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.

Item2
“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.

==============
1)
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.

2)
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. "

Correct.

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.

And

-"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.

Two...
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).

Three...
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.

---
Four...
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 ...in a world without violence." ..sigh... politics...)

==============