Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest evolutionary relatives with whom we share anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of our genes. It should then come as no surprise that we also share many common behaviour patterns with them as well. And while we humans share similarities with the two apes, the two exist under a completely opposite social order.
The chimpanzees organize themselves into a patriarchal order with the alpha male at the top. While chimps are often portrayed as cute and playful creatures, what many people don’t realize is just how savage and violent they really are (I’ve seen pictures of people who had their entire faces ripped off by them). In the wild, chimpanzees exist as warrior tribes that go on regular patrols to guard their territory, engage in hunting expeditions, as well as fight wars with the other tribes.
Bonobos, on the other hand, exist in a peaceful matriarchal order. Their tribes are ruled by group of females who form a sisterhood with an alpha female as their leader. Unlike their chimpanzee counterparts, the male bonobos are weak and ineffectual. The males are practically a bunch of mama’s boys who cling onto their mothers all the way into their adulthood as they are only able to derive power and status through their mothers.
Bonobos, the only other species that engage in face-to-face sexual intercourse.
Besides the matriarchal order—which is already unique among the primates—bonobos distinguish themselves as highly sexual species. They have frequent casual sex on a daily basis (albeit lasting only about ten seconds) in every way and every pairing imaginable. Sex is used to greet, bond, decrease stress, resolve conflicts, etc.
So where do we fit in?
I have a theory that we humans, due to our superior ability to adapt, oscillate between the patriarchal order of the chimpanzees and the matriarchal order of the bonobos depending on the social conditions that we live in. That said, we can all agree that much of our industrialized society has moved away from the old patriarchal order to a more gynocentric society with matriarchy as the end goal, and I think by learning from the lives of these two apes, we can gain a better understanding of our own human social structure, masculinity, and sex relations.
1. Patriarchy can only flourish through warfare and violence
The reason why patriarchy thrives, nay, is necessary among the chimpanzees is because male strength and aggression are indispensable in protecting the tribe against external threats as well as for hunting and securing new territories. On the other hand, the only reason why bonobos are able to exist in a matriarchal utopia is precisely because they have no external threats and live in an environment abundant with fruits (their primary diet) and other sources of nourishment, eliminating any real need for male violence.
Note the size differences. I can almost picture the male bonobo in skinny jeans.
For humans, to see what lack of warfare and violence can do to men, just take a note of how emasculated Japanese and Swedish men have become since their warrior pasts. This is also reflected in how our Western society has transitioned away from patriarchy as a result of prolonged peace since the end of WWII.
Of course, warfare and violence are not the only factors that sustain a social environment favourable for patriarchy, but it is still the major factor. Just compare the war ridden regions of the world to our peaceful and prosperous urban centers, which is more patriarchal? Even exceptions like Saudi Arabia—which have been a relatively peaceful society—has only been able to prop up its patriarchal rule through strict religious dogma and brute force. And even they are finally succumbing to changes.
2. Strong group bonding is necessary to assert dominance over the other sex
In both the chimpanzees and the bonobos, it is the sex that forms a unified group that controls the other sex. Female chimps don’t dare challenge the authority of the powerful males who often beat them to keep them under control. Likewise, male bonobos are powerless against the closely-knit group of females who band together to keep the males in check. The male bonobos are isolated and seemingly unwilling to form any sort of group of their own because they don’t have any practical reason to do so.
Human males today suffer from a similar sense of isolation due to the disintegration of exclusive male groups and the recent influx of females into male spaces. While females are organized into feminist groups that exclude men, men being told that they are forbidden to form groups of their own. If this is not an active effort by our society to systematically emasculate us and leave us powerless I don’t know what is.
3. Homosexuality and other sexual deviances become rampant without a strong masculine order
I’ve met few people who tried to normalize homosexuality by arguing that animals engage in them too—conveniently ignoring the fact that animals also engage in rape, incest, pedophilia, and necrophilia. What they also don’t realize is that much of these homosexual behaviours are observed only in captivity.
Have you ever wondered why flamboyant homosexuality only seems to flower in big cities? Watch Jane Goodall explain how homosexuality is unseen in chimpanzees and other animals in the wild and only seem to appear when they are placed in unnatural environments:
But of course, she isn’t entirely correct in her assessment as we know that bonobos in the wild engage in plenty of homosexual activity (in all ages). So what makes them the exception? We can only speculate, but I strongly suspect that it has a lot to do with the total emasculation of the males and the resulting absence of masculine identity in bonobo societies.
We humans today are witnessing a rising prevalence of homosexuality and other sexual deviances just as our society is becoming more and more urbanized and hostile to masculinity. The urban centers which we humans live in can be viewed as cages where we are sheltered. And as our society turns increasingly gynocentric like the bonobos, we can expect to see increasing number of men transform into effeminate homosexuals and future Caitlyn Jenners. Note how most sex changes are from men to women and not the other way around.
4. Human male sexual energy is being both suppressed and exploited
Both chimpanzee and bonobo males are able to satisfy their sexual urges pretty much whenever they want. For the bonobos, this is because the females, in spite of possessing all the power, make sure to keep the male aggression at bay by giving them all the sex they need.
However, in the human world, male sexual energy is instead both suppressed and exploited at the same time. It is suppressed through draconian laws designed to spread fear while the media work hard to pathologize normal, male sexuality. At the same time, men’s sex drive is also being actively exploited by the porn and sex industry that are now worth billions.
Not surprisingly, women too are capitalizing on men’s sexual desire by feeding on male attention using social media, using them as drones to do their bidding, and also by keeping them thirsty and desperate enough to enter marriage voluntarily for further exploitation. Women today want all the benefits of living in a bonobo-style matriarchy while using men as utilities to be exploited. This sort of arrangement allows women to eat their cake and have it too while men are left fighting for the crumbs. And after a while, many men will lose hope and end up becoming dreadfully frustrated, with some resorting to suicide or—on the extreme end—going on a killing spree.
Conclusion
What we are going through today is the transition of our society from a patriarchal order akin to the chimpanzees to the matriarchal order of the bonobos. Men are becoming systematically emasculated from a young age as masculinity is seen as something toxic to be “cured” of. All the while, women, gays, and now transgenders are being promoted above normal, healthy men by our deranged society. If we continue on with this trend for couple of more decades, I expect most Western men to become weak and dysfunctional man-children who must supplicate to women and government for everything.
Be clear about what we are faced with. The issue is no longer about gender equality or rights—it never has been. This is all about social control. And the best way to control men is by decimating their unity and eradicating masculinity as an identity to be reckoned with. You must choose whether you want to see this trend continue or not and decide if you will fight back against this force.
Read More: 10 Surprising Facts About Sleep
European men should release their inner chimp and rise before it’s too late.
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2014/06/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-trailer-final-hd-dl.jpg?w=600&h=0&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89
I recall having a debate about that guy on imdb. The prevailing opinion was that he was supposed to be a bonobo rather than a chimp even though he looks like a chimp and is insanely aggressive. I can’t confirm right now, but I remember being kind of puzzled by the whole thing
Technically, I think, when bonobos where to face a dire survival situation the men would rise and the women would submit.
That I’m aware of, when two different bonobo groups meet each other, the females fuck the rival males while the males bitch at each other like teenage girls, like you would see in a football soccer match.
So far, I’ve read nothing that indicates that bonobo males would take violent action, like Chimps would.
Well, I think I should have elaborated on my hypothesis more.
I am convinced that when you where to put them in a dire situation over an extended period of time they would fight each other and the male would gain authority due to its strength naturally.
That dire situation should be optimally a shortage of resources.
As said that is just an unfounded but logical hypothesis.
I think I should have elaborated on my hypothesis more.
When two bonobo groups meet each other that doesn’t qualify as a dire situation for me.
The optimal situation for that to occur would be a shortage of resources.
I believe that after an extended period of time in this scenario social power would naturally gravitate towards the male bonobos due to their obvious fighting advantages.
That the males of these two groups don’t fight each other is because of a lack of necessity.
This is weird. This is the second time that I am responding to you right now.
Anyways, I wouldn’t call a meeting of two bonobo groups a dire situation. I think more of a shortage of resources.
In such scenario, over a prolonged period of time, social power would naturally gravitate towards the males.
But that is just a hypothesis.
For some reason my replies keep disappearing.
But here you go.
Anyways, I wouldn’t call a meeting of two bonobo groups a dire situation. I think more of a shortage of resources.
In such scenario, over a prolonged period of time, social power would naturally gravitate towards the males.
But that is just a hypothesis.
I’ve seen your answers, I don’t know why you can’t.
From what I’ve read, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It appears that males get nervous and try to make trouble with the others and the females keep them at bay, even inviting towards the foreign males.
Well, but still… What if the food really isn’t enough for everyone? I mean I have heard of some bonobo mother eating her child so males that fight each other for food doesn’t seem too far fetched.
Especially when you look at their close relatives.
There it goes again.
So, I was really thinking more about an actual crisis. As in the food isn’t enough for everyone.
And considering that I have heard of a bonobo mother eating her child, I’d say males fighting each other doesn’t sound that far fetched.
Weird. I saw that you liked my other comment in notifications but I still don’t see it in this discussion.
Does that happen from time to time with disqus?
Sometime it does.
Such a timely article, yet for all the wrong reasons.
Australian media is (pun intended) going “Ape Shit” right now over The ROK meetups which will be taking place there. It’s the number one story of Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald, and many others. It’s on like Donkey Kong gentlemen!
http://www.theage.com.au/national/supporters-of-antiwoman-group-return-of-kings-to-meet-in-sydney-20160201-gmikrh.html
Oh and The Inquisitr says we want to have a “safe space” and that meetups will take place in countries like Sydney, Perth, and Scotland. Sydney and Perth are not “countries”. Who gets paid to write this pre-school rubbish?
http://www.inquisitr.com/2756719/supporters-pro-rape-anti-woman-pick-up-artist-neomasculinist-plan-worldwide-meet-up/
Announcing the arrival of Roosh was a major tactical error. He will have his visa revoked for dubious reasons. I won’t be able to attend the Perth meeting due to work but I look forward to future monthly meetings.
The owner of the Cottesloe pub where it’s supposed to take place, says they can’t come. He’s caving in like a mangina and thinks it’s going to be for a “rape should be legal” group. Typical
Even if he wasn’t a half-wit ROK is bad PR for a business that can lead to a boycott.
Most of the people that have read said article don’t know what satire is. I don’t know if I should feel sorry for them for being fooled by the MSM or for just being stupid.
He will not attend in Australia.
Roosh’s twitter account says otherwise
It’s a deception.
That does seem logical
Society has declined to an all time low. Over the last decade, I have witnessed the utter disintegration of everything that once provided value, and replaced with everything that is wrong about our society. Men have indeed become emasculated and that is the fine result of single motherhood being embraced and celebrated, while fatherhood has been replaced by the state, where child support and ailmony is now considered a suitable substitute in the absence of a good fatherly figure.
It really amazes me when I see today’s young teenage boys exhibit the behaviour and characteristics of a teenage girl- skinny jeans, thin physique, uncut hair, walking around in packs, fixated on their smartphones and so on and so forth. Emasculated in every way possible and completely oblivious about masculinity. Its become so bad that today’s young men cannot even tell the difference between a philips and a flathead or how to change the tyre on a car.
What all of this shows is the systematic destruction and annihilation of what it truly means to be a man, while the reversal of traditional gender roles are at an all time high- women becoming the breadwinners while men are turning into stay at home dads. This is now even encouraged by the media which portrays the so called “acceptance” of men becoming stay at home dads while the wife is earning. Yes, the matriarchy is indeed, replacing the function and value of traditional masculinity thanks to the creation of a service sector economy and the backing of feminist driven legislation and policy making, all of which favors and places priority for the needs of a woman, over a man.
Dressing up appropriately, maintaining your appearance, staying in shape, eating well, knowing how to speak properly, learning manners, building self respect, owning a wallet, watch and suit etc- all of this has gone out the window that men need to rely on a woman for advice and financial support. That is how bad it has become now.
Is it any surprising why men are becoming the way that they are today? Everything I have mentioned is a reflection of what can be perfectly described as cultural decline. Even animals have much stronger survival skills and abilities to survive in this world. But today’s generation of asinine men and women- they would not be able to do the simplest tasks without the need of their smartphone. All one can really do is wonder, how much further the decline will continue in this world that we live in.
I agree. It seems like the most devastating blows against masculinity have been done in the past 10 years. Sure, feminism has been around for decades, but only recently have men been turned in to complete pussies. That’s really sad.
What the fuck can I do about it?? Every display of masculinity is either illegal or viciously attacked by the masses. Mass murder is the only reasonable option.
Stoicism.
That’s a weird way to spell tucking-your-tail.
Do you live in or near a big city?
I understand your stance and mostly agree but isn’t it funny how this is all playing out? Women, due to their very human desire to be seen as superior, not different from men, have latched on to the idea that “we can do it too”. In a sense, women are right, they can have high paying jobs, run countries, fly planes, etc. In small doses. If there were less men all of these women would implode as they have no system to do this and without the beautiful testosterone of men, no incentive to dominate in a field. Sure some women will dominate now, but this has more to do with men being vilified and women being exalted.
Men jumped on the bandwagon because support of this equals, equality amongst the sexes and easier access to sex. What is easier to get sex from, a the man who has gone to war for a few months to years with a wife who receives support for their two children, or B, the wife who is in the office away from the husband and trying to support her family? Give a prize to all who answered the work hard wife!
The end of the day, both sexes were exploited for an equally larger picture to diminish the population. And in some ways, we have been given an erroneous label, rapists. We still need to shoulder on as the women and men in their lives, have no official system, aside from the one handed to them, to keep the engine going. And already we are seeing where this is headed, the new haves will state how protected we all are, while the have nots are increasing daily. The big difference is the havenots aren’t those who are poor necessarily in wealth but those who are poor in sexuality and sex. Make no mistake, these are the first steps in ending the war of the sexes.
so basically, Freud was right. Penis Envy. Little boys play with their slot cars or toy trains and the little girls come over, demanding to play. The little boys never go bother the little girls as they play with their dolls or stuffed animals.
I was working on a project last month and went to the local starbucks with my laptop to get some work done. Every day at 3pm I saw the most frightening thing.
The boys that left school would spend their after school hours at starbucks! Playing on their tablets and gossiping.
What happened to playing hockey, football, and basketball after school?
What happened to playground fights and insult battles?
But, to be fair, you were at a place that *would* attract that kind of “male” to it. I don’t go to Starbucks and expect to find athletic rough housing young men, ever, unless their bus broke down and they walked in to use the phone or something.
These were young 12-16 year old kids at a starbucks. In my day no kid would ever willingly go to a coffee shop.
I saw trophies handed out for winning your FANTASY sports league hahaha
Old codger in the 1950s: “In my day no kid would be caught dead in a malt shop.”
They’d have cellphones. Probably there to use the can.
Ivan, it’s just a place to hang out. Like the mall, or the library, or a friend’s house. You’re reading too much into it.
Unless to get coffee!(And leave)
When exactly did coffee shops become something for females?
Exactly. I am glad to see someone with logic in this discussion.
They always were ? When were they for guys that weren’t metrosexuals ? I guess since they stopped making coffee flavoured coffee ? Your a wedge tip. I don’t like your womanly questions and fuckerey.
No, they would go to the Soda Shop. Give me a break. Our kids are fine! You just sound like an old guy bitching about kids these days. Our kids are about to take on challenges you and I never had to, or wouldn’t. We are raising them for intelligence over brawn because that is what is necessary to save this planet! We are not apes, and have not been for 1000’s of years. We are evolved and evolving faster than any other species on the planet, for some reason. Accept the world as it is, or die, that’s about the only thing you can do.
Rebecca it’s not my survival I’m worried about. Intelligence is only useful insofar that it enables you to compete.
If you can’t compete, you die.
Dogs are also evolving rapidly — thanks to us.
But you’re right to a great degree. Kids are socially adapted to their environment and will find their kids fitting more comfortably into yet another society.
“They always were ?” Is that supposed to be a question? Sir, the correct way to end a sentence that contains a statement is with a “.” not a “?”. “When were they for guys that weren’t metrosexuals ? ” I dunno, around the same time Sir Isaac Newton wasn’t considered gay. “I guess since they stopped making coffee flavoured coffee ?” Oh, you mean when Starbucks took over the market?
“Your a wedge tip” … I am not sure what this is, even Urban Dictionary yields no results…
” I don’t like your womanly questions and fuckerey.” I am not the PÜSSY using “I don’t like” as an argument lol.
Hahahahahahahahaha
…show me the ape species which thrives staring into an iPhone.
“We are not apes, and have not been for 1000’s of years. We are evolved and evolving faster than any other species on the planet, for some reason.”
We are not apes? True for most of us, but obviously you have not visited some of our lovely inner city areas.
And I swear that too many of those half man/half beasts are far from “evolving faster than any species.” They are actually devolving more every year.
