Photographs Of The Nobel Committee Members

Thorbjorn-JaglandKaci-Kulman-FiveSissel-Ronbeck

Inger-Marie-YtterhornAgot-Valle

Hmm, some kind of pattern here… *furrows brow*… can’t quite put my finger on it

obaby

(Photograph link provided by reader Ovid.)

PS: I repeat, you can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.





Comments


  1. on October 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm The Cock of Obama

    Dude, get over it.

    Three freaking post in one day because Obama won the Nobel prize?

    Jesus. It is getting too much under your skin.

    [editor: spot the irony.]

    Like


  2. on October 9, 2009 at 4:09 pm The Cock of Obama

    Conclusion?

    Well, nordic whitewomen loves Barack black cock. Whatelse?

    You think they wont give Obama the nobel prize if they are young, ripe nordic blondes? Of course they will.

    Like


  3. Here’s the funniest thing about this whole spectacle. I just read that Toby Keith — yes, that Toby Keith — is performing at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert. No joke; look it up.

    I wonder if the committee members have heard “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue / The Angry American”. And I really hope that if he’ll play it there (or even “American Soldiers”). Although everyone who hears it might have their head immediately explode if he does.

    Like


  4. sure the indirect representation through voting is the problem and not the actual male idiot representatives. OOOOOOKKKKKKAAAAYYYY

    Like


  5. Martin Luther King: 9 years from the Montgomery Bus Boycotts to NPP

    Mother Theresa: 31 years from starting her mission in Indai to NPP

    Nelson Mandela: 41 years from begining his political work against apartheid to NPP (27 of those years were in prison)

    Barack Obama: Was President for less than 2 weeks before he got his NPP nomination.

    Like


  6. Martin Luther King: 9 years from the Montgomery Bus Boycotts to NPP

    Mother Theresa: 31 years from starting her mission in Indai to NPP

    Nelson Mandela: 41 years from begining his political work against apartheid to NPP (27 of those years were in prison)

    Barack Obama: Was President for less than 2 weeks before he got his NPP nomination.

    No doubt… pretty fucking scary how much people are buying into the big-eared negro.

    Like


  7. “PS: I repeat, you can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.”

    There’s even been a God’s honest study on the subject… for those monkeys who always whine and request such nonsense:

    “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    (The answer, of course, is YES!)

    Like


  8. on October 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm The Cock of Obama

    You cant handle it, can you roissy?

    Didnt you do three post in one day after i won the election?

    Hehehhe

    Now, you are doing three post in one day after i won the nobel prize.

    How many post in one day are you going to do after i capture Osama bin Laden?

    I hope you wont slit your wrist tonight out of deep fustration. Make sure to call your mom, okay?

    Ha, the sweet, sweet pain of fustrated conservative white men. Hehehe.

    Like


  9. the important take-home point from this post is that women get really ugly when they get older.
    tragedy, it is.

    Like


  10. Obama cockhead, you totally don’t get it.

    FINALLY the Nobel Peace Prize is revealed to be *blatantly* political. (That is if Arafat didn’t convince you.)

    Not even the friggin Democrats can celebrate this with a straight face. This is so completely undeserved that the mask slips. Krugman, Gore, Carter — all obvious political awards.

    But this one is so fucking undeniable that it makes Bush’s nepotism pale in comparison.

    The Affirmative Action Nobel.

    Like


  11. the important take-home point from this post is that women get really ugly when they get older

    yes. I saw those dreadful ladies and couldn´t help thinking how they must have been nordic bombshells in their youth.

    Like


  12. “the important take-home point from this post is that women get really ugly when they get older.
    tragedy, it is.”

    how were we supposed determine that? but i have to agree, men age better.

    Like


  13. So women love Obama, doesn’t that make him a huge Alpha? I mean if Silvio was such an Alpha, he should have this award right? So why bemoan the fact that Obama is such an Alpha that he has the rest of the world sucking on his dick, without actually having to do anything to deserve it? Isn’t that the core tenets of Game in a nutshell? Roissy should be celebrating the Nobel Peace prize win, instead of crying in his beer.

    Like


  14. on October 9, 2009 at 4:35 pm An Experianced Father

    >Dude, get over it.

    CoO, since your Yobs are already saying stuff like this:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/DNC_official_GOP_siding_with_terrorists.html#

    “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.

    Stuff even the Onion or Saturday Night Live would have a hard time thinking up…why should’s Roissy blow raspberry’s over Obama’s Affirmative Action Nobel Peace Prize.

    Like


  15. yes. I saw those dreadful ladies and couldn´t help thinking how they must have been nordic bombshells in their youth.

    Only the first one, and possibly the redhead. The other two probably weren’t that great looking to begin with.

    Like


  16. @asdf

    its always been political…..welcome to the world.

    arafat was awarded the prize with rabin, and perez for the oslo accord for their efforts to bring peace to the middle east. it did not go to him exclusively. this bs is tiring.

    Like


  17. I read today that the members of the Committee are chosen to be representative of the Norwegian Parliament, at least according to political party. I wonder if it’s also 80% female.

    i disagree that female suffrage was a bad thing, of course. i think that’s a really bad road to go down, even rhetorically, for reasons that are too obvious to state. the only kind of disenfranchisement i’d consider supporting is some kind of basic literacy/citizenship test, something basic and fair, of the kind that immigrants do when they take the oath of citizenship. literacy tests have a bad name because they were used in the South as race-based disenfranchisement tools, in the face of Federal action. However, now that we’re mainly past that as a society, they might usefully be introduced, because an uneducated and easily manipulated electorate basically represents mob rule. All the protections the Framers put in against that have been eroded, either through deliberate action or technology. it’ll never happen, of course.

    you can argue that the movement of the U.S. government’s priorities in a more collectivist direction after 1919 had something to do with the female vote, but economic and other political factors probably had way more to do with it. depression, war, keynsianism, etc. probably some stats exist on the actual effect of female voting patterns on election returns. might be a good test of that theory, at least as the cause of the leftward drift (not necessarily the “decline of America”)

    the polarization of today’s two parties into female, “mommy” and male, “daddy” parties is much more interesting, and is probably a better example of what you’re talking about. i think that phenomenon is much more recent, dating from the 60s, and is a simple if crude and inexact measure of current female vs. male political priorities, at least as outlined in party campaigns, slogans, and platforms. (the actual activities of government, of course, have almost nothing to do with these. )

    if recent trends continue, the “daddy” party constituency is about to be screwed by the family-court electorate, forced to pay through the nose on questionable grounds and to comply without consent to marginalization in their own home/country. but that, too, seems to be the inevitable continuation of a long-running historical process. mainly because men don’t identify or behave as an electorally active interest group/bloc as women do on many of the issues we talk about here. maybe roissy is wise to accept this as inevitable and just enjoy the ride into the shithouse.

    finally, i don’t think the norwegian parliamentarians see obama in quite the same way as the female campaign workers did. he’s the messiah to the obama girls, he’s the anti-Bush to the Euros. One involves moist ginas, at least in part, the other is more like an extension of the spittle-flecked political invective of teh past 8-9 years. i mean, look at those broads…

    Like


  18. Roissy should be celebrating the Nobel Peace prize win, instead of crying in his beer.

    You’re reaching for thinking he’d be man enough to put ideology aside.

    Like


  19. on October 9, 2009 at 4:57 pm An Experianced Father

    Trouble>> You’re reaching for thinking he’d be man enough to put ideology aside.

    And since when is criticizing Lefties for playing Affirmative Action games with the Nobel Peace prize the same as cutting off people’s heads?

    Like


  20. Obama is an Alpha to women, particularly SWPL women who are lets face it, fairly representative of most White women these days.

    But to guys like Putin, or Hu, or Ahmadinejad, or Osama, he’s nothing. A guy easily bullied, scared, run off, and pushed around. A guy weaker than weak.

    This award make the Nobel prizes a farce. It’s AA up the wazoo, because Obama has done nothing other than make himself a star of American Idol. He’s the David Archuleta of politics, the sort of gay, effeminate, guy who makes older women scream. Or Clay Aiken if you prefer.

    Steve Sailor wondered where are all of Obama’s ex girlfriends. We know about Letterman’s (he was still banging the ex-staffer while she was living with the other guy, hence the blackmai).

    Like


  21. And since when is criticizing Lefties for playing Affirmative Action games with the Nobel Peace prize the same as cutting off people’s heads?

    Playing “affirmative action games” with the NPP would be giving it to a conservative and not a liberal, since the NPP is notoriously liberal. Get it, Pillar of Dim?

    Thanks for playing.

    [editor: you seem to be confused about who exactly affirmative action is intended for. and whose egos dispensation of AA is intended to stroke.

    be that as it may, i don’t think the prime motivating force behind the fruitcup committee’s decision was AA status points, although that certainly played a role, especially in light of all the middle-aged O-slurping women sitting on the committee. instead, it was primarily a political statement by a bunch of eurofaggot leftwingers flipping the bird to red state america doubling as a sly straightjacketing of obama’s future engagement with the “international community”.

    however you slice it, the nobel peace prize is bastardized beyond redemption. stick a fork in it, it’s tp.]

    Like


  22. “So women love Obama, doesn’t that make him a huge Alpha”

    Yes it does.

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/is-obama-alpha/

    “Isn’t that the core tenets of Game in a nutshell? Roissy should be celebrating the Nobel Peace prize win, instead of crying in his beer.”

    I think you have misunderstood something – Game is about fucking hot women.

    Like


  23. “You’re reaching for thinking he’d be man enough to put ideology aside.”

    Since when is suppressing what you believe in manly?

    Like


  24. on October 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm An Experianced Father

    This is what Pres. Obama did to earn his Affirmative Action Nobel Peace Prize from Norweigian Feminists, via of Fox News:

    ————–
    Tommy De Seno – FOXNews.com
    October 09, 2009
    How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days

    Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the WhiteHouse according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

    Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning.

    Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter).

    President Obama has broken new ground here.

    Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1.

    The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20.

    Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve aNobel Peace Prize:

    January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

    January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for informationrequests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

    January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to takeethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques forinterrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that workingout?)

    January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortionsin foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

    January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

    January 25: Skipped church.

    January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton.Attended Geithner’s swearing in ceremony.

    January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

    January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretaryin the afternoon.

    January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision onlawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

    January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class WorkingFamilies Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

    January 31: Took the day off.

    February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

    So there you have it.

    The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortionsin foreign countries, party some more.

    Good grief.

    Like


  25. “Playing “affirmative action games” with the NPP would be giving it to a conservative and not a liberal, since the NPP is notoriously liberal. Get it, Pillar of Dim?”

    Jesus Christ Almighty – you were certainly an impressive specimen of capital D Dumb.

    Like


  26. srsly

    When 50 year old (a bad 50) Norwegian feminists are the arbiters of a once auspicious prize for the wispy concept of “peace” it’s so over it’s ridic.

    Like


  27. roissy

    the important take-home point from this post is that women get really ugly when they get older.
    tragedy, it is.

    True that, but so do men, dogs and cats.

    [editor: women get uglier harder and faster.]

    The nobel peace prize has never been about peace. The ones who deserve it will never win because they’re usually not politically oriented and yes, that included Mother Teresa cuz the Catholic Church is one huge political organization sans any truly peaceful intentions.

    Like


  28. Jesus Christ Almighty

    Doesn’t exist.

    – you were certainly an impressive specimen of capital D Dumb.

    Were? Still am!

    Like


  29. you bet. the pope has rly been harsh on those peaceful muslims lately

    Like


  30. on October 9, 2009 at 5:19 pm An Experianced Father

    >Playing “affirmative action games” with the NPP would be
    >giving it to a conservative and not a liberal, since the NPP
    >is notoriously liberal. Get it, Pillar of Dim?
    >
    >Thanks for playing.

    Excuse me, since when was Pres. Bill Clinton either a conservative or a Republican?

    Clinton imposed a just peace in Bosnian and Albania, saving the lives of millions of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in the 1990’s from Serbian rape camps (young women), ethnic cleansing killing fields (all men) and lime kilns (for the bodies).

    And he got bubkis from the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

    In the 12 days the Nobel comittee had to consider him, OBAMA DID NOTHING OF MERIT save start giving American tax payer money for foreign aid paid for abortions.

    The Feminists on the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave Obama the prize for what he was — the first elected Black American Presidentnot who he was in terms of real deeds accomplished, and millions of lives saves, like Pres Clinton was.

    Thanks for playing.

    Like


  31. Excuse me, since when was Pres. Bill Clinton either a conservative or a Republican?

    Clinton imposed a just peace in Bosnian and Albania, saving the lives of millions of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in the 1990’s from Serbian rape camps (young women), ethnic cleansing killing fields (all men) and lime kilns (for the bodies).

    And he got bubkis from the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

    In the 12 days the Nobel comittee had to consider him, OBAMA DID NOTHING OF MERIT save start giving American tax payer money for foreign aid paid for abortions.

    The Feminists on the Nobel Peace Prize committee gave Obama the prize for what he was — the first elected Black American President — not who he was in terms of real deeds accomplished, and millions of lives saves, like Pres Clinton was.

    Thanks for playing.

    Just because Clinton hasn’t gotten it doesn’t mean he won’t get it. Carter got his in … what, 02 (whether it’s deserving or not is moot)?

    I agree that BO doesn’t deserve it (this would be about the 3rd time I’ve stated so), but I’m not going to hate on the guy. And he wasn’t chosen 12 days into his presidency, he was nominated with others. The vote came later on. I think the committee based it on a bit more than him being black. Sorry, a “Negro” (am i doin it rite guyz?). Still, don’t think he deserves it (4). And I think you got the whole non sequitur about abortions backwards.

    Like


  32. on October 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm An Experianced Father

    >however you slice it, the nobel peace prize is bastardized
    >beyond redemption. stick a fork in it, it’s tp.]

    Welcome to Leftist World, where racism and symbolic racial politics are the order of the day and equality means only equal results, not equal opportunity.

    If King were alive today and saying this:

    “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

    …to today’s ‘Leftists in Democrats clothing,’ they’d consider him to be a dangerous conservative, like Newt Gingrich.

    With Lefties, what counts is what people are, not who people are, and how much power the what has.

    I.e., all power to them thats got the guns and the will to use ’em.

    Which is, I am afraid, where this is ultimately going.

    Bushing up on a good history of the Spanish Civil War will be an exercise in self-preservation for many, IMO.

    Like


  33. Giving women the vote was a fatal error for the USA.
    Giving them unfettered access to birth control and higher “educational” opportunities was another misstep.
    Letting them out of the kitchen and into the workforce has been a disaster.

    The only problem is, how do we reserve these mistakes? I don’t see how it’s possible, once you’ve let the cat (ladies) out of the bag.

    Like


  34. on October 9, 2009 at 5:45 pm An Experienced Father

    >I think the committee based it on a bit more than him
    >being black.

    Such as…what?

    Trying to pre-emptively surrender to Iranian mullahs who might get thrown out on ther ass any minute now for screwing up the Iranian economy?

    >And I think you got the whole non sequitur about
    >abortions backwards.

    Since it was the only foreign policy thing Obama did IN THE PERIOD OF PRIZE CONSIDERATION, (2 Feb 2008 – 1 Feb 2009) it is literally the only thing they can judge him on.

    Like


  35. A prestigious prize normally awarded for doing something important confers no prestige if it is awarded for doing nothing.

    This award reduces Obama’s status rather than increasing it (and it also reduces the status of the NPP) because it is such an obvious joke.

    Now that I see the make-up of the committee, it is clear that the status of the NPP is even lower than I thought because it is awarded by women.

    Like


  36. Correct! We women will continue to have political power until modern society crashes and burns, and we go back to being under men’s thumbs. It’s a cycle, if that makes you feel any better. Maybe your great-grandson will be able purchase and fully own my great-granddaughter, who knows?

    Like


  37. Those women all look like the sort of malicious cunts who would enjoy cutting out your heart with a rusty nickle.

    Like


  38. on October 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm Le Coq Massif

    I dunno about Norwegians, but the French are Alpha:

    “French Cultural Minister Mitterand Is Attacked for Paying Young Asian Boys for Sex”

    [editor: “le coq massif”. lol. this handle is even better than “herb dregs”. way to step it up folks!]

    Like


  39. It’s always funny when people say something they didn’t care about in the least has lost it’s reputation. 90% of Repubs who are complaining about the NPP becoming a farce couldn’t name 3 winners in the last 10 years.

    Of course, neither could 90% of Democrats, but they’re not the ones gnashing their teeth and wetting themselves.

    [editor: i bet they would’ve had dubya won.]

    I love Obama. He’s like an X-Ray machine that exposes people’s Uptightness bright as day.

    [you’re half-right. he’s like an x-ray because see through him, i do.]

    Like


  40. PS: I repeat, you can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.

    Yeah things sure have gotten a lot worse around here since the good ole roaring ’20’s.

    I couldn’t help but notice that Your statement seems to be at odds with the implications of Roissy Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality.

    Follow the reasoning: Women get the right to vote and are set on the path to cultural equality. As beta males lose their monopoly over control of the nation’s resources, their dating market value drops as women are no longer dependent on them for financial stability. Game and swagger are given more relative importance among traits desired by women. Poon become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a number of alphas that possess game and swagger. Alphas reproduce and pass on their genes. Betas do not. The next generation becomes more alpha. QED.

