Thursday, January 7, 2016

Yellowstone - The "Nuke" Extinction Event That Leaves The Planet A Crater

It is long overdue to blow and is getting more active by the hour.

The Russians were threatening to open the caldera with specially targeted nuclear strikes.

If you think about what has been happening in the real world the past 15 years or so, it is more bizarre than Stanley Kubrick's DR. STRANGELOVE. The funny thing is ... we were talking about that world before it happened. In fact, the wheels were already in motion when the first edition of TEXAS ARCANE'S SURVIVAL REPORT went up on the web back in 1998. We breathed out the ideas and the next thing you know, they were on the front page of the newspaper ... leaving poor Tex feeling like George Orr in Ursula K. Leguin's THE LATHE OF HEAVEN. We slept, we dreamed ... in the morning when we awoke the world was like this. It is no wonder the Neanderthals were a dream culture focused on the internal world as much as the external, given to reverie and long deep contemplation of images by torchlight. They knew that the work of the subconscious always precedes the conscious realization of new information. Once appreciated it can save many lives where rational thought is much inadequate. Visions and portents mean something because the mind is using them to try to focus your attention on things your conscious mind is missing.

General Jack Ripper was a man far ahead of his time who foresaw the
world that was coming and the evil that was at work and decided
 to take action against it when the initiative was his.


Ave said...

The dream bit reminded me of a new-agey blog for housewives (but I repeat myself) I stumbled across about a week ago, about how people with Rh negative blood are supposed to have this dream thing going on :

However, I would not say 100% of my dreams didn't have any link with my future somehow.

(apart of the erotic dreams, they had a 100% failure so far)

Sir Sweetstick said...

You have mentioned the JFK assassination several times, so I will tell you something interesting about it that isn't known outside of my family :) The woman who dropped a dime on Oswald -- in the movie theater -- was named Julia Postal; my grand auntie. She testified before the Warren commission and was represented in the Oliver Stone movie. Her husband was the brother of my paternal Grandfather, Frederick Postal. The latter was a close business associate of John McCone from the 1930's until he (my GF) retired in the early 1970's. If you are not already familiar with the name "McCone" then you can look it up; paying close attention to what McCone was doing at the time of the assassination.

Takudzwa Aywok said...

This night I had a dream in which the whole of Europe and some bits of sea surrounding it was completely frozen, and another night I had one in which I built my vault too late and was horribly scared because I was being hunted down by something I couldn't localize. Some sort of an abstract, predatory representation of robots or something like that. Obviously with no doubt it was referring to the fact that.. well, we are soon to see robots probably that will be used by the governement and such.

Well, the image I recall of this is that of some sort of a blurry picture of machinery floating above in the sky and focused and aiming at the surface. Always very abstract.
I also recall of, that in this dream there was another guy and that guy prepared his vault early enough and was safe.

Takudzwa Aywok said...

I have noticed that melons as well tend to have dreams that predict the future for some reasons.
Apparently, before fighting Enkidu, Gilgamesh had a dream about it and because of this was ready before the fight, and apparently the pharaohs as well would often have those kind of dreams and have people interpret them.
Because I am part melon I am pretty sure alot of what you say will happen, will happen.

Takudzwa Aywok said...

I find this weird that there are so many similarities between melons and Thals. For exemple, red hair, rebeliousness, moral superiority (The jews say of themselves that they are morally superior to the Goyim and they are mainly melon), putting the Will above everything else (stems from deep sockets in thals and the "inner fire" or M-back in melons), nordic / childlike facial features, being tall (Ramses II had a problem related to his height and as you said, some melons were giant) and strenght.

I figured out that it could be that, both had those traits because those traits are always what you end up with in a matriarchy, if women are the ones to pick their partners and if they have many partners.

A page you linked to about the red-haired giants said that, a tribe in Peru said of them that they got wiped out by the heavens because of their "wicked sexual habits". I can't think of anything sexual a cro-mag would NATURALLY and without something that would make it so that they have values like religion, hate.. Except for if the women have many partners.

