The very idea, held in the mind, that the Left is about social justice for all, is not only ridiculous but psychotic. Where the left as you describe has held power they have murdered their citizens en masse. The drive is Thanatos in concert with Envy, and built upon Lies.

The National Socialists murdered upwards of 6 million people in gas chambers and firing squads; the 'Union' of Soviet Socialists starved 33 million Kulaks to death, largely in the Ukraine; the Moaist killed 78 million in China. Pol Pot that Letist runner-up only managed 4 million but the poor little bugger had only a small country to play with.

The urge to join in 'community' and work, live and prosper together is an age old and perfectly reasonable drive. As is individual enterprise, creativity and ownership. But the 'Left' takes and distorts normal human altruistic drive, couples it with a 'Higher Power' of State and wreaks havok on lives.

You sound confused as to how Feminism caomes to be associated with the 'Left'. It could easily have been taken up by the 'Right' and indeed there could be a good case made that it has been. But it is simply a destructive tool, usable by any destabilising drive built on Envy and Lies.

I suggest you read much more that lies in the archives of AM for the various historical strands that brought Feminism about.

It is fashionable to see just a 'Political' colouring to Feminism, but what we are looking at is just another, perhaps more subtle expression of humankind madness. The conflicting drives of human beings down through the ages have usually been balanced out in times of productive sanity, but from time to time madnesses take over civilisations. All sorts of 'rationales' have been dragged into play to explain them but all have resulted in mass murder.

The mass murders of the 20th Century - noted above - all seem to have resulted from a rationale that had a basis in 'community', a rationale that was 'stolen' and twisted and basically a Lie, and distorted into an envious grimmace and a boot in the face. They seem out of place in humanity only to someone who hasn't studied history. But they are a continuation of an ages-long sinking into psychosis.

In the 1500 and 1600, not long ago, the whole of South America was affected by a mind-plague and several civilisations disintegrated. The same 'direct' murderousness was a key feature. The Aztec, the Toltec and the Moche all tore themselves apart in an orgy of blood. Forty thousand men were ritually murdered in four days in one incident in a 'production line' presaging the Nazis murder machine.

If I may make a point - this 'directness' was very masculine. It focused mainly on adults.

We are moving into a feminine phase. It is less direct and more subtle. It has a different way of murdering millions.

Feminism murders babies, first and foremost. Millions of the most vulnerable human beings, easy targets, are murdered every decade. The number of murdered babies since WW2 exceeds all the murders of the Nazi and Soviets and Moaists combined.

Men, frankly are a secondary target. In this phase of Feminism, men are still being marginalised and driven out. More and more men are commiting suicide. Some feminists have openly called for extermination. I doubt it will come to that. Our civilisation wil deteriorate and be replaced.

The population replacement in all European countries has collapsed. America is the only Anglophile country that has managed to maintain a population replacement rate but only through immigration. It is eating itself alive from the inside.

Western Civilisation is dying. It is being put to death.

By women.

The Left is largely responsible for the 'direct' murder of existing people in the last century, but Feminism is its sinister sister, mudering tomorrow.

""We are moving into a feminine phase. It is less direct and more subtle. It has a different way of murdering millions"""

nothing subtle about abortion the babies are truncated and the bits dropped into a bucket between the abortionists legs

in the southern state of Victoria here in Australia this "procedure " will soon be legal for 24 week term babies at the " choice " of its "mother"

Originally Posted by Percy

The very idea, held in the mind, that the Left is about social justice for all, is not only ridiculous but psychotic.

I would say it other way: one - believing that right is about some "eternal human values" and can bring humanity something but wars and misery - is not only stupid but ignorant toward whole human history... But - I will not do it...For one simple reason... Purpose of my post was not to proof that left is better then right or wise verse...But - to understand nature of feminism (ok - explain my understanding of this nature...)... You know - to fight your enemy you have to know him...If I go to wiki - I see this explanation of left (primitive but - at least some base is here):

In politics, left-wing, the political left, or the Left are positions that seek to reform or abolish the existing social order in favor of a more equal distribution of wealth and privilege. In general, the left advocates a society where all people have an equal opportunity, which they often describe as a "level playing field". Because of this[citation needed], the left tends to support labor unions, worker cooperatives and sometimes communes. Its emphasis on social change puts it in alliance with civil rights[citation needed], feminist and green[citation needed] movements.

