From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
THE CONNIEITE TAKEOVER
A few years ago, I decided to conduct something of an
informal psychological study of *femmus merehumus*,
to whit: How ready are merehume females to wrest
control from the patriarchy in favor of establishing
a matriarchy?
I had a regular spiel that I would use on most any
female, be she friend, aquaintance, or stranger; then
I would judge her reaction at various points in the
dialectic, to make a rough judgement of 'how ready'
merehume females are for 'the change.'
The proposition composed three parts. First was the
"men are pigs" section, which usually got
complete
acceptance from listeners. I covered a lot of the
more horrific world activities like sex slavery,
bride burning, sutti (widow burning), and female
infanticide, now assisted by ultrasound.
The second part was an enthusiastic and optimistic
illustration of how much of 'the change' had already
taken place, and how women would now be expected to
keep their gains and practice leadership skills, with
men becoming unimportant in the scheme of things.
This included things such as women entering political
office worldwide (although it is patriarchal), and
how truly matriachal leadership differed from the
rigid hierarchies of patriarchal systems.
It was at this point that many women became rather
uncomfortable. Perhaps 60-80% became nervous at the
thought of changing their place in society, of having
to take responsibility for 'being in charge.'
Such a high percentage, in fact, that I found it
necessary to add a third part to mollify things, in
an attempt to alleviate their concerns from an
"evolution not revolution" standpoint. The
substance
of this part consisted of assuring them that changes
such as this are gradual and occur at a slow, steady
pace. Not to worry, all is well, etc.
However, at best, perhaps 50% of the females were very
unhappy with what I had told them, were quite satisfied
with their 'state in society', and really didn't want
to even hear continued arguments that might further
threaten their precious patriarchal position.
Another 20-30% showed a mix of apprehension and interest,
willing to let whatever happen, happen; but not willing
to actively do anything about it. Winning through
passivity, I suppose.
The last 10-20% were most encouraged by the thought
of
impending matriarchy, and had follow-up questions as
to
how matriarchies function. Only this last group seemed
willing to embrace what the others considered oxymoric:
"feminine power." I still had to spend considerable
time trying to convince them that matriarchal systems
of leadership are inherently different than patriarchal
ones, though I will confess that it is a difficult
concept, matriarchal rule being diffuse and decentralized.
In the final analysis, the Connieite reeducation camps
have their work cut out for them. One heck of a lot
of
these females(*) need serious adjustment.
(*) Americans. I suspect that foreign women might
make
the transition to matriarchal (and then of course to
Connieite) leadership somewhat easier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2001 6:24 PM
Message-ID: <20010204182434.27795.00001378@ng-mn1.aol.com>
nu-monet wrote:
>THE CONNIEITE TAKEOVER
>
.........will never happen until enough women get some
A)common sense and
B)sense of self-responsibliity. Seems most women want
to be "equal" and
revered as a fleshy goddess AT THE SAME TIME. This
inability or unwillingness
to use simple logic is what has kept the female gender
down, and will continue
to unless we are smart enough to cast the weak and useless
from our ranks.
Smart women generally avoid our own kind, because they
act like overgrown 2
year olds and expect to be treated like princesses.
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2001 7:02 PM
Message-ID: <3A7DEDB0.7C17@succeeds.com>
ThatSikkiChick wrote:
>
> nu-monet wrote:
>
> >THE CONNIEITE TAKEOVER
> >
> .........will never happen until enough women get
some
> A)common sense and
> B)sense of self-responsibliity.
> Seems most women want to be "equal" and
revered as a
> fleshy goddess AT THE SAME TIME. This inability
or
> unwillingness to use simple logic is what has kept
the
> female gender down, and will continue to unless
we are
> smart enough to cast the weak and useless from
our ranks.
> Smart women generally avoid our own kind, because
they
> act like overgrown 2 year olds and expect to be
treated
> like princesses.
>
You mention an argument that I used, in the "cast
the weak
and useless from our ranks", but had to discard
because it
was so very frightening that several women wanted to
end
the discussion right there.
What I refered to was what I called "The Social
Sanction",
those unwritten laws that are enforced by individuals,
not
the state. These laws always exist, and are always
brutally
enforced; politicians are always trying to determine
what
they are, so that they may legislate popular laws.
