The Grinch That Steals Children's Souls

"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be Bolshevik forever." -- V.I. Lenin
.

Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say -- National Post

Excerpt from the article:

Child-welfare agencies step in when kids are homeless, exploited, hungry or abused. They do not stop there. As the highly publicized neo-Nazi case in Winnipeg demonstrates, they might seize children from parents for teaching racist views, or for "emotional neglect." They have taken newborns from parents considered insufficiently intelligent; from religious families believing the Bible commands them to discipline kids with a rod. They order homeschooling parents to enroll children in public school, deeming them inadequately socialized.

---

Read the entire article here.

One Of These Statements Literally Represents Totalitarianism

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..." -- United States Declaration of Independence

"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights PROVIDED BY THE STATE ... the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law." -- Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Read further about the differences between Individualism and Collectivism in the following article by G. Edward Griffin, The Chasm - The Future Is Calling (Part One)

You can visit Mr. Griffin's site here.

There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch!

The following list was written by William J.H. Boetker, a Presbyterian minister, in 1942:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

What is the Frankfurt School? - by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (ret.)

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html

If you have absorbed any of the background material presented in this series of essays on "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy," you should be quite concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychic intimidation and indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt [1]. The 'facilitators' and civilian professors in the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the Academy are Wundtians all. The 'cultural Marxism' that has invaded our military academies and other military institutions is pervasive. As a result, these future naval officers will not have an understanding of the essence of what they are chosen to protect, that is, American civilization [2] -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization.

One must wonder who 'they' are. Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?

Indeed, a thoughtful person should ask himself or herself whether or not all this 'change' from America's traditional culture is simply a random set of events played out by a random set of players, all independent of each other -- all disconnected from any central premise or guidance. It is entirely possible that chance is at work here and all of these 'threads' of American culture are the random workings of the human intellect (the pursuit of what is possible, vice what is appropriate) in a free, democratic society.

But suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes!

---

Read the entire essay here.

The Origins of Political Correctness - by Bill Lind

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

Read the entire article here.

And On The Seventh Day...

Was the Bible so wrong for telling us that one day out of seven should be set aside from our usual activities?

I don’t necessarily mean this from the perspective of attending a church service where you spent a good 60 minutes realizing that no matter how fat your ass gets, church pews were indeed an invention of the Devil.

What I do mean is, aside from the religious aspects of “Sunday,” what are/were the social benefits that this special day used to deliver to us in regard to our human development and societal cohesiveness?

I remember when I grew up in my small northern hometown. Save but for a few essentials… the police, hospitals… motels, one or two gas stations and restaurants (the majority were closed)… it would be quiet as a mouse downtown.

Ho hum… tap, tap, tap… what to do, what to do?

Might as well dive back under the blankets and sleep until Monday, because this day is just useless, right?

Well, that’s not the way I remember it.

I do remember tip-toeing around the house in the mornings, hoping, praying…”Please, dear God, let my Mom and Dad sleep in so we don’t have to go to church… pleeeeease!”

It’s amazing how quietly four kids can play together sometimes. Whoever woulda thunk it?

It rarely worked… but, it worked just enough times to keep us hoping. (I wonder if my parents let it work just enough times a year to ensure they would continue to receive blissfully quiet Sunday mornings… hmmmm…. hmmmm!)

Yeah, going to church sucked.

But, that was the price we had to pay for what was often an extremely cool day!

After church, Sunday was filled with activities.

It was the day that everyone was available.

It was a day for family and friends.

Some of my fondest childhood memories are of Sundays. The picnics at the beach, the softball games where kids and their dads played side by side, pond hockey at a family friend’s farm…

The first time I discovered exactly how proficient my father was at gutter language was on a Sunday… as he was apparently trying to talk his Toyota Landcruiser off the rock it had gotten hung up on in the middle of a creek during a typical Sunday afternoon adventure.

Sunday meals were also special. Everyone seemed to make it special, whether church-goers or not. I was a day when it was easy to do something special.

But, we gave it all away.

We gave it away so Wal-Mart could deliver us cheap socks, seven days a week.

One wonders how many people bought cheap socks before Wal-Mart opened seven days a week? I don’t remember lots of barefoot people, able only to scrounge a barrel and suspenders to present themselves to the world.

Today’s Sundays involve the son working at the 24 hour gas station from eight to four, the daughter running to her four hour afternoon shift at the mall’s clothing store, and the wife working her evening shift at the neighbourhood pub until midnight – getting ogled and hit on by countless drunks who drink the day away because, well, all of their family and friends are busy like everyone else’s – busy making Sunday just “another day.”

I believe Sundays used to provide an enormous benefit to our psychological wellbeing, both as individuals and as a society.

It was a day that we were reminded there were things to life other than work and money.

It was a day that honoured not only God, but also family and friends.

Sundays helped us create a feeling of “community.”

I don’t go to church anymore, save but for weddings and funerals, I haven’t been to church in over 17 years.

But, the older I get, and the more I watch as society crumbles all around us… the more I realize how Sundays played an important role in keeping us human.

Marriage is Fraud

[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”

I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.
.
But, one must wonder, what happens to the males that don’t become the alpha male who breeds the whole lot of women?
.
Well, when a male reaches sexual maturity, he must challenge for breeding rights within the herd. Those males who fail to successfully challenge the alpha males become beta males, and get forced to leave the herd by the alpha. The beta males generally end up living on the fringes of the herd/society where they fend for themselves individually.
.
Now, interestingly, the beta males living outside the herd seem to manage to survive individually just fine without the need to be part of a herd like the females do. This is because the male is not saddled with children and, also, he is stronger than a female. The male has a surplus of labour which enables him to live individually apart from the herd. In fact, a male has so much surplus labour, that if he lives individually he needs only to expend about 20-30% of it to ensure his survival.
.
When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:
.
Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.
.
Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.
.
Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.
.
The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.
.
The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.
.
In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.
.
In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it. .
So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.
.
(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).
.
This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.
.
This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.
.
This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?
.
So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.
.
But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.
.
The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”
.

