NO MA'AM's Guide To Bird Watching in the Manosphere

.
This is an old version of this article, read the new version here. 
.

Many men love to stroll through the lush forests of the Manosphere, as there is much to see and behold. One can find all sorts of things, from young saplings yearning to reach the open sky, to mighty Sequoias offering a sense of security in their strength, along with respite from the outer heat within the ambience of their shade.
.
As one walks through this unique atmosphere, it is quite common to hear the chirping of several different types of birds. The birds are part of the forest and therefore I would like to provide the following Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere.

.

One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in Church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. “Her home cuisine is delicious,” she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.
.
The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that "he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!" Her song goes something like this: "Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!"

.

The Elusive Wife appears to support men's issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within "The Movement" will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women's every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife's husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.

.

The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men's issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.

.

Another species which may appear is from the genus Mountainous Mammarious. You can tell a Mountainous Mammarious is in your neck of the woods because of her distinctive call, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!"

.

She too fully believes in men's issues, and that's why she plunks her self-described Victoria Secret satin pantied ass (page 9, item C), right in the midst of as many men as she can find. She brightens up the whole board with her cheerful song, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" which is interspersed amongst every comment she makes.

.

She agrees with everything and befriends all. She often provides some useful services to humanity, like informing men of what it is like to grow breasts, menstruate, or have an ovary removed. The only thing she complains about is how uncomfortable it is to always have her lacy, Victoria Secret brassiere straps (page 11, item B) cutting into her back, due to the imbalanced weight proportioned towards her front. You see, she helps men better understand things from a woman's perspective. She flits in and out of blogs and forums, always spreading her good will towards her new found friends, and of course, announcing her arrivals and departures with her cheerful song, "DEE, DEE! DEE, DEE... Dee, Dee... Deeeee, deeeee....”

.

A third species of woman is rather an interesting one which is called Meritorious Mediocrous in Latin. Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within men’s circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus.

.

There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th - but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments.

.

We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something "great" simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his "accomplishments" unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper.

.

The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. It’s like the natural hierarchy of the universe gets turned upside down.

.

The fourth type of bird one may encounter hails from the species of Achievus Consensus. This bird's entire purpose in life seems to revolve around convincing men that they will accomplish absolutely nothing unless they manage to get women onboard. (She might cite examples of how men completely failed to create a civilization because women didn't participate). As absurd as it sounds to an outsider, Achievus Consensus has some kind of magical hypnotism in her song that makes men agree that, indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.

.

Despite her hypnotic melody, however, when one digs deeper down it becomes apparent that while Achievus Consensus knows a few peripheral issues, when push comes to shove she knows nothing of substance. Biologists often argue whether Achievus Consensus is from the greater Cuckoo genus or if she is just a crossbreed of the Elusive Wife and the Meritorious Mediocrus.

.

There is a good case to be made for the crossbreed theory of Achievus Consensus in that she is sometimes very active like the Meritorious Mediocrus while at the same time displaying some traits of the Elusive Wife. She never lets you forget how much she is doing for your benefit while at the same time reminding you that she, and other women, are not all like that.

.

I, however, tend to agree more with the theory that Achievus Consensus is a sub-species of the Cuckoo because of her continual shaming references to what other women, not her, think about our views. The Cuckoo theory is further backed up in that the Achievus Consensus seems stuck on the belief that men somehow have to convince women to let them do want they want. Achievus Consensus talks like men are small children who need to ask Mom's permission to play outside after supper.

.

Now, although I am describing several completely different species here, one should not forget that they are still from the same overall family within the animal kingdom. This reality is starkly revealed when a man dares to challenge one of them. The flocking instinct of these creatures automatically kicks in and they all gather together, descending upon the transgressing man as if in a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds.

.

Of course, men rarely stick up for other men at the best of times, so the offending man is often left outnumbered. Even worse, some of the other men in the near vicinity were lured in by the message of the Elusive Wife, because she always sings of a dream which he once had, but never attained. Other men are still thinking about the Mountainous Mammarious' Victoria Secret satin panties, which he looked up online after she let it "slip" that they were the ones one Page 9, Item C. Several men will have enormous respect for the achievements of Meritorious Mediocrus, thinking those achievements make her above reproach, while others are still in a hypnotic trance from listening to the song of Achievus Consensus, who has been admonishing them to get women onboard so "they can accomplish something."

.

The result?

.

Well, no other man will dare speak up once he sees how all the birds attack, as if eagles plucking at Prometheus' heart, and more, how few of the other men will even try to shoo the eagles away.

.

Soon, all the men are "kept in line" and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.

.

