Monday, 9 March 2015

Humanity Transmitted Through the Generations (Tattoos, The Bible, Fatherlessness)

Unfortunately for us, our behaviours aren't hard wired like those of many animals. Humans have free will. Most of what we are is transmitted from person to person when we raise children. All you need to do to know this is so, is to look at what happens when people refuse to raise their children (uncomfortably common). The children grow up feral. Most of the parts are there. But they aren't working right. Something of that child's basic humanity is missing. Sometimes, it is something quite large that is missing.
The point is, that John Grey (geee, could this guy be more of a closet homosexual trying to subvert marriage and family) crap about men and women being different, so most conflicts are caused by miscommunications, is a total lie. Yes, there are biological differences. They pale in comparison to the socialized differences. But, men and women were designed to be together. Our makeup, on all levels, is created in such a way that we fit together.

Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"
Before all this shit started to happen (somewhere around WWII is my best guess), men and women had been together relatively harmoniously for a loooooong time. Each chose the other based on the quality of person they were and worked hard to survive, thrive, and most importantly, refine what it means to be human and pass that on to the next generation.

That process has stopped cold. Although there were slight hints of it in our parents and our grandparents’ generation, it's gone hog wild in our generation. The fact that men and women are different has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are "poisoning the well" of human goodness, en masse. They are denying our basic humanity. The results are everywhere to see in our society. The message is very clear; they only want men who will cooperate in this sick agenda.
People Can Choose Anything They Want To... But They Can't Choose the Consequences
Feral isn’t a good term. It implies that people have returned to a wild, natural state, much like a pet will if you abandon it. Savage is a better term. A good portion of what a human is (which is different from every other creature on the planet), is a matter of choice. When we raise children, we can choose to put good things or bad things into them. When they get older, they can choose what they bring into themselves. It’s been this way since homo-sapiens first swung down out of the trees and chose to live like men, not animals. We can choose to live like good men or bad men. Unlike animals, that choice isn’t made for us already by our biology. It’s the source of our power and also the source of our folly……depending on the natural consequences of the choices we make.

Increasingly, women are choosing to bring bad things into themselves and to pass on those bad things to their children. They look for men WHO WILL ASSIST THEM IN THIS TASK. At the very least, they shirk their responsibility to bring good things into themselves and put good things into children. Instead, they let random people influence themselves and their children. A lot of evil people know about this and seek to exploit this situation for various ends (for example, gangs, pimps, drug dealers, and other miscellaneous scum).

One thing that REALLY pisses women off is when you point out the specific consequences of things they do. They get highly offended, thinking you are trying to manipulate them (being huge manipulators, they think everyone else is too). There is a grain of truth to this. Often, when someone is trying to manipulate you, they will punish you with shame and anger, anything to attach a negative emotion onto whatever it is they want to change for their benefit. They are a bit vague and ambiguous on the connection. You should/should not do that thing. Why? Because it’s right/wrong. What they mean by right is what they want. What they mean by wrong is what they don’t want. But this isn’t what I’m talking about.

People can choose to do anything they want to. But they can’t choose the consequences. That’s what I’m talking about. Women constantly get these two things confused. They want to be free to do whatever thing they want AND to choose the consequences. This isn’t possible. It’s like someone jumping off a building and expecting not to fall.

The ingenuity of men is one long history of using superior understanding to seem to break the laws of nature for some benefit. But it’s only an illusion. What’s actually happening is men learn more laws of nature and combine them to get a different outcome. For example, if you jumped off a building with a parachute, you might get a completely different consequence. That’s great. It’s why MEN have been the ones to build everything of consequence for the last several thousand years.

But women see this and are fooled. They see the man jumping off the building in a parachute and landing safely. So, they insist, it’s OK to just jump off. After a few have fallen to their death, they start screaming at men to do something. They get royally pissed when you hand them a parachute, and they throw it away, usually screaming about how worthless you are the whole time. A few more fall to their deaths. Finally, the men throw their hands up in frustration and walk away.

