Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Feminists in the Dock

You know, I really, really do try to do my best when it comes to making people mad. I mean, the kind of people who deserve it — liberals, leftists, faux-libertarians, neocons, smug people in general — not that they're all necessarily bad people, but it seems like you have to get them mad and arguing with you just to get their attention, and maybe then convince them of the error of their ways. But I have an unfortunate tendency to want to be nice to people, and I'm really not a natural polemicist. But I think Bob Wallace. My feeble attempts to make feminists screech and foam at the mouth are downright accommodating in contrast to his devastating critique here, which is a reprint from HIS BLOG.  And a piece of it deserves to be made into a quibcag, which I have done here.

Feminists are r-selected Destroyers

"Superior people need to rule inferior people or else inferior people will cause problems for each other and for their betters. Superior people need to be more free. Inferior people cannot handle freedom, need supervision, discipline, and control. Inferior people need to be substantially less free." - Jim's Blog

I have been anti-"feminist" for a long time. The reason I use the quotes is that while most women may claim they are not feminists they still have been infected by its destructive values.
Feminism is leftist (in fact leftism is feminine, specifically the Bad Feminine) and if there is anything good in leftism, I don't know what it is. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his monumental Leftism Revisited, referred to leftism as the attempt to "overthrow the Father." He was right.

It is an unfortunate fact (and the word "unfortunate" is an understatement) that "feminism," instead of helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of their many limitations, limitations that I didn't even know existed before they were exposed. History tells us about those flaws, but it's a bit hard to find those particular histories because they aren't taught anywhere, not in school, not in church, not by parents.

The limitations of women correspond in many ways to r/k selection theory, especially r-selection. r/k selection theory states that a species that is r-selected has a lot of offspring but invests almost nothing in them. Like rabbits, or among humans, sub-Saharan Africans. A K-selected species has fewer offspring but invests a lot of them. Like wolves, whites and Asians.

I have found that r-selected are almost exclusively extroverts and liberals and the K-selected are almost always introverts who are conservative/libertarian. ("r" stands for "reproductive focus" and "K" for "competitive focus" K is about excellence in life, but more about that later).

Extroverts tend to be of low-to-moderate IQ and lack imagination and analytical ability. They are the ones referred to as the Sheeple. They are the cause of most of the problems in the world, since they believe almost everything they are told and are exceptionally prone to propaganda. 

Unless controlled, they tend to be sexually promiscuous, since they are r-selected.

With birth control, abortion and antibotics, they don't have to suffer the consequences of their promiscuity, unless they want to (generally it's to pop out a bunch of kids and go on welfare).



When you're looking at a woman who believes in abortion (almost always as a sacrament), who believes in promiscuity, isn't very smart or imaginative, who blames her problems on other people (most always on men), then you are looking at an r-selected extrovert. And it's extroverts who believe that everything good comes from the outside, from other people, so that's one of the reasons they think they government can give them them everything.

When women are let loose to do as they please, away from the influence of men, they have not come up with a cornucopia of great inventions and discoveries. Instead they have aborted tens of millions of infants, blamed all their problems on men, voted leftists into office, become excessively promiscuous, gotten worthless college degrees and demanded equally worthless make-work jobs, believes that wealth falls like manna from heaven, come to believe marriage is temporary, destroyed children's lives though easy divorce and single parent-hood...and rationalized every bit of it.

And those are usually the ones with the higher IQs. The dumber ones get low-paid jobs, have kids out of wedlock, and get various types of welfare.

Extroverted r-selected women have values that only destroy societies. Men with the same values as just as bad and perhaps even worse.

It's the high-IQ introverts, who are K-selected, who believe in excellence, since they are the ones who believe in investing a lot in their kids (so they will the best they can be). The ancient Greeks, who believed well-being/flourishing (eudaimonia) was achieved by excellence (arete)...how much do you want to bet it was the introverted Greeks who discovered those values?

The intelligent K-selected introverts are the ones who have discovered/created the ideas and inventions that advance societies. It is the less-intelligent r-selected extroverts who destroy everything in their path but somehow still rationalize it as advancement.