Now, a men’s forum may try to counter this by creating a "sub-forum" that only allows entrance to men, so they can speak freely without concern of offending the women... but, come on now... a few women show up on a men's forum, and that forces all of the men into a private room in the back? How often have we seen that happen in society? I am starting to find forums with too many women on them to be an excellent way to gauge what happens in the greater society when women show up. Once a forum has gotten that far, it is quite literally, for the birds. Society is no different. Have a look at our governments.
.
There are two other types of birds that may appear as well.
.
The first is the much touted Odd Duck. (She is easiest to notice by the characteristics of reading much and talking little). Similarities to her extend well out of the bird family and into other parts of the Animal Kingdom. Take piglets, for example. Every litter of piglets has a runt that is odd. However, it is the other piglets that make the runt to be odd. And so it is with the Odd Duck in the Bird Family. What makes her odd are the other ducks, and how her behaviour is different from the normal behaviour of ducks. Therefore, in no way ought she be classified as an entire species of her own. And thus, I feel justified in talking little more about Odd Ducks.
.
The final bird one will encounter is the Cawing Crow. These birds are hardly a rarity though, and you need not be within the rich splendor of the Manosphere to find them. In fact, these birds are so common that many men report sighting them in their own backyards!

.

There is no beauty in the song of the Cawing Crow. In fact, you downright hate the sound; it's just so damn irritating!

.

Everybody else hates the sound too, and that's why nobody in the Manosphere complains much when you take out that weak, old BB gun which your dad gave you for your 12th birthday and start taking potshots at it.

.

"Ping!"

.

You bounce a BB off the Cawing Crow's tail feathers and she flies away.

.

You would think that would be it, and the Cawing Crow would have learned a lesson... but, alas, what do you hear out your window again tomorrow?

.

"Caw, Caw!"

.

"Damn irritating Cawing Crow," you exclaim, grabbing your BB gun as you rush out the door in your socks.

.

"Pow!" You let off a shot and see a few black feathers erupt into the air as the Cawing Crow takes flight with a stinging in her side.

.

The next day? Sure enough, there’s the Cawing Crow again, irritating you with a song akin to nails on a chalkboard.

.

"Pow! Pow! Pow!"

.

You hit your target with all three, but this time the Cawing Crow does not fly away. She has learned that the BB's won't kill her but will just bounce off her thick feathers, even if they do sting a bit.

.

Soon it becomes almost like a game between you and the Cawing Crow, and she shows up daily knowing full well that she will be greeted by multiple potshots at her. Yet, she keeps showing up, day after day.

.

You have a BBQ one day in the backyard with several of your friends, and they have heard your amazing tale of the Cawing Crow that never goes away - so they each bring their own BB guns along to the BBQ.

.
"Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, PING!" Volleys of shots fly at the Cawing Crow, most hitting their mark, and yet, she still doesn't fly away!

.

Wtf?

.

"What's the point?" one might ask. "You are not accomplishing anything."

.

Well, there is a point. You are becoming one hell of a good shot, and the Cawing Crow has helped you to become skilled at picking off a target with that weak, old BB gun from a considerable distance.

.

Compared to the other birds, the Cawing Crow is at least serving a purpose that is valuable to the MRM. I would rather have ten Cawing Crows than one Elusive Wife, one Mountainous Mammarious, one Meritorious Mediocrus and one Achievus Consensus.

.

At least with the Cawing Crow, you both know where you stand, and after a while you have to grant the Cawing Crow a certain amount of respect, if only strictly for the amount of abuse she is willing to take while still coming back for more.

.

Hey, I never said that the Cawing Crow was the smartest bird, only that you have to respect its temerity to some degree.

.
And this, gentlemen, brings us to the end of our Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. Be sure to keep your ears open for their songs and your eyes sharp to spot their various distinguishing traits, so that you may pass on any sightings to your fellow travelers in the Manosphere.

.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Hootie the MRA Owl and the Cawing Crows

.

.

I chased the cawing crows away with snowballs after a while. Originally there were four cawing crows. One was on the next branch only moments before I took the picture and was cawing in his face from only about a foot away. Hootie was not intimidated and refused to budge! Yo! He did ruffle up his feathers at the crow though... I was hoping to watch him kick some crow ass, but no such luck. Crows are just as bold - and stupid - as your typical feminist.
.


Hootie must have eaten well last night, because the squirrel didn't phase him a bit. I swear, that rodent had an uncanny resemblance to that other squirrelly mangina, Joe Biden.
.


I believe Hootie is a Barred Owl.
The Barred Owl (Strix varia) is a large typical owl. It goes by many other names, including eight hooter, rain owl, wood owl, and striped owl, but is probably known best as the hoot owl.
The usual call is a series of eight accented hoots ending in oo-aw, with a downward pitch at the end. The most common mnemonic device for remembering the call is "Who cooks for you, who cooks for you all."
. 


