Thursday, November 17, 2011

On and on...

“Materialism” means cause and effect determinism –- all movement/change is domino effects/ billiard-ball chain reactions –- rather than miracles. Even if god started it all –with the Big Break–he conforms, negating a role for an activist god (along with freewill).

But that begs a question: why believe in and pray to/beg a “loving” creator who made all the ‘red in tooth a claw’ pecking order determinism of it all.

Natural selection is real. Get over it. Denying it/facts doesn’t make it any better.

“Secularism” HAS been a disaster.

But that is because…

YOU –-the disease called democracy-– DIDN’T LET US FINISH THE JOB.

“…We offered the world order!”

(Eugenics solves all problems.

One of the problems it solves is it gets rid of the people who mis define eugenics …and determinism …and materialism …and their own god.)

I did not mean religion is the disease OF democracy. I meant democracy itself is a social disease.

But maybe… if we got rid of the stupid/religiously delusional (be that religion jesus cult or feminism /infantile liberalism) a kind of democracy would be tolerateable between the intelligent (130+ IQ).

We study "materialism" -- the material universe and all its stuff in ever bank shot-ting chain reactions-- through a cause and effect dissection exercise -- and thus a prediction model creator-- called "science". (...We look both ways before we cross the road, running between the observed billiard balls.)

And yet anyway, yes, again, secularism has been a disaster.

But -- again-- that is because...

The caste-structure-held-together-by-wishful-demagoguery (ie religion of ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER including "liberalism")-- didn't let us take 'secular reason' to its "logical" --ie its cause and effect processing-- conclusion.

That conclusion --after civil wars at the 'top' (where the demagogues there wouldn't be able to hide behind the masses they hold together through protectionist demagoguery)-- would have been more control of environmental contingency/events not less. Ie less 'freedom' (which is a religious conviction).

This control would have included controlling reproduction.

...Down with free range pu$$y.

Up with the Neo Cortex ...The road crosser.

The dolts do not understand the full expanse of cause and effect and man's understanding of it. Ie they argue from ignorance as all religious people do. They would not have started the “free will* train” of thought if they did; nor the “a-bio genesis [life forming] is impossible" train. [*Don't start with the "quantum effects allow freewill and activist god". I understand it better than you; Hell I'm one of the inventors of the train of thought. It doesn't apply on our scale -- just like quantum effects trying to trump general Newtonian cause and effect mechanics don't.)

As far as god hitting me with a hammer to make me sharper… Thanks but no thanks[grabs wrist]– I’m sharp enough.

And as far as god wanting us to ‘get up off the couch’ and fight in the Natural Selection (“Darwinist”) arena as part of his plan… what kind of monster are you giving thanks to? (Not to mention: that is horrible politics/coalition-glue -- you will never win power that way.)

I will use my god given freewill (heh heh) –- ie my cause and effect analyzer /prediction creator/neo cortex -– to think a way around such a monster.


women are not paid less than men.

Fine old chestnut but long since roasted.

Indeed women are conferred many educational, legal and grant privileges men are not; unconstitutionally. And since most men are not high status, that is important. Woman instinctively cheat on, use or discriminate against low status men, "equality" tween the genders (read: special privileges for females) in education, jobs, law and status doesn't just stop there. It never did.

I'm amazed that western culture did not and can not get its collective mind around how biology and gender works: Males are competing --where few win and most lose -- _over female sexual value_ [read fickleness/infidelity/discrimination].

"Jobs" educations etc are not some conspiracy to keep females from working. They are the competitive arena where-in males try to have enough value to balance out boopsy's natural value. Biology 101. There already were not enough status positions to go around; hence the revolutions men fought (and still fight) to be more equal with top males and thus with the females.

As I said any "advantage­" or even parity leads to more female discriminatory callous infidelity. (And that leads to even more male competition and disparity between the have and have not males; not to mention it leads to more 'growth' and environmental degradation.)

The goal of females achieving status is not to buy mates like it is for males but rather to have more license to engage in antagonizing.

How did you and most of the West miss that fact of nature for the last few centuries? Seriously.

women dress to have multi male suitors all court them at once. This way they can tell the guy she DOES choose "hey up your game(give me more)" at her whim. It is a way of wielding leverage in the relationship. (The females don't need to be self aware in this. Therefore when they say "we dress for ourselves" they may be sincere. ...Though inaccurate.)

And it is not in the clothes since fashions change. It is in the social butterfly personality power of the females in question. _That_ is what will lead to multi mate choices and thus leverage over the guy she is with (regardless of the fashion of the day).

In agreement with some of the article though I say: Female 'hip swivel' IS the equivalent of male 'shoulder swagger'. Our society caps/limits male shoulder swagger display but not female hip swivel. That is why we have strippers and escorts but not vikings. That is why we have a matriarchy.

The dudes who say man up(become better gamers) and enjoy it(the social butterfly dalliance scene all around us)...

(In the old days, the winners instead of saying "become better gamers and enjoy the show" would have said "make more money and buy yourself a June Cleaver [loyal doting 50s housewife].")

Problem: All men can't achieve rank in that system; say 70-90 % can't.

So that triggers a thing similar to the capitalist individualism, vs socialism thing... The loser/ socialist big tent will always win and prevent the winners from consolidating their victories (because protectionism works better politically than selfish-ism in a troop species --always has). Therefore it is incumbent on the top 10 percent (the winners) to prevent this all from happening so as to prevent the big tent of losers from throwing a wrench into the victory party.

That is something the winners of capitalism or gaming(or how ever one says winner in the past) can't seem to get. Thus they always lose the _big_ battle/the war vs the super coalition of losers.

...And thus society snowballs into the next fashion /competitive arena (but then with even fewer vikings and even more strippers --matriarchy).

I'm against competition. And it is not because of simplistic liberal BS like "the hurt feelings of the losers". It is because in [real] competition... there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers).

Then you have a problem… You can suppress the losers or let them counter attack and try to overthrow the game/rule set that benched them.

Democracy chose the latter solution [allowing and crowning rebellion] and look where it led… Feminism, ‘race replacement’ and etc, etc political problems (eg snowballing normalization of oddball-ness/runtiness which ultimately gets rid of the “normal”/ye olde victors).

The reason for intellects who can think it all through to big picture CONCLUSION being in favor of ending real competition (not vid game comp), is because in [real] competition there will always be winners and LOSERS (usually more losers): a giant caste of have and have not.

The very things everyone here complains about (eg femocracy taking over sports etc) are the very things the losers have done to get back at the perceived winners.

If one thinks it all through... man needs to have: fatal competition (ie dueling), or rigorously controlled caste structure --ie no freedom to rebel, or no competition. The other option of just saying "well the losers will learn a little about themselves" doesn't reckon with the FACT that the losers HAVE learned... They learned that holding themselves together in action pacts of losers rallied around utopian demagoguery allows them to have unchallenged power as they imposes species-changing polices on the winners to get back at them.

Again... losers need to be killed, or suppressed, or the winners and losers dance needs to be stopped in order to stop the pre conditions that --history shows-- inevitably led to liberalism/feminism and etc political problems.

One way or the other the old system of maleness for humans is done (after this little fall of Rome a coming, which could cause a temporary neo primitive a la fight club). It is a question of who is gonna be in charge of what we become. We have seen what the feminists offer: rampant infidelity (normalized by new fancy words, despite the FACT that we would never tolerate it if the genders were reversed, calling it “emotional abuse” at the least and the “catalyst for all manner of damaging problems”) and or variants of femdom.

Again what are you gonna do with the losers/bench warmers?


It feels good when some people abuse others.

Should they be allowed to do it?

Since your answer is probably no, we now know that your policy of 'license for all' is really an expression of your ignorance about how domino effects works.

Ie cheating is not a victim less crime... even if it feels good to the cheaters.

The problem with "do what thou whilst be it hurts no one" is _MOST_ things we do affect others somewhere else in some way. (It is just a question of how many "degrees of separation" can your mind grapple with.)



"[poisonous bile frpm a viper given more venom]" (Ie Greek for an article by an educated female.)

Nonsense (otherwise called journalism) from a little girl. (All females are ultimately.) Indicative of their controlling and malicious characters too.

And whatever they say they want from men this time will change next time. "Boxers vs briefs" back and forth over the generations. As said, indicative of their controlling and malicious characters.

Where are the articles where ADULT men critique and try to conform females they feel don't measure up?

Oh that's right: there are none. (Note men being [mindlessly] enamored [and hypnotized/controlled] by "hot chicks" on TV and in mags and movies is NOT the same thing as adult men getting together and making fun of chicks they don't think measure up; And then trying to force those deemed unacceptable chicks into roles through mockery. ...Not the same thing.)

The Greeks said it best: "educating a woman is simply giving more venom to a viper."

Unfortunately the absolute morons that make of democracy and the jews too need to learn that lesson the hard way for themselves, TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATE FOR CLASS.

Men and women are not equal, regardless of what books say. Further "equal" is a santa claus pipe dream. (Humans are prone to delusional wishful thinking and political cajoling.)

And further any notion that says these gendered studies are more besmirching to females than males is obvious delusion. (The differences are framed as though boopsy is advantaged, yet pro-female types complain anyway.)

...Poor boopsies even under siege when people frame things as though she is better than boys.

