The following is a public response to a private message sent to me by acurioushuman that was so damn long that the system couldn’t handle it.
////////

That’s not it.

Their society leans heavily on the matriarchal side.

Heavily….

Their issue is that a breathtakingly disproportionate number of human women lack the ability to compartmentalize things.

They lack the vital skills to be able to address subject matter in such a manner that splits it up into sections so they can address it properly without descending into emotionalism and arguments whose victories are accomplished only though the most temporal and unsustainable means.

Rare is the human female who can say, “I agree with you strongly on this part of what you said.”
“I sincerely wish that most people understood its importance.”

“However, evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong in the rest of what you are saying. Or at least the facts appear not to support it.”

“Although the way in which it has been spoken gives me pause, and my immediate response is to reel back in disgust, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate more so that I could make a more informed decision prior to dismissing it–and with it YOU– completely unjustly or out of hand.”

A prime example of this would be what happened a couple of years ago when Canadian women demonstrated their complete lack of discernment and carelessly made a celebrity out of a fellow who goes by the sobriquet of ‘Roosh V.’

We are actually approaching the two year anniversary of his famous ‘Montreal speech.’

A speech that didn’t mark the end of western civilization or promote a zombie rape culture as his detractors claimed would surely come were he permitted to speak publicly.

Roosh V runs a website popular with men who truly value the importance of masculinity and its role in society–while sadly–simultaneously appealing to the philosophical and spiritual defendants of those who have historically gifted the world with gonorrhea and unplanned pregnancies.

Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion of species likened to myself is that no primate society can survive when populated predominantly by feminized men.

Human history has demonstrated the destructiveness of this cycle time after time.

When a significant majority of men become feminized, population drops and that society stops innovating and doing the courageous things that led it into greatness in the first place.

That is because feminized men lack the courage to stand out and beat back down these inevitable cycles of destruction, which replay themselves and take the unwary by surprise.

Feminized men are notoriously insecure and hesitant to stand out except in large groups where their strength is in numbers and emotional, reactionary responses can give them a temporal upper hand against an opponent who appeals to reason or demonstrates strength of character, charisma or power of will.

Self preservation to these sissies consists of shrieking for the assistance of other like-minded weaklings in the misguided hope that their numbers will provide the social proof to their reactionary disagreements, whenever they are faced with someone presenting an objective argument where facts and objectivity clearly demonstrate that the sissies are unequivocally wrong.

Such weakness and reluctance to embrace this decidedly masculine characteristic for the preservation of the species opens up that people to conquest through predatory lending and addictions to vice.
The lack of masculine role models demonstrating personal responsibility to one’s self, family and community allows parasitical and destructive outside factions desirous of that nation’s resources and wealth to gain traction.

It creates unhealthy situations that provide a clear course for the cancer of Big Money backed anti-social, special interests to follow that then devours both the national trust and even that people’s own unique identity.
The results are nearly always a collapse of that society’s ‘manufacturing’ and social infrastructure due mostly to irresponsible speculation, trade agreements that border on treason, and a conspicuous lack of political leadership and courage to speak out against the same.

In part this can be forgiven since by that time the citizenry are so politically polarized and so bloody stupid that they possess little more than a child’s attention span.

They lack discernment and understanding and are offended at everything, since victim-hood now holds a place of prestige.
This collapse combines with a runaway inflation that compels those in power to maintain appearances by becoming debtors to foreign interests.

This then is exacerbated by a jobless citizenry who quickly become buried in debt themselves.

That is because societal evolution, and all things financial and cultural are NOT smooth progressions–but rather cyclical in nature.
Humans do themselves a grave disservice by failing to realize this.
Any species that makes the repudiation of the existence of these cycles a social or national policy is doomed to failure.

It is the recognition of such cycles and taking the necessary steps to combat the deleterious effects of the same that preserves the strength of both people and nation.

In being one of the few humans to awaken out of their collective slumber to see the dangers inherent in these cycles, ‘Roosh V’ finds himself among the wise.