It's the second time I've seen Hootie sleeping in that tree. Hopefully he becomes a permanent "pet."
.
.
Can't an honest owl get a day's sleep 'round here?
.
Who? Who? Who can leave me alone?
(Hootie stayed there from sun-up to sun-down, and didn't sing for me once. The neighbours must have all thought I had gone crackers though, hearing me run around all day saying, "Who cooks for you? Who cooks for you all?" I hope he returns and sings me a song one day.)

Women and Children

Briffault's Law: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. -- Robert Briffault
.
It has always been this way, and it always will be. Women's ability to empathize with men is similar to a child's ability to empathize with adults. This not to say that women have the intelligence of a child, because that is not what I am saying - just simply that the ability to empathize can be compared to a child's ability to empathize with adults. A child loves its parents, but the child will always be more selfish than the parent. In the same way, a woman can love a man, but her concern will always be more selfish than the man's.
The great social engineers that are committing treason against their own people have recognized this well, and this is why they attacked the relationship between men and women first. The next step is to attack the relationship between women and children, which has a similar working system to that between men and women. This is how the human race works:
.
Men --> Women --> Children (--> Puppies)
.
This is what has happened:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women --> Children
.
This is what is starting to happen, and will continue to happen in the future:
.
Men <-- (pushed away by) Women <-- (pushed away by) Children.
.
And then our social engineers will have done what they aimed to do all the way from the 2nd wave feminists right back to Frederick Engels - destroy the family. Once the family is destroyed, individual humans become quite malleable, and then the social engineers can go about creating Marx's Utopia.
.
Ain't you excited?
.
Women will never feel the compassion for men that men will feel for women. The problem is that men are too stupid to realize that women aren't like men, don't think like men, don't have the same desires as men, and have no desire to try to emulate any of the above. Man perceives woman as he would like her to be, not as she truly is. It's the same way that a woman always perceives her children to be superior and inherently good, even when they aren't. She perceives her chldren as she wishes they were, not as they actually are. Nature gave us some blinders. We have been hoodwinked into thinking men and women are the same. "Gender is a social construct," remember? It's complete hogwash. Women manipulate men in the same that children manipulate women. There is nothing evil or sinister about it, it is just the natural order of things. We are, after all, still of the animal kingdom, and we see all kinds of such manipulations throughout nature and we certainly don't call that "unfair."
.
Also, I don't think that the men in the Middle East have little regard for women. Perhaps the stupid worker drone men do, because they have been indoctrinated to believe so (in much the same silly way that we have been indoctrinated to believe that the ridiculous notion that the sexes are equal in all things). In fact, once one begins to study a little bit of human nature, it becomes obvious that cultures in the Middle East have an enormous fear of women's sexuality and their ability to use it to malign men and society. Kinda similar to how adults have to put their foot down and over-ride a child's desires and not allow themselves to be manipulated by a child's whining and crying as they do everything to get their way. If one lets a child get everything they want, tomorrow they will expect more. The same goes for women. Women are never going to stop demanding men do more and more for them, while offering men less and less in return. Perhaps the Middle East goes too far, and perhaps we don't go far enough.
.
One has to only look at the evolution of the bikini to see that women tend to push, and push, and push until it appears there are no limits at all. Throughout history, civilizations have descended into decadence shortly before their collapse, and then things reset again from a much more misogynist point of view. (That's the facts, as ugly as they sound). It would be a huge leap forward if the human race could sit down and discuss these things fearlessly and rationally, and seek a suitable solution that serves us all (without the help of Slackademia, thank you very much - they have done 90% of the damage, and it's time for these hosers to sit at the back of the bus for a few centuries). Sadly, such notions of rationally discussing things are about as fruitless as discussing with a 5 year old the value of good nutrition, then setting him free in the grocery store and seriously expecting him to bring back Bran Flakes cereal instead of Coco Puffs. Nature rules us, we don't rule it. At best, we can temper it and harness it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Related:
.
Bonecrcker #4 – Immature or Evil?
.
Bonecrcker #98 – Are Women Children or Adults?
.
Letter to His Son – by Lord Chesterfield, 1748

In the Beginning...

No-one really knows how it was in the beginning. We have only speculation and theories. The Truth will likely never be known. Whether we find the Truth or not, has very little bearing on the nature of that Truth itself, for it exists unto itself. It exists completely separate from whether we discover it, or whether we even have the capabilities to find it, and so on.

Absolute Truth exists. It does not need us. We serve it, not the other way around. The Absolute Truth is the beginning and the end. It is never changing. It is what it is. It was here before us, and it will be here after us.