And the notion that any morality or political consideration should be the deciding factor in any research here is counter the revolution's ideals of enlightenment and is Orwellian (as most people are ultimately). Also the attempt to impose this political academic and media blinder artifice exposes to the astute that the class(es) that seek to impose these blinders are not oppressed(as they claim) but rather the oppressors.


“[sarcasm:] yeah, one man who gets raped by a woman makes rape a gender-neutral crime, one woman who beats her husband makes spousal abuse a equal-female opportunity, oh wait… “

Rape IS a “gender neutral crime” (your term). And not for the strawman reason you gave. The reason is that one person (a man most often) rapes another person or persons. But all men certainly haven’t. To have solutions to rape or punishments for rape be directed at any other GROUP of citizens other than the actual one person accused would be unconstitutional and sexist bigotry.

"Spousal abuse is about asserting power and control over the spouse being abused. "


But another manifestation of "asserting power and control" is what this society has done to men and boys across the board in education, employment, family court and social and family relationships generally --unasked for by a majority and not constitutionally sanctioned.

And regarding some comments:

-"Nothing justifies domestic violence"
Plenty of reasons to assert power and control over a spouse through personal or state coercion; and to pretend that coercion is not backed up by threat of violence" is santy claus cult.


-"I am against violence in all situations"
That is patently untrue; unachievable. At the very least you advocate violence to pull him off of her and keep him in jail. So it is just a question of who you believe the violence should be directed against and whom should perpetrate it.

Further if the perp was a female, we would hear about how the perp was simply acting out their woe at being hurt previously by the other party (victim) or had some issue from childhood.

Tarring all men--which is what the next DV policy initiative will do when it uses this story as part of its policy push-- with what this one ethnic damaged/abused lower class man did is an example of stereotyping/ painting everyone with a broad brush; when liberals do that, it is hypocrisy (since they are the ones who pushed the movement of not stereotyping). (Also like I said to have this perp's previous history of potential bad nurture syndrome not be relevant here is further hypocrisy on the part of liberalism since liberalism prides itself on its complexity environment arguments. To have that hypocrisy be gender motivated [which it ultimately is] is "sexism".)

Also not issuing a previous restraining order is NOT evidence of "women being hurt by a patriarchy that won't protect them". (Not to mention, if wimmin are equal why do they need this state protection?...) It is evidence that there was not enough evidence previously that a restraining order was needed. Given that the denying of a RestrainOrd happened in Florida--notorious for their draconian anti-DV initiatives--what I said is especially true: no evidence that he was a danger (yet); the previous court would have needed a time machine to rule otherwise.

The same people who believe in demonizing all men for what these couple of rapists do are the same people who resist attempts to prevent prison convicts and etc from breeding.

And also the same people who look to "nurture syndrome"/environmental excuses when wimmins commit crimes are the same people who believe in demonizing and dis powering ALL men for what a COUPLE of rapists do (rapists who could be called 'victims of nurture syndrome').

Bullying is NOT a "gay or "gender discrimination" issue. To frame it that way, shows how corrupt our political machine is --how bad democracy is ultimately. Meaning every law that comes done the pike trying to deal with some human condition issue(like eg bullying) has some special rider in it for the special protected classes; special classes who might not even be the most debilitated or targeted classes.

Bullies can and do have bully parents. Ie it's hard to get the parents to stop it since they have caused it (and are probably a little proud of it).

The rash of suicide people might be prone to suicide. Ie bullying is just one facet of their lives'; other people who are bullied more severely don't commit suicide.

Three B...
The media's recent obsession with yoots who commit suicide after being gay bashed is typical media game playing / brain washing.

That makes me sound like I'm being anti gay and I'm not. I am simply saying that the media puts only SOME stories into the loop for the masses for its media reasons. ...Lots of people get bullied, are not gay and don't commit suicide. But that isn't deemed news to the News.

To the people saying the victims should toughen up... While that is glibly true, it is more easily said than done in modern western culture. The mod west prides itself on single fem parenting, alternative lifestyles/small households(no or few siblings), leisure/softness/ease of life(exercise etc is hard), protective medical environments (meaning we keep alive all manner of pups who normally would have died that can't just fight back) and zero tolerance for violence (which ironically hamstrings victims rights at scene of assault).

(And that last one there--"zero tolerance", which is inevitably selectively enforced-- is some real hypocritical Assery. "A world without violence where in people who would not normally be victims of violence get to be the victims of violence a world without violence." ..sigh... politics...)


Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Soviet Union as suspected matriarchy.

Welmar's site(an anti feminist "magazine") has a thread about Soviet Russia.

Typically the anti statist obsessoids pipe up claiming that Soviet Russia is a matriarchy. They present "evidence" of "totalitarianism" and --to them-- that translates into so called "matriarchy." (In my matriarchy section --top right-- I talk about "this means therefore that" logic.)

I have posted numerous responses to the thread. All but one small one have been censored by that insufferable cowardly git welmar.

I post the  censored responses here...


This first one is my response to a litany of copied statements from early communist revolutionaries and breeding data from modern Scandinavia and Iceland.

SM October 26, 2011 at 21:02
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism –-you are not enlightening anyone by quoting pages from books and documents [eye roll].

I know far more about it than you: welmar simply keeps censoring my posts(3 now) to quash my supposed antisemitism.

(Again, everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism. But that begs a question: why does american capitalist democracy fight the wars that put communism in power over countries? And two: why did the west allow the “communist fellow travelers” to infiltrate and take over american media, “civil rights” pressure groups(race and gender demagogues), law and academia if capitalist democracy is a system that prevents matriarchy?)

And _everyone knows_ that non Russian countries after WW II –eg Iceland, Sweden etc–that are “socialists democracies” [ie capitalist democracy liberal-states] are way liberal.

That doesn’t AT ALL demonstrate that Russia (or china etc) _turned out_ to be more to the left (on race and gender issues) than the west did.

You have a western/american anti government cold-war obsession and that’s what it all comes down to. You are not looking at reality; you are looking at propaganda and pages of old books which do not denote reality accurately.

Showing –-in your copied documents-– that a country has state sponsored chivalry doesn’t mean that that country is more of a matriarchy than ours with our conventional/traditional(non govt based) chivalry for dames --especially since our conventional chivalry has long since been codified/institutionalized into law anyhow –right under the nose of the capitalist democracy[eyeroll]. It simply demonstrates that other countries have a “state”.

That is your real sticking point and all the matriarchy vs patriarchy stuff is just mis defining of terms motivated by your american anti statism.

(Note that Christianity demands largess towards the poor, weak and feminine too.)

And while you didn’t post this next stuff explicitly it is important to cut you off at the pass before you regurgitate out more pages from more decades old books…

Capitalism beats communism at creating more stuff(tm), true. Again _well known._ BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF MATRIARCHY VS PATRIARCHY.

Also putting men in gulags, and having spys vs spy shenanigans is not the definition of matriarchy and patriarchy. I don’t care if life was harder for men in the soviet system than western democracy. That is not the definition of matriarchy vs patriarchy. Life is harder for men in the Amish system too.

And a novelist (gorky) can “acknowledge” what ever he wants in the 30s. It tells us nothing at all.


And to "Anonymous Reader"…

1) – Sticking point. East Germany was an occupied zone of hated enemies. That must be kept in mind when pointing to it as example of Russian communism (no less Chinese et al communism).

2) None of that spy vs spy /stark winterscape-living scene is germane to matriarchy/ patriarchy definitions.

You are obsessed with cold war western propaganda that has blinded you. It is some kind of clinging to masculinity through being good western patriots (and the anti state zealotry).

Nobody denies that the red revolution –starting in 1850– was liberal demagoguery (matriarchy sophistry included).

BUT after the MILITARY COUP to achieve it in Russia and the patriotism or death of the WWII period, the soviets had done away with those crackpots.

Somehow you missed that trend.


Nobody is denying matriarchy. I am saying that you mis-defined it.

I define it again:

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break–or has something called “growth”.

Or whether there are spies in occupied zones ratting each other out (if that is even true), with bleak winterscape backdrops.

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened and beaten. Males –for biological reasons– will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

_The definition is in part ‘are the females enhareming males’; polyandry or polygyny? Who’s racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking._

And finally, again, if liberal communism is so odorus to you, stop fighting wars to put america into power everywhere. America –by your ilks own testimony–was infiltrated and subverted by “communists” in the early and mid 20th century through their control of media,”civil rights” activism, academia and law. That cabal there defined the american value set (affirmative action, homo politics, feminism, immigration, race politics, etc) not some half baked notions about apple pie, frontiersmen-ship and individualism from the sticks.

SM October 25, 2011 at 20:09

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PeterTheGreat, et al, you understand that the west has long since been taken over by these, ahem, infiltrating "communists" right? That most western social patterns were and are created by the western media and civil rights groups which are the, ahem, "communists"?

If capitalism and or democracy is good at preventing the "communist way" than how come it let it take over without a fight in the west?

How come capitalism fought and still fights to put western style media, civil rights groups and "values"(which are media and pressure group created) in to power over other countries?