Although they put here feminist as some inherent allies of left , but - as I noted in my first post - main issues left deal with were always social , not gender, and left always stood for unity , unions , broad social orgs - uniting large masses of people - quite an opposite to feminism - pushing to social atomization... Once more - I do not say that left ideas are good (you quite obviously - think - they are bad...)... I just state what they (left ideas) are , and what they are not...

Another question as you correctly mentioned - what for is it important all those "logical computations" on left on not left nature of feminism... I think - it is important (except simple natural curiosity) for deeper undesranding of sources and nature of power - gained in last 50 yeares by feminist zeolots , and understanding of nature and way for solution of current crisis...

Dear Zuismanm,
I’m definitely not of the left, but I’m glad you came forth honestly and are asking for a square debate of ideas. I don’t know if you are open to change, but I will keep it civil if you continue the tone you have started. If you don’t answer this very smartly I’ll be gone for I have no time for deconstructionists.

The Left was lead by the Russians, once they obtained power in Russia and they then went about doing away with all other factions, as Lenin directed, as he had at first done when he took a minority party and labeled it the majority party in Russian. As he had also done to the socialist government, when they stage their coup du t’ait on the socialist government.

Most of the old espionage budget of the Soviets was not spent on spies and such, the vast majority was in infiltration of all leftward organizations. They systematically used what they termed “useful idiots” and moved up to the leading figures in the culture to get them to preach ideas that would undermine their enemy nations. Since the opening up of Soviet archives this is now accepted wisdom, though some of the best information on this came out before the fall of the Soviet Union.

They used everything available, as outlined in their own brainwashing techniques to destabilized the whole social system. So their ideas were to not bring the union of western forces to bring about an electoral win for those forces, but simply to bring about a collapse of the will to fight( a male center ed focus). This a grant you is total at odds with the rhetoric of international brotherhood etc. They preached just like the old Imperial Russia first, in policy.

The left found out long ago western men, as a whole or majority, were not interested in ideas of the Left. So they quickly adapted to picking up and disenfranchised groups and turning then to be being puppets, in supporting things Russia did and her allies liked, and against things that Russia saw as important to weaken. You can see this is how there are no protests about Georgia, and full court presses for anything the US does. Old habits die hard it would seem.

Feminism was one of these groups. The lack of intelligent leadership allow them to join readily to be the Marx Feminists, that are very well known of in the movements all over the English speaking world. I don’t how on earth you missed it, but you wouldn’t be the first support that has. I met an Australian man who married one of these women, who was head of such a branch, and he even belong to it too. He was an MRA now and was divorced and not allowed to see his kids.

You can chart the progression of these moves as communists then named themselves socialist, who then became liberals, who then became progressives (which was a conservative-Christian movement in Canada and the US in the beginning) and now you can see them in Environmentalism. Thus the term watermelon: Green on the outside, spoiled white middle class (under the green skin), followed by red interior, with the black pits of Fascism which are the end results as this is what eventually grows because of the whole dishonorable set of practices. Mussolini was a communist and united the Futurists (Artsy fartsy and gay men of Italy) into a branch of his movement. Hitler was a card-carrying member of the Bavarian Communist party and saw he needed to win the men of Germany to the cause in a more effective manner. See the same thinking as the Soviets there? That was by combining Nationalism with socialism.

Now the question is not whether the left was used in this, or whether they were the “useful idiots” (Russian translated term, used for those who followed their leadership), but whether the corporate leaders of the west have used feminist to. Which I think is the issue you wish to point out in isolation.

Some New World Order believers have made this claim that the undermining system was taken over by the Oilmen/ businessmen. This is still very unclear. For in mainland Europe, and other hot spots of anti-US feeling, the New World Order is clearly corporate and based in the US and with England. Yet this is exactly the strong tie the Soviets wanted to have in undermining the western power base long ago.

While in the US the New World Order is said to be much more European based, anti-Christian, Masonic, and clearly represented in the European bureaucracies pursuit of the same aims, with a new management and style. Thus which version is the real one, or whether there are other truer versions or two kinds is hard to tell. The only real proof shown to me is that of Common Purpose in the UK, which seems EU /Labour based.

Now the business community has definitely loved and pushed feminism in that they have gotten an easy spending fashion victim sex, and they have no urge to wreaken this cash cow. The question is did they want to undermine their own countries like has happen, were they too afraid to take on the Medusa they helped in supporting, or have they been “Useful Idiots” of someone else?

