🚀 go-pugleaf

>That's why marrying foreign women and bringing them in to the western world
>won't fix the problem - they will immediately gain all the same exploitative
>prerogatives as western women, and it is the backing of these biased, unjust
>and violence-based arrangements that gives to western women the snotty mean
>values for which they are becoming notorious.

Not if they are not exposed to western values.  

>
>The solution is simply to remove all coerced - and therefore governmental -
>support for women's typical interests in sexual and reproductive behaviour.
>In exactly the same way as men get no government support in order to have
>sex with many, varied and beautiful women, because it would be an unjust use
>of violence against the taxpayers, neither should women get government
>support in the form of rights in order to force other people to pay for
>their interest in looking after their own children. Women now have the
>choice whether to have children and whether to work, and the use of
>coercion - violence or the threat of violence - to force others to pay
>against their will should be abolished. *All* the support that a woman gets
>from other people towards looking after her children should by law be
>required to be on the basis of consent, not coercion.

Absolutely!  You're a genius, but as long as women are in power in any
capacity you will never see these types of changes.  Unfortunately.

Em
Be careful what you wish for....

"Rarin Horse" <ReplyToNewsgroup@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:41838407$0$1834$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
(snipped)
> There has been much comment recently about western women, how bad they are
> and all that, as if the fault is with the women themselves.

You may be right.  The Pill did more than what was intended.

Auntie Em wrote:
>> That's why marrying foreign women and bringing them in to the western
world
>> won't fix the problem - they will immediately gain all the same
exploitative
>> prerogatives as western women, and it is the backing of these biased,
unjust
>> and violence-based arrangements that gives to western women the snotty
mean
>> values for which they are becoming notorious.
>
> Not if they are not exposed to western values.

Pray tell me, just exactly what are "western values"?     Oh, you mean
materialism?   OK, I've got it.

yep people complain about sexism just about everywhere except where the law
is concerned.







"Rarin Horse" <ReplyToNewsgroup@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:41838407$0$1834$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au.
..
> There has been much comment recently about western women, how bad they are
> and all that, as if the fault is with the women themselves.
>
> However it is human nature to want to pursue one's own interest, and it is
> woman's nature, as I believe, to seek some kind of benefit in
consideration
> of sex. It is not wrong for woman to be like that.
>
> What is wrong is not western women, and it's not that there's some kind of
> fundamental flaw with them, and it's not that other women don't have the
> same tendencies.
>
> The problem is the development in recent decades of laws biased in favour
of
> woman's typical interests in sexual and reproductive behaviour, namely,
> motherhood, and against man's typical interest in sexual and reproductive
> behaviour, namely, having sex with many, varied and beautiful women.
>
> Why these laws are wrong is that, like all laws and policies, they are
> intrinsically violent. They proceed by threatening the whole population
with
> being imprisoned or worse if they don't comply.
>
> There is a fundamental moral distinction between violence and
non-violence,
> between coercion and consent. Those in favour of feminist laws on the
ground
> of "fairness" are displaying fake moral superiority. *If* they themselves
> were willing to pay the costs of this or that social change *voluntarily*,
> *then* they would have more valid ground to talk of the fairness or
> unfairness of this or that social arrangement. But even then they would
> still fall short of a moral justification for the use of violence or the
> threat of violence against others to force them to comply with their
> opinions or pay for their values. The fact that the democratic machinery
> provides a *mechanism* for this in practice, should be not be confused
with
> its providing a *justification* for it in ethics.
>
> That's why marrying foreign women and bringing them in to the western
world
> won't fix the problem - they will immediately gain all the same
exploitative
> prerogatives as western women, and it is the backing of these biased,
unjust
> and violence-based arrangements that gives to western women the snotty
mean
> values for which they are becoming notorious.
>
> The solution is simply to remove all coerced - and therefore
governmental -
> support for women's typical interests in sexual and reproductive
behaviour.
> In exactly the same way as men get no government support in order to have
> sex with many, varied and beautiful women, because it would be an unjust
use
> of violence against the taxpayers, neither should women get government
> support in the form of rights in order to force other people to pay for
> their interest in looking after their own children. Women now have the
> choice whether to have children and whether to work, and the use of
> coercion - violence or the threat of violence - to force others to pay
> against their will should be abolished. *All* the support that a woman
gets
> from other people towards looking after her children should by law be
> required to be on the basis of consent, not coercion.
>
>
>
> --
> "One can only regret that, at the time of Mozart's tutelage, he was not
> exposed to Jamaican rhythms."
>
>

Rarin Horse wrote:

> The problem is the development in recent decades of laws biased in favour of
> woman's typical interests in sexual and reproductive behaviour, namely,
> motherhood, and against man's typical interest in sexual and reproductive
> behaviour, namely, having sex with many, varied and beautiful women.

What exactly are the "laws" that prevent men from doing just what you 
suggest? Are men forced by law to marry ONE woman, or HAVE children? Any 
man can look after his own typial interest and (try to) have sex with 
many women, even beautiful ones, provided he has something to make them 
interested in him. Or are you suggesting that every man should be 
entitled to sex with "many varied beautiful women"? Should the law force 
women to have sex with any man who wants them? Should there be a law 
allowing men to create as many babies as they want without having to 
provide for them? Who do you think should take care of the babies that 
men will make with "many varied beautiful women"?

Darkfals is that you?

Rarin Horse wrote:


< snip >



> That's why marrying foreign women and bringing them in to the western world
> won't fix the problem - they will immediately gain all the same exploitative
> prerogatives as western women, and it is the backing of these biased, unjust
> and violence-based arrangements that gives to western women the snotty mean
> values for which they are becoming notorious.