A hallmark of Social Sanctions is that they are *not*
logical,
but emotional in nature, and based on the prejudice
of the time.
Three examples of these, would first be the antiquated
sanctions of fashion: two that come to mind are, back
in the
old days when men were either required to, or prohibited
from having facial hair. A modern equivalent would
be the
utter nastyness directed especially at females who are
seen
to be "overweight". Not overweight in a medical
or health
sense, but overweight in not fitting a stereotype, most
often
the 7 to 10 ratio of waist to hips.
A second example would be if, let us say, some individual
walked down a busy street wearing a tee shirt with the
slogan,
"I am a child molester". How long would it
be before they
were openly, and physically assaulted?
The third example shows how a Social Sanction is changed.
In this case, a rather extreme example. The tabloid
newspaper
The National Enquirer published a two-page spread entitled
"The Horrors of Dog Eating in the Philippines!",
or something
to that effect. Not unusual for their tabloid, but
with
something else; a 'protest' coupon that readers could
clip out
and send in, that would be "forwarded" to
the government of
the Philippines.
They received over 2 million responses (which they dutifully
forwarded). For its part, the government of the Phillipines
discarded the coupons without a thought; *BUT*, word
got out
among the upper classes that Americans thought eating
dog
was gauche. Within a few weeks, you couldn't find dog
being
served at an upper class function.
The middle classes, with their eye always on fashion,
soon
refused to eat dog too. And once they refused it, the
government soon passed a law to make it unlawful for
sale
or consumption, thus depriving the poor of a delicacy.
The bottom line to The Social Sanction is that to change
it,
from "fat, independent women are gross", to
"scrawny, male-
dependent women are gross", for example, ONE woman
has to
convince her peers that they must advocate the latter.
Then
they must brutally, for The Social Sanction by its very
nature is brutal, enforce this new way of thinking.
And there are an enormous number of things which are
now
nonsensically intertwined with "femininity",
that must be
rooted out and shown for what they are: tools to sustain
the patriachal system. There are one hell of a lot
of them,
and once a threshold of agreement is reached by females,
they will drop like leaves.
Because, in the final analysis, and as I often said,
"When
women stand up, men sit down." When women take
a political
seat, that seat has a strong probability of being kept
by
a female. When women control the money, men have to
do what
they say. When women control reproduction, then men
must
behave. But they only control and lead if they KNOW
they are
in charge.
And when you are in charge, you must BE in charge.
You
cannot stop being in charge just because you don't feel
like being in charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2001 8:58 PM
Message-ID: <95l1bu$57k@news-central.tiac.net>
ThatSikkiChick <thatsikkichick@aol.com> wrote:
> Smart women generally avoid our own kind, because
they act like overgrown 2
> year olds and expect to be treated like princesses.
That's why us dumb guys like to treat women like princessess.
Well,
hopefully the guys who do aren't so dumb.
--
First Online Church of "Bob"
http://www.modemac.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Hulkturds@crappagammabrick.ouch (HellPope Huey)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 12:54 AM
Message-ID: <Hulkturds-0402012354250001@pool-209-128-155-117.hs.ipa.net>
In article <95l1bu$57k@news-central.tiac.net>,
Modemac
<modemac@modemac.com> wrote:
> ThatSikkiChick <thatsikkichick@aol.com> wrote:
> > Smart women generally avoid our own kind,
because they act like overgrown 2
> > year olds and expect to be treated like princesses.
>
> That's why us dumb guys like to treat women like
princessess. Well,
> hopefully the guys who do aren't so dumb.
> > First Online Church
of "Bob"
> http://www.modemac.com/
I give the nod of merit here; if they EARN being treated
like a princess
and you give them their due, where's the problem? THAT'S
THE GOAL, ain't
it? Yeah, verily, I have made this work. Of course,
I have also ruefully
learned it can't HELP but go afoul with non-Yetis.
And don't discount Jack Nichoson's line in "As
Good As It Gets..." when
asked how he wrote so accurately from a woman's viewpoint:
"Very simple. I
think of a man. Then I take away reason & accountability."
Could this be
you? Or someone all too near to you? There's some weed
killer in the
pantry, mixes well with milk...point being, titties
are great, but if
attached to a mere strand of short-circuiting nerve-rope
in the skull like
"Bob's" instead of a real BRAIN, you may as
well do a swan dive into a
wood chipper as even begin. amen. Trust me, I'm a HellPope.
