a kinda-like sarcastic thing I use to bust his ball.

Your last post to me there (the spearhead/ ‘guyland’ thread) is on target too. It seems you and “LSP/MRA” and one other guy (similar to you [his name escapes me right now]) gets it. Good.

I _do_ understand that we all can’t just live in the hills as uncivilized pre-Roman anti capitalists barbarians who never mature past the the 5th-6th grade pecking order level --the lord of the flies' way. But at least we all need to understand what is happening here. And it isn’t that we come from matriarchies that turn into patriarchies by being “growthful” capitalists in democracies that fight “soviets” (while actually fighting for them in our own democratic countries where these “communists” have long since taken over and have metastasized into american “freedom” BS.)

And some day maybe my hard kill em all rhetoric needs to temper. But not now.

And to LSP MRA (if you see this). You got banned from the spearhead forum months ago(right after, um, Usher did). I tried to get your email to write you and see where you were posting but couldn’t. It is good to see you still in action.

Welmer et al is NOT going to let us communicate /touch base there.

Send me emails (both of you)–if you must/want to– at my blog page. I can’t promise any action [I suspect that pisses you off MRA], given my doing-my-own-thing lifestyle. But at least I will know where you [all] is.

A response to MRA/LSP: (with 'matriarchy of past' counterpoints in it...)

Re my posts...

I do have other things for my blog in notepads (quite a few actually). But much is just rehashings of previous thoughts; attempts to figure out the perfect way of explaining things so as to grip hearts and minds best). _I'm thinking of rearranging my blog into "pages" --eg "fundamentals" and "matriarchy of past" or "Capitalism". That would be better than the "latest entry" style I have used so far. I cold more easily link to ideas when I need them. (Though linking to just a paragraph from one of those future pages would be the best system.)

The times that I have wanted to post at welmer's are when the matriarchy of the past proponents bubble up.

I have said it _all already_ I thought.


"Plow use" and the like as definition of "patr" or "matri". That is crypto white supremacy pretending it is about gender.

(Don't get me wrong I am a ginger supremacist (and gingers are of the whites). I was even more of a north Euro Nationalist once. And a Third Reich apologist... if it pisses off the right soggy parades. And I am of the "uber mensch vs unter mensch" school of Nietzschean/Wagnerian philosophy. But that was always more poetic analogy about the trend man is on [see the alpha beta gamma snowball] than strictly racial. "Hero-age morality vs ascending-slave-morality" is about whats happening in a tribe not between tribes.)

WNs want to put their "look at the white man's achievements" chart up in any forum that will have it. And their logic then is tortured round peg into square hole hammering. If one wants to say whites are smarter just say it. (Try the 35,000 year old grass cloth weaving or 30,000 year old specialized tool kits with many different needles and knives while Japs/Siberoids[runners up] have far fewer types or the South Euro cave paintings.)

Along with plow use, I've seen, in my life, arguments [by libs] like "calorie rates of veggies verses calorie rates of meat" as definition of "matri vs patri." ...You see the tribal females bring back 58% of the tribe's food as turnips they dug up and the males only bring 42% of the tribes food as flesh. "So you see: it is matriarchy" [eye roll].

The liberals invented all of that jazz as part of their female empowerment schpiel; and as part of their "psych warfare" against males of the 19th century-- trying to knock the males down "a few pegs" psychologically. ('Taking the piss' out of them.)

Conservatives are conformists first and foremost. (Like a barking dog bred to his role.) They conform to the "common wisdom." Common wisdom is simply the liberal revolution of the previous generation (as percolated through something called the "normative consensus" which is the mode aptitude of the population). ...Thus the dumb mule (of conservatism) gets dragged ...ever braying as though he doesn't like it but always accepting his latest tie-point as best.

Liberal's are motivated by their bench warmer status in childhood. They try to throw monkey wrenches into the game so as to get back at the starting line up types (who are hubris filled /blind).

[Ethnics are not actually "liberals"; they are conservative wolves in liberal sheep clothing who were let in by the bench warmer males of the host culture (or jews now too who have metastasized into europeans of the BencWarm-type) looking to "coalition up" with anybody they can so as to get back at the host culture's alpha.]