When is capitalist democracy going to fight the, wink wink nudge nudge, "communists" who have long since migrated into and infiltrated most american institutions such as media, law, academia, politics and-- hypocritically-- the Hamptons and Californian hills and coastlines?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


SM October 25, 2011 at 15:14

PeterTheGreat October 25, 2011 at 10:03

    SM @
    “From the review by WFPrice:

    “there was no matriarchy in the Soviet Union. Feminism played no part in Soviet power politics, and it appears that nobody took it seriously in any event. “”

       [PeterTGreat:] As I stated, feminism was the defacto family state, even if the Soviet State itself was primarily male, due to the loss of so many men to liquidation and gulag imprisonment.

        feminism was part of the Bolshevik program, but rescinded in the Soviet Union BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF IT. It remained a part of the Communist/Bolshevik program to undermine other States – which it has done in much of the West.


I understand very well that the migrant jew liberals--what you call "communists", the so called "fellow travelers" and "red diapers"-- are feminist activists (along with other forms of revolutionary activism). (I also understand that liberal agitation is, in part, a tactic by them--the migrant liberals-- to destabilize the host cultures cohesiveness. [The other part is it might be unwitting that it is their tactic to destabilize --jews might just be more liberal by their natures. ...Bio natures _selected_ by a history of migration and expulsion.])

I understand that they first took over media and law in Manhattan and then NY state in the early 20th century and then spread.

I understand that they are the backbone of most liberal revolutionary movements, including feminism, "Civil liberty unions", academic professoria and both lawyers of defense (with extremist cockeyed sophist arguments) and now, hypocritically, prosecution. Hypocrisy because the old civil liberty defense arguments they use to make demonstrated that relativist prejudice is inherently rife in state run and social institutions. ...But now as men are railroaded its cricket silence. (Also silence by the "Civil liberty unions" and academic professoria as men are demonized by society at large.)

I understand that the "labor protectionist" wing of the fellow travelers is hypocrisy: Once in power over a host culture's nodes of influence the 'communists' (ie jew liberal activist types) advocate and impose things which are in visceral opposition to host culture laborites (though laborites are too stupid --and thus easily distracted-- inherently to get that).

But that does not demonstrate that the communist states (most of which are actually non-white nationalist movements rallied around expelling Euro colonizers: eg cuba, vietnam even china to certain degree) are actually more matriarchal than western democracy turned out to be.

1) If jew liberal philosophy --so called communism-- is so odorous to you STOP FIGHTING THE WARS TO STRENGTHEN IT. Every time america fights another country it is on behalf of those that have defined america for a century. The jewish media and pressure groups ("civil rights" umbrella) have been that defining force for a good 50 to 75 years; more in certain urban areas (more important than rural areas).

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break--or has something called "growth".

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened. Males --for biological reasons-- will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

The definition is in part 'are the females enhareming males'; polyandry or polygyny? Who's racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking.

To welmar:


Sunday, April 24, 2011

girls, relationships and tests

loveless relationships...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:37am.

"I have friends who grew up in loveless marriages that have battled with relationship problems."

Loveless marriage and relationship problems would be symptom of the new society. Meaning men and females aren't displaying "properly" because of new social "condition-ings" and that is destroying attraction, desire love. (Thus the relationships are "loveless".)

Jeez. You don't pay attention well. Also you are willfully blind most likely motivated by a lifetime of political condition-ings which profit you. (You respond to someone who says "divorce was caused by feminism" with... "No, divorce was caused by loveless-ness", while ignoring that the modern "loveless" condition --lacking in attraction, desire and compatibility-- was caused by feminism. Ie I accuse you of childish tautology.)

And lastly, if feminism hasn't been the one major tremendous force creating the new social "condition-ings", then what would have done it? And WHY would any honest observer choose to ignore the tremendous force of feminism as that main driving force for change in our social sexual displays?

innate human tendencies
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:56am.

"It's "pretty obvious" there is a market, but extrapolating innate human tendencies from the existence of some websites is ridiculous."

Pretty neat coincidence that our human porn and erotic markets mimic to a tee the most numerously occurring mammal "ethological" (social sexual) mating rituals, huh? And further, pretty neat the way our male and female human biochemistries and lower brain structures mimic to a tee the other mammals' too?

Wow... That patriarchal social engineering is all powerful: it even "victimizes" the other mammals...

like teats on a bull...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 2:16am.

The crossing of displays and desires (including femdom) was touched on by the article. (Go read that section again about the latent potentials in both genders --like nipples on male mammal.)

It isn't that complicated. And it especially should be understandable at a psychology venue, since psychology specifically deals with the numerous varied ways that "environmental constructs" (nurture syndromes, social condition-ings, "epi-genetic stresses") effect the individual --his chemicals, glands, nerves etc --as he/she matures.

Or if one chooses to remain _conveniently_ ignorant [ie politically motivated] and simply recite the glib cant of "genes", these other crossed-role types can be said to be simply genetic "outliers" on the successful-breeding bell-curve-chart. (Ie freaks.) _They are variants that can only survive now because of the NEW and recent selection pressure niches unique to modern human civilization (just like runty dogs are outlier wolves and can only survive now because of man's unique new selection environments)._

Not rocket science people.

[equal] partner...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 3:52am.

You are not in self aware tune with what you actually want in a man. You keep your definitions purposefully vague in your own head. (See my final paragraphs below.)

Your ill defined "I just want someone with male genitalia"...

Those male genitalia would thrust into you (with none of that pubescent fumbling around), and he would hold your hips good an tight doggy style, put all his weight on you missionary and grunt viscerally when he cums, with lotsa confident eye contact. (Lets not even get into that he should make plenty of forcefully expelled cum, and pre cum and be 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 in size --things which are testosterone generated and therefore can vary based on environmental conditions.)

Also when sex is not occurring, the male you would be attracted to and even tolerate --especially if you are high sex and /or young and attractive (ie girl with "options")-- would have an assortment of "competencies" and strengths you lack (he'll also be taller than you). [The fact that females have gender-specific strengths/qualities that males need or desire is not relevant.]

You can deny that all you want --or misdefine it by entering the vague "partner" --but I guarantee it.

_The thing that you are --and all the nay sayers--and the society at large is-- not getting --the thing the title of the article tried to convey-- is that modern socialization is [not to mention modern selection pressures such as those created by 'criminal justice' are] rendering the male incompetent, low and unattractive to females at a base level._

That is especially true during ovulation. During that time, females look for higher male "strength" and they "test" / sass cruelly to see if bo or hubby has it. If bo or hubby has been raised by modern feminist conditions --notably single female parent or modern schooling --chances are he could fail the tests, causing all manner of "loveless-ness" to grow in the relationship.

You're the only one saying "[whips and crazy role-playing]" and defining things as cat stomper vs nice, equal guy. Ie strawman.

You have simply misdefined things in your head. That misdefining protects you. (Like it would for a computer on old star trek from being tricked into blowing itself up through exposed contradictions.) This mis defining and strawman is typical of most satisfied-- ie attractive, comfortable-- young modern urban westerners. (see SWPL)

intromission's point of entry
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 11:00pm.

"[There is no contradiction. A woman might want to be ravished in the bedroom and respected in the boardroom.]"

Most are missing the point. (Here and at the anti-viagra thread.)

Ie feminism has raised men to not be able to ravish properly. That is the contradiction. It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.

(Your female-human brain is all self entitlement; that is why you don't get what I'm saying... You say to yourself "I want a man to ravish me here but let me lead there; so see, silly there is no contradiction". It is not about YOU[eyeroll] it is about society at large.)

It is not --as feminists would screech-- that men don't like strong women. It is that females don't like the incompetent males feminism's success has created over the generations.

The other article tried to grapple with it a bit: Male intromission reflex (male mammal humping instinct) and female lordosis (butt in air/'heat').

Our society's rearing process has damaged male "intromission" chain reactions. That damage is caused by feminism. (It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.)

(Now some self satisfied SWPL will challenge telling us how "he and his wife have had 10 glorious years of femdom pee sex together and therefore society is not damaging anything", totally oblivious to the concept of anecdote.

And then some damaged person in the form of a wimmins' studies grad [the true high mark of intellectual academic achievement, ehem] will screed off some litany of rape propaganda and demagoguery.)

Defiying description
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 23, 2011 - 5:56pm.

The men that are to go extinct fight back and that fighting back is not some buzz word "misogyny". It is controlling of an important resource(female behavior). Controlling fems is like say building a garden: a very thing that makes us human. Allowing the caprice of female humans to breed swaths of men into extinction would be the primitive thing to do.

Honest interpretation of female character is not some buzz word illness: "Misogyny."

And ultimately your schpeel is rooted in a utopian belief that things will "work out" to some "equal" place --rather than hyena-dom or borg hive-- after Boopsy is allowed to get rid of strains of mankind. (Ie the men she doesn't like -- today.)

Not to mention getting rid of swaths of mankind would be "eugenics." I thought liberalism was going to protect low men. Now it is going to allow females to abuse them into extinction motivated by envy.

Not to mention, most of your post, if not all, is really just... um blech (it defies description). It's just political buzz words (looking for allies)...

"Might makes right" thing.... Please. As though female "emancipation" (ie their right to engage in _rampant non empathic dalliance_ from 12 years old to 40 [along with eugenic purges per your writing]) is not also dependent on a huge might makes right _UNCONSTITUTIONAL_ violence machine that females support every inch of the way.

And what is feminism (and the female instigated and controlled "battle of the sexes" before that) if not females complaining about and controlling any male "desire/choice/path" that is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females?