.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the wife. “You are married now, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you!”
.
For eons, mothers have told their daughters, “Why buy the cow when the milk is free?”
.
You see, the feminists always leave out that the woman sold her sexuality and took something in exchange for it: The man's surplus labour.
.
And benefit from a man’s surplus labour the wives of the past most surely did!
.
She benefited by no longer having to rely on the Communist lifestyle of the herd for her survival. .
When in need of protection she pushed the man out the door first to deal with the danger, rather than rely on the size of the herd, hoping it would hide her from harm when the weak stragglers get taken down by the wolves.
.
She benefited enormously by increasing the amount of labour available to her, giving her the ability to live in a wooden house with a real roof, rather than sharing a grass hut with a bunch of other women.
.
Women took something very real in exchange for selling their sexuality. They took a man’s labour as their own, and they benefited from this in almost every way imaginable.
.
So did the children she mothered benefit a great deal, and so did society in general.
.
Remember all those beta males who were existing outside of the herd, living on the fringes of society? They were only exerting 20-30% of their potential labour to survive.
.
Once married and attached to their own children, these beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity. This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men, women and children all obviously benefited from this.
.
Have a look around the room you are in.Everything within it involving more than two moving parts was invented by a man.
.
Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).
.
Thus, when you hear that “marriage is the foundational building block of society,” you are hearing the exact truth. And society, or rather, advanced society, is based on the economic contract of marriage. The economic contract of marriage is based on property rights. Property rights are the basis for Capitalism, and Capitalism is the basis for an advanced society which upholds the ideals of individualism, personal responsibility and Liberty.
.
Now, whether you wish to agree or disagree with the way society has existed for millennia, as outlined above, is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the above description is what the contract of marriage was based on throughout history. Your personal feelings are irrelevant to history.
.
So, back to the original question: "Do you believe women have the right to divorce?"
.
My answer is a resounding NO!
.
Why, you might ask?
.
Because modern marriage has become a FRAUDULENT contract, and therefore women shouldn’t be allowed to marry in the first place!
.
It is simple. No right to marry equals no right to divorce.
.
You see, in the 1860’s, the wonderful women’s rights movement combined with the heavy hand of the courts, ruled that custody of the children of a marriage should belong to the mother, not the father. In effect, they strengthened the strongest family bond, that of mother and child which exists everywhere in nature, and vastly diminished the weakest family bond, fatherhood, which exists almost nowhere in nature – but is the bond that creates civilization.
.
Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.
.
The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.
.
Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.
.
But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.
.
Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.
.
If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.
.
If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?
.
Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”
.
That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.
.
But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)
.
So what have we got left here?
.
WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!
.
What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!
.
If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.
.
The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.
.
Yup.
.
But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract.The man gets none of the property or rights which the contract was originally based upon, but the “vendor” still has the right to make you into this:
.
.
“Hyahhh! Move it, you strong ox!” bellows the ex-wife. “You are divorced now with no legal rights to what you thought you paid for, so start pulling this plow! No more lazing around for you, slave! MY children and I own your labour! You own nothing!”
.
MARRIAGE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!
.
MARRIAGE IS FRAUD!
.
DO NOT ENTER INTO FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS!
.
Nope, let the little ladies and their children go back to living like this:
.

Have nothing to do with them.

Do not oppress them with marriage.

Do not oppress them by allowing them to live in your nice home.

Do not have sex with them. All sex is rape, dontcha know?

Do not donate sperm. That now makes you liable to be a slave too.

Again, make sure you do not oppress one single one of them with marriage. Do you hate women or something? Why would you want to oppress one of them with marriage, you misogynist! Put down that Bride magazine, mister. We know what you are thinking... now move on and think more wholesome thoughts.

Do not burden a single one of them with a child. Women can’t stand kids and would like to have nothing to do with them.

And, most certainly, DO NOT pay anyone for a product they have no intention of actually “selling” to you.

Do not feel you are obligated to work like a fool to pay taxes which support “the herd” of single and divorced mothers along with their feral children. You are not responsible to pay for someone else's property.

You don’t owe the herd anything. They don’t even want you to be part of the herd.

You are not responsible to be an economic performer who props up herd living with your labour while receiving nothing in return except a pat on the head along with a “good boy.” There are plenty of manginas who will prop up the herd until it can’t be propped up anymore. Let them work like dolts in an unsustainable system for someone else’s benefit then.

Give them as few tax dollars as possible.

Men should go back to only expending 20-30% of their labour ability, so they can return to living like this:
.

.
Why in the hell would you want to oppress one of those tricksters with Patriarchy?
.
Why even bother with a cow that doesn't give milk? Let alone pay for one.

DON'T MARRY!!!

It lowers divorce rates and cuts back on fraud.

-----------------------------------------------

Read more on this subject in the following online book, The Case for Father Custody -- by Daniel Amneus

Male and Female: Equal but Different

Males and females are polar opposites. They are as up is to down and as night is to day. One thing that is common to all opposites is that by the very nature of being opposite, they must be equal. If they were not equal, it would be impossible for them to be opposite. In any given year, at any spot on earth, there are an exactly equal amount of daytime hours and nighttime hours. The same is true of males and females; they are polar opposites and therefore are equal. However, we are not talking about legal equality here, but rather the essence that makes “male” and “female” has equality unique unto itself.
.