No, its only
the same thing as an asshole once in a while, thanks
for asking, you
ambulatory zit.
As soon as you understand this, you'll be a ...well,
hell, actually, I
ain't sure at the moment. Take it with a grain of salt;
I thought "The
Thing" was a comedy. Well, *I* was in stitches,
anyway.
HellPope Huey,
I was like this when you got here, honest
"Today, Madeline Albright was asked to respond
to rumors
that she was a monkey. She responded by shinnying
up a tree
and flinging poo at the press."
- "Whose Line Is It Anyway?'
"Any person who shall lead or drive a bear upon
any highway
shall be fined not more than $50.00"
- Sec. 6215 of the Connecticut General Statutes
YACKITYSHMACKITYBLAHBLAHTALLCOOLGLASSOFOJBLIBBLIBBLIBBLIBYACKITYSHMACKITYBLAHBLAHTALLCOOLGLASSOFOJBLIBBLIBBLIBBLIBYACKITYSHMACKITYBLAHBLAHTALLCOOLGLASSOFOJBLIBBLIBBLIBBLIBYACKITYSHMACKITYBLAHBLAHTALLCOOLGLASSOFOJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 9:29 AM
Message-ID: <20010205092905.27839.00001634@ng-mn1.aol.com>
Modemac wrote:
>ThatSikkiChick <thatsikkichick@aol.com> wrote:
>> Smart women generally avoid our own kind, because
they act like overgrown 2
>> year olds and expect to be treated like princesses.
>
>That's why us dumb guys like to treat women like
princessess. Well,
>hopefully the guys who do aren't so dumb.
Its only dumb when the guy is, as I like to call it,
"Blinded by pussy". By
that I mean a guy who is with a most vacuous, whining,
nagging, SPOILED BRAT of
a woman and has NO IDEA. He thinks that that's just
how women ARE, so he
continues to be at Ms. Atleastsheputsout's beckon call.
And of course she
never is called on to really appreciate a damned thing;
why should she, its her
*RIGHT AS WOMAN* to have whatever she wants, and never
have to be exposed to
anything icky. Daddy's worthless little princess.
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 9:51 AM
Message-ID: <20010205095152.27839.00001639@ng-mn1.aol.com>
nu-monet wrote:
>You mention an argument that I used, in the "cast
the weak
>and useless from our ranks", but had to discard
because it
>was so very frightening that several women wanted
to end
>the discussion right there.
Doesn't suprise me a bit. The drama queens, professional
victims, crybabies
and attention sluts comprise the vast majority of women.
There aren't enough
GOOD women to hunt them down yet. Besides, somewhere
along the line a huge lie
was fed to women: You Must Care. If someone says they
are going to commit
suicide You Must Care. If someone is crying about anything
at all You Must
Care. If the same messed up "friend" continually
ruins her life and then sobs
to you about it You Must Care, rather than tell her
what an utter waste of
flesh she is. Once women realize that being nice to
those that haven't earned
it lowers everyones standards, maybe we'll get somewhere.
>What I refered to was what I called "The Social
Sanction",
>those unwritten laws that are enforced by individuals,
not
>the state. These laws always exist, and are always
brutally
>enforced; politicians are always trying to determine
what
>they are, so that they may legislate popular laws.
Currently, regarding women it is: "no matter what
happens to her or what she
does, she isn't to be held responsible" Because
she didn't take her meds
today..........or because she has PMS..........or because
supposedly her daddy
raped her......or because she had a bad hair day.............or
because she
broke a nail, it would be mean to hold her accountable
for anything she does.
And if you try, you must hate women, you jerk.
>The bottom line to The Social Sanction is that to
change it,
>from "fat, independent women are gross",
to "scrawny, male-
>dependent women are gross", for example, ONE
woman has to
>convince her peers that they must advocate the latter.
Then
>they must brutally, for The Social Sanction by its
very
>nature is brutal, enforce this new way of thinking.
>
Too many women raised to truly believe that brutality
has no place, that we
should hold hands across the world and other completely
ridiculous fairy tales.