Our society is now mostly r-selected in its values. It won't last and will collapse. Actually it already is collapsing. And why? Because the inferior have gained too much influence.

In the long run, after a lot of strife and turmoil, I hope the K-selected values of intelligence and excellence will ascend to their rightful place.

45 comments:

  1. This should irritate the devil out of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny thing is, Africans never had these problems until whites showed up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, just cannibalism, slavery, polygamy, no written language, nothing but mud and grass huts. No problems at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Africans never had these problems, you are right. Africans traditionally have women as the head of household. They also never developed running water, electricity, the wheel, etc... So they had different problems to worry about. Like getting eaten by a lion... or a rival tribesman.
    Yes, Africa was the Garden of Eden before the evil white man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 16, 2013 at 7:43 PM

      Egypt is part of Africa, and they did pretty well for themselves. The North Africans conquered Spain and brought the Greek texts back to the west, their level of culture was frankly unrivaled. The University in Timbuktu was a leader in astronomy, math, law and medicine. Africa had developed cultures and just because tribes existed does not mean that the entire continent was an uncivilized jungle. Hunter gathers still exist in europe as well but youd be hard pressed to say they made all europeans barbarians. Just because you do not know their rich history and accomplishments does not mean it did not hapen, it just makes you ignorant.

      Delete
    2. What is meant by Anon, clearly, is the Congoid race, AKA Negroes, Blacks, or Negroids. It isn't a matter of what continent you're on, it's a matter of your DNA. The Egyptians and North Africans you're talking about were White. As were the Arab founders of Timbuktu University. As near as anybody can tell, Congoids never accomplished anything at all in Africa. Egypt is part of Africa geographically but not racially or culturally. Much like a piece of Turkey is in Europe, but that's only geography, not anything else.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 16, 2013 at 8:33 PM

      I am not sure you have ever seen any Egyptian art, but they were not white. I am guessing you wouldn't consider the Ethipoians black enough either, because their civilization would clash with your worldview.

      Delete
    4. Ethiopians were Semites who just intermarried with blacks.

      Most knowledgeable Ethiopians will tell you this and they don't see sub Saharan Africans as their peers or equals. Many don't like American blacks.

      Delete
    5. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      What modern Africans think about African Americans is inconsequential. The point was that Africans did have civilization before white people showed up. As for the Ethiopians, modern scholarship holds that the Semitic influence was minimal at best. The fact that there were Semitic migrants does not take away from the African people, who made up the majority of the population. The Kingdom of the Kongo was also highly developed, so unless you have some silly negations for every single African civilization, you have to at some point affirm that they were not savages, or incapable of development.

      Delete
    6. So-called modern scholarship is chock full of politically correct claptrap.

      The historian I got the info from was an Ethiopian. The migrants were not Semites they were black Africans.

      What are you going to tell us next? That Mandingos went to the moon in 150,000 B.C?

      Delete
    7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM

      The nationality of the person is not always relevant, look at Bachman she clearly has no grasp on american history. The fact is Africans have achievements, that cannot be written off, and it is also wrong for people like bob wallace to believe they needed white people to get them out of straw huts.

      Delete
    8. So because Bachman (first name?) doesn't grasp American history, my Ethiopian doesn't grasp Ethiopian history?



      Okay...

      Delete
    9. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM

      Sorry it should have been Bachmann, missed an n. No I was not accusing him/her, of not knowing history. But when you have a stake in it, the facts can become less important than the end goal. I dont want to get into a whole tangent, the only point was that African were not all tribal hunter gatherers. But history within this country often only covers European history, which is why we have time set aside for women and African Americans. Because other cultures do important things, and when we ignore that, we can downplay their role in the history of mankind.

      Delete
  5. Turns out, feminists aren't threatened by ridiculous pseudo-science. And - in what world have women been "away from the influence of men?" Apparently you think 20th century social movements happened in a vacuum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8EZQuLaAJ0

      Delete
    2. Too many logical fallacies to deal with...I must rest on the couch.

