It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Misandry Bubble

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
IT is quite a good article, several pages long, but an enlightening Read.

www.singularity2050.com...


Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant home prices and wage stagnation, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the utter decimation of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?


Questions, Comments, Etc... (The article is not mine, But I will debate the topic, and answer questions regarding it.)

-Edrick




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Randomized breeding in the form of monogamy does not produce any improvement in the species. It is a political institution designed to produce stability. Women want the best genes, those of the Alpha male for their children, not monogamy.
The author thinks it is an economic problem that is ruining monogamy and marriage.
Really what the author of this article is complaining about is his Narcissism. He feels that the lower male is being denied his right to father children. There is no such right.
But from a rational genetic point of view only the very top of the Alpha males perhaps only 1 percent should father the children. This would lead to an increase in abilities of the offspring,IQ,health,talent,looks,etc. This is now a very simply procedure with sperm banks.

If Men could give up their Narcissism , monogamy with 1 percent Alpha male genetic children could produce what the politically problematic polygamy does in a lesser way. The men get a monogamous wife and the women get Alpha genes for their children.

The great attraction of the Muslim religion to the elite rich (NWO) will be polygamy. If the Muslims can win over the alpha males by way of polygamy then a new Muslim Caliphate is likely. Along with it will come all the trappings of religious terrorism.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


Look.... if you are not going to even bother to read the article, please refrain from commenting about it.

(Second line is well read)

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


Look.... if you are not going to even bother to read the article, please refrain from commenting about it.

(Second line is well read)

-Edrick


"Why does it seem that American society is in decline,"

American society is in decline. The average IQ of americans is about 97. The average IQ of China or Japan is perhaps 107.
The practice of luxury sterilization, where richer and smarter people have less children so as to have more luxuries,including free time, while poorer dumber people have more children, is resulting in a declining IQ of the population.

I thought the quoted passage was quite interesting.

The authors belief is that a return to the monogamous family unit will solve societies problems. Yet he admits monogamy is the result of religious and societal pressures as women want to have children sired by the alpha male. He claims monogamy produces a better economic society. However polygamy has been practiced my many societies throughout history.
Even if monogamy made the beta male more productive a declining IQ will eventually destroy society. Instead of forcing women to marry beta males, it would be genetically easier to simply breed more alpha males. The Narcissist of course will reject this idea.


The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context. Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This double standard has invisible but major costs to society. To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, and thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'. All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I haven't gotten all the way through the article yet but I firmly believe that the American male is being feminized to the point that the fashion of young males is to drop their pants down below their hips and just barely cover their butts/underwear with a long shirt...I believe that before too long some idiot will simply buy a shirt that goes down to his knees and he'll do away with his pants entirely...and thus will be born the "man's dress" and the feminization of the American male will be complete.

Thanks for pointing out the article.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
if you read the entire article and felt that the post was factual you were agreeing with the posters opinions substantiated by facts that have no relation.

karma and dharma are always right as is time; the outcome f your choices affects only your generation.

on topic

the post mentions little in regard to the hatred of men and more to the changes of what a man is perceived to be.further why is it inappropriate of necessary for there to be a union and works done from such for society to feel apt;further it is impossible to conceive such union, this union is america.

i found the subject matter in the post(linked in OP) confusing intentionally to the truth of my current life standards.

if i comprehend all that i read the creator of the post is suggesting the bubble of hatred towards man/masculinity? is about to pop or is beginning to become within the next few years; towards the end of his post his subject matter seemed positive regarding being a man.the last few portions of his post express what i find the thread about moreso; marriage being a union that is natively successful for peoples who are not natively american, thus their culture beyond marriage being a primary factor.anyone with a different culture than what is prevalent in america who comes to america is instantly successful in capitalism, with the only stumbling blocks being the resistance from natives.there have never been a union between man and woman that has existed in the fashion the the op intends to portray marriage existing as; and this is observance of 5 generations before my generation.

if america continues to accept all bodies as americans then people who dont have an american culture base who come to america are not going to have resistance like the people who are americans that attempt success; im sure if the way was there for americans to go to other countries they would be deemed as successful in the relative views of such for other nations. americas capitol issues stem from similar dichotomy regarding capitol and a desire for old timer americans to nonsupport the system of capitol itself.


any foreigner can come to america and in 1 generation achieve what for many generations of americans hope to attain.this is making the goal liquid and insoluble; if america was a khemmystery problem that would mean the wealth of america is in the hands of other nations and vice verse.so i take with a grain of salt this foreigner has to say about america, though i know iodine is "necessary" for the body and flavor good for food; his words are potent in context of his being only.

to be interpreted as current english



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 



He claims monogamy produces a better economic society. However polygamy has been practiced my many societies throughout history.