Not if you don't expose them to such values and hide them in your basement     :-)

"The Poster With The Longest Name On A Public Newsgroup (not including fish,
meat, and other frozen foods)" <hidinginthedark@internode.on.net> wrote in
message news:418453AE.20B570A9@internode.on.net...
> Rarin Horse wrote:
>
>
> < snip >
>
>
>
> > That's why marrying foreign women and bringing them in to the western
world
> > won't fix the problem - they will immediately gain all the same
exploitative
> > prerogatives as western women, and it is the backing of these biased,
unjust
> > and violence-based arrangements that gives to western women the snotty
mean
> > values for which they are becoming notorious.
>
> Not if you don't expose them to such values and hide them in your basement
:-)
>
You are full of bullshit.
I have been married for 15 years to a Filipino women who has all the
freedoms of any other women. She hasn't changed one bit, except perhaps, she
has become more critical of Feminists.
Of course, it is a different story with Idiots who go to Manila to get drunk
in the Sunshine and marry a young bar girl who uses him as a useful idiot to
come to Australia.

You have to pardon Rarin Horse. The only sex he gets is from his
cellmates in prison.

you use too many words with no meaning and clauses with no implication.


"Rarin Horse" <ReplyToNewsgroup@westnet.com.au> wrote in message 
news:41838407$0$1834$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> There has been much comment recently about western women, how bad they are
> and all that, as if the fault is with the women themselves.


Oh gosh, no its about how they demand one thing and do another.
If they do one thing, they ought to accept that done to them.


> The problem is the development in recent decades of laws biased in favour 
> of
> woman's typical interests in sexual and reproductive behaviour, namely,
> motherhood, and against man's typical interest in sexual and reproductive
> behaviour, namely, having sex with many, varied and beautiful women.

There is no such law.
There may ne evidence that a bias exists in the courts, but no such law 
exists on paper.
The amount of evidence may increase with changes in law, but the law says 
nothing about what you talk  about!




> Why these laws are wrong is that, like all laws and policies, they are
> intrinsically violent.

Well arreset the law and put it in gaol. ( laws violent ??? this is loonie ? 
a troll ? )

>They proceed by threatening the whole population with
> being imprisoned or worse if they don't comply.


>
> The solution is simply to remove all coerced - and therefore 
> governmental -
> support for women's typical interests in sexual and reproductive 
> behaviour.

We have reached the conclusion part of your treatise, but you havent defined 
or discussed the concepts in this sentence.

"coerced" .. what do you mean by coerced in this context ? wouldnt this need 
definition for the reader to be clear on what you are talking about ?

> In exactly the same way as men get no government support in order to have
> sex with many, varied and beautiful women, because it would be an unjust 
> use
> of violence against the taxpayers, neither should women get government
> support in the form of rights in order to force other people to pay for
> their interest in looking after their own children.



> Women now have the
> choice whether to have children and whether to work, and the use of
> coercion - violence or the threat of violence - to force others to pay
> against their will should be abolished. *All* the support that a woman 
> gets
> from other people towards looking after her children should by law be
> required to be on the basis of consent, not coercion.


So simply put, you are saying the government supports divorce and denial of 
'marrital rights to sex', effectively by paying   social security and 
forcing the divorced  man to pay maintenance for the children as well ?



Maintenance is a bit tough sometimes, it can even send people broke - if 
their cost of earning an income , plus cost of living plus maintenance plus 
tax  is less than  cash paid (to them or to tax office) then they can go 
broke trying. There ought to be ways to appearl the level of maintenance 
paid at any time.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:30:13 +1000, "Rarin Horse"
<ReplyToNewsgroup@westnet.com.au> wrote:

>There has been much comment recently about western women, how bad they are
>and all that, as if the fault is with the women themselves.
>
Old saying

A dog, a wife, a walnut tree
The more you beat them
the better they be

of course it could be wrong.


Regards
Bruce

God I was joking... 

I didn't mean to offend

> The problem is the development in recent decades of laws biased in
favour
> of
> woman's typical interests in sexual and reproductive behaviour,
namely,
> motherhood, and against man's typical interest in sexual and
reproductive
> behaviour, namely, having sex with many, varied and beautiful women.


>>There is no such law.

Untrue.

Women can legally unilaterally terminate a pregnancy.  Men cannot.
Women can unilaterally abandon their parental duties.  Men cannot.
Women can give up their child at designated locations, and the father
does not have to approve.  The father cannot do so - the government
will attempt to locate the mother.  Even then, the state will locate
the father through the directory of new hires and garnish his pay for a
child his wife/gf has abandoned at a firehouse.

Women can unilaterally leave dad's name off the POP or birth
certificate, or put any name she choses.  Usually she writes down the
most successful possible prospect.  This is called father shopping.

Father cannot have his name removed just by asking.  It is the womans
choice and her decision is considered legally binding.  Even if DNA
disproves her claim, the imputed father may have no choice or rights.
He will still be the father in the eyes of the state.  He may be
coerced to pay even though she lied, and he is not the father.

Dad has no right to change his name on the BC if mom insists it is.
He has limited rights, she has unlimited choices.

Some men are coerced into paying for children that are biologically not
theirs.
Women are not, unless she marries a man who is in the above
predicament.

The law is gender neutral?  Then why is its administration hugely
biased towards a positive outcome for women and a negative outcome to
men?

There is a Violence Against Women Act.
If the law is not biased, then where is the Violence Against Men Act?


>There may ne evidence that a bias exists in the courts, but no such
law
exists on paper.

Untrue.  There is a VAWA but no VAMA.

>The amount of evidence may increase with changes in law, but the law
says
>nothing about what you talk  about!

Untrue again.  See my VAWA/VAMA comparison.
You would do well to rethink your premise.