(On to your next paragraph. I could go through each one like this, cause like I said, what you wrote is... ugh... It is all self entitlement parroting the schtick of the zeitgeist.)

"Looking down on females." Females look down on themselves. Men actual desire and appreciate female um... well turned ankle issues. The looking down thing (your hand eye and other short comings) is your own female self-esteem issue. Meaning a self esteem category specific to femininity itself, given that you all are emasculated creatures by nature. While that stunted reality is not pretty (for nature is NOT), it is rather unavoidable without massive oppressive unasked for change of the human species.

If you mean, that the intelligent strong willed men understand and don't shy from the _fact_ that females are lesser in male aptitudes, well yes they don't, since you have less of important aptitudes than men. Nature is not pretty.

Forcing females "into a role", simply translates to controlling female hammer-swinging behavior (eg dalliance and abusive child rearing --pathology inducing actually [shame on the psycho-babble community for not crying that from its tower!]-- and neo cortex destroying inanity and insanity) before it hurts other people.

Control is exactly what females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civilization) want to do to men when... any male "desire/choice/path" is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civi).

[Regarding the "weak males in charge of civi" thing... You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

This controlling of females into "role" obviously wasn't done adequately in the 20th century. _So much for the 'pervasive and oppressive patriarchy' _lie_._

"hating females in one's field." Hate is a strong word; You have evidence for this "hate" right? Competitors don't want the other to win, true; such is competition itself. Females don't understand this because they are used to being given food and sex--ie the core goals of competition-- without actually fighting to the death over said. (Such is nature for men, for nature is not pretty for them too.) [If that was supposed to be some dig against me... know this: I would never work in field that would allow a female to PRETEND she is my equal. Duh... I actually intend on having "hot sex". ;-) ]

Ie Nobody hates you. But there might be some eventual [I hope] actual competition against you all once your self entitled screed starts to take more of a toll on the amount of positions in society that men NEED (unlike females).

Men fight to the death to win the kind of status females are being given on a platter. (Men --and males across nature-- must have status --where some win and most lose-- or they will not breed, unlike females who are playing at career as part of their "make it more difficulty for males to get me" test).

You actually have yet to be competed with fairly; your "strides" in the 20th cent are conference, that males would never allow each other. While you pretend you are under siege from a dark force called patriarchy, that is all a part of the big lie. That big lie is indeed part of the sexual dance of this species: females complain and sound alarms[even cry wolf] from a high-leverage sexual place and men protect and provide).

[You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

Next dissection of female open callosum...

"believing that how "women should act" according to whatever world-outlook one has (religious, evolutionary, whatever...) should be forced on women regardless what they ACTUALLY want to or do act like."

Strawman. Hint don't talk to christians/protestants or americans in general. I'm deadly serious: a failed meme and race of moronic delusion-oids.

I have nothing to say to your strawman other than the general stuff I have said here.

I don't believe religion or evolution tells me how females should act. I know --from looking at nature--that the utopian cults you rely on for your "strides" --and to be taken seriously with nothing more than a self entitled litany of buzz words (while you attempt to breed portions of mankind into extinction)-- are santa claus cult and will never, ever, never work out like you suppose or pretend they will. AND THEREFORE there is no reason for me /men to abdicate. Ie there is no moral presumption that would cause me to think I'm bad for taking the swinging hammer out of boopsy's hand. And even if there was some moral presumption, Boopsy's desire to take swinging tools[ehem] away from me, would void the 'moral presumption contract' anyway.

Females are just as desirous of controlling and "role-forcing" men as men are of females. The lack of vocabulary --ie lack of human brain wiring-- for dealing with this calamity['feminism'] (for it is a selection pressure that apparently has never happened before) simply allows Boopsy's self entitled hypocrisy to hide behind male libido and the complexities that have developed in modern "civilized" male human competition (ie utopianism beliefs[wishful thinking motivated by fear] and modern democratic politics [staving off vulnerabilities by buying allies]).

"basically, MISOGYNY is HATEFUL DEHUMANIZATON OF HALF OF HUMANITY to JUSTIFY oppressing or even enslaving them trough DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE - and the only ones who wish this are basically socipaths and mediocre-to-loser men who realize they don't have a chance with women if women actually have no fear of them and are free to work and survive without them."

You have no evidence for that (other than "hetero-normative" "rape culture" demagoguery which might as well be from Mars).

Meanwhile our society is a giant caste structure held together with hateful dehumanization of men (wimmins studies material, pressure group rhetoric, TV and advertising) motivated by irrational [and dualistic ally desired] fear to justify oppressing and enslaving men (men work and provide more for this society, enduring more of the burdens of that and getting less profit from it (including being 'bred into extinction' while still doing the work or being mocked for shirking) despite the debunked propaganda about '77 cent on the dollar') through discrimination (AA, draft registration, court law [despite the BS that it is "gender blind"], title IX, and the profound unspoken though very real emotional /psychological plane males exist on) and violence (police and other dudes who are already cowed and brainwashed and bombs for Arabs et al) --and the only ones who wish this are basically sociopaths (lesbians and ugly ducklings) and those with self esteem issues specific to femininity (ie inherently emasculated submissive reactionaries), the ignorant dames (ie most girls who can't think things through to conclusion as they play their instinct-motivated games), and the RUNT males who thrive and profit in civilization who realize that if they don't use females/feminism as a shield and grenade to get rid of better males that they --these runts [the males you are forced to endure wherever it is over privileged upwardly mobile chicks hang]--will be the first to become extinct in a world where NORMAL healthy un-oppressed masculinity prevails (you know the very stuff you fantasize about) and the girls who fear that without special unconstitutional discriminations benefiting them and without exploiting privileges --rooted in the underlying previous chivalry of the very patriarchy that is irrationally feared -- that they would not be able to work and survive.


"When "might makes right" go out the window, the genes of males who only can get girls in an environment of violence and fear, eventually go extinct - and good riddance :D"

An "environment of violence and fear"?!

Oh you mean the boys you like the best :D

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

wimmins history month and take your daughter stuff

It is wimmins history month in March. They’ll be lotsa of stuff like that now (and again in September/October I noted too –that’s their secret newsletter “action item” time).

Regarding unconstitutional female only career drives…

If there was any real evidence that a company or institution paid a female less, the thousand and one private and govt equal opportunity commissions and lawyers would be all over it.

Society ignores 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, health, life span, sex partners, upward mobility, suicide, incarceration, workplace health etc, etc. Meanwhile we trump up female petty downward indicators (eg not enough apply to NASA) and present them as evidence that patriarchy is real and through its behavior and display damaging females in some way.

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 sub intellectual, 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 lens-ed, just-so data is published to “prove” it. …And the weak-minded cave in first and that starts a domino effect synergy.

Willfully blind bigotry, biology, gender equality hypocrisy…

People say (especially those simpletons with daughters) “I am very pleased with what the feminists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have any daughters – that they have a chance in society.”

That’s like saying “I’m in the Klu Klux Klan and I very pleased with what the racists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have white children they have a chance.”

Problem is liberal Enlightenment Age O Reason society was not supposed to be that. (It is all “unintended consequence” snowballing along*). So if liberal society becomes an apparatus to achieve unconstitutional anti male bigotry and female pedestal-izing deification, something is very, very wrong.

(*It is INSTINCT to fight over female sexual value; it is HUMAN instinct to fight over it by displaying protector ability in a quid pro quo. And now modern civi keeps alive too many low IQ males who are simply machines of libido instinct; thus they are stuck in a groove… A very politically efficient groove.

Ie hypocrisy regarding this “gender equality experiment” was inevitable given the underlying biological truth of the human species.)

The fact you don’t perceive your belief as bigotry(and can’t/don’t grapple with the underlying biological motivations for it) says reams about YOU.

It is not a question of “right” to make “equal pay for equal work”. There is no right to work (or education, or any other pretense or political conceit humans hold dear)! Work is something men do to compete over female “hypergamy” tendencies ( = discriminatory up based infidelity ['up' is case specific/caprice]).

…”Female deer have a ‘right’ to grow antlers” : “female humans have a ‘right’ to ride a horse into battle [swords a cleaving]“. It doesn’t make any sense. [Note male deer are fighting each in headbutt suomo competition _over_ female wandering tendencies. Antlers have been selected in only males as the unwitting tool of success. It was not a conspiracy to keep females out of anything. Same with sapien competition.]

Few males win and _most lose_ –EVEN WITHOUT Feminism’s amplification of that Problem. (Note ‘problem’ is a relative construct.)

Taking status positions away from males simply pushes more males into the loser pit.

Also note:

techno roll

I do like my assumption that repro techno allows “misogyny” to reproduce in ways it hasn’t yet.

Techno got us in, and techno will have to get us out.

It is not a certainty that we will win though. …What type of creature man will be by the time “men’s” victory is achieved etc? I have not seen male dominant hives (how ever one might define “male dominance”).

(Someone once said to me about that (a dame from soc men, so it is probably one of these dames here with new nym) “is that light up ahead the end of the tunnel or the train?…)

But note we also have never seen other chimps leave orbit either. …Behold the beast man… How like a God.


We must balance –like a dancing bear– on a runaway snowball.

We can’t all just run away and “join the Amish” as our way of pulling out the plug on civi/femi. …The quilt is not big enough.