Yes, and so has economic Turmoil, and national Stagnation.


Even if monogamy made the beta male more productive a declining IQ will eventually destroy society.


This is true, but to make the false assumption that "Alpha" and "Intelligent" are synonymous is a mistake.

In this society, those who succeed are not the most intelligent, but the most likely to take advantage of their fellow man.

Do you think that The big investment firms are Wealthy because they are intelligent, or because they bribe or government to change laws in their favor?


Instead of forcing women to marry beta males, it would be genetically easier to simply breed more alpha males.


And I suppose that you think that one man and one woman can repopulate the entire species with no mutations caused by inbreeding...

Secondly... why should the vast majority of males (The Beta's) work for society, if society gives them nothing in return?

Alphas do not Farm, they do not build, they do not PRODUCE anything useful for society.

A world without Beta's, is a world without civilization.


The Narcissist of course will reject this idea.


You seem to be obsessed with the word Narcissist...

Furthermore, you believe that Society is entitled to the productive output of All males, without compensation.

You are not arguing for a more stable society... you are arguing for Slavery of Men.


@Ausar

further why is it inappropriate of necessary for there to be a union and works done from such for society to feel apt;


I'm not sure if this is a question, as it seems to be phrased in an ambiguous way...

Let me answer your question with another question:

Why should a man work to better a society that he has been shunned from participation in?


if i comprehend all that i read the creator of the post is suggesting the bubble of hatred towards man/masculinity? is about to pop or is beginning to become within the next few years; towards the end of his post his subject matter seemed positive regarding being a man.the last few portions of his post express what i find the thread about moreso; marriage being a union that is natively successful for peoples who are not natively american, thus their culture beyond marriage being a primary factor.


The author's point is that Stable marriages are necessary for society, and that every society that has deviated from this pattern has failed, and been completely destroyed, or subsumed.


anyone with a different culture than what is prevalent in america who comes to america is instantly successful in capitalism, with the only stumbling blocks being the resistance from natives.


This is not necessarily the case.

Most who come to America live in the lower echelons of society.

Very few advance to the upper rungs.

Regardless, though... it is the agregate of a society that produces the society, not the one exception that disproves the rule.


there have never been a union between man and woman that has existed in the fashion the the op intends to portray marriage existing as; and this is observance of 5 generations before my generation.


This, however is a patently false statement.

Marriage has always been sheltered by society as important TO society.

Stretching back to the dawn of time, to the beginning of recorded history.

Seriously.... i'm not sure what would even compel you to make this statement.

... On second thought... I'm not going to respond to you further...


I don't think that your post is even.... coherent.


-Edrick



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


"You are not arguing for a more stable society... you are arguing for Slavery of Men."

Actually I am arguing for Eugenics as opposed to random breeding, or non breeding as is the case of luxury sterilization. In 5 or 10 generations eugenics can create a super race of multi talented geniuses simply by breeding the top few percent of men to the rest of women. Each man gets a woman, yet the women get the best genes.
A society of people of much higher intelligence might be a better one. At least it would be worth trying out. We know what a society of lower intelligence looks like;poverty, anarchy,tribalism,etc.

As long as traits of people are distributed along the current bell curve, the top few percent will dominate and thus make virtual slaves of the rest.

I would describe Alpha males as being Third Chakra people. They perceive life as a power struggle. They live in their head,and they are not emotional,like Mr.Spock. Most people live from the Second Chakra, which is about sex. Apha males like confronting other people, while second chakra people do not. Those who are not Alpha either follow them or dislike them.

Those who make the most money or achieve the highest rank are both intelligent and alpha. Dumb alphas end up in prison. But intelligence is does not make one alpha. It may make one a pseudo alpha.

The average person actually worships the high Alphas(the rich and powerful). In this way they dream of becoming like them. That is one reason we are led by them and why they make those huge salaries.

It is a paradox that those who produce the least get the biggest paychecks. The CEO of HomeDepot was given 1/4 billion dollars to not show up and just retire.

Those with lesser IQs and lesser abilities will always be the virtual slave of those with greater IQs. The only way to create an equal society is to create equal people with eugenics. If everyone had a genius IQ a person trying to dominant the rest would get his head handed to him in short order.

