Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Lunacy in Asylum
The stupidity of the ever more stupid immigration disaster is there for all to see in its latest instalment, where people coming from secure refugee camps are allowed to claim asylum, not in the first country they come to (as the international asylum agreement stipulates), nor in any of a chain of countries through which they have passed, but in an EU country; so that entry is gained in turn to a more prosperous EU nation crazy enough to sustain the expense and impact of yet further destruction of social capital, overwhelming of infrastructure, and conversion of a high- to a low-wage/skill economy. None of these people meet asylum criteria – not the Syrians, let alone the huge numbers pretending to be Syrian; and certainly not the enormous numbers of Africans. The EU is 100% incompetent and 100% clueless as to what to do – about how even to discuss what to do. Thus is revealed still further the complete bankruptcy of the EU as being fit for anything – as if the terminal Euro catastrophy wasn't enough.
The root cause of mass migration is over-population. There are hundreds of millions more people in Islamic countries than possibly they can sustain, leaving huge numbers of males with no way of earning a living and raising a family. Such is the classic recipe for war. So how do you make this problem ever worse? Remove the feedback pressure that would lead to lowered fertility and population by accepting as 'refugees' [sic] anyone and everyone! War is not the root of migration, but a symptom of underlying causes.
Over-population is not addressed by migration but by the very opposite. The natural pressures on a population too large for its ecological niche will result in a lowered fertility rate. On top of the crazy notion of allowing and facilitating mass uncontrolled migration, the very people profiting from this (the people smugglers) are the very people who translate over-population into warfare. The EU is as good as bankrolling 'Islamic State' [sic].
And how do you make much worse the tragedy of thousands of boat people drowning in the Med? By accepting them as migrants when they make landfall, of course. Ever more then make the journey; and in consequence ever more drown. It's imperative to do as the Australians do and simply not allow them in. Very quickly this fed back to dissuade anyone from attempting to get on a boat.
How crass are governments to swing with knee-jerk public opinion on the first broadcast photo of a dead toddler?
UK cities like Sheffield (where I live) already have been turned into dumps for 'refugees' [sic] from alien cultures. Volunteers from 'work experience' course/placements sent to help on programmes to settle these people and teach them basics of English, computing and jobsearch nearly all tell stores of often at best grudging compliance if not contemptuous behaviour, and near zero learning. Yet the political-Left's hatred of us continues to call for our swamping – and that is an apposite term – by the continuation of this deliberately anti-democratic and anti-social policy.
People don't hate migrants – landmark research shows that in-grouping psychology is all about in-group 'love; and not out-group 'hate'. They hate the politicians who parade their 'I'm more moral than you' fraud in hailing uncontrolled mass migration as somehow positive when everyone can see and feel that to be utter horseshit. Everyone knows that mass uncontrolled immigration is designed to show hatred towards them, and struggle to fathom why. They can't see why the elitist-separatist Left could be quite so appalling, out of all proportion to anything they see from ordinary people. Perhaps they will come to understand the torment in the feeble minds of the Left between their elitist-separatism and their denial of it – and 'projection' on to everyone else. But not knowing such compete twats in their normal social world, will they ever twig?
Thursday, September 17, 2015
[Re-post] The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
[Reposting after imposter posting (the problem is being fixed)]
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
Grab my ass and bang me harder
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is SparkyStar195 my profile is here CANT WAIT
[Re-post] The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
[Reposting after imposter posting (the problem is being fixed)]
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
[Re-post] The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
[Reposting after imposter posting (the problem is being fixed)]
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
I like thinking nasty thoughts about you
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is BooBear845 my profile is here IM ONLINE
[Re-post] The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
[Reposting after imposter posting]
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
[Re-post] The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
[Reposting after imposter posting]
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
Ride me like a carnival pony!
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is MyLion855 my profile is here SEE YOU SOON
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
The behaviour of 'Charlotte Proudman' [sic] is worse and more stupidly ignorant than thus far has been revealed and analysed.
The equivalent for a male to Mz 'Proudman' [sic] sending her 'look at me' invitation on Linked-In, the shop window for work professionals; would be an announcement to some female-centric community group of having a fat salary, a mansion and a top-of-the-range luxury car.
Would women be labelled 'sexist' for any criticism of such a blatant advertising of mate value?
Of course not.
First of all, Mz 'Proudman' has questions to answer as to how she felt it appropriate to blatantly advertise her female mate-value on what is essentially a male space. Why, given her complaint that Linked-In is a site purely for workplace activity did she abuse it for sexual advertisement?
Second, she has to answer for her outrageously nasty behaviour when, as fully predictable, and as she must have not only expected but wished, a male responded to her sexual advertisement.
She set up males in what amounted to an entrapment exercise.
Third, there is the issue of her breach of privacy in publicising a private exchange without any agreement from the other party; not to mention misrepresentation of the exchange.
Fourth, is the factor of her own sexual – and by her own criteria 'sexist' – behaviour towards males on other social media. This was explicitly sexual; unlike the well prefaced, apologetic and polite, not overtly sexual communication she received on Linked-In: behaviour to which she reacted in the most bizarre ideologically extreme (and scientifically, historically and culturally illiterate) way in deeming 'misogynistic' [sic].
'Hypocrisy' isn't the word.