Here's what I found about the "White" Huns or hephtalites, apparently the only ones to have had "white skin" and apparently they had nothing to do with the other Huns. They apparently had elongated skulls as well:
>Some scholars believe that the White Huns were of Turkish origin, while some place the White Huns’ origin near the Hindu Kush region. What little is known of White Hunnish culture favors an Iranian origin.
>A common custom for Iranians was also common for the White Huns—the practice of polyandry, having several husbands to one wife.
>In addition, a White Hunnish woman wore a hat bearing the same number of horns as she had husbands, all of whom were probably brothers. Even if a man had no biological brothers, he would adopt men to be his brothers so he could marry. All the brothers and the wife agreed on sexual privileges. The paternity of children was assigned according to the age of the husband.

Hephtalites skulls:

>The White Huns are thought to have worshipped fire and sun deities. Although this is not uncommon, worshipping both deities together is similar to Iranian and Persian peoples.
>Such beliefs may have later produced in what would be known as Zoroastrianism in which women held important value in society, cleanliness and hard work were stressed, oppression of others is condemned, and the worship of fire and the Sun were key elements.

Apparently, the White Huns were the only ones to have white skin color and they would "bind their heads", this book says:

>The most unsettling practice of the White Huns was the binding of heads

styrac1 said...

Macintosh Systems Consultant said...

Correction - It's General Ripper, not Colonel

Texas Arcane said...


I am well aware of what you are talking about. Well aware. I'm not all-knowing and cannot solve this one to my satisfaction.

We know there were four species of Neanderthals at minimum in Europe, all four of them looked remarkably different from each other and the evidence says they got along remarkably well. All tribal wars between Neanderthals appeared to be between the same subgroups and never with the other "variations."

The melonheads had radically different character but have strange similarities they share with Neanderthals ... red hair, blue eyes, big teeth that never seemed to decay, larger brains.

My best guess to date is that the Neanderthals were heavily intermixed with them at various times because they were often found as minions and had access to their women. Again, royal classes always eventually run themselves into narrow genetic alleyways where they have trouble finding compatible mates - is it too far out to suggest that when a stud is needed and your palace guard is standing outside your daughter's bedroom, he might suffice far better than one of the (unthinkable) slave classes like Cro-Magnons?

This is my ambiguous guess about all of this and it is the best I can do with the information I have.

Texas Arcane said...

@Mac Systems Consultant

Good eyes. I stand corrected.

Texas Arcane said...


In my estimation you are talking about something really important with the importance of dreams to all these mythical figures except for Homo Sapiens, who appears to have had the majority of his capacity to dream and almost all his animal instincts tampered with. So whereas both Enkidu and Gilgamesh show frequent reference to their dreams throughout the Epic this seems to be a kind of superpower reserved to these races but stripped away from Homo Sapiens. Since Sapiens is demonstrated to have a spidery and thin Corpus Callosum (Aspies have the thickest of any human beings on the spectrum, on average 6x as thick as that of hu-mans) it is possible this was a deliberate modification. When the slave goes to lay down in the stable at night with sundown he is intended to sleep dreamlessly until he awakens for the next day's work. He is stripped of the capacity for deep contemplation, reflection on his own mind or any real abstract reasoning. Think of everything you know about ordinary people. It is not an outrageous theory at all and Voltaire, Schopenhauer and even Thomas Jefferson have commented on the eerie resemblance of people to domesticated animals bred for work alone and not survival in the wild.

Texas Arcane said...


I had an apocalyptic dream a couple of weeks ago that was so horrible I wrote it down the next day as a possible premise for a survival horror computer game. I rarely dream disturbing things as I get older but this one scared the crap out of me. The dream was about [REDACTED].

bicebicebice said...

Did you dream about Sweden? It is like Lord of the Rings, when the orcs win.

But, we have proper thal weather here now, minus 40 celsius in some places, I haven't seen one of the saps in days. I wish the weather could stay like this forever. Proper thal weather if you ask me. It is like the Vedic Rus. Watch out for SkiFree yeti tho! Other then that, no problems.

Kona Commuter said...

@ Takudza

At present I’m following the anti Social Justice Warrior, MGTWO, Red Pill (for want of a better description) & anti third wave Feminist movements with great interest.

It was interesting what you said about matriarchal societies. The MGTOW / Red Pill / anti 3rd wave Feminists basic argument is that with our feminised society (assuming you’re in the West) allows women to sleep with multiple men with no shaming from society. The women go for Alpha Males (based predominantly on looks) for sex & procreation then later ( roughly around 30 years old) after they’ve slept around and if they couldn’t lock down an Alpha Male, some lucky Beta Male can provide for them and maybe even raise Alpha Males kids for him.