…And most crucially those that don’t run away will simply claim “eminent domain” trump card [over the Amish and other Luddites] at _their leisure_.

I’m thinking that as repro techno starts to negate female sex value it creates opportunity for “misogyny” to pass on like never before in history. Not to mention generations of children raised without female “nurturing” in their heads.

The males who can’t allow that “misogyny” –say those that make daughters etc (ehem)– have to be marginalized by more of the same techno HOPEFULLY IF/WHEN.

And that is the real battle right there actually.


Some of my thoughts on “human-father being princess enablers”…

This “father protecting his daughters” instinct IS a harem lord instinct. A harem lord instinct, after it has been reworked by the “normative consensus” of what the others males will allow.

Ie history has shaped the human male into a creature who doesn’t actually have sex with his harem(family) as he fends other males away from this harem. (I wager human fathers get the same kind of high a victorious gorilla or deer does after a successful battle.)

Think what we’ve done to the wolves: border collie herding sheep. It stalks and chases prey(sheep) in partnership with its alpha (the human) but he doesn’t actually bite them or take them down.

Father-protect is also a demonstration to the female who he is having sex with (his wife) that he protects well. …Like a male bower bird bringing a blue lighter to female: blue lighter serves no acute material purpose other than triggering the female into ‘thinking’ he is a good forager.


    Cohen will end up married with children and screwed in divorce court.

    l will figuratively be there, cheering her, when he be screwed.

    Cohen is sacrificial lamb. He’s a very useful example. No mra stuff could even come close to how cohen promotes the mra agenda.


It is also likely though that he'd eat the burden of his own oppression (eg in divorce court etc) in order to get you oppressed (by feminism) too.

His benchwarmer ressentiment is strong in him and his tribe.

The problem the "tribe" has with us is deep, deep seated. They are prepared to sacrifice their balls to get your dick removed. It is instinctual.

Ie I believe he is not an ignorant white knight goy protecting woman (like many white males are). I believe he is a mangina in a profound quest to get rid of masculinity because it scares him (when others have it).

Monday, February 28, 2011

sugar and spice (what dames be)...

What females are...

People ask how to stop feminism? What is feminism?

"You’ll have to give me examples of what is truly feminism. ...And how would one fully reject feminism?"

That is a big big question. It needs to be answered in full for all time and always; it is the thing(tm). The unspoken crux of the issue.

I try to _start_ an answer to it below...

Feminism is a battle of "essence" not any one plank. Before it was called feminism, it was called "the battle of the sexes." Ie all that frustration-inducing game playing (compelled by an assortment of biological troots).

In order for females to not be feminists any more...

They would have to stop being what females and human females are on instinct.

-They would have to in childhood stop telling secrets, being cliquish, being manipulative, being taunters and teasers, being tattlers.

-In teen years they would have to stop being sexual gate keepers who are in little secretive cliques.

-In adult hood --along with teen hood-- they would have to stop being dualistic creatures who are repulsed by males who love them and repulsed by males who become civilized (soft/nice /infantile males). (Male humans become soft/infantile as a side effect of their battles verse each other over female sex value. [see alpha beta gamma again; yep, sorry.])

-They would also have to be smarter with a closed callosum. And be less gland based. (It is said that males think with their 'little heads'. Yes Sometimes true. But at least men have a choice between the two. Female humans on the other hand are only glands/moods. They make words [_undefined_ sounds actually that mimic men's words] so as to trick men into giving them food and etc.)

-Less reactionary against males. That starts in childhood when the females are a type of bench warmer male. They have classic bench-warmer-male syndromes (ie reactionaries who throw wrenches in the works to "get even"). Once the females get leverage --which their sex value naturally affords them-- they believe anything they do to get back at males is deserved simply because males "hurt" them in childhood by being better at everything. (It is called penis envy motivates la femme mystique.)

-The species would have to stop having wallflower chicks [ugly/ fat/ masculine girls]. They have classic typical female bench warmer syndrome [penis envy] _mixed with_ wallflower ax to grind anger. They are also the most masculine fems and therefore sense that freeing themselves from the harem of emasculated hermaphrodites [see "fundamentals": cuttle fish] and making a run for it is within reach. They are well motivated ax to grind female rousers using whatever political plank will work at the moment. The planks that work are demonization of males to rile up closer human male fear that the big bad "alpha" is coming to steal the wife or daughter. The human males are very susceptible to that propaganda alarm since it fits nicely into their own raison d tre: marginalize the other male by using allies.

The only way to stop males from imposing policies that deal with the above is to keep men too dumb to contemplate it [thank you chrisendumb] or make men machines who don't feel anymore (ie that don't care that females are "bad" people who induce frustration and competition anymore). The only way to stop females from being "bad" is to make females machines.

Feminism [nee "battle of the sexes"] is a "battle of essence." Understanding that essence entails outside-looking-in objective [asexual /amoral] lens and a lens rooted in naturalism.

Americans, christians and liberals are "flat earth believers" [or 'flat earthers'] when it comes to biology/ontology. As too was marx et al with his "man comes from a golden age of non warring matriarchies."

Some males are more tuned into the essence of the battle than others.

We call the en tuned "Misogynists".

Meanwhile other males have daughters...

(*Modern matriarchy-belief wings have spun golden age into an equally absurd "we come from a period of wimmin warriors ruling." "wolf women of the past." [That harkens back to a literary device: amazons. Conjured by notorious "monstrous liars" --as Ovid [or Virgil*] called them --the Greek poets.]

[*Damn! Me brains is almost gone now.]

Matriarchy-of-past is now morphing into wing[s] who believe that any time males fight over females it is a matriarchy. I like that one the best. It is hardest to deconstruct being the most rooted in a spin of reality but its solutions when they come will be the grandest.)


Why are females so angry?...

(Get away from the human freewill, self awareness thing; see the universe as an assortment of amoral chain reactions; in biology these chains are called 'modules'. Ie see our human ways and means as unwitting compulsions that work for reasons over our heads. [See my "fundamentals"])

1 females have instincts to antagonize. Take female deer auto-matonically twitching tail --white rumped too(to catch light)-- or female lion wanderings.

2 the hum females have a grass is always greener crack the whip instinct.

3 females are emasculated males by nature. Female hums either sense this or are now --for some dames-- cognitively aware of that. They are understandably angry /reactionary.

4 after eons of being emasculated creatures as the way they breed, females have modules which compel them towards submission. Ie they like to be `taken by bodice ripping pirates. Now given that civi has [through ABG principle] snowballed man into a place where pirates are extinct or illegal, the final indignity has been perpetrated against females...

They can't even find a rake to "knock dem booties" once per month when she is prepared to expose herself as a craven submissive to some creature she despises/adores. (she despises him because he emasculated her.)

5 is the wallflower axe to grind rabble rouser thing. A chick not chosen is a frustrated, angry chick.

I posted the above at "The Spearhead" (run by welmar) in response to a question. It did not make it past moderation. Welmar at 'the spearhead' by not letting the top post above through at his site has demonstrated why men can't stop feminism.

Females have no problem demonizing males(with wide spin or out right lies) in order to conjure propaganda necessary to lube policy through the political/societal works. Meanwhile men can't even organize listed troots about female character without other males --for their reasons-- being off-put by them.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Jebus cult's problem with Nietzsche

Nietzsche did not cause anyone to become nihilist.  And he didn't cause Christianity to be a female cult.

You did that. Your cult of slaves and dunces.

Freud and Nietzsche having single female parent issues was not caused by them. And Nietzsche wasn't a "matriarch"; And nihilism is not matriarchy anyway. Egads!

You don't even know what nihilism means. It means hopelessness, and the consequent MGTOW bailout. Nothing more. Nihilism is not a cause of the hopelessness, it is the effect of hopelessness. The cause (of our predicament and the consequent nihilist bailout) is your ascendant slave cult --your "slave morality" thwarting "hero morality." (There's a little Nietzsche for ya.)

Now if you said... "People are stupid but we need to hold them together in big groups so we can collectively fight a big group enemy (feminism), therefor the glue to use is religion since it appeals to the majority of the stupid"... I would be with you.

But once you start with the kaleidoscope fun-house mirror philosophies (like "Nietzsche caused the collapse of fatherhood in the west"), it is turn off time.

Sacrificing the moralistic confused ill thinking horde to liberalism is one way of buying liberal support for a revolution towards a new zeitgeist.

That christian gobbly-gook is an anchor and it is what got us into this mess. ...A little more anti Darwinism anyone? (Talk about too stupid to learn the first time the rake is walked on and its handle smacks the face.)

Eugenics in childhood stops feminism by rooting out the core problem that snowballs into feminism in the first place: the Alpha beta gamma principle (coup snowball to runtdom) and mass stupidity.

Eugenics stops every other problem too. It is the only thing that hasn't been tried, yet it is the only solution.

(The only thing not tried but the only solution. That's truly Satan's trickery. ...The only actual solution is the one you refuse the hardest.

But then all of america itself is Satan's trickery. You all praise the cause of your misery (eg democratic capitalism) and demand more of it as balm.

...The upside down world... where the right is the left and the left is the right. A Bizarro World...

Through the looking glass we go... to america.

...Satan laughing spreads his wings.)

Now it is going to be fun watching how many thumbs-down I get...
Men fall for feminist rape politics.