My bet is on the New World order is to keep watching, before I make a clear diagnoses, but the Lefts ties to feminism in very clear and they have been the “Useful Idiots” of those on our eastern boarders. Hope to have something aside from silly rhetoric, for the men of the left and right must come together in the long runto deal with the Medusa monster.

If we will take traditional definition of “left” (as I understand it…) left ideology see it main purpose in reaching UNIVERSIAL social justice for ALL people…

Leftism/Socialism is the most hypocritcal political system around. In spite of its protestations, it has its "favourite groups" (women first and foremost), and endorses ideas such as female supremacism/feminism which aid its long-term goal of demolishing all order in society. That is the end goal of leftism - to bring society back to the stone age.

Men aren't going to get anything out of leftist/socialist politics. Try as you might, it's a waste of time.

Hi Timocrat. Your remark about fact - that Lenin labeled minority party as majority - is almost right...Tricky thing is - that all parties were minority parries on Russia of those days... But - that just for sake of curiosity... You are right (I suppose) that large part of western political left blindly backed up Soviet regime. Although - not everything is so simple - Anarchist left opposed Lenin and his followers from even beginning (Kropotkin) - that is why Anarchists were always seen by Soviet regime as one of main enemies... But - really large part of left thinkers and politicians gone after Lenin and followers like rats after magic fife, and paid heavy price in long run...
I do not know - how much money fems orgs got form KGB (when I was in USSR it mostly was spoken about US communist party as our best friend, and different extreme left formations in south America... Feminism was not very popular term in USSR , although - many it's ideas were actually implemented de facto) But I am ready to believe -that they also got something... But - I do not see - why is it of any importance...

1. Soviets never were rich country. Their co reign currency resources were very limited... So all their allies got actually peanuts(from financial point of view) and fems were not as I see main "financial clients". So even if they got some few cents - that is not what made them powerful... Reasons for their power you have to look inside western society , not in some few millions bucks - they got from Stalin
2. As I mentioned - effectively many aspects of feminism ideology were implemented in Soviet Union even with more devastating effect then in west (without formally using term "feminism")... So - your theory - that Russia's "infiltrated feminism into western society to destabilize and weaken it - sounds quite problematic... In such a case - why the hell they did it with their own society...
3. But all this even is not so important... Since - as I mentioned - question even is not - what feminism was 50 ye res ago, and were from did it come (although - it is important also), but - what is it now... Even if some grandmothers of today fems were prominent commies it is less important... Most important is - who are they now...

According to your theory of fems and new world order - it was interesting reading... But I have little bit different point of view mail taken from Russian site menalmanah.ru... By the way - I am almost sure - that author is prominent right winger - but good clever ideas are good and clever regardless of who invented them...
His theory is based on some idea of men biological role as "disposable gender". That means in few wards - men biologically were much more replacable then women so - their psychology is much more sacrificial... That is why all large social changes were always made by men... Such changes always were enabled by large masses of men - sacrificed their fate and even lives for sake of future of whole society(which future - many of them even had not chance to see). Women psychology lack this "kamikaze" element. Since women always had to survive and keep off-springs... That is condition of specie survival... So - when social order become regressive and elite begin to fight for survival, instead of to lead social progress - it is great idea to oppress men and create society - dominated by females... Such society is by no comparison more submissive!!! I think - that is main reason of love ignited in hearts of western elites to feminism in 20th century... Even much more then fact - that females are much more wasteful then males... Feminist society is submissive - as simple as it...

Dear Mr. Zuismanm,
Well your answers again were civil and had real thought behind them. I don’t say this to be condescending, but to say this in not my experienced to date. So I will continue in the vein and hope we get left alone by others, as that will help keep it that way.

Tolstoy said (roughly quoting here): “That all good families have certain things in common and all bad ones are individually different.” I would expand this idea to say the same for states of governments.

I say this to you for you tend to go off into the bad or confused ideas like some gossiping women longing for the trash magazines, so they may study Tolstoy’s bad families (and their many wild and not worth overdoing it with study angles). Big failures are worth a look, big successes are worth a look, small & medium success are worth a look too, but small and sometimes medium failures come dead last, to at all. This is because, as Tolstoy says, they are all different and have nothing consistent to make any use of.