I just lost lost what I write. I’ll try to replicate it. I recommend that you spend a few days on a University Campus. Our Universities are world class, which is why the Chinese and many other nations send their young here to be educated. Go to the libraries, the quads, and watch kids from various colleges collaborate on some of the toughest issues any of our people have ever had to discuss. You will feel better knowing that our young people ARRE caprable of competing, actually, they are brilliant. These kids all grew up in a different time than we did, where math and science and technology were forced on them since the age of 3. They are prepared, and they are ready to face the challenges we have handed them. They aren’t chimps or Binobos, they are highly evolved human beings who you can’t understand, because they learned at 10x’s the rate you did. I am confident that this generation could be the best generation ever. Again, spend a day on any campus, ask for a tour. I challenge you to come away still feeling like we can’t compete!
Rebecca Lambert a few seconds ago
I just lost lost what I write. I’ll try to replicate it. I recommend that you spend a few days on a University Campus. Our Universities are world class, which is why the Chinese and many other nations send their young here to be educated. Go to the libraries, the quads, and watch kids from various colleges collaborate on some of the toughest issues any of our people have ever had to discuss. You will feel better knowing that our young people ARRE caprable of competing, actually, they are brilliant. These kids all grew up in a different time than we did, where math and science and technology were forced on them since the age of 3. They are prepared, and they are ready to face the challenges we have handed them. They aren’t chimps or Binobos, they are highly evolved human beings who you can’t understand, because they learned at 10x’s the rate you did. I am confident that this generation could be the best generation ever. Again, spend a day on any campus, ask for a tour. I challenge you to come away still feeling like we can’t compete!
Do you mean these students today!
Very brilliant, they don’t even have common sense.
I think you should go back to High School.
Apes and humans have the SAME ancestors, we have never been apes. But we share over 98% DNA with the Chimpanzees, who are our cousins. To save our planet (also the planet of the apes, and elephants and lions and tigers and wolves and so on) we should cut down on our numbers as this planet cannot support over 9 billion humans, even with 7 billion it is struggling and then think about it that just over 166 years ago there were only 1 billion (1850) In 1960 it was 3 billion, 1975, 4 billion…..very scary. But the big hunters (mainly Americans) are saying that there are TOO many lions in Africa (20.000) [50 years ago there were 200.000] or TOO many elephants (300.000) [50 years ago there were 1.2 million] so they can kill them. So the kids today are studying to save the planet? What are they studying? To save this planet, there should be over 5 billion people less then today.
That is an insult to the apes, Apes don’t murder or do drug trading..:)
Who the fuck was talking about college kids, or the current generation of young people??? In my post I was talking about negroes, you typical obtuse female.
And I put my kids through two different good universities. So don’t tell me anything about spending time on a college campus. I’ve done that plenty. And again, I never said a damn thing about college kids to begin with.
Now go cook or clean something, wench.
“What happened to playing hockey, football, and basketball after school?”
-Political correctness happened. The banning of competitive sports, rejection of competition, “everyone is a winner”, the replacement of men in society- all of this has led to young men becoming the way that they are today.
Call me a dinosaur, but when I was a young child, I would go out for enjoyment- play sports and go to the park. Today’s equivalent- playing with tablets and smartphones.
Without going into details, I was almost killed on more than one occasion while I was a teen. It was rather humbling, becoming aware of your mortality at such a young age. I used to wish these incidents never happened(or at least happened when I was older) but, in retrospect, they made me into a better person.
These young kids are so coddled, that, when they walk into that inevitable buzzsaw sometime in their mid to late 20s for the first time, they will be so shellshocked they will never recover…
Competitive sports aren’t banned….
They’re just becoming increasingly effeminate. It’s only a matter of time until the UFC starts handing out participation belts.
I saw some obviously rigged mma fight on youtube, between a disabled with no legs and a normal fighter. “Equality” and everything.
Here in Ottawa they are trying to get hockey players in the NHL to wrap their hockey sticks in rainbow tape to show support for LGBT people. Like we haven’t shown these people enough support with changing laws every possible way to suit them. It’s just another way to emasculate men, and make men who don’t agree with homosexuality to shut up and support what they don’t believe in.
Give me an example please?
“‘What happened to playing hockey, football, and basketball after school?’
-Political correctness happened. The banning of competitive sports, rejection of competition,” What is wrong with just relaxing at the end of the day after having to deal with the horror of a public education system Americans have?
Sure, no contact in hockey or baseball.
“Hockey” I have never lived in a region with hockey as a high school activity, so IDK. “baseball” Why do you need to make contact in baseball?
What happened is there were too many news stories of kids getting stolen and killed by pedophiles, and parents quit letting their kids run free.
I never enjoyed sports but hiking in the woods was my thing…plus I’d try and climb the highest tree’s I could find, I took their height as a challenge.
Yo momma so fat, when God said “let there be light”…she had to move over!
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Fighting in school could give you a criminal record now a days
When did coffee houses become feminine? http://100years100facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/100y100f_023_v2.jpg
I don’t see any females in this picture…
Times change, human behavior adapts.
It was hipsters and girls squealing over the ‘frappachinos’ (really just milkshakes) when I was in college in the early 90’s…maybe the occasional brain dead burnout strumming an acoustic guitar in the corner.
Try harder, troll. That pic is hardly a representation of a coffee house/shop in our current time.
These joints now are very feminized and gay. But I suppose only us real alpha males would recognize that.
“Try harder, troll. That pic is hardly a representation of a coffee house/shop in our current time.” Please explain what is feminized about them?
“But I suppose only us real alpha males would recognize that.” Oh boy, not more “I’m an alpha” bullshit. You realize that doesn’t get your movement anywhere right?
That’s for girls now…
“All one can really do is wonder, how much further the decline will continue in this world that we live in”
http://www.filmhoek.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/planet-of-the-apes-statue-of-liberty-blu-ray-disc-screencap-hd-1080p-05.jpg
I use to work with a white guy from Zimbabwe. He was a hard core badass. It seemed like he could do just about anything. He had been operating heavy equipment from early childhood. I guess growing up on a 20,000 acre ranch will do that for you. Thanks to Mugabe’s genocide against white Zimbabweans, this dude’s family had to leave the country.
Anyway, we were talking about Chimpanzees one time (and how to keep them out of your vegetable garden). Some folks recommend planting a hedge of rattling plants around your garden. This guy recommended a 12 gauge. He said Chimps are incredibly powerful, and can be vicious. He’d seen them rip large and vicious guard dogs to shreds. Chimps are a force to be reckoned with.
I lived in Zimbabwe and married a white Zimbabwean. The upbringing was different then in Europe or in the US. First there was discipline at schools. Meaning that teachers did give physical punishments with a smack on the bum with a bat. Secondly sport and that was Rugby, Cricket and Athletics. Cross country running bare foot (Zola Budd did this in the Olympic games in LA) Respect for elderly and authority, so a 6.2ft Rugby player, weighing 120 kg will say to the Referee, “Sorry Sir”, during the WC Rugby.
Boys don’t cry, men don’t tell.
But there are no Chimpanzees living in the wild in Zimbabwe..They live in Tanzania and the Congo and what is left in west Africa. Are you sure they were Chimps? Baboons were the biggest apes (Monkeys) in Zimbabwe.They are also strong and could kill a Leopard if they paired up.
I do agree that looking at young guys today I see a generation who follow the latest fashion and are concentrated on their smartphones.
Is this the new drug?
I’m sorry. I might have been wrong about the Chimps. I think it probably was the baboon that we were talking about. I’ve not lived in Africa and am not up on my apes.
The thing that stuck with me was how tough and capable my friend was (and yet he was still very polite, kind man, and gentle father). He really stood out to me as a great example of manhood, combining strength, practical know-how, common sense, courage, and tenderness. He seemed like someone from my grandfather’s generation. The United States, and the United Kingdom use to produce such men as well.
Thank you Bart for this compliment about the Rhodesian men. They were special that is why I married one. He passed away 2 years ago but stayed till the end a man with courage and humour and tried to fight till the bitter end but lost against cancer. When I arrived in Rhodesia in 1978, I stepped back in time. I think it is the tough but fair upbringing and the last 2 generations lost it. Too much counseling, everybody is a victim and no one learns that sometimes you loose. Take it and carry on. Pick yourself up and dust yourself down….
If you are still in contact with your friend, give him my regards.
Why is it that so many young men of today who struggle with employment feel it is a good option to just go on welfare? Having a job for a man is the most important thing for confidence and identity. With out a job most men just want to blow their heads off. Young men of today are not being taught that above all else as a man you need a job, any job is better than no job. It’s woman who generally feel they can take a job or not work. Why then are young men behaving as if they are women looking for work? It’s not the same.
They were raised by single mothers and haven’t been taught to rely on themselves…mom raises them till the girl friend takes over. Then its on the couch and smoking weed. Those video games don’t play themselves!
Two of your statements conflict: “skinny jeans, thin physique, uncut hair, walking around in packs,” and “Dressing up appropriately, maintaining your appearance, staying in shape, eating well” Are you implying that “eating well” means being a fat-ass?
Not fat but fit. Besides, what is considered “normal” weight by “nutritionists” is less then optimum for a healthy life.
Have you ever tried to back up your thoughts with empirical evidence? Certainly, if what you say is true, there would be metrics we could look at that support the decline of our society.
One such would be to look at QOL, but evidence such as the one presented in these article would suggest the world is gets better with gender equality
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/good-news-in-2015/421200/
http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/gender-equality-key-to-wealth-and-happiness-in-nordic-countries.27-03.html
You could be right about the decline of our society but Its dangerous to asses the world based on your personal observations. Your perspective as an individual is small which is why looking at overall studies and academic research is important.
Not really. In my opinion the family unit is a prime indicator for cultural decline.
Those “developed” nordic nations are among the top ten of divorce rates.
And now look at holland. It is a very traditional land with natural sex roles and they happen to be the happiest in Europe.
Or look at the media and “fifty shades of grey”‘s success. Isn’t the sudden rise of such an usually niche subject very telling?
It is almost as though women lacked something and it makes them lose their happiness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511.html
Women do not find satisfaction in work or in non-dominant men. If you think about it logically, it should appear as a natural and obvious thing to you.
You should become aware that culture is supposed to guide people in a good and healthy way.
As soon as culture starts to punish healthy sex roles it has simply declined.
Last time I checked the Netherlands are very socially progressive especially when it comes to gender roles. In fact according to this indicator the highest in the world….
http://time.com/3131/this-map-shows-just-how-far-the-world-has-to-go-to-reach-gender-equality/
also on Netherlands
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9316-z/fulltext.html
Okay so culture is supposed to guide people in a good and healthy way. Do you have solid evidence that its not? Do you have evidence supporting the fact that “don’t find satisfaction in work or non-dominate men”
Its not that I necessarily disagree with you but, Again your mostly relying on you own personal logic. Humans aren’t logical which is why we need academia and statistics to help us out. At one point it was popular logic that black people want to be a more submissive race and are not happy with independence.
But the Huntington post is a good start but don’t stop there and suffer from confirmation bias. Here some apposing viewpoints
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/letters/love-and-relationships-in-the-happiest-country-in-the-world
http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/#comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/science-says-men-and-women-arent-really-wired-differently_us_565f096ee4b072e9d1c42d06
(thisarticle would be better if it says “as far as we can tell”)
http://io9.gizmodo.com/women-do-better-on-math-tests-when-they-fake-their-name-670082790
Last time I checked the Netherlands are very socially progressive especially when it comes to gender roles. In fact according to this indicator the highest in the world….
http://time.com/3131/this-map-shows-just-how-far-the-world-has-to-go-to-reach-gender-equality/
also on Netherlands
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9316-z/fulltext.html
Okay so culture is supposed to guide people in a good and healthy way. Do you have solid evidence that its not? Do you have evidence supporting the fact that “don’t find satisfaction in work or non-dominate men”
Its not that I necessarily disagree with you but, Again your mostly relying on you own personal logic. Humans aren’t logical which is why we need academia and statistics to help us out. At one point it was popular logic that black people want to be a more submissive race and are not happy with independence.
But the Huntington post is a good start but don’t stop there and suffer from confirmation bias. Here some apposing viewpoints
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/letters/love-and-relationships-in-the-happiest-country-in-the-world
http://www.salon.com/2009/10/15/ehrenreich_women_happiness/#comments
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242680
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/science-says-men-and-women-arent-really-wired-differently_us_565f096ee4b072e9d1c42d06
(thisarticle would be better if it says “as far as we can tell”)
http://io9.gizmodo.com/women-do-better-on-math-tests-when-they-fake-their-name-670082790
Apologies. I meant Dutch. Going to fix that now.
I am not talking about the Netherlands. I am talking about the Dutch specifically.
Here, a quick google search just for you: women dutch workforce
“Do you have evidence supporting the fact that “don’t find satisfaction in work or non-dominate men””
First, just look at these:
How could women possibly be this unhappy? They got there freedoms and rights and empowerment, didn’t they?
Conversely enough women were happier than men before feminism.
So, it is rather obvious that traditional women are the happiest women.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/27/conservative-women-hold-secret-to-happiness/
And just look at the Dutch.
For the later just look at the sudden rise of a usually extremely niche medium into actual mainstream: “Fifty Shades of Grey”
Such, sudden and extreme shifts of interest are very telling.
And a closing thought. Do you think nature would care about equality (assuming you’re an atheist)?
http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-equality/sex-differences-general-intelligence/
Nature will sort it it out, one way or another!!! If this pattern doesn’t fit in, it will be expurgated regardless of Human intervention!!!
Be a man, do the right thing. Lead your woman. Take control at work or start your own business. Eat right, have hobbies, work out. Dress well and act with confidence.
Turn off the TV, the xbox, the porn site, the fast food app on your smart phone. No quarter to stowaways.
Interesting premise, and, after review, I tend to agree. I’d also go on to say that one of the big problems men face today is the re-migration to the cities. There’s nothing more emasculating, IMHO, than living in a city constantly bombarded with non-stop advertising and absolutely nothing “male” to do what so ever other than (of course) chase pussy. Look at all the emo freaks/gays/etc you know of. What percentage of them live in a big city? I’m going to guess close to 100%. In fact, the only way it’s under 100% is if you grew up in a small town and some emo/lady boy/fag there wasn’t able to afford moving to the city.
Take a trip through Montana and tell me how much masculine behavior you see compared to San Fran and then report back.
It’s a sad fact of society today that men are so desperate for high quality pus that they’ll put themselves into an environment that’s utterly the opposite of how a man should actually live. Do you think living in a box in a sky with 10 miles of shopping in any direction is masculine or feminine? Once you answer that question and then look at how many people are migrating back to cities, you’ll start to understand.
And, just a note. Not everyone living in cities is beta. Some are very alpha and are there to prey on the beta bitches around them. But, if you’re not that guy, you are putting yourself in the worst possible situation for exploring your masculinty. Here’s a hint, you designer suit and 1000 dollar shoes aren’t what make you man. In fact, they are, in many ways, an embarrassment because you’ve allowed yourself to deal with women on women’s terms.
Yeah I can attest to that. Moving here is a puss fest if you aren’t a bitch. Girls will literally chase you. That being said, I’ve already started a business and been working in remodeling the oldest houses in the luxury home market. Do I miss the country, yes, that’s why I make sure to visit often.
Getting into fights with modern weapons has been damn near suicidal since World War I. Channeling male aggressive impulses into creative enterprise has been one of the accomplishments of the west, and East Asia as well. Having sport as outlet aggression is one way, but the presence of women in the work place, especially in positions of authority over men, has been emasculating in a way that we are only now beginning to understand. The workplace needs to be male-dominated and almost female free if it is to function as an outlet for aggression.
For every masculine warrior there is an equally masculine miner, farmer, construction worker etc., etc. etc. that labor to build and design human society. Warfare is a downward spiral of hedonistic self absorption that brings only death and destruction. As a man I have chosen to focus on the positive aspect of my masculinity and take pride in what I can build with my hands and create with my mind. The hands of a blacksmith are far more powerful that the hands of the warrior, indeed with out the blacksmith the warrior would have naught but his fists or stones to fight with. We males are not killing machines but rather builders and engineers. We males are not the destroyers but intellectual giants that naturally seek out synergistic productive relationships with our fellow human beings. The hammer is better than the sword.
Post of the year so far!
Both are necessary to life in the universe, whether we like it or not. We do not live in the Garden of Eden any longer, the universe is harsh and even if we got along perfectly with each other as a species we still contend with a world full of predators that need(ed) to be fought off. Your point is well taken that we are more than violence and should aspire to more than war, but there is nothing dishonorable about the warrior either.
One of the reasons why I detest modern warfare which ironically is the very fruit of such positive labor is that it makes killing and destroying far too easy. No, if human beings insist on murdering one another they have already chosen the path of least resistance by death instead of labor then they should look the other in the eyes when killing. Ranged warfare is the path of the coward not the warrior. We have minds if not rendered dysfunctional through chronic nutritional imbalance and I am convinced we have no problem that wise labor can not fix. I imagine masculinity much like Pyramid Head from Silent Hill, scarred from countless assaults but still he is ever a man but now adjust the image and replace the sword with tools and release the mans soul from slavery to violence. He is a human again and much stronger he must be to bind the monsters he faces and much wiser he must be to actually solve the problem through labor and not violence. We are ever stronger when we use our minds as well as our bodies. How can death bring about life? To kill in warfare is to destroy another human being. That human being was someone’s son, brother, father and friend. I say we betray our fellow man to our own laziness when we choose warfare because violence is always the path of least resistance. Once you take someones life and see their life leave their eyes you realize you just stole from that person everything that they were or will ever be. War is bad man, killing is just making more death. The only thing that comes from violence is more death.