Was there evolution? Was there creation? Was the Genesis story of the Bible a mix of evolution and creation? There are obvious relationships between the stories of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the religions, stories, myths and legends found in cultures outside of Judeo-Christianity. Gilgamesh is one such example. There is little doubt that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah in Genesis 6 are talking of the exact same event – “the Flood”, and some guy floating around with a boat full of animals. The found transcripts of the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the supposed Pentateuch author, Moses (circa 1300BC), by several centuries and it’s believed that stories of Gilgamesh himself predated the writings of him quite significantly, through the oral tradition and so on. There was a real world wide flood too. 12,000 years ago, the Pleistocene Ice age ended, the glaciers melted and ran into the oceans, causing them to rise significantly (some 400ft, I believe). All of those continental shelves… well; they were not underwater during the Pleistocene. In fact, whatever humans there were probably lived on those shelves, as they were nearest to the ocean, where humans choose to live in the largest numbers even today.

I’ve heard of many interesting theories about those days. One that’s intriguing is that since both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon existed on earth for a period together, that perhaps Homo-Sapiens are the hybrid result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbreeding. Some speculate that this may have been the original sin. Or maybe not. We will never know, but there is an answer – an absolute one that is the Truth – and it doesn’t need nor even care whether we figure it out – it exists on a completely separate plane than us.

But, whether Evolution or Creationism; whether Neanderthals bumped uglies with Cro-Magnons; whether merely evolutionary psychology, or alien technology enhancing us with some strands of superior DNA, there is something about the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind which deals directly with the Absolute Truth and its counterpart, the Relative Truth.

Genesis 3 (New International Version)

The Fall of Man

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Footnotes:

a Genesis 3:15 Or seed
b Genesis 3:15 Or strike
c Genesis 3:20 Or The man
d Genesis 3:20 Eve probably means living .
e Genesis 3:24 Or placed in front

The Absolute Truth is God, of course. He is the beginning and the end. He always was and he always will be. He is who He is and does not exist in relation to our plane of existence, but rather, separately from it.

Who then, is the Relative Truth?

Could it be… could it be… Satan?
.
Is “the original sin” the act of allowing our brains to place the Relative Truth before the Absolute Truth?
.
Is this not how Eve was tempted by Satan? Did Satan really lie to Eve, or did he take the Absolute Truth and merely manipulate it? Did he not create Relative Truths to convince Eve to do that which went against the Absolute Truth? His first question, was a sneaky trick question (Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?) And after that, he did not lie, he manipulated the Truth. Did they surely die (no, not right then, and they were offered a chance at eternal life). Did they become like God and know good & evil? Yes… and what did Eve do? She used her mind to justify that certain truths about the fruit were more important in order to enable her to over-ride the Absolute Truth. (It was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desireable for gaining knowledge).

Is this when man “evolved” out of being a mere animal? Is this when man became man? Our brain is our biggest tool – but, it can also be self-destructive. Our brain is “our tool.” It is to man what the ability to fly is to birds, what fins and gills are to fish. It is “our tool of survival.” Is our superior brain the result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons shacking up for the winter in the same cave? Man became “man” when his brain either evolved, or was granted, the ability of reason and the free will to choose. That’s what makes us different than animals. We have a brain which can choose. Animals do not. Animals only do what is in their nature and therefore when animals kill or steal, they are not sinning. They have no free will and are merely following their natures.

A distinct characteristic of Judeo-Christianity is that it is monotheistic.

If Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, and God is the Absolute Truth, then monotheism is also the belief in one truth.

Well, that is perhaps a little simplistic, isn’t it? Of course sometimes there is more than merely “one truth.” There are both Absolute Truths and there are Relative Truths which exist all around us.

“Thou shall not kill”

That is Absolutely True – we should not kill.

But, should you kill if failing to do so will result in your own death? Should you kill to protect your family from danger? Is it justifiable to kill when fighting evil forces in a war? Ahhh… the Relative Truth! Bugger, there it comes!

And this is the power of our brains, isn’t it? It’s the power to ask these questions. That really is the essence of our “tool” called the human brain.

But the brain also has some defects.

One defect is the ability to take the truth, and manipulate it into what we wish to be true for our own purposes.

Take Al Capone. A mass murderer, who felt he was unjustly imprisoned because he was such a humanitarian during the Great Depression by creating soup kitchens and using his accumulated wealth in various ways to give aid to the impoverished people around him. He really did help the poor. Al Capone used the Relative Truth to justify why he repeatedly broke one of the basic laws of humanity – murder. His evil actions were justified because of the good which resulted. Well, justified to himself anyway. Jail is full of innocent people.

Our brains need to be tempered by something bigger than ourselves, in order to maximize the brain’s ability while minimizing its own destructiveness.

The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth. It must be that the Absolute Truth is of more importance than the Relative Truth.