A better definition of matri vs patri is 'are the females winning the psychological battle of the sexes around childhood and puberty and later?' That is profound and very susceptible to interpretation unfortunately; but at least it cuts to the heart of it rather than relying on "This means That" logic.

"This means That" logic: ...Tchaikovsky composed good ballets, can't stay married and da gays like/perform ballet... Therefore Tchaikovsky is gay. Meanwhile the actual definition of being gay for males is liking ejaculate etc.

In these so called tribal matriarchies --where the females "bring back most of the calories"-- are the mothers of little girls being fucked and hit in front of the little girls; are they being married off as pubescents; are their roles limited? (They lived in one room huts .. but I guess only had sex and argued when the kids went to summer camp [sarcasm].) If they are, feminists would call it hard core _abusive patriarchy_ -- "devastatingly damaging to the forming girls' sense of self" --if the same household dynamic was happening in the west --regardless of where the turnips came from.

But that hypocrisy/spin is typical of matri vs patri arguments: A given thing is interpreted one way for one culture but a totally opposite way for another...

In the tribe, men storing in a secret tree hollow a rock that looks like a vulva with slit ('cause of water erosion or what have you) would be deemed an example of the "goddess worship of nature" -- "they respect the feminine there". But in western culture the same exact secret stash (this time stored under Timmy's mattress ...covered by Lord of the Rings/ Hobbit [tm] forest print sheets) is denounced as "an example of western smut objectifying and belittling female role".

It is all "just so" tales. (Motivated by the political issues above.)

(Also note --if one wants to play the sophistry spin, motivated by self esteem issues-- game, the amino acids in cooked flesh are the reason why the extra ganglia layers in the cerebrum formed. So therefore the males are 42 TIMES more responsible for intelligence than females. So nya-nya. But that is all "this means that" which has nothing to do with actual matriarchy vs patriarchy definitions.

As I said before, 'Matriarchy of the past' types dismiss out of hand any mention of male violence towards females and male jealousy trying to rope female behavior in. Their arguments pretend that whole --_very relevant_-- category is not there (for their own runt reasons [in short, they're a-scared of girls and don't want to pick fights]) and meanwhile focus on and amplify that "this mean that" economy stuff [for reasons I tried to grapple with above]. Violence against wimmins --whether captured bride/ rape or discipline for dalliance and disrespect-- is relevant because it effects everyone's psychological dispositions, and more in ways we don't lens through now, having fundamentally different psychologies (which developed in us recently given our modern socialization).

The same folks who can't get that are by and large the same ones who still don't get how natural selection works. (I'm just saying... these are not dry campers.)

And as far as simple political arguments(meaning I want to pull the stakes out of the big tent of bedfellows)... These same people who believe 'we come from matriarchies made patriarchal through capitalist growth' are the same chivalrists coming to the spearhead recently saying the men should buck it up and carry more.

..."Sugar and spice and everything nice vs puppy dog tails and snails" is from the supposedly high patriarchy period of western culture. As is the "don't hit girls" thing. As is the European high patriarchy culture of lisp-ing males who plagiarized all the Greek stories of yor but twisted the "misogyny" out of them --and the plots and points-- by making them tales of innocent girls under siege in the big bad world.

That brings me to another type of matriarchy of the past proponent: the real old fashioned ones (ie pre Gibbons, BD christian aristos [before Darwin]) who say Greeks were "patriarchy replacing the matriarchy of the E Euro amazon barbarians."

BULLSHIT. Yes the Greeks are more patriarchal than later manifestation of CIVILIZATION (_just as the "alpha beta gamma principle" predicts_) but that doesn't evidence that they are more "patriarchal" then the surrounding barbarians. (And I don't believe Sparta was a matriarchy. How are these people defining matriarchy? Answer: lack of "growth" of eg pottery and plays. "This means That" arguments.)

That comes under the heading of the thing I said before "[we see the modern mature civilized world and say it is _reverting_ to the matriarchy and that's why it looks like it does[feminist based]... That is a neat circular logic trick if ever it displayed.]"

Another matriarchy type now. They say: "Top males of our civi defer to dames now, while runts (getting no love) are against wimmins. Therefore since we come from barbarian cultures filled with "alphas" they must have deferred to wimmins too.

Those people have funhouse mirrors for brains.

Suffice to say my "Alpha Beta Gamma principle" untangles all of this.