Where he made his greatest misjudgment though, was when he assumed that today’s modern society, corrupted by materialism and cupidity would understand anything even remotely akin to Johnathan Swift’s sarcastic mockery of the incompetence of his own political leaders, through suggesting that starvation could simply be avoided if we all just ate Irish babies.

Swift was not promoting cannibalism.

He was saying something shocking to wake up ignorant and slumbering minds made catatonic through their own hubris.
For reasons that are entirely his own, whether out of a sincere attempt to make a point or to create a ruckus that would popularize his movement, Roosh V tried to pen something similar by suggesting (tongue-in-cheek) that modern women would be forced to learn the value of the discretion of their ancestors and take greater care for their own self-preservation were rape actually made legal on private property.

I imagine that were Johnathan Swift still alive today he would probably have chuckled a little while simultaneously face-palming.
Placing rape in a supercilious context is unique to the male of the species, even if it is male on male rape that is being spoken about.
How they can find humor in this is something women are incapable of grasping.

Women are also incapable of accepting that this will not change, despite their evocations and injunctions to the contrary.

Human women have demonstrated time after time again that evolution did not gift them with the same sense of humor or the ironic as it did men— a humor both inappropriate and offensive— one which blasts forth like a foul, room clearing flatulence at the most inopportune times destroying all attempts at sanctimony with hilarious results.

Even most of the women among the Ba’alaket just don’t ‘get’ the mastery of slapstick comedy saturated in every episode created by the glorious buffoons known as The Three Stooges.

It is a rare ‘reptilian’ who won’t drop everything he is doing and stare slack-jawed in amazement at Curly going psychotic while Larry plays Pop! Goes the weasel on his Stradivarius.

Riotous laughter follows as Larry does all he can do to bring Curly victory through desperately finding other sources that produce the magic tune.

The Punch Drunks episode of the Three Stooges is nothing short of The Lord of the Rings for retards….

And we reptilians love every ridiculous moment of it.

But unlike the Stooges or Johnathan Swift, Roosh V only proved that modern women were incapable of reading the cryptic language emblazoned on what essentially ( whether intentionally or not ) constituted a “Do not feed the trolls sign.”

When this was going on a couple of years ago, the Society took the opportunity to conduct a loose survey to see how many women offended by what he had supposed said had actually read ( even in part ) the article he actually wrote.

Most had not only NOT bothered to read Roosh’s article, but among those who had, only three of them knew about Johnathan Swift’s ridiculous advice to eat Irish babies and two of those didn’t find any humor even in Swift’s work and none of the three women who had any literary education had connected it in either style or spirit to what Roosh had written.

So most of the outrage was from those who not only had not even bothered to read the work, but who instead let others do their reading for them and then simply subscribed to the prevailing opinion.
In other words, they couldn’t be bothered to force themselves to slog through the read to formulate something as important as their own opinions.

Someone saying that they didn’t read something before formulating an opinion on it because they heard that the content contained ‘offensive’ opinions fails to take into consideration that they cannot rightfully claim their own opinion about this thing if they haven’t actually investigated it themselves.

They are in fact simply subscribing to someone else’s opinion and parroting that opinion, because it seems right and it ‘feels’ right without taking into consideration that the opinions they do tenaciously hold may in fact be from someone who also failed to formulate an opinion based upon a thorough examination of tangible evidence of the same.

Such an infantile and regressive mentality is of the same polluted stock that led to Uncle Tom’s Cabin being banned from schools because it contained the word ‘nigger.’

It is this willing failure to comprehend concepts and women’s inability to compartmentalize things combined with their childish, reactionary calls for injunctions against that which they refuse to investigate firsthand that leads to societal changing books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin being censured right alongside the spittle that made it to Roosh’s keyboard.

Don’t read me wrong.

I understand that any written or spoken work trivializing rape is something that will provoke a visceral reaction from any decent woman.

But that is no excuse to not examine the subject matter or to promote false statements about its content to prohibit its inclusion into the public discourse.