.

In terms of intelligence, men and women are equal in that the average IQ of all males is equal to the average IQ of all females. There is a difference in how these equal intelligences are arrived at however.

.

Female intelligence is clustered around the mean far more than male intelligence. There is far less variation in female intelligence. To put it more simply, the female population’s intelligence tends to be concentrated in greater numbers around the average IQ of 100, while the male population has a greater range on both the high and low IQ scale. A far greater percentage of female IQ’s reside between 90 to 110 than males, while conversely, males inhabit the extremes of IQ between 70 to 130 in far greater percentage than females. The more you go to the extremes, the more it becomes virtually all male, in both high and low.

.

When one takes all of the IQ’s of the female population into account to find an average IQ, and then takes all of the IQ’s of the male population to find their average, the collective IQ’s of the two sexes are virtually identical, even though there are vast differences in their variability.

.

.

When one looks at “happiness,” we find the same thing as we find in intelligence.
Researchers have discovered that when they ask men to rate the periods of their lives where they feel satisfied or dissatisfied, they find that men have a major “spike” of dissatisfaction commonly known as Mid Life Crisis.

.
When asking the females, what they find is that women do not have a major mid life crisis like men; however, they have several “mini” mid life crises that occur at various times in their cycle of life.

.
When the researchers total up all of the time in a male’s life to find his “average” happiness and compare it to the female’s average happiness throughout her life, what they find is that both males and females have almost the identical average amount of happiness in their respective lives. However, the male’s midlife crisis is far more intense than anything the typical female will ever experience – but, he only goes through it once.

.
.
If we look at sin, or good and evil, what would you expect to find except again the same phenomenon?
.
When a boy is bad it is very noticeable and often in the form of an outburst or some form of physical aggression. It is very hard to miss a male’s evil because its nature is overt and it occurs as a “spike.” Male aggression is stereotypically to hit, kick, shout or destroy something. The boy may go through long periods of “nothing” followed by a spike that is hard to ignore.
.
A girl, on the other hand, uses covert aggression. More commonly this is known as “Social Aggression” or “Relational Aggression” and it is stereotypically a female form of aggression. Its nature is to use gossip or social manipulation to hurt the targeted party, and this necessarily occurs over a longer period of time and is less visible than the male’s aggression.
.
What we end up seeing is that male aggression occurs as a noticeable spike that lasts only a short time while female aggression is less intense but lasts over a longer period of time. When we average out the two forms of aggression, we again will find that both male and female are equal, but different.
.
.

The essence of “maleness” is that things occur with infrequent but large “spikes” while the essence of “femaleness” is that things occur with more frequent but less identifiable “rhythms.” When one averages them out, men and women are equal yet they have gotten to their equal averages by different means.Now, to the point of “equal but different,” it must also be noted that male and female sex drives are equal but different in the same manner as the above examples.

.

Jack Kammer, in his online book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? said it best, so I will steal his example:

Male sexuality is like a pushy door to door salesman; it picks one target and gets in your face so much that you simply cannot ignore it.

.

Female sexuality, however, is like annoying junk mail. It is everywhere and steadily drones on and on at everybody, whether they are the intended target or not.

.

While males may think about the sex act itself more than women, the equal opposite is that women think about being “sexy” to the same degree.

.

.

Males and females both have equal sex drives, but they work in different ways. Even physically, men and women are equally sexual.

.
Men have fewer but far more intense erogenous zones, while women have erogenous zones located all over their bodies. In fact, it is fair to say that a woman’s entire body is an erogenous zone that is dispersed with lowered sexual sensitivity but over a greater area, making it equal to the man’s. This is why women are so much more into “intimacy” and the mental aspects of sex. Her entire body is involved in having sex whereas only certain, but more intense, parts of the male’s body are.

.

In the end of it all, men and women both have equal desires to have sex and to be sexual creatures, although they are expressed in different ways. Women have their biological clocks and get “baby rabies” that demand of them to go out and get impregnated with the same intense irrationalness that men display when they are willing to do anything to copulate with a female, including the willingness to commit treason or sell out one’s own mother.

.

It is horribly inaccurate for one to say that only men want sex. It is far more accurate to say that both men and women want sex equally. In fact, the only imperatives of all living things is to: 1). Survive, so that one can: 2). Reproduce. All other things are in support of these two imperatives that are universal to all living things. Males and females both have an equal desire to do this. Sex is the core of existence itself.

.

We may think that we humans are smarter than animals, but when it comes to sexual instinct we are animals that follow the same mating patterns as most other species in the animal kingdom.

.

This has become even more evident since the sexual revolution arrived and women became free from pregnancy via the pill, and free from the social stigmas associated with being a “loose” woman.

.
One needs only to look at studies of sexually transmitted disease by gender to see that STD’s affect a far greater percentage of the female population than the male population. There is a reason for this: 80% of the females are sleeping with 20% of the males, and those males are the alpha males in society. Humans have reverted back to the mating instincts found in most of the animal kingdom where the alpha males breed most of the females, while the beta males breed with none.

.

.

Again, you can see that male sexuality and female sexuality are “equal yet opposite.”

This “equal-opposite” aspect of sexuality is essential in understanding patriarchy and why things were set up in certain ways, which I will attempt to describe and explain in my next post.

Sex Sells...