    Like


  41. ” … On the basis of these estimates, granting women the right to vote caused expenditures to rise immediately by 14 percent (.179 3 .740 increase in log), by 21 percent after 25 years, and by 28 percent after 45 years. Similarly, female suffrage led to a 21 percent rise in revenue after 25 years and a 27 percent rise after 45 years…””

    More at the link posted above.

    Its the absolute fucking truth that allowing women to vote was the major catalyst of the decline of western (any) civilization. Emotion is not how you run a nation.

    Like


  42. You want women to vote Republican? Marry more of them! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/06/20040106-103400-7397r/

    Okay, probably more a reverse in cause and effect (at the very least) but a fun idea to put out there.

    Like


  43. Real message of this post:

    another chance to make a shitty jab at women and receive asspats for it

    Like


  44. [editor] generic comeback about semen or lesbians that is supposed to make me look totally cool

    Wow, I sure showed that anon-poster who is boss!

    Like


  45. another chance to make a shitty jab at women and receive asspats for it

    Jealous?

    Like


  46. I must say that I’m really enjoying this. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Repugnicans get their collective panties in a bunch quite like this. Somewhere Glenn Beck’s head just exploded.

    So go ahead and spit your venom, for on the day that Obama opens the skies and rains down sweet ambrosia from the heavens into thine ungrateful cups, thou too shall bow down in awe and be forgiven.

    Like


  47. What is enjoyable is that Obongo and the negro-worshiping Marxists in Oslo look like complete fools.

    The whole world is laughing at them. Obongo is a laughingstock.

    More, please.

    Like


  48. Polichinello

    Jealous?

    Nah, I get plenty of praise for my work and honestly its kind of annoying.

    Like


  49. A better question,

    what would you say if I harvested all your crops?

    I took your daughter to saturn?

    What would you do if I read your name to a vulture on, um, a third date?

    Like


  50. Alphas reproduce and pass on their genes. Betas do not. The next generation becomes more alpha. QED.

    No, emperical data shows that men with low numbers of partners have more children than men with high numbers of partners.
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

    Looks like a beta beta beta future.

    [editor: those who wish for a beta future can thank contraceptives for that.]

    Like


  51. Well, nordic whitewomen loves Barack black cock. Whatelse?

    Somebody else does too, it appears. A lot of projection here.

    Like


  52. I have spent enough time around ordinary Europeans to have learned that they are in private as prejudiced against Africans as the average Southern Redneck.
    The Euros are trying to do to America what the North did to the South after the Civil War. The idea was to punish the South for its rebellion by forcing them to elevate the status of a despised minority. The South was forced at gunpoint to give recently emancipated slaves the right to vote at a time when virtually no Northern state gave voting rights to their own black citizens. They were just fucking with the South.
    Here, the Scandinavians are just trying to humiliate America in the same way because they think they can.

    Like


  53. After reading the other Nobel thread, an important question arises: which of the bitter, dried up Scandahags is “Biting Beaver”, and which one is “Wow”?

    Like


  54. for on the day that Obama opens the skies and rains down sweet ambrosia from the heavens into thine ungrateful cups, thou too shall bow down in awe and be forgiven.

    The God-Emperor already rained ambrosia on Detroit earlier this week, but unfortunately I missed it.

    Like


  55. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn won the noble prize in the 70’s, i love his books and he is my nr 1 favourite writer. he was noble and worthy the nobel prize.
    Some stupid people got into the committee and they ruin the whole meaning of this award, Nobel is turning in his grave right know.

    Like


  56. Who cares if Obama won the Peace Prize? Arafat won the PP, too. Obama is in good company.

    Toby Keith is a Democrat.

    Like


  57. No, emperical data shows that men with low numbers of partners have more children than men with high numbers of partners.

    There is data indicating that things are changing:

    http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/09/alphas-and-betas.html

    “Betas average more kids, but the gap is narrowing. Standard deviations (not shown) are increasing for both groups too, indicating greater variation in this decade.

    So the two groups are converging: more Betas are now childless, while Alphas are reproducing at greater numbers. It looks like fewer Betas are able to find a partner now, and perhaps women are becoming more willing to have an Alpha’s baby. Single motherhood is becoming more common and acceptable for whites, so women might be more willing to risk having a baby with an unreliable man.

    Predictions are a very dicey business, and Alphas are still less prolific, but if current trends continue, Alphas could surpass Betas in the baby race.”

    Like


  58. [quote]
    Alphas reproduce and pass on their genes. Betas do not. The next generation becomes more alpha. QED.

    No, emperical data shows that men with low numbers of partners have more children than men with high numbers of partners.
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

    Looks like a beta beta beta future.

    [editor: those who wish for a beta future can thank contraceptives for that.]

    [/quote]

    1. Number of Sexual Partners does not necessarily correlate with degree of Alphaness. Many “Alphas”, espically religious ones, may limit the number of partners they’ve had for psycho-philosophical reasons- this dosen’t make the any less “genetically alpha”.

    2. Just because a beta raises more children then an alpha dosen’t mean that they’re his. Another rooster may have slipped into the henhouse behind his back

    3. Similarly an Alpha who raises less children may have fathered more children outside of his marriage/relationship.

    [editor: all true, and good points.]

    Like


  59. The French, btw, can’t stand. Middle calss white French think he is a joke. Only the blacks and Muslims like him.

    Like


  60. Thursday

    First, per Roissy’s previous posts a man’s posititon on the alpha-omega continuum is measured by the options available to him, not the number of women he’s slept with.

    However, even if I conceded that there was a strong positive correlation between position on the alpha-omega continuum and number of sexual partners, the data shown in the table and graph is normalized for sample size (averages and percentages), there is no information about the variability within each group or the statistical power (which from looking at the SD of the means is very low), and other than the one outlier for men with one sexual partner that might skew a regression line, I see no trend that suggests an association between number of sexual partners and number of children. The editors of any reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal you submitted this to would sully your reputation to repay you for wasting their time and make you the butt of their office jokes for years to come. Your name would be intrduced into the lexicon as synonymous with asinine doofus, and the paper it was printed on would most likely end up in the bottom of a rat cage to cellect the feces of animals that might actually contribute something to man’s understanding of the natural world.

    Like


  61. Number of Sexual Partners does not necessarily correlate with degree of Alphaness. Many “Alphas”, espically religious ones, may limit the number of partners they’ve had for psycho-philosophical reasons- this dosen’t make the any less “genetically alpha”.

    True, but it was implied that cads were fathering more children than dads. Not true.

    Just because a beta raises more children then an alpha dosen’t mean that they’re his. Another rooster may have slipped into the henhouse behind his back.

    Non-paternity rates among those confident of their paternity are between 1-2%.

    Similarly an Alpha who raises less children may have fathered more children outside of his marriage/relationship.

    For the previous reason I gave, I kind of doubt this is a major factor.

    So the two groups are converging: more Betas are now childless, while Alphas are reproducing at greater numbers.

    True, but keep in mind that the increase is _all_ from those “alphas” with IQs below 100, while the number of children for those with IQs above 100 are either falling or staying about the same.

    Like


  62. So, Obama won an award.

    Meanwhile, Van Jones is out of the Administration.

    ACORN is still under investigation and financially hamstrung.

    US troops are still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Healthcare reform is dead in Congress.

    The Iranians will have nukes by next year.

    Unemployment is around 9%+ nationally.

    And our school–well, hey, don’t get me started on our schools:

    So, yeah–let Obama have his fig leaf. Lord knows, he needs something to cover up with.

    Like


  63. on October 9, 2009 at 10:43 pm Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    Wait, four of these five faggots are women? How can it be so lopsided? Isn’t that sexual discrimination?

    Anyway, this award does more to destroy the credibility of the once-venerable prize. Now it is more of a parody and laughingstock.

    Like


  64. on October 9, 2009 at 10:48 pm Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    WON the Nobel Peace Prize :

    Kofi Annan
    Yassir Arafag
    Jimmy Carter
    Al Bore
    Borat Hussein Osama

    Yeah. Some prize that is.

    Like


  65. Thursday,

    Like I said, the your data is normalized by the sample size of each group. A single Beta may have the same average number of children as single alpha, but if a greater number of alphas each have the same average number of children, which is the case with the increasing concentration of poon in the hands of relatively few alphas, then there will be more alpha offspring. QED.

    Mu’min: I thought you had suffocated on one of the many large cocks that have no doubt entered your mouth in the past 24 hours. Glad you’re still with us.

    Like


  66. Thursday

    The Am. Blood Banking Assoc. (that does most of this kind of testing) has a year by year no-match of around 30%. This means that whenever a guy has a intuition/hint/vibe he is right about 30% of the time and that means that only in one third of cases where a pregnant female pointing at a guy is trying aggressively to hijack his young life for 18 years on the basis of a total fraud; a malicious lie regarding paternity.
    Draw your own conclusions..

    Like


  67. on October 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    The Specimen,

    Obsidian (real name : Mu’Min) is many things, but one thing he is NOT, is gay. So quit saying that Obsidian is gay.

    Like


  68. Healthcare reform is dead in Congress.

    lmao

    Like


  69. This means that whenever a guy has a intuition/hint/vibe he is right about 30% of the time

    Right, but irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether there are a lot of unknowing men out there with cuckoos eggs.

    Like


  70. Cuckolding and having some other guy raise his kids is probably the primary alpha reproductive strategy.

    Unless they believe in and try to follow some kind of ethical or religious system that insists in paternal involvement, they tend to be mediocre husbands and bad fathers alternating long periods of absences with short bouts of ATTENTION!!! On the other hand, a good percentage of them give their offspring no more thought than a turtle does.

    In pre-legal society they tend to make a lot of enemies who would be very happy to avenge themselves by killing mr asshole-game’s kids (perhaps mistakenly believing that mr asshole-game cared about them?)

    The safest alpha reproductive strategy is then parasitic in the form of changelings – all the reproductive success with none of the hassles of having to deal with the kid or its mother. And enough women were happy enough to cooperate that the pattern is still around and shows no signs of disappearing.

    Like


  71. on October 10, 2009 at 5:29 am Cannon's Canon

    roissy validated aenigma’s thought experiment:
    “1. Number of Sexual Partners does not necessarily correlate with degree of Alphaness. Many “Alphas”, espically religious ones, may limit the number of partners they’ve had for psycho-philosophical reasons- this dosen’t make the any less “genetically alpha”.”

    FALSE

    number of partners for a mountain-town jock does not correlate with true alpha-ness, relative to his nerdy hipster cousin in williamsburg, brooklyn. they might rack up some truly cascading tallies, but the PROPORTION is in favor of the hillbilly.

    this currency exchange rate holds true across the board. the first thesis is incontrovertible: “sexual partners does not correlate with alpha.”

    however!

    tom brady in the sticks and peyton manning in the city, removing all personality variables and feeding them test-prop shots (which definitely DOES make you lower your standards, roissy!!!) will accumulate different tallies, but not different proportions. swap em and observe.

    an omega at half-sigma’s prole waffle-house wedding won’t fuck a few nyc bitches. fuck me if our omega can’t knock down a few out there though!

    my point is: no one can say there are less alphas in the bible-thumping belt as per survey stats, or even raw numbers. if partner tally is no indication, gina tally is also skewed, and probably at an equal proportion. can’t juxtapose them bible boys either, because they embody a “response bias”… no way to know that these corn-fed alphas couldn’t improve their market-share if they were societally-inclined to act differently.

    NO ECON! (no homo)

    remember: in a world of alien fraggles, cig-stache may clock in at 10/10… well, 6/10 anyway

    Like


  72. why is this being take so seriously

    Like


  73. why is this being take so seriously

    After yesterday, it no longer will be taken seriously

    Like


  74. Roissy,

    “You can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.”

    All U.S. adult females got the Constitutional right to vote in 1920.

    So…everything was going great in America until 1920, when things then started going bad? What chart are you looking at?

    It was my impression that the U.S. actually did pretty well in the 20th Century. If you gave the U.S. a rank in 1900 and then gave it a rank in 2000, it seems to me the latter would be higher, by any reasonable measure of a country’s greatness. “World’s only superpower” comes to mind. How does a country in “decline” achieve that status?

    Especially considering the remarkably sane and thoughtful ideas expressed in this blog and its comments section, the grumpy-old-man assumption by many here that the United States has declined or is certainly in decline is perplexing. Citation needed.

    [editor: inertia. it takes a while for these things to fully manifest.]

    Like


  75. Fred,

    I linked a study regarding women’s suffrage further up this page.

    It has been a while since I read it, but if I remember correctly, the authors illustrated that while women got the vote in 1920, the majority of women did not exercise their right to use it in the beginning… it was kind of a foreign concept to most women at the time, and women didn’t truly start using the franchise in significant volume until the second generation of women… the ones after WWII.

    People interested in reading about the suffrage movement can find lots of good articles – from the period itself – at the Men’s Tribune: http://www.menstribune.com/

    One thing you will discover in reading pieces from a century ago is that women’s nature is CONSTANT!

    What is today “If a woman were President, there would be no more wars” was the exact same thing back then, but “If women had the vote, there would be no more wars.”

    The suffragettes were actually horribly sexist/supremacist bitches about on par with morality of our modern N.O.W. and Andrea Dworkin, the Great Walrus.

    For people who believe that women had no rights a century ago, I strongly encourage you to spend some time reading Belfort Bax’s “The Fraud of Feminism”, written in the early 1900’s – as he traces through the anti-male sentiment of the laws and society in favour of women in virtually all things. Women were HIGHLY advantaged over men 100 years ago in much the same way that they are today… and they constantly pushed for more, more, more more and MORE… it is the nature of the female, just like a child, that if you do not set firm boundaries, they will screech and wail and thrash all of your possessions into smithereens.

    Feminism was as much of a fraud 100 years ago as it is today.

    “The Fraud of Feminism” (1913) – by E. Belfort Bax

    http://menstribune.com/bax.htm

    “The Legal Subjection of Men” (1908) – by E. Belfort Bax

    http://menstribune.com/Belfort_Bax.html

    QUOTE:

    No one, as far as we are aware, has seriously set
    him or herself to proving the theory to have any
    foundation at all. Starting with the assumption, the
    state of things it implies has been deplored, people
    have tried to explain it, to suggest remedies for it,
    but tested it has never been. We all know the story
    of King Charles II. and the Royal Society; how
    the Merry Monarch, shortly after the institution of
    that learned body, propounded a problem for its
    solution, to wit, why a dead fish weighed more
    than a live one? Many were the explanations sug-
    gested, till at length one bold man proposed that they
    should come back to first principles, and have a dead
    fish and a live fish respectively placed in the scales before
    them. The proposition was received with horror, one
    member alleging that to doubt the fact amounted to
    nothing less than high treason. After much difficulty,
    however, the bold man got his way; the matter was put
    to the test, when, to the utter discomfiture of the loyal
    members, the alleged fact which they were seeking to
    explain evinced itself as but a figment of the Royal
    fancy.
    We propose in the following paragraphs to consider
    whether the matter does not stand similarly only very
    much “more so” as regards the conventional notion of
    the legal and social disabilities of women. In the
    present paper we shall merely confine ourselves to the
    legal aspects of the question.
    It will not, we think, take us long to convince our-
    selves that the allegations on this subject which the
    present generation, at least, has had dinned into its ears
    from all sides since its infancy, are even on a less favour-
    able footing as regards accuracy. Charles II. thought
    the dead fish weighed heavier than the live one. The
    event only proved that they weighed the same–not that 2

    the live one weighed heavier than the dead one. Our
    modern women’s righters bewail the alleged legal op-
    pression of women by men. The facts show not that
    neither sex is oppressed as such, but, on the contrary,
    they disclose a legalised oppression of men by women.

    Like


  76. I think that the Swedish lady in the top-middle photo would have been a total hotty during her youth. Great face, great bone structure.

    Curses to the tyranny of Time and Aging! Entropy is the one master which we can’t ever throw off.

    Like


  77. “[editor: inertia. it takes a while for these things to fully manifest.]”

    I admire your commitment to irrational self-confidence.

    For the moment, however, I think I’ll regard the link between feminism and the collapse of the United States to be as imaginary as the collapse of the United States.

    [editor: do you consider the growth of government to be a sign of national decline? i do. and as a commenter posted above, there is research clearly showing that government rapidly grew after suffrage.]

    Predictions of imminent doom do not have a good record of accuracy. Which is to say, they have literally always been wrong.

    [give me a ring in 20 years once the current demographic shift to a dumber, more criminal population metastasizes and we’ll compare notes on the rate of gdp growth and american influence in world affairs.]

    Like


  78. on October 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm The Cock of Obama

    ROISSY is suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Here is a picture of Roissy going nuts:

    HEHEHE.

    [editor: a wish for obama to fail is a wish for america to succeed.]

    Like


  79. In 1970, the birthrates of people in the West were 3.9 per couple.

    It takes 2.1 births per couple to maintain a population.

    No society has EVER reversed a birthrate that has dropped below 1.9 per couple.

    If the birthrate drops below 1.3 per couple, it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to reverse it, because of the time delay between generations. (It would take over a century of banging out as many kids as possible, and the civilization would sputter and die mid-stream).