Exodus 20 (New International Version – UK)

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 You shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That serves as the “temper” for our brains. Of course the Relative Truth exists, but when our brains become destructive to ourselves and to society, is when we convince ourselves of that a Relative Truth has become higher in importance than the Absolute Truth.

Our “relative truths” must work within the laws of “absolute truth.”

Our brains might allow the manipulation of the truth to eventually figure out how to fly… but, in order to fly, we must stay within the bounds of certain absolute laws, like gravity.

Another factor which comes from the monotheism of the Bible is that in order for a society to be cohesive, the people must all subscribe to one version of the truth.

Have you ever been on an internet discussion forum? Particularly, one advocating for a social cause? If you have, you’ll know what I mean about how they operate. It’s a jumbled mess. People argue and argue, because everyone subscribes to different truths. There is no “one truth” to subscribe to which unifies all of the commenters to one underlying belief. It results in confusion. Most often the conversation either devolves into nothingness for the sake of getting along, or it blows into bits as the various “truths” compete against eachother. The direction of “the cause” rarely moves forward, but rather neuters itself through disagreement or outright kills itself.

The same goes with societies and cultures. Before Judeo-Christianity, you will find that many of the cultures worshipped many gods. There were fertility gods, war gods, or whatever. And often, the people of those cultures became followers of one god more than another, resulting in the various factions competing against eachother – often to the point of violence.

It matters not to me all those who attempt to discredit the Bible by illustrating relations to paganism or similarities to other religions. I know of much it, and I am truly, deeply fascinated by it. However, possibly the most defining feature of Judeo-Christianity is that it subscribes to the belief in monotheism. One God. One Truth. The Absolute Truth. Is this what has propelled Judeo-Christianity into becoming the most successful of them all? I believe that it is.

The Bible is a blue-print for society. It shows us how a society ought to be formed. It takes away certain Relative Truth arguments which would be destructive, and instead promotes productiveness. The Bible is the Book of Life because it promotes those ideals which cause a civilization to grow, prosper and flourish. Religions/cultures which cannot/do not promote this are ways of death.

The US Founding Fathers subscribed to these ideas as well, based upon the ideals of John Locke. They placed their laws on three levels:

1 – God’s Law
2 – Natural Law
3 – Civil Law

They believed that the lower levels of law must correspond within the rules of the higher ones. The lower laws must work within the bounds of the higher ones. At the top is the Absolute Truth.

The US Founding Fathers used both Deductive Reason (search for Absolutes) and Inductive Reason (Relatives). But they placed them properly upon the ladder of importance.

This notion was challenged when Hegel, in the 19th Century, came up with the Hegelian Dialectic.

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

The inductive reasoning of the Hegelian Dialectic “dethroned” the authority of God as Absolute Truth.

The Hegelian Dialectic allows for the argument of 1 + 1 = 3, or 5, or 105… the truth is relative.

Since “the truth is relative,” who is to say that your idea of truth is any more true than my idea of truth?

It takes away the monotheism of our Judeo-Christian civilization because it places the Relative Truth at the highest level. (In fact, at all levels).

There was a time when our oldest institutions, such as Harvard University, were mandated to be “keepers of the Truth.” They have now evolved, through the Hegelian Dialect, into becoming “changers of the Truth.”

This thought-disease that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected from Paradise is now the ruling thought process in all our educational institutions, our governments & laws, our families, and even our churches. Destruction is beginning to happen. We are separating as a people. The US Founding Fathers based their new system upon the authority of the Bible, and said that “liberty” is based upon the individual willingness to place personal morality on oneself – morality based upon the Bible. In that way, we all follow the same general path and still work together as a unit, and the more we place it upon ourselves to follow the morality illustrated in the Bible, the less need will there be for the government to pass laws against the people to maintain/control unity.

We have rejected Absolute Truth in favour of the Relative Truth.

We are becoming divided as both a civilization and as a people. The foundational building block of our society, the nuclear family, is destructing. Crime is increasing as are psychological problems and suicide. We are not reproducing enough to maintain ourselves as a population – through both unwillingness to do so, and by contracting swaths of sexually transmitted diseases which are directly and alarmingly affecting our infertility rates. Soddom and Gomorrah are truly making a comeback as our civilization is self-destructing, and in but a few more generations, we will become so insignificant that we too will be “wiped from the face of the earth.”

But, no matter what they say, the Absolute Truth still does exist. Whether we can prove it or not, there actually is an answer to questions like “how did the universe get created?” or “where do we come from?”

And, I suspect, we’ll soon be recieving a smack up the back of the head for disobeying a fundamental law, which is: The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth.

To fail to heed such a timeless principle means to walk the Road of Death.

.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Further Reading:

.

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth

.

Rising Up from Being Beasts in the Field

.

The Feminization of Christianity

.