>And there are an enormous number of things which
are now
>nonsensically intertwined with "femininity",
that must be
>rooted out and shown for what they are: tools to
sustain
>the patriachal system. There are one hell of a
lot of them,
>and once a threshold of agreement is reached by
females,
>they will drop like leaves.
>
>Because, in the final analysis, and as I often said,
"When
>women stand up, men sit down." When women
take a political
>seat, that seat has a strong probability of being
kept by
>a female. When women control the money, men have
to do what
>they say. When women control reproduction, then
men must
>behave. But they only control and lead if they
KNOW they are
>in charge.
>
>And when you are in charge, you must BE in charge.
You
>cannot stop being in charge just because you don't
feel
>like being in charge.
>
I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of the world,
most of us shouldn't
even vote; lacking the intelligence and common sense
to do either.
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 11:43 AM
Message-ID: <3A7ED815.790F@succeeds.com>
ThatSikkiChick wrote:
>
> I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of
the
> world, most of us shouldn't even vote; lacking
the
> intelligence and common sense to do either.
>
Ah, ah, ah. Don't lump in Connieites with merehume
females. Even discussing this I was always careful
to add the disclaimer: not to be fooled into thinking
that a matriarchy would be *better* than a patriachy,
just different. But there will be an interval in
which disordered unterfemmes will supplant males and
Uberfemmes may, with some ease, usurp the throne in
the dictatorship of the Connieite, in the ensuing
chaos.
(Come to think about it, there should be some kind
of essay or manifesto for the dictatorship of the
Conniteite. It just wouldn't be proper for me to
pen it, though.)
And as for merehume males, once they are displaced
from authority, there will be a (gradual? acute?)
collapse of their conspiracy zeitgeist, propelling
those who just cannot *deal* with slack into despair
and self-destruction; until a new conspiracy comes
along, whose teats they may then glom onto, suckling
the milk of mindless subservience once again.
For males who posess the zun of slack, however, there
will be ample opportunities to either enhance and
expand their native supply; or, conversely, to absorb
vast amounts of false slack, failing as expertly as
they currently do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 12:44 PM
Message-ID: <20010205124447.27832.00001743@ng-mn1.aol.com>
nu-monet wrote:
>ThatSikkiChick wrote:
>>
>> I personally hope women are NEVER in charge
of the
>> world, most of us shouldn't even vote; lacking
the
>> intelligence and common sense to do either.
>>
>
>Ah, ah, ah. Don't lump in Connieites with merehume
>females. Even discussing this I was always careful
>to add the disclaimer: not to be fooled into thinking
>that a matriarchy would be *better* than a patriachy,
>just different. But there will be an interval in
>which disordered unterfemmes will supplant males
and
>Uberfemmes may, with some ease, usurp the throne
in
>the dictatorship of the Connieite, in the ensuing
>chaos.
>
>(Come to think about it, there should be some kind
>of essay or manifesto for the dictatorship of the
>Conniteite. It just wouldn't be proper for me to
>pen it, though.)
>
Great idea.......but harder than it sounds considering
that "Connieite", right
now at least, means essentially that someone has tits
and a membership card. I
think the philosophy is still under development. I
look forward to seeing what
eventually arises.
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:06 PM
Message-ID: <3rqt7tk1iqpj2v7120qe45sl73rf81ofho@4ax.com>
On 04 Feb 2001 23:24:34 GMT, ThatSikkiChick said in alt.slack:
>nu-monet wrote:
>
>>THE CONNIEITE TAKEOVER
>>
>.........will never happen until enough women get
some A)common sense and
>B)sense of self-responsibliity. Seems most women
want to be "equal" and
>revered as a fleshy goddess AT THE SAME TIME. This
inability or unwillingness
>to use simple logic is what has kept the female
gender down, and will continue
>to unless we are smart enough to cast the weak and
useless from our ranks.
>Smart women generally avoid our own kind, because
they act like overgrown 2
>year olds and expect to be treated like princesses.
I don't know. I have been revered as a "fleshy
goddess" AND felt
equal to the said rever-er.
I TOTALLY agree with that last sentence however.
"It's K-K-K-Ken c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me!"