      Delete
  6. If an unmarried woman has a child, a man also has a child. In actual biology, males are undoubtedly the r-selected half of the human species as they can have a huge quantity of children with any number of females without consequence. Females, due to the difficulty and length of gestation, can have far fewer children. The fact that single mothers are receiving welfare is only evidence that some men are not investing in their offspring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and rationalized every bit of it.

      Delete
    2. A killer argument? Seriously?
      That point is absolutely valid. Compare billions of sperms at any given moment plus a few minutes of your life with one ovum a month, nine months of pregnancy and 18 years of responsibility.
      Yes, the classification may differ in relation to society, but those are the biological facts. I do not see where any part of that argument deserves to be labelled "rationalising".

      Delete
    3. Sperm vs. forty million abortions.

      Delete
    4. Oops, I made a mistake. More like 55 million or 56 million abortions. So much for the myth of women investing in their kids. By the way, when it comes to your misunderstanding of Evolutionary Psychology, learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. You might want to look up "null hypothesis," too.

      Delete
  7. Please post some sources to back up your correlation between IQ and "R" and "K" selection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whites vs. Blacks. Now you look that up yourself. I didn't take you to raise. You're a big girl, so look it up yourself.

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 16, 2013 at 8:01 PM

      r and k selection refer to how species reproduce, not individuals. Since all people have longer life spans as a species, have a long pregnancy, and then take a long time to reach maturity, all humans no matter their political beliefs are k type. Also you make huge generalization that make it impossible to take you seriously. You also are not a biologist so can in no adequate capacity speak on r and k selection. You also bring up the greeks as examples, when they were some of the first to use abortions. Those who use birth control and have abortions are not having as many children, that is the entire point. Also when you look at populations throughout history, it is the lower, uneducated classes that have more children. The educated, middle and upper classes have far fewer children. This has always been true, and it is also true that the more education someone has, the more likely they are to be liberal. Which completely disproves your entire argument.

      http://www.mpopost.com/college-education-increases-likelihood-of-independent-voting-1478

      Delete
    3. The fact you use "Eager Young Liberal" automatically proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
    4. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      The fact that the only argument any of you have, is that the name I picked up from an insult someone called me on here so I didnt stay an Anon, proves you have no argument. All of my points were valid, and when you in no way address any of them, it proves you are incapable, which validates my argument that you have no capacity to speak on any of this. Well done Bob Wallace! Now I just have to wait until you tell me being liberal is a mental illness, again. Because the internet is the only place where that is an acceptable argument.

      Delete
    5. Liberalism is a mental illness. Here's some proof: the 20th Century was the Age of Leftism, and it resulted in anywhere from 177 million to 200 million deaths.

      By the way...the Nazis were leftists.

      Delete
    6. Benito Mussolini was a radical socialist in his youth.

      Delete
    7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 3:38 PM

      Wow, so the Nazis, who employed eugenics and racial cleansing. Liberals believe in equality for all, so it is a hard sell to say that liberals believe in forced sterilization and murder of millions of people based on racist nazi science. Whereas the author of this blog has repeatedly argued for eugenics and for the same sort of "science" that led nazis to believe they were the master race. As for the Russians, and Cambodians you have no connection between their actions and liberalism. Their actions instead reflect dictatorship, not the result of social programs to feed the poor. So to argue that those are liberal are the cause of millions of death is a distortion of history. No matter how many times you make the same tired and wrong claim, it will never become more true.

      Delete
    8. EQUALITY? As practised by the American liberal, the idea of "equality" is not some grand idea of equal treatment by the law or a level playing field but equal repression for all but a thin elite of which they are a member. If you are willing to read:

      http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/3/18/equality-as-an-evil

      "Equality" of the left is more embodied in the old sumptuary laws which were designed to keep the unwashed masses suppressed to a uniform level so that they would not spoil the view from the Kennedy compound or clutter the restaurants that were the favourite of the Hollywood glitterati.