-Lee.

Native European culture is ahead in cultural tradition, and there is 
some cognative dissonance it is contending with sooner than other 
cultures. I dunno how other cultures will adapt, but the Native European 
women are indeed different. It aint the Ubermench, it's the Uberwench. 
get over it, it is inevitable.

The mythic traditions of history repeatedly show the biggest strongest 
warrior with the sword in hand gains the top of the power structure. But 
now, Smith & Wesson guarantees equal rights for women, so it dont matter 
any more how big, strong, and/or fast he is.

Women in previous eras submitted knowing that they'd be fed, fucked, and 
there'd be food for their kids. Nowadays, what with HIV and many other 
STDs, that willingness to submit is no more among the women who are 
smart and paying attention. Nor is force an adequate tool to compel them 
to obey an alpha male.

A woman with lotsa kids is at the mercy of a man providing for them; but 
when a woman only has one or two kids, with a minimum of networking with 
other women, she need not submit to any man any more. Increasing numbers 
of smart women are figuring this out, leaving only the less intelligent 
to be used as brood mares by alpha males. Since the odds are that 
intelligence is handed down in the female line, the soms from these 
broods are falling further behind; as we see in Islam.

Sykes, 'The Seven Daughters of Eve', reveals that there are only 7 mtDNA 
lines among Native Europeans. this in contrast to all other races which 
have scores, or 100-200 mtDNA lines. Native European women are the ones 
who have most of the caesarians, and their graves show more of them died 
in childbirth. The reason for this is that they have Neanderthal genes, 
and as we often see with hybrids, there are more freaks and more 
birthing problems.

There are scores of Native European Y chromosome lines. Obviously, the 
original 7 matriarchs did a lot of screwing around. It was still SOP 
among the Celts. When criticized by a Roman for Wantonness, a Celt 
replied:"We Celts consort with the best of men in public, while yu Roman 
wives do so in secret with the most vile." The Celts lived in very small 
and isolated communities in which genetic diversity was improved by the 
women mating with different men for every conception. Since they only 
had the seven mtDNA lines, this was even more important.

Since this has gone on for 50,000 years or more, the maternal death 
rates made those fewer women who were able to safely deliver had more 
power than any other women in the world. It is the Aryans who have left 
us with a vast collection of goddess figures. It is the reconstructed 
Proto-Indo-European language which shows that all the words realated to 
authority are female. The Russians found yet another Amazon grave not 
long ago, and it is among their descendants, 'white girls' who have the 
instinctive fixation over horses.

The mighty warrior was too heavy for the early horses, so he couldnt 
catch the girls either mounted, or on foot. White girls instinctively 
understand the body language of horses and cattle, and their ancestors 
took them onto the Steppes, dominating it until larger horses were bred 
and the saddle with stirrup was invented.

I expect that now that nukes and other WMDs make the services of the 
warriors no longer useful, that women will again take power, and return 
to their ancestral traditions of communal living so that their sisters 
can assist them with child care. There is *no* Proto-Indo-European word 
for 'marriage'.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:41859c05$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> Native European culture is ahead in cultural tradition, and there is
> some cognative dissonance it is contending with sooner than other
> cultures. I dunno how other cultures will adapt, but the Native European
> women are indeed different. It aint the Ubermench, it's the Uberwench.
> get over it, it is inevitable.
>
> The mythic traditions of history repeatedly show the biggest strongest
> warrior with the sword in hand gains the top of the power structure. But
> now, Smith & Wesson guarantees equal rights for women, so it dont matter
> any more how big, strong, and/or fast he is.
>
> Women in previous eras submitted knowing that they'd be fed, fucked, and
> there'd be food for their kids. Nowadays, what with HIV and many other
> STDs, that willingness to submit is no more among the women who are
> smart and paying attention. Nor is force an adequate tool to compel them
> to obey an alpha male.
>
> A woman with lotsa kids is at the mercy of a man providing for them;

This assumes that the woman has no choice but to look after the children she
has borne. In fact, she does have a choice, just as the man has a choice
whether to seek to have sex with many and varied women. The idea that the
woman has a "need" to look after her children that justifies the coercion of
others is just as socially constructed, arbitrary, and loaded as the idea
that a man has a "need" to have sex with many and varied women that
justifies the coercion of others.



 but
> when a woman only has one or two kids, with a minimum of networking with
> other women, she need not submit to any man any more. Increasing numbers
> of smart women are figuring this out, leaving only the less intelligent
> to be used as brood mares by alpha males. Since the odds are that
> intelligence is handed down in the female line, the soms from these
> broods are falling further behind; as we see in Islam.
>
> Sykes, 'The Seven Daughters of Eve', reveals that there are only 7 mtDNA
> lines among Native Europeans. this in contrast to all other races which
> have scores, or 100-200 mtDNA lines. Native European women are the ones
> who have most of the caesarians, and their graves show more of them died
> in childbirth. The reason for this is that they have Neanderthal genes,
> and as we often see with hybrids, there are more freaks and more
> birthing problems.
>
> There are scores of Native European Y chromosome lines. Obviously, the
> original 7 matriarchs did a lot of screwing around. It was still SOP
> among the Celts.

What's SOP?


When criticized by a Roman for Wantonness, a Celt
> replied:"We Celts consort with the best of men in public, while yu Roman
> wives do so in secret with the most vile."

LOL. Yeah I had heard the ancient Celts were pretty footloose and fancy
free.

The Celts lived in very small
> and isolated communities in which genetic diversity was improved by the
> women mating with different men for every conception. Since they only
> had the seven mtDNA lines, this was even more important.
>
> Since this has gone on for 50,000 years or more, the maternal death
> rates made those fewer women who were able to safely deliver had more
> power than any other women in the world.