    Non Immigrant birthrate in America: 1.6 per couple
    Canada: 1.5 per couple
    Germany: 1.3 per couple
    Spain: 1.1 per couple

    The crunch will really start to come in in the year 2030, when the bulge of baby-boomers start to die off in droves, and there won’t be a large enough population coming behind it to sustain things.

    A growing debt does not help much either… as, if 10 people borrow $1,000,000, they are each liable for $100,000 each… but, if half die off, the remaining 5 are now liable for $200,000 each.

    The future does not look too bright for anyone 40 and under.

    Myself, I plan on staying in North America until my mother passes away (She’s in her mid-seventies now), and then I am more or less thinking of packing my bags and getting the hell out of Dodge while the getting is still good.

    Uruguay seems nice, politically stable, and has a decent standard of living. A decent house on an acreage can be had quite easily for $100,000. Their GDP per capita is around $11,000, whereas in North America, we are around $40,000.

    If you are worth $500,000, you could bugger off to a country like that and live like a KING – and, be living in a society that values marriage & family more than ours, and still has the type of cultural hegemony that will ensure safety and stability for years to come.

    Like


  80. fedrz,

    I’ll certainly grant that some prominent feminists throughout the history of feminism have made (and are making) astounding claims without offering a shred of evidence. Feminism has a demonstrated record of being hostile to facts. To many feminist thinkers feminism is clearly a dogma to be followed without question. And this dogma has done violence to core values of our society such as justice and fairness. No argument from me on any of that.

    But what I am disputing in Roissy’s post is the claim that the United States has declined by any reasonable measure. ‘Feminism has toxic attributes’ is not the same thing as ‘the U.S. has declined in greatness and is about to collapse.’

    If the United States has achieved a huge and steady rise in greatness over the course of 99 years of women’s suffrage and 50 years of a successful feminist movement, I think it’s kinda bonkers to hold the belief, “Feminism is responsible for the decline of the United States.”

    It’s blaming feminism for something that hasn’t even happened.

    The Lott-Kenny paper suggests a link between female political power and the size of government. Let’s assume the link. How does that in any way suggest the United States is in decline?

    Large government programs = the end of the nation?

    [editor: correction: large and *growing* government programs. and the answer is yes.]

    This kind of prediction has a very sorry record over the past century. Social Security was predicted to destroy the country.

    [SS is on the fast track for insolvency. haven’t you been reading the news?]

    Somehow the country withstood the onslaught of old people not starving in the streets — the U.S. actually experienced a huge escalation in its rise to superpowerdom.

    [editor: demographic lag effect.]

    Medicare was going to destroy the country, too. So weird, isn’t it, how the opposite actually happened?

    [all trends point downward. the past is not prologue.]

    Female support for using some of this nation’s vast wealth to care for its elderly citizens didn’t end the nation as we know it. We’re wealthier and stronger — even our old people are!

    [it’s not just medicare that female-supported gov’t programs pay for.

    ps medicare and SS created a disincentive to save. and to have kids.]

    Like


  81. I love how the self-proclaimed PUA’s describe Obama as a weakling.

    [editor: i wrote almost a year ago that obama is an alpha. please do try and keep up.]

    I mean, did that guy achieve anything other than obtaining a Harvard education and raising from obscurity to a position of highest authority in the free world all in the span of some 15 years? He’s a democratically elected president of this country and some tiny ineffectual fleas, author of this blog included, can squeal as much as they want, making themselves look like idiots in the process.

    [is there any valid complaint or ridicule of someone you like *not* indicative of idiocy in the person complaining or ridiculing?]

    Did you prefer GWB and his fascist tendencies?

    [you just discredited yourself. next!]

    Obama deserves this prize (which he didn’t ask for, btw) if only for reversing the trends enabled by the prior administration. It’s been difficult to be proud of living in this country for the past few years, but it is getting better. Also, what is it with people claiming that Obama got this prize for his two week long presidency at the time. I wasn’t aware of the fact that Barack is so young to have been born in mid-January of this year. I thought he’s at least 2, no, 3 years older than that!

    Roissy – you should lay off politics and stick to the stuff that you specialize in. More and more I get the impression that you’re a frustrated AFC type of guy who makes up with cyber-bravado for his real life short-comings. Obama is not the cause of your life troubles. I understand that you were raised to vote republican, but that’s why you have that fertile mind of yours to make your own decisions. Sometimes you have to go right and sometimes it’s best to veer left.

    [you’re just pissed that i’m shitting all over your boy.]

    Like


  82. Roissy,

    “do you consider the growth of government to be a sign of national decline?”

    Social Security was predicted to bring about national decline and did not. Medicare was predicted by Reagan to destroy democracy itself and merely resulted in health care for old people — while the nation prospered.

    [editor: give it time. demographics is a bitch.]

    So, no, I do not subscribe to the dogma that the addition of any large government program must spell demise for the nation.

    [the truth cares not for your subscription to it.]

    The record of the 20th Century demonstrates that large government programs such as Social Security and Medicare have either had a positive effect on economic growth or no effect.

    [ss is going insolvent. medicare is on the way.]

    “give me a ring in 20 years once the current demographic shift to a dumber, more criminal population metastasizes and we’ll compare notes on the rate of gdp growth and american influence in world affairs.”

    Will do. I predict that your prediction of imminent doom will look as accurate as Ronald Reagan’s 1961 prediction of imminent doom did in 1981 (how proud Reagan must have felt during his inauguration for having been elected president even though the U.S. by then had become a totalitarian Communist country due to Medicare).

    Whoever’s wrong has to pay for the booze and hookers, if those are still available in our feminist-run totalitarian dystopia.

    [once the dystopia hits, the feminists won’t be running anything anymore. it’ll be the guys with guns and the balls to use them running the show.]

    Like


  83. Fred,

    Feminism is a cultural suicide pill. Literally.

    You can trace the rise and fall of civilizations in regard to women’s empowerment within the civilization from antiquity onward… granted, it is often related to female economic power as much as political power… hypergamy MUST be contained or civilization will not occur/sustain itself.

    Aristotle’s “Spartan Women” is a good place to start:

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/09/politics-of-aristotle.html

    You can also find evidence of rising divorce rates/dwindling birthrates in regard to the slow collapse of Rome… specifically dealing with a woman’s control over her own dowry… in the beginning of Rome, a woman was under the complete control of her father until she married and transferred, along with her dowry, to the husband. Then, when divorce laws came into being, should the marriage end, the woman AND the dowry were returned to the father… then it became that the woman’s dowry would be taken from her husband’s control and she would be able to control it herself upon divorce… then it became that the woman controlled her dowry DURING the marriage (complete economic freedom), and that is when the shit started to hit the fan…

    Persia was once the greatest super-power on earth, and had stood for centuries… King Darius III apparently said “my men have become women and my women have become men” as Alexander the Great was handing him his ass on a platter.

    When the Ottoman Empire finally fell, it had negative birthrates.

    Androgyny is what feminism is about (women wanting to become men…) and it is lethal to any civilization that has embraced it.

    I am not an American, and so have no great knowledge of your social programs, except to say that I know that America is still the most economically free country in the West, with the lowest tax rates – even despite your humungo army.

    I live in the Socialist Utopia known as Canuckistan, and our medical system BLOWS CHUNKS, and should America no longer have free market healthcare, CANADIANS will start dying in greater numbers, as anyone with money and in serious medical trouble, will fast run across the border to recieve superior healthcare and save their ass. Our healthcare is good for things like a common cold… anything more serious is akin to standing in line at a Russian Bakery.

    We are doubly fucked in Canada because of large government and healthcare. We are one tenth in population of America… so, keep in mind that ON TOP of our debt (and 50% taxation rate, as opposed to 33% in America), we have a 2.2 Trillion UNFUNDED Canada Pension Plan liability… that puts CPP alone at about the equivalent, per capita, as the US National Debt of which I believe is now at $21 Trillion.

    Also, our healthcare is not “free.” Nothing is “free”. It is brutally expensive and highly innefficient.

    What is going to happen when all of them baby boomers retire and require more and more and more “free” healthcare?

    Who, exactly, is going to be providing this “free” service?

    And who, exactly, is going to foot the bill for a DOUBLE debt of the Canadian Pension Plan?

    Who?

    The smaller, MUCH SMALLER, generations that come behind?

    If we are already at a real taxation rate of 50%, I wonder how it is going to look in 20 years when there are only maybe 60% of the workers as today, but a 200% increase in healthcare and state funded pension liabilities. Will we be at a 75% taxation rate or further?

    Most socialist countries in Europe, such as the Netherlands, are already at a 70% real taxation rate… in the Soviet Union, the real taxation rate was about 90%…. I suspect that Canada might also need to tax at those rates if they seriously expect to attempt to sustain this system.

    And then why the fuck would any of us go to work… except, of course, at the poke in the ass from a bayonette…

    Like


  84. Roissy,

    “[SS is on the fast track for insolvency.]”

    Seriously? The notion that GWB was a fascist is almost more credible than this.

    My parents grew up being told that “Social Security won’t be there for you — it’s running out of money.” I grew up being told this. People today are being told this. And I believed it until recently. But you know what? Once I actually looked into it, it was easy to determine that this notion is objectively false.

    It’s as false as “George Bush plotted 9-11.” It’s a lie.

    The year 2037 is the point at which Social Security is expected to be unable to pay full benefits if no changes to the current program are made. It’s only logical that there would be some hypothetical point like this in the future. There has to be.

    It is profoundly stupid to interpret this fact as some kind of a financial catastrophe looming for the program. For one thing, it could still pay out benefits in 2037 even without changes — they’d just be a bit less with each passing year. That’s hardly a catastrophe.

    But realistically, what the Trustees report tells us is that sometime before 2037 we will likely have to make adjustments to the way the program works — such as raising the retirement age or raising the cap for collecting SS funds. And minor changes will make a big difference.

    I used to believe that “fast track to insolvency” line. I have no dogmatic reason not to believe it, were it true. But the facts don’t support the hype. The fact is, Social Security is a successful program. It works, and it is not in crisis. Claims about looming catastrophe for the program are flat-out lies and are almost exclusively promoted by ideological institutions invested in the notion that no government program could ever be successful. The fact that SS works doesn’t fit their ideology, so they claim it’s a failure as loudly as possible.

    (From a purely strategic standpoint, not a bad tactic. If it’s false that “Social Security is in crisis,” but you want people to believe that it’s true, it’s better to have a nice loud debate about “Is Social Security in crisis?” than nothing at all. Suckers like me will end up with doubts about the program unless we look into it.)

    It’s weird how this blog does indeed destroy “pretty lies” when it comes to the nature of men and women but is just as likely to promote lies when it comes to politics. Really, it’s a weak point you should shore up.

    Like


  85. “[once the dystopia hits, the feminists won’t be running anything anymore. it’ll be the guys with guns and the balls to use them running the show.]”

    Good news for me, my seven guns and my 10-lb testicles.

    I got a bit caught up in the Peak Oil craze a couple years ago and started to think we were headed for a collapse. But then I realized it was the excitement of Imminent Doom that was really causing me to hold on the idea. I was bored, and the prospect of the world around me collapsing into chaos was really quite appealing. I wasn’t worried that collapse was coming. I wanted it to come.

    [editor: oh i don’t want america to decline. i want her to remain a unipolar hegemon. but that is not the direction we are currently heading, mostly thanks to the leftward drift of the populace instigated by suffrage, and the demographic shift to a third world balkanized pseudorepublic.]

    Have you been getting out lately?

    [why? you looking for a date? sorry i don’t swing that way.]

    Like


  86. Obama deserves this prize (which he didn’t ask for, btw) if only for reversing the trends enabled by the prior administration.

    Wha?

    Getting elected President as a liberal democrat merits the Nobel Peace Prize?

    This is just a bunch of liberal European America-haters trying to lecture the American people, as in: if you’re good little doggies, we’ll give you a bone, but if you’re bad little doggies, we’ll give you none.

    Screw Sweden and their dysfunctional socialist feminist dystopia.

    Like


  87. fedrz,

    The U.S. has managed to sustain large government programs like Social Security and Medicare while still maintaining, as you point out, the lowest tax rates in the civilized world.

    And our taxes today are low not just in comparison to other countries. The highest marginal tax rate in the U.S. today is lower than it was under Eisenhower. Or Reagan.

    We have a long way to go before we’re even at Eisenhower-era tax levels, let alone “socialist” levels.

    Inconvenient truths for those who want to believe we’re taxing ourselves into collapse, but truths nonetheless.

    As far as health care, the corrupt insurance system we have now, with skimmers taking out massive amounts of value while returning almost nothing, rates about a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. If Obama’s insurance reform will result in a 3 or higher, I’ll take it. If it turns out to be a 1, I’ll regret it. But I think it’ll be a 3. The main thing it will do (for me, at least) is put some controls on how much value the skimmers are allowed to suck out while providing jack shit back.

    One thing it won’t do? End America As We Know It.

    The result will be similar to Medicare — some more people will get health care they need, and the U.S. will somehow prosper in the face of this terrible adversity.

    Oh — and people with the lowest tax rates in modern American history will complain about oppressive taxes and the socialist menace and how it’s all going to collapse soon, they just know it.

    Like


  88. on October 10, 2009 at 4:41 pm Willard Libby

    Nova they are Norwegians not Swedes.

    The most Alpha thing Obama could do is laugh this award off and decline to accept it. Not only because he clearly doesn’t deserve it but because Alpha males generally don’t like passively receiving other people’s acceptance.

    When dealing with being presented an award the dominance scale goes from George C. Scott to Sally Field. The most dominant men reject, the most submissive accept and often cry.

    The fact that 4 ugly old White women and one old White career politician are honoring Obama this way is not only pathetic but interestingly undemocratic and elitist. 6+ billion people in the world, mostly non-White, sit and watch as 5 old, White Europeans anoint their savior.

    The arrogance is remarkable.

    Like


  89. [editor: i wrote almost a year ago that obama is an alpha. please do try and keep up.]

    It doesn’t matter since you’re still an idiot.

    [editor: translation: i was wrong but won’t own up to it.]

    [is there any valid complaint or ridicule of someone you like *not* indicative of idiocy in the person complaining or ridiculing?]

    There is a plethora of plausible arguments to be had and I am anxiously waiting to see them. However, what I’ve observed so far is a bunch of Chimpanzees tossing feces.

    [translation: i don’t like what bad guy roissy is saying about my god king obama.]

    [you just discredited yourself. next!]

    If only it were that easy…

    [it is.]

    [you’re just pissed that i’m shitting all over your boy.]

    Your hatred of Obama is entirely irrational, which surprises me because I thought you might be one of the few people who actually understands social dynamics and might be able to work against the urge to follow the herd.

    [actually, my contempt for obama is quite rational. he is a leftist, leftists are more wrong than they are right on important matters to the country’s well-being, and therefore despising what he believes and the policies he wishes to enact makes perfect sense.]

    I know that 95% of black people voted for Obama indiscriminatly and so did many dumb feminist women. It doesn’t matter! He was the best candidate for the job and so far he hasn’t disappointed.

    [yes, he hasn’t disappointed in staying true to his racialist, leftist character. “the police acted stupidly”.]

    Is there a particular reason for why you wouldn’t want him to succeed?

    [it would be good for the country.]

    Like


  90. Fred,

    You dumb fucktard.

    Entitlement programs like Social Security will never go insolvent – technically insolvent that is – as long as we have a fiat currency issued by the government.

    But that’s not the problem. The problem is what you’ll be able to buy with your money at what prices.

    Look at the demographics and imagine what kind of economic activity the US will be increasingly engaged in over the next few decades. The goods and services of this activity will be what you’ll be able to purchase with your dollars, or otherwise will be traded for stuff from overseas at terrible terms of trade, so imports will be more and more expensive.

    Like


  91. It seems to me that as a practical matter, we are likely to end up with better government if women did not have suffrage. Men are just better than women at making decisions (in general and on average). It’s not a huge difference, but it’s significant.

    Like


  92. [why? you looking for a date? sorry i don’t swing that way.]

    Playing hard to get, I see.

    Like


  93. Does the word “demographics” have some magical powers I’m unaware of?

    It seems to be used in place of argument.

    Like


  94. It’s been downhill since women were granted suffrage. And predictable. In democracies all over the globe, women vote LEFT.

    Women are, at their core, security-seeking creatures. They are much more prone to choose security over freedom than are men. Liberty, capitalism, and private property rights are but vague abstract concepts to women (who don’t deal well with abstacts to begin with). Government provided safety nets are an easy sell to women, and they’ll happily swap an abstract in exchange for security – especially when it conveniently introduces the state as their guaranteed provider.

    Like


  95. Fred,

    With a centralised bank, the government can simply print more money instead of raising taxes. So tax rates isn’t the only effective source of income. I suggest you become familiar with the Mises Institute and their teachings.

    The problem with healthcare is that it’s going to be another wholesale wealth transference to the “parisitic”-underclass, which is why the middle class is so vehemently against it. The policy is not sustainable because of…

    Demographics. Illegal aliens are streaming in (or at least, will again once the recession ends) and the productive, white middle-class(birthrate, ~1.3) is shrinking. Eventually, Hispanics (birthrate, ~3.6) will reach a critical mass and the system will become unsustainable, precipitating a collapse or exhorbitant tax hikes on aforementioned middle class who will either rebel or flee to other states/countries. (eg. see California). That’s the model the rest of the country will eventually follow.