"Otto" in
"A Fish Called Wanda"
Sister Decadence
http://www.subgenius.com
http://www.walkingdead.net/~quijibo/sister_d
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:09 PM
Message-ID: <9tqt7t42qopauhgg2ok83cdhalsleu8kpo@4ax.com>
On 05 Feb 2001 14:51:52 GMT, ThatSikkiChick said in alt.slack:
>nu-monet wrote:
>
>>You mention an argument that I used, in the
"cast the weak
>>and useless from our ranks", but had to
discard because it
>>was so very frightening that several women wanted
to end
>>the discussion right there.
>
>Doesn't suprise me a bit. The drama queens, professional
victims, crybabies
>and attention sluts comprise the vast majority of
women. There aren't enough
>GOOD women to hunt them down yet.
Cannot we like attention AND be good women too?
>Besides, somewhere along the line a huge lie
>was fed to women: You Must Care. If someone says
they are going to commit
>suicide You Must Care. If someone is crying about
anything at all You Must
>Care. If the same messed up "friend"
continually ruins her life and then sobs
>to you about it You Must Care, rather than tell
her what an utter waste of
>flesh she is. Once women realize that being nice
to those that haven't earned
>it lowers everyones standards, maybe we'll get somewhere.
Yep, definitely a well-perpetuated lie. I care about
those who are
my friends and those who have deserved it. That is ALL.
I see no
reason we have to be the constant nurturers.
[snip]
>>
>I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of the
world, most of us shouldn't
>even vote; lacking the intelligence and common sense
to do either.
And most men DO?
Not.
I say we take an IQ test to determine who should vote.
Okay, that's
granted a blanket statement. We all know IQ tests are
silly. But damn,
there has to be SOME way we can determine if Joe/Josephine
Dumbass are
voting and how to stop them.
"It's K-K-K-Ken c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me!"
"Otto" in
"A Fish Called Wanda"
Sister Decadence
http://www.subgenius.com
http://www.walkingdead.net/~quijibo/sister_d
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:19 PM
Message-ID: <3a7eee78.37005095@news.mindspring.com>
Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com> hunched
over a computer,
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
> I say we take an IQ test to determine who should
vote. Okay, that's
>granted a blanket statement. We all know IQ tests
are silly. But damn,
>there has to be SOME way we can determine if
> Joe/Josephine Dumbass
Oh THANKS
> are
>voting and how to stop them.
I've always thought there should be a short test on
the issues, and
the platforms of the candidates.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Eloi eloi lama sabacthani
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:25 PM
Message-ID: <3A7EF035.4CFF@succeeds.com>
ThatSikkiChick wrote:
>
> Great idea.......but harder than it sounds considering
> that "Connieite", right now at least,
means essentially
> that someone has tits and a membership card. I
think
> the philosophy is still under development. I look
> forward to seeing what eventually arises.
>
Ah, now there's the trap. "Defining" Connieite
is just
the patriarchal setup to force a hierarchy on to the
situation. "Let's see, there must be a 'leader'
Connieite and her lieutenants, with other command staff,
etc."
The matriarchal way of doing business would be for those
Connieites who are interested and/or the most slackful
to form an ad hoc group, groups, meeting(s) or improptu
gathering(s), cluster(s), gaggle(s), whatever and reach
a consensus of decision.
It is not easy to define, and there is no leader. And
yet, though it cannot be easily explained, it works
very
well.
Just keep in mind one of the towns in Mexico where a
matriarchy exists. The women are large and forceful
and the men are small and timid. The women own everything
and treat the men like dogs. Men don't even sleep
indoors unless the women let them. Men are basically
ignored, or boxed about the ears if they don't behave.
It has been that way, happily, for several hundred years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:15 PM
Message-ID: <R4Cf6.15131$4j2.2918546@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
In article <9tqt7t42qopauhgg2ok83cdhalsleu8kpo@4ax.com>,
decadence@subgenius.com says...
>
>On 05 Feb 2001 14:51:52 GMT, ThatSikkiChick said
in alt.slack:
>
>>I personally hope women are NEVER in charge
of the world, most of us shouldn't
>>even vote; lacking the intelligence and common
sense to do either.
>
> And most men DO?
> Not.
>
> I say we take an IQ test to determine who should
vote. Okay, that's
>granted a blanket statement. We all know IQ tests
are silly. But damn,
>there has to be SOME way we can determine if Joe/Josephine
Dumbass are
>voting and how to stop them.
Easy. You'd be surprised how much the population
would drop if you killed off all those who couldn't
put the square peg in the square hole and the
round
peg in the round hole.
