daily ad

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

1 of 2 today


BIGGER MAN THEORY

Forty years ago, Marvin Harris the anthropologist postulated the Bigger Man Theory to disprove feminists bloviating on male aggressiveness and oppression, which just proves that he is not very glad to suffer fools and that My Friggin God, those bitches have been whining for a very long time indeed.  Here’s what Marv said ( and I’ll call him Marv, acting all casual since I’m sure he’s dead now and just happy that some joker is still reading his books, never mind what they call him ).  Given control over The Nursery, in other words able to control most every action directed towards infant children, it follows that females would have every opportunity and motive to rear more females, to ensure females were the aggressors, that females were better nourished.  And given that a single male can quite adequately service dozens to hundreds of females, procreation wise, not many of them were needed.  It wouldn’t matter if the sex ratio at puberty were screwed 300 to 50 in favor of female.  Females would soon be in charge.  And today we can see how, actually, they have pretty much gone along these lines, after several generations slowly but surely monopolized several areas such as higher education enrollment which has led to higher levels of management leading to hiring preferences ( males are kept for high muscle, high danger work but are mostly emasculated by female management for control purposes ).  And all without higher population ratios.  So imagine how much more they would have accomplished with that going for them today.

*

But remember how I’ve been talking about how empires MUST be formed regardless of desire or resources?  As soon as agriculture became dominant ( and actually, the process of domination was helped along by early adopters ), the race to empire began, like it or not.  Any area or settlement that didn’t go big in a big way-population growth to provide more farmers and more soldiers and more resource extraction to trade for military material and everything else involved in building centralized war capable government- quickly got overwhelmed and decimated.  You could be a slave to your king who wanted to keep you alive at least, or be free now and a slave to a neighbor conqueror tomorrow who would probably work you to death quickly.  There was never a choice of decentralized independent farmers or serfs, just a choice in what kind of serf you got to be.  The oppressed sanctioned their masters because a foreign master was worse. 

*

In the same way, females never had any choice but to grant males a superior role.  Follow the logic.  If females took over a society, any neighboring society would quickly gain military victory by employing males to combat the female warriors ( remember, the best athletic performers in the world, with plenty of budget for quality food and medicine, see a physical difference between genders at a MINIMUM of twenty percent ).  It really is as simple as that.  And yes, this is pure body strength weapons so for a few hundred years out of mankind’s couple of million females could readily use the same weapons since gunpowder.  But in the coming post Oil Age, those weapons will see fewer and fewer instances of battlefield use, so to understand the future the not so distant past is illustrative.  To defend against male muscle weapons, to stop total decimation or dominance from a neighbor tribe, the females themselves had to employ a stronger male in defense.  Which meant, on a tribal level, a preference for male births.  The best motivation ( unintentionally universally adopted because it worked ) for young male warriors to achieve victory was a lack of suitable local wives.  Less baby girls meant more male aggression.  Which, besides being strategically sound, also helps keep total population under control.  War means keeping numbers down so as not to overwhelm local resources not by warrior deaths but by less female babies AND less neighbor villagers as war brides were won by slaughtering their husbands and other “worthless eaters“.  War wasn’t just for resources in times of lean, but indirectly population reduction to save the environment PRIOR to depletion.  In short, to save themselves from more harm, females ceded control to males who were their protectors.  So, femiNazi’s, bark all you wish, but it’s your fault us guys are in charge.  It might be Hobson’s Choice, but you did choose.

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.
*

The Old Bison Blog on CD 
Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance. Here is the link to order:
http://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00KX7Z1I                         

Also as a free e-book, but not cleaned up or organized, at Lulu






 my bio & biblio
*
My books on PDF ( ALL free!!  If you like it, most are available for sale in paper versions )  available at
http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?keyWords=james++dakin&sorter=relevance-desc
*
By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there.

 

 

9 comments:

  1. Through Netflix's dismal DVD service, because we gave up all commercial TV years ago, we have been watching the History channel series "Vikings", based in the 8th century, and the overwhelming influence is the necessity to produce males at any cost for warrior purposes. It's worth checking out. The new season starts this week, Feb 19th, for those that get it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James (hairless) Dakin:

    You can solve your problems in a FLASH.

    Go to:

    www.bonercancer.tumblr.com

    Problems solved, no one has to know , its all private, happiness awaits you.

    You wont do it ??. well then go to:

    www. vinny2007.tumblr.com

    For a free theraphy to repel any vagina problems that you may have.

    Your friend for life.

    Doctor ANALlitical

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just one comment about the farmers needing a local lord to protect from the conquering lords next tribe over- This is EXACTLY why firearms were necessary for the re-introduction of some semblance of freedom in the world. With fire arms, one weekend of training a month is enough for the farmers to be sufficiently on par with professional soldiers to make it too expensive for wars of conquest to be waged without a lot of care on the part of the wanna-be conquerors.
    Add in a 'frontier' mostly devoid of native tribes (due to diseases, the Indians were down to a fraction of their already low numbers when the Europeans began settling in mass and pushing them out.)
    Which gave rise to the 'American' form of individual freedom.
    I suspect that as long as firearms continue to be usable tools or warfare (nitrates and primers being the two biggest bottle necks long term) there will be multiple attempts to reclaim said 'freedom' in the American west and world wide. Which will, of course, run into technology being used by the elite to suppress the dissidents. Which begs the question, what will break down first, and where (the technology of tyranny or of basic firearms/liberty?). The elite have lots of resources to keep their tech running to the end, but their tech is also more expensive than a basic barrel, projectile, and powder...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the end, the elites will be VERY vulnurable to JIT, over reliance on financing, and long distance hauling. In effect, distance will be the rebels friend and lack of ammo will partially be compensated by that.

      Delete
  4. "It wouldn’t matter if the sex ratio at puberty were screwed 300 to 50 in favor of female." I believe you meant "skewed", but, then again, it's also correct as it stands. Very efficient "two for one" word choice, LB. But, then again, that's the hallmark of a professional wordsmith like you ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I can't take credit for that one. Totally meant to say skewed. Spell check slipped by me on that one.

      Delete
  5. I for one am grateful that you stuck at it and gave us a break from the typical stories out there. I sure enjoyed yours and looked forward to each new chapter. Thanks, LB!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And remember kids, Lulu.com has the e-book of Loco Gringos for free, or $9 paper book.

      Delete

I must moderate-trust me. You don't want to see what happens otherwise. Sometimes it takes awhile to respond as I only check two or three times a day. No N-Bombs, nothing to get me libeled. Otherwise, have at it. If you criticize me, make sure to praise my hair first.