If two nations are in conflict the men of those nations create tools with which to threaten each other with force. They design missiles and bombs and mustard gas and jet fighters, because they recognize intimately the real threat posed by the forces of the opposing side. The constant leveraging of access to female breeding power however is a force with which men are yet to understand implicitly.
Women are experts when it comes to leveraging their sexual appeal. perhaps experts is the wrong word, since they do this instinctively. When a man makes women uncomfortable by threatening their power, they immediately tell him that if he keeps it up he wont have access to female breeding power. that's what it boils down to, its them saying that if you want to threaten female privilege comfort and hypocrisy, they will respond with threats of lysistrata designed to destroy you completely and utterly in the genetic sense.
Women understand this to be the only true source of feminine power, and so when a female tells you in response to some pro-male rhetoric that your just mad because you cant get laid she is in an indirect and obscure way informing you that if you keep it up you will never pass on your genetic legacy. genetic legacy is the foundation of female thought, it is their obsession, since it is their sustenance, and provides to them access to male ability and wealth.
In other words their meal ticket. Any and all attempts at resisting misandry will be viewed as an attempt to devalue the price of access to genetic legacy and thus it will also be viewed as a threat to the sustenance of women in general. In the event that a man has already passed on his genetic legacy women will go for the next best thing,.. complete separation of a man and his children. custody battles represent the attempt to separate genetic transmission from the transmission of custom culture and wisdom from the male to his progeny.. you see the female mind is thinking ... he may have passed on his genes but he wont pass on his identity. And the amount of damage this exerts onto her children is seen simply as a a slightly unfortunate price of doing business at best. the only words for this, the only description that accurately encapsulates this type of thought process and behavior is the word evil. yes there exists something in women that is evil, there i said it.
Now watch any women listening turn around and tell me how im bitter and angry and watch them tell me how they'd never give me the time of day, and how ill never get laid, watch them do it.. Watch them stamp their feet and buckle on their metaphorical chastity belts in my field of view so that i know the exact consequences of having dared to expectorate all over the alter of female power.
In fairness i suspect men have the same penchant for evil, i suspect it to be a characteristic of human nature. The only difference is the frequency with which you hear about the evil-doings of the so called fairer sex. they can gnash their teeth all they'd like but theres nothing they can do to change whats coming towards them. Things for better or worse have been set into motion, the days of misandry and female affluence are numbered and in direct proportionality to the time it takes for feminist societies to consume themselves.
What proof do i have of this female obsession with their ability to control reproduction? well western society has given to women contraceptives far superior than those available to men, they have given them abortion... they have erected vast storage facilities full of male genetic material in the form of sperm banks, we have solidified the presumption of motherhood, and given women complete control of children at the expense of the father. This state of affairs whether they arose organically along the lines of a matrifocal society designed first and for most to pander to women, or via a more nefarious trajectory in which the powers that be purposefully engineered it, lends itself to female homogeny and power over men.
lets talk about rape for a second, a word that is currently owned with full rights and privileges by feminists. Since they claim to hate rape so much, why would they seek to deprive half of the human population from protection against it by making the legal definition of rape one which can only applies to women? that shows a very clear motive the purpose is to ive extra protection to women in regards to the crime of rape, and because a man that rapes a woman is in effect cheating, he is bypassing female selectivity. and yes he should be punished without a doubt, but specifically for the fact that he chose to attack and sexually enslave and psychologically torture another human being. this standard for the disbursement of punishment for the crime of rape could never fall in agreement with feminist motivations because their reason for hating rape is composed entirely out of a desire to control men as much as possible via access to sex. Understand that. if feminists hated rape you would see them demanding that male prisoners be protected from it. you would see them demand that the legal definition of the crime be rewritten to accommodate men. It's about control thats all its ever been about
what women fail to realize is that men are no longer scared of that threat. women you have over-leveraged, and in fact it is women who will suffer through possibly the first instance in history of a mass dying off of barren and bitter women that divorced and aborted what would have been thier husbands and children. I dont take any pleasure in this but let me paint a picture of what the Germaine Greers of the world and the countless acolytes theyve spawned are headed towards. They will be packed into nursing homes, where no-one will come and visit you, and you will pass in to the next life bitter alone and isolated much in the same manner that you have wished upon men.