No, if human beings insist on murdering one another they have already chosen the path of least resistance by death instead of labor then they should look the other in the eyes when killing.
Nice sentiment, but here’s the answer reality gives us:
“Shoulda, woulda, coulda…didn’t”.
Oftentimes the war is upon you whether you want it or not. As someone far smarter than any of us said: Si vis pacem, para bellum
Nature abhors a vaccum and weakness only emboldens the enemy.
I would like your opinion on a theory of mine :
through history there always was a competition between body armor and projectiles.
Lately projectiles have the upper hand : but with the professionalization of the soldier, the fact that his training and knowledge become more and more expensive, maybe we can expect a return of the heavy armored infantry and hand to hand combat ( if armor percing projectiles become too expensive, melee weapons may also make a come back).
Class IV body armor suggests a path towards what you suggest. Perhaps not to the level where we all draw sabres on the battlefield, but it does do a lot to render a whole lot of small arms pointless.
Well, i would google carbine or graphene.
I think what would be more likely is more weapons would involve some sort of explosive element to bypass the armor. Bulletproof armor is great, but it isn’t going to keep you from being flung back 30 yards by an explosion nor will it protect you from the effects of the shockwave.
Or energy. Or sound. We’re quite ingenious at self destruction.
That would be interesting…producing a frequency emitting devise that resonates with the ceramic plates and causes them to crack. Is that even possible? I’m kind of talking out my ass here.
I would suggest to google carbyne or graphene.
Graphene has a net strength that you would need an elephant balancing on a pen to get through it.
And well, carbyne is twice as strong as even that.
Yes but explosives also show their limitation when you don’t intend to blow up entires cities just to kill a few footsoldiers.
You can’t use powerful explosives in close urban warfare.
You can also drop all the bombs you want on a city, soon or later you must send your infantry killing the remaining enemy infantry. And we’re back to close combat again.
I was thinking more along the lines of smaller scale explosives like grenades and even explosive rounds.
But again, this could very quickly become too expensive.
Not really, no. Bean bag guns are more or less along this line of thinking, just force that knocks you back, and they’re quite easily afforded. Not that he was talking about bean bag guns, but it’s along the same line of thinking I suspect.
If full bordy armor becomes common, it seems plausible to me that bone breaking devices will be produced, as well as some glorified can openers.
In urban warfare, I can very much picture an emphasis being put on hand to hand combat.
Also, in case of bullet proof shields, a squad of future soldiers advancing in an hostile street could look like a roman testudo.
Indeed. There’s always a counter to whatever is presented. Even if we created a Master Chief style armor from Halo, it’d only be a matter of time before someone found a chink in the armor.
“if we created a Master Chief style armor from Halo, it’d only be a matter of time before someone found a chink in the armor”
No doubt, all I’m saying is that with the rise of both close urban warfare and body armors an emphasis is likely be put on melee weapons designed to counter body armors.
We’re already there.
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2014/02/12/venezuela-protests3.jpg
Sure but then once the heavily armored soldier is knocked down, he’ll likely be finished with can openers or bayonet into arm pits, if he’s not a noble…
Sounds fine to me. And as I am an American, his being a noble doesn’t protect him from my dirk, heh.
But I get your point.
Modern day Testudo 😀
I think napalm would comeback before hand to hand .
The chink in the armor is the guy who designed it… .
Why do you think that ? Maybe used by terrorists/freedom fighters in asymmetric warfare to scare the ocupation force, as it is unnecessarely barbaric.
Game Theorists actually did a video on why Master Chief can be killed with a simple melee to the back of the head. Nerdy, but interesting.
The armor probably couldn’t stand the heat or at least the occupant could until better tech is developed . Napalm is less barbaric than hand to hand combat . I won’t go into any details but killing a man with bare hands or a knife is much more traumatic than watching someone burn from a distance. Hand to hand is probably the most brutal
I used to watch that channel , they had some good episodes
But does it stop bullets in Call of Duty??
They have expanded to films as well; Film Theorists. They got some really good ones up.
LOL- you got a link?
I cant stand FPS
Yessir, here you go:
Do you suggest flame throwers ? This is actually plausible. But you’d still have to enter the room after, with no guarantee that a survivor is not going to grab the barell of your rifle through a hole in a wall you didn’t check.
If we’re talking about planes dropping napalm, then we’re back to my precedent point : you can drop everything you want on an area, soon or later you must send the infantry to finish the job. Especially when it’s an urban area.
And then we’re back to close combat again.
I recall it’s during the battle of Fallujah that they were some bloody hand to hand combat inside buldings.
Thx. I am tempted to get a PS4 to play the final Metal Gear Solid game…
Flame thrower or incendiary rounds , most fighting isn’t just straight up fire fights anymore so some type of incendiary artillery round as well .
My point about going inside the room at the end of the artillery barrage still stands.
Unless it’s a bunker not much will be left standing
Men have been fighting among ruins before. Stalingrad comes to my mind.
I’ve also recently read about liquid armors
Holy shit
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/4300×2524+0+337/resize/630×370!/format/jpg/quality/85/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/midas/c5c484de8104ed1f724527aac183bdde/201161504/474998201.jpg
Arty was no where near on the level it is now . There are shells that can have a delay so that they don’t explode until inside the room
France is currently engaged in Mali right now : close combat is still unavoidable.
Also, it already happened before that a combat system reached the peack of elaborateness just before to stop being used : the plate armors of the 16th century were almost second skins.
Anyway, I think in this debate we’re both replaying the eternal competition between defensive and offensive gear so it could take a while to sort it out.
You mean those that solidfy on impact?
Yep.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/liquid-body-armor/
To that I can only say that carbyne, when used en masse like on the master chiefs armor, would have more impressive stats than the actual thing.
Pretty interesting. Curious, if you would just need to drink a lot of that (get it in your organs) to keep them from combusting through impact…
Also, I forgot to add the amount of graphene:
To get through just a sheet of graphene you would need an elephant balancing on a pen.
Now imagine carbyne. But I’d say the future is graphene because it can be reproduced easier.
Also, to give you some hope on close range (proper) combat…
It could be possible to make an incredibly sharp sword theoretically.
Well, taking the stats into account… It should.
It doesn’t look quite as glorious as I imagined…
Would that kind of armor prevent bone fractures from a hammer type a weapon ?
It was the intended goal during medieval warfare to dislocate limbs through striking when chainmail became so effective that it was almost impossible to pierce.
I think it would be pretty excellent against it. But I am thinking more about plate armor here. Looking at how strong graphene is…
You would have a hard time damaging your opponent at all. It’s net strength and yet incredible flexibility would easily spread the impact to an degree that it’s like I just only pushed you.
Another cool thing about graphene and carbyne is that it is not just hard but also flexible. That means when it gets impact it disperses the energy extremely well instead of bending.
Well, that armor would be extremely useful against the robot army coming our way…
So broken skull and broken ribs might be impossible to achieve… maybe concussion with blunt blows to the helmet ? I know for exemple that boxing helmets in amateur fighting enhance the risk of concussion, since it absorbs the shock and spread it. It protects the facial bone structure but it makes it worse for the brain.
Then as you said it would probably look like late plate armor fighting : they would try to knok each other down, maybe through some wrestling, leg sweep, then finishing on the ground with a dagger through the visor or arm pitt.
Yeah, that’s pretty likely. I’d too imagine dagger fighting to come back in such a scenario.
The only problem is how easy humans are to kill with modern unnatural stuff.
Even nowadays you could already make a microwave weapon specifically to make humans head go plop.
And think of all the other stuff too.
I hate it but the most efficient and preferable risk-wise kill is always long range.
Proper close range combat is just too dependent on the circumstances.
I found your theory more exciting than i probably should have.
See, I’d rather fight hand to hand, because I’d feel like such a dick melting the flesh from someone’s body.
Found the chink.
Have you done either ?
Not to the death
Only that that robot army will be made out of that stuff…
But I guess it should still help in general.
Star wars?
Star wars makes no sense : they use automatic weaponry, have no armors, but still march without taking cover, like during Napoleonic wars. If world war 1 taught us anything, it is that this tactic doesn’t work very well against machine guns.
Trench warfare doesn’t exist though but yes star wars technology but not screen play
Sounds expensive. How many of these guys have to get fried with microwaves or blasted with sound before they get called back in ?
Absolutely. You can see this being played out in Israel. See for example https://youtu.be/SgrUeou3MlE. The soldiers are trained to charge the enemy instead of taking cover and use their hands if the situation demands it.
Being able to protect ones ideas ,property , thoughts and etc is part of masculine. You can build a house that will last a thousand years but that doesn’t mean shut of someone comes and takes it
Interestingly enough I built my house with my own two hands and because of “eminent domain” what I suffered two inguinal hernias loads of sweat, blood and tears can be taken away from me by the very government that has the real power to protect my right to enjoy the fruit of my labors. No one in the US owns any piece of real estate as we may not hold Allodial Title. We have not had the right to “real” property for some time. You are correct to say that mankind’s current state is one of laziness as we continuously resort to violence. As far as ideas you are quite correct as we can see the idea of non-violence is easily pushed aside by the violent, however we also see that societies when inundated with violence rapidly collapse and death results to all. It is easy for Americans to advocate violence so long as they are able to export their violence to others while keeping their own nation free from the consequences of violence. It is easy to say you are all for violence so long as it does not effect you directly. So long as it is not your city being bombed, so long as it is not your lifeless child’s mangled body you are holding, so long as it is not you that sees the last bit of life leaving someones eyes. We have no possessions here but our actions. I say again warfare is irresponsible and lazy.
I say again warfare is irresponsible and lazy.
For the aggressor party. For the defender, it is a necessary evil. Or would you have us surrender at the first shot fired at us in order to not be “irresponsible and lazy”?
It is easy to say you are all for violence so long as it does not effect you directly.
Former military soldier here. It affected me directly. It still is something we have to deal with no matter how much we wish to close our eyes and wish it away.
You can eschew war, but war will not eschew you.
All great civilizations have been built on warfare . Across centuries , races , religions , and so on , that’s just how things work. It’s nice to talk about utopian ideas where everybody respects everyone else but in reality it doesn’t work that way, nor at any point in history , has it ever worked like that .
Pacifism works great on internet forums.
Real life, eh, not so much.
Even the Amish are careful to live *within* nations that have a military, instead of going out and founding their own island free and clear of violence.
Judging by the animosity of some leftists, pacifism doesn’t even work on internet forums.
There is that, heh.
I’ve met a couple of dyed in the wool pacifists in real life. Wouldn’t raise a finger to defend their own lives OR the lives of their own children or wives. It struck me that they were not pacifists out of some kind of strong philosophical conviction so much as they were at the base level craven cowards. I get not wanting war, but if you won’t stop an aggressor from raping your 4 year old daughter, there’s something fundamentally wrong with you in the head.
My instructor has a friend just like that. I could not fathom not lifting a finger to defend my family against an assailant. To do so would result in the failure of my roles as husband and father.
Actually it does work that way which you can see if you take a closer look at human history and I say this because, military expansion is rarely a response to an actual threat but rather to military expansion that benefits the violent at the expense of the non-violent. Sun Tzu wrote in the art of war that continual militaristic expansion will impoverish the people. He also wrote that it is better to win by not fighting as well as counseling leaders to not use warfare as a crutch but rather seek solutions through diplomacy and economic negotiations. Machiavelli continuously emphasized the importance of using intellect to resolve conflict as resorting to violence will impoverish the people, delete the princes resources and enrage those that are adversaries and produce suspicion in those that are allies. All military expansion is from greed and laziness and has never been recommended by the wise nor condoned by those that must underwrite such undertakings with out the insurance of eventual profitable compensation. Only an imbalanced mind would enjoy taking another human beings life and we ARE NOT CHIMPANZEES.
All well and fine in theory and polite discussions in parlors over a Scotch and cigars.
Reality says that war is here, whether you want it or not, and it will never, ever go away. We don’t have to like it, but we have to accept it as a part of life.
You owe your existence and culture to military expansion, friend . Sustain war is bad yes but territorial pissing contest are not needed . You can read in books all day about how things should be but there is a difference between pen and paper and reality . The only ones who don’t think that are the sheltered who think they can learn everything from a book
Their are nations with out militaries. What you mean is you would rather kill than pay tribute to another group of people. To be put to tribute is to lose your profits and bite down the sting of letting go of pride. Sun Tzu wrote that when one knows themselves and knows their enemy they will generally win or to say if the enemy is in the same condition that aspect will be equal. The western world no longer knows its self or its enemies so in our slow defeat we pay tribute to our enemies in the form military expenditure that has no ability to effect a peace. By irrationally resorting to violence we end up paying tribute in all aspects, first to our own maintenance and eventually to appease those we once fought. Laziness of the mind is the greater threat to a nation than laziness of the body. A nation that out thinks and out works its adversaries is a nation that will be able to bring about peace with out bloodshed.
Any nation without a military (Costa Rica) is by default protected by treaties which involve men in other nations coming to their defense.
There is no getting around war. It can be irrational no question, nobody is arguing that. But you’re tilting at windmills if you think that appealing to reason alone will make it go away. It’s a feature built into us, we live in a harsh universe and we are not herbivores. It just goes with the territory. Always try to reason out first, yes, clearly, no question. But sometimes that attacker doesn’t give a rat’s ass what you say, he attacks because your blacksmiths make some fine steel that he wants access to without jumping through your hoops.
Get over it mate.
Please explain why you say that military expansion has created our culture with examples of such matters has created or built any thing of value because nations conquest of lands and people is always to feed a greedy people that refuse to be satiated by their own labor and therefor covet what others have. All conquest has greed at its root and all greed has coveting at its heart. If I may put forth a hypothesis at this juncture which is that all greed and violent nature has an underlying causative agent in chronic nutritional imbalance.
If I may put forth a hypothesis at this juncture which is that all greed
and violent nature has an underlying causative agent in chronic
nutritional imbalance.
Yeah, that’s it. Sure. All the wars in history because people didn’t take their multivitamins.
Whenever I see hypothesis about complex situations that involve one factor, well….I have a hard time taking it seriously.
I have presented my thoughts with words that are both polite and articulate or I had thought as much. This being the case would you kindly show me an example of this animosity you claim to be present?
Roman conquest , British conquest , American conquest ….need I go on? Do you think they just showed up and said hey can I have your land ?
Why do you assume he was talking about you?
Hey! We paid fair and square with beads, I’ll have you know!
So it’s a coward you’r calling me? It takes much greater courage to love your enemies than to kill them. The eagerness to fight is born of fear and fear is born of understanding. I hope you will consider this example from our long history, human kind has been fleeing the conflicts created by the violent through out our time here. Once those so eager to destroy each other have killed those that create along with those that fight they still face their own bellies. Farms must be rebuilt, roads repaired but the lives lost that loss in human potential is beyond simple economic loss. We see nations battered by continual warfare such as Afghanistan, Iraq and much of Africa are beyond impoverished. The land itself is layer waste and most importantly the spirit of those people is crushed. Are you advocating such devastation be visited upon people that can not threaten you? If warfare has truly been unavoidable in the past when nations as mighty as ours threatened us with having to pay tribute we are not so threatened now. Just as all civilized gentlemen take their fisticuffs outside so too should those that so long to kill their fellow man take their warfare to a place where those that have no stake in the outcome except to pay tribute to a new master will not die in the process. Truly I wonder why so many are so eager to kill their fellow human beings. As to the subject of my daughters i have found such threats of their destruction to be more a matter of prudence, and of far greater relevancy their desire for male companionship and lack of good judgement guiding them to the beds of males that seek only to use them for a brief time and forget them to pick up the pieces. TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THIS YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH MURDEROUS RGAE I HAVE TO HOLD BACK ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS. You have no idea what violence brings. I am a greater man than you that criticize me for I continually endure the pain of being a father of daughters in this world you all have created. I have helped build this nation and society with my PAIN, BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS. I seek peace because I love my sons and daughters. You that always proffer violence so you don’t have to hurt are the weak and fearful. It takes greater men than you peasants to make peace through labor.
Where did I say you? I was talking to Unabashed and you weren’t even on my mind.
Or are you telling me that you would leave your 4 year old child in the hands of a rapist who would then kill her (or him)? Because if you say yes at that point I WILL call you a base coward.
How about protecting my daughters from males that just want to pump and dump them? Fornicate much? That lay was someones daughter. Speaking of daughters, do you have any or are you speaking about something you use up and throw away? Like another mans daughter.
I was asking you a question. If you are the kind of pacifist that would leave your child in the hands of a rapist who is raping her, and then kills her, because you refuse to defend her with violence, then you are a base coward.