The following quote comes from Legends of the Fall, the movie which cemented Brad Pitt’s status as a sex symbol throughout our culture. Pitt’s character, Tristan Ludlow, had long flowing hair and looked wild. He was the untamed one in the family, so tough that nothing could hurt him; he and the grizzly once shared blood and now they were one spirit.

A woman would likely be wise to stay away from such a man, this character with a raw animal streak running through his soul… but yet, there is a soft side to him, a sliver of emotion that he hides, and reveals only to the women he loves.

Yes, the quintessential love interest…

The setting of the scene from which this quote comes is one in which Tristan (Brad Pitt) is sitting outside talking with his younger brother Samuel (Henry Thomas), who is home from college with his fiancée Susannah (Julia Ormond). Samuel, a virgin, shyly inquires of his more experienced brother about the ways of sex and how to make sure he is “good at it,” because Susannah has said she does not want to wait for marriage…

Tristan: Samuel, God bless you. You are good at everything you do. I’m sure it’ll be the same with fucking.

Samuel: Tristan, really. We’re talking about my future wife.

Tristan: Oh, you’re not going to fuck her?

Samuel: No! I’m planning to “be” with her.

Tristan: I recommend fucking.

Samuel: You’re impossible!

Tristan: You brought it up!

My goodness, Tristan!

.

How could you talk about a woman in such a disrespectful way?

.

That is not how Nice Guys™ talk about women! Nice Guys™ know that women are delicate creatures whose sexuality must be respected. For her to lower herself to a man’s level and have sex with him indicates that a Nice Guy™ must worship her body, mind and spirit as the precious jewels which they so obviously are…

.

And how come women still find your character so sexy, Tristan? How can you suggest taking that nubile young woman and fucking her rather than “being” with her?

.

I wonder how many women in the theatre smirked when they heard that line… "I'd recommend fucking."?

.

What’s up with that?

.

And to the readers of this fine blog who thought those lines were humor directed at the males in the audience, I encourage you to unplug from the fematrix and realign your mind with notion that the above scene, including the raw language, was in the movie solely for the women, with the intention of creating a character which females desire.

.

Society would have us believe that it is the men in society that are sex obsessed. Men are the ones who cannot control themselves. But remember, in my last piece we discussed that men and women are polar opposites who are necessarily equal but different, and thus women’s sex drives are also equal to men’s, but different.

.

.

While men may think about the act of sex on a frequent basis, women equally think about being sexy to a similar degree. They actively put on make-up, do their hair, wear push up bras and revealing clothes, and they are continually concerned if their jeans make their ass look big (no, your big ass makes your ass look big). The obvious motive of “looking sexy” is to attract sexual attention. What did you think it was for?

.

Women’s natural sexual desire, however, is to have sex with a male who is dominant over them. They don’t want to sleep with a Nice Guy™ who respects them; there is no excitement in that. They want a man who takes control of them and fucks them. “Making love” is for suckers. Wimps “make love” and talk about “being” with the glorious creature known as woman. Women would rather be dominated and get fucked.

.

We men rarely talk about sex, however. Men behave completely opposite of women, who talk amongst themselves about the most intimate details of the sex act, from their partner’s physical attributes and performance to the daily ins and outs of their relationships. Men, on the other hand, rarely discuss the actual details of sex nor do men relate the turgid tale of the “mating dance” which got them into their sorry predicament with a woman in the first place.

.

But women never shy away from talking about sex. Men fail themselves miserably by allowing feminists to dominate all talk about sexual relations between humans.

.

Feminists, in their attempt to destroy civilization, have tried to take this natural sexual phenomenon of women being attracted to domination and twisted it into something which it is not. They have insinuated there is something evil about the natural sexual interactions between man and woman.

.

One wonders how many of my good readers have ever picked up a romance novel. Not many, I would guess, as this genre of literature is aimed solely at a female audience. Romance novels are to women what Penthouse magazine is to men: Pornography intent on titillating the natural sexuality that exists within.

.

And who is the stereotypical masculine love object in the romance novels that women read? Well, here’s a clue… he is not a Nice Guy™!

.

.

No indeed! There is usually a Nice Guy™ somewhere in the story line – he is the one who gets replaced by the dominant rogue who at first infuriates the main character with his callousness, while at the same time intriguing her.

.

The plot builds as does the sexual tension between the main character and the antagonist. He is a brute, an animal… uncontrollable. She is a lady and does not consort with the likes of him – and yet, something about his demeanor makes this man linger in her mind even when she is not in his presence… and that makes her angry at him. She becomes determined not to give in to the advances of this knave. She is a princess, after all.

.

The Harlequin climax arrives in a scene where the woman finds herself alone with this bull of a man. There is passion, electricity… he makes his move… she resists and pushes him away, but he is not willing to back down so easily. This beast’s sexual desire for our fair maiden roars as if it were an uncontrollable inferno. He grabs her roughly in his arms. She feels his raw strength as he pulls her into his muscular chest and lowers his mouth over hers.

.

“No,” she mumbles half-heartedly, “I mustn’t!”

.

Our rogue listens not, and continues ravaging our heroine with his lips when she feels his strong hand cup her breast, causing her nipple to harden beneath her thin blouse…

.

She can resist no more; her own animal desires begin to overcome her rationality. She gives in and lets this beast take her. Her clothing comes of quickly and roughly amidst the passionate kisses… she is no longer in control, the universe has overwhelmed her… she feels his hardness enter her, penetrating both her body and soul as their passion develops into a surreal experience that transcends life itself…

.

Yes, this is women's porn!

.

And in women’s porn, she gets dominated. In fact, by all legal standards of the modern day, women’s porn involves being sexually assaulted and then raped by a man who ends up completely owning her entire existence.