What proof do i have of this female obsession with their ability to control reproduction? well western society has given to women contraceptives far superior than those available to men, they have given them abortion... they have erected vast storage facilities full of male genetic material in the form of sperm banks, we have solidified the presumption of motherhood, and given women complete control of children at the expense of the father. This state of affairs whether they arose organically along the lines of a matrifocal society designed first and for most to pander to women, or via a more nefarious trajectory in which the powers that be purposefully engineered it, lends itself to female homogeny and power over men.
lets talk about rape for a second, a word that is currently owned with full rights and privileges by feminists. Since they claim to hate rape so much, why would they seek to deprive half of the human population from protection against it by making the legal definition of rape one which can only applies to women? that shows a very clear motive the purpose is to ive extra protection to women in regards to the crime of rape, and because a man that rapes a woman is in effect cheating, he is bypassing female selectivity. and yes he should be punished without a doubt, but specifically for the fact that he chose to attack and sexually enslave and psychologically torture another human being. this standard for the disbursement of punishment for the crime of rape could never fall in agreement with feminist motivations because their reason for hating rape is composed entirely out of a desire to control men as much as possible via access to sex. Understand that. if feminists hated rape you would see them demanding that male prisoners be protected from it. you would see them demand that the legal definition of the crime be rewritten to accommodate men. It's about control thats all its ever been about
what women fail to realize is that men are no longer scared of that threat. women you have over-leveraged, and in fact it is women who will suffer through possibly the first instance in history of a mass dying off of barren and bitter women that divorced and aborted what would have been thier husbands and children. I dont take any pleasure in this but let me paint a picture of what the Germaine Greers of the world and the countless acolytes theyve spawned are headed towards. They will be packed into nursing homes, where no-one will come and visit you, and you will pass in to the next life bitter alone and isolated much in the same manner that you have wished upon men.
Yes those are some pretty ugly words, and you can turn away in disgust if you please, or you can take that for what it is, a picture that delves past crimson lipstick and carnal female beauty and a holds a mirror up to the very essence of what it means to be female, society tells you nothing but the good.. allow me to paint you a very detailed picture of the bad. let us for the sake of accuracy ask ourselves the simple question, of just what exactly is woman, well thats a pretty difficult question to answer, but a few things that i can say for sure is that they are for the most part reactionary, permanently infantilized and quite possibly predisposed to hate their need of men. this would explain their audacious characterization of the past few thousand years as being a millennial epoch of female oppression and patriarchal power, one which i would like to disprove right here and now.
I would like to posit that the cause of women's so called oppression was in fact women, and that it actually has been them that have held themselves back, for the duration of human history. First let me lay out and define what the oppression of women actually is. It is the failure of women to compete with men since the dawn of and even before the experiment of civilization started. When human beings where living in nomadic hunter gatherer societies, they lived effectively in roving microcosms of civilization, scaled down islands unto themselves that pitted the tribe against the very real dangers, that the illusion of our modern day civilization obsfucates.
I would like to posit that the cause of women's so called oppression was in fact women, and that it actually has been them that have held themselves back, for the duration of human history. First let me lay out and define what the oppression of women actually is. It is the failure of women to compete with men since the dawn of and even before the experiment of civilization started. When human beings where living in nomadic hunter gatherer societies, they lived effectively in roving microcosms of civilization, scaled down islands unto themselves that pitted the tribe against the very real dangers, that the illusion of our modern day civilization obsfucates.
In other words human beings at one point in their history fund themselves in a state of proto civilization poised on the brink of conquering the planet, and establishing ourselves as the dominant species on the planet. It was at this point in time that women manifested their own so called oppression by letting the responsibility for the single greatest undertaking in human history, (Ie the building of civilization fall squarely on the shoulders of men.)
