|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 1, 2024 11:04:10 GMT
Any ideas as to when this corruption first started to manifest itself, and who or what formed the principal corrupting influence? I think it started with Stonewall and their back door, underhand dealings in back passages to get civil partnerships on the stature books If if existed before then, it certainly wasn’t the all present, all seeing, festering corruption it is today I think about ten, possibly even 15 years ago there was an episode of ‘the reunion’ on bbc radio 4. This programme got the main players in stonewall’s campaign for equal rights for homosexual couples back in the studio, where they openly rejoiced at tbe underhand way they went about arranging for the legislation to be sprung upon a parliament, an establishment, and to be fair, an electorate that had no appetite for it. You need to remember that when Tony Blair sprung IR35 on the self employed sector, after Gordon Brown agreed to implement it to teach the cheating cuckolding bastard who was fucking one of his aides and her best friend on alternate nights, Sarah Walker stood up and declared IR35 would apply to husband and wife AND to any couple living together as husband and wife. It was targeted at heterosexual couples only. I know two members of the trade body steering committee on which i myself served whose homosexuality meant they could hand 95% of their shares to their same sex partner in bed and NOT fall foul of IR35. Blair and Mandelson both went on tv to deny this was the case but it was i know people who successfully evaded the measure in ways heterosexual couples could not Of course, inside two years the loophole was closed as civil partnerships and then homosexual marriage became legal I have no idea if that programme is still around but if it is, itbis worth a listen. The delight of Stonewall in bringing this meadure in through unconstitutional, indeed possibly illegal means, stood out like a blazing sun on a November day |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 11:33:18 GMT
I'm minded to think the reason homosexuality took such a grand place in the pantheon of political correctness is to do with our empire. Our empire trained people to run it, and they would be stationed all over the world and be the lawyers, judges, the governors and so on. We had a series of boarding schools to train them, and from accounts of these schools, the method used was close to torture.
It is a pretty well understood fact that some of the most intelligent minds came from people who had very rough and stressful childhoods, like at an early age they were panicking just to survive. For example many of the Jews in Nazi Germany struggled severely and those who were young at the time and survived, often emigrated to the US and became very successful and had very high intelligences. So there is a way of increasing a child's intelligence by stressing them out, and this was the method used. There would be a lot of punishment going on. Blair's old school up in Scotland is a prime example of such an institution.
Another thing was they were single sex schools because men and women learn differently, so to get the smartest people they needed separate training. All this did produce very clever people who ruled the world and were smarter than those they colonised, but there was a price to pay, and I think this is where the gay comes from. The environment was too unnatural and contrived.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 12:03:09 GMT
The biological facts about men and women suggest a functional split between security and nurturing. If you look at the physiology of men and women it is clear this split has been going on a very long time and the sexes themselves have evolved into that spontaneous symmetry. People who deny this are flat out idiots. The next bit is a bit more subtle - there is no such thing as a nurturing status system or a nurturing security arrangement. Women intuitively respond to status systems (it's part of their biological role), but those systems are constructed by men. The first bit I totally agree with, but what you are saying in the second I think, is men manipulate women by creating a status system that uses their natural trait of being attracted to men of status, but doing it in an artificial way. For example a man might be minded to become head of the football team to impress women, but in reality kicking a ball around is not going to help the woman at all, hence the status is somewhat illusionary. Is this what you are saying here? Not exactly what a meant. 'Kicking a ball around' is not as daft as it looks. It reinforces concepts of fair play (competition) between males. You are being a bit reductionist. Male status systems (certainly European ones) are not 'every man for himself', there are rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 12:19:17 GMT
The first bit I totally agree with, but what you are saying in the second I think, is men manipulate women by creating a status system that uses their natural trait of being attracted to men of status, but doing it in an artificial way. For example a man might be minded to become head of the football team to impress women, but in reality kicking a ball around is not going to help the woman at all, hence the status is somewhat illusionary. Is this what you are saying here? Not exactly what a meant. 'Kicking a ball around' is not as daft as it looks. It reinforces concepts of fair play (competition) between males. You are being a bit reductionist. Male status systems (certainly European ones) are not 'every man for himself', there are rules. I think my confusion is in understanding what you mean exactly by a status system. I agree men create rules in order to facilitate fair play. As for how men interact with women, they have a natural disposition in playing the role of protector and provider. The trait of generosity in a man is attractive to a woman. Women are orientated to give what they have to their children and that makes them happy. So in the natural system men compete and that makes some men richer than others. The rich ones are ones with the status as far as women are concerned. Intelligence in a man is also an attractive quality as it lends itself to facilitate the role of protector. Women delegate this role and are thus no good at it themselves. It's why we have male company directors who are in charge of the bank account. They have to be vigilant and play it cool every day or their empire will crash. Women are ill-suited to this role as their emotions sway about and could cause irrational decisions to be made if they are required to think on their feet, as one is in dangerous situations. Today though these things are pretended not to exist or even having ever existed in some PC creeds. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 12:55:13 GMT