The Ego Self is simply Narcissus endlessly meditating upon his own reflection. It is the action of separating oneself from oneself. When one realizes this and spontaneously abandons it one may realize ones real nature which is God. See the links below,take the red pill.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
thats cool dont reply;

the ideal is what is necessary for society as america is based on such; a physical union has never existed in my family that was identical to the ideal expressed.

a man does what he wants; does me doing what i want make you feel content as a member of some society you choose to include me in?

the author has no point of reference other than being what he claims as american and alien; and "male".his supports have substance from the point of view of a foreigner and not a member of the society he creates imaginarily.

lets say society is what you deem as functioning that provides you the experience of others; why is america included in this "society"? america is an ideal placed on paper and further fabricated in force, based on a society.people who are marrying now in other lands are successful nations because of the bond of marriage?and you expect me to believe america is a superpower because of the bond of marriage?if lands are only stable when there is a bond between man and woman; then the stability from this union is the standard of stable?what society has failed?name one society that is not in existence today that was in existence the day prior.actually to assume anyone who comes to america is in some form of echelon is amusing; capitalism and america is open to all and when you come to america there is no echelon you enter into; its not a caste based society like your linked authors india.and what are these upper rungs you speak of pertaining america there is no such thing.for a true american any foriegner who comes to america is greeted with success and is respected at the highest level.the last quote you attempt to use as a refutation is personal experience i knew my great great grandmother and all the descending mothers after, and i know the men in my generation by way of knowledge as far back as five generations marriage has not been the capstone you attempt to make it.maybe sex and the knowledge and respect that comes from its interaction, but none of the past 5 generations of peoples within this land you call america had "marriage" in the guise of ideal that the OP author claim it necessary to have been.

maybe if i lived in a third world where women were property and viewed as assets, then just maybe marriage would be important for a man in this america i know, in my generation. im not indian and my generation has been west longer than 5 generations and were black and didnt come from africa that you know today.even the studies of my family beyond the scope of my lifes existence, which has been 5 generations of life prior, conclude me to believe this guy is blowin hot air either for the cost of dowries, the fact hes too poor in his country to have multiple wives, the fact that his own land is overpopulated with his own cousins he doesn't want to commit taboo, or he just doesn't want to play the "america" game with the local ladies and is not content with the reality of life that is.


either way he doesn't say anything that is of importance to me. how about we stop creating more personalities within the ideal of america and give the ideal more powers, that sounds like more of a solution to issues in america than some false idea that i have to engage in another false union and create another fictional entity called marriage to make america successful.

i mean if at the end of his thread he leaves with a threat of leaving the union he entered he is truly blessed and should not have been welcome to come within my home in the first place.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 



Actually I am arguing for Eugenics as opposed to random breeding, or non breeding as is the case of luxury sterilization. In 5 or 10 generations eugenics can create a super race of multi talented geniuses simply by breeding the top few percent of men to the rest of women.


No, you see you are very wrong.

All throughout history, up until very recently, human society has been what you would call a "Eugenic" society... in which the "Alpha" males get most of the breeding rights, all women have children, and most men (Beta's) do not reproduce, nor produce.

This did not spur civilization until various religions began enforcing "Monogomous" relationships, and denigrating the more instinctual breeding practices.

Civilization is the act of "Civilizing" men and women.

Instincts are not "Civilized" as they are fit for a very different environment than our society.

Polygamy and Hypergamy are the default instinctual behaviours for men and women, but they are no longer applicable for society.

Society depends upon the aggregate population putting forth effort, for the common good of society.

That being, men producing more than they need to survive, in order to produce for their mate and offspring, and also to make the environment that their offspring will live in better for our species as a whole.

Thus being, if there is no incentive for all men to produce more than they need (Offspring)... Then they *WILL NOT*

What you are presuming, is that most men will happily slave away to create a better society for other peoples children, when they themselves are resigned to have none.

This is not only naive, but patently foolish.

Or, perhaps I should say... Puerile.


As long as traits of people are distributed along the current bell curve, the top few percent will dominate and thus make virtual slaves of the rest.


What you are failing to realize is that this is not so.

How many kingdoms of hereditary "Alphas" have been overthrown by the "Proles" due to the fact that they *WERE* being made slaves of by the Elite?

It happens all the time, and in fact it happens SO OFTEN, that I will not bother listing a single example.

IT does not matter how "Superior" a group is... The bottom 98% will utterly CRUSH the top 2% by sheer numbers, or simply by non-compliance.