Some get so fed up, they leave and cross the mountain range to the next tribe over. They strike up a conversation with a local girl and mention the parachute they invented. The girl smiles and says…..oooooh, a parachute, how does it work, can I try it?
Tattoos and Piercings
Of course, throughout history tattoos and piercing have been used for both slavery and as body art... but not in our culture. In our culture it's deviant. Oddly enough, it is still deviant among various minorities that do have a cultural history of tattoo/piercing use, once they join our culture. In our culture, the use of tattoos and piercing on slaves/criminals was dominant. Someone who gets them here is trying to identify with that element. Sometimes it's an attempt to do so in a safe way (look at me, I'm bad, I'm cool). Unfortunately, it is mostly used in an unsafe way (look at me, I’m one of you, come fuck me). You can tell things about women who do this sort of thing... unpleasant things you would be very unwise to ignore. Less so with men though. Because so many women choose the bad men over the good, many men have taken up looking a certain way to get women. Many of my friends are like this. Most have regretted it though.
Having a visible tattoo or inappropriate piercing makes you unemployable at most professional jobs... why? Because it identifies you as not one of the elite that hold those jobs... one of the underclass. Women get these done for the same outcome... to be identified as one of the underclass who is wide open for approach by a low class man. The more wild and obvious the tattoos or piercings, or the more numerous, the lower the class. There are always exceptions but they are rare. If your daughter comes home one day with a pierced tongue, she is telling you that she has decided to give blowjobs to various inappropriate men. Drugs are often involved. The men certainly understand that signal and will come after her. This means you must be extra vigilant or bad things will happen. As I said, it is a very reliable sign.

Say what you will, but it shows more commitment than a wedding vow!
This is a tough issue because, like all lies (the lie being that people with tattoos and piercings are normal), it has a grain of truth. Normal people do get tattoos. They get them to be naughty and feel adventurous. Men get them because they know women will mistake them for inappropriate men, and are attracted. You can tell who these people are easily. You can't see their tattoos or piercings unless they are showing off. They hide them in polite company. The exception to the exception, are women who get tattoos around their butt, breasts and vagina or people that get their sex organs pierced. These people are sending a clear message that they are a sexual object and expect to be used as such (big warning sign for men).

Even relatively normal (are there any, lol) people who belong to the BDSM scene have a strong thread of this going through them. They hate when you say that, by the way. It goes sort of like this... people think the whole point is to devalue, objectify, and humiliate your dehumanize them. But the BDSM crowd says, no no, that's not really true. We pretend to devalue, objectify, and humiliate people in order to have great sex, and they love it. Anyone who does it for real is an asshole and not welcome. Great. So you get to know them and find out that they really are trying to devalue, objectify, and humiliate people... in a bad way. Or, to put it another way, a female submissive wants you to do various bad things to her so she can have screaming orgasms. This is supposed to be limited to the bedroom. But, if you don't treat her like the crawling worm that she is all of the time, she will lose interest in you. The last thing she wants is sincerity, warmth and love from you. These things spoil her perversion. She's using you for sex and has no second thoughts about leaving once reality intrudes (ouch, I have painful memories about dealing with someone like this). The easiest way to spot a female sub is by her tongue piercing and tattoos in the form of a chain around her wrists and/or ankles.
Click Pic for "The Truth About Misogyny"
The Bible is Anti-Woman?
Feminists would have you believe the bible is anti-woman and a tool men use to oppress women. Many people swallow that crap and abandon the bible as a source of wisdom and abandon religion and belief in God as being made up to enslave people. They never stop to ask three things. One, is what the bible saying true? Two, does the point seem to be mean spirited, oppressive or hateful toward women? And three, being simply an arbitrary collection of other books the early Christians used, is everything in it of equal value or is some of it correct and some of it wrong?
Click Pic for "The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth"
For the most part, the bible isn’t anti-woman and much of what’s in there about women and how to deal with them is correct. Further, those who say different seem to have an agenda of separating people from their faith as a means of controlling them (ironic that they should claim the faith controls them, lol). It’s important to examine these ideas and try to see if you can verify if they are true or not by observing their application in everyday life. Because it is only that process that can sort out the truth from the crap.

There is great danger in not doing that process. Because you can easily accept attitudes, philosophies and beliefs as true, even though they support behaviours that don’t work. People get attached to these and then start selectively attending to (or even making up) “evidence” that supports their position while desperately denying whatever contradicts it. That makes you powerless and usually results in intense suffering. Instead, what people should do is something almost like the scientific method. Treat the beliefs as a theory. Then try to hypothesize what will happen in specific situations when you choose behavior based on the theory. When the hypothesis is correct, it adds evidence that the theory is strong. Replace weak theories with strong ones, making your behavior more and more effective.
Click Pic for "Feminizing the Decline"
My point is the bible isn’t misogynistic. It’s warning of the problems inherent in women that have been with us from the beginning. Specifically it’s warning us not to be tolerant of them or we end up with the type of problems we are starting to see today. But there are people who actually DO hate women. They use the problems that men are starting to wake up to as a chance to sneak a bunch of stuff in there that isn’t true, particularly in regard to how to deal with women. They advocate punishing women and causing them pain. Those men are fools but tough to distinguish from the real information that is becoming available (after all, there was a time for each of us that we would never have believed the things we know about women today). Hence, the warning to always test ideas about women and techniques to deal with them. Only retain what you can observe for yourself and keep those techniques that work. Why? Because, if you don’t, the crap will prevent you from seeing things as they really are and will disempower you.