Now deconstructionist just love to go into small & medium failures so they can deconstruct the traditions of the patriarchies. This is because they must make small >big. They hide in the Anarchism, the New World Order(s) and other things we don’t know clearly about (like the Russian leadership). Deconstructionist use this “let’s only talk about your ideas” , or let’s keep my ideas in the venues that are the most unclear so they can’t be undermined and I can remain undefeated. Western traditions and their success are in the open and can be better appraised. Yet deconstructionist love to use a fine toothcomb as they go about making small> big, but don’t want to deconstruct deconstructionism (odd you would think). I just make a bit of sport of such thinkers, before finding something interesting to do, which is very easy as they are not very smart and are one trick ponies, just like women usually are (indirect or indirect).

Mr. Zuismanm said: His theory is based on some idea of men biological role as "disposable gender".

That sounds like Steve Moxon’s book and I agree with all that I’ve read on it. I will be getting the book when I get the chance, but you will get no debate on all that I know of his on the main ideas.Yet one man’s disposable sex could be another man’s Lion type male, being called disposable by a fox-type male (that are effete by nature) and is a framing of the argument from one angle. Being disposable is the view of the bureaucrat, which Mr. Moxon was or still is. Bureaucrats are of the fox group almost in total, and are nature’s male version of the effete women in a man’s body. More ambitious and horny, but unwilling to be direct, and thus they must make Lion-males into being stupid, dangerous and weak (small > big) so that fox-types can be more attractive to women in their subconscious view of themselves and their insecurity. So I like the last part of your last thread, as it is leading somewhere, but am not keen on going into the reeds of anarchism and another version of the New World Order.

When I argued with those on the Left many years ago they always talked of Yugoslavia, Albania etc. as their truer version of communism in the proper. It seems a big farce now, but along with the work in progress argument this allow those wishing to follow their ideas, despite the facts, a string to hold on to. Anarchism and many New World Order types are hanging on to strings too. I’d let them go unless there is something new and solid that comes out. Even the Classics have much more to offer, even though they are often myths.

So the fact there are some Anarchists that escaped Lenin, and died in Spain under Franco’s Blue Shirts doesn’t really mean very much, and is even less clear as the ideas are all the like of fashion and tastes and nothing can be gained by going over such things, and their will always be some thinker bigger in some clique that I have never heard about that will allow you to keep the ideas alive. I’ve even read one theory by La Rouche that says the anarchist were used as assassins by the English bankers to get America bankers to change their ways. All still unclear, and with no way to make clear, and so is a mere fashion.

So if you can keep this to clear positions, by people that have run a country and or been noted by some big success, big failure or some medium or small success, then I will be here with all ears open and give constructive input, but I’m not for fashion and Tolstoy’s medium and small failures for the only ones I note in my world are those that effect me in the local and not those found in every small effete world of every effete person in every effete part of the western world.

Hi Timocrat!

1. Expirence of Communism in USSR was mainly great failure... Smaller soviet setelites (Hungary, Yugoslavia...) were just little bit smaller failure... There is no doubt here... But - I also do not success to see current western capitalist society as great success(wideniong social gaps, raising poverty, degrading education system and so on)... So - I think that today western system is also on it's down slap - it passedd it's peak... But - that still does not say too much...
2. Anarchist thinkers as I see it are of great importance , regardless piquant details about who fleed from Stalin , and here was killed by whom...For few reasons... You are right - that Bolsheviks succeed to enforce their rule on Russia, and effectively dominated most of left movements scene for long time... But - that does not say - that they were more authentic representatives of left idea... That says - they were more cruel representatives, and better politicians... But today - after they left scene - anarchists remained only real ,authentic representatives of left ideas... overwhelming majority of today political "left" have actually to do with those ideas... I call them them "pseudo left"... They call themselves left , but - "Trade union", and "rights of working people" are for IL left parties (or - let us say Tony Blayer) swearing ins same degree as for their opponents... But once more - all this is very interesting , but not too important for question of nature of feminism... Since as I told - point here is not - are left ideas good or bad... But - what they are... By the way - what is" Deconstructionist" ??? I suppose - some kind of new bazword for net forum troll- that I missed , since I am not too often on English language forums???

Now to "theory of disposable gender"... I think - it is not exactly what as you describe is writen in Moxon's work... Since - I do not know English language sources on this issue - I will try to summaries in short article from menalmanach.ru...

