Feminist - AIDS connection
Feminist -"aids" connection
The first half of the story is posted here:
[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=628081&postcount=630[/url]
I have nothing against women, except that they are stupid. This fact has always been known through the centuries and just now seems to have been forgotten. They had been kept out of politics and leadership for good reason: because they tend to be screamy, emotional and illogical in thinking. None of which attributes is desirable in a responsible position. But hey, this is how we like them to be. If you say there is a "woman" who is logical, clear headed and grounded in mind I say that it is "Not A Woman!". Only a "lookalike".
However, it was desirable that the people in low-level leadership become stupid, therefore will believe anything, scream when they are told to and pay when they are told to. They constitute more 51% of voting citizenship in just about any country and thereby they have "controlling majority" in issues and affairs of the State. They are easily led - astray or anywhere.
This is where money lies. This is how a totally stupid "aids" hysteria has started, not to talk about the others such as "terrorism, cancer, drugs, etc". This is "business". On such a large scale that we even have trouble to comprehend it. Quite simply, anything can be sold to women, as long as it is presented in an "emotional package".
So, "feminism" had to be, in order to create and amass wealth for some few. Women do not question, do not reason. They just scream and pay when they are told to. We all know it. Here you got "aids" (please use lower case!). Nobody has seen it, nobody touched it. It's like a ghost. We really don't know, just believe. Like any religion.
The Catholic Church needs "believers" to exist. They have never seen it, never touched it but they believe it. Millions and millions do. Is the "aids industry" on firmer foundations than the Catholic Church?
In fact even on weaker. The writer affirms that the "industry of fear" was created on the screams and stupidity of women in leadership. That is "the controlling majority" in the affairs of the State. Just like any company is controlled by the majority shareholders, so is the State of US. And these "shareholders" are the most easily controllable from above. What you get....?
Therefore, feminism had to be and is viciously defended and propagated even further. As it is now viciously defended and propagated. But not for the "good of the women" unfortunately. But rather to make the "screams of fear" louder from the 51% majority shareholders and thereby making the paypackets of a few high enough grow proportionally.
So much for "aids" and "terrrorism" and the others. You can see, it all was solidly built on female stupidity. No think. Just scream and cry for protection.
Well guys, I have a question:
"Can we please abolish the 19th amendment?"
[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxix.html[/url]
[url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/amendment_19/[/url]
Why not? What would happen?
Deep thoughts. First posting.
I've been trawling through your posts for a day or two. I hope you don't mind my posting a comment - I get these urges sometimes. These are mostly 'out of context', in some cases responding to points and posts made months ago but you might find them of some interest. If I have any more 'profound insights' I'll let you know.
India/China/Russia etc going to overtake the USA in the next 15 years.
Very unlikely. The people making these pronouncements are either doom-mongering journalists wanting a shock headline or companies trying to sell you shares in Indian/Chinese/Russian companies. The USA certainly permits some curious accounting practices which allow companies to make themselves appear more profitable than they actually are and, like all other advanced countries, spends far more than is sensible on welfare, state bureaucracy and the legal system none of which contribute a penny to the treasury.
Most of these problems could be sorted out fairly easily and quickly and would be if the situation became serious.
Manufacturing in the future is likely to be undertaken in fully automated plants with no human worforce at all. It's already possible to do this technically it just isn't economical yet but the (direct and indirect) costs of labour are always rising and the costs of machinery, especially electronic machinery, are steadily falling so the 'crossover' will eventually be reached. When that happens it will be economical to build manufacturing plants in the USA and Western Europe again because labour costs will not enter into the calculation. Since the construction of these plants would have a favourable effect on balance of payments and such governments are bound to be strongly supportive.
They're going to abolish prostitution.
You mean they're going to try. In the same way that they tried and still try to prevent the importation and distribution of drugs. We all know what a brilliant success that's been. Most of these characters in government are simply out of their depth. Many appear to be living in a state of delusion in which they imagine that talking about doing something is the same as doing it. They have experience of drafting laws but none of enforcing them. I can imagine police officers banging their heads on the wall wondering how on earth they're going to make any of this work.
The most important qualification for anyone involved in government is an understanding of the limitations of government. That's something that these people lack.
Adaptation leads to counter-adaptation. If the state changes its attitude to prostitution then prostitution will change. Prostitution could do with changing, at present it's badly organized, needlessly dangerous and contains too many parasitic middlemen (pimps and 'madams') who simply push up the price whilst contributing nothing. Better organized prostitution would be more attractive to more women. More women would go into prostitution, probably mostly as part-timers and 'casuals'. An increase in the supply of prostitutes would probably depress prices and improve quality.
Divorce laws are biased in the woman's favour.
It certainly looks that way but actually divorce laws are biased in the state's favour - the fact that women benefit from this bias is purely coincidental. I'm not familiar with the history of the development of divorce laws in North America but I imagine it follows a similar pattern to their development in England. Originally (in the 1960's) we had "clean break" divorces where neither party was under any further obligation to the other and the former husband did not have to support his former wife for the rest of her life. This didn't last long because it proved that many of these former wives were incapable of supporting themselves and became permanently dependent on state welfare. This was very expensive. In order to reduce the welfare payments the governments decided that it would be a lot cheaper for them to force the former husband to continue to support his former wife very much as if he were still married to her so this is what they did. That's why we are where we are now.