The logistics of an Elite tyranny is impossible to pull off.


I would describe Alpha males as being Third Chakra people. They perceive life as a power struggle.


Yes, and this is precisely the problem.

Society itself is not a power struggle, it is a cooperative effect.... IN EFFECT, society is at the very least 4th, if not 5th and 6th chakra.

Society REQUIRES cooperation for mutual benefit, or it will NOT EXIST.

PERIOD.


The average person actually worships the high Alphas(the rich and powerful). In this way they dream of becoming like them. That is one reason we are led by them and why they make those huge salaries.


Most high wealth in this world is hereditary...

It has nothing to do with ability... it has to do with the Ability of your ancestors... ad in addition, the ability of the "Wealthy" to preform illegal actions to keep their power.

The REASON that we have laws, is because certain actions are detrimental to the very fabric of society.

When we have Wealthy people structuring society to benefit them, as opposed to the masses, they inevitable remove all incentive for the "Masses" to actually *PARTICIPATE* in society, and thus, their "Power Struggle" is inherently SELF DEFEATING.


Those with lesser IQs and lesser abilities will always be the virtual slave of those with greater IQs. The only way to create an equal society is to create equal people with eugenics.


I don't think you quite understand what LIFE is...


Diversity is the key to advancement, and survivability.

A homogeneous population that springs from a VERY SMALL gene pool, (However "Alpha" that gene pool is) is subject to deterioration, and sublimation.


The Ego Self is simply Narcissus endlessly meditating upon his own reflection. It is the action of separating oneself from oneself. When one realizes this and spontaneously abandons it one may realize ones real nature which is God. See the links below,take the red pill.


You are using philosophy and psychology to attempt to justify your own genocidal fantasies...

This makes me think that YOU are having MASSIVE Ego problems.

Maybe you should reflect upon this.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Ok, thanks for expanding upon your thoughts, I can understand your point now.


the ideal is what is necessary for society as america is based on such; a physical union has never existed in my family that was identical to the ideal expressed.


Well, this may be true, but your individual experiences has VERY LITTLE effect upon the aggregate of the human reality.


a man does what he wants; does me doing what i want make you feel content as a member of some society you choose to include me in?


freedom does not mean the ability do do whatever you want.

This would be the assumption that you are free to kill someone in cold blood, "Because you want to"

And this is patently false.

Society is cooperative, in that the only reason that we HAVE society, is because we can achieve much more TOGETHER, than separate.

Such being, that there are certain RESPONSIBILITIES that we must take upon ourselves to make sure that we do not DESTROY the very society that we depend upon for our continued survival.

Hypergamy, and Polygamy are necessarily destructive to society.


the author has no point of reference other than being what he claims as american and alien; and "male".his supports have substance from the point of view of a foreigner and not a member of the society he creates imaginarily.


This borders on an Ad Homenim... the Authors "Traits" have absolutely no bearing upon his point.


lets say society is what you deem as functioning that provides you the experience of others; why is america included in this "society"? america is an ideal placed on paper and further fabricated in force, based on a society.people who are marrying now in other lands are successful nations because of the bond of marriage?


Society itself is based upon Mutual Cooperation.

That we will all put in effort Above and Beyond what is necessary for our own survival, to provide an increasing "Standard of Living" to all.

This standard of living cannot be presumed to be automatic... we must CONTRIBUTE to maintain and increase this standard of living, else it fails.

Marriage (Monogomy) facilitates this, in that Knowledge of paternity (Genetic reproduction) gives men the MOTIVATION to produce to make the "Standard of Living" better for their children.

This is one of the reasons that we pay taxes... because we want a world that our children have a better chance in that we currently have.

Without this ensentive, most men would not produce... and those few men who DID reproduce, would not produce either... them being too busy making children with multiple mates.

Thus, society would completely collapse, and the current "Alphas" whose "Superiority" is based INSIDE the very system that they are DESTROYING will no longer be *RELEVANT*


if lands are only stable when there is a bond between man and woman; then the stability from this union is the standard of stable?what society has failed?