That may be so as a matter of natural selection, where there is no question
of a nation-state deploying its coercive power to weight the outcomes in
favour of one party to sexual transactions.


It is the Aryans who have left
> us with a vast collection of goddess figures. It is the reconstructed
> Proto-Indo-European language which shows that all the words realated to
> authority are female. The Russians found yet another Amazon grave not
> long ago, and it is among their descendants, 'white girls' who have the
> instinctive fixation over horses.

Hmm... the old anthropologico-archeologico-ethnologico-erotico-prehistorical
hoary chestnut of the pre-patriarchal societies being based on the female
desire for something large warm and throbbing between the legs LOL....

>
> The mighty warrior was too heavy for the early horses, so he couldnt
> catch the girls either mounted, or on foot.

Fleet of foot they were, like veritable nymphs of the woords


White girls instinctively
> understand the body language of horses and cattle, and their ancestors
> took them onto the Steppes, dominating it until larger horses were bred
> and the saddle with stirrup was invented.

It was like the old Scythian saw "How do you mount a mare?"

A: "Back her up to a stump."


>
> I expect that now that nukes and other WMDs make the services of the
> warriors no longer useful, that women will again take power, and return
> to their ancestral traditions of communal living so that their sisters
> can assist them with child care. There is *no* Proto-Indo-European word
> for 'marriage'.

Interesting. I'll bet their word was "boyfriend who if I fuck him gives me
meat or fish"



>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Two girls were talking about what they want to do when they grow up. The
Traditional girl said:" I want to study hard to be a lawyer and make a lot
of money." The Modern girl said:" I am going to marry a lawyer and then
divorce him. I will get 80% of his assets. Then I do it all over again with
another sucker. I will make a lot more money than you will ever make."


"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:41859c05$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> Native European culture is ahead in cultural tradition, and there is
> some cognative dissonance it is contending with sooner than other
> cultures. I dunno how other cultures will adapt, but the Native European
> women are indeed different. It aint the Ubermench, it's the Uberwench.
> get over it, it is inevitable.
>
> The mythic traditions of history repeatedly show the biggest strongest
> warrior with the sword in hand gains the top of the power structure. But
> now, Smith & Wesson guarantees equal rights for women, so it dont matter
> any more how big, strong, and/or fast he is.
>
> Women in previous eras submitted knowing that they'd be fed, fucked, and
> there'd be food for their kids. Nowadays, what with HIV and many other
> STDs, that willingness to submit is no more among the women who are
> smart and paying attention. Nor is force an adequate tool to compel them
> to obey an alpha male.
>
> A woman with lotsa kids is at the mercy of a man providing for them; but
> when a woman only has one or two kids, with a minimum of networking with
> other women, she need not submit to any man any more. Increasing numbers
> of smart women are figuring this out, leaving only the less intelligent
> to be used as brood mares by alpha males. Since the odds are that
> intelligence is handed down in the female line, the soms from these
> broods are falling further behind; as we see in Islam.
>
> Sykes, 'The Seven Daughters of Eve', reveals that there are only 7 mtDNA
> lines among Native Europeans. this in contrast to all other races which
> have scores, or 100-200 mtDNA lines. Native European women are the ones
> who have most of the caesarians, and their graves show more of them died
> in childbirth. The reason for this is that they have Neanderthal genes,
> and as we often see with hybrids, there are more freaks and more
> birthing problems.
>
> There are scores of Native European Y chromosome lines. Obviously, the
> original 7 matriarchs did a lot of screwing around. It was still SOP
> among the Celts. When criticized by a Roman for Wantonness, a Celt
> replied:"We Celts consort with the best of men in public, while yu Roman
> wives do so in secret with the most vile." The Celts lived in very small
> and isolated communities in which genetic diversity was improved by the
> women mating with different men for every conception. Since they only
> had the seven mtDNA lines, this was even more important.
>
> Since this has gone on for 50,000 years or more, the maternal death
> rates made those fewer women who were able to safely deliver had more
> power than any other women in the world. It is the Aryans who have left
> us with a vast collection of goddess figures. It is the reconstructed
> Proto-Indo-European language which shows that all the words realated to
> authority are female. The Russians found yet another Amazon grave not
> long ago, and it is among their descendants, 'white girls' who have the
> instinctive fixation over horses.
>
> The mighty warrior was too heavy for the early horses, so he couldnt
> catch the girls either mounted, or on foot. White girls instinctively
> understand the body language of horses and cattle, and their ancestors
> took them onto the Steppes, dominating it until larger horses were bred
> and the saddle with stirrup was invented.
>
> I expect that now that nukes and other WMDs make the services of the
> warriors no longer useful, that women will again take power, and return
> to their ancestral traditions of communal living so that their sisters
> can assist them with child care. There is *no* Proto-Indo-European word
> for 'marriage'.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

H Dickmann wrote:
> Two girls were talking about what they want to do when they grow up. The
> Traditional girl said:" I want to study hard to be a lawyer and make a lot
> of money." The Modern girl said:" I am going to marry a lawyer and then
> divorce him. I will get 80% of his assets. Then I do it all over again with
> another sucker. I will make a lot more money than you will ever make."
There's a third option coming. There wont be any rich lawyers. The whole 
*reason* men want to be rich is so that they can afford more bimbos to 
have sex with. What happens when women take over, is that they control 
their conception, and therefore become wanton, as the Celts were.

If the guys get laid anyway, they dont have the same motivation to try 
to exploit the efforts of other men. When women rule, sex is no longer 
evil and profane, but sacred and good. The cultures which were run by 
women were egalitarian, without rich lawyers of either sex.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Now, since I live in the US I am only referring to that in my reply. 

