Laugh till you cry wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:


Gay marriage will be the legal precedent needed to set the world in a direction that will eventually lead to complete female control, and the elimination of all males.

Why & How:

Why? It's not actually gays that are driving the gay marriage issue for example, they are too small in number to make a real difference by themselves. It takes majority support to make these kind of changes. And the majority is acting out of sympathy, their soft side is making the decision. Logic doesn't get a look in. And because the strength of the left is often represented by 'intellectuals', they don't want to consider the possibility that they might be wrong and that the likes of the late rabid Fred Phelps might possibly be right (heaven forbid no). 

How? Gay marriage as a right will be to the advantage of women who want to marry other women, not those males who want to get married to each other. Women can have children, men can't, men would have to either adopt or arrange surrogate mothers to have their children, either way they can't have the discriminating effect needed to upset the gender balance. Add to that the failure of conventional marriage, which is really a distorted statistic in the sense that failed marriages would be represented by those couples who mutually or equally decided to go their own way. What I mean is that what passes for a failed marriage is in fact more likely caused by the discarding of the husband/father. And then there is the new emerging single parenting parent, who chooses to have no involvement with a man other than to have him father the child. 

And what we have to keep in mind is that women, like men, have a preference for hanging around with each other. Men and women only really come together to procreate, it might look different, but that's only due to a set of rules, the 'boyfriend and girlfriend' rules, and marriage creating a 'partnership' arrangement. But 'marriage' itself isn't 'natural' it's an imposition designed as an enhancement to the survival of 'society' as a whole, not necessarily the survival of the 'species' itself. What I mean is even if society were to fall apart (as it's already doing, but doesn't acknowledge) human beings would still go on existing. 

But why then are women behaving like this? It's because for example motivators such as 'equality', 'independence', 'freedom' etc. are striking a chord with their (and our) soft side. The side of us that registers justice and fairness. And by these 'emotivators' being spread by mass communications like TV, in movies and publications, locally and eventually all over the world.

So if gay marriage is legalized in the US, it might amount to being the point of no return. The 'gender gap' will eventually cease to exist, all that will be left are homo and 'mono' women.

GA wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:26pm:


I don't engage with you because I'm not interested. Your lack of comprehension is not my failing. Resorting to personal abuse only diminishes you in my sight.

GA wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:


Labelling others to attack only lessens you.

miketrees wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:


... and health care expenditure.. and affirmative action for those in real need... and educational opportunities for those with talent and who had a harsh upbringing... and one year 'enlistments' in the Army to learn to drive a forklift and claim the kudos... and equitable outcomes in political positions and CEO jobs... and so on and so on.

But I suppose those realities make me a misogynist...

I think it's about time for everyone to drop these ridiculous emotive epithets and start dealing with facts and realities.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 4:58am:


Have to agree, Sir Herbert, but please - no ethnic slurs.

I've advocated a priority list for employment - those already in a family situation with an income above a certain level etc are set aside to allow employment of the unemployed first - then the under-employed and so forth.

Such a system could be and will be inevitably installed by a 'strong, centralised government' of one 'side' or the other - and of course , such a proposal will draw the inevitable screams of 'fascist/communist' etc.

Well it IS totally socio-fascist - but what options are left when those out there who handle the jobs market are as unruly and stupid and selfish as a bunch of kids?

You rightly see a growing social and economic divide - I just read an article elsewhere that said that 40% of kids in their twenties now would never marry - how then achieve the Nirvana required today of the MADIF?

ONLY by an unceasing demand for upward movement of INCOME for the individual - an inevitable step that will defeat the whole process and create more and more problems of 'cost of living' and 'excessive wages'.

So - as before - either the employers get their shlt together and start to employ the unemployed first and put on the back burner those who already have their basic life - totally socialist there!! - or the government will one day soon step in and 'make that hard decision' for them.

It's either that or a revolution.

ADDS:-  For those gain-sayers - the inevitable result is a lowering of the cost of labour - also a reduction in the cost of homes etc due to a lowered investor market - and consequently a beginning - along with considerable angst - of the return to some form of sanity in our economic and social models, and the restoration of some hope for the young ones these days of a decent life and retirement.

I've done every hard yard and more - I can take it - but I did not do those things so my children and their children would do it hard.

And be advised - a society pays for its mistakes such as these in some way or other .  Harken unto the ceaseless whining here about 'dole bludgers', who should ' get a job'... as if there are jobs out there waiting for them to step into.

when a society deliberately sets out to create a permanent underclass - as did this one starting in the 1980's - then it must be prepared to pay for the development of an 'underworld', a black market, and all that goes with it.

Put simply - people have to eat and prosper somehow - if they cannot do so by the sweat of their brows - they will do it off the fat of the oppressors.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:15am:


Is trolling a recognised art form?

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:30am:


Ooops.

Excellent post, Grappler.

GA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:58am:


Well if you want to put it like that, they're to blame for 3/4.  Personally I think thats' a bit harsh, but it leaves only one option - ban women.