And those types are "symbology" based: they can't shake the "symbol" ("socio babble signal") of the top male advocating for feminism _now._ And also saying what they do expresses the bench warmer envy based desire to topple the latest "alpha" of our modern world.

And also that type of thinker --along with having a funhouse mirror brain-- is of the brain of "dueling folders." The GOOD folder and the BAD folder. (Note many or MOST humans have this type.) A bad FOR YOU* thing goes in the bad folder and a good FOR YOU* thing  goes in the good folder.

[* 'good and bad' are relative: see my fundamentals top right!]

In that brain, ideas wind up getting connected. Ie if being bullied/murdered by an "alpha" back in barbarian times is bad and matriarchy is bad too, well then they are both the same occurrence.

That kind of simple brain doesn't seem to get or care that, that winning bully murderer is not in a matriarchy if after he kills you he fucks his teen niece into submission thus preventing her from psychologically abusing him at will. As far as that bully is concerned life is hunkey dorey --he da man. (And as far as little miss dualistic-ally submissive Briar Rabbit is concerned --trying to top from the bottom and maintain some dignity[despite being a cum filled fuck hole]-- she has a lovely bunch of turnips.)

With that brain type's dueling folder system of thought goes the simple male warrior psychology. If his side wins, it is the "manly side" regardless of what that victory is in the name of. His thinking is "if your side loses, you're the bitches and we're penetrating you. I'm the boy and you're the girl". His brain is simple symbols --like a dog humping the leg. So since the effete ways of western culture keep winning (the colonial race wars or the civil wars), the males think to themselves we're the winners: the thrusters; the "patriarchs"(even though we're fighting to spread the borg's femdom hive). (As I said above I HAVE SAID MOST THINGS THAT NEED SAYING ALREADY!)

Some netizens invested in these issues lately have said that old STILL SURVIVING civilizations [eg hindus or muslim] developed checks and  balances against feminism. _I think there might be something to that._ I have said previously that feminism acts like an inoculation shot; Selection working on the scale of variant hive memes. (Though note I know of no male dominant hives.)

...So on the other side of this anglo diaspora disaster [a young civilization], the survivors --the naturally selected-- in the future will be immune to feminism (just as the modern Italians are inoculated against a racial take over through being severely cliquish). But for now the rest of us... we're doomed. LOL.

As I have said multiple times in various ways as disclaimers in my solution attempts' posts...

I _do_ understand that we all can’t just live in the hills as uncivilized pre-Roman anti capitalists barbarians who never mature past the 5th-6th grade pecking order level --the lord of the flies' way. But at least we all need to  understand what is happening here. And it isn’t that we come from matriarchies that turn into patriarchies by being “growthful” capitalists in democracies.

Not getting that is "is/ ought" fallacy. "I refuse to accept the truth because it ought not to be [or it aint good for me/my ego]." ("Ought not to", according to the latest morality of the day.)

Liberal girls are notorious for  "is/ ought" fallacy. And now it seems the anti feminist male is at their level.

When the libs see that the right is embracing the lie that africa or wherever is /was matriarchal, they will change their rap. This happens on all poli issues because the parties orbit each other like pluto and charon do. They live for the fight not the solution... "I will grapple with thee till the end". (Actually liberals already have  abandoned matri o past: liberals are quick and conservatives are S...L...O...W.)  Politics is that despicable and low.

And also there's this: I DON'T CARE ABOUT AFRICA! It is some kind of weird obsession the anglo/american world has.

As the mule gets dragged and the leashed dog barks...

I know there is a lot here. And I didn't even want to do any of this this month --so it is a little half assed. And when ever I don't write for a while my first foray back is a little off.

Use the arguments you want to internalize around if you want. Or sneak it into welmar's at appropriate threads as response.

My best point I'm trying to make was defining matr vs patri as whether females can mind fuck/cheat with impunity or not --ie the profound  psychological stuff that nobody contemplates since we now have a TOTALLY different  psychology in the modern west. Get away from that calorie rate, "techno growth" sophistry BS.

I wasn't really thinking of going to sailer steve's blog [plow man WN] or that "greece was patriarchy replacing matri of past" proponent's blog and crossing swords there. I don't have the steam or interest right now. Maybe I will now, since I wrenched this much schpiel out of me.