There needs to be a new word for particularly risible hypocrisy.
I suggest 'Charlottic'.
'Feminazi' is not – contrary to Mz Zoe Williams' femascist bleating today in the Gruniad – inappropriate to describe Mz 'Proudman'.
The new absurd low in what supposedly constitutes 'sexism' is as ever based on wholly bogus notions. Feminists are trying to eliminate any identification of a human individual as being female. This is far beyond even the most absurd manifestations of Victorian prudery in 'policing' male access to sex.
Make no mistake: 'policing' male access to sex is what all this idiocy is about.
Such 'policing' is the very foundation of all social system.
The reason why there evolved separate sexes was to solve the core problem all biological systems face, of the accumulation of gene replication error. The mechanisms to deal with this have to be, in effect, quarantined away from the sex that is the limiting factor in the rate of reproduction: the female sex. Females continue to function primarily in terms of reproduction, while male function is as 'genetic filter' (alternatively labelled 'mutational cleanser'). This is why males evolved to form dominance or prestige hierarchies. Rank corresponds to genetic quality, and females can then select high-ranking males, so that males carrying relatively less well-functioning gene recombinations and mutations go to the wall.
Feminism is merely a cultural embodiment in extremis of the perennial deep-seated prejudice against male sexual access.
Mz 'Proudman' is the ultimate 'useful idiot'.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Im not wearing any underwear
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is SweetTart464 my profile is here TALK WITH ME
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post after imposter post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post after imposter post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
I was thinking of having a bed day today, what do you think?
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is Petal280 my profile is here TALK S00N
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post after imposter post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
I want you inside me
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is Dear950 my profile is here IM ONLINE
Lie back and shut up! Im going to make you come
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is Bunny430 my profile is here IM ONLINE
Spank me harder!
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is PapaBear647 my profile is here ONLINE NOW
please be my f@ck buddy
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is BabyAngel950 my profile is here IM ONLINE
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post after imposter post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
Sunday, September 06, 2015
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
Saturday, September 05, 2015
2015-2016 Sales. Take an Extra 95% Off All Sunglasses!
Thursday, September 03, 2015
[Re-post] Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
[Re-post]
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
I want to be in your bed
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is SweetPeach501 my profile is here CANT WAIT
Re: get with me f#ckbuddy
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is HoneyLove144 my profile is here S00N
Re: I want to be in your bed
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is Muffin488 my profile is here SPEAK SOON
want to be my new f#ckbuddy
Send me a F#ckFriends request so we can hook up My usename is PassionFruit690 my profile is here SEE YOU SOON
Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
Ascent of Woman? The Descent to cultural, historical and scientific illiteracy of the BBC
The BBC documentary 'The Ascent of Woman: 1. Civilisation' broadcast last night is perhaps the very worst nonsense ever put out as a documentary.
Most of the counter-factual shibboleths of extreme-feminist ideology were aired as truth, with not a single line of the script standing up to even cursory scrutiny.
Just to pick out a few of the most glaring absurdities, even just remembering from last night's broadcast, without viewing again to make notes …..
* The veil is not emblematic of 'patriarchy' [sic]. It is a female intra-sexual phenomenon: a result of female-female competition for pair-bond partners. Inasmuch as there is male involvement it is at the behest of women who wish to project their spheres of interest and influence into the civic world of male-male competition, to get males to work for them as reinforcing agents.
* There is no such thing as 'patriarchy' [sic] – or 'matriarchy' [sic]. These are terns invented by cultural anthropologists both ignorant of the biological basis of social system and wishing to both explicitly and implicitly impose an ideological view. The sexes invariably are in tandem, so it makes no sense to view one sex or the other as being somehow in control. There is no such thing as a dominance interaction that is other than same-sex: dominance is never cross-sex. [The supposed 'female dominance in species such as the ring-tailed lemur is in fact male deference to provide female feeding priority.]
* The sex of a deity says nothing at all about the 'sexual politics' [sic] of a culture. All cultures had both male and female deities, with female 'fertility' and male 'sun' deities, with male sacrificial supposed half-human / half-deity 'go-between' figures who sacrificed themselves to the 'fertility' goddess.
* 'Civilisation' did not begin at some arbitrary point in time, often mistakenly thought to be on the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Research reveals an ever further recession into the past, and no 'quantum-jump' of some former 'non-civilised' sociality into 'civilisation'.
* Hierarchy in no sense recently emerged: hierarchy is inherent in and the very basis of male sociality in all cultures at all points in history and prehistory, and in all primates, mammals generally, and going back phylogenetically to before even the evolution of insects. Even the most seemingly 'egalitarian' hunter-gatherer / forager society features male hierarchy. It does not require resource disparities. On the very contrary, the surplus provided by farming in allowing a wider basis of signalling male mate-value, actually enhances egalitarianism in its wider sense – though there s no significant 'flattening' of hierarchy; this being impossible, given that the basis of distinguishing rank would simply shift to other criteria of genetic quality.
* An archaeological dig in no way can lead to any conclusion as to the 'sexual politics' [sic] of the people whose historical site is being investigated. Artefacts unearthed can be subject to wild speculation but are no basis whatsoever as evidence. On the very contrary, the scant finds in a dig are pegs for contemporary ideological bias.