These males use feminist rape culture verbiage and concepts. Ultimately they are petitioning feminist authority using feminist claptrap _rather than fomenting the revolution necessary to oust feminist authority._

"Once you lower yourself to debate them, you have already lost."

When besmirched by feminists who say "men are rapists", rather than tripping over yourself to prove your are a wimp who could never possibly get it up (and therefore are no threat), the solution is simple: say "yes sex is 'rape' and therefore your destiny as a _female_ --after revolution -- is to be quivery and afraid of the spectre that is the lingam. Swoon."

Men defining themselves as creatures that "protect the weak" is why feminism (and other social ills) happened in the first place. And this isn't rocket science.

The weak males will stop at nothing --including creating feminism-- to get rid of every male who isn't a runt. And then that world created --without adult male chemistry-- is the only environment in which feminism flourishes.

All sex IS rape. Western males simply don't understand females [or nature] yet.

Sex doesn’t even have to be “dark” and pathological to be seen as rape by a female. Sex IS simply rape. …The penetration of it all; the fear of the bigger creature (who she knows damn well is better than her at everything). The whole thing seems like rape if you’re female.

Men think “rape” means alleyway nut-job [_raised badly by his crazy mother_] –-_who steals men's girlfriends._ But to a female, any confident masculine morning wood itself is a belittling and fear-inducing/alluring thing. And she is angry about that in a dualistic sometimes yes, sometimes no way.

If she also has axe to grind issues (like wall flower-ism or jewish trouble maker desire) she can easily ham up that anger into “rape! rape! everywhere” hysteria, so as to get the infantile males to “protect” her from normal men (who have confident thrusting morning wood, which stunts and “bruises” females in numerous ways).

Females will not stop until no male grows a single whisker.

Dimorphic sex IS dominance. One would be hard pressed to find a female that doesn't know that (though she might not be able to express it in words or if she can, might be cagey enough to not divulge it).

That _many males_ don't know that is _bad_. Their numbers in total are why western men are being socio-politically sublimated by a more astute tuned-in class (ie feminists).

...This is the "alpha beta gamma" snowball breeding man toward infantile lower IQ males who the females are more savvy then --as I have explained a gazillion times.

By trying to suppress the dimorphic life force in themselves, men have made themselves vulnerable to the female take over that is feminism.

The runt males have taken over and they are trying to redefine "normal" masculinity over to their infantile natures. (Some of the weak males pretend they aint feminists but they are inside.) Their runt ascendancy is synonymous with feminism's ascendancy. If these infantile idiotic runt --abnormal-- males are not eliminated feminism WILL succeed in enslaving and then someday getting rid of men.

Pull out the plugs on the incubator babies now!


Don’t bring back what billions of year of evolution have erased.

1000 to 200 years ago is not billions. And evolution is not a directed thing that leads to "better" or "more civilized". All that is a made up definition in your head.

Men are enslaved now (and it could get a lot worse) because we keep alive too many failed males in childhood.

Children need to be tested and ranked by IQ and talent. Lower male ressentiment-motivated coup (ie the ABGamma principle) needs to be prevented from upsetting that ranking. (If you don't like the idea of that, then keep all the children separated.)

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

To EvilWhiteMaleEmpire

1) I only have a yahoo e ma-il.

It has already been compromised by the tribe of infantile bench-warmers --steeped in ressentiment-- america fights to keep alive and in power.

Road Rnr won't let you send an email to yahoo?

2) Membership to comment here...

Can't you just sign in using google and then comment in the comment box?

The sign-in is at right column, bottom by the "follow" section. It says "Already a member? _Sign in_"

If not, let me know.

(Please, relegate all extremism to me.)

You and MRA need to get sites too, so people can find you without relying on these smoke signals (which are dependent on other forums allowing them).

Society's triangle caste shape

Priest-class vs priest-class, heretics and the role the masses play.

"Liberalism" has an intellectual hierarchy --a priest class-- in charge at academia. The media is subordinate to that; they are the disciple class spreading the cult. (Think bishops/cardinals down to their priests/ deacons.)

Bishop/cardinal classes fight each other. (Think different sects in history.)

Bishop/cardinal classes ("sects") usually don't fight as individuals but in groups.

Now here is the problem (in all history):

Only the beautiful-lie sects win, given what humans are.

1- Humans are needy, fearful and dumb. (Sorry but true.) [That is why we invented after-life cult all those many cerebrum layers ago, for one example.]

And 2- these needy fearful dumb humans are needed by the different Bishops /sects as their cannon fodder. The sect with more cannon fodder wins control over the pen (thus garnering itself even more cannon-fodder more quickly. (Talk about a 'vicious circle' building power on itself.)

Since humans are needy and dumb, the fact based sects don't hold together enough coalition support. Thus the more accurate sect is marginalized [eg from academia]. Time and time again, throughout history.

Once more into the breech... in the name of:
"energy conversion effected by entropy"
"who wants ice cream"?

...The story of ALL history/religion/political narrative.

That is why civilization snowballs towards more liberalism: beautiful lies acting as better coalition glue thus supporting the sects who spread those beautiful lies.

The most recent "sectarian battle" was so called "Darwinism" vs modern liberalism. Liberalism won because more people --including the Christians especially-- favored it over the ugly truth.

[Sorry but that is true. The dichotomy many of you --anglo world--  have in your heads-- "liberalism is 'nihilism' and nihilism is Darwinism and therefore Darwinism is modern liberalism" is some kind of weird mental glitch and mule stubbornness you have. It is not accurate; it has proved itself very dangerous to you and all of us.]

The sect in vogue now uses a very powerful pussy-politics that says powerful things to so many people at a root, core instinctive level. (Instincts that might indeed be tricked and corrupted but still instincts none the less.) ..."Fem sex value" and "I am protector" as male mating display; Also pro-fem is a grenade weak males throw at other males to kill them off (that is probably the "I am protector" male display taken to a weakness place by the ABGamma snowball).

The zeitgeist usually doesn't change until the economy--ie food supply/shelter apparatus --collapses enough. Sometimes that collapse comes from the ecru-ing internal greed and other human foibles inside the successful sect.

If man comes out of this zeitgeist, we need to make sure this "beautiful-lie-sect wins more often" thing never ever happens again. That is why I tell you, you must get your minds around what I say. {Go to my seanmaccloud blog : "solutions" label; those solutions will be more clear to those who grasp the "fundamentals" pages there.}


[“equal opportunity” is a bedrock tenet of the American spirit]

The problem with that system or theory of government and society is that the "marxist" priest-class will have "equal opportunity" to spread their beautiful lies religion which WILL trump the other beliefs vie-ing for control over society's conforming pen.

That is why "freedom from government" is not only not possible(since the marxist priest class will create one once their beautiful lies win them power) but it is bad for us. By advocating 'freedom from government' we prevent ourselves from protecting our culture from the inevitably powerful priest-sect of political-liars that always forms (because of the bench warmer caste-structure of life).

You create a power vacuum in your society and the most motivated --ie those with axe to grind bench warmer ressentiment (like say "marxist" 'Eastern Euro' runts and/or wall-flower dames)-- will fill it. And they will use a "religion of beautiful lies" to consolidate and indoctrinate cannon fodder devotees.

That is what happened here; and most are infected with it.

Yes yes, I know: thumbs down...

Alpha beta confusion.

Alpha beta confusion.

People are exhibiting confusion about how the ABGamma principle should be used. It is like this...

The class in charge might be seen as chihuahua-like (or poodle like or what have you). Ie seen as runts of the old wolf strain from which we all come. Therefore they are beta or gamma by internal fortitude.

But as for the ABGamma coup cycle itself right now, they are the "alpha class" who is ever poised to be ousted. (They will be ousted unless they employ counter strategy.)

The beta class (which might be ye olde "alpha" by internal fortitude) will try to rile up the gamma and then oust those 'alpha' douche bag SOBs. (...And put them out of their runt misery. Right down to their Florsheims and Bostonians.)

(And then we --the beta class-- will betray the gamma cannon fodder (some of which will become the new beta). ...Unless the whole ABG cycle stops. [see "below"])

So ending this ABG confusion comes down to whether one is using the ABG principle to describe evolution OR sociology. IF evolution, ABG tries to talk about our descended fortitude (or lack thereof) --and how it got to be [coup cycle of techno created and supported runts ousting lone fortitude]; if one is talking about modern sociology, ABG tries to talk about... how tasseled your shoes are (with the Florsheim shoe wearing runts on top of this upside down world we have).

(I envisioned ABGamm more as an evolutionary model. A techno fueled coup cycle explaining how the Chihuahua took over [and replaced] our once upon a time wolf breed. I really didn't mean for it to be used for every time a dude has more stuff and thus gets laid more than someone else. But alas the sexually successful is the latest "alpha" class and as such susceptible to the continuing coup cycle.)

[Here you are "below"]

How does ABG stop? By understanding "politics"...

Politics is...

In childhood, "difference" and "loss" (eg caste division) as a root.

"Difference" even means down to birth order differences in personality (which are determinist creations --whether nature or nurture caused). ["Determinism" simply means domino chain reaction on the scale of the universe (billiard bank shots ever ecru-ing)--whether those domino effects are "genes" or "environments".] Birth order too means even whether boy or girl was first born etc.

[Solution to that: Only child males and as first borns; one plot of land shared with father who dies while junior becomes a father to his son. (Immortality techno is on horizon though.)]