    Economist Tom Friedman said that you can’t have a big government and open borders. Since USG won’t enforce it’s borders, big government is not a sustainable option.

    Like


  96. And the Oscar for best Actor goes to…Obama
    And the winner of the Boston Marathon is..Obama!
    ‘Obama wins Stanley Cup, single handedly!’
    He migt as well win these awards too.

    Like


  97. I think I get the argument: Even though women’s suffrage, immigration and taxes have not prevented the U.S. rise in economic and military power up to the present, they surely will cause its collapse in the near future.

    [editor: are you really this stupid or are you just playing stupid? re: suffrage. lag time, chap. learn it. re: immigration. human population genetic differences. learn it. re: taxes. what’s it like to live like a slave?]

    Because.

    Like


  98. “Women are, at their core, security-seeking creatures.”

    Bitches! When has security ever done a nation any good?

    [editor: when it doesn’t come at the expense of my wallet with nothing to show in return.]

    Like


  99. Yo Obama, I’m really happy for you, I’ll let you finish, but Beyonce has the best video in the world.

    Like


  100. on October 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm The Cock of Obama

    @ FRED,

    I am with you.

    Debating a republican is like talking to a pyromaniac in a strawman factory — the best way to deal with him is a quick bullet to his head.

    [editor: physical threats, eh? your lefttard politics can’t stand on its own?]

    And a gasoline on his corpse.

    Hehehe.

    Republican and Retards both starts with *R*

    Like


  101. on October 10, 2009 at 9:56 pm The Cock of Obama

    8 years of George Bush = EPIC REPUBLICAN FAILURE.

    Feel free to go hang yourself. We won!

    Hahahaha. Hehehehe. Hohohoho.

    Like


  102. Economist Tom Friedman said that you can’t have a big government and open borders.

    Milton Friedman. Big Difference.

    Like


  103. Lol!

    I can’t believe the Big Ears worship.

    I certainly didn’t care for Bush… but, Obama worship is something to behold in its own perverse right.

    I have a friend from Germany, and he tells me that everyone in Germany denies they were Nazis, except for his grandpa: “Yup, I was a Nazi.”

    I suspect that America will be the same in the future.

    “I couldn’t STAND Slowbama – never voted for him”

    Uh Huh!

    The man’s a blatant Marxist trying to weaken the USA. I may be a Canucklehead, but I approve of America, and Obama is anti-American, thus, he is anti-Fedrz.

    Good times!

    May you rot in hell, Big Ears.

    Oops, I hope that doesn’t get me on the no-fly list.

    Like


  104. you can’t have a big government and open borders.

    Can’t have a small gummint and open borders, either. They’ll pile on in and vote for more bread ‘n’ circuses.

    [editor: oh i don’t want america to decline. i want her to remain a unipolar hegemon. but that is not the direction we are currently heading, mostly thanks to the leftward drift of the populace instigated by suffrage, and the demographic shift to a third world balkanized pseudorepublic.]

    Today’s must-read:

    Decline Is a Choice
    The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
    by Charles Krauthammer

    Like


  105. Roissy is yapping like a rabid dog at Obama’s heels.

    Funny sight.

    Like


  106. on October 10, 2009 at 11:48 pm Portnoy's Complaint

    Today’s must-read:

    Decline Is a Choice
    The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy.
    by Charles Krauthammer

    I don’t deny that Obama and the liberals are hastening the decline, but this is pretty rich coming from a neocon jewboy like Krauthammer. These neocon jewboys have done nothing but screw America over for the past few decades. Though to be fair, this isn’t surprising or unusual. A Jew that doesn’t engage in hypocrisy and dissimulation isn’t really a Jew.

    The neocon jewboys and their liberal cousins are both the same anyway, and as such they’ll both get what’s coming to them – get it real good and hard – when the great uprising happens. They better have their plane tickets to Israel ready if they don’t want to get the Leo Frank treatment.

    Like


  107. Fedrz said:

    “When the Ottoman Empire finally fell, it had negative birthrates.”

    How can a birthrate be negative? Perhaps you mean less than replacement level?

    Like


  108. 2.1 is needed to sustain a population.

    Anything less is negative. The population declines.

    2.1 is needed for unneccessary or premature death.

    Like


  109. Bonnie said:

    “Correct! We women will continue to have political power until modern society crashes and burns, and we go back to being under men’s thumbs. It’s a cycle, if that makes you feel any better. Maybe your great-grandson will be able purchase and fully own my great-granddaughter, who knows?”

    ********

    Only if that great-grandson is in the top, say, maybe 5% of men. If/when that kind of society returns, the alphas and super-alphas will hoard the women and the rest of the male population will be rendered involuntarily celibate. I doubt very much that most of the male readers of this blog are looking forward to that day.

    Like


  110. on October 11, 2009 at 2:10 am Cannon's Canon

    mary phagan looks like she was quite a cute broad back in the day, perhaps even more so than present-day selena gomez.

    Like


  111. Btw,

    We, in Canada, HATED George Bush because of his threats and the way he demeaned us.

    Fucktard.

    When 9/11 happened, ALL of your “flying bombs” landed in Canada… our emergency rooms were empty and waiting.

    When “Skatana” was declared… meaning, if you are caught up in the air, we will blow you to smithereens… the first time it had been declared on Aviation Radio Space since World War Two… we took notice! As did MASSIVE amounts of american air travel over Canada. Holy fucking YIKES!

    (I am a Commercial Pilot, btw),

    I will never forget the sky, a few days later, when commercial planes were allowed to exit our country… I have NEVER seen 20, 30, 40 Jet Streams across the sky like that in one day.

    I know that after all of those planes were forced to land, there were not enough hotel rooms to hold all of the people.

    As Canadians, we viewed you as our brothers and sisters, and people showed up at airports to take Americans into their homes as Billets…. Private pilots ended up getting grounded for over 2 weeks, before they were allowed to fly. A fella from Alaska slept on my couch for 2 weeks…

    And then we were totally IGNORED by Bush. He thanked fucking AUSTRALIA for their efforts, and totally dissed us.

    Even a year later, the stunned fuckin Tex refused to acknowledge us… and the HATRED started to set in.

    Then he THREATENED US for not wanting to go to war with Iraq (Even though, as far as Nato goes, Canada was a major player there).

    We hate Bush’s guts.

    But, Slobama is still worse!

    He hates America and wants to ruin it!

    What a cunt.

    No wonder we hated his guts.

    Bush was just a moron.

    Obama is subversive.

    Like


  112. “I repeat, you can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.”

    I understand that you consider big government = America in decline. But to cite women’s suffrage as a cause of bigger government? I would ask you, “in decline as compared to which other country?” China? No one gets to vote there.

    Like


  113. IMPORTANT:

    I just skimmed that paper fedrz posted and I quote the following paragraph (which pretty much provides well researched evidence for what most people on this site already know):

    “More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to selfinterest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.”

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    The paper is the best political research piece I can remember reading.

    Like


  114. Sorry – we were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Before Iraq

    Like


  115. George Bush will alway be a cunt.

    Obama?

    A destroyer, I think.

    Like


  116. America was designed in a way that Universal Suffrage was a faux pas. e

    Universal suffrage is more of an issue than female suffrage, although, female suffrage extends the issue into painful arenas.

    The best woudl be to return to property owners being the only voters… although, I have sometimes speculated on only married people being granted the right to vote.

    Like


  117. sestbambi

    How can a birthrate be negative? Perhaps you mean less than replacement level?

    Ya, perhaps that’s what he meant. Or perhaps he meant that babies get sucked up into baby hungry vaginas. Or perhaps a grammar nazi found a boo-boo?

    You be the judge.

    Like


  118. on October 11, 2009 at 8:15 am Jim in Sweden

    Many women eventually turn into cat ladies. These types are currently in the process of turning our countries into failed cat lady states. Their need for compulsory hoarding, in this case people rather animals, have helped to weaken our borders and made men worse than cuckolds, effectively feeding and clothing someone else’s children.

    Like


  119. wow, that one on the bottom left looks like death warmed over!

    Like


  120. People who meet certain criteria should get more than one vote:

    Business owner: +1 for first 99 employees, +1 for each additional 100 or so.

    Land owner: +1

    Military Vets: +1 if you honorably served, +2 Combat Vet, and you get +5 if you lost a limb or other trauma due to combat (Nation better think twice how they use the Military)

    Tax Payer: +1 for each 20% of your income that is taxed

    This is on TOP of if you get one normal vote. This is in keeping with the Electoral College: people that contribute more to the nation and have more at stake will vote far wiser.

    So your typical low income ACORN bused voter told to pull the DEM lever will have 1/10 the influence of a war vet that owns land, pays lots of taxes, and owns a small business.

    As it should be.

    Like


  121. Of course it’ll never happen. It makes too much sense to scale votes to people who are positive to National Health as opposed to a net negative.

    Like


  122. One more thing then I’ll stop spammin:

    Married head of household with kids: +1 vote, +an additonal 1 vote if you have three kids or more (replacement level).

    Like


  123. ””””””Tarl
    After reading the other Nobel thread, an important question arises: which of the bitter, dried up Scandahags is “Biting Beaver”, and which one is “Wow”?
    ””””””””
    Almost the funniest shit ever.

    Like


  124. ””””””the live one weighed heavier than the dead one. Our
    modern women’s righters bewail the alleged legal op-
    pression of women by men. The facts show not that
    neither sex is oppressed as such, but, on the contrary,
    they disclose a legalised oppression of men by women.”””””

    The truth might set you free dam

    Like


  125. Dat truth hurts wrote:

    “People who meet certain criteria should get more than one vote:

    Business owner: +1 for first 99 employees, +1 for each additional 100 or so.

    Land owner: +1

    Military Vets: +1 if you honorably served, +2 Combat Vet, and you get +5 if you lost a limb or other trauma due to combat (Nation better think twice how they use the Military)

    Tax Payer: +1 for each 20% of your income that is taxed

    This is on TOP of if you get one normal vote. This is in keeping with the Electoral College: people that contribute more to the nation and have more at stake will vote far wiser.

    So your typical low income ACORN bused voter told to pull the DEM lever will have 1/10 the influence of a war vet that owns land, pays lots of taxes, and owns a small business.

    As it should be.”

    *********
    I liked your post. Lots of food for thought.

    Anyone remember Lani Guinier, Clinton’s erstwhile nominee for Attorney General? As I recall, she had once written an article proposing that minorities get more than one vote. Boy, did folks ever jump down her throat for that one. I think people aren’t automatically opposed to the idea that some people should get more than one vote. The problem is, of course, who should get that super-voting power. That problem would never be resolved.

    Although, in a way, the wealthy business owners (major shareholders and high-ranking officers of the big corporations) already have super-voting power through their ability to mount expensive PR campaigns to convince others (presumably those who don’t have much capacity for independent or critical thought) to vote their way.

    Like


  126. Gunslingergregi,

    It’s pretty interesting stuff, actually.

    One of the most fascinating aspects I’ve discovered is how, throughout history, women have been able to hide their natures over and over again.

    Tolstoy once said something along the line that he had discovered the Truth about women, but he would not tell until he was sitting in his coffin, so that right after, he could pull shut the lid and rest in peace.

    He actually did tell about the nature of women right there.

    I think that men of the past had to try and use other methods to convey the nature of women, thus the legends & myths of the sirens, the gorgons, witches and so on. If one were to merely speak openly about the nature of women, it is the nature of women to begin to screech and holler and emotionally abuse any man who dares speak the truth… it is the same today as it has been since the beginning of time.

    This article does a good job in describing the principle of “how” women always get away with this shit:

    http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Exposition.html

    Women “are” society. And what women want is what society wants. Males are the sexual servants of the female all throughout the animal kingdom.

    What women find valuable, society values. What women want to believe is true, society also wants to believe is true. What women loathe, society loathes. Women’s social power over men is so strong, it is completely dangerous to give them any legal power over men period.

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

    This is exactly along the principle that women “are” society, just as Aristotle pointing out: “But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.”

    I believe it has been thus throughout the history of humankind that female nature has been deadly to society, and every so often, it ends up getting right out in the open where it can’t be denied, and women become truly scorned by men and rightly lose all of their rights and privileges… and then, as time moves on and women start manipulating more and more things back out of men and society, the screeching and wailing about anything negatively portraying women starts all over again, and society is FORCED to forget the nature of the female.

    I find things like Genesis and the Ancient Times to be fascinating.

    Ancient Sumeria, the first civilization, (and through to Babylon) had many of the same features of society we have today: Divorce, Alimony, Childsupport etc. AND, Sumeria was essentially a totalitarian state – And it was neccessary that it be so, for they worshipped paganism/sexuality, and you cannot have free sex along with a free society. (Either there is sexual restriction but freedom in all other areas of life, or there is sexual freedom but restrictions of liberty everywhere else.) This is the civilization that Abraham left for the wilderness when he decided to follow God. “God” in the Bible is actually a God that came from Sumeria named “El.” The Sumerians, when they conquered people, basically adopted the conquered’s gods into their society, and so they had many, many, MANY gods, and they liked to marry them off to eachother, thus, all of the sex worship… except… the people hated “El”, because El had no wife, and thus, there was no sex worship. This was the God of Shem, the son of Noah, and Abraham’s ancestor.

    What gets more interesting is to have the ancient Hebrew translated rather directly, and it DOES reveal that religions such as Judaism most certainly understood many of the evils of female nature. Apparently, all of the WORST demons referenced in the ancient texts are noted to be female. Other things come quite obvious as well, such as Sodom and Gommorah being the only two cities in the region that are referenced as feminine. (Like masculine and feminine in language, like in French).

    When the feminine rules the masculine, sex worship is the order of the day, cause those little hussies can’t help but be led around by there pussies.

    The story of the Garden of Eden indicates the Bible “knows” things about females that most of our society still struggles with today.

    Specifically, it references the unique ways in which Adam and Eve first sinned, and it directly co-incides with the type of “pretty lies” that Roissy demolishes on this blog.

    Adam and Eve’s sins were directly different because while Eve was DECEIVED, Adam sinned KNOWINGLY.

    The serpent didn’t really lie to Eve, he used RELATIVE TRUTH (pretty lies) to discredit God’s ABSOLUTE TRUTH. (As per the ideology of John Locke, the Absolute Truth MUST be placed higher in importance than relative truth… in this order, 1 – God’s Laws, 2 – Natural Law, 3 – Civil Law).

    Because Eve is a woman, she can rationalize away ANY truth she wishes. As Roissy points out often on this blog.

    And this is what the Bible says that Eve did as well. She saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and useful for gaining knowledge.

    She rationalized what she WISHED to be true, and convinced herself it WAS true. Women do this CONSTANTLY. They can’t help it for it is the nature of woman.

    When God cursed Eve, he directly tells that she is cursed BECAUSE she was deceived.

    Adam, however… Adam was a little different.

    Adam sinned knowingly. The Bible indicates that Adam had different cognitive abilities in regard to the Truth than Eve had.

    When Eve came up to Adam, Adam KNEW she had sinned, AND, at this point, he was still without sin.

    But when Eve asked Adam to sin with her, Adam went along with what she wished knowingly. Adam was NOT deceived, but rather he sinned on purpose, because Eve asked him to.

    Men always do what women want… because women “are” society.

    When God cursed Adam, this is how he starts off:

    “BECAUSE YOU LISTENED TO YOUR WIFE and ate of the tree of which I commanded you…”

    Adam sinned because he listened to his wife.

    Roissy’s 3rd Commandment of Poon: “You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority.”

    God and Roissy are in agreement.

    There is actually a lot of wisdom about the male and female from the ancients. It just always gets suppressed by society because women WILL NOT tolerate anything ill to be spoken of them, narcissists that they are. Most of the wisdom about women has had to filter through time via myths & legends.

    Like


  127. ””””””””’fedrz,
    I believe it has been thus throughout the history of humankind that female nature has been deadly to society, and every so often, it ends up getting right out in the open where it can’t be denied, and women become truly scorned by men and rightly lose all of their rights and privileges… and then, as time moves on and women start manipulating more and more things back out of men and society, the screeching and wailing about anything negatively portraying women starts all over again, and society is FORCED to forget the nature of the female. ””””””””””

    Why I believe the one woman one man shit is what can definetly fuck up a man. A woman can have too much power over the man if their are no options for him. Whereas if you allow him options it allows her to be challenged to be a better person. If she is the only one that will be giving him the pussy then he can be pussy whipped that much more easily into doing just about anything. Allowing multiple woman takes away her total power. Of course special woman will still have massive power but the man will be able to again have options. The way it is now with grossly punative damages on the womans whim being handed out to men plus no challenge of the womans power be it through another woman or through the physical power of the man is definetly messing things up as far as balance. Woman start out with an imbalance of power that is only regulated by the facing off with them and other woman or by men with the experience of a certain amount of woman to know the true best woman available and not be taken in by crap woman because they don’t know the difference. The problem is with population you can find any type of person you want just the media helps with finding the ones that fit there criteria. Then the laws allow woman to bring out their worste side possible. You don’t necesarily have to take away their rights to have them be ok but you can’t give them superhuman powers above what they already have. Which is what is going on I believe in the west at this time. No competition and the ability to enslave a man to them at will (or at the onset of pregnancy) for a life sentence. People play scratch lottery and stuff like that. Well a woman can have a guaranteed lottery win if she has multiple babies with decent income dads. Got the retirement system already in place and just need to show up with a pussy and a uterous to win.