The argument goes that the social construct we are entering isn’t great for society. Men don’t have any incentive to marry (divorce rape), the women are of low quality (their all town bikes now, the more men they sleep with the less they can form intimate relationships) so the men have less inclination to build. Under the present deal, a few men get plenty of action with no real effort, the many have to wait until they’re ripe for their woman to be finished with no restrictions sex and put up with duty sex, the few at the bottom of the totem pole have to put up with being shunned. Hell, even obese unattractive 3’s demand good men.

The other argument they make is to ask where the successful Matriarchies are?

Takudzwa Aywok said...

Making the west a "matriarchy" in that sense is not good at all because of cro-mag sexuality.
As tex said, Thal women do not look for alpha males and are wired to look for the best males they can.

Texas Arcane said...

@Kona Commuter

Matriarchies only work in much smaller groups with women about a thousand times more intelligent than modern women. It also doesn't hurt if these females are very strong, very beautiful and very tough. These genius level women think those beta males are the genetic cream of the crop and do not refer to psychotics with impulse control problems as "alphas." When the women work for group survival with the men, the whole thing works.

Neanderthal tribes worked unbelievably well. Homo Sapiens could never work. Eventually everybody contends for their own interests and even the genders easily go to war. Women wage war on their own men because they are stupid and genetically inferior. Trust me, it doesn't take long to solve genes this rotten as the ones we have now. In historical time it only lasts the blink of an eye.

Edward said...

Matriarchies, combined with the proper diet, cultural memeplex, and working from the top down rather than the bottom up would work fine.
Girls shouldn't enter puberty until their mid twenties, maybe later, until that time they help out their parents, maybe help raise their siblings, keep the house clean, learn the culture and parenting skills. Once they are ready to procreate they select the best available male who is a good genetic match, which works by some kind of DNA psychological 'magic' as yet unknown to science.
Highly sensitive Female mate choice is what really drives our biological evolution forwards, not male dominance.
They don't go into heat and ovulate until they have fallen properly in love, and they stay living in the parental family home until they give birth and their parents and siblings help them raise the child. Family inheritance passes down the female line, the beta males are more like expendable worker ants and the alpha males compete to be studs. The males are not expected to provide for the children they have sired. Not everyone is expected to procreate.
We're more of a colony species, hunters, foragers, drones, teachers, entertainers, etc. not really designed for everyone to eventually form long term monogomous pairs.

J.M. said...

If Matriarchy was so perfect, Neanderthals would have crushed their enemies (the Melonheads and their slaves) and built a civilization, not the other way around. Whether you like it or not, civilization is inherently patriarchal. No matter how you slice it, if you cannot ascertain your children are yours let alone women who are not whores, 100% of men with balls and some semblance of Testosterone will say fuck it and leave it all to crumble. Maybe those were the "rejects" of the Neanderthal that ended up being henchmen and bodyguards of the melonheads...

Rumours of Dave said...

There is a modality with the interaction between matriarchal societies and patriarchal societies that is interesting and I think is also represented on this planet between There is a modality with the interaction between matriarchal societies and patriarchal societies that is interesting and I think is also represented on this planet between Judaism and Royal Families.

Matriarchy essentially means women are the gatekeepers to reproduction. To maximize the quality of their offspring they need to look beyond the circle of their society. Optimally they'd have an available source of non-tribe quality men. You'd want alpha men regardless of where they are from, basically. How do you do this? You use a patriarchy. You create another compatible society that is designed around optimizing alpha male lines - thus patriarchal monarchies. Encourage sluts on the non-mat side, but require a mat-biased threshold so that mat males can have an advantage over non-mat males when mating. Encourage cuckoldry. Maintain an outwardly dominant face as the patriarchal society. This is the machine.

Sam said...