Not exactly what a meant. 'Kicking a ball around' is not as daft as it looks. It reinforces concepts of fair play (competition) between males. You are being a bit reductionist. Male status systems (certainly European ones) are not 'every man for himself', there are rules. I think my confusion is in understanding what you mean exactly by a status system. And your paragraph that follows this doesn't give me any clues as to what you aren't grasping. I'm not being clever here, i mean the obvious - status is what is highlighted as virtue and what is denigrated as vice - ergo who should be admired, emulated and listened to who shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 13:17:44 GMT
I think my confusion is in understanding what you mean exactly by a status system. And your paragraph that follows this doesn't give me any clues as to what you aren't grasping. I'm not being clever here, i mean the obvious - status is what is highlighted as virtue and what is denigrated as vice - ergo who should be admired, emulated and listened to who shouldn't. Status is such a general word that it could refer to physical attributes. It certainly was in ancient Greek times anyway.
The following paragraph is like a map of the system functionality, so you can view status on that basis, because it is how our minds are, e.g. a man would see a woman's status in terms of the shape of her body. (top blonde, medium blonde, dog)
I tend to think who should be admired as an individual thing according to your tastes and what your values are. For example I admire someone who will tell the truth even if that will go agaisnt their interests. My view is tell people straight what you are and what you do, and some will admire it and others will not. I think it is a male attribute anyway that they are not too fussed about what others think. Males are fussed about their own performance, like they have their own standards. Women operate more as a group, so they have a collective mind and confer with others before making a decision, which is fine if the thinking is of an intuitive nature. Men think more along the lines of calculating the answer rather than taking a poll of opinion. So for the male, group status is less important. They can operate without the group. In the long distant past a woman would die if she were on her own. So that feeling is still deeply embedded into the psyche. Advertisers know it all too well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 14:06:27 GMT
Both women and men have status systems. However, while men have no interest in the female status system and do not choose women on the basis of status, women are keenly aware of male status and pay a lot of attention to it when selecting a mate.
The male status system is consequential regarding what happens next - this system has been banjaxed and made useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 15:32:25 GMT
Both women and men have status systems. However, while men have no interest in the female status system and do not choose women on the basis of status, women are keenly aware of male status and pay a lot of attention to it when selecting a mate. The male status system is consequential regarding what happens next - this system has been banjaxed and made useless. The methods of measurement have been hijacked. The other problem I see is the way the woman thinks relies on on talking to their friends and associates and forming joint views. They will do this with men and well and ask their friends for a second opinion. They like to make decisions as a group and do this on say the boards of trusties of charities and the like. It's a system that is not very amenable to new ideas as it breeds conformity to the group view. They don't like to be the only one in the room with a contrary view. We had that HIV blood scandal that killed tens of thousands of Brits, and many women work in these kind of jobs as nurses and other medics, and yet no one did anything for over a decade. No one was brave enough to ask the 'what if we are all wrong' question. We all kind of hope a knight in shining armour will save us. Well we now have a Sir Bates, the man who asked that of the Post Office, but it is rare. Today's men have been feminised and punished for speaking out. Mind you, pull it off and come out alive and like Julian Assange, you get the woman. He's someone who does not have to worry about status. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 1, 2024 16:07:17 GMT
There is an important point here, about who gets to be boss of anything, the male female thing is almost irrelevant. From a psychiatric point of view, if you were to assess politicians many exibit serious problems. There is far more to it though. If i apply my personality to my life story, i can see that who i am has dictated everything, that my starting point to now has been about doing my thing in that time slot, in that area of life. I could go on but this is not the place. Its random when it comes to politics or owt, that oppurtunity for a political career comes along, or is it? That the people who should be governing are about 0.8 to 3 percent of the population, they are the rarest personality type, that from birth they have been built to possess almost magical properties. I have never met one, but if you did you would not think they amount to anything. Its only in the tasting so to speak that suddenly things become apparent. To focus on the male female thing, only 0.8 are male, and the male exibits as many female traits as male. If you cross one anything can happen, Hitler and osama bin laden were of this. On the positive side they are streets ahead in all ways, they posses intuition on a mega scale. So selecting people for important office is a lottery, you cannot measure for type, or for psychiatric illness. There is the observation that if you dont tell life who you are, life will tell you, these people are introverts and will be in the background, they wont compete unless they have reason too, like Martin Luther king etc. For instance, Starmer is not a leader, or is Sunak, so there is a role for a more intelligent way of selecting bosses, those that dont speak up may well be the people we need, that those with a gob get the job, and the following disasters show that a gob is the most important trait in getting a job. Regardless. Men have always been the leaders from the beginning of time. The woman's job is childcare and foraging, hence why they love shopping so much as it is a modern form of foraging. Men's brains are different to women's brains as well. The two sexes have specialised functions in evolution in order to maximise survival chances. In the modern age, in order to maximise wellbeing we must take these differences into account and employ them in role suitable for their evolved psychologies.