(Obviously, if these people are breeding, then
they've
figured out the latter. Hence, the square peg
in the
square hole: it implies that they have to think
beyond
fucking.)
-st. andreux
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Artemia Salina <y2k@sheayright.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 1:50 PM
Message-ID: <3A7EF5FE.1AA79AC2@sheayright.com>
ThatSikkiChick wrote:
> I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of
the world, most of us shouldn't
> even vote; lacking the intelligence and common
sense to do either.
Trouble is, they already are in charge and don't realize
it. Throughout history
women have had a civilizing influence over men. Women
are the reason that men
take showers. Women are the reason that men go out and
earn a living. "Behind
every great man there stands a woman." That's a
much more true and global saying
than most realize. Ever notice that in every story of
a man who rejects society,
he also rejects women as a part of the deal? The Unibomber
didn't have a girlfriend,
did he? Grizzly Adams shacked up with a bear.
While men may have gotten the credit for the civilization
they have created, it
has been women all along who have been the driving force
behind it all. And this
is why, I am convinced, civilization is so fucked up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 2:10 PM
Message-ID: <3a7ef959.39789959@news.mindspring.com>
thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick) hunched over
a computer,
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
laughed
madly, then wrote:
>nu-monet wrote:
>
>>You mention an argument that I used, in the
"cast the weak
>>and useless from our ranks", but had to
discard because it
>>was so very frightening that several women wanted
to end
>>the discussion right there.
>
>Doesn't suprise me a bit. The drama queens, professional
victims, crybabies
>and attention sluts comprise the vast majority of
women. There aren't enough
>GOOD women to hunt them down yet. Besides, somewhere
along the line a huge lie
>was fed to women: You Must Care. If someone says
they are going to commit
>suicide You Must Care. If someone is crying about
anything at all You Must
>Care. If the same messed up "friend"
continually ruins her life and then sobs
>to you about it You Must Care, rather than tell
her what an utter waste of
>flesh she is. Once women realize that being nice
to those that haven't earned
>it lowers everyones standards, maybe we'll get somewhere.
>
>
>>What I refered to was what I called "The
Social Sanction",
>>those unwritten laws that are enforced by individuals,
not
>>the state. These laws always exist, and are
always brutally
>>enforced; politicians are always trying to determine
what
>>they are, so that they may legislate popular
laws.
>
>Currently, regarding women it is: "no matter
what happens to her or what she
>does, she isn't to be held responsible" Because
she didn't take her meds
>today..........or because she has PMS..........or
because supposedly her daddy
>raped her......or because she had a bad hair day.............or
because she
>broke a nail, it would be mean to hold her accountable
for anything she does.
>And if you try, you must hate women, you jerk.
>>The bottom line to The Social Sanction is that
to change it,
>>from "fat, independent women are gross",
to "scrawny, male-
>>dependent women are gross", for example,
ONE woman has to
>>convince her peers that they must advocate the
latter. Then
>>they must brutally, for The Social Sanction
by its very
>>nature is brutal, enforce this new way of thinking.
>>
>Too many women raised to truly believe that brutality
has no place, that we
>should hold hands across the world and other completely
ridiculous fairy tales.
>
>>And there are an enormous number of things which
are now
>>nonsensically intertwined with "femininity",
that must be
>>rooted out and shown for what they are: tools
to sustain
>>the patriachal system. There are one hell of
a lot of them,
>>and once a threshold of agreement is reached
by females,
>>they will drop like leaves.
>>
>>Because, in the final analysis, and as I often
said, "When
>>women stand up, men sit down." When women
take a political
>>seat, that seat has a strong probability of
being kept by
>>a female. When women control the money, men
have to do what
>>they say. When women control reproduction,
then men must
>>behave. But they only control and lead if they
KNOW they are
>>in charge.
>>
>>And when you are in charge, you must BE in charge.
You
>>cannot stop being in charge just because you
don't feel
>>like being in charge.
>>
>I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of the
world, most of us shouldn't
>even vote; lacking the intelligence and common sense
to do either.
Power is easy.
All you have to do to be in power is put on the funny
hat and start
giving orders.
Most of the world is chaos most of the time. People
don't know what
they're doing but assume someone else does. All the
someone elses
assume the same thing.