Thinking back to what our male ancestors must have felt when tasked with understanding the forces of nature, and conquering fire, while fighting off predators, the elements, disease, all the while developing agriculture and animal husbandry and setting up the necessary steps through sheer drive and willpower, to finally beat-back the proverbial jungle. the pressure must have been incredible and yet this was the start of what women view as the patriarchy, the spark of their so called oppression. Meaning that at this critical juncture in human history, just to make things clear it was men that did the necessary work and tackled the incredibly daunting task of taming mother nature.
Thinking back to what our male ancestors must have felt when tasked with understanding the forces of nature, and conquering fire, while fighting off predators, the elements, disease, all the while developing agriculture and animal husbandry and setting up the necessary steps through sheer drive and willpower, to finally beat-back the proverbial jungle. the pressure must have been incredible and yet this was the start of what women view as the patriarchy, the spark of their so called oppression. Meaning that at this critical juncture in human history, just to make things clear it was men that did the necessary work and tackled the incredibly daunting task of taming mother nature.
Surely these men could have used help from their women...and im not talking merely about procreating, im sick of this monopoly women seem to believe they have on childbirth as if its their unique contribution to the human race, as ive just said women may dole out the majority of access to their reproductive ability, and an illusion of excess female contribution due to over-leveraging and price gouging surely exists, but i assure you that the male contribution to the propagation of our species in terms fissile genetic material is just as valuble as its female counterpart.
When all is said and done there cannot be human life without male sperm, if procreation where some manifestation of female divinity like women would have you believe then they wouldn't need something uniquely male to make it happen.. to every female listening to this you are a mere 50 percent of the requisite parts of the propagation of our species, your not helping men to procreate, any more than men are helping you to do the same.
No to be clear men could have used help in the mitigation of danger, and the understanding of the physical world around them they could have used help in the acquisition of food and resources, and more importantly they would have most certainly wanted the help... there was no chivalry and gender favoritism back then our species was to put it simply confronted with what have to had seemed like damn near insurmountable odds, and survival was the number one priority, both genders had the opportunity to carve out civilization, both genders could have contributed to the survival of our species in their own unique and tangible way, yet only one gender stepped up and did what had to be done, one gender proved themselves the other waited around every night for a bunch of proactive battle hardened men to bring home some tusked or fanged beast that they killed with their bare hands in the wilderness, or plucked out of the trees with some spear that they fashioned.
This is to say that when we where nothing but roving bands of hunter gatherers, one gender did the hunting, the gathering, one gender and that same gender while balancing these burdens showed the wherewithal and insight and the observational skills to gather enough information about the world around them, to make it so that the men women and children that constitute the human species wold no longer have to live in a world where these burdens existed. It was on this theatre of war between man and the elements that women would one day fashion their non-existent oppression in order to cover up for the fact that they contributed the minimum amount of effort to making life better for our species.
Lets assume that the total endeavors of both men and women that where beneficial to the quality of life of the human race, could be quantified for the purposes of comparison, what exactly would we arrive at. Well lets go ahead and assume that the vast majority of scientific discovery...practically 100% can be attributed to the endeavors of men, and I think its fair to assume that 50 or 60 percent of the progression of the human species can be attributed to scientific endeavor, possibly even more.. lets attribute 20 percent to actual physical labor, the erection of everything from the first mudhuts to the tallest skyscrapers, all of which where once again provided in the vast majority by men... this leaves the last necessary competent of human progression that of procreation which as ive said is a contribution provided for in equal amounts by both men and women,.
and so what percentage of contribution does that leave women with overall to the betterment of humanity...ten 15 % at best. ?