Family Values in Ancient Rome - fathom.lib.uchicago.edu...
The Romans had their own evolutionary story about family mores, and it had nothing to do with the invention of affection, which they took to be natural and eternal in the family. However, their story did contain elements of the decline of paternal authority and the stable family. Roman authors--all men--often lamented that in the late Republic wives no longer played the ideal role that they had fulfilled for centuries. According to the Roman writers of the first century BCE and first century CE, divorce became increasingly frequent after 200 BCE, initiated easily by the husband or the wife. In addition, wives had their own property, which they could sell, give away or bequeath as they liked. As a result, women became more liberated and less dependent on their husbands. In fact, by the late Republic a rich wife who could divorce and take her wealth with her had a real threat against her husband and could wield influence over him. The sense of independence also showed up in increasing sexual promiscuity and adultery.

Roman men deplored the fact that these rich women were more concerned with their own figures and luxuries than with their families. Unlike the good, old-time matrons, according to the historian Tacitus around 100 CE, these modern women did not spend time with their children and did not nurse their infants but left them to slave wet nurses. Furthermore, children were handed over to be raised by child-minders, usually the most useless slaves of the household.



actually to assume anyone who comes to america is in some form of echelon is amusing; capitalism and america is open to all and when you come to america there is no echelon you enter into; its not a caste based society like your linked authors india.and what are these upper rungs you speak of pertaining america there is no such thing.


I am speaking of *FINANCIAL* echelons.

and you KNOW that those exist.


for a true american any foriegner who comes to america is greeted with success and is respected at the highest level.the last quote you attempt to use as a refutation is personal experience i knew my great great grandmother and all the descending mothers after, and i know the men in my generation by way of knowledge as far back as five generations marriage has not been the capstone you attempt to make it.


Regardless... Successful pair bonding is the foundation of any successful civilization.


maybe sex and the knowledge and respect that comes from its interaction, but none of the past 5 generations of peoples within this land you call america had "marriage" in the guise of ideal that the OP author claim it necessary to have been.


I'm not sure how you can even say this...

Are you attempting to state that marriage was NOT the norm prior to 1950 in America?


or he just doesn't want to play the "america" game with the local ladies and is not content with the reality of life that is.


Do you really think that "Civilization" and the reproduction that is REQUIRED for society is just... "A GAME"?

Seriously?


either way he doesn't say anything that is of importance to me. how about we stop creating more personalities within the ideal of america and give the ideal more powers, that sounds like more of a solution to issues in america than some false idea that i have to engage in another false union and create another fictional entity called marriage to make america successful.


I can understand your point here...

Marriage in its current form is merely a legal entity that enables the government total control over your relationships, and thus, is inherently destructive.

The "Marriage" that the author was alluding to is *NOT* to be confused with what we know of marriage today.

Marriage of yesteryear had less "Legal" weight, and more "Social" weight.

If you know what I mean.


i mean if at the end of his thread he leaves with a threat of leaving the union he entered he is truly blessed and should not have been welcome to come within my home in the first place.



I got a good retort for you there....


Q: What do you call a City with no people?







A: Ruins.


-Edrick



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The original tribalism with sharing was socialism. As society grew larger the elite rich in power created a caste system,feudalism,or outright slavery. Civilization is essentially capitalist slavery. The affluent middle class with rights is a modern phenomena of the industrial age.
I do not have the facts regarding monogamy breeding versus polygamy versus hypergamous breeding. I believe that due to prevailing poverty monogamy was the main form of breeding for the past 5,000 years. It would be expensive to have many wives and only a few could afford it.

Polygamy is still applicable. It is practiced to some degree in the Muslim world. And the rich commonly have mistresses.
The christian church enforced monogamy yet for a thousand years Europe was in the dark ages.

First if you believe that IQ,talent,health,looks,are hereditary than Eugenics makes sense. If you believe in Osmosis and the Stork then it doesnt make sense. Narcissus will not believe in the obvious facts of hereditary ,despite the fact that humans have been using EUGENICS to breed every plant and animal they have come in contact with for the past ten thousand years.

If you dont believe in hereditary you will never accept my point. You will wait for the Borg or some Alien to improve the human condition.

"What you are presuming, is that most men will happily slave away to create a better society for other peoples children, when they themselves are resigned to have none.
This is not only naive, but patently foolish.
Or, perhaps I should say... Puerile."


I dont presume that at all. Most men are Narcissus. If they had an IQ of 70 and a several hereditary diseases they would rather father their own child then raise one fathered through AI. Even the lobster lady wanted her own children. Humans are pathetically selfish. Midgets want to have more midgets despite the fact it is a dominant lethal condition.