The law requires fathers to support their children, and one way to do that is 
to pay child support. Before these laws existed, the population that did NOT 
provide support were almost always poor, poorly educated, and transient; that 
is, moving from town to town looking for work. The net result of this was, men 
could have sex, but really didn't have to support their kids if the woman got 
pregnant, because he could pretty much 'disappear' and run to another town 
without being found. This was also during the time that birth control was hard 
to find, and if used, VERY discouraged, especially by the Catholic church. That 
is, society in general discouraged women to use birth control, stating she must 
be a 'whore' or outcast.

In general, the more well-to-do families were brought up with certain values, 
and gave voluntary support to their kids if they got divorced. 

So, laws were needed to make sure the men would support their children, if the 
woman got pregnant. Those laws may now be outdated since birth control is now 
more widely available in the US, and the woman can use it without becoming a 
social outcast. 

What I don't get is why young girls (like age 20 and younger) don't use the 
pill more? It's available, and they can often get it free for the asking. But 
teen pregnancies are still at a certain level. Is it they fear what their 
parents will think of them if they ask for the pill? Or they are just too shy 
to ask their parents about it? 


-- 
Say no to fixed width tables. They look terrible in all browsers.

The cultures run by women?  These are?  There are no known examples of
matriarchy in the whole history of the planet, despite the popular
propaganda to the contrary.  Matrilineality isn't matriarchy, and there are
also no known examples of egalitarian cultures.  All cultures are stratified
by age and gender, at minimum.  The peaceful-egalitarian-matriarchy was made
up by a group of feminists at Berkely in the 1970s.  Great agitprop, no
content.  It's pure fiction.


"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:41868035_2@127.0.0.1...
> H Dickmann wrote:
> > Two girls were talking about what they want to do when they grow up. The
> > Traditional girl said:" I want to study hard to be a lawyer and make a
lot
> > of money." The Modern girl said:" I am going to marry a lawyer and then
> > divorce him. I will get 80% of his assets. Then I do it all over again
with
> > another sucker. I will make a lot more money than you will ever make."
> There's a third option coming. There wont be any rich lawyers. The whole
> *reason* men want to be rich is so that they can afford more bimbos to
> have sex with. What happens when women take over, is that they control
> their conception, and therefore become wanton, as the Celts were.
>
> If the guys get laid anyway, they dont have the same motivation to try
> to exploit the efforts of other men. When women rule, sex is no longer
> evil and profane, but sacred and good. The cultures which were run by
> women were egalitarian, without rich lawyers of either sex.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

And PS, perhaps you could explain the logical contradiction of "run by
women" and "egalitarian?"


"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:41868035_2@127.0.0.1...
> H Dickmann wrote:
> > Two girls were talking about what they want to do when they grow up. The
> > Traditional girl said:" I want to study hard to be a lawyer and make a
lot
> > of money." The Modern girl said:" I am going to marry a lawyer and then
> > divorce him. I will get 80% of his assets. Then I do it all over again
with
> > another sucker. I will make a lot more money than you will ever make."
> There's a third option coming. There wont be any rich lawyers. The whole
> *reason* men want to be rich is so that they can afford more bimbos to
> have sex with. What happens when women take over, is that they control
> their conception, and therefore become wanton, as the Celts were.
>
> If the guys get laid anyway, they dont have the same motivation to try
> to exploit the efforts of other men. When women rule, sex is no longer
> evil and profane, but sacred and good. The cultures which were run by
> women were egalitarian, without rich lawyers of either sex.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Bu Hao wrote:
> The cultures run by women?  These are?  There are no known examples of
> matriarchy in the whole history of the planet, despite the popular
> propaganda to the contrary.  Matrilineality isn't matriarchy, and there are
> also no known examples of egalitarian cultures.  All cultures are stratified
> by age and gender, at minimum.  The peaceful-egalitarian-matriarchy was made
> up by a group of feminists at Berkely in the 1970s.  Great agitprop, no
> content.  It's pure fiction.
They are not well known, especially by archaology chairs which were 
originally endowed by Christians hoping for verification of the Bible. 
"In Search of the Indo-Europeans" by JP Mallory says this on the flyleaf 
to describe the cover:"an Iranian Steppe nomad taking a classic 
'Parthian' shot over his left shoulder." Only thing, is, that if yu 
actually *look* at the 5th century BC bronze mounted archer, yu can 
clearly see *her* left tit. (I can send a JPG)

Then, inside, he often discusses the original reconstructed (PIE) 
"Proto-Indo-European" language. He says he cant find any word for 
'King'; the only word he can find for an authority figure is "raj". As 
in Raja, Region, Regina, Aregon [Sanskrit, English, latin, Greek] and 
when they trace the meaning of 'raj', it turns out to mean a *female* 
tribal leader of great wisdom and mana. A raj is a witch. Which yu'd 
realize if yu speak the words out loud.

There is one ancient language which was most directly descended from 
PIE: Tocharian, which fortunately was used by the Silk Road towns in the 
Taklamakhan desert. Fortunately, because the dry, cold, alkaline soils 
freeze dried the bodies in the graveyards and preserved their scrolls.
EW Barber, 'The Mummies of Urumchi' and JP Mallory, 'The Tamir Mummies' 
are two recent works illustrating the bodies and their grave goods. 
There are no lavish graves of chieftans at all. The modestly richer 
graves were all women. One of whom was buried wearing her tall, black, 
conical, flat brimmed hat that'd work for any halloween witch costume.

Before WWI, the Prussians made several expeditions into Central Asia, 
coming back with truckloads of scrolls. surf for univ Frankfurt to look 
at 4000+ jpgs of Tocharian documents. But then the war came on, and the 
Communist revolution which cut off access, so everybody forgot about it.
Only now that the Iron Curtain came down and China has opened up, has 
interest and expiditions begun again.