If you rise to protect her, with violence, then you’re not.
It’s really just that simple.
You came in and assumed I was talking about you, when I clearly laid out the criteria for “coward”. Here is your chance to either say “Ooops, I can see you were speaking generally and not about me” or you can profess that you do in fact intend to let this kind of thing happen under your own sight.
So which is it? Don’t be so ego invested, I strongly suspect you’re taking offense where none was offered but don’t realize it.
You may know who truly controls this world by one simple question, who by simply ceasing from their labor will cause all civilizations to cease from the lack of that labor.
Life isn’t binary I’m afraid.
Despite the fact that I was a warrior, I also have a lot of producer life skills that don’t involve destruction.
Turns out humans can do many things as individuals. Who knew?
He does have a daughter and a wife. Lol.
No, Monco, all great civilizations are built on engineering, bar none.
Modern offensive warfare is only used to secure resources needed for the engineers. Many countries have enormous natural resources and have been able to build civilizations without need for offensive warfare. Brazil, U.S., China, etc.
How did the US get the land it’s on ? None of the civilizations magically received the land . They got it through expansion …..which was most often through war ….
That I am offended has more to do with having daughters that I love dearly and seeing them used by males who neither build this society nor would seek out a solution to its defense. What I am offended by is the lack of respect I get from those that could otherwise learn from what I have learned. I am offended because not only in life have I had to patiently bear the hatred of women but also the insolence of the young. What I am offend by is how many others expect me to endanger my sons lives for needless causes. What offends me is that people march headlong into warfare and ignore the words of those that have found out that their is no glory in bloodshed, just more dead bodies. What offends me is the constant eagerness to do violence with out ever considering an alternative. I am a disabled veteran. I have lived in constant pain for decades and i got off easy. There is no glory in being maimed blinded or blasted into a state of horrendous brain damage. Stop beating those damn war drums and consider fixing our own nation.
I have four daughters. Thats four times the pain when they suffer. Thats four times the broken hopes and dreams when they get used. Thats four times having to keep from beating some useless ass hat to a pulp when they treat MY daughter as they would a whore. Thats four times the frustration of having my daughters have the good wisdom I try to give them go in one ear and out the other and four times the death of my inner man being bound by this corrupt and degenerate society. Who are you? You have daughters? If not you do not understand what it is like. You fornicate much? You can’t know what kind of man you are UNTILL YOU HAVE DAUGHTERS in this day and age. Trust me, you and others do not want to know what lengths I would go to protect my family. Trust me, I don’t like that part of myself and I hope I never have to let him out of his cage, but man o man he wants out bad.
How much is the 18 yr scotch in your neck of the woods? Its gone from $140-ish in my neck of the woods to $220- plus in the past 3 or 4 years…
I had a glass of 13 year old Scotch a while back that cost me around $13…apparently it increases by $1 for every year it’s aged multiplied by how many servings are in a bottle.
/tongue in cheek
A U.S. general by a name I can not remember said that it is easier to raise men that are whole than to fix broken ones. Feminism has been exceptional detractive to my generation. People have no idea how much strength it takes to not kill, to not fight and to weather hatred and spiteful abuse. It has been so hard to keep my composure. Now i just feel dead inside. I guess thats why I am working on truly going my own way. You just can’t win with women or this society. Eventually one must ask what the hell are they fighting for. Maybe the years of fighting to keep what little values our nation has left has finally gotten the best of me because all I am anymore is tired. That and no one is listening. Maybe I need a break from all this damn shit, bad.
Friend it is not about taking something seriously of hand but taking it seriously enough to find out scientifically. Would it not benefit all mankind if something so complex did have such a simple solution? If all this bloodshed and repeating warfare could be solved by something so simple as balanced nutrition would it not be for our best interest as a species to find out? You would do better to ask me what I have discovered in some 30 years of studying science that would lead me to form said hypothesis. Who was it that said you can not pour new wine into an old wine skin?
Well then I think you’d have a good discussion with ghost as he has spent a lot of time teaching his daughter about how men act and what to do about it.
Me, personally, yeah I’ve never had a one night stand or anything like that. I treat women well. Mostly short term relationships and girlfriends. I do fornicate a lot but I like to leave em better than I found em. Most go on to find a serious long term partner after we’re done. So I’m not too worried.
It’s *way* too fucking much, I’ll tell you that much for certain.
And yet you still haven’t answered the question.. so let’s try again, perhaps it will work with me, hehehe: if someone is raping one of your daughters that you claim to love so much and the only way to stop it was by using violent brute force against the offender (and if it was in your power to do so) would you do it YES OR NO? Please, the whole thing made me curious.. just answer with a yes or no..
As a father all I feel is overwhelmed. I can try to raise them right but our society is becoming rotten to its core. I have told my daughters that it is their own nature they will have to contend with. They want males, they want semen. It is up to males to act like men and keep their women in line but with the way society keeps going I feel it is many a males misfortune to have to witness our civilization going its last few steps.
And still no answer.
You stormed in and declared you took offense.
I set out the parameters of what would and wouldn’t cause offense, and asked which camp you fell in. You either are not the subject of my initial post (hint: you weren’t, as fas as I know) or you are.
So basically, just answer my question. How can you take offense if that scenario, already described, doesn’t apply to you? If it does apply to you, then so be it.
So which is it? It’s a short one sentence answer that requires literally no ivory tower expounding on theory.
Well if you’re telling me that there’s nothing much left to fight for in these united States, on that we’re basically in agreement.
Not really what we were talking about, but sure, I’ll agree with you on that point.
A lot of guys on this site dont have kids, but a lot of guys do.
I cant imagine how hard it is to raise girls today, but you know what? Its harder to raise boys.
Why? Society doesnt grant many second or third chances to our boys these days. Pretty much everything you can think of, from the media to law enforcement to education, caters to girls .
I hope you do a good job making your 4 girls into proper women, but I’d be more impressed if you did it for 4 boys.
At this point, I’m impressed if parents can raise a child of either gender into a proper adult. I’m working on 3 of my own.
Amen to that. Well said.
Good luck brother. My friend banned his daughter from ALL social media- so far, so good…
My oldest one turns 4 this weekend so that’s not even an issue at this point. That being said, it’ll be a LOONNNG time before any of them own a cell phone or have their own personal computer.
I was never very good with women and usually THEY took advantage of ME. I read this forum for mostly theoretical reasons so I understand what is actually happening.
We instituted a 9th grade rule. No cell phone/iZombie/anything social media until 9th grade. Kids amazingly grew up paying attention to the world more than their screens. There are days when my daughter will hold full conversations with people without casting her eyes downward. I shit you not.
My wife and I are of the mindset that they don’t need a phone until they can drive so they can call us in case of an emergency.
Well that’s why we have this forum of discussion. Men give tips here on how to deal with the changing culture. Yes not all of it will agree with your opinion, but there’s something here for all of us.
Once I explained what snapchat was used for, he flipped out.
Total ban. Only 3 yrs (or a bit less) until she is 18…
All they need is a flip fone with voice and text- thats it.
I’m not familiar with SnapChat but I would assume it is used for sending nudie videos/pics.
Yup. It deletes the video within X amount of seconds(thats why it was so popular), but kids just use the video on their friends’ phones(yay technology) to record the video before it gets self-deleted, then it gets forwarded around the web…lives destroyed at 15 or 16…
That’s how my parents were as well.
Take some time and go fishing, hunting, and hiking. You need some time to chill man. This is the world we live in. We’re all doing our best here to influence it to something sane again. Same battle, but everyone needs to take some vacation from the war and clear his head.
I love to hike. Live long and prosper brother.
I did answer in my other posts here, but to reinforce what I said the answer is yes and I have had to press charges against another for sexual assault on a daughter of mine. Trust me when I say I am very familiar with violence why do you think I have come to the point of hating it so much?
I have two sons and four daughters, I feed them red pills daily and tell every beleaguered male I meet about RoK. So far not many have looked at it or at least from what I know. The culture war is waged in our homes but often I feel as though we as a people must go down this path and eventually those the least prepared for that paths end will be the ones to bear the full furry of our current predicament. It breaks my heart to see the dissolution of the family.
Holy mackeral- six kids!
I wish you well, I cant imagine its easy.
Check their cel phones for shady apps- apparently they hide them in a fake calculator app.
Interesting, they know what they do is bad for them yet they choose to do it and by doing so show they have no love in their hearts for their parents. Mine are adults so I no longer have to struggle with them. I do not have anything left in me to give anyway. Our path will end in destruction, I will not be around to watch it happen either. After all the lies and always having to fight against their will the love just dies and I am left an empty shell. If people insist on this path of destruction and hedonism I can not change anyones mind. Truth is my soul checked out years ago and I have just been going through the motions. Sometimes you just have to let go. I am working for my own interests now.
ok, then.
Not realistic in the age of information
Why hide the outside world from them? At 10 I was dumb due to the fact I had to share/didn’t have full access to the PC. Within 3 years I had the mind of a 30 in today’s terms(I’m 18 now)
Now I felt like Dinosaur in a pig pen
Only if she has low self-esteem
Warfare is the same as rampant consumerism in it’s self destructive capabilities, except you notice the self destruction far less. You are generally right, as in we as men, should allow ourselves a more holistic lifestyle, but warfare, rather our martial nature, is equally beautiful and need not be removed from our existence.
The hands of the warrior allow the hands of the blacksmith to keep working in peace.
Only a society of fools would pain or destroy the blacksmiths. Show me a society of all warriors and no blacksmiths and you will see that society lives like the chimps you so exuberantly extol. Show me a society of all blacksmiths and no warriors and you will see a society that all mankind will want to please and do business with. The way we wage war is weak and inefficient. It destroys needlessly more noncombatants than it does the warrior. Weapons are tools, and the best tool for the job of war is the tool that makes fighting unnecessary. Those that rush to violence prove the proverb “Better is a man that can hold his temper than a man that can take a city.” When we males hold the attitude that acting like a chimp is a good idea we just become useful as cannon fodder for the Military Industrial Complex and you will never see a dime of all that profit you so eagerly fought for. WAIT, you would not happen to be a recruiter for that group would you?
Show me a society of all blacksmiths and no warriors and you will see a society that all mankind will want to please and do business with.
No such society exists or has ever existed for any length of time. Turns out, other people won’t let you live your pacifist dream no matter how much you stomp your feet.
To want to avoid war is fine and good. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Prepare accordingly.
Your views are a bit naive. Show me a society of all blacksmiths and I will invade them with my soldiers, ransom them if i’m nice, enslave them and rape their women if i’m bad.
Thus you admit it is in your nature to bring harm to others?
So is yours.
Of course. It’s called human nature.
But we control such tendencies lest all we have labored for is lost in an orgy of senseless violence. Yes GoJ I have lived my entire life by the sword. You would be hard pressed to find a mind more knowledgeable about warfare than my own. You and others would do well to ask me more questions and argue with me less, you might even learn something. Maybe it isn’t time for me yet though. I have to get to work anyway. Been interesting to say the least.
Or, perhaps you could realize that others here also have/had your experiences and perhaps *you* could listen more? Just a thought. Pacifism works only when all parties are rational. This makes it unrealistic out the gate. Just the way things roll, brother.
Without warfare we have become complacent and not having it limit’s technology invocation that comes from warfare.
It also thins the herd when the population becomes to large.
Do you have children?
Anyone who claims that the “pen is mightier than the sword”, or that “the hammer is better than the sword” … surely has never fired an automatic rifle! – to paraphrase General Patton!
The ideal man, the true man, combines the Creator and the Destroyer in perfect harmony in his being: I shall build this massive bridge … plan, design and build this gigantic structure, but equally possess the power to destroy and pulverize it in 5seconds flat.
You are right – however it is the threat of war that keeps people grounded in mortal reality, no matter how horrible it is
For me personally I seek transcendence through correct action and true understanding.
Same as there is life there must be death. One begets the other. War in times past cleansed society and gave the people perspective of what was important in life. For example, you never really value life until you are about to lose it. War functioned in society same as a wildfire on a forest. Out of destruction comes a more vibrant, newer life.
Thats great!
So let me get this clear: we get the same matriarchy you get with bonobo society but not the sex on tap that keeps the males in line. Hhmm!
Interestingly in the 70s some researchers came up with idea of Machiavellian intelligence based on observing the machinations of chimps who displayed the capacity to achieve and manipulate in communicating with other chimps, including to obtain resources or make protection if I recall correctly. I find myself wondering whether this is found in bonobo society in the same way? Arguably though bonobo males aren’t being cheated whereas in modern matriarchical societies we are
Feminism and the matriarchy which comes with it are nothing more than tools of control over the common T riddled, blue balled and overworked average beta/worker. With the hellish amount of debt in the modern world and the elites’ scepticism to release any of that wealth back into the economy, you can bet the governments are making sure that any possibility of REVOLT is being quenched.
How many revolutions were started by women? Not many,if any.
The mind control over males is quite Pavlovian in nature; not getting enough pussy and the threat of govt. cuckoldry is becoming the norm and any time the males question the power structure the women will call them out on something like mummy issues or not being alpha enough to get sex. This process of callingout/shaming is repeated on many levels and platforms such as school, media, workplace, family, comments sections on websites, entertainment venaues,etc.
some good points there. It is a system of control, and yes, it’s pavlovian. The difference though is that while we may often behave like dogs, and salivate like dogs – hence the epithet ‘thirsty’ when applied to the modern ‘beta’ male – we have the capacity to overcome any such associations of whatever they decided is ‘good behaviour’ with sex or rather most of the time whichever reward is substituted for sex. It doesn’t have to be a fully conscious, or fully cynical affair for it to indeed work like that. Women have learned how to control men to a degree over the millenia, now you have those who would rule us combining with those, who using their charms and their wiles, and their fluttering eyelashes, actually know how to rule us. Fortunately for us with each day that passes they’re overstepping the mark. It’s only a matter of time before all deals are off
Good one Mr Mobius! The more feminist we get, the more animalic the society and the females become. Their true face comes out and all that work to keep society in check (to some degree) is slowly eroding away. The top bitches don’t care, we as humans can survive in worse conditions, all that matters to them is the power of the man they’re coupled with.
And the feminist think tanks already know this shit and they know that of the woman isn’t a woman in the man’s eyes, he will stop treating her as one and just fuck them and leave the women bitter and unable to create relations with other men, IN OTHER WORDS, ANOTHER FEMINAZI IS BORN.
Ciao.
Thanks. They really are overreaching and it’s because many of of them (not necessarily the hard core) are massively conflicted between their ideology and their biology. They and their fellow travelers will become increasingly aggressive the more they sense that they are losing control
The more wars men engage in the more alpha genes get wiped out. Europe after the two so called “great” wars is now mostly populated with guilt-ridden emasculated men. As evidence look at the type of technological inventions that have been produced after the WW2 – sneaky weapons like A-bomb, long distance missiles, drones, chemical weapons. Those are not man’s weapons, those are coward’s weapons. In the field of civil technologies the emasculation is even more evident. The biggest push is in the fields of communication and home appliances. All stuff for women and beta men.
Let’s not forget that war mostly kills the good men.
Doesn’t make much sense though when you consider the united States. We really didn’t lose that many men in either war (not trying to minimize it) and yet we too have “hipsters”.
I suspect what we’re seeing is a result of a constant propaganda push by the socialists since at least the late 1960’s, combined (most likely) with a heavy exposure rate to estrogen in the water supply.
Or maybe not even that, I really don’t know. My son, 19, is very old school masculine, so maybe it’s just philosophy/propaganda that is doing it to the boys without fathers present in their lives?
The USA is a prime example of what I call sneaky (female) warfare tactics. Due to this mentality and thanks to its privileged geographical position the USA only engages in wars on foreign soils and it uses mostly sneaky weapons. Like the dropping of the A-bomb. The most cowardly act ever.
Due to these circumstances I don’t think the USA has produced the same type of warriors like Europe did in the 20th century.
Ugh, dude. You realize that US was “sneak attacked” by the country we dropped the bomb on? And you also realize we’d declared war on that country and repeatedly offered them a surrender before we dropped the bomb, right?
Now, our current tactics of having an undeclared war with drones bombing mud huts? That’s a bit less morally clear to me. But the war with Japan was not a fucking sneak attack by the US, nor was the bomb.
Oh give it a rest. Every society in history, bar none, uses the best weapons it can to do the most damage it can, however it can. People bitched about the Crossbow in Europe for a while too.
Patton would kick any European ass and not even flinch.
Ok, now that we’re done bashing the USA, can we get back on topic please?
Pearl harbour was a false flag.
Washington knew about the forthcoming attack and yet it chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl Harbour.
This is exactly the point I am making. Modern wars do not produce proper men any more due to the advanced sneaky weapons.
All weapons are ‘advanced sneaky weapons’ when they first make an appearance on the battlefield. Archers were originally seen as “sneaky, cowardly men” when they showed up, as was, I suspect, the first dude to show up on the battlefield with a bronze spear instead of a stick.