      Luke

      Delete
    9. Eager Young LiberalOctober 18, 2013 at 1:11 PM

      No I am a liberal because I am a Christian. As a seminary student, I believe that while grace is free to all, the results of that grace are costly. We must die to our old selves, our prejudices, and live for the service of others. Paul does not have as much of a social gospel within his letters, but this is probably because he believed the second coming was imminent, but the foundations were there. In Galatians he preaches a radical equality, not before the law but before God, where we no longer see the divisions that separate us, but only the grace that unites us. For me equality is not about repression to any elite, it is about loving all as God has loved us. Grace and love are not containable; they have outward components, which drive us to identify with the oppressed. While secular liberals may have different motivations, the results are still the same.
      As for the link you included, I did read it. Again, my only lens is that of a Christian. In his letters Paul scolds the rich you eat all of the communal meal before the poor can arrive. While the author of the article may agree with this system, where wealth is rewarded with plenty, and poverty with lacking, that is not how the Christian is meant to operate. Christ did not command us to give only to the poor who we think deserve our care, no we must identify with any and all who suffer. We are not meant to decide who is deserving and undeserving.
      Since we’re talking about unequal distribution, let’s talk about education. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the suburban schools tend to be better off than the urban schools. This is because suburban schools tend to be in wealthier areas, so more tax money goes to the schools which helps the students to succeed. The urban schools on the other hand, lack funding, so you have students who are not failures themselves but they are failed by the school system. It does not help the cause of the urban schools that many of the manufacturing jobs have left to go to where labor is cheaper. That is capitalism at work, creating more disparity between the workers and the CEOs so the rich get richer, whether they have done anything to earn it or not. As for the role race plays into all of this, the highest concentration of minorities is going to be in urban areas, while suburbs are predominately white. We all know and recognize this, so do I think it is fair when someone who was failed by the system is given a chance to succeed, yes. The white suburban kids, who do not go to a school of their choice, will still go to college that is not a tragedy. Whereas the possibility that a minority student will not get into college at all, and their children will be forced into the same cycle they experienced, that is a tragedy.

      Delete
    10. Eager Young LiberalOctober 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      As for the cancer research, I do not know what school this is but I do not think that is emblematic of most university research centers. Coming from Penn State, we have so much of our budget devoted to research, specifically cancer research, in order to entice both students and researchers to come to the university. If a university is so small that they do not have the budget for research and a handful of diversity counselors, then they probably were not doing much in research anyways. That is not cynical, but the truth, research is expensive and generally only the big wealthy schools can afford to do it. So no, equality is not killing people, so that argument does not work.
      As for loss of individuality, that is ridiculous. The Church is a community where all have submitted to Christ, across time and space. But we still remain individuals within the body of Christ. People still have cultural differences that can be celebrated, and individual gifts which are to be used, but it is within the framework of unity. Frankly, I cannot think of anything more communal than the body of Christ, and since we are able to keep our individuality, have equality as a policy is not enough to create a collective.
      In the section on oppression, the author does not make it clear how it is oppressive to live in a diverse society. Also since it seems that he specifically means African Americans, that is rather ironic since their forbearers were forced to come here and then treated as second class citizens, enduring lynchings, and beatings. It is not oppression when people are denied the “right” to exercise their racism at the cost of other human beings. The same would go for the Irish for ages past, who even though they were also white, were treated poorly because of their heritage. People probably made the same arguments, that is costs so much to haul them around in the paddy wagons, but that doesn’t make the argument right.
      He goes on to make remarks about history and psychology but since he is clearly neither a historian nor a psychologist, he makes claim that are outright wrong. I have already written enough in response to him, so just pointing out his lack of expertise or knowledge in general will suffice.
      Returning to your argument, I do not see anything within my understanding of the Christian life, which would be described as liberal, as being for the elite. As a Christian I am called to identify with those who suffer, and do justice as a form of worship. That is my understanding of the faith, and I believe the understanding of the Christian left.

      Delete
  8. Thanks for the response, Bob. Your argumentation is weak. Claims without any sources will only ever convince people who already agree with you. Meaning what you have to say is essentially worthless. Had you not written this post, anyone who already agreed in your thoughts, already believes it. However to legitimately argue and to actually gain readers one must back up claims. Telling me to be a big girl and look it up myself not only shows you don't have sources, but you are also out of touch with argumentation. I am not a woman, by the way.