    Like


  128. Then the downside which woman don’t realize is men still get the final say on life or death which is what they rationalize away until it is too late and people write sad stories about outcomes that could have already been predicted. In the end it is usually men who have the godlike power.

    Like


  129. on October 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm Fijian in Portland

    novaseeker:

    “Screw Sweden and their dysfunctional socialist feminist dystopia.”

    Actually they are Norse not swede. The Norse of today, cause me to wonder…

    WTF happed to the viking males of times past?

    Because, Dude… these bums were about as Uber-Alpha as it came, when they raped, and pillaged it was all carted back to the northern fjords. (women and children in chains)

    How can it be, that they (the proud Norse) award peace prizes to the leftist tools of the global elite?

    Have they been hoodwinked by feminist lit and brainwashed into emascul-servitude?

    I for one would welcome a return to the days of the sword (AK-47?), and rape being a spoil of war, instead of a “War Crime” and a “Crime against humanity”.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “Truth is hate, to those who hate truth.”

    Like


  130. on October 11, 2009 at 5:53 pm The Cock of Obama

    I read some of these writings here complaining and comparing the europeans of old to the present. European countries are more monochromatically white than america. And this is who they are. And they dont care about your lame fantasy of what you think they should be or not be.

    It is the pathetic you that is living in some fantasy land about a white utopia or ‘ WHITOPIA’ shit that doesnt exist and wont exist.

    Your coming doomsday scenario has a lesser chance of coming true as your chance of winning a lottery ticket.

    Answer me this, dimwits: How many predicted doomsday scenario in the past, by conservatives, has ever come true?

    ANSWER: Zero. Nada. Zilch. Neih.

    With your impotent antimulticultural screed(because you are a weak toddler savaged on all sides by women, liberals and minorities. Pity the Poor you!), where are you going to go? EUROPE? they are far more liberals/socialistic/communist than the american liberals or your ‘swpl’. You have nothing. Only your childish, whining, whimpering, fantasy-trantrums that you take turn blowing up each other asses on some blog named “roissy in dc”. That is all there is to your life. That is it. Ending one day at a time.

    It will be sad if it wasnt soo funny. Hehehe.

    Like


  131. on October 11, 2009 at 5:54 pm Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.:

    “I understand that you consider big government = America in decline. But to cite women’s suffrage as a cause of bigger government? I would ask you, “in decline as compared to which other country?” China? No one gets to vote there.”

    In answer, to your query…
    In decline compared to its own self. We (You) have declined in terms of being the number one producer of top tier products.

    There was a time when “made in the USA” meant
    it was the best, and most highly desired, in other countries.

    The US has been supplanted by other countries because the american people have RELAXED and stopped using tarrifs to protect the Manufacturing Base. Consequently, investors routed money from building american factories to the building of Asian ones. Malay, Korea, China, India.

    Economic Fact: Capital Goes where ever treated best.

    Failure to protect the investments of the parties who financed our manufacturing base, caused them to invest their monies abroad.

    Enter Bau’s 1st Law of EconPol: Short-term (shortsided) Political expediency never takes a back seat to economical common sense.

    Now understand that the need for Political expediency is most chiefly mandated by none other then

    Vox Popli Femanae.

    Furthermore:

    Our (Your) inflation is uncheckable, and when there is an increase in money supply without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and real services, you have true seeds of poverty.

    Natasha F, Go, & Learn what Jefferson said about “first by inflation, then by deflation” and return to me.

    Like


  132. on October 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm Fijian in Portland

    Dear “The Cunt of Obama”

    I have read your most recent post in this thread, and you made me smile and laugh.

    Excerpted from it was the following:

    “Only your childish, whining, whimpering, fantasy-trantrums that you take turn blowing up each other asses on some blog named “roissy in dc”. That is all there is to your life. That is it. Ending one day at a time.”

    Oh how the pot calls the kettle black…

    I see you feel the need to come to a highly successful blog, and post time and time again, to feel validated, Yet you are smitten with the owner. Your desired love affair is writ large across your forehead… you ache in your uterus for seminal thoughts and words to take root. Alas, your many prostrations have found you out, as being nothing less then a cheap common whore for attention.

    Hurts to look up to the blogging heights and see Zeus-Roissy withholding his glory from thee, doesn’t it?

    Perhaps if you had a blog following, and keen, biting insights into the dead and dying souls of the other gender-sex, perhaps you wouldn’t feel the need to come running over here with your wet, cuntal vacancies of mind, and spill your saucy sap, all “willy nilly” across our web browsers.

    You are dismissed.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “Woman, You are not permitted to think, You must obey”

    Like


  133. on October 11, 2009 at 6:23 pm The Cock of Obama

    Fijian in Portland,

    You wrote all that with Roissy’s cock in your mouth?

    LMAO.

    Psst. *in a low voice* there is something on your chin…..

    Like


  134. ”””””””””’Your coming doomsday scenario has a lesser chance of coming true as your chance of winning a lottery ticket.””””””””””

    wtf my doomsday scenario will happen. Written on this blog. Word up. End of world already factored in.

    Like


  135. on October 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm Fijian in Portland

    “The Cunt of Obama”

    Your Comment:

    “You wrote all that with Roissy’s cock in your mouth?

    LMAO.

    Psst. *in a low voice* there is something on your chin…..”

    Response:

    Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

    The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as “Freudian Projection”[2][3]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    Like


  136. on October 11, 2009 at 7:34 pm The Cock of Obama

    LMAO @ Fijian in Port-land aka Fairy in Pork-land.

    Let’s recap here, shall we?

    I wrote a post making fun of you losers-in-life.
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/photographs-of-the-nobel-committee-members/#comment-136653

    You, Fairy in Pork-land, then replied with a post talking about what? exactly? oH YES, “sex with roissy” in graphic detail:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/photographs-of-the-nobel-committee-members/#comment-136655

    You do know what that means, dont you? You want roissy’s cock. Let me break it down further for you:

    Roissy Maxim #26: If a woman says the word “sex” in conversation with you or about you, no matter the context, it means she’s thinking about having sex with you.

    Since you are the one that brought up sex with roissy out of the blue. Obviously, that is a subject that has been on your mind….

    Like i said before…”kindly wipe that cum drip off your chin…”.

    Hasta la vista, bitch. You’ve just been owned.

    Hehehehe.

    Like


  137. @Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.:

    “I understand that you consider big government = America in decline. But to cite women’s suffrage as a cause of bigger government? I would ask you, “in decline as compared to which other country?” China? No one gets to vote there.”

    In answer, to your query…
    In decline compared to its own self. We (You) have declined in terms of being the number one producer of top tier products.

    There was a time when “made in the USA” meant
    it was the best, and most highly desired, in other countries.

    The US has been supplanted by other countries because the american people have RELAXED and stopped using tarrifs to protect the Manufacturing Base. Consequently, investors routed money from building american factories to the building of Asian ones. Malay, Korea, China, India.

    Economic Fact: Capital Goes where ever treated best.

    ********
    Your answer doesn’t make much sense. You say that the U.S. is in decline “compared to its own [prior] self,” but then you follow it immediately with a statement of U.S. greatness (or lack/lessening thereof) as it stacks up with other countries: “We (You) have declined in terms of being the number one producer of top tier products.” (The phrase “top tier products” as you used it implies a comparison of U.S. with one or more other countries — not with the U.S.’s prior self — as opposed to a statement such as “the U.S. used to manufacture X tons of steel, and now it manufactures Y tons.”) And then to confuse matters even more, you mention how all the capital is going to Asian countries such as Malay, Korea, China, India — which are all countries known for shoddy, albeit cheap, products.

    I do believe that the U.S. is in decline in terms of economic and geopolitical power (as opposed to in decline in terms of, say, cultural influence; have you heard of the term “soft power”? To put it simply, it alludes to the popularity/ ubiquity of, for example, Coca-Cola and American movies worldwide). However, I’m not sure that anyone here has presented a compelling argument that bigger government (regardless of whether women, immigrants, or whoever else voted it into existence) is the driving force behind this decline.

    Like


  138. on October 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm Fijian in Portland

    NOTE to the Reader… Long post to follow, please skip.

    Natasha F:

    “The phrase “top tier products” as you used it implies a comparison of U.S. with one or more other countries — not with the U.S.’s prior self — as opposed to a statement such as “the U.S. used to manufacture X tons of steel, and now it manufactures Y tons.”)

    And then to confuse matters even more, you mention how all the capital is going to Asian countries such as Malay, Korea, China, India — which are all countries known for shoddy, albeit cheap, products.”

    Response…
    Part of my point exactly. The US made the best, until they didn’t make anything anymore…

    If you go to buy an electronic device, it will be made in Asia sometimes Europe.
    Either Good or Bad, both are made abroad.
    The parts in the American Dell Computer are sourced in China. Same with HP, etc etc etc.

    The only notable 2 things left, that america produces are debt, and american movies. (more “content” to be pirated by asians for a buck a dvd. btw) soft power indeed…

    Why? Because we make less stuff than we used to. (measure of lost greatness 1)

    Why? Because we off-shored our manf. base.
    (measure of lost greatness 2)

    Why? Because we changed the economic picture, by dropping almost all Duties or Tarrifs for “free trade” flooding the market with cheaper goods. Initially shoddy & cheaper.
    Consider the Toyota, Honda, and Datsan/Nissans of the 50s and 60s… Total trash…

    until serious infrastructure investments…

    (Which in turn created massive trade imbalances)
    (measure of lost greatness 3)

    Eventually the investors who financed the manf. base in our country saw that, their capital would be better served abroad.

    State of the art facilities gave the US, Japanese import sports cars like the Z, and Rx7, forerunners of the highspeed ferrari killer Toyota Supra, or brutal Nissan Skyline.

    Now Japan owns the American Motorcar Market.
    Cheap and Shoddy no more, until Toyota’s very recent black eye, it became the very benchmark of Quality.

    Other economics

    Overall, america stopped being a lender nation and became a debtor nation in 1983. (A year before my birth, in Fiji.)
    (measure of lost greatness 4)

    Lastly, National Debt…

    The US of A, owes the Privately Owned Federal Reserve Bank more money than the US has, or will ever have.
    By embracing a fiat (worthless) paper currency…
    from being backed by Gold, as required by the Constitution

    (measure of lost greatness 5)

    Fiscal Budget Deficit of Ronald Reagan’s last administrative year 480ish Billion. Today, we are looking at a 4.5 to 6 TRILLION Fiscal Deficit, under our Pizza Prize winning Pres.

    All of this is national decline if measured against itself.
    Some measurements ie. “trade balance” require some measurements against other nations.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
    -Napoleon Bonaparte

    Like


  139. The ladies could use this (apparently a real breakthrough)

    http://shop.avon.com/shop/landing.aspx?department=anewwhatsnewC21

    Like


  140. To all the others with their over-the-top, borderline pathological fear/paranoia/hatred towards females and all that is feminine (ferdz, I’m looking at you):

    – The Adam and Eve story was written by a guy. Probably a beta guys, or a collection of them. And none of it is real anyway.

    – Men commit the overwhelmingly vast majority of all types of violent crimes (except child abuse and that’s because it’s usually the woman who is left to tend to the child by herself). I mean, I can get plenty angry, but I have never once been tempted to punch another person out in a bar. So much for the notion that women are so much more “emotional” than men. As in: How many road-rage fatalities have been caused by women? Are you saying that men involved in such incidents were thinking rationally when they get into fistfights and/or employ firearms over Guy A cutting off Guy B? Relatedly, men also commit the overwhelmingly vast majority of all behavior categorized as anti-social or sociopathic.

    – Men still rule, in overwhelming numbers, the big corporations in this country who are out-sourcing all the manufacturing and other jobs to other countries, or who are otherwise making the decisions that ultimately erode the ability of the average American man to be the sole or main economic provider for his family, if you’re into that as a measure of men’s happiness. How exactly has women’s suffrage or other political empowerment affected this situation?

    – To the idiot who said that the one-man/one-woman paradigm — i.e., monogamy — gives women too much power and takes options away from men: Don’t you know that the institution of monogamous marriage was created by and for the benefit of beta men? Lots of women out there would prefer to be Donald Trump’s 2nd or 3rd wife than Bozo The Clown’s only wife. Over the course of civilization, as human beings’ brains and capacity for complex behavior evolved — and power took on forms other than individual size/brute strength — the beta men, through virtue of their sheer numbers, were able to implement methods (i.e., laws) to hinder the ability of alpha men to hoard women to the exclusion of all other men. Now each beta had a fighting chance to at least get access to one pussy, even if she was a low-quality one. (It is in the nature of alphas to deny betas all possible pussy, even if the alpha is not currently utilizing said low-quality pussy.) It isn’t very romantic, I guess, for a woman to think that she’s just one woman in the alpha’s harem, but remember — the Taj Mahal, that symbol of unsurpassingly romantic love — was built by an Indian emperor in honor of a wife — his favorite — among numerous wives. Social pressure towards monogamy is favored by beta men more than women.

    – Women are the nurturers. Remember that notion? You all had mothers. Remember her? If your mother was a good female, she nurtured you, and it was to your benefit that she was not eager to receive the reproductive organs of all interested XY entities into her own body (even though many of them undoubtedly were “nice guys,” like I’m sure all of you are, right?).

    Note: I am not pointing all of the above out to support some misandrist or otherwise anti-male sentiment — believe me, I love men in general. I do it only as an antidote, or to remind the flaming, unloved morons among you, that women are not the bane/destroyers of society throughout the history of humanity, as it seems to comfort you to think.

    Last note: If you still think women are such thorough embodiments of evil, then why don’t you just resolve to fuck other men? A hole is a hole is a hole, right? If you still insist that the hole you stick your dick in must belong to an XX entity despite their purportedly evil nature, then I’m left to wonder about your own spiritual/intellectual status. Why on earth would you resist the rational and obvious choice of homosexuality? I guess I can chalk up your misogyny only to your inability to get quality lovin’ from a woman, and your lazy tendency to blame women in general for your failure, instead of your own shortcomings. That’s the root of all male hatred of females and femaleness, after all.

    Last, last note: Roissy, so far, as a new and female reader of this blog, I have been impressed and pleasantly surprised with the overall intelligence of your writing and that of the commentators in general. But keep up the ridiculous, simplistic and all-around hateful “women are evil, women are responsible for society’s decline” stuff (or let that segment of your commentators become dominant), then you will have no women readers left, much less women contributing comments, at all. Not because we’re overly sensitive, but because you’re clearly hopeless, lost causes. Is that what you want? If so, then all I can say is: Enjoy your circle jerk, fellas.

    Like


  141. on October 11, 2009 at 10:58 pm Fijian in Portland

    The Cunt of Obama:

    “You do know what that means, dont you? You want roissy’s cock. Let me break it down further for you:

    Roissy Maxim #26: If a woman says the word “sex” in conversation with you or about you, no matter the context, it means she’s thinking about having sex with you.

    Since you are the one that brought up sex with roissy out of the blue. Obviously, that is a subject that has been on your mind….”

    Response:

    I outed you, based on your cumdumpster groupie telltale signs. Your response was to “project”

    My response to your projection was to call you out on it.

    Your response, more of the same projection, with an attempted reversal… As If…

    You woman, are not just a common whore for attention,

    you are a 1 trick pony. Rather devastatingly boring…

    Stop trying to get the last word, it’s trite when a woman (read: HO) of your lackluster caliber.

    You:

    “Like i said before…”kindly wipe that cum drip off your chin…”

    Response:

    Do you talk to yourself in the mirror all the time, or just when your off your meds?

    You:
    Hasta la vista, bitch. You’ve just been owned.

    Response:

    Arnold imitations? Why indeed your delusions of grandeur are large. Now tell me, are you large aka Fat? and Please don’t insult yourself any further by lying. Aaaand just when did you pile on the fat? Is it because Daddy touched you when you were oh so young? Quite normal response to child hood sexual abuse… Getting Fat, becoming a whore.

    Its why your not out turning tricks, isn’t it.
    Baby cant make her trap, and is running from her Pimp…
    And is at a coffeeshop or library hiding?

    So tell me, unPretty Woman… who is your pwner?

    I, Bao have spoken.

    “My bitch better have my money/
    Through rain, sleet, or snow/
    My whore better have my money/
    Not half, not some, but all my cash/
    ‘Cause if she don’t,/
    I’m gonna put my foot in her ass.”

    -Flyguy (I’m gonna get you Sucka)

    Like


  142. on October 11, 2009 at 11:16 pm Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.:

    “- Women are the nurturers. Remember that notion? You all had mothers. Remember her? If your mother was a good female, she nurtured you, and it was to your benefit that she was not eager to receive the reproductive organs of all interested XY entities into her own body (even though many of them undoubtedly were “nice guys,” like I’m sure all of you are, right?).”

    Fallacy 1. I am not a nice guy. The devil looks at me and takes notes on being “not nice”.

    I survived my generation’s abortion lottery, was born into a nice world…. but my mother being a nurturer? My five older sisters nurturers? My worldview about women was shaped by unspeakable abuses dished out by these paragons of misandry. I have healed, but I have never forgotten.