Truth, Truth, Truth… What Is The Truth?

.

A Sexist Commenter Sets Me Straight

Straight out of Gender Stooges 101A, this fembot gives me an education! How many errors can you spot in the following drivel?

---

Anonymous Said:

"Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars. Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims. War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets. Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision. This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits. Women and their children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilian victims. I'm glad that feminism gives women some leverage against violent male insanity. This is why we NEED feminism."
.
---
.
Women have cleaned up the mess left by male violence historically by doing auxillary work and caring to the violent men who participated in wars.

Yes indeed. Certainly all of those bridges and buildings that were brought to rubble were rebuilt by the female workforce. Btw, those "violent men who participated in wars" were told that if they didn't get violent and participate, they would face the certain death of a firing squad. Rushing headlong into a volley of enemy bullets gave them a better chance of survival.

Aside from dealing with war's aftermath, women have suffered twofold as victims.

Of course, men didn't have to deal with war's aftermath, because they all retired to their drawing rooms for a cigar and a port while the female workforce went about rebuilding those bridges. I'm searching for the "twofold" explanation, but I can't see it. Ah, don't worry, Princess, mathematics is an institution set up by men, for the benefit of men. We didn't ever expect you to understand one plus one, and especially not to benefit from it.

War is an institution by and for men, with women and children as readily available targets.

Oh, war is the institution by and for men. That explains the white feather campaign during World War One, where women shamed men into joining the war by giving them a white feather to indicate they thought the man was a coward for not killing and maiming other men. Of course, once these men joined up with the army, their commanding officer's first order was to seek out women and children and shoot them dead. This makes sense, because the women and children were unarmed and couldn't shoot back. It was much safer to specialize in woman and children killing while in the army. Yup, the 101st Women and Children Killers Brigade was the unit where my grandpa served.

Everything in this patriarchy is in the best interests of men, including war, which is a male decision.

Yes indeed. Men working to provide food and shelter for their wives and children was in the primary interest of the man... of course, without all of those mouths to feed, the man would have suffered and died. Lol! Patriarchy is set up for the benefit of women and children, you dope, not the other way around. Patriarchy was set up to force men to be slave workers for their families, who could not survive on their own. Or maybe it was no problem at all for an 8 month pregnant woman with 3 toddlers in tow to plow the field with oxen and plant the corn?

War is in the best interest of men? How so? Because it is cheaper to buy shoes after one of your legs has been blown off? Because the rent is cheaper 6 feet under? Because men love having bullets zinging all around them rather than sitting on the front porch with a cold beer, back at their homes, while watching the womenfolk plough the fields?

And, actually, war is more of a female decision than a male one. Back in the days of the suffragettes, their common cry was, "If women had the vote, there would be no more wars." Well, women now have the vote, and demographically there are more women than men, so women also have the majority of votes (they also vote more)... and who continually votes in the leaders who send men to their deaths in needless wars? Why, the majority of voters, that's who! In fact, after 9/11, women were in as much support of going to war as men... the difference is, though, that the men who supported it also knew, deep down, that they might be called upon to get shot at on the front-lines while the women who supported it knew, deep down, that at the very worst, they would only be called upon to do the safer "auxilliary work" to make up for the shortfall of labour caused by the men who were dying for the extreme benefits of, well, dying.

This is because men generally are violent, competitive, power hungry, and have an obsessive need to control. Women generally do not share these traits.

Holy sexism, batshit insane girl! But I accept your insanity because women generally blame men for everything and take no responsiblities for themselves. One thing where men and women are not equal is the realm of sin, apparently. Women good, men bad. Lol! Women are quite violent, and are responsible for the majority of child abuse. They also instigate and perpetrate an equal amount of DV against their partners. But, what is really amazing, is how DV between lesbian couples skyrockets through the roof, higher than in any other demographic on earth. But, don't worry, I am sure you lesbo fembots will soon figure out a way to blame men for female on female violence too.

Men are generally competitive, while women are not? You go, grrrrl! Women are in complete competition with men on every level of society, thanks to psychotic feminism, and they revel in it like children in a playground. Women are even trying to be better men than men are. Who is calling who competitive, you sexist piglet.

Power hungry? Feminism is all about grabbing power and making it female only. Lol! Hey, have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton? Now there is one power hungry gringa, eh? She also threatened to obliterate Iran during her campaign... but, of course, only after the Pentagon would develop a bomb that could only kill the worthless men, while leaving the women and children completely unharmed. Surely Hillary didn't mean she would blow all the little Iranian women and children to bits along with the men. A woman would never be capable of such horrific things. Hillary must be a man in drag.

Obsessive need to control? Lol! You have obviously never been married to a woman, nor dated one, nor even spoken to one.