.

And women buy these books and read them for a sexual thrill – men don’t write this shit, nor do they buy it or read it.

.

This is the essence of female sexual seduction: He makes his move… she resists… he doesn’t take no for an answer… she resists some more… his animal desire for her prevents him from stopping… she says no again, but this time only half heartedly… he continues, and she finally gives in and submits, so overwhelmed is she with desire that things are completely out of her control.

.

She gets dominated by a man who is superior to her.And notice that the dominate man is not “with” her.

.

Nope.

.

He fucks her.

.

Perhaps this is why the sexual fantasizing of being “forced” to have sex is so popular with women. Being “forced” to have sex is essentially rape, and yet numerous women actually masturbate to the fantasy of this crime.

.

Have you ever masturbated to the thought of your car getting stolen?

.

The eroticism of being dominated and “forced” is that it allows the submissive to do things they would not normally do – to come out of their shell, as it were. She may deny that she is the type of girl who will willingly do certain kinky things, but if she is being dominated and is told to do them then she can partake in these deep desires without having to blame herself for it – she was “forced” to do it, after all. (This is the essence of most BDSM, btw).

.

Another favourite fantasy among women is getting a good spanking from her man.

.

.

Yes, the amount of ladies that are turned on by thought of being put over a man’s knee and having her bare bottom smacked is truly amazing. And… how dominant of the man and submissive of her.

All Pick Up Artists (PUA’s) know that women desire to be dominated – this is the PUA’s entire game. The techniques may vary, but essentially all successful PUA’s spend their time around a woman establishing dominance over her.

The PUA does not monkey around with “respecting” her and glorifying her with trite comments of her being a “strong woman.” That’s what Nice Guy’s™ do. The PUA lets a woman know pretty quickly that he wants sex from her. He is a lover, not a friend. He finds something to tease her about, putting her down in a fun way, to establish dominance. When they walk off the dance floor, he puts his hand on the small of her back so he can gently direct where she walks - taking control of her. He basically spends his entire “game” displaying that he is superior to her – be it physically, emotionally, cerebrally or whatever else. The PUA knows that if she views him as superior to her, he can have her panties around her ankles in no time.

In fact, the act of sex itself can be viewed as the ultimate act of dominance and submission between a man and a woman.

Think about it. What could be more submissive than to be a woman whose body is penetrated and humped madly until she is left full of a man’s semen, essentially leaving her “bred?”

The sex act itself is domination and submission, and while a man may find it erotic to look down and see the submissive woman he is screwing, the equal opposite is that she finds it erotic to look up at the dominant man who is screwing her. Notice that in the act of sex it is usually considered to be the man that is “doing” her, rather than the other way around.

This is the essence of hypergamy. Hypergamy is basically a desire for dominance from one’s mate.

Women are definitely hypergamous.

Don’t believe me?

Have a look at the next 10 couples you meet.

Who is taller, the male or the female? You will notice that females nearly universally date men that are taller than them. A 5’ 10” woman will be dating a 6’1” male. A 5’ 6” woman will date a 5’ 8” male. But it is pretty rare to find the 5’ 10” woman dating the 5’ 8” male.

.

.

Who makes more money, the male or the female? You will find nearly universally that the man makes more money than the female. Male lawyers date female secretaries. Male doctors date female nurses. Male factory workers date waitresses. This is nearly universal. What is hard to find is the female doctor dating the male nurse, or the female CEO dating the struggling male poet.
.

.

Who is more intelligent, the male or the female? It is pretty common even for females to admit that they must date men who are smarter than themselves.

Why do women nearly universally list confidence as a sexually attractive trait in a male? Because confident males are dominant males, that’s why. Confidence is derived from the power one possesses.

Females are naturally attracted to males that are dominant over them.Feminists are furious at this natural phenomenon in much the same way they are furious that women are the natural bearers of children. From their anger against heterosexuality, they have attacked both men and women by trying to criminalize human sexual behaviour.

Feminists tell women that the kind of sex they naturally desire, the kind women themselves read and fantasize about it in Harlequin romance novels, is in fact rape:

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike… [T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” – Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” – Susan Griffith, Rape: The All-American Crime

Without the typically virulent feminist anger, the following concept could easily be described in an erotic way, suitable for a romance novel:

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex, therefore, does so against her own will. , ‘even if she does not feel forced.’” – Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

Even the dominating act of a man filling a woman with his semen, the very act that causes life itself, is sought to be criminalized and degraded by feminists:

“Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence and the spray of semen…” – Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing By Radical Women of Color

How odd then that most women seem to downright prefer to have bareback sex. Why, it is as if they actually enjoy getting this terrifying semen inside their bodies!

Yes indeed. And when a woman actually has good, enjoyable sex – the kind that grips her body with a shuddering orgasm - this is apparently a bad thing according to feminists as well:

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” – Sheila Jeffrys

Perhaps she is eroticizing her own “oppression” because it is what naturally gets her rocks off. Why is it chic and cool to keep a vibrator in the nightstand, but “oppressive” and degrading to orgasm from the natural act of sex?

Men did not plant this idea in women’s head that they must be submissive. In fact, since most men are beta-male Nice Guys™ who talk and act respectfully to women while never getting laid by them, it is pretty obvious that it is not men who are responsible for this phenomenon of domination-submission that causes women to get turned on. Most Nice Guys™ believe the exact opposite – that if he glorifies and praises her, she will like him more. Wrong!