    Women, although not every last one of them, are inherently evil. Some rise above that state. Most of you belong in a cage, and kept collared.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “Feminism = Every bad thing any man has ever committed highlighted and exaggerated; every bit of good systematically undermined, vilified or ignored.”
    -Found on the web.

    Like


  143. The film “Gran Torino” by C. Eastwood deserves a Roissy post (if it has not gotten one already).
    Old Clint got a lot more said than I thought could be gotten away with saying – these days.
    Natasha
    You are new here. You might be alright but so far you have shown little more than attention seeking behavior.
    Some truly original insights about gender related issues make a deeper impression in a faceless, silent medium than mere name-calling.

    Like


  144. Natasha F.,

    It is the way of history. Whether the book of the Bible is real or not is really not the issue. The issue is what are the features of the religion that was the foundation for our civilization. “Real” or not is not so much as important as what singled out civilizations such as ours to make them more successful than others… and what are the common variables that are present, over and over, when that civilization declines.

    It is the yin and the yang. The masculine vs. the feminine. The one leads into the other and then back into the other again, in a never ending cycle.

    J.D. Unwin did a research on this back in the 1930’s, and discovered as well that the rise and fall of many, many civilizations was directly related to female empowerment.

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/08/online-book-sex-and-culture-by-jd-unwin.html

    No-one is denying that men have nasty aspects to their nature. In fact, I don’t think that anyone in this culture that could deny that each and every negative aspect of males has been laid out flat for all to see in it’s uglified glory.

    Which gender do you suppose we never talk about as possessing an evil nature, but only a good, wholesome, nurturing one?

    If you believed that men and women were equal, then you would have to acknowledge that they would also be equal in sin, wouldn’t you? Perhaps it is just that women’s forms of evil are expressed in different ways than men’s.

    Women’s main contribution to crime in society is by creating feral, unruly children with their single motherhood. Other contributions to crime are a highly materialistic society that has ever declining power to acquire those materials, causing more and more men to turn to crime in order to get the trinkets that gets them chicks. A person that is continually having to “peacock” every few years when his next wife dumps him, and thus, he needs to attract new women, will almost be guaranteed to be more impoverished than a man who only needs to peacock around once or twice, before buckling down and concentrating on CREATING wealth rather than displaying the illusion of it… not to mention the additional poverty created by splitting up families with court stupidity, and further, doubling monthly expenditures by maintaining two homes rather than one. This type of thing also can only be maintained by government force… totalitarianism. Other people have to lose their liberty so women can hump freely.

    Whereas men are physically violent, women are equally emotionally violent. Men aggress physically, and over a short period of time. Male aggression is overt, and it occurs as a “spike” that is visible and hard to ignore… and it isn’t ignored. Then there are loooooong periods of “nothing” where there is no aggression at all.

    Women aggress emotionally, by way of Social Aggression, or Relational Aggression. Women attack the self esteem and the relationships that their target has with other people via gossip and encourage THIRD PARTIES to join in aggressing along with her… this is covert aggression, and it occurs over a long period of time.

    The classical “psychological abuser” is a female, not a male. Women are just projecting their own violent nature onto males when they believe that men are the major perpetrators of psychological abuse. It is a flip flop, just like 20% of men sleep with 80% of women. It is also that women are about 80% the perps of severe psychological abuse.

    Women’s social power is equivalent to male physical violence.

    Women contribute quite a bit to violence by way of third parties as well. Most women are not above pitting one man against another by way of emotionally manipulating BOTH men, simply to get attention. Eg. Convincing a new boyfriend to fight an ex-boyfriend for her.

    I highly sex-obsessed society also leads to bar fights, as everyone thinks its ok to screw everyone over.

    My mother was a good woman. She practiced some good sense. She also stayed home and raised me properly, until I was old enough that it wasn’t necessary. A daycare service and strangers raising me was beneath her standards. That’s why it will be against my standards to abandon her to a cold care-home as she is now entering into the years where this may become an issue.

    That is not to say that even mothers don’t emotionally manipulate their social power, and play it off with plausible deniability just like the next female.

    You are certainly right that men are equally as emotional as women.

    Our emotions work differently though. Women have MORE emotions, but they are shallower. Men have fewer emotions, but they run DEEPER.

    A man may not get knocked around by emotions as much as women, because he literally has fewer of them that affect him. But when his emotions do affect him, they affect him VERY deeply and profoundly.

    What do you think it is that causes men to rush into enemy fire?

    How about the willingness to stand on the deck of the Titanic? If the situation were reversed, and it were all men in the boats, do you think that the men would have ALLOWED the lifeboats to row away while their wives stood on deck? They would have jumped overboard and scrambled back up onto the ship to try and save the ones they love… that is emotions. Women would do the same for children, but not for men. Children could be convinced to row away from their mothers as well, but mothers would not stand for their children to be left on the boat.

    Why are all the great poets and artists so predominately male? Art is a way of expressing emotion.

    Why are 85% of suicides committed by men if they are not very, very, very deeply affected by their emotions? In this case, despair.

    It is also why a highly sexualized gets so violent… men’s emotions get manipulated too much.

    Literally, we have passed laws against all things under the sun, but have completely ignored female aggression, and in fact, we downright seem to even ENCOURAGE women to inflict as much of this deep psychological abuse on men as possible. The flip side would that every TV Show and Magazine would encourage men to beat their women regularly.

    Women are the ones that prefer men don’t have emotions, for if they truly had to confront how much power they have to manipulate, and often crush men in a mercenary fashion, then they would no longer be able to tell themselves how perfect they are.

    Like


  145. @ Fedrz:

    You are raising some interesting points. Keep going.

    Also, where did Tolstoy talk about the nature of women?

    Like


  146. fedrs

    Males are the sexual servants of the female all throughout the animal kingdom.

    I know you mean well, and I can tell you are trying to be sincere. You seem to believe what you say.

    But it’s not only false, it’s wrong because its based on ideas and not body felt knowledge.

    For instance, at this time I have two women hopelessly in love with me. Suicide crosses their mind when they think about losing me. One has already lost me, over 6 months ago, and even though she is starting to date a much mor handsome guy, she still spends time with him bawling and bawling over me.

    Women can be enslaved – I think even more than men can. They can be totally and entirely enslaved.

    Women are born to serve.

    For a man who does know women, the problem stops becoming how to make them your slave, but how to make them stop calling you. I know that’s over the top, but it does make the point that if you grow the habits of charm, it can backfire in that the girls become charmed – truly charmed. And they just can’t let go.

    You really own them. More than any other type of property. More even than your own children.

    Like


  147. “and society is FORCED to forget the nature of the female.”

    As you said, society is women.

    It’s true that women screech. What most men don’t understand is just how different women’s actions can be as compared to their speech. It’s not what they say, it’s what they do.

    They don’t actually leave you for seeing other girls. The screech for it. They don’t actually stop seeing other boys if that’s what they want.

    It simply doesn’t matter what women say. I get your point about society, and laws, and all that. Don’t let women own the public mind. But the adult who internalizes that has so much more power over women than women have over men. It drives girls batty. You can have a voodoo over them. Invisible puppet strings. Makes them nuts that you know them better than they know themselves. And that’s not difficult at all – considering how their little heads “work”.

    The screech and wail. They pretend they are in charge. All you have to do is call the bluff, and go about your business, and it drives them batty.

    Like


  148. on October 12, 2009 at 1:48 am Fijian in Portland

    xsplat:

    “You really own them. More than any other type of property. More even than your own children.”

    Unless you’re Josef Fritzl. The details can be located at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

    I, Bau have spoken.

    Like


  149. on October 12, 2009 at 1:56 am Fijian in Portland

    For the record,
    Joe Fritzl deserves the Nobel Peace Price of 2009 alot more then Noobama.

    At least Joe, suffered an attack of conscience and released his captives. While Liar Noobama on 60 Minutes: Obama Reiterates Promise To Close Guantanamo Bay, End Torture.

    Yet gitmo is in operation still.

    Like


  150. Fijan. Freaky story. Reminds me of a picture series I saw on encyclopediadramatica yesterday of a guy cutting off the head of his dick. Lots of shock value, but in the end the only explanation is that the guy was nutso.

    About property – capitalists and communists argue about what it can or should mean. Obviously we all feel inately the concept of ownership.

    Women like to be owned and can be owned. The degree to which you can own a woman is … is there an adjective for that?

    Like


  151. on October 12, 2009 at 2:54 am Fijian in Portland

    Xsplat:

    Women like to be owned and can be owned. The degree to which you can own a woman is … is there an adjective for that?

    If your referring to the woman’s degrees of transferring power to her owner, that would be called her Submissiveness.

    If your question refers to the degree an owner is capable manifesting his ownership then yes.

    The words Dominance and Command, are two that will fill your bill. You can be of differing levels of skill with these adjectives. Although one is a personality or character trait, and the other is completely situational.

    Hell ya, some of the following job titles scale with the scope of authority. Some of these are anachronisms.

    Lecher
    Kidnapper
    Rapist
    Jailer
    Boss
    Superior Officer
    Master
    Pimp
    Daddy
    Owner
    Lord
    Dom
    Sheik
    Shogun
    King
    Emperor
    God

    I, Bau have spoken.

    Like


  152. I wonder if I’m referring to degrees of transferring power. I know that being in love is a powerless situation. Powerless over even the concept of giving in. It’s done and done.

    Seeing your own child born is like that. You don’t decide to love it. You are surprised that you do. But you do. It’s done and done.

    There is a human relationship that can be grown with a woman that is not only equal to the relationship one has with their offspring. It’s a bond deeper.

    You own them all the way to hell.

    Like


  153. on October 12, 2009 at 3:08 am Fijian in Portland

    Another comment for you Xsplat…

    One cannot truly rule(own) another until he has attained self mastery. Full Self Control, of all aspects of himself.

    Internally, all thoughts, emotions and desires.

    That is, he rules himself, and is not owned by a vice

    or Externally, is not, under the controlling influence of any item, person or group, His will must be unfettered, and his mind clear.

    One could make a case that the only being that he should bow to, and that alone, is his Creator God.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    Like


  154. That’s shitspeak, Fijan. The only thing that is not chaotic is a rock.

    No man controls himself. It’s a stupid idea. Can’t be done. It’s an error of category to assume it could be.

    Like


  155. will is a fallacy of concept. will is chaotic. you can’t control will.

    Like


  156. will arises, as does the muse. like love, you are surprised to see it their. as a mistake, you claim it as a decision.

    Like


  157. and if you think that’s poetry, there is science to back it up. you can electromechanically induce arm movement, and the person will think they decided to move their arm.

    Will is a fallacy of judgment. It’s ego. It’s bullshit.

    Like


  158. on October 12, 2009 at 3:21 am Fijian in Portland

    Xsplat…

    It appears that you have never really tried, or spent time with those who have succeeded.

    Go spend some time with hardcore genuine buddist monks (shaolin or Tibetan) You may discover after 5k hours of ego crushing self meditation, you find out what Will really is, and that it is totally controllable.

    And at the sub-atomic level, a rock is pure chaos.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    Like


  159. I’ve spent months living in a Buddhist monastery, and more months meditating in solitary retreat.

    More hours than you on the cushion.

    I’d stake my life on it.

    And not care if I lose.

    Loser.

    Like


  160. on October 12, 2009 at 3:33 am Fijian in Portland

    Then let me tell you this:
    xsplat…
    All is not illusion.

    Self exists, but you must actually find self.
    Self is found in ones purpose for existence.
    After finding self, you then can solve the riddle of steel.

    “which is stronger… Steel or the flesh that wields it?”

    Upon finding the answer, you will understand the purpose of will.

    I, Bau bid you goodnight.

    Like


  161. blah blah blah.

    who is going to suck your ilusory dick tonight, Fijan.

    You talk too much philosophy.

    Like


  162. I, Bau.

    What a dickhead.

    Like


  163. Fedrs

    Women are the ones that prefer men don’t have emotions, for if they truly had to confront how much power they have to manipulate, and often crush men in a mercenary fashion, then they would no longer be able to tell themselves how perfect they are.

    That’s true, up and until you grok the notion of shittest.

    Men who know women and don’t put up with the shit can get away with murder with girls.

    It’s when you listen to their mouths flap when you get confused.

    Men who don’t get crushed in a mercenary fashion crush women way harder than women crush men. Women wind up being the weaker sex, for the very few men who grok them and can puppet them.

    No joke.

    Like


  164. on October 12, 2009 at 4:34 am msexceptiontotherule

    Medicare would probably have continued to be a fantastic idea if we never saw the baby boomers arrive into existence. Of course that would also solve the problems with the current group of feminists, and the overextending of finances by the government as well.

    Sadly, if the only choice that is offered with being a feminist would be remotely close to the closed-minded and utterly pointless loud proclaimations that lack any semblance of facts to stand on, I will have to declare myself a member of my own independent party which will only include myself. I can’t exactly go out and join a group of men either, after all.

    Like


  165. Fedrs “When the feminine rules the masculine, sex worship is the order of the day, cause those little hussies can’t help but be led around by there pussies.”

    Enjoying your thoughts, and so in that vein again let’s have fun discussing disagreements.

    Your premise is that sex is feminine.

    I disagree. As well I disagree that women rule over men sexually.

    I think women are more able to be enslaved than men are, sexually. Ruled over by mens sex, than men are ruled over by womens sex.

    The pity is that most men cant or don’t care to learn how.

    Betas whine, but really who is to blame but themselves? Ruling over women is a craft – and like any craft it’s hard won from years of experience. And like any craft the reward is in doing the craft – and nothing else.

    Like


  166. on October 12, 2009 at 5:35 am Jim in Sweden

    Scandi women are quite different to stuck up anglo women. They are more generous, especially to outsiders, and they have a higher trust. They expect that their generous gestures will be rewarded with honourable outcomes. A Swedish mother, looking similar to those above, once gave up her bed so that I could sleep in it with her 18 yo daughter. I banged her daughter but didn’t love her and leave her.

    Laugh and cringe at these women if you must but they really are the best women in the world(when they are younger) and I’m not the first to notice this.

    Like


  167. On a chat with my ex’s, it comes from terse comments about their happiness, or from veiled comments of regret and heartbreak, that the new men, don’t replace me.

    That makes me angry. Men suck.

    I’m hardly anything, but the habit is, until they meet me, they have little feeling, and after they meet me, they have little feeling.

    As if I’m causing pain to girls, because it hurts not to be near me.

    More times than fingers.

    Men suck.

    I give away my exes, but men can’t even use it. My exes can’t stop stop remembering of the high times.

    That sucks. I hate it. Men suck.

    Like


  168. “PS: I repeat, you can date the decline of America to when women got the vote.”

    P.S. You can trace the demise of a given civilization to the recklessness of men following their penises into battle in defense of their leader’s ego.

    Have you even looked at the history of the Irish troubles?

    Every great Alpha has a great woman reigning him in. Otherwise, he’ll just alpha himself right off a cliff.

    Like


  169. D, chivalry is dead, so it’s no longer brutish to call you the same names that men call each other.

    Because men are not your little feminized grown up socialized boys. We don’t have to be feminized in order to be social.

    Poin is, you are fucking dumb. You “think” like a girl. Step one, emotion, step two ???, step three, conclusion.

    One word for you, femtard – defence. Another one word – survival of the fittest.

    Like


  170. Xsplat,

    Women are more sexual than men. Guys like Weininger discuss stuff like this in “Sex and Character.”

    http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/schareng.pdf

    In fact, the distinctuation that gets made is that “women ARE sexual, while men are ALSO sexual.” Far more of a woman’s existence is centered upon her sexuality than a man’s. Much of female power comes from her ability to offer sex, and to manipulate a male into wanting it from her.

    One of the biggest difference between men and women is that men operate on “spikes” while women operate on “rythyms.”

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/male-and-female-equal-but-different.html

    Even physically, you can find further evidence of the spike vs rythym. For example: The Human Nipple. Males and females are both born with similar amounts of nerve endings in their nipples. When a woman goes through puberty, her nipples grow in size, dispersing the nerve endings over a larger area, desensitizing it and thus allowing her to breast feed without being driven insane. A male’s nipple, however, is much more sensitive (a spike) because everything is clustered much closer together.

    The same goes with erogenous zones between men and women. Women have erogenous zones located all over their body, while men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones. In fact, a woman’s entire body is one big huge erogenous zone, but with lowered sensitivity compared to a male’s erogenous zones. The effect is that for women, their entire bodies are involved when they are sexual, whereas for men, only certain but highly intense parts of their bodies are involved sexually.

    The effect becomes that women are always kinda sexual, even when they are not, there is still sexuality she is oozing – and she uses it constantly – it is the source of her power. A man, however, he is either sexual or he isn’t. When a man is sexual, he is intensely sexual and thinking about it directly,… but then, when that is over, he becomes non-sexual and concentrates as intensely on the next task at hand, until he becomes sexual again in an intense way. This is what also aids men to accomplish other tasks that take intense concentration and commitment, like inventing, or long term financial planning for the wellbeing of his offspring. Women ARE sex, while men are ALSO sex.

    As for being sexual servants… it is the males who display until she chooses to be caught by the most dominant one. The same as animals in rut. She merely sends off pheremones which triggers competition and fighting between males for miles away… and she munches on tree branches while the two males duke it out and determine alphaness, and the winner gets humping rights.