If you put on a funny hat and start giving orders, people
will do what
you say. The PROBLEM with that is, as soon as you do,
you become a
target. As soon as you give one single FUCKED UP order,
the pack will
go into a feeding frenzy and they will tear the flesh
from your body
with their bare hands and teeth.
And you don't even have to actually -give- a fucked
up order. All it
takes is for one person to start claiming that you did,
consistently,
and you're fucked.
As I see it, only an idiot WANTS power.
I agree a lot of women indulge heavily in the 'sitting
back expecting
others to do all the work' thing, but I don't know if
I agree that it
is such a stupid tactic. You get done what you want,
and you aren't
susceptible to being torn to shreds. It's an ideal
form of power.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Gnothi Seauton
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 2:28 PM
Message-ID: <95mutd$mnj@dispatch.concentric.net>
"Sister Decadence" <decadence@subgenius.com>
wrote in message
news:9tqt7t42qopauhgg2ok83cdhalsleu8kpo@4ax.com...
> On 05 Feb 2001 14:51:52 GMT, ThatSikkiChick said
in alt.slack:
>
> >nu-monet wrote:
> >
> I say we take an IQ test to determine who should
vote. Okay, that's
> granted a blanket statement. We all know IQ tests
are silly. But damn,
> there has to be SOME way we can determine if Joe/Josephine
Dumbass are
> voting and how to stop them.
Robert Heinlein once posited in an essay that one approach
to this would be
some sort of intelligence test inside the voting booth.
For instance, you
step up to the machine to find that it has generated
a new quadratic
equation just for you. Find the roots and the machine
unlocks so you can
vote. Mess up and you don't get to cast a ballot. For
maximum effect, have a
red light and a buzzer go off as the booth opens to
eject you. Bright
ten-year olds vote in every election: their parents
who thought that a
degree in Liberal Arts was the epitome of knowledge
give up after a few
attempts. Granted, if you limit the equation to simple
integer roots this is
not much of a test, and it may be that solving the quadratic
formula is not
the ability we want to test for, but the IDEA is sound.
Perhaps a random
TEST is the answer... this time a quadratic equation,
next time a question
from American history. The level of knowledge that we
wish to require (say
that which a high-school graduate is expected to have,
laughable as that is)
forms the basis for the selection of the tests.
In a variant called "Improving the Breed,"
if you get the answer wrong too
many times, the booth opens... empty. This one just
warms my heart.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Holder of Some Titles
Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio)
Redundant Head of the Department for Arbitration of
Redundancy (without
portfolio,) Acting
Then There's Always The Starship Troopers Approach...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 2:16 PM
Message-ID: <C_Cf6.12513$tS.2959052@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
In article <3A7EF035.4CFF@succeeds.com>, nothing@succeeds.com
says...
>
>Just keep in mind one of the towns in Mexico where
a
>matriarchy exists. The women are large and forceful
>and the men are small and timid. The women own
everything
>and treat the men like dogs. Men don't even sleep
>indoors unless the women let them. Men are basically
>ignored, or boxed about the ears if they don't behave.
>
>It has been that way, happily, for several hundred
years.
Probably a reason for that, dontchathink?
-st. andreux
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
>In a variant called "Improving the Breed,"
if you get the answer wrong too
>many times, the booth opens... empty. This one just
warms my heart.
>
There's a lot to be said for that. How bad do you -want- to vote?
You get an anode strapped to your arm, then take the
test. Enough
wrong answers and you get the current.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
But if we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they
made out
of meat?
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "Rabbi Jacklyn Hyde" <rabbs@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 4:12 PM
Message-ID: <jHEf6.441$8o4.65272@monger.newsread.com>
> >
> Great idea.......but harder than it sounds considering
that "Connieite",
right
> now at least, means essentially that someone has
tits and a membership
card. I
> think the philosophy is still under development.
I look forward to seeing
what
> eventually arises.
>
I don't think this is the case, considering I know at
least a few women in
the Church who have dug in their heels and refused to
be called Connie-ites,
and even more who consider themselves outside of this
hallowed title. Hell,
I also count Legume as a Connie-ite, and I really don't
consider him as
bearing tits unless you count those belonging to his
gorgeous Susi. To be a
follower of Connie is to have the mind set of someone
who has risen above
the lot of what we're complaining about. Just as there
are Bobbies who
consider themselves one true voice of "Bob"
(and you know who they are),
there are women in the Church who just don't get it.