As I mentioned above however adaptation always leads to counter-adaptation. The male counter-adaptation was the entirely predictable one of not getting married. It's taken 20-30 years for this to have a noticeable effect on socieities whose 'leaders' are now worried about low rates of reproduction, especially within the financially productive (i.e. net tax paying) sections of the population, housing shortages and other entirely predictable consequences of making divorces easy and financially attractive for the female population. This is a mess the political, legal and bureaucratic establishment created by not looking ahead and anticipating how people would use the laws. As I noted earlier these people are simply out of their depth.
Female behaviour in taking advantage of these laws is entirely predictable. Suppose a law were introduced which forced a company to pay its employees 80% of their salaries even if they never turned up for work and to keep on paying 80% even if they resigned and went elsewhere. What proportion of the work force do you you think would bother going in ? Not many I'd guess - and those who were conscientious would just end up being penalized by having to work harder to make up for the absentees. Something similar has happened in marriage. The law allows women 80% of the material benefits of marriage without having to do anything in return. Many women were bound to see this as an irresistibly attractive proposition and take full advantage.
Actions have consequences however and the first law of economics is not the law of elastic demand as most economists would tell you. The first law is that you don't get something for nothing. There are no exceptions to this. If you think you've got away with it and it's cost you nothing beware - you're likely to find that payment has only been deferred and, as is usually the case when you defer payment, you'll end up paying more.
These legal arrangements may seem like a real gain for women at the moment, and so they are in the short run but in the long run a lot of women are going to pay a horrendous price. Some of them are just starting to pay it now. They'll be paying for it for the rest of their lives and it will just get worse with age. There is no way out, no way back.
For all their legal advantages I would not change places with them.
Divorce means that a lot of girls have been molested by mother's boyfriend and that's why they're peculiar.
Possibly. More probably however is that divorce means that a lot of girls have been brought up in an almost entirely female environment with almost no opportunity to interact intimately and safely with adult males during their formative years. In other words they never got the chance to play with daddy. This may sound twee but it appears to be very important to female development. Girls 'practice' on their fathers - I don't mean sexually but socially and emotionally - they find out what works and what doesn't. How he responds to different approaches. In a sense these girls are unwittingly calibrating themselves so that they'll know what to do when dealing with men when they get older. Most women who had a decent amount of contact with their father when they were small tend to be extremely keen on him and regard 'daddy' as the ideal . This is the result of juvenile 'imprinting' - unfortunately this hasn't happened to a lot of females.
High rates of divorce mean that a very large part of the female population has now never had the chance to do this and unfortunately it's something that it appears has to be done at a certain age (around 7-11). If it isn't done at this period then you can never undo the damage or make good the loss. What this all means in practice is that a lot of women haven't got the faintest idea of how to handle men on even the most basic level. They're caught in a trap of their mothers' making and there is no way out.
Depriving girls of paternal contact has not only been cruel to the father it's also been an absolute disaster for the daughter.
Another possible factor is contraception. Before contraception families were large and the significance of this is that almost every girl would have brothers. Brothers aren't as good as fathers for 'practice' but they're a lot better than nothing, especially if they're older brothers. There is usually a very noticeable difference between women who have brothers and women who haven't.
Yet another possible factor is quality of housing. A large family living in a small house live on top of each other. Like it or not you're soon going to find out what the opposite sex looks like without clothes on. This kind of enforced intimacy knocks the corners off. You either get used to it or go mad. Most people get used to it. A small family living in a large house can live largely separate lives, they need never come into contact with each other unless they want to. They get used to having things their own way. You can see how this might affect mental development and 'formation of character'.
Women outnumber men in college/degree courses.
Yes, but in what subjects ? Mostly in soft subjects that are virtually useless in the labour market or worse than useless in the case of the notorious 'women's studies', sociology, psychology and the like - subjects which are not only of no conceivable use to most employers but will actually set alarm bells ringing in many.
Journalism, publishing, broadcasting and, of course, that great sponge "the state" will soak up a fair number but there's probably at least as much overmanning (or more commonly overwomanning) in white collar employments today as there was amongst blue collar 30 years ago. Layer upon layer of clerical, secretarial, administrative, managerial and supervisory staff most of whose activities contribute absolutely nothing to the performance of a company or to the national economy, many of whom are a gross burden not only because they fail to contribute and are indeed a net drain but because they are actually obstructive. There isn't much further scope for industry or commerce to make savings with further blue collar cuts, many have already cut too far and are actually undermanned with no spare capacity which causes problems if circumstances vary. The only way for companies to make further savings is by cutting white collar employment. Unless they're suicidal they'll cut in areas which don't contribute to profitability. Secretarial / clerical staff are the obvious targets. There are far too many of them (just look at the size of the office buildings) and most of them are women. Female employment prospects may not be as good in the future as they have been for the last 20 years or so.
Another factor is that some employers now see female employees as being more trouble than they're worth. They take more time off, they're likelier to get sick especially with vague neuro-psychological problems like "depression" which are not only virtually impossible to prove but also virtually impossible to disprove and which may drag on for years. They get pregnant and you have to provide maternity leave at your expense and the other staff have to work harder to cover for them. They're a nuisance and a possible legal minefield, they're inflexible as regards working hours and so on and so forth. Many of them are obviously just playing at it until they can find a suitably wealthy husband- they have no serious interest in the job. This doesn't go down too well with employers. They tend not to mention it because they don't want to be accused of sexism but they do think it.
Enough for the time being. I've worn myself out.