I have a copy of the Maitreyasamiti-Nataka texts in Tocharian A. It was 
written in Brahmi Sanskrit in the 5th century from a much earlier 
source. It is a conversation between the living Buddah, and the Gautamid 
*Queen* of Kucha. If Kucha had a king, the Buddah wouldda been talking 
to him. But if yu still have doubt, then look at Tocharian Historical 
Phonology and Morphology, by Douglas Adams. On pg 138-9 he noted that 
the word for 'king', (wleAntos) has a *feminine* suffix.

I spoze there is a lot of fiction about matriarchies, but this aint it.
I spoze the femmo-nazis did compose a lotta propaganda, but there are a 
number of aspects that challenge them as well. There are two forces that 
have always controlled the behavior of men : sex and violence. Pick one.

Kucha chose sex. The brothels were owned by the city. If men have a duty 
to serve as warriors, women have a duty to serve... And we have a very 
explicit example of this in Gibbon's 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman 
Empire'. The Sarmatians were a western branch of the Silk Road 
matriarchies, and when they were threatened with invasion by the 
Persians, they went to Roman General Proculus, and gave him 100 virgins 
if he'd take his 5 legions across Anatolia. It was a deal he could not 
refuse. Proculu was already infamous. All right Bu Hao: can you find 
anywhere in History where a *male* leader would have the moral authority 
to do such a thing, or even the imagination?

I dont blame yu for being skeptical; yu should be. But there's been much 
that has been hidden or missed by male academics. The Amazons've always 
been thot to be mythic. but then so was Troy. Till they found it. And in 
recent years, the Russians have found several Amazons buried in the 
permafrost of Siberia. The iconography shows them to be the same 
Sarmatians who made the deal with general Proculus.

Amd after the Mongols and Jihadim took over, they deliberately did all 
they could to hide or ignore the traces of matriarchy. They are still at 
it, robbing graves and descrating priceless art in NW China. But there 
are other clues that have slipped by them. The Tocharian women handed 
down ownership of herds or lands with small flattened rings that were 
inscribed to identify the property. These rings were then sewn together 
so that they could be worn while mounted. They are called "Kucha Belts", 
and we still see them on Near Eastern belly dancers. The individual 
rings were often traded, and known as "cash".

They themselves did not believe in a tyrannic father god. The Vedas say 
that each of us chose to be born into this world with a particular 
Kharma to fulfill. The word for "Kharma path" in Tocharian is 
"Kharmapath". If yer Kharma path prevents yu from believing that 
matriarchy ever existed, I dont have a problem with it. But the links 
and books are there to look it up if yu want.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

To think I wasted all those years as an anthropology professor when mere
kookery would have told me all I needed to know about human cultures...

I've read Barber, Mallory, etc, thanks.  A queen isn't evidence of
"Matriarchy,"  particularly when she rules specifically to fill in for a
missing king.   "Matriarchy" is a system in which political power is
principally and institutionally invested in women.  No such critter.  Rich
female burials are hardly evidence of a political system, are they?  They
could be evidence of returning a dowry to the deceased, fear of disease or
contamination, religious beliefs, appeasing evil spirits, or any number of
other cultural manifestations.  You choose an interpretation utterly without
evidence, based on modern politics.  It is usually incorrect to attribute
modern ideologies to ancient people.  Why didn't Henry VII support the Green
party?  Well, because it didn't exist yet.  Similarly, trying to turn
ancient people into proponents of an ideology that was invented thirty years
ago is so asinine as to hardly bear comment.  It takes a feminist nutjob to
pull that off.

It's a tortuous path indeed to imagine that the ornaments of belly dancers
are somehow evidence of or related to "matriarchy" in the middle east, a
region famous for its liberal attitudes toward women.

You say the Raj--(India) had tremendous mana-- (Polynesia).  This, along
with the unawnsered question of  "women in control" vs. "egalitarian" in
your last post is precisely the sort of sloppy thinking that allows nitwit
ideologues to promote thier nonsense.  The myth of matriarchy is a
procrustean a priori, in which the advocates lop off everything they don't
like, and wildly inflate the annomalies which they think support their
position.   Non sequiturs, invalid conflations, ignorance and illogic are a
small price to pay to believe.  But then, lots of people would like to
believe in Santa Claus too.  He ain't real either.

Take a freshman anthropology class sometime, if you can find one that
teaches anthropology instead of political correctness.  The only reason I
remarked on your post in the first place is that old maxim "silence implies
consent."  Whatever readers saw your post might think it had some merit.
Anthropologists don't, by and large.  The readers should know that.  But
then, there's that other wise old saying--"When you argue with an idiot, he
is doing the same."  Ciao.