I know I know im going to get the generic screeching feminist talking about madam curie or some other deflectionary nonsense but we all know the truth, science and innovation has been characterized by male thought since the dawn of civilization and unless you can show me some unknown country or continent brimming with bridges and pyramids, and aqueduct and wifi networks and electricity grids and sewer systems erected by women we all know that what im saying is true. This isnt bragging, or even an attempt to tell women that they are inferior, this is simply a statement of fact that one gender chose to act in a way that eventually bettered and continues to better humanity, and the other has saw fit for the last century to typify this explosion of human innovation and improvement that was the last 2000 years as a prolonged exercise in the oppression of women.. I would tell women they should be ashamed of themselves if I had any evidence that throughout human history they had any capacity for it.
Instead well do a simple thought experiment and put this issue to rest
quick without thinking to much about about think of someone that changed the course of human history for the better...
how many of you regardless of your gender though immediately of a male? be honest.. i know i know the patriarchy made you do it...
No to be clear men could have used help in the mitigation of danger, and the understanding of the physical world around them they could have used help in the acquisition of food and resources, and more importantly they would have most certainly wanted the help... there was no chivalry and gender favoritism back then our species was to put it simply confronted with what have to had seemed like damn near insurmountable odds, and survival was the number one priority, both genders had the opportunity to carve out civilization, both genders could have contributed to the survival of our species in their own unique and tangible way, yet only one gender stepped up and did what had to be done, one gender proved themselves the other waited around every night for a bunch of proactive battle hardened men to bring home some tusked or fanged beast that they killed with their bare hands in the wilderness, or plucked out of the trees with some spear that they fashioned.
This is to say that when we where nothing but roving bands of hunter gatherers, one gender did the hunting, the gathering, one gender and that same gender while balancing these burdens showed the wherewithal and insight and the observational skills to gather enough information about the world around them, to make it so that the men women and children that constitute the human species wold no longer have to live in a world where these burdens existed. It was on this theatre of war between man and the elements that women would one day fashion their non-existent oppression in order to cover up for the fact that they contributed the minimum amount of effort to making life better for our species.
Lets assume that the total endeavors of both men and women that where beneficial to the quality of life of the human race, could be quantified for the purposes of comparison, what exactly would we arrive at. Well lets go ahead and assume that the vast majority of scientific discovery...practically 100% can be attributed to the endeavors of men, and I think its fair to assume that 50 or 60 percent of the progression of the human species can be attributed to scientific endeavor, possibly even more.. lets attribute 20 percent to actual physical labor, the erection of everything from the first mudhuts to the tallest skyscrapers, all of which where once again provided in the vast majority by men... this leaves the last necessary competent of human progression that of procreation which as ive said is a contribution provided for in equal amounts by both men and women,.
and so what percentage of contribution does that leave women with overall to the betterment of humanity...ten 15 % at best. ?
I know I know im going to get the generic screeching feminist talking about madam curie or some other deflectionary nonsense but we all know the truth, science and innovation has been characterized by male thought since the dawn of civilization and unless you can show me some unknown country or continent brimming with bridges and pyramids, and aqueduct and wifi networks and electricity grids and sewer systems erected by women we all know that what im saying is true. This isnt bragging, or even an attempt to tell women that they are inferior, this is simply a statement of fact that one gender chose to act in a way that eventually bettered and continues to better humanity, and the other has saw fit for the last century to typify this explosion of human innovation and improvement that was the last 2000 years as a prolonged exercise in the oppression of women.. I would tell women they should be ashamed of themselves if I had any evidence that throughout human history they had any capacity for it.
Instead well do a simple thought experiment and put this issue to rest
quick without thinking to much about about think of someone that changed the course of human history for the better...
how many of you regardless of your gender though immediately of a male? be honest.. i know i know the patriarchy made you do it...
He's here, he's here, barb's in the house have no fear!
ReplyDeleteWelcome to blogo-space man! And thank you for contributing texts. Your wisdom is just too big to not be allowed to propagate in every form, as opposed to being limited to just video (which doesn't get indexed in searches).
a hit, Sir! a palpable hit. socialdemocrats and their washer women will debate these home truths by attacking the man, as is their wont. best perhaps to run silent and run deep. for you are walking point on a suicide mission.
ReplyDelete