A "misogynistic" quote from the Bible is a good example of people throwing bullshit at you in an attempt to get you to dismiss ideas that might illuminate the truth and lead to powerful ways of dealing with things. If you never questioned the idea that what the Bible says about women is motivated by hatred, it would slide right by you. There are ALOT of people walking around that absolutely hate Christianity because they accept little tidbits without examination. They have been skilfully and purposefully separated from their faith by people who want to manipulate them. Feminists are only one of these types of people.
Click Pic for "It's Not Marxism Because..."
Fatherlessness = Fucked-Up-Ness
The liberal a-holes really did take the Moynihan report to heart. (Reporting on the destruction of Black society due to fatherlessness). What they are doing, they are doing on purpose.

Every time this issue is measured, it comes out the same. Broken homes with the father absent = fucked-upness. Happy homes with a strong man as the father = happy, well adjusted children. Every single time. And yet, you have various groups creating policy on weird theories with no basis in observation, often very superficial in their reasoning. The theory is just a thinly veiled excuse to cover an agenda. Of course, they don't believe their own nonsense. They know full well what they are doing. They are just hoping that their theory will go unobserved because it quickly becomes revealed as bullshit and lies by anyone with the skill and knowledge to assess it.
Click Pic for "Following the Masculine Principle is the 'Right Way'"
The best way to handle this is to, first, identify who they are specifically. A good example is how you can see that the entire profession of psychology has ceased doing what it is supposed to do (treat mental illness) and is instead acting as the manipulative arm of something sinister. For God's sake, absolutely forbid your woman from seeing a therapist (boy, did I learn this the hard way).

The second thing to do is to say no to them. Marginalize them. When a vote comes up to divert time money and resources to them, vote no. Repeat this basic pattern over and over again until the people involved no longer matter. Don't listen to their arguments and bullshit. Pay attention to what is directly observable and can be reasonably inferred from that. If what a person wants, works, keep it. If it doesn't, kick them to the curb.

Do not accept attempts to argue away what can plainly be seen by everyone. A theory that contradicts reality is wrong, and probably only exists to fool you into doing something stupid.

Philalethes #25 – You Can Have As Much Freedom As You Are Willing To Be Responsible For, But No More 
Senator Daniel Moynihan: “By 1983 the poverty rate reached its
highest level in 18 years….The principal correlate had been the change in family structure, the rise of the female-headed household.”
(Family and Nation, p. 95)

Here are some of the observed effects of removing a father to the position of a visitor in a child`s life.
"Based on our clinical experience with a number of latency aged and adolescent girls whose parents divorced during their oedipal years, we postulate that particular coping patterns emerge in response to the absence of the father, which may complicate the consolidation of positive feminine identification in many female children, and is observable during the latency years. We illustrate both the existence of these phenomena and implications for treatment:

1. intensified separation anxiety
2. denial and avoidance of feelings associated with loss of father
3. identification with the lost object
4. object hunger for males." "In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric Hospital, University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolesce atients, whose parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and treatment] with three most commonly occurring problems:
63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness, pronounced moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent past performance
43% Aggression toward parents Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in the same order: 69% indicating subjective psychological distress 47% academic problems
41% aggression toward pa ts.
Clinical Observations on Interferences of Early Father Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C. g, A. Mendell and B. Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4, Winter, 1989

Excerpt from Baskerville, S. Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, 2007
Click for "Just Say No to Divorced Women and Single Moms"
“Virtually every major social pathology of our time: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy and scholastic failure, unwed pregnancy, suicide and other psychological disorders – all these correlate more strongly to fatherlessness than to any other single factor.[1] According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, “Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional, and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than those who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.”[2] The overwhelming majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists all come from fatherless homes. Children from affluent but separated families are much more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children in intact families. The connection between single parent households and crime erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime[3].”

[1] Attempts to attribute these behaviors to poverty or racial discrimination have been refuted by studies that control for these variables. See Urie Bronfenbrenner, “Discovering What Families Do,” in David Blankenhorn, et al. (eds.), Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family (Milwaukee: Family Service America, 1990), p. 34; Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Children (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 188. Even left-wing scholars concur: Norman Dennis and George Erdos, Families Without Fatherhood (London: Civitas, 2000).
[2] Horn and Sylvester, Father Facts, p. 15.
[3] Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and William Galston, Putting Children First (Washington: Progressive Policy Institute, 1990), p. 14.