"Day Brown" <daybrown@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:4188411b$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> Bu Hao wrote:
> > The cultures run by women?  These are?  There are no known examples of
> > matriarchy in the whole history of the planet, despite the popular
> > propaganda to the contrary.  Matrilineality isn't matriarchy, and there
are
> > also no known examples of egalitarian cultures.  All cultures are
stratified
> > by age and gender, at minimum.  The peaceful-egalitarian-matriarchy was
made
> > up by a group of feminists at Berkely in the 1970s.  Great agitprop, no
> > content.  It's pure fiction.
> They are not well known, especially by archaology chairs which were
> originally endowed by Christians hoping for verification of the Bible.
> "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" by JP Mallory says this on the flyleaf
> to describe the cover:"an Iranian Steppe nomad taking a classic
> 'Parthian' shot over his left shoulder." Only thing, is, that if yu
> actually *look* at the 5th century BC bronze mounted archer, yu can
> clearly see *her* left tit. (I can send a JPG)
>
> Then, inside, he often discusses the original reconstructed (PIE)
> "Proto-Indo-European" language. He says he cant find any word for
> 'King'; the only word he can find for an authority figure is "raj". As
> in Raja, Region, Regina, Aregon [Sanskrit, English, latin, Greek] and
> when they trace the meaning of 'raj', it turns out to mean a *female*
> tribal leader of great wisdom and mana. A raj is a witch. Which yu'd
> realize if yu speak the words out loud.
>
> There is one ancient language which was most directly descended from
> PIE: Tocharian, which fortunately was used by the Silk Road towns in the
> Taklamakhan desert. Fortunately, because the dry, cold, alkaline soils
> freeze dried the bodies in the graveyards and preserved their scrolls.
> EW Barber, 'The Mummies of Urumchi' and JP Mallory, 'The Tamir Mummies'
> are two recent works illustrating the bodies and their grave goods.
> There are no lavish graves of chieftans at all. The modestly richer
> graves were all women. One of whom was buried wearing her tall, black,
> conical, flat brimmed hat that'd work for any halloween witch costume.
>
> Before WWI, the Prussians made several expeditions into Central Asia,
> coming back with truckloads of scrolls. surf for univ Frankfurt to look
> at 4000+ jpgs of Tocharian documents. But then the war came on, and the
> Communist revolution which cut off access, so everybody forgot about it.
> Only now that the Iron Curtain came down and China has opened up, has
> interest and expiditions begun again.
>
> I have a copy of the Maitreyasamiti-Nataka texts in Tocharian A. It was
> written in Brahmi Sanskrit in the 5th century from a much earlier
> source. It is a conversation between the living Buddah, and the Gautamid
> *Queen* of Kucha. If Kucha had a king, the Buddah wouldda been talking
> to him. But if yu still have doubt, then look at Tocharian Historical
> Phonology and Morphology, by Douglas Adams. On pg 138-9 he noted that
> the word for 'king', (wleAntos) has a *feminine* suffix.
>
> I spoze there is a lot of fiction about matriarchies, but this aint it.
> I spoze the femmo-nazis did compose a lotta propaganda, but there are a
> number of aspects that challenge them as well. There are two forces that
> have always controlled the behavior of men : sex and violence. Pick one.
>
> Kucha chose sex. The brothels were owned by the city. If men have a duty
> to serve as warriors, women have a duty to serve... And we have a very
> explicit example of this in Gibbon's 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman
> Empire'. The Sarmatians were a western branch of the Silk Road
> matriarchies, and when they were threatened with invasion by the
> Persians, they went to Roman General Proculus, and gave him 100 virgins
> if he'd take his 5 legions across Anatolia. It was a deal he could not
> refuse. Proculu was already infamous. All right Bu Hao: can you find
> anywhere in History where a *male* leader would have the moral authority
> to do such a thing, or even the imagination?
>
> I dont blame yu for being skeptical; yu should be. But there's been much
> that has been hidden or missed by male academics. The Amazons've always
> been thot to be mythic. but then so was Troy. Till they found it. And in
> recent years, the Russians have found several Amazons buried in the
> permafrost of Siberia. The iconography shows them to be the same
> Sarmatians who made the deal with general Proculus.
>
> Amd after the Mongols and Jihadim took over, they deliberately did all
> they could to hide or ignore the traces of matriarchy. They are still at
> it, robbing graves and descrating priceless art in NW China. But there
> are other clues that have slipped by them. The Tocharian women handed
> down ownership of herds or lands with small flattened rings that were
> inscribed to identify the property. These rings were then sewn together
> so that they could be worn while mounted. They are called "Kucha Belts",
> and we still see them on Near Eastern belly dancers. The individual
> rings were often traded, and known as "cash".
>
> They themselves did not believe in a tyrannic father god. The Vedas say
> that each of us chose to be born into this world with a particular
> Kharma to fulfill. The word for "Kharma path" in Tocharian is
> "Kharmapath". If yer Kharma path prevents yu from believing that
> matriarchy ever existed, I dont have a problem with it. But the links
> and books are there to look it up if yu want.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Puritans brought the idea of Lawyers to America.

Day Brown wrote:
> 
> H Dickmann wrote:
> > Two girls were talking about what they want to do when they grow up. The
> > Traditional girl said:" I want to study hard to be a lawyer and make a lot
> > of money." The Modern girl said:" I am going to marry a lawyer and then
> > divorce him. I will get 80% of his assets. Then I do it all over again with
> > another sucker. I will make a lot more money than you will ever make."
> There's a third option coming. There wont be any rich lawyers. The whole
> *reason* men want to be rich is so that they can afford more bimbos to
> have sex with. What happens when women take over, is that they control
> their conception, and therefore become wanton, as the Celts were.
> 
> If the guys get laid anyway, they dont have the same motivation to try
> to exploit the efforts of other men. When women rule, sex is no longer
> evil and profane, but sacred and good. The cultures which were run by
> women were egalitarian, without rich lawyers of either sex.
> 
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I'm not arguing with anyone. Make of the data what yu will. Academic 
credentials dont particularly impress me. I remember being in science 
class and being told that plate Tectonic was another kook theory.

A hundred years ago the mental health professionals were telling us that 
masturbation caused insanity. 80 years ago that premarital sex caused 
bad marriages. 60 years ago that shell shock was faked, Freud was 
infallible, and that ulcers were caused by stress. 40 years ago they 
maintained that autism was caused by erratic mothering. 30 years ago 
many women were told their sexual dysfunction was a fruedian reaction to 
sex with a father figure.20 years ago that they could cure homosexuality 
with couch time.

