BBC is seriously considering postgenderism.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z88c9qt

Feminists have a weird attitude towards postgenderism. Half the time, they say “Valerie Solans was a schizophrenic. Nobody is seriously advocating what she advocated.”

… and then they write these creepy articles for BBC.

See? Postgenderism is no joke. It is seriously being considered by mainstream media organizations. It will effectively place human reproduction in the hands of the state … but that’s a small price to pay for the elimination of men! Right ladies?

This article is the best argument for neo-luddism I have ever seen. If there is a nuclear war or an environmental catastrophe, humanity may survive … but technological progress will certainly be sent back centuries. This could be a good thing.

Civilization is pro-feminist. Modern weapons have given women the power to serve in the military, something that in all earlier historical epochs would have seemed like an absurdity. Civilization has given women the birth control pill and the abortion.

Pay no attention to the manly Sci-Fi stories about alien monsters and flying cars. Those things are products of the great male imagination, but they are not connected to reality. In reality, the next frontier is the frontier of genetic engineering.

That’s the real reason why women are trying to get into science. If the field of genetic engineering gets dominated by women, all is lost. Humanity is officially imprisoned in a world dictatorship for the rest of eternity and there is no going back ever.

Perhaps global warming isn’t human-caused. Perhaps it has been created by Mother Earth and Father Sky. They’re creating a deluge to save us from the vile hubris of “geek feminism”.

montani semper liberi = Mountain men are always free.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

The whole article looks like it was written for a kindergarten class. I call click bait on that one.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[HitmanParticipant]

F~~~ the BBC.
They degenerated into a bunch of hacks..

[RennieParticipant]

These idiots are so arrogant they think they could actually survive in a world without men.

Yeah, right.

As usual they’re claiming gender is just a construct and didn’t always exist. The transgender lunacy is the product of women. Their own insanity created it.

Shame on you BBC for writing such tripe. Shame on you.

[UnbelievableyetnotParticipant 512]

My male forefathers were once the proud carriers of around 1,400 genes, but today us men only have about 27 to our name.

That’s based on the fallacy that advancement = more genes.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Unbelievableyetnot wrote:

That’s based on the fallacy that advancement = more genes.

The 1400 genes woman have are all fat genes. That’s not progress.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[MonkeyMindParticipant 5340]

The BBC: The only Broadcasting Corporation that gets it’s money via extortion under the threat of a £1,000 fine if you don’t pay up for their ‘Licence Fee’.

It’s a legalised racked.

F~~~ the BBC. What a bunch of c~~~s.

[Ned TrentParticipant 4894]

Ahh well, so it’s them “beebs” again..?

You know very recently they “interviewed” Milo but knowing his wits he handled them at his best with style as usual.

And here is the e-vid-ence:

I'd rather die a natual death with a clear MGTOW conscience somewhere off the grid than one within "modern" civilisation with a big stress mark on my forehead and a couple of dozen tubes plugged into my body. Back to the plantation..? Me..? Hey, literally: I won't ever fucking kid myself...YZERLMNTSIC

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

“Y could lose surplus genes as they were retained byt the X (chromosome).”

So the male genetics are an order of magnitude more efficient than the female. Surprise surprise.

At first they present the ide of the Y chromosome “losing genes” as some kind of indication of decline, but if you take it to its logical conclusion you’ll see the male chromosome is just evolving faster.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Darth SinParticipant 576]

BBC = British Bollocks Corporation.

[RennieParticipant]

Darth Sin wrote:

BBC = British Bollocks Corporation.

Or British Bulls~~~ Corporation.

Or British Bureau of Communism.

Or British Bureaucrat Corporation.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Uintatherium wrote:

Civilization is pro-feminist.

No, feminism is anti-civilization.

Modern weapons have given women the power to serve in the military,

But not the innate ability. The power has existed since at least the Napoleonic era, but it takes more than fancy toys to win a war.

[Jim01Participant 6678]

can we have the Islamic takeover soon please? All of the manginas and feminists at the bbc will be the first to be stoned to death in the streets

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

sidecar wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

Civilization is pro-feminist.

No, feminism is anti-civilization.

Oh, I wish!

An anti-civilization feminist is like a goldfish who is trying to destroy his fishbowl. If civilization falls, feminism falls also.

I actually think that the collapse of civilization would be a good thing. I, however, disagree with the an-prims when they say that a “revolution against technology” is needed right now. Civilization is already hanging by a thread thanks to the threat of nuclear war and the upcoming climate catastrophe.

If these upcoming disasters do not destroy civilization, they will weaken it to the point where it can be eliminated.

Radfems will sometimes talk about the beauty of nature in order to troll Republicans … but, deep down, they know that they need civilization. Women cannot control men or their own bodies without technology.