Alpha Kings have ruled humans for the past ten thousand years. Kings are overthrown usually by insiders seeking power. Feudalism lasted a thousand or more years. The roman empire 500. America has been ruled by the NWO since the beginning. The PEople have never ruled ,they have always been led. Civilization has always been about slavery and warfare, which mostly benefit the elite rich not the common person.

Where wealth is hereditary power is hereditary.-Locke. To end the rule of the elite rich you must end hereditary wealth, yet the common pauper lying in the gutter would not agree to that because they worship money and the rich. The communists did end the rich only to be ruled by a dictator king,Lenin,then stalin.

"A homogeneous population that springs from a VERY SMALL gene pool, (However "Alpha" that gene pool is) is subject to deterioration, and sublimation."
Breeding the top 1 percent of males to the rest of the females doesnt create a small gene pool.

"You are using philosophy and psychology to attempt to justify your own genocidal fantasies..."

To equate eugencis with genocide is the same as equating it with Hitler.
Nobody dies from good breeding. If it works with plants and animals it will work with humans who are animals. If you are satisfied with the nature of the human race that is good for you. I invoke Godwins rule and win the argument.


"Society itself is not a power struggle, it is a cooperative effect.... IN EFFECT, society is at the very least 4th, if not 5th and 6th chakra."

Society presently is a class war. You dont know what the 4th ,and 5th chakras are about. There are almost no people in society that have mastered the 4th chakra,the Heart, and maybe a handful that have mastered the 5th chakra,yogic powers. Spirituality is all about sacrifice of self attention, which is anathema to Narcissus.


I studied for a time with an enlightened being, 7th chakra. I experienced him opening my 4th chakra, it was very profound , but it didnt last.
From my studying the subject of spirituality and enlightenment for 45 years I have concluded that it is not result of effort but something else. Perhaps just rare brain genetics. Most enlightened beings have been male Indians. Even studying with an enlightened being everyday for 30 years wont make you enlightened.

I dont know what your point is. Do you think making women second class citizens will make society better? Do you think we should go back to the victorian age, or previctorian, or perhaps feudal?

I think we need a big change in the nature of humans. We need to help evolution along.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 



Polygamy is still applicable. It is practiced to some degree in the Muslim world. And the rich commonly have mistresses.
The christian church enforced monogamy yet for a thousand years Europe was in the dark ages.


You are misunderstanding my point...

I am arguing against serial promiscuity, and arguing FOR monogamy, as the latter is more beneficial to society, and the former is detrimental to it.


First if you believe that IQ,talent,health,looks,are hereditary than Eugenics makes sense. If you believe in Osmosis and the Stork then it doesnt make sense.


Do not belittle my arguments in this fashion, it only shows how weak your argument strategy is.

I *KNOW* that these traits are hereditary, that is an obvious statement.

BUT, Knowing about Hereditary traits does not immediately lead to Eugenics.

We are not talking about keeping those with debilitating genetic conditions from breeding...

What we are talking about is keeping those WHO ARE NOT THE BEST from breeding.

This is a patently absurd argument from a mathematical perspective, as the available pool of "The Best" is necessarily a fraction of WHATEVER population you are considering.

This is the same argument that denies educational funding to any schools whose test scores are BELOW THE AVERAGE.

And the only way to eliminate "Below Average" is to have a sample size of *ONE*

You are arguing for the gradual elimination of the human species.


I dont presume that at all. Most men are Narcissus. If they had an IQ of 70 and a several hereditary diseases they would rather father their own child then raise one fathered through AI. Even the lobster lady wanted her own children. Humans are pathetically selfish. Midgets want to have more midgets despite the fact it is a dominant lethal condition.


Once again... we are not talking about restricting breeding from those with genetic deformities...

We are talking about restricting breeding from MOST ALL MALES, for the reason that they are "Not the Best"

It is Foolish.


To equate eugencis with genocide is the same as equating it with Hitler.
Nobody dies from good breeding.


We are not talking about "Dieing from good breeding" we are talking about removing a MAJORITY of the populous from the gene pool.

This is Genocide.


If you are satisfied with the nature of the human race that is good for you. I invoke Godwins rule and win the argument.


You have won nothing.

I never referred to Hitler, only to Genocide... which does NOT necessarily lead to Hitler.

I might as well say that YOU are Hitler, because Hitler believed in Forced Eugenics, like you do.

It is a childish analogy.


Society presently is a class war. You dont know what the 4th ,and 5th chakras are about.


That is a bold statement from someone claiming to be functioning from 4th chakra, and yet openly advocating the restriction of breeding rights to 1% of the male population.