The way that women reacted only popularized the article and made Roosh V a celebrity antagonist who was able to present himself as a legitimate victim of reactionary and clueless liars.

Had a Ba’alaket responded to it, there would have simply been a mockery of the article with a condescending tone that Roosh was no Johnathan Swift and that perhaps if men could give birth, their own assholes wouldn’t be so tight as to give frustrated credence to a misogynistic twit who trivialized rape in jest.

There would then have been a quiet campaign to silence any women who overreacted to the article and tried to make a name for themselves waging a silly war against it, as that would have demonstrably provided quite the opposite effect and promoted the man who wrote it instead.

Marginalized and left to dry out and crumple in the light, the article would have died a quiet death, ink fading into obscurity with only a splintered, fallen roadside cross to mark its passing.

Such grace and wisdom is typical among this matriarchal society, who possesses great empathy for the human condition, but also understands that the female of the human species has not yet evolved the ability to comprehend or appreciate even the most thoughtfully presented advice of their stellar sisters.

This matriarchy controls their media with an iron hand.

They do not embrace the concept of freedom of speech without established claims of ownership for what has been spoken.

Say what you will, but that doesn’t mean that you aren’t going to be held personally responsible at least in part for the consequences of what you have said if someone stupidly acts upon it.

Among the Ba’alaket, you own your words the moment they come into the public record.

Freedom of speech to the Ba’alaket is exclusively the right to criticize religious social, sexual and political matters.

It does not fall into expressions of ‘art’ or ‘pornography.’

Neither is freedom of speech romanticized to accommodate personal aggrandizement through an offensive social commentary that exists exclusively to incite the masses in order to popularize the one who wrote it at the expense of the public peace.

There is no social value in making the ridiculous tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if the laws were changed to allow rape on private property, women would acquire more discretion.

But neither is there any social value in presenting the falsehood that the article was promoting rape in order to silence the dialogue.
Any writer or journalist seeking to sensationalize something like this would have been immediately taken to task and exposed as an opportunistic troll assisting in popularizing someone who although admittedly right about many things, promotes philosophical and sexual viewpoints that prey upon insecure and emotionally unstable women to the eventual harm of society.

They would also have condemned with equal force of will those misrepresenting the content of the article which caused all the fuss in the first place.

And since then by then the cat would have gotten out of the bag, a rational dialogue would commence with both reactionary idiots and trolls silenced and marginalized.

But it would be a short-lived argument that would quickly be tossed back into the shit pile that birthed it.

Because if there is anything the Ba’alaket enjoy it’s compelling conversation, inter-world gossip, and winning arguments through the art of their own brand of uniquely seductive logic.

They are typical women in every sense of the word with the exception of the last part of that sentence.

Because they can compartmentalize things and provide rational and well thought out arguments in an attractive and compelling manner, they can put most men to shame while turning even the most stubborn brute into nothing but pure putty in their hands.

They are subtle and seductive ‘serpents’ in every imaginable sense of the word.

And ‘pick up artists’ don’t stand a chance.

Perhaps it has something to do with their high self-esteem and the value they place on logic and truth, over feelings and emotionalism.
Your species would do well to know them.

And the planet would be a better place if ruled primarily by those who have borne children as theirs is.

But, despite my own kind viciously teasing the males of their own as being ‘pussy-whipped,’ they in fact do not suppress masculinity among the males of their own species.

They simply assist in channeling it into outlets that are not destructive to their society and it works quite well for them.
But despite this, there is no such thing as a “one-size-fits-all” solution to the problems of species from differing evolutionary lines.

Humanity lacks the resolve and any sort of social structure to effectively establish an imitation of such a system on their own that wouldn’t fall apart within a few generations.

Humans are primates and these cycles are better kept in check by obstinate, patriarchal types who can then be seduced into compliance rather than nagged and demoralized into reactionary states of being that then crank the wheel into a cycle of violence the foolish claimed was too rusty to have broken free… again.