I always wonder if you couldn't lower the pressure under Yellowstone. Of course that could trigger it to blow but with a well lined bore hole it should work. If it's going to blow anyways why not try to slowly let the pressure off?
I have the same idea about the San Andreas fault. It seems that fracking releases earthquakes. In Missouri they say it causes them but that's actually wrong. It just relieves the pressure that's already there. A bunch of small quakes is way better than one big one. What if you went to California and fracked small sections of the fault a little at a time. Start at an uninhabited section and frack a few to see if you could get a lot of small quakes. If this works frack the inhabited areas THEN frack the rest. It's going to move frack or not.

Texas Arcane said...


The West is losing now for all the same reasons the Neanderthals lost.

A matriarchy only works in small tribes of extraordinary people living in very harsh conditions. It doesn't work in any other circumstances. If nothing else, when facing competing patriarchies you need a patriarchy because if your whole life is war the fact is women will never be as good at preparing for it, fighting it and organising strategy for it.

Just consider these facts. Nobody anywhere argues them because the evidence demonstrates them to most people's satisfaction if they are well informed.

1. Neanderthal were many magnitudes stronger and faster than human beings.
2. Neanderthal weapons for close range and distance fighting were all far superior to anything ever found in Cro-Magnon camps.
3. Erring conservatively, it is believed by most anthropologists now that Neanderthals were outnumbered a 1000-to-1 in Europe inside of a few years because of Cro-Magnon fertility rates.
4. The evidence exists to suggest that most "battles" with Cro-Magnons took place between a single Neanderthal and several hundred Cro-Magnons. These were not really "battles," because the Cro-Magnons simply chucked spears at the Neanderthals in ambushes in most instances.

You claim the problem was the matriarchy but that had nothing to do with it. The genocide of the Neanderthals had nothing to do with their matriarchy and all about the fact they bred conservatively and concentrated on very high quality production of children. The Cro-Magnons were not so much a "patriarchy" as a cluster**k of savages moving across the landscape in a colossal horde killing, raping, looting and cannibalising anyone they came across. Neanderthals were not the only people they ate.

Ave said...

Reference on patriarchy & matriarchy : "The Garbage Generation" by Daniel Amneus

Edward said...

The difference between heaven and hell is all in the software not the hardware. The hardware mostly works but we lost the true software in the flood.

Human gender psychology lies on a spectrum, the digit ratio thing. The people with the highest digit ratio are the queen bees, they stay in one place, and send out hunters and foragers to gather 'nectar', to reach full sexual maturity and then send out search parties to find the best stud male to impregnate them.
The people with the lowest digit ratio are the stud males, and they create a parellel hierarchy where he fittest male rises to the top by dominating all the others and getting them to work for him. The queen bee chooses the winner of the contest to sire her progeny, while being supported by her hunters and foragers.

The 'fall' of mankind happened when the programming got mixed up, people with male bodies running the female brain process and female bodies running the male brain process, or a little bit of each.
That's what has caused all the problems.
The old European King was mostly building a kingdom in the female way, except he was doing it for status reasons, and so was ever expanding and dominating other territories and didn't care much about the lives of his citizens.

The Melonhead King of the Jews is mostly running the male process, getting everyone to compete in a hierarchy working for them, but not doing it because they want status but because they want love.

Get it the right way round again and things will work out fine, the queen bee running the full female process just wants all the lesser females to love her and only the best men to have sex with her, the King wants all the status rewards by having all the males work under him so that he alone gets to have the most sex.

I know this because I am a queen bee type, male bodied but running the full female process, so I've spent most of my life doing research hoping to find my prince and start my family.

Someone like Gabe Zichermann is running most of the male process, but for female reasons. Donald Trump is another European King type, but he may be what you need right now to help sort things out in America. Get the men to serve under Donald Trump and the women to serve under Caitlyn Jenner for a bit, and in a decade or so to allow time for reprogramming you might be able to set things straight again.

I don't know there is anyone fully grown running the full male process left on the planet, if there is they are probably in prison due to lack of impulse control.

Stud men don't have sex because they want children, they have sex because they want to have sex and hang the consequences. Queen bees only have sex when they really want to procreate.
With the right diet though, the females grow bigger and stronger than the males, so the queen is defended by her guards and doesn't get impregnated by anyone but the person she really wants to impregnate her.
Everyone else is just a specialised worker ant fulfilling one of the many roles required to support the King and Queen, for them sex is just for recreation, not evolutionary procreation.