    One of the major features of human females, however, is that they are able to hide their estrus. In most of the animal kingdom, the female only gives off signals when she is ready for sex, thus driving males into a frenzy over her. In humans, however, she does not visibly show signs that she is fertile, and thus constantly keeps men in a state of arousal/manipulation over her sexuality. Btw, cosmetics like lipstick and rouge are designed to mimick estrus signals so as to manipulate basic reptilian-brain sexual response in men.

    The sperm itself follows this path through the most hostile environments. Women have all kinds of chemicals that their bodies produce that naturally kill sperm inside of them – the weaker sperm. Also, between males and sperm competition (two men’s sperm inside of her within 48hrs), one man’s semen is hostile to another man’s. The sperm that gets to the egg is usually the strongest and best performer.

    In all ways, the female is passive, and males compete to serve her interests.

    Sex itself is based upon men exchanging things she wants for access to her body.

    Briffault’s Law:

    “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

    Civilization occurs when men are given the opportunity to transmute their sexual energy into other avenues of interest, rather than having to expend all of their energies peacocking around trying to stay at the center of the mating market. Eg. In order to build wealth, or start a business, or plan longterm for the success of his family, a man must be able to trust that his wife is not screwing the pool boy, and thus concentrate 100% on the task at hand, which takes enormous amount of energy from his life force.

    I get it how game works. In fact, I agree with it completely. But, a society that is completely sex obsessed, rather then directing their energies to more productive things, is a society that will fall behind those societies that DO give their men the opportunity to direct their energy at more productive things in life.

    What can you say? It is what it is. I didn’t ask for a culture like this, and men ought to do whatever is necessary to ensure that they survive through it while satisfying their own needs for a healthy life – one of those needs is intimacy and sex with the opposite sex.

    But rest assured, as civilization begins to unravel, and more and more surly, dangerous men begin to appear… civilization will continue to devolve until women will find that the beta-male living in his log cabin out in the woods, with his cache of nasty weapons, is a pretty damn good option indeed. And she may even gladly insist that she does all domestic chores in exchange for food in her belly and a warm place to sleep. Feminism and sexuality took off heavily in the twenties, and pretty much died off during the Depression and WWII… then re-emerged again soon after these crises were over.

    Like


  171. ”””””””“My bitch better have my money/
    Through rain, sleet, or snow/
    My whore better have my money/
    Not half, not some, but all my cash/
    ‘Cause if she don’t,/
    I’m gonna put my foot in her ass.”

    -Flyguy (I’m gonna get you Sucka)
    ””””””

    Got to love that movie oh shit.

    Like


  172. ”””””’Rum,
    Some truly original insights about gender related issues make a deeper impression in a faceless, silent medium than mere name-calling.”””’

    Yea was kind of funny when she called him on something he replied and she went into all men are the devil. lol

    Like


  173. ””””””’Women’s main contribution to crime in society is by creating feral, unruly children with their single motherhood. Other contributions to crime are a highly materialistic society that has ever declining power to acquire those materials, causing more and more men to turn to crime in order to get the trinkets that gets them chicks. A person that is continually having to “peacock” every few years when his next wife dumps him, and thus, he needs to attract new women, will almost be guaranteed to be more impoverished than a man who only needs to peacock around once or twice, before buckling down and concentrating on CREATING wealth rather than displaying the illusion of it… not to mention the additional poverty created by splitting up families with court stupidity, and further, doubling monthly expenditures by maintaining two homes rather than one. This type of thing also can only be maintained by government force… totalitarianism. Other people have to lose their liberty so women can hump freely. ””””””””

    Yea real wealth vs illusion of wealth like just having money come in every month from investments vs oh look I have a job till I get laid off.

    Like


  174. on October 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm msexceptiontotherule

    OK, now you’ve done it gunz, I’m going to play AMG “Bitch Betta Have My Money”, and follow up with “Vertical Joyride”.

    After that, I’m going to get to work on my plan to destroy civilization as we know it in only a month from start to finish when it actually begins.

    After that, I’ll work on building a new world order that requires only asexual reproduction. The end.

    Like


  175. on October 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm msexceptiontotherule

    but once all that gets done, I should have some free time to do absolutely nothing, since that’s all that is going to be left.

    For shizay.

    Like


  176. Stratfor has an analysis of why Obama got the peace prize. Interesting read.

    My interpretation: The betas are rewarding Obama with the peace prize but I didn’t come to that conclusion until I read all the way through the article.

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091012_nobel_geopolitics

    Like


  177. on October 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm Fijian in Portland

    I am about ready to take the war of the sexes up a notch.

    Apparently the domestic males of the US are too sheepled to say it.

    For too long you feminist-skanks have gotten away with this crap, and frankly we menfolks have no one but ourselves to blame.

    No one bothers to ask how we arrived at a society in which women control 83% of household spending.

    Well, after many hours of intense study, I discovered that we (the men) slovenly abdicated the responsibility of being leaders, and handed over the wallet to the women, and wished not to be bothered by anything while we had our beers and sluggardly watched the game on TV.

    We failed to be stern fathers and husbands and we caved
    when you girls acted like insensible bitches, demanding a *strap-on* and a vote, (superior outcomes, inequal opportunities).

    In the name national security, and in defense of domestic tranquilly, we should have called you what you are. Terrorists, pure and simple. Suffrage my ass!

    We should have caned you suffragettes, with rule of thumb sized birch poles, and if you still failed to yield…

    Then have given you each a prefrontal lobotomy, offered your husbands an annulment, and carted you off to the coal mines of West Virginia.

    We apologize that you, american women have turned into thankless, spoiled slutty bitches. Who, I remind the reader, only fear islam, refusing to criticize beheading, honor killing and the rest of that jazz…

    {yet get wet, reading romance novels about being kidnapped, sold at auction to some swarthy sheik who breaks your will and turns you into obedient, compliant and SILENT lover-slaves. for example:

    http://www.amazon.com/Love-Slave-Bertrice-Small/dp/0449002136
    }

    Crush an american princess!!! To Arms!!! Restore the Republic!!

    I, Bau have spoken.

    Like


  178. on October 12, 2009 at 8:58 pm Fijian in Portland

    Let the Motto:

    “Every Man a King, every woman a slave”

    be heard round the world. May all men say it, and act accordingly.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “Every Man a King, every woman a slave”

    Like


  179. The effect becomes that women are always kinda sexual, even when they are not, there is still sexuality she is oozing – and she uses it constantly – it is the source of her power. A man, however, he is either sexual or he isn’t.

    Speak for yourelf. I’m often in a permanent state of sex. Every breath is sex.

    Don’t you remember puberty? For some guys they are in a permanent state of puberty. There is no off switch.

    Lots of guys are like me – above average or well above average sex drive. I certainly have a stronger sex drive than most women – and oddly enough such a sex drive can ignite some women’s latent force.

    I disgree with your premise. Men with high sex drives and skill can own women with sexuality even more so than the reverse.

    I recomment chi-kung for any male who wants to raise his sex drive or staying power or overall sense of libido. Libido can be a permanent state of being.

    Although always feeling like you have a fire in your spine is not always comfortable.

    Like


  180. ””””””’msexceptiontotherule
    OK, now you’ve done it gunz, I’m going to play AMG “Bitch Betta Have My Money”, and follow up with “Vertical Joyride”.

    After that, I’m going to get to work on my plan to destroy civilization as we know it in only a month from start to finish when it actually begins.

    After that, I’ll work on building a new world order that requires only asexual reproduction. The end.

    on October 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm msexceptiontotherule
    but once all that gets done, I should have some free time to do absolutely nothing, since that’s all that is going to be left.

    For shizay.
    ”””””””””””””””’

    You stole my heart he he he

    Lets do it except still have sex.

    I’m gonna get you sucka is funny as hell.
    When they have a timed event where they strip a care down to frame. Come on funny shit.

    Like


  181. on October 13, 2009 at 4:46 am msexceptiontotherule

    I stole nothing, you’re the one giving me things to hold onto so that you don’t get yourself in trouble when you’re out running around with all kinds of trouble. Always you and having to wind up with the kind of trouble that comes packaged in a skirt and tries to jump you in the mens room.

    And we can’t have sex, because then you’d have no reason to banter with me afterwards, you’d be doing the one thing that would totally ruin my gig as a stalker immediately, not to mention the fact that you’re MARRIED. =) I don’t do things that I feel are harmful to someone’s relationship, regardless of whether it’s “open” or “they have an agreement” and any other kinds of silliness.

    So…yeah…but I might be persuaded to let you be my wing-man when I’m ready to go forth into the dating thing. As long as you don’t try to bring me guys who are only after one thing, and it’s not my mind…..

    Like


  182. ””””So…yeah…but I might be persuaded to let you be my wing-man when I’m ready to go forth into the dating thing.””””””””””””’

    Just like a woman leaving a hole open he he he

    Like


  183. ””””’As long as you don’t try to bring me guys who are only after one thing, and it’s not my mind…..”””””

    Naa its about trying them out to see if they are the one for you but when ya meet the right one it is not only for the one thing. It is just that majority of woman only offer the one thing.

    Like


  184. Hence why being “”MARRIED. =)””

    Is not that big a deal since it is not about one thing but two multifaceted woman 🙂 that make the sum greater than the parts.

    Like


  185. on October 13, 2009 at 10:05 am An Experienced Father

    Roissy,

    Here is the best one-liner I have heard about Obama winning the NPP:

    “Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize reduces the chances of someone trying to off him, because he’ll just rise after three days.”

    Like


  186. ”””””’Rum,
    Some truly original insights about gender related issues make a deeper impression in a faceless, silent medium than mere name-calling.”””’

    Yea was kind of funny when she called him on something he replied and she went into all men are the devil. lol

    ________

    Men aren’t the devil. They’re people. Women aren’t the devil. They’re people.

    Actually, I hadn’t even seen Fijan’s response to my question to him. And at any rate, his response still made no connection between women’s suffrage/empowerment and “America’s decline.” The problem is how you define “decline.” I can accept that women as a voting block favor bigger social programs. If you are against that, then obviously you call the growth of social programs “decline.” If you are for it, then you call that “progress” or “advancement” or “enlightenment.” If you are talking about decline in terms of off-shoring America’s manufacturing base, then I have to ask What does that have to do with the growth of government social programs, much less any causative element in women’s voting patterns? I’m not saying a connection can’t be made or explained; I just haven’t seen anyone set it out here.

    You, on the other hand — you’re the one who went on and on about how rules about monogamy limits men’s power. That’s a notion that fails with only a few minutes’ thought. The institution of monogamous marriage was created by and for the benefit of beta men. Multiple women do compete for the attention of one man all the time, whether monogamy is the official rule of society or not. They just compete for the high-status male. Look at David Letterman — multiple affairs with women in his mini- kingdom, and none of his mistresses apparently cared that he was in a long-term, live-in relationship with his now-wife all the while. If you are pussy-whipped, you have only yourself to blame. A man who not only tolerates a woman with a bad personality but bows and scrapes to her, out of fear that she will withdraw the only pussy in his life, is so low on the status scale that he is beyond the help of game.

    @ Fedrz: You make some very interesting points. Lots of food for thought. As to your thoughts that civilization can progress only if women’s natural hypergamy is contained, I would proffer that it’s the containment of the alpha’s natural tendency for polygamy that should be contained. Because women generally stay monogamous to one man during a sexual relationship, even if the man is having sex with multiple partners, every additional sex partner an alpha has in his life means there is an additional, sexless beta man out there obsessed with sex (and causing ill effects for society, as you described).

    @ Rum — Name-calling? Oh please, if a discussion is starting with the premise that women are responsible for America’s “decline,” and everything that follows is an argument for that thesis, then already everyone in that discussion is making an ad hominem argument. Not against any one individual, but against women as a gender. Women are “evil”, women = “decline,” yappity yap, whiney whine … Idiots.

    Like


  187. on October 13, 2009 at 5:06 pm Fijian in Portland

    Great news!

    “For the first time since the women’s movement came to life, an economic recovery has come and gone, and the percentage of women at work has fallen, not risen, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Each of the seven previous recoveries since 1960 ended with a greater percentage of women at work than when it began.

    “When economists first started noticing this trend two or three years ago, many suggested that the pullback from paid employment was a matter of the women themselves deciding to stay home — to raise children or because their husbands were doing well or because, more than men, they felt committed to running their households.”

    1. Bitches are now fat & lazy.

    2. My notion is that FemLib is run its course and all that are left are the firebrands who are now fading from hot coals into cold ash. Spectacular failures like:

    Carly Fiorina

    In 1998, Fortune magazine named her the “most powerful woman in business” in its inaugural listing.

    A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company’s chairman of the board.

    The HP board forced Fiorina to resign from the company in 2005.

    Her comment?

    “The worst thing I could have imagined happened. I lost my job in the most public way possible, and the press had a field day with it all over the world. And guess what? I’m still here. I am at peace {cold ash indeed} and my soul is intact.”

    For starters… a bitch has a soul? A dubious. and unlikely proposition at best. If she did, she would have no peace, not after something like this.

    A man would still smolder and burn, and show his soul. Also, this is why men are alcoholics.

    Why are chics fat? Cant they doe something about it? I guess they are just lazy.

    I, Bau yada yada yada

    Like


  188. on October 13, 2009 at 5:43 pm Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.

    Actually, I hadn’t even seen Fijan’s response to my question to him. And at any rate, his response still made no connection between women’s suffrage/empowerment and “America’s decline.”

    Response:

    Sharpen your analytical reading skills, and also, try not to miss all of the lines, while reading. But most of all keep in mind the context of my response… I specifically mean the following:

    “Failure to protect the investments of the parties who financed our manufacturing base, caused them to invest their monies abroad.

    Enter Bau’s 1st Law of EconPol: Short-term (shortsided) Political expediency never takes a back seat to economical common sense.

    Now understand that the need for Political expediency is most chiefly mandated by none other then

    Vox Popli Femanae.”

    Let me break this down in simpler terms… the Pols Dem/Rep court the female vote/electorate. Over time, the way women vote (hormonal-emotion driven) sways the policy making. Guys stop thinking logically because that is no longer required of them, instead they have to emote.
    Emoting is a bad way to administer government.
    At the end of the day, Pols will “vote the public opinion”

    Over time, this made Pols dismantle the Duty/Tarries and consequently, that sent US jobs over there. Undoing the work of the industrial revolution, yet we cant return to an agrarian society, 90% of the people now reside in the city, and most of the farm land is owned by BIG AGRABUSINESS Corps.

    But back on point. Its a woman’s fault… the evidence is overwhelming. Please prove, If you can, that the decline is rooted in a Separate cause stemming from the same period of of the same magnitude.

    In fact, There is nothing in the historical record as huge as giving the right to vote, in terms, of effect and scope.

    The smoking gun has fingernail polish in the trigger guard.

    (Now you could reason that she only “held the gun”, but someone else pulled and shot the victim). If you wish to vindicate your gender-sex, you must prove who the guilty party is. And dont try Ipso Facto, men did it, because women didnt.

    Game, Set, and Match.
    Care to try a new game?

    I, Bau have yawned.

    “The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think.” ~Author Unknown

    Like


  189. @Bau:

    Sharpen your analytical reading skills, and also, try not to miss all of the lines, while reading. But most of all keep in mind the context of my response… I specifically mean the following:

    “Failure to protect the investments of the parties who financed our manufacturing base, caused them to invest their monies abroad.

    Enter Bau’s 1st Law of EconPol: Short-term (shortsided) Political expediency never takes a back seat to economical common sense.

    Now understand that the need for Political expediency is most chiefly mandated by none other then

    Vox Popli Femanae.”

    Let me break this down in simpler terms… the Pols Dem/Rep court the female vote/electorate. Over time, the way women vote (hormonal-emotion driven) sways the policy making. Guys stop thinking logically because that is no longer required of them, instead they have to emote.
    Emoting is a bad way to administer government.
    At the end of the day, Pols will “vote the public opinion”

    Over time, this made Pols dismantle the Duty/Tarries and consequently, that sent US jobs over there. Undoing the work of the industrial revolution, yet we cant return to an agrarian society, 90% of the people now reside in the city, and most of the farm land is owned by BIG AGRABUSINESS Corps.

    But back on point. Its a woman’s fault… the evidence is overwhelming. Please prove, If you can, that the decline is rooted in a Separate cause stemming from the same period of of the same magnitude.

    In fact, There is nothing in the historical record as huge as giving the right to vote, in terms, of effect and scope.

    The smoking gun has fingernail polish in the trigger guard.

    (Now you could reason that she only “held the gun”, but someone else pulled and shot the victim). If you wish to vindicate your gender-sex, you must prove who the guilty party is. And dont try Ipso Facto, men did it, because women didnt.

    ________

    I read the part where you said “Now understand that the need for Political expediency is most chiefly mandated by none other then Vox Popli Femane.” But just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

    All you have shown so far, if anything, that there is a correlation between women’s suffrage/empowerment and the off-shoring of America’s manufacturing base /movement of capital abroad (both having occurred in the 20th Century, I guess). Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

    You’re the one who proffered the thesis that women are responsible for America’s decline in terms of economic/geopolitical power. The burden is on you to marshall evidence to support it. Please describe specifically a piece of your “overwhelming evidence” that women’s voting patterns, as distinct from men’s voting patterns, is the driving force behind America’s decline. Your argument that, “well, before America’s decline happened, women couldn’t vote, so what else could it be?” reminds me of child killer/cannibal Kevin Underwood’s attorney, who argued that it was the Lexapro (antidepressant) that Underwood took that caused his crime. After all, before he didn’t take that drug, he never killed/ate a 10-year-old, so what else could it be?