Really, that’s all irrelevant. Please revert back to GOJ’s point about army’s using the best weapons at their disposal. To do otherwise would result in defeat.
If you want to raise an army and equip them with sticks and stones, by all means, do so. My army of heavily armed infantry men backed up by tanks, aircraft, and battleships will make short work of you.
Battleships? Those big hulking behemoths that got beat by planes, submarines, and guided missiles?
You’re kind of missing the point…
Versus an army equipped with sticks and stones. It an extreme example to illustrate a point.
Oranges and apples.
Case in point, drone warfare. Although I do see the merits of it, namely that drones can hover over a target for prolonged periods of time. But at least with the crossbow or a musket you still had to show up in the battlefield. Heck, even Patton, Montgomery, and Rommel still had to show up to the battlefield.
Actually it was a valid comparison. The bows were talked of just like you talk here, crossbows the same way. Then rifles, same spiel (the Samurai were particularly fond of belittling men who used guns).
Indeed, it matters how these weapons are operated.
Ok, I get the point. But I can still make the argument for said for IEDS. Crude little contraptions that can disable tanks.
It is not a valid argument as modern weapons could be operated by virtually anyone – incl. women, children and old men.
Granted, but those aren’t allowed in my fantasy hypotheticals. 😉
That still misses the point, he’s talking about engaging in some kind of “dem weapons y’all are using are cowardly, real men only grapple (or whatever)” mindset. One is free to ignore weaponry in regards to “be a man! Grapple!” but the world will not afford that person much success in achieving his martial goals.
Yeah, women certainly can’t use a bow or crossbow.
Nope. Just can’t do it.
Well put. Just like feminists are allowed to get a gender studies degree and ignore the fact that the world will not afford that person much success in achieving her financial goals.
Ok, I rest my point.
So you concede the issue then? Fantastic.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Bf0CoMAdCbE/SHfRqACWItI/AAAAAAAAAAM/Z1FQtV2KReE/s320/women.jpg
She needs to be careful or she’ll poke an eye out with those…I MEAN…that!
That girls has a lot of things going on for her that I feel her and I should sit down and discuss over a couple of drinks.
Only if you get to her first.
I’ll be sure to wear my chain mail when approaching her domicile. Chicks dig chain mail.
Be careful or you might take an arrow to the knee.
You realize the bow is not the weapon here, do you not? LOL
No thread involving archery is complete without the obligatory Skyrim reference. Well played sir.
What the hell are you rambling on about? If she turns and points that at you, it is indeed a weapon. Next you’ll be telling me my knife I carry around isn’t a weapon simply because it’s folded up.
The deer beg to differ.
All ranged weapons can be operated by females, children and old men. If your standard is *broadswords only!* then I’m afraid that you’re being very, very unrealistic and calling people cowards out of nothing but your own pride.
Just glad I got to it first.
She could instantly turn into an amazon if one of her breasts got caught in the string.
But why destroy such a thing of beauty?
I’m of the opinion anything that can be used to injure/kill a person is a weapon as soon as someone uses it to do so.
A car is a convenient tool until someone decides to start running people over with it; then it’s a weapon.
A hammer is great until it’s used to bash someone’s skull in.
In theory yes, but archers still need to get involved in direct body to body fight which is why it was men who fought, not women. it is not the case with modern warfare. Get it?
But I am sure you’ll continue to argue and keep trying to make America great again. Good luck with that.
but archers still need to get involved in direct body to body fight
Not really, no. They generally sat on the back lines and fired their volleys, taking out as many footmen as possible, before the foot soldiers and cavalry were sent in. Living the life of a trained archer was a much better gig than that of a swordsman or cavalry officer.
it is not the case with modern warfare.
Yeah, we just nuke people from orbit now, never send in foot soldiers or fighter aircraft or ships, ever. Just nuke and go.
Point invalidated. I can see that you’re starting to get mad, so there’s probably no point in continuing the discussion as it will only lead to further anger. And I’m not particularly fond of anger and violence, you see.
Heh.
In any event, our best asset isn’t technology, it’s our manpower. All in all, you can equip our boys with WWII tech, and they could still kick ass. While tech should always be embraced and adapted, it should not supersede good training.
Agreed. The best scenario would be to have good training AND good technology.
I’m not angry, you’re just getting overly defensive as you know I am right.
No, you aren’t mate, hate to tell ya’.
You’d only be right if we went around nuking instead of doing traditional warfare. We don’t. There have been two nuke bombs dropped in history, over 70 years ago, where the opponent was given ample opportunity to surrender prior. People are still fighting on the battleground despite that.
Exactly. Drones are the most beta (and dishonorable) weapon known to man. You basically have Homer Simpson sitting on his ass in an air conditioned office in the States controlling a model airplane thousands of miles away, facing no danger greater than a bedsore from sitting too long.
https://youtu.be/FNhYJgDdCu4
But even archers and spear throwers had to show up on the battlefield. They weren’t sitting at some control panel back home drinking red bull and listening to Pandora, unlike a drone operator.
He’s talking about nukes, not drones.
End of the day, even talking about drones is irrelevant. They exist. Instead of bitching about them and moaning at the “loss of masculinity”, actual men are out trying to figure out ways to bring them down. It’s just the way things work, there’s not a lot can be done about it. We survive and prosper because of our intelligence, not our brute force.
You don’t go around nuking as you’re no longer the only one with nukes and you fear retaliation.
And you have a very bad track record in conventional wars where “people are still fighting on the battleground”.
Makes one wonder why …
Yeah, the U.S. track record in wars is awful. Sure. Ok.
Outside of only losing one I mean.
Whatever man. You’re just here to sneer at the U.S., which is fine as far as it goes, but it gets old fast. Jingoism is boring, but so is America-Hate!(tm).
Have a better one, chief. Slainte.
You brought up the case of USA yourself trying to refute my general point. I was not singling out the USA until you turned up.
American love dropping nukes on innocent people and the French always surrender. It’s well known on the internet.
The people in the U.S. who trash the French get on my last nerve, and it almost always comes from the Right, where I’m naturally more aligned, so it bothers me even more. It speaks of a huge ignorance of history, and it’s mixed with enough hubris to make it intolerable.
Ignorance is the most well shared knowledge in most nations. The worst thing is you can even hear some French speaking like that. Makes me ashamed. Self-bashing is strong here.
But as you perhaps know, our army is the only one still engaged in direct combat in Mali for now, so maybe with enough warfare accross the globe, our reputation will slowly be rebuilt.
That movie was so brutal when it came out.
People don’t realize people might have had nukes over 3000-4000 years ago, the Bhagavad gita 500bc text talks about the past story of an n explosion like a thousand suns and clouds. Shit my friend said they rebuilt the same prehistoric propelling spear device; it can go right through a mammoth in one shot. I think it could be very much a myth, the Sumerians, egyptian and pre flood people were more advanced and stronger(5 times the bone density of contemporary man). The smithsonian and other organizations are likely collecting and hiding ancient technology and fossils from the public.
Both world wars were too bloody, that’s true. In the 19th century and prior, wars were less bloody with fewer battles. The World Wars were total wars with huge male casualties. In order to sustain patriarchical order, there must be enough men, which wasn’t the case after both wars.
Interesting point.
But I think it mostly applies for modern warfare. Contrary to populary beliefs, ancient and medieval warfares were much less bloody than it is today.
Also by your standards Russia should be effeminate from world war 2 and Sweden and Switzerland should be modern symboles of masculinity.
Russian people have never enjoyed high standards of living which is what keeps their women in check so that men can exercise their masculinity during peace. Respectively, Sweden and Switzerland have had very high living standards which eliminates the need for strong men.
I am not against wars per se. Like you said, the problem is modern welfare which employs sneaky weapons and kills en mass.
Have you read Evola ?
He developped a theory that with the professionalization of the soldiering field a new kind of emotionally detached warrior elite could rise, much closer from the medieval knight and mercenaries than from the drafted paysans, and thus, future fighting could become with time closer from traditional warfare.
Doubt it. Future fighting is much more likely to look like the war in the middle easy, only multiplied. Americans using weapons that cost millions of dollars to destroy 100 bucks worth of AK-47’s. Guys flying fighters in Iraq from a computer in DC. I doubt we’ll see the “big bad brutes” we had back in the WWII timeline again without a full reset (loss of technology).
Read this, it might change your mind
US to Blow $1 Trillion on New Nukes, Risks Be Damned
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/learning-love-and-use-bomb/ri12441?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
If you doubt the source, it is well referenced and I check them all myself. It was confirmed straight from the horse’s mouth.
Modern weapons could be operated by women and even children. I fail see how this will create alpha men. Evola has some good insights but he lived in a different era.
Medieval weapons can also be operated by women and children. Knifes, dager, short swords, crossbows…
Also I’m pretty sure than a modern squad of soldiers equipped with ww2 weapons would wipe the floor with ww2 soldiers.
You can bash modern technology, but the cohesion of a modern infantry squad and the advanced drill they go through is at an unprecedented level since roman infantry.
Is then the Roman Empire an exception to this rule? Carthage, Germania? The fights between the Greeks and the Trojans. The Persians sweeping across the middle east. There has been a lot of blood spilt.
Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o
A beta alert that does tie up with the bonobo paradigm. General Petraeus will not be demoted of rank, according to this UPI article. Interesting how even if he belongs to the Pentagon good ole boys club, this idiot showed male bonobo traits by giving classified data to his hot lover. As Fred Durst will say, he did it all for the nookie.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/01/31/Pentagon-Gen-Petraeus-will-not-be-demoted-for-sharing-classified-information/8721454265738/?spt=hs&or=tn_us
Honey traps are as old as warfare. Remember Kings David and Ahab? Only reason they were punished is because the Big Guy stepped in
And then there’s Herod’s daughter, which demanded John the Baptist’s head on a silver platter.
Bonobo butt monkeys are mobilizing the vote.
…
Sociobiology is a hoot. Actually, I’m neither a chimp nor that other nasty thing. I’m an alpha male baboon! I chase away leopards and mate with all the bitch baboons with the swollen butts. What a life. Sucks having to deal with fleas though. At least I have the rest of the troop to scratch me.
Yes, I agree with this assessment. The only question is what *will* men do about it? We already know what they *can* do about it, but do we, as men, have the *willpower* to do it?
@Corey Savage
I like that you are trying to ignite a new way of thinking about and observing the human species, among people not familiar with the topic, but having a professional background in this field, I have to say that you are off quite a bit in your overall comparison. Chimpanzees are on the menu of leopards, lions and pythons, so they need to be much more vigilant and patriarchal, to survive, than bonobos, who’s only real predator is crocodiles.
I will keep this brief, so you can expand later on your idea and refine it, to align more with the science reality. The differences between chimps and bonobos is largely due to resource availability (this same situation goes for a few other lesser ape species as well). Bonobos have a MUCH easier time gathering food and resources than Chimps, due to geography. Therefore Bonobos evolved to live in a resource abundant environment, which chimps have not. While the patriarchy versus matriarchy argument, is important, when comparing chimps to bonobos, it falls far behind the primary reason why they are different, which is resource abundance or a lack thereof.
Also, on a side note, Bonobos are superior tool makers, when compared to chimps and have a far greater capacity for human language and communications style. They solve problems very differently from chimps. In even more simple terms, think of how Neanderthal tools compared to the tools made by modern humans (these species existed at the same time and in the same geographic locations). Although its not known exactly why Neanderthals were pushed into extinction, it is know that modern humans, with superior tool making ability, did push Neanderthals out of their traditional geographic hunting grounds, while absorbing their women into the modern human populations. Again, while you have the right idea, the root causes of environmental success is not primarily about matriarchy versus patriarchy.
BTW, bonobos could be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees and our earliest ancestor might not have struggled for dominance amongst those in their family groups, but instead through the ability to cooperate, while overcoming obstacles:
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342
Honestly, I think a comparison with wild canine pack behavior would have been a much better example to support your premise. Believe it or not wild canines evolved in a way similar to humans and in prehistoric times, hunted prey using similar strategies. It has even been argued that Modern Humans have more in common with wild canines, in regard to spatial cognition, than they do with the great apes. Due to both humans and canines having the ability to survive in ANY environment, on all the continents (the great apes DO NOT have this ability).
He mentions resource availability and abundance quite prominently actually.
Not in a way that strengthens his argument, his approach actually weakens it, hence my recommendation to use wild canines for such a comparison.
Believe it or not wild canines evolved in a way similar to humans and in prehistoric times, hunted prey using similar strategies. It has even been argued that Modern Humans have more in common with wild canines, in regard to spatial cognition, than they do with the great apes. Due to both humans and canines having the ability to survive in ANY environment on all the continents (the great apes DO NOT have this ability).
Ok. Taking all you have mentioned on board, are we agreed that western “culture” is emasculating men? If so then we are looking at a matriarchy. As long as there is an abundance of resources this shitlib society can function with some form of civility.
However now we have major migrations of populations much less tolerant of “western” values and competition for resources gathering pace, will the emasculated males of the west rise to the challenge of defending their way of life? Where they are underappreciated, looked on as money making machines, slaves to the markets, idiot fathers, taken to the cleaners due to divorce, etc.
Nature hates a vacuum. If western males are not up to the task of retaining and producing resources other males of an offensive nature will come and dominate what’s left.
My first sentence, says that Corey Savage is on the RIGHT track. However, I think his chimp versus bonobo comparison, weakens his overall argument. If he had instead chosen, the evolutionary related, wild canine, his argument would have have been much stronger.
Also, bonobos could be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees and our earliest ancestor might not have struggled for dominance amongst those in their family groups, but instead through the ability to cooperate, while overcoming obstacles:
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342
As for your argument, I personally believe that future applications of technology will render the “emasculation” of any culture moot because ALL PEOPLE will become slaves to “lean processes”. All the “masculine patriarchy” or “feminine matriarchy” in the world, won’t save us from that living death. My Neanderthal example is a perfect example of tool manipulation trumping masculinity. Humans made better hunting tools that reduced personal injury risks; while neanderthals relied on muscle, got up close to hunt and use primitive tools.
Who won that evolutionary battle?
As I said, on other ROK posts, but won’t go into detail here, is, IF, the world continues to push, like it has been, towards technologically driven “lean processes”, it WILL be better to be a bonobo than to be a chimp.
I don’t like it one bit, but those are the facts.
Those may be facts as you see them now but the only true fact is the future is unwritten.
Science wants us to be chimps but despite the genetic similarities humans are quite different than apes. The Ape Man’s (Darwin) theory was designed to promote and justify an amoral vision of man as simply an evolved animal without a soul connection to God.
Many scientific claims state that the DNA of humans and chimps is nearly identical (98%-99%) but several recent publications show that these estimates are based on highly filtered and cherry-picked data.
Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, human-chimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. Indeed, a detailed comparison of the chimp and human Y-chromosomes by a secular research group in 2010 showed 70% or less DNA sequence similarity.
Unfortunately, human genomes are not evolving but decaying. The accumulation of harmful mutations indicate a creation-based start point that was more pristine.
I think there is value in understanding the social dynamics of Chimps vs. Banobos, but, its insightful at best and still very limited and not representative of the true situation humans, namely men, are currently in. feminism and homosexualism are NOT the next steps in the evolution of humanity even as we continue to gather greater resources etc. Yes, they are here in part due to resource abundance in that they’re both so incredibly fragile it necessitates easy conditions, but, being fragile isn’t a strong indication of long term sustainability. And its not just the resource side of things, the ideology itself, is infested with hypocrisy, double standards, incoherence…basically its jealous women and homosexuals using political correctness i.e. crying about how weak they are to gain power. That doesn’t sound like a viable and lasting model of the future to me. We could just as well have a social situation similar to the 1950s had it not been for the radical take over of democrat party by the frankfurt school. Yes, birth control and all…who the fuck really wants to go work? It requires a lot of propaganda and exploiting conformity to have women running off to work…take away the social status of it and they run even quicker back to the house. Why, because work sucks. When we look at feminism and homosexualism we don’t see consistencies with biology or nature or even reality. In fact, feminists and homosexualists flat out deny nature and reality, substituting it, or rather insisting, that we all replace it with feelings. Such houses will not stand. As far as abundance and tool making goes, humans have enjoyed a significantly richer lifestyle then primates for eons and, as we all know, the incidence of matriarchy is infinitesimal, occurring in the most backwards and stagnant societies in history and on earth. It seems much more likely that matriarchy is both a perversion and an outlier event ergo a mutation of human development. I think it was Paglia that said “if ruled by women we’d all be in grass huts”, she’s right because, the one or two societies that are that way still live in grass huts today! So, abundance isn’t the only explanation. What all red blooded men need to understand today is that due to our abundance we can have it REALLY REALLY good! But, we can’t until we stop this arbitrary redistribution of wealth to people who hate us and this fucked up social engineering.
A Matriarchy will thrive and prosper up to the moment that the first car needs an oil change. Paraphrase of P.J. O’Rourke, heh.
Matriarchies will collapse the moment women get screwed over by mechanics.