The rise of the cromags is like the worker ants forgetting their software, losing their leaders, and getting out of control fighting and fucking each other, leaving a swathe of destruction in their path.

J.M. said...

I think I didn't explain myself better. My main argument was that matriarchal (or basically matrilinear societies since men in these systems have no right to legacy, only women) systems cannot provide incentives for men to get up and build a better future. Given the likelihood of Neanderthals existence beyond the 1 million year timespan and the almost complete absence of written language, development of structured knowledge and other signs that there was a Neanderthal civilization above subsistence level versus the ubiquitous monuments,city ruins and writings left in carved stone around the world and that are attributed the "Melons" in this site, one can include the Neanderthal in the long list of Matrilinear societies that are failures (along with the Chinese Musuo, most African tribes and other islanders).

Maybe that's why the Bible explicitly exalts and recommends a patriarchal system, centered around the Family and the extended family and Europeans greatest success was the adoption of this system and the avoidance of polygamy (a highly dysgenic behavior in the long term), something that in the Middle East was not possible due to the imposition of Islam and the normalization of polygamy and endogamy.

Texas Arcane said...


You explained yourself very well. I understand you exactly.

It's true. A matriarchy is ideal for surviving in a frozen world where high quality males need to learn to work together as brothers to provide for the survival of women and children. The Neanderthals were perfect people in their way.

Only a patriarchy promotes the internal competition that drives men to found larger civilizations and hierarchies and the warfare between groups that ultimately drives innovation.

Whereas a matriarchy can support stable existence for thousands of years with gradually improving genetic quality that entire time, a patriarchy ultimately doesn't work. They almost never last more than 200 years and male quality and overall intelligence, fitness and strength will be in continuous freefall.

It would be great if there was a simple dichotomy matriarchy=good, patriarchy=bad or the reverse. It is human vanity that makes them want to believe that their grab-ass monkey arrangement which is more a simple genetic trough they fell into can somehow be made to work. It is not accident that Byzantium, a civilization that was founded on different ethics by men with the Greek foot, easily outlasted them all, beat the glubb limit and generated so much prosperity that the world is still spending their stolen wealth 1200 years later. Byzantium was so successful they tried to make people forget it ever existed because their own societies had never even approached it.

The patriarchy breeds stupid men. Forget about the opportunist parasites who take advantage of this stupidity. It starts with men being a little too stupid to defend their own civilization and adhere to principles which may require critical reasoning skills. Where do you get critical reasoning skills from? You get them from Neanderthals who lived in a matriarchy.

Real life is much more complicated than the humans would like it to be, which is the reason their results are not what they expected would happen.

Edward said...

The Bible is a hack job, a boot loader, a temporary patch to create the structures necessary to reboot the true system.
We're in an evolutionary trough, we're just lots of babies on two legs bumbling around in our daily lives. We live our lives in left brain mode, doing pointless tasks design to keep us occupied, we are minds hooked up to the matrix, while our right brains do the real work to construct the next phase of civilisation.

Most people don't seem to realise they are only living backwards lives.
Once we start working the proper way around again I expect we'll get much bigger and stronger and more intelligent.

I'm pretty sure the more advanced culture we are trying to create isn't going to need to leave around much in the way of written language either. Firstly we'll have the Internet and cloud computing, but eventually we'll be more telepathic, then we won't have to follow all these rules in our daily lives, we'll just 'know' what the right thing to do is. That's the way it used to work, before the ancient Greeks etc, where we started working everything the wrong way around.
The kingdom of heaven is not a great big civilisation built on endless commerce, strip malls etc. we won't have try to keep up with the Cardassians any more.

styrac1 said...

The whole MGTOW redpillers Alphaness-obsessing thing is such a colossal FAIL. These morons pave the way to their own extinction without even noticing. It's the safest way to Kevorkian themselves and open the way to the domination of faggotry. Here's a few words from someone who knew what he was talking about and wasn't a poseur intellectual hack like those manoshphere types:

"I view it as disastrous for a people when a boy is ashamed of his sister and his mother or is directed to be ashamed of women, in this case of the women who are closest to him, of his mother and of his sister who is becoming a woman. When a boy who is in love with a girl is mocked more than the normal amount, is designated as not fully respectable and as a sissy, and if one says to him: a guy does not bother with girls, he won’t bother with them. There are then only friendships with other youths. Men dominate in the world: so the next step [lit. level] is homosexuality.
I come back to our issue. I see in the whole movement an excessive masculinization and in this excessive masculinization the seedbed for homosexuality."