4th chakra is the awareness of inherent connections, the ability to see others as yourself.

You are clearly not good at this, and should try harder.


There are almost no people in society that have mastered the 4th chakra,the Heart, and maybe a handful that have mastered the 5th chakra,yogic powers. Spirituality is all about sacrifice of self attention, which is anathema to Narcissus.


Society is *ABOUT* 4th chakra.

Cooperation is INHERENTLY about seeing others as you see yourself, and affording them the same rights as you.

What about this is so complicated?


I dont know what your point is. Do you think making women second class citizens will make society better? Do you think we should go back to the victorian age, or previctorian, or perhaps feudal?


You are completely missing the entire point of the article.

Feminism is ABOUT making MEN second class citizens.

How exactly did you not understand that to the point of spinning it around completely?

you have some rereading to do.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
edrick are you a man who is interested in women? where does this interest in "women" stem from?are you taught to desire yourself in the form of a woman, or do you not see you in any woman at all? its funny you mentioned chakras, as i find them to be defunctional unless used with the proper ancient technologies chakras were created for use with;but thats off topic: unless you somehow equate artificial intelligence or superficial knowingness with "alpha males", and in such case the entire idea alpha males becomes obsolete.is a man and womans union necessary for the birth of another man and woman?i find the ways people treat forms of life for the attempt to maintain an image within ones own eyes of said life in form within mind;atrocious.im enjoying this verse we are having although i know that regardless of what is typed that you decide to read you will consume and regurgitate what you feel is your own way; so im not going to expound on your prosed questions from your last reply, as i have added my thoughts in sufficiency to this thread.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 



edrick are you a man who is interested in women? where does this interest in "women" stem from?are you taught to desire yourself in the form of a woman, or do you not see you in any woman at all?


Im not sure I understand what you are getting at here.... would you mind elaborating with your question?


its funny you mentioned chakras, as i find them to be defunctional unless used with the proper ancient technologies chakras were created for use with;but thats off topic:


Yes, I was responding to RRokkyy.


unless you somehow equate artificial intelligence or superficial knowingness with "alpha males", and in such case the entire idea alpha males becomes obsolete.


Alpha, in a typical sense are those who are most able to lead others, and gain the most benefit from social spheres.

There are a variety of factors that determine this, and WHAT determines it is subject to the current social mores and cycles.

This is the reason that I fundamentally disagree with RRokkyy's diagnosis of "Eugenics" by having only the "Alphas" breed... because "Alpha" is a completely subjective measurement of men.


is a man and womans union necessary for the birth of another man and woman?


On a temporary basis, Yes the union is necessary.

But from a more sociological standpoint, having a fully functioning Male/Female parental structure is VERY important for the child's development, self esteem, education, and ability to do well in life.


i find the ways people treat forms of life for the attempt to maintain an image within ones own eyes of said life in form within mind;atrocious.


That is exactly my point.

The hypergamy of females is completely illusory, in that what is considered "Alpha" is completely dependent upon the society.


im enjoying this verse we are having although i know that regardless of what is typed that you decide to read you will consume and regurgitate what you feel is your own way;


That's not fair at all.... Besides, I could quite correctly accuse you of the exact same thing.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Monogamy is a genetic failure where there is no Darwinian survival of the fittest. If everyone survives there is no evolution. That is fine if y0u consider the current state of Man to be satisfactory:war,slavery,corruption,tyranny,stupidity,etc

Currently it is resulting in a decreasing IQ as the rich sterilize themselves.

While the 4th Chakra is about love there are very few people who have mastered it and live from that point.(I just had some experiences of it) Society functions from the point of view of survival which is 1st Chakra:money and power.

Wealth is merely materialized insecurity.-Kafka



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 



Monogamy is a genetic failure where there is no Darwinian survival of the fittest.


You are presuming that Environment is still the greatest determination over "Survival" and in the case of Civilized Society... that is plainly False.


If everyone survives there is no evolution.


You obviously have no imagination on the subject...

Lets say that every couple is "Allowed" two children by whatever means (Government, Morality, etc...) but those who are "Successful" are allowed MORE children.

By the laws of genetic drift, we would SEE evolution working on a population, and thus, your statement is Clearly False.


While the 4th Chakra is about love there are very few people who have mastered it and live from that point.(I just had some experiences of it) Society functions from the point of view of survival which is 1st Chakra:money and power.


No... you see, this is why you couldn't stay in 4th chakra for long... you still don't understand it.