Also the root of politics is the biochemical modules that unwittingly chemically compel us all towards hunger, greed, envy, lust.

Those modules have been selected by the universe's main fact: "limited/finite energy".

On the scale of dim sex reproduction, 'limited energy' means 'fem sex value'. In short, we fight over pu$$y; but that's too glib though. We fight 'cause we are compelled to; those "compellings" have been selected BY food/ sex bottlenecks. female "dalliance" instinct and head-games instinct --ie their emotional abuse of us-- is part of that.

...Has to be grappled with and dealt with. ...Even if boys and girls WERE "equal"; which we aint.

[solution= artificial womb (which leads to extinction of double X ers); or zero sexual mobility for females (ankle collars etc)--they stay on the one plot of land of husband in perpetuum (no access to other males); multiple wives to decrease pussy leverage; 'marry' em young so as to keep them(the females) stunted under our male level of "niceness"/childishness which we as males demand of each other.]

Certainly health differences/defects would create differences and inevitable caste (and the inevitable bench-warmer axe to grind ressentiment ;-) )

[Solution: along with only-son first borns, medical/cloning tech to ensure optimum health. ...Use to be called "eugenics" through necessity.]

Then the amount of resources/ land for those healthy surviving, "properly nurtured" sires needs to be squared. ...Not enough plots (deemed to be equal in productivity /size etc)? Then... there will be blood. And, given the way humans compete[groups], ABGamma coups would start again.

The only thing that would prevent that ABG cycle again, other than stopping all competition over difference, loss, hunger, greed, envy, lust, pussy-mind fuck, 'unequal' land-plots, bad nurture syndromes-- would be fatal-dueling as the competition ALWAYS, without technology allowing coalitions or "runt fortitude" to prevail.

All the above, in detail, has to be thought about and controlled. No more "kissing things up to god" now that we see. 'Kissing up to god' would be like closing your eyes and crossing the hiway even though we now know that traffic is there.

And be warned, the Universe itself has a tendency to want to create coalitions. Dust coalesces to stars, to cells to multi cellular, to hives to elaborate parasitic symbiosis. So what probably happens here is man replaces himself with machines, for they are the best possible tools of war --ie the best children.

(So the devil wins this round. ...God goes "you sunk my battleship. [gobsmack] Let's play again, but this time you take New Jersey!")

Now I know you all don't like me --and that's fine: I never met a people I could stomach. (Maybe if I cooked them longer. ...hmmm.) So trust, me I hate you first and hate you better. And many of you can't get me: you'll just have to look to your leaders to understand for you. But I'm still right any way: I am very, very good at this.

Man must start to get his mind around this stuff, if his centuries old utopia bullshit (millenia old actually) about a new way[tm] is to be taken seriously as anything more than just ploy and tactic (of the latest ABG coup, with its inevitable hypocritical "here come the new boss same as the old" ...minus a pecker).

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Round and Round... Where She Stops?...

The Rise and Fall of Civilizations.

I published this in say '99 on the net.

(It is the thing I alluded to a few weeks ago when I said "[an early post of mine deals with the civilization/technology snowball hitting a kind of matriarchy- /
feminism- autopilot where it doesn't need men anymore whether they shrug to stop matriarchy or not.]")


Civilizations rise and fall. Why?


-dimorphic sex=500myr emasculation between hermaphrodites; mature stunt immature; immature can finish growing and stunt their own immature if given the opportunity.

-gender quid pro quo=apple grower and orange grower; each trades surplus to get the other they need; female humans trade reproduction/temporary fidelity, male humans trade material goods males fight over.

-alpha beta/gamma principle=middle males rabble rouse low males and use them as tool against high males.

-civi means literate, 5500yrs ago, diffusion from Sumeria/Babylon; priest class at top and specialist variations at bottom in triangle shape caste; the consequence of larger society created by agri techno (10,000yrs ago).

Barbarians in two groups: alpha-robust and beta-gracile, a la alpha beta/gamma principle. Civilization is the beta-gracile of the barbarian tribal competition. Civi beats barbs because strength-in-numbers (specifically outflanking and specialist-focus techno-invention) works best.

A fledgling civi might appear male dominant compared to later phases of the same civi, but civi is gracile and effeminate compared to the surrounding barbs. The whole "matriarchies of the bush and of the past while civi is white male patriarchy that created war" narrative is incredibly fraudulent. The fact its given credence at all expose the extent of the DarkAge we are in.

Civi is in two groups: "Spartans"(barb echo) and "Athenians"(large coalitions of gracile diverse specialists). Athenians, over the long haul, beat Spartans for the same reason civi beat barbs-- large diverse specialist groups do better.

Athenians are in two groups: geniuses and fools; fools outnumber geniuses.

Fools beat geniuses for the same reason Aths beat Sparts and civi beats barbs: strength in numbers overwhelms the better, stronger, individuals.

The "fools" become more decadently "liberal", because civi's techno snowball keeps alive new and more gracile "freaky" variations. And, especially, the techno snowball creates easy lives; like puppies that never mature (stunted children). [Chinese proverb: children become weak skinned living under the shade tree planted by their parents.] Ie new nurture types can develop all manner of new chemistries and consequent reflexes --including infantile decadences.

Then the decadence and childishness--through snowballing straws on the camel's back--tilts over to de facto female emancipation, when the male fashion becomes more immature and stunted than the females. Females raise the price of her fidelity, her loyalty and respect. Some females will raise the price of the quid pro quo while other females indeed even try to mature into males, escaping stunted emasculation to become stunters.

Since men won't continue working if they can't win females through their efforts, men stop working. When men stop working, civi naturally falls into disrepair (because of the Vines of Nature doing their thing). female emancipation--the "last straw" (critical mass) of civilization's success, liberalism--collapses civi.

The surrounding barbarians (and the re toughened up--re 'robust' ized, barbarian-ized--men of the felled civi) then start the cycle over again --two groups form and then cleave: robust and gracile, barbs and civis, sparts and aths, etc-- occupying the collapsed or collapsing city like so many vines of Nature.

Each time this has happened the next emerging civilization's literate elites refuse to teach or even accept (psychological denial)-- or they can't understand--that a snowballing chain-reaction-- civi success leading to leisure, to soft skin, to female leverage, to bummed men, to disrepair--pulled down the previous civilization's infrastructure(men working). Most can't or won't see that de facto female-emancipation is what killed the "older race of man". Thus the cycle continues-- civi will fall again.

Each time the cycle happens, it becomes less likely (when female emancipation occurs) that the civi will outwardly fall, because the techno snowball is achieving a type of "auto pilot". The shell of civi is becoming impenetrable to Nature's vines, whether men work or not; not to mention, there are few surrounding true barbarians left to push the walls in and start the cycle over.

The human hive kept having false starts, but now the 5500yr old con-game of immatures ("civi") is finally permanently consummating {organizational symbiosis, or "slush balling"*}. female emancipation happened once again yet this civilization (english-french) still thrives... for now. I wonder how many more times the cycle will repeat until a permanent neo-hermaphrodite / female bio tech hive collective--like a giant termite mound "spore-ing"--spreads its "silver seeds to a new home in the sky".

{*This reference is from another post I made in tandem with this one about the Principles of the Universe... Slush balling chain-reactions create more complicated symbiotic chain-reactions.}


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

female discrimination and societal blindness to it

females are just as discriminatory and superficial-- _if not more so_-- than males are. Especially true since society accepts and promotes discrimination against men and pedestal-izes female behavior. (It always has, therefor feminism's whole original root premise is faulty.)

Female lenses and criteria are simply sometimes a little different though from men's. Ie genders want different things from each other.

Eg females hate male weakness like males hate fat chicks. (I feel sorry for fat chicks [see * below] --but I'm also sorry for men, one of which is me.) And now females are "lookists" too on top of their other forms of objectification.

And females are certainly less empathic when  it comes to making fun of the opposite gender (females have standard inferiority complex issues). Females are also crueler and less empathic, in most categories social babble measures (eg crime and punishment).

Society has used the different lenses boys and girls use to say "females are less discriminatory towards males than the reverse." But that is wrong. (Note that most EVERYTHING western society believes and says about gender and females is a lie, ignorance or delusion.)

To deny the above makes one either delusional, ignorant or a sycophant to female power (or makes one female which is another way of saying delusional). (That male sycophancy is a root reason men defend feminism BTW. Think monks carrying an emperor baby on a pillow.. all must bow to the procession... except the monks. )

Monday, January 10, 2011

Willfully blind bigotry, biology, gender equality hypocrisy

I am very pleased with what the feminists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have any daughters - that they have a chance in society.

That's like saying "I'm in the Klu K klan and I very pleased with what the racists have achieved thus far. It means that if I have white children they have a chance."

Problem is liberal Enlightenment Age O Reason society was not supposed to be that. (It is all "unintended consequence" snowballing along*). So if liberal society becomes an apparatus to achieve unconstitutional anti male bigotry and female pedastilizing deification, something is very, very wrong.

(*It is INSTINCT to fight over female sexual value; it is HUMAN instinct to fight over it by displaying protector ability in a quid pro quo. And now modern civi keeps alive too many low IQ males who are simply machines of libido instinct(eg people like you); thus they are stuck in a groove... A very politically efficient groove.