    Again, the burden is on you to marshall the evidence. Not string together rhetorical premises and point out correlations that are tenuous even as correlations. What’s your evidence? I’ll wait.

    BTW, that whole “I Bau” have spoken shtick is gay. Very annoying.

    Like


  190. on October 13, 2009 at 7:15 pm Gunslingergregi

    Fijian in Portland,

    You changed your ending line due to social pressure.

    There goes the neighborhood.

    Like


  191. on October 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    Natasha now your against gays and men?

    When will it stop?

    Let go the hate he he he

    Like


  192. on October 13, 2009 at 7:54 pm Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.

    “Your Honor, the witness is refusing to answer the question, Please ask the witness to answer the question. or perhaps should we treat the witness as hostile”

    Re: Please prove, If you can, that the decline is rooted in a Separate cause stemming from the same period of of the same magnitude.

    1. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

    True, but it correlation doesn’t preclude positive cause either.

    The smoking gun *STILL* has fingernail polish in the trigger guard.

    Its like saying the Sky is Blue, and someone else saying, wheres your proof. The very thing is the proof, and its Overwhelming.

    Example 2.

    Fact 1, there is a headless dead body on the ground, in the middle of an empty ally, Consequently, Fact 2. Foul Play was the cause. all thats needed for a conviction is a perp and a court.

    The very specifics of the event in and of itself is the proof.

    Why? Because heads just don’t come away from bodies on their own, in the middle of an ally.

    In fact these days, you don’t even need a body to convict for murder, a unhealthy dose of circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction in most US states.

    The US is no longer a country where the burden of proof is on the accuser, and no longer is the test “beyond a reasonable doubt”, or “preponderance of the evidence” but how a alleged victim was made to “feel”. Feelings and States of Mind are now a Valid test. Courtesy of feminists agitation in the D.V. arena.

    By their own “rules of engagement”, I get to turn the tables.
    Because Bitches… you can’t have your fat inducing cake, and eat it too. Turnabout is Fair Play.

    Side note, being Fat chicks, is now illegal in some locals…
    Pic Related.

    Next issue.

    BTW, that whole “I Bau” have spoken shtick is gay. Very annoying.

    Lady, its a Sig… don’t hate, cause you don’t have one.

    Also, why should I conform to some “non-existant standard of internest blogpost formating” It’s not like my sig called you a defamatory inflammatory hateword.

    This is life… not some dilbert in a bitch-ass cubicle with some evil HR dept regulating your every thought.

    Mofo.. I am an original, not a mindless simpering drone.

    Get it? If it annoys you, be responsible for your own fucking emotions.

    *abusive rant incoming*

    Deal with it, or change your tampon. IDK or for the matter care either, if you can or can’t handle how using a sig makes you “very annoyed”.

    Your problem, not mine.

    But I see right through your attempt to use a feminist shaming tactic. the “your scary or scaring me” is the category, of the offense.

    And who the fuck promoted the newbie-girl into a Blog moderator?

    I, Bau said that.

    “Every woman is wrong until she cries, and then she is right – instantly.”

    ~Sam Slick (Thomas Chandler Haliburton)

    Like


  193. on October 13, 2009 at 9:10 pm msexceptiontotherule

    “Gunslingergregi

    1. Just like a woman leaving a hole open he he he…

    2. Naa its about trying them out to see if they are the one for you but when ya meet the right one it is not only for the one thing. It is just that majority of woman only offer the one thing…

    3. Hence why being “”MARRIED. =)””… Is not that big a deal since it is not about one thing but two multifaceted woman that make the sum greater than the parts.”

    1. The only holes I leave open are on the calendar, so that I can schedule things that require an immediate response. And those can’t really be considered holes as much as they can be described as slots.

    2. I offer many things, including homemade cookies, a partner in crime for creating mass hysteria and general mayhem in the world outside, very few pairs of sensible shoes (can’t exercise in stilettos), and a whole lot of others that I won’t list here because it takes up too much space and you know how people get about my not using enough spaces between lines of text.

    3.) See? You already have enough women in the nearby vicinity, so what you REALLY need is a long-distance stalker, like ME. =) Besides, I’ve already said this a ton, but I don’t share well with others and refuse to get into any situation that *I* feel is detrimental to the relationship of another person. WTF should it matter to me if the person actually IN the relationship sees things as detrimental, since it doesn’t affect my own actions and the feelings that are a big part of why I do what I do? I just figure that if I want to have a relationship I’m in respected enough to be left alone by outside influence, I have to do that myself first. The whole lead by example concept.

    Ok now that the dog keeps hitting me with her ‘baby’, I should probably take a minute and fight with her for it.

    Like


  194. Your Honor, the witness is refusing to answer the question, Please ask the witness to answer the question. or perhaps should we treat the witness as hostile”

    Re: Please prove, If you can, that the decline is rooted in a Separate cause stemming from the same period of of the same magnitude.

    1. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

    True, but it correlation doesn’t preclude positive cause either.

    The smoking gun *STILL* has fingernail polish in the trigger guard.

    Its like saying the Sky is Blue, and someone else saying, wheres your proof. The very thing is the proof, and its Overwhelming. ..

    The US is no longer a country where the burden of proof is on the accuser, and no longer is the test “beyond a reasonable doubt”, or “preponderance of the evidence” but how a alleged victim was made to “feel”. Feelings and States of Mind are now a Valid test. Courtesy of feminists agitation in the D.V. arena.

    ********

    LOL!! You are so out of your depth it’s not funny. Too bad for child killer/cannibal Kevin Underwood that you weren’t on his jury. At least you got one thing right: “[correlation is not the same as causation], but correlation doesn’t preclude positive cause either.” I never said it doesn’t preclude positive cause, duh. I’m saying I’m willing to listen and even be persuaded by any evidence that women’s voting patterns is the positive cause of the off-shoring of the American manufacturing base/movement of capital. You haven’t offered any.

    So what’s behind said off-shoring of the American manufacturing base/movement of capital, you ask me? I dunno, off the top of my head: (1) unions, (2) globalization (3) nascent industrialization/cheap labor in other countries, (4) pressure on CEOs of manufacturing companies from shareholders to show ever greater corporate profits … the list is endless and infinitely complex. But can you even proffer evidence, any cogent argument, that women’s suffrage has promoted any of the three items I listed? Like I said, I’m listening. But I doubt that you can, so I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.

    BTW, you got quite exercised over my “your sig is annoying” comment. Take your own advice and control your emotions there.

    Like


  195. on October 14, 2009 at 12:40 am Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F:

    Step one, a Ad Hominim attack… You disagree and then trash me with a “compare/associate with a given pariah attack”.

    You so much remind me of Helen Hunt’s character when she tells Jack Nicholson’s character:

    “Do you have any control over how creepy you get?”

    His response “Yes, as a matter of fact I do. And to prove it, I have not gotten personal, and you have.”

    “I never said…” Strawman attack.
    I never alleged that you did, but its clearly implied.

    * *
    “…even be persuaded by any evidence that women’s voting patterns is the positive cause of…”
    * *

    I Doubt you… I think your lying here.

    The evidence is before your very eyes, but your denial reflex is kicked in, and you wont see it. Therefore your lying involuntarily, at the least or willfully dissimulating.

    If, IF the truth were really important to you, you would devote time and effort into gathering your research to prove the effects of the consequence of the woman’s vote. Prove out all the consequences….

    But truth doesn’t serve a woman. As your nature was clearly documented by Schopenhauer’s famous treatise on females.

    * *
    “But can you even proffer evidence, any cogent argument, that women’s suffrage has promoted any of the three items I listed? Like I said, I’m listening.”
    * *

    Babe, I am not required to prove to you, the truth. I don’t owe you a mf-n thing. My evidence standard is the proof of domestic one. Don’t get mad when I use the unfair feminist methodologies against you.

    Cogent argument isn’t required to falsely imprison and destroy the lives of my manbrothers out there, with bogus domestic violence charges. David Letterman has a restraining order against him in NEW MEXICO by a woman who has never met him. On what basis? She felt she was being controlled by him over the tv.

    I cant make this shit up…. Cogent my ass.
    Your gender’s cunts are guilty of wrecking out country.
    Denial and Delusion are perfected practices by the women.

    G U I L T Y.

    Your (1,2,3) are not the ones I am pointing the finger at….
    I clearly pointed to the women led Politicians as the root…

    Quit with the RED HERRING attack. Its bunk, and you have been called on it.

    * *
    “But I doubt that you can, so I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.”
    * *

    Thank you for doubting. Its clearly understood, going down a RED HERRING rabbit trail isn’t something I am going to do.

    * *
    “BTW, you got quite exercised over my “your sig is annoying” comment. Take your own advice and control your emotions there.”
    * *

    Principles baby… you violated a few… expect to be barked at.

    Having been caught at it, (shaming tactic) you play dumb and venture into the “you cant control your emotions gag”.

    More fem-psy-ops… Is this all I will get out of you? What happened to independent thinking females?

    Yeah,
    I, Bau have spoken.

    “There are women who do not like to cause suffering to many men at a time, and who prefer to concentrate on one man: These are the faithful women.”

    -Alfred Capus

    Like


  196. on October 14, 2009 at 12:47 am Fijian in Portland

    Don’t get lost if you misunderstand a sentence above.

    Please accept this correct verse.

    My evidentiary standard is same on for the proof of domestic [violence] one.

    Like


  197. @ Bau-wow:

    “Babe, I am not required to prove to you, the truth. I don’t owe you a mf-n thing. My evidence standard is the proof of domestic one. Don’t get mad when I use the unfair feminist methodologies against you.

    Cogent argument isn’t required to falsely imprison and destroy the lives of my manbrothers out there, with bogus domestic violence charges. David Letterman has a restraining order against him in NEW MEXICO by a woman who has never met him. On what basis? She felt she was being controlled by him over the tv.

    I cant make this shit up…. Cogent my ass.
    Your gender’s cunts are guilty of wrecking out country.
    Denial and Delusion are perfected practices by the women.

    G U I L T Y.

    Your (1,2,3) are not the ones I am pointing the finger at….
    I clearly pointed to the women led Politicians as the root…

    Quit with the RED HERRING attack. Its bunk, and you have been called on it.”

    _____

    What are “feminist methodologies”? You must have me confused with someone else. All I asked is that you support your thesis with specific evidence. Using your own premises, now… regarding “women-led Politicians:” who are these politicians? Names, please? And which laws did they enact/vote for that led to or encouraged the off-shoring of the American manufacturing base/ movement of capital?

    If a court of law actually approved a schizophrenic woman’s petition for a protective order against David Letterman, please cite your authority. A citation to the actual court order would be appreciated. Anyway, I would be shocked if David Letterman felt “imprisoned” by a court order forbidding him to go near a psycho that he would avoid like V.D.

    Go with any sig you want. There’s something appealing about a guy who insists on doing his own thing, no matter how dumb. It was constructive criticism. Who knows, maybe everyone else thinks your sig is genius.

    Like


  198. Hey Fijan —

    I’m also kinda aroused right now. Wanna fuck?

    Like


  199. on October 14, 2009 at 1:24 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””” I should probably take a minute and fight with her for it.””””””

    It doesn’t have to be that way although it could be interesting to watch.

    lets see some more of the list.

    Like


  200. on October 14, 2009 at 1:53 am Fijian in Portland

    Well, Babe, you want my “authorities” when your too busy *lazy* to google for em your self? Well, I will indulge you this once.

    Ok, here is her court appilcation (GRANTED) on the smoking gun website.’

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1222051dave3.html

    The family court judge “Daniel Sanchez.” who issued the TRO, After the application was made on Dec. 15th of 2005.

    Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her “mental cruelty” and “sleep deprivation” for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network TV broadcasts.

    According to a new report released this week by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), the case was not a judicial anomaly but “the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence.

    The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing “severe emotional distress.” That definition was met when Ms. Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman’s actions.

    The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to “any incident by a household member,” and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Ms. Nestler’s household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include “a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship,” and Ms. Nestler’s charge that Letterman’s broadcast of television messages for eleven years qualified as a “continuing” relationship and thereby turned him into a “household member.”

    And it appears that it was, the order requires Letterman to stay at least three yards away from Nestler at all times.

    For the sake of brevity, I will keep this post short and post a second one touching on other questions you have raised.

    I, Bau have spoken.

    “No doubt exists that all women are crazy; it’s only a question of degree.”

    W. C. Fields

    Like


  201. on October 14, 2009 at 1:56 am Fijian in Portland

    Natasha F.
    Hey Fijan –

    I’m also kinda aroused right now. Wanna fuck?

    Im me on yahoo instant messenger…

    Bau.hamilton is my screen name.

    Like


  202. on October 14, 2009 at 2:38 am You Know I'm Right

    “Undoing the work of the industrial revolution, yet we cant return to an agrarian society, 90% of the people now reside in the city, and most of the farm land is owned by BIG AGRABUSINESS Corps.”

    No, 90% of people do not reside in cities. Worldwide, it’s about half of the population who live in cities…in the USA, around 55% (more if you count suburbs/exurbs). In many other small and densely populated nations, yes it is true that around 90%+ live in cities.

    Land can be reclaimed from agribusinesses if needed. Some suburbs can be retrofitted to become ‘agriburbs’ or mini-cattle ranches or orchards incorporated in the living space. Very much land nowadays is mostly just sitting around entirely unused, a huge waste.

    Like


  203. on October 14, 2009 at 2:52 am Gunslingergregi

    Research hydroponics you know I’m right. There is no problem with food. Look up desalinization there is no problem with water. Look up solar plants there is no problem with power. We should already be beyond basic needs but maybe it is a needed part of human condition.

    Like


  204. it’s like Hawaiian Libertarian pointed out…..Obama is the head of a nation still involved in two wars…and is sending more trooops to afghanistan *ahem G. Bush*….yet he’s awarded the peace prize for his ‘policies’…..the ability to see and focus on what we want, the dream, the illusion, is Obama’s greatest camouflage for being wholly inept. i feel bad for whoever inherits the metastasizing American problems growing more cancerous by the day under his rule.

    Like


  205. The woman in the second photograph is kind of cute, as is the pregnant woman with the Obama sign. But their political views ruin it for me.

    What is it with being female and being socialist? Is it their over-emotional makeup? Is it the natural tendency of women to be territorial and to want to “protect the nest”? Maybe it’s their maternal nature, to want to treat others like their children.

    A free adult society is not the home. People are supposed to be free, independent and self sufficient. Our nation and constitution were built on a foundation of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Barack Obama honors none of these principles.

    Like


  206. Is it their over-emotional makeup? Is it the natural tendency of women to be territorial and to want to “protect the nest”?

    What complicates the picture is that socialism can be spun either way. Either like you suggest leftie female voters do, in maternal/protective imagery.

    Or, as you and I know socialism to be, as a soulless, spirit-scrushing, family-destroying ruling of broken, dehumanized masses by despotic elites and goonish bureaucrats.

    Like


  207. Man Im glad I dont live in Amerca. You should care about women because theyre sisters, mothers, daughters, wives, but more than that, you should care about them of simple empathy. You say men have as much emotion as women, then PROVE it.

    I dont really care if you think women are stupid, it doesnt affect my life and youre entitled to your opinions. Womens intelligence is not the issue, but the fact they too have emotions. If you dont care about hurting people and oppressing them, well then your ideas for government are far poorer than what already exists in America. You say American laws take away freedom, yet youd happily take away womens freedoms.

    There are certainly women in the world cleverer than some of the men who have made comments, but that doesnt mean YOU shouldnt have the vote.

    Like


  208. so say this does lead to america’s collapse, what will the world look like? Its already predicted that in THIS century America will lose its white majority most likely obtaining an at least 50% mexican population….. Countries reliant on America will collapse AKA what happens to Israel that gets pumped with so much money and political support from America? What happens to South Korea (whose border still has many, many American soldiers preventing attack from North Korea) The whole world will change that’s what… The white man (which I am) has been living on the higher end of the world’s hierarchy but the truth is we’re dead. Lowering birthrate of “civilized Europe and America” is fucking us hard. Look at Japan and South Korea when they followed our steps and westernized their birthrates dropped dramatically that they are in danger as well… I say better have overpopulation problems like in China or India then to die out…I think within a few hundred years the white man will be wiped off of earth or at the very least be a small minority…. Heh then I’d like to see who is the new alpha dog of the world, the muslims in the mideast, the chinese juggernauts, or maybe even india whose population will rise beyond that of even china. then again you cant forget the Americas which will be dominated by the descendants of Mexicans and continual border hopping! Hah people blamed white people so much for imperialization and etc…. What is China doing to Tibet, the autonomous region in the western part of China, Taiwan and etc? Oh well not a white problem anymore.. We acted as a referee to the world (whether or not we did a good job) and now when we are gone it will be an all out war of dominance to fill in the new power vacuum!!! If there is a heaven I will be watching

    Like