Evolution changes very slowly, but what has happened is these idiots think you can change someone by brainwashing them, but brainwashing is like mental destruction. This is most likely why 8.7 million are on antidepressants, which of course then have their own knock-on effects and you upset the whole delicate balance of nature which for all you know might be a house of cards only needing one card removed to cause eventual extinction of the species. Mass madness is a real possibility today.
Ignorant and false in once sentence. You know why most priestly robes look like dresses? Because originally the priests of almost all religions were female - hence female garb. Men have only been the leaders "from the beginning of time" in two fields - War and Manual Labour, for obvious reasons.
99% of all forms of cross-generational learning were passed on by Women; because women stayed "at camp" while men went off hunting and warring. Women were the only gender with both the sedentary lifestyle and time to a) pass on learning, and b) make ground-breaking discoveries that can only be found by hundreds of iterations of trial-and-error; because they stayed "at camp" while men went off hunting and warring. It is really only with the Romans that women came to be seen as "inferior", and then once the vile doctrine of Christianity was spread (by conflict and violence) all across Europe that thinking was cemented in the collective psyche. Men have only been the "leaders since the beginning of time" if you are dumb-fuck enough to think the Bible is a) real and b) of any real moral value. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 1, 2024 16:11:57 GMT
I'm minded to think the reason homosexuality took such a grand place in the pantheon of political correctness is to do with our empire. Our empire trained people to run it, and they would be stationed all over the world and be the lawyers, judges, the governors and so on. We had a series of boarding schools to train them, and from accounts of these schools, the method used was close to torture. It is a pretty well understood fact that some of the most intelligent minds came from people who had very rough and stressful childhoods, like at an early age they were panicking just to survive. For example many of the Jews in Nazi Germany struggled severely and those who were young at the time and survived, often emigrated to the US and became very successful and had very high intelligences. So there is a way of increasing a child's intelligence by stressing them out, and this was the method used. There would be a lot of punishment going on. Blair's old school up in Scotland is a prime example of such an institution. Another thing was they were single sex schools because men and women learn differently, so to get the smartest people they needed separate training. All this did produce very clever people who ruled the world and were smarter than those they colonised, but there was a price to pay, and I think this is where the gay comes from. The environment was too unnatural and contrived. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a part of the human experience. In fact Homosexuality is present in our nearest biological relatives, the apes. Most pre-Christian cultures recognised more than two "genders" because that was just how life worked. Most pre-Christian religions have deities that are either androgenous, or gender-fluid, often now represented as "Twin Gods", one male, one female. The British Empire had almost NOTHING to do with it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 1, 2024 17:13:04 GMT
Men have always been the leaders from the beginning of time. The woman's job is childcare and foraging, hence why they love shopping so much as it is a modern form of foraging. Men's brains are different to women's brains as well. The two sexes have specialised functions in evolution in order to maximise survival chances. In the modern age, in order to maximise wellbeing we must take these differences into account and employ them in role suitable for their evolved psychologies.
Evolution changes very slowly, but what has happened is these idiots think you can change someone by brainwashing them, but brainwashing is like mental destruction. This is most likely why 8.7 million are on antidepressants, which of course then have their own knock-on effects and you upset the whole delicate balance of nature which for all you know might be a house of cards only needing one card removed to cause eventual extinction of the species. Mass madness is a real possibility today.