Individual action is about survival, or First chakra.

First through third chakra are based on the individual, cooperation is necessarily 4th chakra..

Hence, Civilization is a Fourth Chakra concept.

Despite the fact that most do not posess that level of chakra awareness, the society ITSELF is here because someone had a GREAT idea about cooperation.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
In regards to the Alphas should breed comment, there is some truth to that. The thing is, in our bizarre human culture, the true alpha is a system, Leviathan. The alphas in charge are subservient to the system. They are therefore betas. The betas who can imagine and perceive the totality of things, rejecting a system, these are the true alphas. It is hard wired into women (at least many women, not necessarily even a majority, as I will not be so presumptuous to offer a number, at this time, to be attracted to somebody who will be a thug to others and worship her at her feet. On the flip side, this type of alpha would be attracted to a woman who would be a bitch to others, but melt in his arms. This creates a dynamic, at least from my perspective, in which the alphas provide the focus and the omega woman provides the context. She is a hidden hand of power, so to speak. I know this is bold, but all my experience suggests that the inflexible, aggressive, mindless, alphas that women choose are often the woman's strong arm, the woman being the puppeteer. Many women don't want men who do not fall into a square peg, because they are harder to manipulate. It is as fun for as many women to manipulate as it is for men to dominate, both avenues of control. Maybe both men and women should seek dual nurturers and enforcers. After all, one does not know what to nurture and what to nip unless one has sufficient experience with both. But, above all, individuals should be themselves, and then we will see the natural differences, and they are to be respected. Nobody forced to rigidly conform, but in such a process, people of genetic difference will be different. We are just not sure exactly how so.

The women's liberation movement has given women more active power, but it has also shown that the system often rewards those of poor ethics and of a sociopathic nature, whether they have a pole or a hole. Ditto your way to the top until there is no individual soul any longer. The good thing is, this eliminates the myth of female moral superiority (at least eventually). The myth of male intellectual superiority has already been demolished, although there are both more geniuses and more idiots among men while women don't have as large of a deviation. Of course, there are women geniuses and idiots as well. All of these realizations and more honest reflection will enable the good among us, both men and women, to unite and form a better society. Nevertheless, it can be quite frustrating in the meantime.

I think the current level of misandry coupled with the greater economic independence of women will chip away at this sort of feminine chauvinism ultimately. But, for the time being, it can be difficult for a noble, intelligent man to get by unless he is quite creative, patient, focused, and driven, all, strangely enough, what I would consider real alpha qualities.

All that being said, the denigration of men by so-called enlightened people is a foil for their own power-seeking and subversive manipulations seeking approval. These are sinister qualities which are not to the benefit of a society. I think I understand it though, as men have been in clearly DISPLAYED power positions for quite a long time. I would argue this is more of a figurehead, especially in democratically representative societies like America and other nations. For example, if a male candidate is voted in primarily by women, he is their representative. Yet many will only see the figurehead, the man. I could go on and on, but I can tell you that I believe with every fiber of my being that this sort of toxic perspective will be short lived. It is backlash. The vast majority, both men and women, are impulsive, naive, and overestimate their intelligence. Trying to solve one wrong with a counter wrong is ineffective. But it does cause pain, which forces rational people to find a way out of a dynamic, a virus which imprints the gullible in society. Peace.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
What we see in this article is, simply put, bad science.

It starts with an assumption - that the ills of the world are brought about by "misandry" or "denying breeding to beta males".

it then sets out to gather supporting evidence for these assumptions. it does so quite well, but that doesn't change the inherent flaw of the matter; that evidence should come from and your conclusions should be drawn from that evidence.

American society in decline has everything to do with the valuing of wealth and noise over ability and substance. Add this to the problems of a nation that desperately wants to be an empire while desperately not wanting to be an empire...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



It starts with an assumption - that the ills of the world are brought about by "misandry" or "denying breeding to beta males".


Why do men work harder than they have to?

To provide for their families... of course.

Take away the family, and you take away the motivation to uphold society.

Game, Set, Match...


American society in decline has everything to do with the valuing of wealth and noise over ability and substance. Add this to the problems of a nation that desperately wants to be an empire while desperately not wanting to be an empire...


Certainly, that is also a contributing factor, but the fabric of society is the Family.

After all... what nation can possibly survive it's youth being improperly raised?

What nation can survive it's men looking out for only themselves?

What nation can survive a situation where the only teachers of its young, are the state?

-Edrick




top topics



 
2

log in

join