No, men did not “force” women into submission – women naturally desire men who are better than them. They want men who are taller than them, who are smarter than them, who are richer than them. Women sexually desire men who are more powerful than them – and this power naturally exudes from a man who possesses it in the form of confidence.

Yes, hypergamy.

This does not mean that all men make more money than women, nor that all men are smarter or more powerful than women… it just means that a woman does not find men who have failed to surpass her own power to be sexually attractive to her. A 5’10” woman is obviously taller than a 5’8” man, but the odds are that she is not sleeping with short stuff. She is most likely sleeping with the 6’1” man that lives next door to him while the short man is likely dating a woman even shorter than himself.

Dominance has an equal opposite: Submission.

In my next post, I will attempt to explain how hypergamy existed in the past, and how it has been manipulated in the present as a weapon against men, women and civilization.

Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers

In my last post, we discussed the phenomenon of women possessing equal sex drives to men, yet different by virtue of being hypergamous.

The essence of hypergamy is that women are attracted to males who are dominant over them. Dominant males are Alpha males.
.

.
But what is it really that “makes” an Alpha male?

Is one “naturally” an Alpha male or does the Alpha male come into existence because of the sum of certain Alpha qualities that he possesses?

I believe the answer is obvious. It is the nature of certain qualities, or features that are Alpha related, which together add up to create an Alpha male. Not all males who are strong and muscular are Alpha males just because of that one feature they possess. In fact, some body builders are the wimpiest mangina Beta males I have ever met. They couldn’t get a woman naked if their life depended on it.

All males possess both Alpha and Beta qualities. The more Alpha qualities, the more overall Alpha-like that male becomes. The less Alpha qualities, the more Beta-like he becomes.

Often when it is discussed why males of the past were placed in positions of headship in the family and society, we declare that it’s because of men’s linear thinking ability. That his natural appeal to reason and rationality makes him better suited for these positions as opposed to women, whose multi-tasking brains are based more on emotion than cold, hard logic.

I don’t disagree with that assumption. However, I would like to propose that there could also be a further motive for such a divide in gender roles.

Perhaps society was also structured in such a way to create more “Alpha qualities” amongst the greater population of males, thus making a greater range of the male population sexually attractive to the females.

With mainly men in the workplace earning money instead of women, a broader spectrum of the male population would appeal to females because of the Alpha quality of money/resources they would possess.

With mainly men in positions of power in society (government etc.), more men would appeal to women’s sexual desires because of the power they possessed. Who was it that said “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”?

Why, it was Henry Kissinger.

Now I’m not sure, but somehow I don’t think that Kissinger is particularly the type of man that could be considered classically handsome. And yet, he managed to nail uber-fembot, Gloria Steinem.
.
.
Poor little Ms. Steinem, despite all that pink slipper stomping, she was still a slave to her biology. Ain’t Mother Nature a bitch?

You see, there is not much genetic diversity in the natural herd-like system which works with women only humping the 20% of males that are Alphas. There is plenty of diversity from the male side of the equation, but little diversity from the female’s side.
.
.
It seems that women’s sexual nature has compensated for this by use of Rotating Polyandry, whereby women skip from Alpha male to Alpha male, ensuring that their lifetime supply of 400 eggs get fertilized not by just one male but several, in a rotating mating cycle.

Rotating Polyandry is an interesting concept whereby the whole notion of “love” is based on a mating cycle of a few years – enough for a woman to be protected and provided for during the time when she is absolutely the most vulnerable. This period would be when she gets pregnant, gives birth, recuperates, and then nurses and cares for the child until it is no longer solely dependent on her for survival. (I.e. The child can walk, talk, and feed itself). This should all take around 4 years or so from start to finish.
.

Then she moves on to the next male and repeats the process. (Sound familiar?) By going to the next male, she would ensure some genetic diversity amongst her offspring and thereby, increase her chances of passing on her genes throughout the ages.

In fact, the whole way that love works seems to support this theory. Love to men is based on what he gives. Love to women is based on what she gets. Plus, it has been noted many times that women don’t really love men. Only gay men love men. Rather, women love being loved. And since, to a woman, being loved means that she “gets,” it is fair to say that women actually love money and the trinkets that being in love gets them.

Women’s love is parasitic.

Men’s love is the host.

And this would make sense. If women’s love is based on this parasitic function to ensure her and the child’s survival, she would seek out the male with the most power and the most resources. Males with these qualities are Alpha males. They are the prime targets for a woman to wish to be “in love” with.
.

But anyway, back to the main point of why there might have been a sexual reason for placing men in a position of headship in society and the family.

These positions that men have traditionally held, those of wealth creation, of positions of power in society, that of the “head” of the family and so on, are all positions that naturally add to the Alpha qualities of males – all males.

Thus, with more males possessing Alpha qualities through their societal role of headship, there are more males for the females to be sexually attracted to.
.
.
Once this is accomplished, we achieve our genetic diversity amongst the population by bringing more of the males directly into the breeding process, rather than relying on women’s tendency for Rotating Polyandry.
.
.
What this model does is it brings more of the males in society into marriage by providing more females who are sexually interested in them, and therefore more men in society also have children that are their own and become motivated to work.

Once men have their own children, men willingly become yoked to them and will do whatever it takes to ensure their survival. This is what Daniel Amneus calls “putting sex to work” in his online book, The Case for Father Custody

With male headship in society and the family, more females are attracted to more males and therefore more males get put to work.

And, of course, due to the male’s linear thinking brain, which invented everything around you with more than two moving parts, when all of the men in society start working and inventing and so on, sooner or later you will wind up with that great thing we call civilization.
.
.
Now, let’s go back to the concept of Rotating Polyandry and the parasitic nature of women’s sexuality.