Reichsf├╝hrer-SS Heinrich Himmler - “On the Question of Homosexuality”

styrac1 said...

Regarding the Gilgamesh dream

Gilgamesh had a powerful dream about a falling star. His mother Ninsun told him that this "fallen star" was a metaphor representing a great friend or brother (Enkidu) who would soon join Gilgamesh.

And here is what Marie-Louise von Franz a student and close associate of Carl Jung and renowned for her dream analysis had to say about it:

"This dream is about 4,600 years old and still we can find modern parallels. The language of the Unconscious has changed much less than the language of Human Consciousness has. So, if we interpret this dream from a modern stand point we would say that uptil the moment when the star fell upon Gilgamesh he fulfilled the “collective” role of The King. He was the Hero and the King. He was probably a very ambitious man who made a big career. He's the typical man who follows up ambitiously and successfully a collective pattern. Nowadays he would be a great politician or a movie star...(...)

Such a person looked at from within is very Not individual. He's fulfilling a collective roll and fulfilling a roll of power, reacting in a very collective way.

The STAR on the contrary represents, as we saw before, the Uniqueness, because every soul has one star in heaven.

We can say that uptil now we can say that Gilgamesh with all his collective power achievements has not yet done anything unique. On the contrary he has only filled out a typical pattern of the hero king. And now, probably in the middle of life, because that's the most frequently when it occurs, something changes. While he's walking around the people, so to speak, proudly of his own power position, collective power position, from the sky falls a star on his back and turns to be a very heavy load.

That's the moment that the unique destiny befalls him, literally, falls upon his back. That means that from now on one carries on ones back the load (…) the burden of having to become himself. To become the unique, chosen individual he was meant to be. And which he had avoided by being an ambitious collective man uptil now. And that proves not to be a glorious call, but a heavy burden to him.

And now the star means also the immortal soul of man. (…) The star is the eternal kernal of the human psychy, the eternal man within us. And so he is now to follow his unique destiny instead of fullfiling a collective roll.

But the people kiss the star's feet, they prostate them selves before the star which means the real greatness...probably Gilgamesh thought that up until the star fell upon him, that he was a great man. He was a king, he was a hero, he was the fortress of his people. Now he has to see that he is not much. The people worship that star stone that greater thing in him.

So in that dream there's that little teaching for Gilgamesh:

Don't take all the honour people give you for yourself. Don't lap-up the complements they give you for yourself. It is that star upon you and that is your heaviest load, your necessity to become an individual. That's what they worship in you not you.

And so after that Gilgamesh becomes the servant of his unique heroic task, the search for immortality."

Texas Arcane said...


100% you're preaching to the choir.

I have been certain the same people behind feminism are working the other side of the hallway funding and building the MGTOW madness. Certain. Never the least bit credible in my opinion. The people working behind MGTOW are working at the same genocide the feminist funding is coming from, period.

Ave said...

Tex, as soon as something is formulated into an ideology, you can be certain the usual suspects are going to subvert it for their own purposes.

It is actually exactly the same thing with survivalism. We all know some forums where you have the mass-manufactured idiots blathering about SUVs and bugout locations, with the occasional spook trying to set up a fake militia...

MGTOW is no different, but in each of these movement there are people asking themselves the right questions, and they usually reach the same conclusions. These are all personal matters, and will be tackled in the personal sphere. Those who want to make a movement out of them actually try to make a revenue source for themselves.

J.M. said...


I understand that there is no perfect trade off at least in this world. Absolute dichotomies are extremely rare. However civilization in the west has run almost continuously for 2000 years, achieving wonders unknown to others in at least 5000 years. A component, a huge part of this success was genetics, the other obviously was the software, in our case the Culture, a Weltaanschauung only Christianity could foster.

Whether you like it or not, had the Western men followed your advice and became cuckolds en masse, the West would not exist anymore and we would speak arabic or maybe another Asiatic hybrid language. Currently, unlike what you said, men are becoming pussies en masse and yes men to their women and the results are everywhere for you to see.