Generally it speaks about gender differences in psychology - that were developed by Humans when they were still byological species, and how they were integrated in patriarchal social order - when humans became social species


Principally he speaks about 2 main principles - helped human species to suvive:

1. Princible of disposable males
2. Principle of "ihard to reach female"

If you have trib(herd) with let us say 100 males and 100 females... IF some cataclism occured and you remained with 10 females and 2 males - it is bad , but - currable... 2 males are enough to impregnate 10 females , and with some good luck after 2-3 generations you will have once more balanced trib... But - if situation will be oppposite - (10 males 2 females) trib is lost... So - you need all avalable wombs to survive and bring offsprings - for trib survilance but even few penicies in worst case can still make a job... So - one of conditions for trib survilance on biological step of human history was that female psychology was oriented on personal self-preservation and preservation (of her - personal) offsprings... Males were have to be ready in case of need to sacrify itself for sake of survilance of trib as whole...

Second principple is less important for current discussion... Generally it says - that female have to behave as "hard to reach" - to function as kind of "genum filter"... To cause males to compete for her and enable only best to leave offsprings...

Important implication of first principple in social environment is - that male dominated society is more dinamic , less stable and much more likely to pass large social transformations... (revolutions or social reforms)... If current social order becomes outdated , and stagnate society - males - if they dominate society are likely to lead social transformation and pay great personal price - if they see it as need for survilance of trib in general... In society - dominated by females it is much less likely to happen... That is why (in my opinion) today elitesso llike feminists and grant them such power in media , low system and so on...

Anarchist thinkers as I see it are of great importance , regardless piquant details about who fleed from Stalin , and here was killed by whom...For few reasons... You are right - that Bolsheviks succeed to enforce their rule on Russia, and effectively dominated most of left movements scene for long time... But - that does not say - that they were more authentic representatives of left idea. - Zuismanm

I’m sorry to say that they were more authentic of the left for they survived and destroyed the others. Now you and I may think they did so dishonorably, but in nature’s eyes, which is likely where you stand (verses that of say a religious background), they won over the others. An ideology like anarchism can’t say, “We are losers, and that is why we are the winners.” This is small> big and is an effete idea, and is what the feminists always do. You lost to the other left-wingers because they were more unprincipled and dishonorable, not because the anarchists were not the same in milder versions. You can’t point to, as the anarchists always point to in Spain, a small state that last a very short life as it was eaten up by the Blue Shirts and the Soviet supporters and say, “we were better!” No you weren’t! You lost because your sides leadership was to inept or divided, as many MRAs are now, or didn’t produced enough arms, fighting men & women that were properly motivated to fight for anarchism enough to defeat the Blue Shirts or the Soviet backed group. Anyway you try to sell small>big will not wash with a real man.

The need for people to remain in the clouds with their ideas doesn’t make them better, just aloof and cork dorks. If you want to continue with anything on anarchism you are going to have to list in pragmatic down to earth positions you have (say at least 10), and when you list them again stay out of the clouds, so I don’t think your political ideas are just a replacement for religion, as the communists did in having their old parading of Orthodox patriarchs changed to those of the Marx ones.

Then when you have your list compare it to libertarian ideas, and tell me why libertarian ideas don’t trump them? If you can do that I’ll get into a discussion with you on your ideas of anarchism. Otherwise I’m done with cloud like visions in this area.


Now Churchill said, “Capitalism is the worst system ever invented, except for all the others.” This is where we stand, so you best either provide something concrete, or find others who are game of jousting in the clouds with anarchists.

By the way - what is" Deconstructionist”??? I suppose - some kind of new bazword for net forum troll- that I missed , since I am not too often on English language forums???- Zuismanm

No it is a French anarchistic and socialist disease that tried to give a philosophy to the ideas of the left. The fact that you don’t know anything about it means you lack much knowledge behind your desires.

Deconstructionism: A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" Rebecca Goldstein.

Practitioners

Derrida, Michel Foucault, John Searl, Jurgen Habermas & Jean-Paul Sartre


The worst one that I know of Saetre, for as I said in my earlier post I don’t like to study small and medium sized failures, and only studied this one because of the success of the left, yet found it hollow.
Sartre, for examples was one of the surrender monkeys that didn’t want to fight the Nazis when they took France. Once they took France he was said to have spent a life in debauchry. He ideas, it could be argued, are a cynical effort to rationalize his role in not really doing anything in the war years as he just had fun as a café revolutionry before the war, during the war and after the war. Yet the French love café revolutionaries thus became very big in Europe after the war as all the socalist (and the Soviets how wanted to weaken the west) prasied his pathetic ideas. Yet I’ll leave a good critique of his work form a brother is the cause:
Vladimir Jankelevitch criticized Sartre's lack of political commitment during the German occupation, and interpreted his further struggles for liberty as an attempt to redeem himself. According to Camus, Sartre was a writer who resisted, not a resistor who wrote.
Deconstructionist hide their ideas and like to deconstruct everyone elses ideas. Thus tradition takes an rhetoric pounding.