Women’s sexuality is designed to take resources from the male in order that she and her child might survive.

Men’s “Alpha qualities” are based on his power and resources.

The more that a man gives to a woman, the less he has himself. In a sense, he gives his Alpha qualities to the woman and in doing so he becomes more Beta. Slowly on, his Beta qualities will overcome his Alpha qualities and the woman will find him less desirable compared to other males out there who haven’t had the Alpha sucked out of them yet.

We see this phenomenon over and over again.

Women are complete sex fiends while dating a man, and then soon after marriage she becomes less interested in sex.

Why? Because she is now in direct possession of many of his Alpha qualities. They were transferred to her via marriage. His work (paycheck) becomes her equal possession whereas before marriage, this resource was his alone. His power to leave her is gone and therefore he has less negotiating power over her when she is being shrewish. It goes on and on.

With men in positions of headship in society and the family however, there are certain elements of his Alpha qualities that the woman cannot suck out of him. No matter what, he will still be the breadwinner, he will still be the one with power in society and he will still be the dominant figure within the home. Certain parts of a man’s Alpha qualities were protected from being gobbled up by the woman.

Therefore, he still remains more Alpha in the woman’s eyes and thus her sexual attraction for him remains greater. This would enable the relationship to endure longer than it would naturally and this is something that is needed for the full potential of the “putting sex to work” concept to be realized.
.

With the runaway feminism we see in the modern day, this destruction of men’s Alpha qualities is even further magnified.
.

A woman earning $60,000 a year does not find a man earning $50,000 a year to possess an Alpha quality because of it.

With the full force of the corrupted DV Industry behind her, the wife's manipulation of State force far exceeds any physical dominance he previously had. In fact, she is the physically dominant one within this paradigm because State force allows her to push, kick, yell, scream, threaten and intimidate with impunity. He must meekly cower and accept it or the State will come in and beat the crap out of him on her behalf. There is nothing too Alpha in regard to the man in this situation at all.

With the Divorce/Alimony/Child Custody Industry behind her, a man’s paycheck (his resource dominance) becomes hers whether she keeps him around or not. Another Alpha quality removed from men by feminism and the State.
.

With the television running 24/7 in most homes, even men’s intellectual dominance is under attack. Remember that most women declare they don’t find men attractive unless he is smarter than her? Well, the only males that are portrayed as intelligent on television are single men. Husbands are portrayed as dumb oafs on TV and women are constantly encouraged to scorn their husbands as too stupid to do anything right. Let’s not even get into the subject of D’Oprah Winfrey.

In fact, most of the Psychology and Therapy Industries support this “stupid husband” attack on men as well. Virtually all couples/marriage therapists attack the husband by default, declaring that the problems in the marriage are his fault because he is too stupid to know how to read his wife’s ever changing emotional state with ESP. She changes her emotional state more times than her underwear, yet men are somehow stupid for not knowing that what she wants now is entirely different than what she wanted a half hour ago. Let’s not even get into the subject of Dr. Phil and the extra nonsense he brings into the arena.

Feminism supports all of this nonsense because they are married to Marxism, which wishes to destroy Capitalism and civilization.

They fully well know that destroying marriage will bring us back to this:
.

. And they know that when society adheres to this sexual model, men won’t be putting “sex to work” and our civilization will return to this:
.

But hey, that’s all fine and good as long there is gobs of commitment free sex and women don’t have to feel oppressed in any way.
.
Marriage is already a natural “Beta Maker,” and presents many challenges to men and women’s sexuality.

Feminism took these problems and intensified them to the point of the absurd.

At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again.

Not so anymore with Feminism. Nope, now after a man is discarded, the woman can keep a leech like sucker attached to him via the State, while she finds another Alpha male to turn into a mere Beta.

Sam Steele Believed in the Militia

The following is an excerpt from HistoryNet.com Sam Steele: North West Mounted Police Inspector:

"Samuel Benfield Steele was born on January 5, 1851, at Purbrook, near Orillia, Upper Canada (later Ontario), the son of Royal Navy Captain Elmes Steele and Anne Macdonald. Men of action had run through the Steele clan like water down Niagara Falls — young Sam’s predecessors had fought on the Plains of Abraham before Quebec in 1759, at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and at Waterloo in 1815.

It was none too astonishing, then, that a fair-haired, slender 15-year-old Sam Steele would enlist in the Canadian militia in 1866, as an ensign in the 35th (Simcoe Foresters) Battalion of Infantry. His unit participated in the defense of Canada against the Fenian raids of that year. After Canada became an independent member of the British Commonwealth, he joined the 1st Ontario Battalion of Rifles on May 1, 1870, to serve in the Red River Expedition to retake Fort Garry from rebellious Métis (Franco-Indian mixed bloods) under Louis David Riel. In 1871, Steele was one of the first to enlist in the newly formed A Battery, Royal Canadian Artillery, the first unit of the new Canadian Permanent Force.

In 1873, Steele left the army to join the newly organized North-West Mounted Police as a staff constable. The commanding officer of the paramilitary body was called ‘commissioner,’ and the command was divided into troops. Steele was still only 22, and so wiry that he wore a sash under his jacket to add some manly bulk to his appearance, but he already had a solid military record under his belt."

Male Aggression versus Female Aggression

http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bet01229.htm

Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).

-----------

Also read my related article: Male and Female: Equal but Different

Bah, Humbug!

And so it is that time of year again.

Happy holidays!

Merry xmas!

This is really irritating. I want to buy Christmas presents, but no-one seems to sell them anymore.