Sheldon Cooper on bonobos:
Agreed. Most primates don’t show that level of discretion. A female bonobo will copulate with a new male in front of the old one without so much as a how do you do!
Almost like the modern human female
Some even share a baboon’s characteristics of engorging their hindquarters at the sight of a male. In fact, baboons can be attributed to having created thwerking.
You’re speaking of the Kardashians, aren’t you?
Touche
Now, the study should be expanded. Let’s study what happens when chimpanzees are introduced into the bonobo “matriarchal utopia”. (I know, someone is going to feel threatened and have feelz…)
Interesting how the male and female bonobo are practically the same size whereas the male chimp is noticeably larger.
Sexual dimorphism. Male baboons are much larger than females. Female birds of prey are larger than males. Female arachnids are much larger than males save for wolf spiders and a few others. Homo sapiens has a slight male/female size variance. Fun fact.
Slight?
Biologically speaking. Male elephant seals are three to five times larger than females.
Great article Corey Savage. Brilliant analysis.
Western culture will be matriarchy by the next generation. Females already have all the privileges of citizenship without responsibilities like military service. Marriage / divorce laws ensure they are transferred the wealth and children. Online dating sites allow them to order sex like having pizza delivered. They can have men imprisoned because they changed their mind about consent after consenting. Anything that hurts a woman’s feelings is a hate crime. Bonobo males are dancing in pride parades. Millennials are being culturally conditioned to accept this as the new normal.
Steve Sailer had an article on this (Chimps and Chumps — used to be available online) and made the salient point that that bonobos are a Darwinian dead end. Even allowing for the destruction of their habitat, ordinary chimps greatly outnumber them (and if regular chimps and bonobos were forced to share a territory, how long do you think bonobos would last?).
That phrase “Darwinian dead end” pretty much says it all for bonobos.
Bonobos the hippies of the primate world
5. We are likely to resort to chimpy levels of intelligence on this de-evolutionary rebound sometime in the near future as the average standard of intelligence quota.
Humans are becoming dumber and dumber everyday. Even with my engineering background I cannot hold a candle to the great masterminds of our infrastructure and mathematical philosophers of old. Every now and then you can find a genius in the rough, but the average intelligence has trended (systematically?) lower. I believe this is manipulation on part of the educational front to keep us sheeple and cows dim-witted and unable to enact change on a large scale or keep us from being self-sustaining, further relying on a corrupt system to milk us until we are all dead.
Break away from the trash gents. Learn how to grow food, studying engineering, chemistry, computers, anything that is physical in a sense and puts you echelons above the street herds.
Then the next step is finding other men like yourself to create a bond with (no homo please) such as where we all have commonalities on this site here. Fuck the haters, start initiating male only groups to discuss your ideas and plans to implement for the future, it starts with us, and unfortunately, the future will start without us too, so best to have an input and do what we can to better ourselves and the world around us.
Very interesting article. I’ve long felt that there is practically nothing about human behavior that cannot be understood through observing chimpanzees: the principles, drives and forces are the same, but more easily seen in chimps because of their relative simplicity compared to humans.
One point not mentioned about the two species, Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) and Pan paniscus (bonobo) is that they are separated by an impassible barrier, the Congo River (chimps to the north, bonobos to the south). I don’t know how long ago the two species diverged, but they must have been so separated a good while before, and ever since. Because otherwise there would be only one species of chimpanzee at present – can you guess which one?
Some 30 years ago I came across an interesting little book which sparked an early, major step in my “red pill” education: Fred Hapgood, Why Males Exist. Two important facts I learned from this book: (1) Males are optional. And (2): Everybody knows that there are two types of living creatures: asexual (e.g bacteria, amoebas) and sexual (e.g. humans, and all – or nearly all – species larger than microscopic). What few are aware of is that there is a third type: species which used to be sexual, but are no longer, as they simply quit producing males, and now are entirely female. For want of a better term, I call such species “post-sexual” – because that’s what they are.
Two that I remember are the common dandelion, and the New Mexico whiptail lizard, which reproduces by parthenogenesis (females lay unfertilized eggs, which hatch baby females, generation after generation). “Despite reproducing asexually, and being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in mating behavior with other females of its own species [one female mounts the other], giving rise to the common nickname ‘lesbian lizards’. A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not ‘mate’ do not lay eggs.”
Note that this third type of species is not asexual, as its members are female, possessing only half the complement of genes found in a sexual species – which nevertheless appears to be sufficient for continuation of the species.
As an aside, it also occurred to me from all this that Simone de Beauvoir’s feminist classic The Second Sex had it exactly 180° wrong: it is males that are the second sex: essentially created by females (who were here first), useful, sometimes necessary, but ultimately optional, depending on circumstances. Of course, she was right in the context of human culture, but that’s another big subject – see below for a beginning of that discussion.
How does it happen that some species stop producing males? I believe (I don’t remember what the book says about this, not having read it in 20 years or so) it’s the result of the species finding itself in a stable, secure, abundant ecological niche, with no serious competition for territory or resources. Thus no need of males, whose primary use to the species is, as noted, aggression and defense. Males are expensive (there was a feminist screed 10-15 years ago that emphasized this – can’t find it now); why put up with them if you don’t need them?
A few years after I read Why Males Exist, I came across a newspaper article that added an important element to the story: Geckos are little lizards that are ubiquitous in the Asian-Pacific tropics (a friend living in Bali writes about how they’re always climbing the walls of his house). Seems that some populations of geckos living on some Pacific islands found themselves in such comfortable circumstances that they quit producing males. And got along just fine, for millennia (?) or more.
Until the mid-20th century, when air travel suddenly proliferated connections between the islands. Occasionally geckos from one island will inadvertently “stow away” on an airplane and be carried to another island, and… If males from a sexual gecko island thus “invade” the territory of an all-female island, they take over. I don’t know if the two types of geckos are different species – in which case both males and females would have to come from the sexual species to the all-female island, and take over – or can interbreed – in which case quite possibly a single male introduced to an all-female island could initiate the changeover.
Anyway, the point is that a species or population with strong males (or any males at all) will always overcome a similar species or population consisting only of females, in direct competition. (Cf. current events in Europe. Nature abhors a vacuum. Of course, that story is not over yet.) That’s what males are for, after all.
Thus my certainty that the different behaviors of the two chimpanzee species began sometime after two populations of the same species were separated and isolated from each other by the Congo River – the south side of which must offer a considerably more comfortable environment where the population could devolve into lotus eaters. I don’t know if chimpanzees and bonobos can interbreed, or if they really are two distinct species.
Also, so far as I know, though there is a sizable number of these all-female species among plants and “lower” animals, there are no warm-blooded (mammals, birds) species of this type. The closest we get is something like the bonobo, or some other species where males have devolved to smaller and weaker than females. Maybe because warm-blooded animals are so much faster-moving than the cold-blooded types, males need to be kept around “just in case”. The bottom line is, from Nature’s point of view (remember who bats last) males exist to serve the needs of females; as those needs change, males change (or even disappear).
Some 20 years ago I had a conversation with a Mohawk shamaness about this subject, and she told me her (female) teachers had told her that yes, women could reproduce without male fertilization, but the the resultant children would always be female. I don’t know if this has ever actually happened. Of course the most famous (not to say only) cited example of “parthenogenesis” in humans – the Virgin Birth – is the exact opposite, but there apparently other factors were in play. 😉
Likely males were first invented (some 1.5 bya) simply to accelerate evolution. And as in any arms race, as soon as one party invents a new weapon, everybody else has to have it too. So we’ve been off to the races since then.
So males are initially, most fundamentally necessary to enable evolution beyond the glacial pace seen in asexual species (who don’t have genetic roulette to work with, but must await the occasional accident of cosmic rays striking their genes).
And in humans that evolution has extended into the meta-evolution of technology. Another commenter mentions Camille Paglia’s famous quip, that if the development of civilization had been left up to females, we’d still be living in grass huts. As many have noted (around here anyway), everything that makes modern life more comfortable and convenient than earlier ages has been conceived, invented, developed and maintained by men. I’d bet that even grass huts were a male creation. An all-female species is an evolutionary dead end, not only biologically, but, in Homo sapiens, at every level beyond as well.
Which leads to at least one clear difference between chimps and humans: so far as is known, neither chimpanzee (nor any other non-human species) has ever given rise to a Buddha, or similar individual who has found the ultimate freedom from this phenomenal world and its perpetual suffering. Nor has there ever been a female Great Teacher of this stature. (Meter Baba says that the Avatar – his term for a World Teacher – must always be a man – but of course, to appear in this world he must be born of woman; thus the ultimate role for Woman is to become the “Mother of God”.) Some women have become highly-developed spiritual beings, but they always learn from men, follow men. An all-female (or female-dominated, which amounts to the same thing) human culture is also an evolutionary dead end in this final, in my view far most important respect.
A thing to note.
Bonobo males are not weaker than females. They’re individually stronger than any female, but they lose this power because of the bonds females have. A bunch of them can overpower him, and this is if said male even dares challenging a female.
And in return, since they lack the bonds with the other males, they can’t really change the social tide and thus remain chained to their mothers.
The Bonobos are being dug out every bloody time a feminist or a SJW wants to push for matriarchy, free sex and feminism.
The reality is that 99% of Bonobo studies were done in captivity. I read an article by a renowned scientist who studied the buggers in freedom and lo and behold – they act like Chimpanzees in freedom. Of course they are smaller, but as soon as living in freedom they become more violent, territorial, sex decreases tremendously – and they become patriarchal again.
The same goes for the human species.
Exactly. Long time ago I had a femikunt using the Bonobos as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Let’s face it animals will get up on anything when they feel like it. Dogs jumping up against trees to stimulate their junk, wtf?
Fuck her. Bonobo studies in the wild yield utterly different results. Less sex, more violence, male dominance, heterosexual sex etc. It is similar as if you would study human sexual behavior among prison inmates and conclude that many engage in homosexual activity. Apes react to captivity just like humans do.
Sounds plausible. Monkeys in cages fling their poo at zoo keepers just like inmates in prison.
Bonobos:
– Not a matriarchy
– No lesbianism (it is more like a social ritual, a greeting gesture)
– No more sexual than chimpanzees (men always fantasizing about women)
– Males are stronger than females (sexual dimorphism matters)
– What is violence ? Testosterone or estrogen ? What is true dominance ?
They get to be very violent. Specially the females.
You’d think that patriarchal societies are violent due to testosterone, when it is rather the feminized creatures the ones who engage in chaotic violence.
– And this article is written based on myths. Manosphere often do that.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/30/swingers-2?currentPage=all
Better tell primate studying type scientists that it’s not a matriarchy, they seem to not be as enlightened as you.
http://www.bonobo.org/bonobos/what-is-a-bonobo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
http://www.inhabitots.com/5-strong-matriarchal-species-who-prove-erick-erickson-wrong-about-what-nature-intended/animal-matriarchy-mother-bonobo-ape/
No lesbianism (it is more like a social ritual, a greeting gesture)
So, no lesbianism except for the part where they exhibit lesbianism. Got it.
Males are stronger than females (sexual dimorphism matters)
Can’t see where he claimed that this was not the case. Males are kept in check by constant sex, which says nothing about physical strength.
– And this article is written based on myths. Manosphere often do that.
You may want to fact check a bit before tossing out insults, chiefy.
Read the link I provided.
It is them, the people who study them, NOT IN CAPTIVITY. It is them, the real experts whom criticize those you call scientists.
Wikipedia, come on…
Yes, Wikipedia. It’s not an all authoritative source, but it’s not some kind of National Enquirer type of site. It’s a good starting point, especially with science related articles where citations are provided.
Wikipedia is a disaster, It is very biased, and promotes myths
I can see there was already a situation where they deleted inconvenient information about Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild
If there are citations from actual studies, it has value. I don’t do the typical leftist sneer at WikiPedia, I take value where it’s presented where possible.
There are scientists who disagree about the matriarchy.
The Lui Kotal study by Gottfried Hohmann is mentioned in the first link, but not this bit:
================================
Surbeck & Hohmann (2013) reported in their analysis of intersexual dominance across contexts that the LuiKotale bonobos have a mixed-sex hierarchy, not a females- or males-rule. They also observed the frequency with which females win a conflict (vs a male) depended on which context (food competition, mating, social challenge); for example females won 58% of the time in the feeding context but only 44% in the mating context. Females lost many conflicts because some females were subordinate to some males.
source: http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/12/29/questioning-sexy-bonobo-hype-part-2-primatologist-responds-christopher-ryan/
================================
Additionally:
================================
Mixed-sex (or rather, sex-independent dominance) hierarchy is also reported by Furuichi (1997), Paoli et al. (2006), and Hohmann et al (1999). Wood and White (2007) went so far as to say males dominate but are sometimes deferent about food, writing, “Female dominance similar to that seen in prosimians was not observed in these bonobos. Males were consistently dominant in dyadic interactions.”
source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17358018
================================
A ver, paremos un poco.
-They are a matriarchy. There’s no going around that. Females have the powere, ergo..
-Of course they are more sexual than Chimps. In fact, this is the what made bonobos famous.
-Yes. Individually, they’re stronger. This, however, doesn’t serve much to them since the grouping of females prohibits them of doing what they want.
And let’s face it, bonobo males are wimps in this case.
-Any time you put these two words together, Testosterone is the answer, particularly when you’re talking about primates. Just think Myke Tyson, a male Chimp or a huge Silverback.
You could make that point about violent females in maybe the big cats, and even then the males are much more violent and have the strenght and size to back it up.
-Is it now? Because after a short review on your comment it is you the one who promotes the myths.
Many of those things that I call myths, that you believe as truths, started because people described bonobos fantastically, and derived from studies done in captivity.
Read the link, and see how it is that those ideas are contradicted by people who actually studied them and saw how violent they are, etc.
Yeah, I already read that.
And, really the only different things the article points out is that there isn’t really that much sex as others say.
But aside that? It only confirms what we’ve been saying. The females call the shots there, the males are generally pussies, unless they’re forced to be a little more tough(pushing away low ranking females..)by starvation.
So your point gets lost, really.
You haven’t read then.
Very convenient for you..
For you. You proved you haven’t read it(correctly) :
I wrote with facts, and you come here to criticize a comment without facts, nor logic, nor quotes, not anything but a useless answer that is nothing but a negation and denial. Can’t take you seriously.
Contrary to you, I based my comments on those experts, and gave the link as a proof of the myths, you and the wikipedia guy did none of that.
I made an extended comment, minutes ago. (not for you)
Oh, I get it.
Each of your points were adressed, but since I don’t agree with you I didn’t read it *correctly*.
Jaja sure thing, buddy.
You don’t agree ? Each of my points ? Are you a kid ?
You did not say anything but ‘you are wrong’
I showed you what these researchers say
You showed no proof but ’emotions’
Exactly because you can’t debate with proofs or logic
Emotional answers are useless, infantile, feminine, evasive and desperate
You showed me what *one* researcher said. And his conclussions are not the hard truth you try to present me. Like I said, at best, the only good point he makes is that they don’t have that much sex.
Aside from that, the rest of the article confirms what I and the other have been saying.
And really, it’s funny that you accuse me of having “emotional” answers “without logic” and then you try to make fun of me and call me names, just because I don’t agree with you.
Many researchers with different points of view. It explains very clearly why is it that de Waal said those ideas of a matriarchy and how absurd it sounds as it is contrary to what more honest researches have found. People who actually study them in the wild do not agree with him.
look how you answered:
-They are a matriarchy. There’s no going around that. Females have the powere, ergo..
– And, really the only different things the article points out is that there isn’t really that much sex as others say.But aside that? It only confirms what we’ve been saying. The females call the shots there, the males are generally pussies,
——–
Is this logic or emotion ? Is this a fact or immaturity of yours?
You think because females are not meek all the time it means it is a matriarchy. Or because they attack some meek male from time to time. They don’t have a solid structure which defines a matriarchy. It is female violence on a wild species. Chaotic violence is not dominance but the opposite. So it is logical to see females being unstable. It is also logical for cowards to fight in groups. As we also observe in our species.
Look what you refused to read, the myths contradicted:
– Not peaceful but can get to be even more crazy than chimps
– Not a utopia at all
– Not a sisterhood
– Not gay
– Males have sex anytime they “demand it”
– Not the opposite of chimpanzees
– No evidence of a real matriarchy
See how you don’t give proper answers ? See how immature is to say you are wrong, and think you are right because you have an opinion, not supported by anything but your emotions.
You can’t be an adult, I don’t believe it. I’m going to ignore you, I’m wasting time.
“Look what you refused to read, the myths contradicted:”
Oh, here we go..
-Not peaceful but can get to be even more crazy than chimps
So, from a couple of random episodes of your assumed “chaotic violence” you conclude they are “more crazy” than chimps. Right..
– Not a utopia at all
Never said it was.
– Not a sisterhood
Sure they are. The bonds females form between them, the alliances they make brand them as this “sisterhood”.
In the same way, male chimps are a brotherhood and the same goes for lions.
– Not gay
Never said they were.
– Males have sex anytime they “demand it”
The expert says sometimes there was no sex at all for weeks. So now you’re really contradicting yourself.