Ie hypocrisy regarding this "gender equality experiment" was inevitable given the underlying biological truth of the human species.)

The fact you don't perceive your belief as bigotry(and can't/don't grapple with the underlying biological motivations for it) says reams about YOU.

Sunday, January 9, 2011


IQ tests in childhood and then marginalization of the those with IQs below say 120 ish solves ALL problems.

Also tests in childhood for "future tense perception / honesty" with marginalization of those who don't cut muster solves all problems.

If not, the neo cortex become extinct, as mankind turns itself into a hive of drones filled with all of the once fought-against "oppressions" necessary for such dynamics to prevail.


Morality is a chemical chain reaction. (Like love or hate or jealously etc.) It (they) can be understood potentially. (Observe lab rat studies.)

Serial killers don't kill because they are "immoral" or "evil". They do because they have different chemicals in them; those chemical differences have been shaped by nature/nurture dominoe effects over the serial killer's formation. (The nurture part of that domino equation is the more complicated more profound part actually.)

Well take that extreme serial killer example/model and apply it to anything else in the behavior realm.

Alcoholics or fat people or _whatever._

Note lab rats injected with this or that chemical --or having various environmentally induced stresses applied -- have their behavior patterns fundamentally changed. They become cuddlier or cannibalistic just by tweaking their hormones etc or shaping childhood contingencies.

You have small minds and are not getting your minds around this.

Also as far as "philosophies" for why we do what we do... An _honest_ understanding of nature --"naturalism"-- will put things in perspective.

Eg teens don't fight or vandalize because they haven't found god yet. They are sexual pubescents attempting to establish sexual maturity/territory.

Or another example, "the evil other is coming to take me away he he, ha ha; the evil god must 'ave sent them to hurt our good god." We now understand these could be food supply/contentment/population etc issues (along with the above sexual territory desire), as we all migrate around writing a tale from our own perspective and seeing everyone else in OUR storyline as two dimensional in THEIR motivations --ie evil-- unlike us.

Religion based morality has failed to understand and solve the things it wants to understand and solve.

Next... The claim that "science is trying to make us all the same/ trying to alleviate or micro-control every ouchy." ...Well the deep-felt demand for alleviation is already there. That is why there is the plastic surgery industry; the diet book business; the remedial tutoring business etc, etc. Those methods are just sloppier at addressing this need.

As Star Trek's Dr McCoy said, "[It was barbaric, Jim (referring to 20th Cent medicine): cutting into people with things they called scalpels.]"

I understand that science will probably screw up this potential deep-understanding of how 'we' work... `cause humans suck. But it isn't like religion hasn't already failed at understanding any of this too.

As for the claim "scientists /atheists are just looking for excuses to have authority"... Well, There is no such thing as a world without someone/some group having the trump-say and/or winning (through one mechanism or another). That's all cross-canceled out stuff.

Now a bad thing to say about scientists/atheists... This panacea of edumacation will NEVER work. Hence my handle at


Raising Arizona

I would imagine the motive was immigration issues.

I also imagine the media KNOWS THIS.

Therefore the media saying the motive is "unknown" while at the same time connecting it to health care reform (more popular despite the astroturf) is typical media trick of the Ve is all equal freedom of speech culture.

The NY times Raising Arizona

I sent this to the times…

I question the timing of this article in the times. “The Study of Males”

Some female POL in Az just got shot in the head by some mentally ill “tea partier.” (Badly nurtured or abused… That’s what would be said, if the situation had different victims and perps.)

I wager the times ‘male studies’ story was sitting on the back burner waiting for an opportune time so it could equate it with “violence” or etc negative.

Also, that Charles McGrath article did not give good examples of extremism in the anti feminist movement.

A good example is…

…But denouncing those who don’t pray to females is a function of this upside down world you all (liberals, christians, “marxists”, capitalists) have created which is breeding the neo cortex into extinction faster than you can say Yankee Doodle.

End letter to times.

Begin note to spearhead about the above:

You guys want to play with the big boys, you need to learn the game.

That game is “Ve is all equal and freedom of speech” as demonstrated above by the times.

Mary Daly did say “[the male population should be kept at 10%].” I agree with that actually. *Which 10%* is the battle though.

Friday, January 7, 2011


Micro communities (ultimately on space platforms), father to only-son land handoff and bio tech making people so similar they are as machines, zero sexual mobility for fem sex value to artificial womb/female breeding.

The only solution. (More “equality/freedom/rights” schpiel is flat-earther talk; it is not a solution.)


This "diversity is good because it allows some humans to continue" is a warped lens like 'matriarchies of the past' is. A successful academic spreading meme that is wrong.

I'd rather focus man's energies on _curing_ disease rather than letting the diseases have their way with just "some" of us. I don't want man to just be grist for the natural selection mill.

"Diversity is good" ultimately means chaff. (Not to mention Balkanized civil wars forever as new 'races' form and grapple.)


Changing what society calls illness is as wishful as "just say no" politics. Cure it or terminate.

The logic of "acceptance" could apply to any difference /illness/dysfunction in the species.

By letting every variant live we are just creating new Balkanized "races" and a demand for new protection apparatus. Life=Zero sum game; One loses.


Anti fem so far is a "doomed venture".

So people go back to profiteering behind some other mask; or to furiously masturbating to the internet.

The sky is turning red. The rains will come next: The hibernating frogs will come out of their sand holes and gribbit the days and nights away. ...The politicking bureaucrat type will organize "donations"; the warriors will run and outflank and kill in all their glory; executioners will execute.

"Conciousness" still isn't raised enough. Not to mention perspicacious aptitude is still too low among the set. False --and failed --notions still abound. "Doomed venture" implication is thus seen by those with perspicacity.

A "critical mass" has not been achieved yet. Lightning rods [leaders] don't go up until storm clouds gather(murmurings in the crowd --followers). Without those storm clouds, a lightning rod is just a boar in a bar.


What if the guy being politically reeducated in your slapping story above was a feminist white knight mangina?

What if political reeducation was the only way to stop that guy?

There is nothing wrong with males being one tenth the population. The problem is it's the WRONG one tenth(idiots fools animals etc) the machine is breeding for.

As an evil socialist social engineer elite-- I want to prevent birth order effects which create much or most of the caste issues and personalities difference between people (thus hindering clarity, scope and consensus).


We simply need a revolution to CULL society of every last being that supports such feminsit /equality gibberish.

High tech military support-- at least a plurality of it --will be necessary.

Homeschooling can be now done through the computer. Find the best teacher of a thing (only like one per town or whatever) and have them teach EVERYONE one else through making a video class. That is better than warehousing 30 brats in a pecking order in some classroom.


The whole regime of western culture needs to be ousted. (And trust me it is men. Dumb brunette males en masse; they're in everything.)

The repubs will not stop any of this. That is a false hope. And not enough people will vote for 3rd party "independents".


Feminsim /liberalism all goes away once the so called right understands that killing is good; Abortion is good; eugenics is good; so called darwinism is rightist and good; fascist-socialism is good; that we come from a "patriarchy of the past" made matriarchal through technology-civilization-jebus cult-capitalism-"growth"-democracy.

Until that understanding happens, there is no reason for the BETTER MEN to lead anyone.

So back to masturbating to the internet.

Death to democracy.

Testing and sterilization.


Child brides.

I very much believe the age of "consent" should be lowered to historical levels for females. (Puberty.)

That is the only real way to stop feminism [and the feminists know that], since feminism is simply the inevitable results of females "maturing" in this culture of effete git males. (Ie civilization.)

[And the feminists know that too.]

The fact that you types don't understand that or advocate that says all ones needs to know about how you will never, ever, never --in million, gazillion --years ever stop feminism. Ever. Even if you clammer for a tax break everyday 24/7 super loud you won't stop feminism.

And you know why? 'Cause you are retarded for genetic reasons. It is what civilization breeds for. If not for civi your ilk--all of you-- would be long dead in battle over breeding rights. [And the feminists kinda get that too... Though they really only one mindedly understand gender stuff, then they fall right off the cliff of insight.]


We should have arranged marriage again. "Sympathetic romance" is another failed Euro invented policy, going back almost ages (in some quarters).

=========== woman deserves to be beaten"

Wrong. And 'beaten' is interesting choice of words.


You don't believe in killing an enemy that is enslaving you?


Magic won't work. Because magic/god aint real.

But loopy fems think magic is real. And therefore having them think we are using magic against them will work. Ie made-obvious spells towards them will work. (Note witches hate you wearing black and red.)

(God is less real than magic; ie it is possible to have a mystical plane of activity without any of our god beliefs being real.)


If at that time "we" don't advocate a strong state _purposly and vehemently suppressing certain freedoms and classes/breeds,_ we will be right here again.


I say we support feminist's goal of dismantling the _american_ R&D community.

The men in power know that it is suicide to play games with US R&D science tech. So they diverted the females away from it. They patted wimmins on the head.

I say we join forces with our "sisters" and expose the sexist congress for marginalizing the females and their important "equality in science & tech" agenda at once!

Then we can move on to helping females become most the of the military too. It is more than about time!

When will this outrage against wimmins end?!!

Call your congressthing now!!

More wimmin in the military and police now!

Make the west put up or shut up...

Betcha can't...


Christianity and anti feminism are NOT synonymous. Feminism means feminism nothing more and nothing less.