Holiday presents? Whatever, dude. Who gives gifts to people because they’re going on holidays? I don’t. In fact, I go on holidays to get away from people. It's very likely that people consider that a holiday gift enough from me as well.

And so it is. I wander up and down the crowded malls, watching all kinds of people buying “holiday presents.”

Look at that man over there, walking out of Wal-Mart with that new iron for his wife. How thoughtful, this holiday present. Yet, I wonder what kind of holiday he’s going on where an iron could possibly be a required item. Pretty kinky, me thinks.

The other day I was doing some research on the history of the small town where I was born, thinking that I might try to write some fictional short stories about the pioneer life back in the early 20th Century, when I came across a positively charming story written by a man recalling the days of his youth and his family’s arrival in the then small village. The timeframe was 1920, when he was 13 years old. In particular, he shared memories of his first Xmas, and amidst his retelling of the places they went, the frozen lakes upon which they skated, the hot rocks under the blankets for the sleigh ride home, all making me nostalgic about my own youth in the very same places some 60 years later, I couldn’t help but notice how positively literate this man was, despite his never having had a university education. There was only one word that spoiled this writer’s magnificent prose; it was so out of place… it was the word Xmas. I didn’t know they used that word back then. Then it dawned on me, of course, that he didn’t type it into the computer. He penned his tales on paper, and the mook who submitted it to cyberspace put in the offensive word that was as foreign to Western Canadians in the 1920’s as, well, French words.

I felt a sense of outrage on behalf of the original author. It was much the same feeling as I used to get when my highschool English teacher would make us exchange essays and stories with other students for proof reading, and mine would return with some solid D student’s red ink scratchings on every other line, along with her stellar suggestions on how I could change the entire content and thus become a great achiever like her.

This disease in our society is really driving me mad.

In regard to my research on the pioneer days of my hometown, I also perused many of the local museum’s websites for information to create an accurate timeline, and I was continually subjected to literary assaults from words and phrases such as “when the non-native people came to the valley…” or “many of the non-traditional names for the mountains…”

My God! My tax dollars actually support the people who write this filth? This is history? And they are trying to relate to the modern person how things were back then? One wonders if they knew that the non-native, non-traditional people who settled in the valley which Indian people merely migrated through every few years, were actually Europeans. Not only were they Europeans, but they were pasty white ones at that! It couldn’t have been that hard to look up.

This is a subtle assault on every man’s intellect… and heritage – by yet another person who probably holds a B.A. in Idiot.

But, let’s get back to the words xmas and holidays.

When are people going to stick up for their culture?

When are people going to stick up for civilization?

When will stores start selling Christmas presents again? Do I really have to buy a band-saw and start making my own? Like I said, I don’t buy xmas presents, and I certainly don’t buy holiday presents.

Do you think they aren’t related, this assault on Christianity and the assault on our civilization?

Yes, I know the tales. The thousands of people burned at the stake by those awful church-going people. Wow! The problem is, if you would do the math (do they even teach math anymore?), and took the amount of people who died during the famed Inquisition, and looked at it in relation to the population over which it ruled, over the time frame during which it ruled, you would find that the threat of being burned at the stake by the church was akin to the danger that Westerners face in “death by bicycle riding.” Not only that, but what makes you think the problem was neccessarily "the church," when it is obvious that they were acting not only as "the church," but also as "the government." And I'll bet you a soon inflated US dollar that I can find you far more instances of innocents being murdered at the hands of governments.

Just saying...

Seriously now. Nietzsche preached that “God is dead” and Marx stated that his purpose in life was to “dethrone God.” Neither of them even suffered a hot-foot, despite living in the most Christian part of the world, at a time when Christianity was at an all time powerful peak.

And yet, this awful Christianity gave us the Magna Carta. It also gave us our legal system, as well as the constitutions which protect us and form the very foundations of our Western nations. Kill the Bible and Christianity and those things very likely will soon die also, just like your body would soon die after your heart was stopped. The reason our rights are supposed to be unalienable is because they are granted to us by God - as is specifically outlined in every free country's constitution, including ours. What God gives, only God can take away. Man has no authority to interfere, as he oft tends to do. The way to spot a totalitarian constitution is to notice that rights are granted by the state, and God is absent from the scene - you can notice this in the old constitution of the USSR... or the UN's Covenant on Economic, Social and Human Rights. In those constitutions, it is said that the state grants you your rights. If they have the power to do that, they also have the power to take those rights away, don't they?

And no, I’m not particularly a “Christian” myself. The church certainly doesn’t view me as one. Church is all weddings and funerals for me. But, I would much prefer to live in a society based on a religion like Christianity, which is based in absolutes, than a religion like Humanism, with all its socialist trappings… and suffer the fate of the over 100 million people who have been murdered by Socialist governments adhering to the Humanist religion in the past 90 years. Yes, Humanism is where we are heading, with its moral relativism dictated to us by the new priests with their degrees in psychology and sociology.

After all, if it was so easy for humans to twist something around that was based in absolutes, like the Bible, and use it for evil purposes, then one must wonder how easy it is to twist something around that is based in moral relativity to begin with, like Humanism.

Of course, it could never happen to us non-traditional, non-native people who live in this great land – we have laws, you know, to prevent that from happening. And they are solid because they are based in the Bible… oops, how does that work again without the Bible?

So, I am not going to buy presents this Christmas season, because they don’t sell them anymore. They only sell holiday presents.

And the next time someone wishes me a “merry xmas,” I might just clench up my pasty white fist and punch him in the nose.

Bah, humbug.