    "Liberalism is a mental illness. Here's some proof: the 20th Century was the Age of Leftism, and it resulted in anywhere from 177 million to 200 million deaths.

    By the way...the Nazis were leftists."
    Please post you sources to back up the claim here. Also, the "age of leftism" and nearly 200 million people dying is a correlation versus causation fallacy. Please show how they are related.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nazi" - "National Socialism."

      The 20th Century was the Age of Atheist Leftism. Not a correlation/causation fallacy. You don't know the difference.

      Your ignorance is astonishing.

      Delete
    2. "I am not a woman, by the way."

      You write like one. But then, all liberals are feminine.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      There he is, the Bob Wallace I know and love! Bluntly stating opinions when the facts are clearly against you, relying only on your witty jabs to outsmart those who disagree with you. I mean calling someone a woman like its an insult, how do you come up with this stuff?

      Anon: Well said, not that it'll make a difference to someone like Bob, but I appreciate the effort you put into it.

      Delete
  9. So instead of engaging me with an argument you resort to name-calling? Well, that is an interesting argumentation method. Where did you attend your schooling?

    You still haven't posted the sources I asked for.

    You should read this: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/class/soc952/Wright/Wright_Correlation%20and%20Causation.pdf
    The article I posted will help you understand correlation versus causation and why the "age of leftism" and the fact that 200 million random people died is a fallacy. Atheist make up five percent of the population of the United States, so that hardly is an "age" considering 300 million people live in the country. Also, not all "leftists" are athiest.
    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-13/national/35491519_1_new-atheism-atheist-groups-new-atheists

    "Your ignorance is astonishing." Pointing out that I am ignorant without posting any evidence to show it is actually the definition of ignorance. So you are actually being ignorant.

    I write like a woman? Asking for you to not result to name-calling and discuss like adults is woman-like to you? How does a man write, Bob?

    "All liberals are feminine."Bob, where is your evidence to back this up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM

      Go, Anonymous go!

      Delete
    2. And for that matter what is wrong with writing like a woman?

      I'd ask if you had any more sources but obviously the only source you have is copying and re-pasting an already flawed argument from Bob Wallace. Which you could have just linked to rather than re-posting word for word. Oh and being Bob Wallace who apparently considers us lazy and ignorant for not magically knowing the make believe facts that live in his head.

      Also nothing says "Take me seriously" like busty anime girls underneath quotes putting women down without even a glimmer of fact. The comic-sans blog link at the bottom is a nice touch too.

      Delete
    3. Well Camera, if you are talking to me that is, the reason I haven't posted any sources other than the ones I did is because I didn't make any claims. I have only asked the person making claims to back up those claims with evidence. I won't be a hypocrite though, Camera, what would you like sourced?

      In a situation where one party of the argument has resorted to name calling, bringing up facts and attempting to correct the argument is nearly impossible. With Bob, for example, I just corrected his use of the word ignorance, since he carried out actions under the incorrect assumption that I am a woman, which is actually the definition of the word he called me.

      Bob has derailed the argument about his original claim and pushed it toward name calling. My first attempt to engage him in conversation he said "look it up yourself." So at the current location of the conversation the only thing left to argue is his inability to engage in conversation past name calling, which he even doesn't do very well.

      Yeah, I most definitely should have linked, mistake on my part. Sorry Camera! And I trust me, Camera, I take no offense to being called woman or that my writing is woman-like, there is nothing offensive about being a woman.

      Delete
    4. I meant to continue your question rather than bother you for sources! My response was directed at the original author and Bob Wallace not you anon. I agree with your points.

      Delete
  10. Actually, Camera, I believe that's "Chalkboard."

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's your opinion. Sweden is one of the most equal countries in the world. It's traditionally built on social democracy and feminism, and guess what? We're doing excellent. We've been one of the richest countries in the world and our IHDI is the third highest in the world. And that's not an opinion. It's fact.

    ReplyDelete