– Not the opposite of chimpanzees
They’re different enough, something that, in human terms, we would brand as “opposite”, even though they would still be humans. Something that for some reason you’re conveniently ignoring.
– No evidence of a real matriarchy
The females are dominant over the males, which are dependant on the social status of their mothers.
You can twist it the way you want, but the facts are the dominant sex in that species are the females as a group, the males are usually meek and any male bold over the top is going to get attacked by the group of females, to keep him in check and make him learn his lesson.
“See how you don’t give proper answers ? See how immature is to say you are wrong, and think you are right because you have an opinion, not supported by anything but your emotions.”
Considering it is you the one who constantly brings up this “emotion”, “immature” accusations, maybe you’re the one who is burdened by it.
There are scientists who disagree about the matriarchy:
================================
Surbeck & Hohmann (2013) reported in their analysis of intersexual dominance across contexts that the LuiKotale bonobos have a mixed-sex hierarchy, not a females- or males-rule. They also observed the frequency with which females win a conflict (vs a male) depended on which context (food competition, mating, social challenge); for example females won 58% of the time in the feeding context but only 44% in the mating context. Females lost many conflicts because some females were subordinate to some males.
source: http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/12/29/questioning-sexy-bonobo-hype-part-2-primatologist-responds-christopher-ryan/
================================
Additionally:
================================
Mixed-sex (or rather, sex-independent dominance) hierarchy is also reported by Furuichi (1997), Paoli et al. (2006), and Hohmann et al (1999). Wood and White (2007) went so far as to say males dominate but are sometimes deferent about food, writing, “Female dominance similar to that seen in prosimians was not observed in these bonobos. Males were consistently dominant in dyadic interactions.”
source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17358018
================================
More… for those who don’t want to read nor investigate!
Myth 1. Genes
– Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest evolutionary relatives with whom we share anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of our genes. It should then come as no surprise that we also share many common behaviour patterns with them as well.
Facts/quote:
Information about the distribution of genetic variation tells you essentially nothing about the size or significance of trait differences. ISBN-13: 978-0465020423
Myth 2. Matriarchal, females have all the power
– …bonobos …exist in a matriarchal utopia …because…no external threats and …abundant
– females, in spite of possessing all the power, make sure to keep the male aggression at bay by giving them all the sex they need.{Contradictory}
Facts/quotes:
> …females were said to be sexually receptive to males even at times when there was no chance of conception.
{so, they let them “rape” them anytime males demand it, because females have the POWER}
> At Lui Kotal, the question of dominance was also less certain than one might think. …de Waal, …said, unequivocally, that bonobo societies were dominated by females. But, in Hohmann’s cautious mind, the question is still undecided. Data from wild bonobos are still slight, and science still needs to explain the physical superiority of males: why would evolution leave that extra bulk in place, if no use was made of it? Female spotted hyenas dominate male hyenas, but they have the muscle to go with the life style (and, for good measure, penises). “Why hasn’t this levelled out in bonobos?” Hohmann asked. “Perhaps sometimes it is important” for the males to be stronger. …Hohmann went on, males exercise power in ways we cannot see
> …the actions of one meek male. “This is a male that in the past has been badly mutilated by the females,” Hohmann said. “They bit off fingers and toes, and he really had a hard life.” This male had always been shut out at feeding time. Now, as his diet continued, he discovered aggression. “For the first time, he pushed away some low-ranking females,” Hohmann said. He successfully fought for food. He became bold and demanding. A single hungry animal is not a scientific sample, but the episode showed that this male’s subservience was, if not exactly a personal choice, one of at least two behavioral options.
{a “meek” male}
> bonobos/chimps are male-philopatric: males remain, females leave
{contradicts the systerhood utopia, closely-knit group of females. Bonobos are matrilineal though. Hyenas are matrilocal too}
“Most mammalian species are female philopatric, with males dispersing and females remaining in their natal group. As a result, alliances and cooperation are biased towards female kin…”
“When females live with related females, they tend to show strong nepotistic preferences” DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0118
“Based on the availability of kin for males, male philopatry implies strong social bonds between male group members and between mothers and sons.”{in bonobos, no male-male bonds}
“Bonobos (Pan paniscus) are one of the few primate species that meet these conditions. Bonobos live in communities whose members form temporary parties that vary in size and composition [33]. Males are philopatric and can potentially interact with their mothers, even after reaching adulthood [34,35]. In addition, females are co-dominant to males, and some occupy relatively high ranks [36,37]. In captivity, males form linear hierarchies [37], but mating and reproductive success appear to be independent of rank [38]. In the wild, dominance relations among resident males are often ambiguous and the relationship between rank and mating success is unclear.”
“One reason for the inconsistent relationship between male rank, mating success and paternity might be that males have egalitarian relationships [43].”
> Male rank
Bonobo society is usually described as egalitarian. However, the data collected in this study revealed a linear dominance hierarchy among resident males, similar in steepness to that reported for despotic societies [60]. Strong dominance hierarchies are indicative of within-group contest competition for mating partners [61,62]. The behavioural data shown above demonstrate that males compete for access to females and that a male’s rank has a strong effect on his individual mating success. The alpha male of the community, as well as the highest ranking male in a given party, had the highest mating rates with oestrous females. Given that the copulation rates of the highest ranking male in a party did not obviously depend on the presence or absence of his mother, a large proportion of the observed mating performance seems to reflect dominance status rather than maternal support (figure 2).
Behavioural observations collected in this study neither provide evidence for coercive mating or other aggression by males against females in the context of mating, nor did females avoid mating efforts by dominant males. However, when mothers did not intervene, dominant males were able to restrict the mating behaviour of other males. The finding that high ranking males had priority of access to oestrous females suggests that mating success reflects individual resource-holding potential.
{I smell PATRIARCHY}
> …”The absence of female support to unrelated males suggests that mothers gain indirect fitness benefits by supporting their sons.” DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1572
> Female Hyenas, masculinized more than males. Female bonobos, not. Instead the males have less T than male chimps but not than females.
> If they have no external threats and live in abundance and peace then matriarchy is for What? Mating ?{read previous notes}
Myth 3. Peaceful Bonobos vs Chimps
– While chimps are often portrayed as cute and playful creatures, what many people don’t realize is just how savage and violent they really are
– Bonobos… exist in a peaceful matriarchal order. Their tribes are ruled by group of females who form a sisterhood with an alpha female as their leader.
– Patriarchy can only flourish through warfare and violence
– eliminating any real need for male violence.
Facts/quotes:
> Hohmann told me in a whisper that we had seen a rare thing—a bonobo in pursuit of a duiker, a tiny antelope. “We were very close to seeing hunting,” he said. “Very close.”
{chimps hunt too}
> For a purportedly peaceful animal, a bonobo can be surprisingly intemperate. Jeroen Stevens is a young Belgian biologist who has spent thousands of hours studying captive bonobos in European zoos. I met him last year at the Planckendael Zoo, near Antwerp. “I once saw five female bonobos attack a male in Apenheul, in Holland,” he said. “They were gnawing on his toes. I’d already seen bonobos with digits missing, but I’d thought they would have been bitten off like a dog would bite. But they really chew. There was flesh between their teeth. Now, that’s something to counter the idea of”—Stevens used a high, mocking voice—“ ‘Oh, I’m a bonobo, and I love everyone.’ ”
Stevens went on to recall a bonobo in the Stuttgart Zoo whose penis had been bitten off by a female. (He might also have mentioned keepers at the Columbus and San Diego zoos who both lost bits of fingers…. “Zoos don’t know what to do,” Stevens said. “They, too, believe that bonobos are less aggressive than chimps, which is why zoos want to have them. But, as soon as you have a group of bonobos, after a while you have this really violent aggression. I think if zoos had bonobos in big enough groups”—more like wild bonobos—“you would even see them killing.” In Stevens’s opinion, bonobos are “very tense. People usually say they’re relaxed. I find the opposite. Chimps are more laid-back. But, if I say I like chimps more than I like bonobos, my colleagues think I’m crazy.”
…Hohmann recalled what he described as a “murder story.” …A male, perhaps the father of the baby, jumped onto the branch, in apparent provocation. The female lunged at the male, which fell to the ground. Other females jumped down onto the male, in a scene of frenzied violence. “It went on for thirty minutes,” Hohmann said. “It was terribly scary. …After thirty minutes, they all went back up into the tree. It was hard to recognize them, their hair all on end and their faces changed. They were really different.”
> On another occasion, Hohmann thinks that he came close to seeing infanticide, which is also generally ruled to be beyond the bonobo’s behavioral repertoire. A newborn was taken from its mother by another female; Hohmann saw the mother a day later. This female was carrying its baby again, but the baby was dead. “Now it becomes a criminal story,” Hohmann said, in a mock-legal tone. “What could have happened? This is all we have, the facts. My story is the unknown female carried the baby but didn’t feed it and it died.”
{peaceful society indeed, and how much love among females}
Myth 4. Sex & sex
– Besides the matriarchal order—which is already unique among the primates—bonobos distinguish themselves as highly sexual species. They have frequent casual sex on a daily basis (albeit lasting only about ten seconds) in every way and every pairing imaginable.
– as we know that bonobos in the wild engage in plenty of homosexual activity (in all ages).
– I strongly suspect that it has a lot to do with the total emasculation of the males
– gynocentric like the bonobos
Facts/quotes:
> Often, we have to say, ‘No, bonobos can be terribly boring. Watch a bonobo and there are days when you don’t see anything—just sleeping and eating and defecating. There’s no sex, there’s no food-sharing.’
> Captivity can have a striking impact on animal behavior. As Craig Stanford, a primatologist at the University of Southern California, recently put it, “Stuck together, bored out of their minds—what is there to do except eat and have sex?”
> Craig Stanford, in a 1997 study that questioned various alleged bonobo-chimpanzee dichotomies, wrote, “Female bonobos do not mate more frequently or significantly less cyclically than chimpanzees.” He also reported that male chimpanzees in the wild actually copulated more often than male bonobos. De Waal is unimpressed by Stanford’s analysis. “He counted only heterosexual sex,” he told me. “But if you include all the homosexual sex then it’s actually quite different.” When I asked Hohmann about the bonobo sex at Lui Kotal, he said, “It’s nothing that really strikes me.” Certainly, he and his team observe female “g-g rubbing,” which is not seen in chimpanzees, and needs to be explained. “But does it have anything to do with sex?” Hohmann asked. “Probably not. Of course, they use the genitals, but is it erotic behavior or a greeting gesture that is completely detached from sexual behavior?”
> We investigated five hypotheses on the function of ventroventral mounting (genital contacts) that derive from previous studies of both primate and nonprimate species: (1) reconciliation; (2) mate attraction; (3) tension regulation; (4) expression of social status; and (5) social bonding. We collected data in six field seasons (1993-1998) from members of a habituated, unprovisioned community of wild bonobos at Lomako, Democratic Republic of Congo. No single hypothesis could account for the use of genital contacts, which appeared to be multifunctional. We found support for hypotheses 1 and 3. Rates of postconflict genital contacts exceeded preconflict rates suggesting that the display is used in the context of reconciliation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10924210 Use and function of genital contacts among female bonobos.
{not gay, scientists found no correlation}
Myth 5. Systerhood
– closely-knit group of females who band together to keep the males in check
– The male bonobos are isolated and seemingly unwilling to form any sort of group of their own because they don’t have any practical reason to do so.
{what about competition: …let the bitches attack him}
Facts:
> Read previous notes
Myth 6. Human matriarchy
– What we are going through today is the transition of our society from a patriarchal order … to the matriarchal order of the bonobos.
> No, this is a reversal, the weak male rules over the strong, through an egalitarian system. Gynocentrism cannot exist without patriarchy.
> this matriarchy thing, is only distracting many men from their real enemy
Extra Myth 7. DE WAAL (Myth maker)
> De Waal said: he could sense that not everyone in the world of bonobo research was thrilled for him
{This is funny, poor de Waal}
> “It was so easy for Frans{de Waal} to charm everyone,” Hohmann said of de Waal one afternoon. “He had the big stories. We don’t have the big stories. Often, we have to say, ‘No, bonobos can be terribly boring. Watch a bonobo and there are days when you don’t see anything—just sleeping and eating and defecating. There’s no sex, there’s no food-sharing.’ ” During our first days in camp, the bonobos had been elusive. “Right now, bonobos are not vocalizing,” Hohmann said. “They’re just there. And if you go to a zoo, if you give them some food, there’s a frenzy. It’s so different.”
> Captivity can have a striking impact on animal behavior….
ventroventral mounting (genital contacts)
It’s clearly #2
(2) mate attraction
They do this for the same reason that human females will hug each other and even put on some fake display of being lesbians and kiss each other. Trying to get a male’s attention and what they want men to do to them.Or join us and fuck both of us.
I’m not going to get into the other stuff, but Bonobos are matriarchal, as the females often have higher status. I’m not sure why you would deny this. http://www.bonobo.org/bonobos/what-is-a-bonobo/
In other words, all societies need an external threat to remain healthy
If there isn’t one, make one up
fuck, so the neo-con strategy of creating a perpetual war is a good thing?
if there is a god of war in the 12 gods of olympus it’s for a reason
I don’t think so. I think comparing humans to apes, especially in this instance, is apples to oranges. If its just a function of abundance, we’ve had significantly greater abundance than apes for eons, yet, humanity is nearly uniformly Patriarchal. My main question is do these apes have an observable culture because that’s the real driver behind humanity’s struggle with feminism and homosexualism. Now, some scientist will boast about the complex social structures of the apes and yada yada yada, but, without staring at these animals for days on end its not immediately evident that apes have a sophisticated culture…I don’t see apes music bands or ape artwork. You see, we don’t have a matriarchy we don’t have a homosexual society…we have a culture that is obsessed with matriarchy and homosexuality. Big difference. And due to this obsession it appears we are these things. Why is the culture this way? Abundance, no predators, no rivals, no violence? No. First of all, this culture is disconnected not only from most people but from nature and reality itself! The answer is an influential bunch of academic assholes jealous of the abundance yielded from a merit based, capitalistic society grounded in Judeo-Christian morality started a cultural war in The West pitting oppressed versus oppressor and elevating “victims” to high status. I see no indication that either Chimps or Bonobos are undergoing something similar.
In that case, academia needs a violent purge
That is so fucking obvious…its like saying water is wet.
Interesting article. Thanks for writing it.
Slight correction: *Western* men are like bonobos. Muslim men are like chimpanzees, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Better get used to sticking your ass in the air 5 times a day.
I will fight!
Chimps and Bonobos? I think there are insights that we can draw from this, but examining the societies of Chimps and Bonobos falls very short of describing the situation men are in at present. The biggest disparity is not accounting for the cultural dimension at work here, because, this is a culture war. Both Chimps and Bonobos do not have a culture that is remotely close to humans. Go on show me a Chimp art? This matters because at face value if we’re left to Chimps and Bonobos than it goes like this – abundance and no rivals and no predators leads to feminism and homosexualism. I think that is a very lacking. Because, humans are not inherently matriarchal or homosexual, and regardless of what we may think, even today we are not a matriarchy or a homosexual society. Our situation is this; we have is a CULTURE that is matriarchal and homosexual. That is the big difference. If you took away all this cultural marxism, guess what? There would be no reason for ROK or the manosphere. I think its important for us to remain focused. Yes, abundance creates the environment for this particular kind of fungus to grow and thrive (feminism and homosexualism), but, abundance alone does not necessarily lead to them. Humans have had abundance of a very long time. This is rooted in a cultural critique that started in the 1930s/40s, which effectively reconfigured socialism and communism to take hold in western society because the original model, haves and have nots, could not work. Why? Because people didn’t want socialist/communism because people had too much abundance!
This article forgot one thing: Chimpanzees can create tools while bonobos can`t, so we can conclude that patriarchate is technological superior.
After reading on the article and reflecting, I prefer the chimps to the bonobos
The pseudo-scientific bullshit that gets eaten up on this site never ceases to amaze.
Not only are the generalizations about human being drawn from the animals in question completely speculative, the facts about the animals themselves aren’t even correct!
For example, matriarchy is not “unique among the primates” to Bonobos. Olive Baboons are matriarchal, and so are Lemurs.
Matriarchy in the animal kingdom, while definitely an exception to the rule, is actually not that uncommon, and a lot of the animals that are matriarchal are thought to be highly intelligent- orcas and elephants come to mind.
What matters here is that humans are NOT matriarchal. Yes, its elsewhere in nature, but, when present you’ll see things like the other sex being dominate in every way, whether its size, physical power etc. Just like in humans males are dominate in all things. So, it just proves our point.
Bonobos have relative year round abundance, and are protected from Gorillas by rivers. Chimpanzees have no such luxury. Its not surprising to see that Feminism only sprouts when economics are easy and war/violence is low.
Guys, instead of wasting time complaining about women why don’t you spend time doing something that makes sense like reading a book, hunting, camping or making money? Women aren’t that important & if sex is that important just hire an escort once in a while or if not willing to pay just masturbate.