Now to "theory of disposable gender"... I think - it is not exactly what as you describe is written in Moxon's work... Since - I do not know English language sources on this issue - I will try to summaries in short article from menalmanach.ru...

Generally it speaks about gender differences in psychology - that were developed by Humans when they were still biological species, and how they were integrated in patriarchal social order - when humans became social species



Principally he speaks about 2 main principles - helped human species to survive:

1. Princible of disposable males
2. Principle of "ihard to reach female"

If you have trib(herd) with let us say 100 males and 100 females... IF some cataclism occured and you remained with 10 females and 2 males - it is bad , but - currable... 2 males are enough to impregnate 10 females , and with some good luck after 2-3 generations you will have once more balanced trib... But - if situation will be oppposite - (10 males 2 females) trib is lost... So - you need all avalable wombs to survive and bring offsprings - for trib survilance but even few penicies in worst case can still make a job... So - one of conditions for trib survilance on biological step of human history was that female psychology was oriented on personal self-preservation and preservation (of her - personal) offsprings... Males were have to be ready in case of need to sacrify itself for sake of survilance of trib as whole...Second principple is less important for current discussion... Generally it says - that female have to behave as "hard to reach" - to function as kind of "genum filter"... To cause males to compete for her and enable only best to leave offsprings...Important implication of first principple in social environment is - that male dominated society is more dinamic , less stable and much more likely to pass large social transformations... (revolutions or social reforms)... If current social order becomes outdated , and stagnate society - males - if they dominate society are likely to lead social transformation and pay great personal price - if they see it as need for survilance of trib in general... In society - dominated by females it is much less likely to happen... That is why (in my opinion) today elitesso llike feminists and grant them such power in media , low system and so on...- Zuismanm

Yes all sounds logical and refreshing. My study and book comes at this from the idea that what kind of males lead societies succeed and do not, there are two main kinds. One is mostly lead by Lion types and the other is mostly lead by fox types (or weasel types). A balance is best( though the balance is not 50-50), societies on the decline have too many effete types and thus too many fox or weasel types. This is the situation of the west. So no matter what political party or social movement you have the system is corrupted by having to many fox types in the society. The fox type increase in number for many a reason, yet one of the nastiest is when there are too many die in war, and the foxes always find a way to survive. Women are not hard to get when there are few males around, or when women are not in their cycle (ready to mate) for they prefer fox-types as they reflect the traits women have and thus put them at ease. Yet when looking for a breeding male they go for their instincts and greater strength. Culture has a role too, and fashion leads this culture. Yet another big influence on this is the pill, which has been proven to tone down the women breeding selection so that she is more into the non-breeding mode. Which means women are choosing males that again are closer to their nature and familiar (boy toys that talk and sing and dance well). So we are far from Moxon’s modal of women choosing the best males and giving balance to any state. Instead we have states that lose their balance and have too many fox-types, and then fall to outside threats as they seem set on the higher levels of corruption that come with effete societies, that have women for a host of reasons choosing the wrong kind of men for the society to survive.

Also males have had a role in choosing who the mate with (or the parents have had), and are not passive as in Moxon’s views that are given above. Sure there are males that will sleep with anything (especially in their youth), but there are countless historical notes where leaders made choices on wives. They sleep with many young women, but preferred some over others. For Example Genghis Khan is said to have the most offspring related to him than any other person on the earth. He didn’t chose the old sick, bitchy, stupid women to have sex with a lot, he made a choice to mate with often the opposite, for he wanted and succeeded in having his offspring survive, as proven by genetics.

Moxon is animal based and correct, but humans have built a level above that, and float between leaders of lions and fox types now and haven’t yet taken notice of the right balance to stop the falling of states from bad effete ideas and bad lion ideas. We have accepted we don’t want leadership by too much lion ideas, but we still go onto glorify the fox and weasel world until our societies fall again for either extreme, as both are unhealthy. A balance is necessary, but no the balance of 50-50 and not the balance of women following fashion to create our culture and using chemicals to choose a husband to impress their friends modal. France will be Moslem in 35 years, because are too effete and think the fox ways are better.

Moxons’ work, from what I know, is the first step up from the genetic code, but has not left the bureaucratic conceit of the glorification of the fox-type, and their equal level of failed states by following effete ideas of the fox-type corruption.