Btw, the most sexist notion that exists in our society is that only one gender is capable of sexism. .
Women and children have also died in greater numbers as victims of wars than men ever have. Not to mention those who are raped and maimed as civilians.

First off, are women children? If they are not, then why do women keep saying "women and children?" Does this not imply that women are on the same level as children? How about women start standing up and as women alone, rather than insinuating they are deserving of the unearned sympathy that is usually afforded only to children who don't know any better.

This is a silly ploy used all the time to get extra sympathy for women, where none is deserved.

For example: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were women and children," could also just as easily (and accurately) be said as: "A bomb went off in a downtown square today, killing 42 people. The majority of the victims were men and children."

But, I guess only men want to be thought of as adults. Fine, we shall treat women like children if they keep insisting they are children.

Now, as to your ludicrous claim that women and children have died in greater numbers as victims of war than men ever have... I am just speechless that women come in models as incredibly stupid as you! Do you even think before your lips start flapping?

Yes indeed, all of those white crosses at Normandy are for the men who were victims of war... but, there is a field three times larger than that just down the lane where all the women and children are buried... but, because women and children are completely worthless to men, they were buried in mass, unmarked graves.

How fucking stupid can you get?

This is what happens when "feminist math" rules the day.

You, madam, are the very reason that society was likely so misogynist in the past. With logic like yours, mixed in with the rampant and angry sexism typical of most women, allowing people like you to have any involvement in running a society most likely was so poisonous to said society, that the concept was just abolished.

I hope that if the need ever arises again for men to take up arms to defend their nation, they all remember the ungrateful little bitches like this douchebag commenter, and go fishing instead. Let these strong powerful women defend themselves, because quite frankly, I wouldn't risk one hair on my head to defend such ignorant, malicious and spiteful bitches, nor the society that condones this sickening hatred of men.

Society needs feminism about as much as it needs the opinions of dopes like this woman.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." -- Hillary Clinton

.

.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is true that women are lazy, but they are always ready to do harm. An evil woman just gets worse, becoming even more evil and wicked. It would take far too long for me to tell you everything about them, so for brevity's sake I shan't. Woman is not wise in this respect, for in her eagerness to do harm she only brings about her own ruin. According to the law, as I understand it, woman is not rational, nor does her love reside deep in her heart, but is there on her gaze for everyone to see. She entrusts her honour openly to her eyes, yet they can't help but fail to protect it, since folly animates her gaze. With all her words, her chatter, and her talk, she could break a heart of glass; all her actions are stupid and foolish. Woman can do no good, indeed, goodness is destroyed and obliterated by her. Many a war is begun by women and many a murder committed throughout the world; castles are burned and ransacked and the poor made destitute. As every man and woman knows, there isn't one war in a thousand that isn't started by a woman and by her sowing of discord. She is the mother of all calamities; all evil and all madness stem from her. Her sting is more venomous than a snake's; there isn't anyone who has anything to do with her who doesn't live to regret it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Bonecrker #12 – The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century

Man Superior to Woman - Chapter Four

A Woman's Right to Choose

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"

.

Answer:

I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

That is fourteen choices a woman has regarding her "right to choose."

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.

I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most uninformed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay. Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman sold her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as payment for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's property.

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joyriding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!

You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.

But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility. (Although, the corrupt courts have been changing this too, and the move is on to make anonymous sperm donors financially liable for her offspring as well.)

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they are toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:

Rant Against the CSA

Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman Who Decides to Have a Baby?

How To End Domestic Abuse

"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?"

Answer:

Yes!

In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.

I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.

I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?

Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.

I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.

I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of MRA’s who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?

I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!

Why, oh why am I paid so little?

Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?

Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”

Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.

Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?

Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?

If someone were to, say, threaten to "pound something into my thick skull," can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?

Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?

We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.

Abracadabra!

Poof!

Gone!

I’ll send the government my bill.

And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!

Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?

Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.

Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.

It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.

But, some people are still speeding.

What to do, what to do?

Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!

“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.

“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”

So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.

But still, someone will speed, somewhere.

I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.

And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.

There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.

And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.

This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.

People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.

The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.

Marxists are evil idiots.

Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.

Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.

Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.

Who do we ask?

We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.

These kinds of people are our “experts.”

And, what do our “experts” recommend?

Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.

That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!

“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”

It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!

You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.

They believe they can prevent this:

By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:

Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.

You see, 100% of the population at 50% capacity equals 50%.

But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.

A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.

Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”

Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.

It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!

We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.

And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.

End the Abuse Industry NOW!

It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.

"Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

The Almighty, All Encompassing Power of the Pussy

Quote: “Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. ...”

While this is true it is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not for over a century. What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.
.


“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)

So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.

Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.

Think of it like the typical herd of animals. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.

Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).

So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power and would be replaced by another that females felt was more suitable.

Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain it rather well:

Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of

Philalethes #23 – Who’s to Blame?

----------

Quote: "WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? Men make civilization AND society. The only society that [women] make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge."

Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. One thing which he discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.

It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.

This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women.

Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same.

Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.

I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical things you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???

It is not only Philalethes and me who argue this, btw.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

"Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs" — Immanuel Kant

"But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same." -- The Politics of Aristotle

As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between “society” and “civilization.” Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.

To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.

P.S. Here's a series of relevant articles from The Men’s Tribune.

The Atom

The Methods of Women

The Balance of Power

The Feminist Totalitarian State

------------

Quote: Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!

So I went back and read your comment [and it] seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.

I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.

Are you saying that ... stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”

If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).

Yes, I agree.

This is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less. It must be doubly so for women who are ruled by emotion/passion more so than men. Thus for a woman, even when she wins she loses. (While she tries to overpower the male through her wiles, she is ultimately dissatisfied with the types of males she successfully overpowers. Ah, hypergamy!) A life ruled by passion leads to short-term gratification but long-term suffering. Men are also ruled by passion but theirs is slightly more tempered by reason than women’s, which leads to one of the causes for Patriarchal societies placing the man in charge. (ie. It is “anti-animal”, just like so much of the rest of the universal moral code: Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your father and mother etc. etc – all things that are “anti-nature” and thus represent man “rising up from being a beast of the field” through his own ability to consciously reason why he should resist behaving like an animal and rather choosing a better, more rational way).

The Proprietor of Pussy, the Vanquisher of Vicarious Vaginal Vagueness, aka Roissy himself, alludes to a similar train of thought in his Sixteen Commandments of Poon:

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
"Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."

IV. Don’t play by her rules
"If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.".

XV. Maintain your state control
"You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her."

While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.



“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002

One of the problems we have is that ”what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever-changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.

If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females. (Women become more submissive relative to the safety of society – think of a man & woman living in a cave, hearing a bump outside – the man will be the one sent out to investigate and if she follows him it all, it will be behind him, peering over his shoulder & using him as a shield. The safer society is, the more confident she is to march out without her shield – the less she “needs a man”).

Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):

In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female-only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with competing species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male. As we often assert in the MRM, males have greater ability to adapt than females. A female-only species can only survive in a static and safe environment. As soon as elements of adversity are introduced, species with two sexes fast out-evolve single sex species and render them extinct. As is often said in the MRM, males will survive better because of our innate ability to adapt.

This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I explained this general concept in this piece titled Male and Female: Equal But Different

Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.

Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.

So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the female's genes, not the male's. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a superb comment by Rollo Tomassi (comment #33) that encompasses the theme of this concept so perfectly, that I simply had to reproduce it as an add-on to this already lengthy piece:

Simon, the Matrix has you.
.
Men, such as yourself, accept as normal expectations of themselves as men is uniquely defined by a feminine imperative. What I think eludes most men (even self-aware Alphas) is that our most deeply internalized expectations and desires, and how we go about actualizing them, are primarily rooted in what best serves the feminine imperative. What we perceive as “doing the right thing” is almost universally reinforcing of feminine primacy.

For example, I took issue with Kay Hymowitz here, who’s shit you’re essentially parroting.

Her frustration with these so called “boy-men” wasn’t over a concern for men needing to improve themselves, but rather a disappointment that they were deliberately shirking their responsibilities to the female imperative – essentially “manning-up” and providing for a wife and family. I even confronted her on this on a live Q&A chat she held. Her answers were a testament to female solipsism. While any and every woman should be empowered to “have it all” – career, family, husband, etc. and be equally respected to choose any or none of the above, men in the Matrix of the feminine imperative, to even be called men, must be facilitators of her choices. Men, in her terms, must want to better themselves in order to satisfy a global female centric reality. So solipsistic is the female imperative that it’s a totally alien experience for women to propose that perhaps we should respect men’s choice not to participate in it. We’re expected to respect, even champion, a woman who breaks out of the mold of traditional gender expectations, but not men. That man must be shamed and ridiculed as ‘shallow’, selfish and immature BECAUSE he wont acquiesce to that feminine reality. The feminine imperative has built such a complex social structure for men to participate in that it cannot risk them becoming self-aware. Men in this Matrix must be conditioned from birth to normalize what is best for the feminine. Even at the expense of his own life.

So while you may be correct in your assessment that men should in fact be more apt to better themselves, your ultimate purpose of appeasing the feminine for your own benefit is gravely flawed.

-------------

Comment #90 -- by Rollo Tomassi

The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.

Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.

ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.” -- Esther Villar, The Manipulated Man
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

If I Only Had a V -- by Angry Harry

Five Stars ***** Woman (An Exposition for the Advanced Mind) -- by David Quinn