In reference to your statement, I wouldn't be so fast in stating that Patriarchy breeds stupid men. Thousands of years of achievements seem to contradict your statement despite our physical and mental degeneration. I am more willing to bet that things like our food are having an important role in our decay than patriarchal structures that now exist only in the Middle East. I would be more willing to say that polygamy breeds stupid men in time, since that verdict has been rendered on the Middle East (social incest where only top men get beautiful women, the rest the dregs or someone from the family since not even the dregs are available). In a book you recommended, Biohistory some quite plausible theories are exposed in reference to the role of food in a civilization. In the meantime I guess we will have to agree to disagree, bye.

Texas Arcane said...


I never advocated men become cuckolds. Whether you realize it or not, many aspects of Western civilization have already featured elements of matriarchy for thousands of years except for the past two generations, no doubt a legacy of the Neanderthals. Our pattern of assuming young women would ultimately choose their own suitors and reject those not to their tastes is ceding control of reproductivity to women. In Africa, the biggest buck just gets the girl and she has little or no say in anything. It doesn't matter if he cuts the throats of his sexual competitors in their sleep (they often do this in Africa after pretending to be friends during the day) that is the male that ends up breeding. The results speak for themselves. In other cultures, marriages are arranged by parents for political reasons with absolutely no recourse for women to filter males according to their deepest instinctive feelings. The results speak for themselves. If the women have the final say, even if a psychopath manages to fool nearly everybody, the woman can still apply her deepest intuition and shake her head, I don't care what people say about him I don't wish to marry him. He has a fine reputation and is a wealthy man but my gut feeling is that there is clearly something wrong with him - and she is almost always right. Women were called foolish for picking men with simpler jobs and less money in the 1800's but you know what? They got it right. They picked the genetically superior male and had equal or better children because of it.

The ultimate proof of the "Bell Curve" of the patriarchy lies in the fossils. After a huge brain spurt that kicked off the Neolithic era (Neanderthal war brides) mankind has lost between 200cc and 400cc of brain in the last 20,000 years. The evidence points to 200cc lost over roughly 18,000 years and 200cc lost in the last 2000 years ALONE - the skulls of ancient Romans and Greeks are clearly larger and healthier than modern people. Whether you realize it or not, the patriarchy almost never maintains meritocracy for long before good men are replaced by actors, charlatans and bullsh*t artists. How do you think they accomplished their march through the institutions over the past 100 years until they controlled nearly every profession despite showing no evidence of improving any of them? All the professions have declined to farce since the 1950's but the same people still dominate them. The Scottish and English people who dominated medicine in the first half of the 20th century had more medical advances in a single decade than the sixty years since WW2 ended put together with another demographic running the medical cartel. Cancer rates have GONE UP and these guys have collected TRILLIONS during this period FOR CANCER RESEARCH. Yet Otto Warburg the German scientist was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1931 (Nominated 47 times) for proving cancer was caused by fungal damage and achieving a 100% cure rate using ozone! In the modern world, THAT NEVER HAPPENED! The patriarchy is easy to subvert by ambitious psychopaths and sooner or later it degenerates into meaningless. I.E. Barack Obama. Don't lie, the problem is not the Yoos who funded his campaign it is the millions of whites dumb enough to vote for a President who had no record of ever having a day job.

The Observer said...

Tex, I've got to disagree with you on a few points.

Victorian women were a) considerably cloistered until marriage because everyone knew they were sluts and had to be as such to preserve their chastity (Jane Austen protested this as cruel), and b) any potential suitors which they met were invariably vetted thoroughly by their parents, which would have involved those good lower class men. It wasn't only until then that people thought "hey, they don't seem to act slutty, let's go and remove them from their cloistering" without realising that this was the very thing which was keeping them that way in the first place.

As to their "deepest intuition", all one has to read is Jane Austen or any of the Bronte sisters to see who it is they're lusting after: the psychopathic Mr. Darcy. Fast forward to today, and we get Fifty Shades of Grey - same thing, day in, day out. Or hell, crack open any of the numerous romance novels written by women themselves.