Great advice. Stick around. You’ll see that men here are doing exactly that. Here’s a quote that is apropos to your comment “you may not be interested in politics, but, politics is interested in you”.
We all want to hunt, fish, camp, read, make money, better our lives etc. The problem is that as we live our lives we are being, more or less, fucked with by a bunch of sad people who seek to run our lives for us. feminism is the primary irritant.
Notice that “lee” upvoted his own stupid comment. As did that “trans woman” freak did a few comments up. What fucking losers.
Point one isn’t true. Society was very “patriarchal” in the Victorian era, yet that era was just as peaceful as post WWII society.
This is an interesting article, comparing us with Bonobos and Chimps. We’re so differnt from both of them, we don’t have to be like either. We’re our own thing. But still this was a clever idea for an article.
There’s no debate that humans are overwhelmingly patriarchal. Men lead families, tribes, countries, companies, etc the vast majority of the time. Also, the physical differences between men and women are greater than in most species. The differences are because men are made to have more violent, competitive, lives.
For 99% of our existence we lived in small-tribes in the wilderness and we produced our own food. In the last 100-200 years our lifestyle has changed more than ever because of urbanization, education, wage labor(Jobs), and industrialization.
There are still lots of people who live in a Stone-age lifestyle. If you want to compare humans to Chimps/Bonobos, you should probably use them as representative of humans.
Re: final image of that post, the men on the right are so much more interesting and colorful! I’d rather be with them.
Oh wait I already did that, thanks to transitioning!! And guess what, I still get to keep my dick!
(Men: your “emasculation” can’t come any sooner. The bonobo is a noble example for our society to follow. Enjoy the depravity or go jerk yourselves off to your fantasies of warfare and violence.)
Re: final image of that post, the men on the right are so much more interesting and colorful! I’d rather be with them.
Oh wait I already did that, thanks to transitioning!! And guess what, I still get to keep my dick!
(Men: your “emasculation” can’t come any sooner. The bonobo is a noble example for our society to follow. Enjoy the depravity or go jerk yourselves off to your fantasies of warfare and violence.)
Re: final image of that post, the men on the right are so much more interesting and colorful! I’d rather be with them.
Oh wait I already did that, thanks to transitioning!! And guess what, I still get to keep my dick!
(Men: your “emasculation” can’t come any sooner. The bonobo is a noble example for our society to follow. Enjoy the depravity or go jerk yourselves off to your fantasies of warfare and violence.)
“A Trans Woman”
…..
seems ROK attracts more and more FREAKS because of its constant attacks against gay mainstream opinions.
The bonobo is a great example of a society that can only thrive when there are absolutely zero threats to its stability. The second a bomb drops on one of your fag rallies, all of you useless weaklings will be back in the shadows.
You sound very religious do you know that? Eventhough religions are dead. God doesn’t exist. Religion is the sore on human society and should be completely externinated.
please externinate yourself
Very mature of you.
The problem with our society is that this matriarchal utopia only works when there’s no external threats, and it also never progresses in any meaningful, measurable way. Of course it’s easy for the current gen to want to switch to that system after the patriarchal societies have spent centuries if not millennia building and defending all of the luxuries, conveniences, and technologies that feminists, beta males, and everyone in between enjoys.
You even see it reflected in these Great Apes. Why are Chimps the superior problem solvers and tool users vs the Bonobos? Because the Bonobos are effectively lazy. The body and mind only ever rise to the challenge that they’re faced with, so while Chimps are constantly working and learning in order to better manage their territory and resources, Bonobos are stagnant.
I highly doubt the third wave feminists and their beta male pets would have preferred living in mud huts with no technology, and that’s exactly where they would be without masculinity, just like the Bonobos are relative to the Chimpanzees.
Of course the current difference between Chimps and Bonobos don’t seem all that different, but, if Bonobos make zero progress while Chimps make a tiny bit of progress, as they are now with their use of very basic stone age tools, over the generations the differences will become more and more significant. Eventually the Chimps will have more complex social structures and basic technology, and the Bonobos will still be lazily picking fruit and having sex with each other.
This generation wants to conveniently adopt all of masculinity’s productivity while avoiding the harsher aspects, such as strict patriarchal leadership, competition, and aggression. They want their cake and eat it too, and they want to treat the masculine men of today like disposable tools that have been used up and are no longer needed. Going MGTOW is the only logical response when faced with this situation, as a strong masculine man is in a distinct minority position with almost no political or social standing or influence. The last thing you want to do in this environment is procreate. Instead, I recommend living as indulgent a life as possible. But not in the gluttonous, degrading way that most liberals live, but in terms of taking advantage of every opportunity and working your hardest to be the best man you can be for yourself exclusively.
Why commit your time and resources to a system that simply wishes to dispose of you, or convert you into an obedient beta provider? Unless you’ve found a niche somewhere, bunkered from this insanity, it’s simply not worth it. Let these weaklings indulge and indulge until someone or something big and bad comes and takes it away from them. As long as you are not significantly tied down in the system, with things like expensive mortgages or a family, you will likely be able to avoid all of the troubles.
(Sorry for the errors, english isn´t my mother´s tongue)
Ey, you should make an article about the hienas.
They´re too an matryarchy, and they too lack of sexual dimorphism. Unlike the bonobos, that have, eliminated their dimorphism by converging in a middle point between males and females, hyaenas females are masculinized, both sex has same concentration of testosterone. At least what I´ve heard, hyaenas matryarchy is much worse for males than the bonobos (that was logical from female that are practically warrior males), the males are only enable to reproduce after have survived two or threee years in th group, females treat over rookies is very hard.
It’s creepy how perfectly we fit into either of these groups.
For certain, one ask. You said patriarchy is obtained with war and violence. Yeah, most Latinamerican countries presume of be very male, and their killing rates are huge.
Do you prefer that?
Maybe promote the competition and sport in the society could be a good analog of war.
this dilemma that most men find themselves in on this site seems a dilemma of male creation. male progress and innovation has always moved towards comfort and efficiency, decreasing opportunity for death or harm. less violence, more resources, and more people have served to domesticate us all. men would not only be more violent in this mythical wild, women would also. we are all, out of necessity, becoming more relational than we once were. i digress though. if this “progress” is to be attributed to men, why now this scrambling for identity and purpose? seems a bit paradoxical. why “erect” cities, minimize the dirty work, seek to create a safer world if it was going to quicken your obsolescence? i agree things are changing, just not sure how to assign judgement to it and would rather not get caught up in romanticizing how things were. men (and all humans) made life easier because aspects of their lives sucked. it’s easy now from behind a computer screen to get caught up in nostalgia, but seems like a waste of time.
xoxo
GayPride3000
“by keeping them thirsty and desperate enough to enter marriage voluntarily for further exploitation” This is so crazy. It’s called supporting your family, not exploitation. Don’t have a wife and family if you don’t want to help support them.
Bill Kaulitz ❤
One of the best articles I’ve read. I’ve always suspected we’re moving from a chimpanzee-like society to a bonobo-based one. Thanks for reaffirming my assumptions.
According to a form of the kurgan theory,there once was a civilization in eastern europe 6000 years ago or so, they were agricultural, worshipped a female god, and, according to a woman (I don’t know how much her bias affected her work) they traced ancestry matrilinearly, then a strong patriarchal group of barbarians, worshipping patriarchial gods and tracing lineage patrilinearly came and wiped them out, and this is how proto-indo-european was introduced to Europe.
If the bonobos and chimpanzees ever duked it out, I predict this is how it would go.
Bonobos are a scam.
They are supposed to be a separate species that is similar to chimps, but evolved a different culture, but this isn’t really true.
1. Bonobos can reproduce with chimps and share 100% the same genes.
2. When a chimp invades a bonobo society, he acts like a chimp and attacks/humiliates/murders male bonobos and the bonobo females respond to this like chimp females do. They love it! The bonobo society becomes a chimp society in less than one generation.
3. When a chimp society catches a STD that kills all of the alpha (and greater beta) males, and only the omegas are left, the chimp females treat the remaining chimps exactly like bonobos (lots of nagging, and trading sex for favors). The chimp society becomes a bonobo society.
Bonobos are chimps but all of the alpha males are dead. They shouldn’t be understood as separate species.
The takeaways from studying bonobos:
1. Women treat alphas different from betas and omegas, and a society without alphas is different.
2. Omega males don’t have alpha male children. The weak genes persist generations and causes societies to remain different.
That is incorrect and the facts do not support your assertions. Chimps and bonobos are classified as 2 different species of the same genus (Pan). They have a common ancestor and the split took place around 2-3 million years ago.
Furthermore, chimps never invade bonobo territories. This is simply impossible, because the Congo and the Lualaba rivers keep the 2 species separate:
==============================
By the time that our Homo erectus ancestors were roaming the African savannah 2 million to 1.5 million years ago, populations of the common ancestor of chimpanzees and bonobos had been separated by the Congo River.
Little and probably no interbreeding has occurred since then, says Kay Prüfer, a bioinformatician at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who led the sequencing study. Comparisons of the bonobo genome and sequences of chimps from various populations showed that chimps living just across the Congo River were no more closely related to bonobos than were populations living as far away as Côte d’Ivoire. That implies that the separation was quick and permanent, says Prüfer.
source: http://www.nature.com/news/hippie-chimp-genome-sequenced-1.10822
==============================
As a matter of fact, it is because of these rivers that the 2 species evolved in the first place.
==============================
Once the ancestors of bonobos had been separated from those of chimpanzees, they may have found themselves in a very different ecological world. North of the Congo River, the ranges of chimpanzees and gorillas overlap, so those animals compete for food. But no gorillas live south of the river, so bonobos face much less food competition, says Victoria Wobber, a comparative psychologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has worked with bonobos including Ulindi.
source: http://www.nature.com/news/hippie-chimp-genome-sequenced-1.10822
==============================
For your information, 1) apes cannot swim and 2) on top of that those rivers are infested with crocodiles.
So one of the reasons why chimps are stronger and more aggressive is because they have to compete with gorillas, whereas the bonobos don’t.
All this terrifies me. A brief thought experiment that considers the overall level of masculinity in the States, with respect to capabilities in war time should say an invasion take place and our Army fail.
To state it succinctly, imagine a scenario where the Koreans invade, the US Army is somehow unremarkably thwarted by hidden Korean technology and the defense of the nation is left to the public. Could the men of America defend her? I have a terribly hard time imagining neck beard drawing arms and taking aim on the battle field against our enemies…
Excellent article, except maybe for the part about the porno industry being worth billions- not so much anymore with all the free material and rampant piracy. But still, the observation of bonobo versus chimp is astute. For a preview of the fate of the West (best case scenario), take a look at Singapore.
The world is going to hell in a hand basket.
Maybe they were once quite advanced and on the road to higher culture when they became female dominated, after which their brains and even their bodies regressed to primitive forms as their societies and cultures deteriorated.
gender domination is generally associated socio-dynamics, specifically, the ability to form cooperative groups. This is why feminism has such a great attraction towards sorority.
Generally females are dominant when they protect each other against males.
The opposite seems to be also true. However, there are divergences which render this approach more that ‘social’ or ‘gender-construct’. Those differences are the reproductive biology and the consequent reaction to environmental stresses.
My father was raised on a farm and he more broad and robust than I am. This change occured in one generation. Now imagine after several.
I’ve posted recently about something I would describe as the equivalence of traits:
http://metacorners.blogspot.pt/2016/02/the-equivalence-of-traits-why.html
which means pretty much that for almost every human emotion there is a simplistic relation to that in other primates, specially our closest chimps and bonobos. And let’s face it, when we talk about gender and sex, it is definitely a topic which has a lot in common with the Great Apes. We can observe obvious differences in sexual behavior related to societal attitudes as we go across countries and across times. Chimp suffered scarce food for generations and we can see obviously who would strive the best if they where put together with bonobos. It seems that everything points out to the same conclusions. Increased sex, excess calories and non-effort/lazy time creates a devastating spiral for societies and civilizations.
Men in the past were totally different they had different priorities
1- Family.
2- School and then getting university degrees.
3- Career.
Men in the past had different standard about women in addition to beauty like being reserved in her cloth and behavior, modest, soft, good housewife, polite ..etc oh I forgot and a virgin!
Now men thanks to the pop psychology which turned women into the ultimate prize or even the purpose of life which began from the early childhood when they inserted sexual themes into female characters in cartoons which enforced the sexual desire in children abnormally. Later on in movies and songs making men being enslaved by their desires and only care about the external beauty which is only a cover of the real person inside. Just look at the modern fashion industry less cloth more fashionable, more cloth and the girl is considered to be retarded, and by more cloth I don’t mean dressing like a ninja like in Saudi Arabia.
And look at magazines they glorify worthless women only because they have big boobs, but ignore a girl who went to third world countries to help hungry and sick people or a women who is a notable scientist.
Now many modern men make finding a women their purpose in life just as if there is gap in themselves and it cannot be filled except by women’s love, and they think that they cannot be happy without her, putting her above himself, his career and his education making him a total pussy controlled by his desire and his worshiping of what he considers the big prize. Once I was reading an article written by a Taoist practitioner who wrote when a person emotionally attach himself to something or someone he will lose his power and confidence. He also mentioned when the one view something as extraordinary he will lose his cool, just look to many modern men watching porn and listening to pop BS which glorify women into the level of gods. I’m not a misogynist but a women should be thought of as a women not more not less, like a man is a man not more not less.
Plus what happened to many western women is that they worship their celebrities and money. If a girl now is dressing like prostitute and covered by tattoos smoking weed, getting drunk on the streets only caring about twerking her ass at the club
is considered to be cool by many, But if a reserved girls is learning astrophysics and dreaming to be an astronaut she might be ridiculed. Just do the calculation if a party girl took a half naked or naked selfie in the bathroom vs a nerdy girl posting something smart on social media like FB how many likes each one of them will get? just do the math!!
And many men are buying into this shit worshiping girls who do not deserve any kind of attention, while ignoring the good girls if they found one of course!, then they complain like pussies why women are like that? of course if they didn’t worship their desire and turning women into goddesses embracing the real men attitude the situation wouldn’t be like that now. when men dedicate themselves in making women their ultimate prize ready to be dominated by them they will lose themselves unless they wake up.
I remember a story in my country when a guy from high school felt in love with a girl and they were in relationship, and he was totally obsessed over her and he couldn’t concentrate on his education while the girl was an aloof to some extent and she was concentrating on her education finally the dude failed and the girl passed and went into college later on she broke with poor guy, and then she married a guy through arranged marriage who already finished his college and started his own career.
Bonobo society is representative of life under a matriarchy. Chimp society is representative of life under a patriarchy. Both species sharing 99% of their genetics with not just each other but also ourselves, perfectly illustrates how culture can shape our behavior and why we must always remain vigilant and protect our cultures from any influences that have the potential of destroying the legacy of thousands of generations before us.
i agree with about everything but guess what , the muslims they are the second group with high tostastron after blacks , there social structure is a patriarchal , amricans , eurpens , canadians , russsians are all have very low birthrate , and all what you dccribed although harness by femnisim to emasculate men and take control over ( see when a ceo woman go she put another female , they have mutual brotherhood ) , its a result from the actions of rich peaple that want to control the world , they have to weaken the men in order to take over the world , they put women in key positions cause women are weak and east to control they are like herd .
so the rick peaple and the goverment weaken the men to take over the peaple .
and femenism use it to gain control.
also think about money , in this world everything is about money and its easy to use the power of men to extrect moeny from them by justifying it that men have the power . thats why divorce lawyer with the goverment use the stringh of men against them . everythink is to translate to moneyyy .
Its almost as easy as: abundance of resources=soft living=feminism=homosexuality and scarcity of resources=tough living=patriarchy/necessary masculinity=traditional values
Oh – my – god. Your piece on chimpanzees and bonobos was pathetically inaccurate. And before you come back with some ridiculous argument I’m going to stop you right there – I hold a PhD in zoological science specialising in the social dynamics of wild (important point) bonobos and chimpanzees. I studied them in the wild every day for 5 years. All of your assumptions (which are all wrong) about bonobos have come from pop culture articles and crappy studies from captivity. Don’t cite species to bolster your argument when you know squat about them. If you actually knew the reality of true wild bonobo behaviour it would actually support your thesis better. Feel free to get in touch should you want to properly educate yourself about this incredible species.
Feel free to contact me. You can find my email at the bottom of the ‘About’ page.
Julius Evola, a remarkable italian philosopher, said that apes are involuted men not men evolved apes like Darwin said.,
!!
“Send our kids to war to make them manly.”
Maybe you aren’t so far removed from the apes after all. I was under the impression men went to war so their children wouldn’t have to.
Want to know the most alpha thing you can do?
Recognize philosophical shell games and avoid them like the plague. Make your own decisions based on experience, and tell anyone who tries to tell you what a man should act like to eat shit. When this failed experiment called civilization collapses you guys are the last idiots I want on my side.
Poking around here for the past few days has made me wonder how many of you have lost your jobs to women, lost your wives, or had an unfortunately emasculating mother. (Perhaps all three?)