Ignorant and false in once sentence. You know why most priestly robes look like dresses?Because originally the priests of almost all religions were female - hence female garb. Don't be daft. Have a think about Roman soldiers |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 1, 2024 17:14:34 GMT
Men have always been the leaders from the beginning of time. The woman's job is childcare and foraging, hence why they love shopping so much as it is a modern form of foraging. Men's brains are different to women's brains as well. The two sexes have specialised functions in evolution in order to maximise survival chances. In the modern age, in order to maximise wellbeing we must take these differences into account and employ them in role suitable for their evolved psychologies.
Evolution changes very slowly, but what has happened is these idiots think you can change someone by brainwashing them, but brainwashing is like mental destruction. This is most likely why 8.7 million are on antidepressants, which of course then have their own knock-on effects and you upset the whole delicate balance of nature which for all you know might be a house of cards only needing one card removed to cause eventual extinction of the species. Mass madness is a real possibility today.
Ignorant and false in once sentence. You know why most priestly robes look like dresses?
Because originally the priests of almost all religions were female - hence female garb.
Men have only been the leaders "from the beginning of time" in two fields - War and Manual Labour, for obvious reasons.
99% of all forms of cross-generational learning were passed on by Women; because women stayed "at camp" while men went off hunting and warring. Women were the only gender with both the sedentary lifestyle and time to a) pass on learning, and b) make ground-breaking discoveries that can only be found by hundreds of iterations of trial-and-error; because they stayed "at camp" while men went off hunting and warring. It is really only with the Romans that women came to be seen as "inferior", and then once the vile doctrine of Christianity was spread (by conflict and violence) all across Europe that thinking was cemented in the collective psyche. Men have only been the "leaders since the beginning of time" if you are dumb-fuck enough to think the Bible is a) real and b) of any real moral value. All The Best Afaik women were seen as inferior to the Greeks too. Spartan women were the exception. Your claim about dresses might have had some merit if men in ancient times mostly wore trousers .. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 1, 2024 17:26:11 GMT
Homosexual activists changed the medical book of definitions to remove the reference to homosexuality being an illness, but not on medical grounds. This marks a big shift from what it was considered in the 60s to what it would become in the 70s, and those activists were American, as you would expect. It's just another case of our laws and customs being dictated by foreign powers. I believe the promotion of it serves to attack masculinity for the purpose of making the citizens weak agaisnt an ever stronger and more authoritarian government who prosecute for speech now. It is believed speech hurts people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Jul 1, 2024 17:36:49 GMT
Men have always been the leaders from the beginning of time. The woman's job is childcare and foraging, hence why they love shopping so much as it is a modern form of foraging. Men's brains are different to women's brains as well. The two sexes have specialised functions in evolution in order to maximise survival chances. In the modern age, in order to maximise wellbeing we must take these differences into account and employ them in role suitable for their evolved psychologies.
Evolution changes very slowly, but what has happened is these idiots think you can change someone by brainwashing them, but brainwashing is like mental destruction. This is most likely why 8.7 million are on antidepressants, which of course then have their own knock-on effects and you upset the whole delicate balance of nature which for all you know might be a house of cards only needing one card removed to cause eventual extinction of the species. Mass madness is a real possibility today.
Ignorant and false in once sentence. You know why most priestly robes look like dresses?
Because originally the priests of almost all religions were female - hence female garb...Early Cycladic sculpture dates back to 5300 BC - 3200 BC and depicts steatopygous female fertility symbols. Zeus and his Sky god pantheon were pre-dated by fertility goddess cults the likes of which have been found in numerous other cultures all over the world. I'm also thinking of the secret cults that were the Greco-Roman mystery religions. The cult of Demeter at Eleusis comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 1, 2024 20:00:02 GMT
Homosexual activists changed the medical book of definitions to remove the reference to homosexuality being an illness, but not on medical grounds. This marks a big shift from what it was considered in the 60s to what it would become in the 70s, and those activists were American, as you would expect. It's just another case of our laws and customs being dictated by foreign powers. I believe the promotion of it serves to attack masculinity for the purpose of making the citizens weak agaisnt an ever stronger and more authoritarian government who prosecute for speech now. It is believed speech hurts people. I’m not sure about the attitude towards homosexuality before Christianity was introduced into Europe . Christianity holds that homosexuality is offence to God ( or did until it was deemed not to be ) so unless the pre Christian attitude to homosexuality was intolerant then we can conclude that intolerance to homosexuality was imposed on us by a cult that was formed outside of Europe . |
|