But then we found the brain hormones related to shock. we found the 
bacteria that caused ulcers and discovered the DES caused cancer in the 
daughters of the women who used it.

Agreed that there certainly are are lotta kooks, but a lot of them have 
phds. But which is the forest, and which the trees? One of the clues 
that I often see to blindsidedness is when rather than the facts being 
refuted ad hominum is applied. I have not challenged the intelligence of 
anyone, only their limited exposure to the archaeological data.

Consider 'Demonic Males' by Wrangham and Peterson. They show us reports 
of the field studies of the alpha males and how they rely on force to 
try to control the bodies of the females for the sake of more genes in 
the pool. We have numerous facilities like Mandeville LA to study the 
great apes because they are so much like us, and present so much insight 
into how the hominids evolved. And yet when I cite the video and reports 
on the Bonobo matriarchy, I am told that they are animals. And who tells 
me this? in every case it is some guy acting on his alpha male instincts.

Darwinian pressure alone would produce matriarchy in those cultures in 
which the resource base was immense, and profitable predation of other 
hominids was not possible because of the great distance between their 
communities.  Why is it that Native Europeans only have 7 mtDNA lines?

With regard to the Tocharians, can anyone point out any other culture 
which was run by men in which the leaders did not have their names and 
history recorded? Where are the stone monuments of the kings? If they 
had kings, how is it that these Native European *Aryan* kings are so 
wise as to not waste the resources of the population on the construction 
of stone monuments? Why is it that Douglas Adams reports that the words 
which relate to community resources have feminine endings? Why is their 
word for 'king' a *feminine* form? Why has this culture, unlike so many 
other *advanced* cultures left us no lavish graves of male leaders?

We know the florid forms of address used with oriental potentates. Yet 
in the Maitreyasamiti, not only is the Queen's address feminine, but it 
is entirely devoid of the pandering to alpha male egos which we see 
everywhere else. In her discussion with the Buddah, he does not lay down 
the law as we'd expect a great prophet, but agrees with her that they 
should both go up to the monks at Sibushi to consult with them; there is 
an obvious interest in seeking consensus, which any familiarity with the 
way women interact supports matriarchy.

The Tocharians left thousands of documents in the desert dust that 
buried much of their towns. Personal letters dont include the usual male 
orders to perform. In fact, Adams picks up on this, that there is no 
*imperative* case. (p61 Tocharian historical phonology and morphology)
Yu cant translate the Ten Commandments into Tocharian because there is 
no such word as "shalt". The only examples which Adams can find are 
"pick me up!" and "give me". Phrases used by children.

But- instead of imperative, there are several more verb tenses, not only 
past, present, & future, but that which was past and is no more, that 
which was and still is, that which was and will continue. Added to this 
are ambiguous forms, mite have, mite be, mite continue. The phrase "It 
depends on what the meaning of is, is." would not have worked in 
Tocharian. Not only are there a number of ways to express yerself more 
precisely, and the abundance of feminine suffixes for the words related 
to power and resource management, but the connotations which have come 
down to us like 'cash', 'kucha belt', 'kharmapath', and 'coochi coo' all 
related to the status of women as independent sentient beings.

Kings have harems, and to house them they have palaces. and to protect 
the palaces, fortifacations. Kucha dont have any of that. Neither did 
Niya. They didnt *need* an army to protect them. they had the desert. In 
most cases, just poisoning the wells was suffienct to stop the Zongnu. 
In other cases, the population simply fled into the desert to hide out 
with hidden stores of food and water. It worked for thousands of years 
until Ghengis Khan organized *all* of the mongols following a remarkable 
series of good years which made their population explode.

We know the character of alpha male leaders; they do all they can to 
hide a past of powerful women, and largely they have succeeded. But they 
never dreamed of the diligence of archaeology and the forensic tools 
that've been employed. The Tocharians left us with an important canon of 
herbal knowledge, much of which relates to herbs from Europe. Much of it 
was written in a font that looks like Old Gothic, with a goose quill pen 
on *birchbark*. (The Tocharians live East of the Birch/Beech line) And 
despite the fact that they live in the east, they use 'Centum' for 100, 
not 'Satem' like the other Eastern Indo-European languages.

An anthropologist should appreciate the power witches have in their 
herbal healing and poisoning. The forensic examination of their pots 
shows some pretty powerful stuff. Cannibis, Opium, and Ephedra at Gonor 
and Togoluk. Amanita Muscaria and Amanita Phalloides all over Western 
Europe. There are other shrooms which are harmless... unless eaten with 
alcohol in the system. The Romans had a terrible time with Dacia, which 
is where the Transylvanian mountains are, and they never held it very 
long. some of their records explain why. Each village usta host a 
'fertility' rite at which the guys from neighboring villages were all 
envited. Yu know any kings or other male leaders which had ever, in all 
of history, setup such a deal? The villages took turns with this, but 
the name was a misnomer. The *witches* have birth control herbs.

So, when the general wants to cross the Danube to attack, the witch has 
grunts in his ranks who view the whole project like going off to burn 
down a whorehouse.

We also have the letters to the bishop about brother stud muffin, who'd 
been missing all summer, and now returns saying that the witches 
'bewitched' him. And now that the harvest was in, they didnt need his 
ass, and sent him back to the monestary. and what did they bewitch him 
with if it was not cunts? And did these witches have to ask the 
permission of a male chief to do this? I dont *think* so. The power of 
Western women dates back for uncounted millennia, and is to some extent 
instinctive. We see them on TV all over the world read the news, and in 
time, like Conkite, they will be taken as the voice of authority.

Whether I personally like this or not is irrelevant; I'm a guy and it 
aitn upta me.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----