The degeneration of the human species is easily explained without need for any connection to patriarchy or matriarchy - a simple ease of living and lack of selection pressure is enough to bring down an entire population, as proven in the Mouse Utopia experiment. By 10x doubling time periods (55 days) at 500+ days (ten generations, hey!), the mice were already in their stagnant phase with multiple physical and cognitive defects; Calhoun himself noted that the mice themselves looked dull-eyed and slow, with lagging reactions to stimuli.

So yes, you're probably right that patriarchy causes degeneration inasfar as it causes civilization, which allows for the relaxation of selection criteria, which in turn causes genetic deterioration. And with the massive reduction of infant mortality and increase in redistributive practices siphoning off resources from the strong to the weak in the last century or two, is it so surprising that there's a corresponding decrease in the physical and mental aspects of humanity?

Whatever neanderthal women were like, they're mostly gone now, replaced by what you recognise as saps women.

The Observer said...

Just an addendum:

Tex, I think part of the problem - and why we are protesting so vigorously - is that you are trying to get us to disbelieve our own eyes.

You want us to believe that female mate selection is eugenic when we can see and read for ourselves the very men than women choose when given free rein: low-iq thugs, good-for-nothing musicians, and murderous psychopaths. Like you pointed out, women in the western world were given some choice relative to other societies, but it was always one between William the baker, Jonas the Cooper's apprentice, or Stanley the shipwright, all of them thoroughly vetted by her parents and sometimes extended family. Dandelion the wandering minstrel who turns up at the gathers was never an option, and that is who they were choosing in declining Rome, 13th-century Baghdad and today.

You want us to believe that women have some innate goodness to them when we can see the porn they consume, which is pretty much all rape, degradation and violence (according to pornhub's statistics itself), and have killed their own children to the tune of at least 1.3 billion worldwide since 1980.

You want us to believe that their decision-making is wise when they overwhelmingly vote for leftists, to ban guns, to import dark-skinned invaders.

You want us to take the neanderthal women of old and extrapolate them to the saps woman of today. No, men aren't better, but no one's looking to valorise us.

I don't hate women; I'm working to get a wife, and start a family. But I'm not going to hold illusions about them, either. I love women, and loving someone means not giving him or her a responsibility which he or she can't cope with.

An I supposed to disbelieve my own eyes?

Texas Arcane said...

@The Observer

What you're really saying is a Homo Sapiens woman is not 1% the human being the Neanderthal female was. If you're projecting the Homo Sapiens female onto Neanderthal women 300,000 years ago, obviously the entire tribe would be wiped out in a week (and these sorts of genes always were) - you openly admit that the females select crazed psychopaths and where would problem solving ability, nobility, honor, duty, strength, intelligence and good character would ever come from in males if our genes are a result of their sexual selection? We'd live in mud huts and eat our meat raw.

So whether you realize it or not you admit that 20% of our population exhibits many qualities that could have possibly come from the sexual habits of Homo Sapiens. That's my real point. If you are insisting that somewhere in the distant past was a patriarchy that worked, I don't believe it is so. I think all these good genes we have left (not many of them) come exclusively from the Neanderthals - and these people are like porcupines in a balloon factory in the modern world. They don't fit it at all.

I would suggest to you that it is an emotionally driven need in you to believe that somehow, the patriarchy could generate males of similar quality and I think rationally, it couldn't. Your conclusion is ... Tex could not be right, that's depressing as hell to think that only matriarchies could do this and matriarchies would be easily wiped out and outnumbered by fast breeding patriarchies with far less formal arrangements for child rearing with men.

I know it is disturbing, frustrating and depressing. IF you want some good news, our "patriarchy" was never this dysfunctional over the last couple of centuries. The one we live in now is not capable of producing good people or any good things. We certainly know that patriarchies don't have to be as absolutely busted as this one. Just the fact it was so vulnerable to being highjacked by alien foreigners and parasites from outside it proves it was extraordinarily flawed. IF your patriarchy can be destroyed simply by purchasing some newspapers and telling lies, you need to build something more solid. That's not insurance against degeneration for it to be subverted with that kind of ease.

Ansible said...

Tex,have you heard of Curt Doolittle and his work called Propertarianism? He examines what made Western Civilization work, how we were attacked, why we have largely lost, and how we might restore order to civilization. He's got a heck of a lot of Neanderthal admixture, he's fairly forthright about his aspergers. He claims that it's what allows him to differentiate between claims that are true vs false.