Radfems are stupid, but they aren’t that stupid. Radfems could potentially turn the whole world into a genetically modified, cyberpunk dictatorship. That’s what I’m truly worried about.

As far as I’m concerned, any organization that seriously wishes to destroy civilization is beneficial. To destroy civilization is to create a world ruled by curious, freethinking wildmen … and the helpless bitches who worship them as gods. That’s why I don’t like comparing Islamists to primitives. Islamists want to use technology to enslave people. That is completely different from destroying it.

In your heart, you may think that dictatorships are not civilized … but let’s stick to technical definitions. Dictatorships are civilized zones. They just use civilization for oppressive purposes.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Masculine_ManParticipant 2735]

Uintatherium wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z88c9qt

Feminists have a weird attitude towards postgenderism. Half the time, they say “Valerie Solans was a schizophrenic. Nobody is seriously advocating what she advocated.”

… and then they write these creepy articles for BBC.

See? Postgenderism is no joke. It is seriously being considered by mainstream media organizations. It will effectively place human reproduction in the hands of the state … but that’s a small price to pay for the elimination of men! Right ladies?

This article is the best argument for neo-luddism I have ever seen. If there is a nuclear war or an environmental catastrophe, humanity may survive … but technological progress will certainly be sent back centuries. This could be a good thing.

Civilization is pro-feminist. Modern weapons have given women the power to serve in the military, something that in all earlier historical epochs would have seemed like an absurdity. Civilization has given women the birth control pill and the abortion.

Pay no attention to the manly Sci-Fi stories about alien monsters and flying cars. Those things are products of the great male imagination, but they are not connected to reality. In reality, the next frontier is the frontier of genetic engineering.

That’s the real reason why women are trying to get into science. If the field of genetic engineering gets dominated by women, all is lost. Humanity is officially imprisoned in a world dictatorship for the rest of eternity and there is no going back ever.

Perhaps global warming isn’t human-caused. Perhaps it has been created by Mother Earth and Father Sky. They’re creating a deluge to save us from the vile hubris of “geek feminism”.

montani semper liberi = Mountain men are always free.

The real question is, do we need women? Unlike that bulls~~~ article, scientists already created lab rats without mothers. Look at my post here:

Want to have kids and pass your DNA? In the future you might not need women

Article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/13/motherless-babies-possible-as-scientists-create-live-offspring-w/

If it costs you your peace of mind, then it is too expensive.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

@masculine_man: That article is interesting … but I hope it doesn’t get taken too far.

On some manosphere sites, I see men who want to create a male-only world. I don’t see how that would solve anything. It may seem like sweet revenge right now … but we will likely regret it.

To be fair, a male-only world wouldn’t be permanent. We could easily make new women from our X chromosomes. An all-female world, on the other hand, would be irreversible. Once the human Y chromosome is gone, it’s gone forever.

Of course, we did not evolve in a male-only world. We evolved in a world where women behave like ladies.

Eliminating women altogether would be like nuking ISIS. It’s a crazy revenge fantasy that would have serious repercussions.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Uintatherium wrote:

… and then they write these creepy articles for BBC.

They do it to get a rise. It’s not journalism.
It’s nothing but question marks.

“I wonder QUESTION MARK… do we need men? QUESTION MARK.”

“Gee, British Broadcasting C~~~s…. since you asked, , why don’t you reflect back on the London Garbage Strike of 1970. Remember that, you stupid f~~~s? Remember when men refused to do the work and what did other lazy people do? NOTHING. You let it stink in the street for weeks and complained about it… during the winter of discontent. How quickly you forget.”

The BBC recently contacting Paul Joseph Watson for an interview on election day,. His response? “I would rather eat my b~~~~ack shavings”.

If the BBC really believed they didn’t need men…
they wouldn’t have contacted a MAN.

The BBC can “wonder” some more.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Keymaster wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

… and then they write these creepy articles for BBC.

They do it to get a rise. It’s not journalism.
It’s nothing but question marks.

“I wonder QUESTION MARK… do we need men? QUESTION MARK.”

… and then they get mad when Glenn Beck “asks questions”.

Even TrashionalWiki has an article on this type of argument. Where is the outrage?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Uintatherium wrote:

Even TrashionalWiki has an article on this type of argument. Where is the outrage?

It’s a bulls~~~ tactic often used (as it says) to shift the burden of proof onto others. They lazily lay back with their arms folded and ask a question they know the answer to already, and expect others to now respond to it – by asking you to tell them about them. (crazy)

“Do we need men?”

“No man should care what you need.”

—

They also use the REVERSE tactic of asking NO questions and pretend to tell you about you….

“You probably _________________ “

“What color is my car, probably?”

“Um…. I dunno.”

“Exactly. In the future if you have any questions, you may ASK.”

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Author]

Posts