They are the ones
outside of Connie's realm.
Can we still nurture those who need and deserve it?
Yes, but we also know
when enough is enough and that the person in need is
enjoying being needy.
Then you walk away and find something more interesting
to do. There is a
difference between a true person in need and a total
drain of energy.
Can we let others serve us and dote upon us? I hope
so, considering Legume
insisted that I gather a gaggle of Rabbinic devotees
(hmm, I like the sound
of that!) to arrange my camp site at XXX-Day. However,
we never should rely
solely upon those providers and instead learn to fend
for ourselves, if not
thrive on our own. This was probably the toughest thing
I had to learn, but
I now love being responsible for my own joy and passion
while still allowing
men to open car doors for me. I really have Sister
Decadence to thank for
knocking this lesson into my head, and I always give
credit where credit is
due.
Can we dream of a total Connie-ite takeover of the world?
I suppose, but
why in hell would we want to run THIS place?!? Personally,
I'm too busy
building my spaceship (for those of you keeping track,
Stage II is complete
and Stage III is awaiting final approval of outside
sources) and enjoying
laughing at those who take this planet too seriously.
In short, to be a true follower of Connie is more in
the mind than of the
body. It actually is to escape from the stereotypes
of the female form and
to be a true uberfemme, to be a Sex Goddess on your
own pleasure saucer; and
as you know, to be a Sex Goddess is to have the ability
to be anything your
mind can stretch to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 4:19 PM
Message-ID: <95n5bs$hvd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20010205095152.27839.00001639@ng-mn1.aol.com>,
thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick) wrote:
> nu-monet wrote:
> > >
> I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of
the world, most of us
shouldn't
> even vote; lacking the intelligence and common
sense to do either.
>
> sikki
>
>
whos sock puppet are you?
you almost got away with it, but you had to push it
didnt you?
headkase
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 4:45 PM
Message-ID: <95n6u4$jj5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20010205092905.27839.00001634@ng-mn1.aol.com>,
thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick) wrote:
> Modemac wrote:
>
> >ThatSikkiChick <thatsikkichick@aol.com>
wrote:
> >> Smart women generally avoid our own kind,
because they act like
overgrown 2
> >> year olds and expect to be treated like
princesses.
> >
> >That's why us dumb guys like to treat women
like princessess. Well,
> >hopefully the guys who do aren't so dumb.
>
> Its only dumb when the guy is, as I like to call
it, "Blinded by
pussy".
i would call this *cunt-struck*
By
> that I mean a guy who is with a most vacuous, whining,
nagging,
SPOILED BRAT of
> a woman and has NO IDEA. He thinks that that's
just how women ARE,
so he
> continues to be at Ms. Atleastsheputsout's beckon
call.
no, wrong, in my opinion,
he does not think this is how women are, this is want
he wants women to
be, any man with a dumb but beautifull women do it for
the ego
gratification and that comes from all fronts, it comes
form his friends
cause she is such a hot babe, it comes form his own
head cause she is
too dumb to do anything without him, he loves her reliance,
it makes
him feel like a man, superior to all out there, his
mom loves her,
cause well shes just like mom isnt she, his dad approves,
cause his dad
would love to fuck her, see it has nothing to do with
woman, but what
women are expected to be, and if they aint like this
then they make
great mistresses never wives.
And of course she
> never is called on to really appreciate a damned
thing; why should
she, its her
> *RIGHT AS WOMAN* to have whatever she wants, and
never have to be
exposed to
> anything icky. Daddy's worthless little princess.
>
> sikki
you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an angry man.
headkase
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: none@yerbiz (Legume)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 5:37 PM
Message-ID: <903FBA3A8CortezLegume18465086@207.126.101.97>
rabbs@subgenius.com (Rabbi Jacklyn Hyde) wrote in
>Hell, I also count Legume as a Connie-ite, and I
really
>don't consider him as bearing tits unless you count
those belonging to
>his gorgeous Susi.
I'm no Connie-ite. Matter of fact, I can't recall the
last time I even
THOUGHT of Connie Dobbs...probably back in `92 when
those stupid pagan
cunts tried to take over the church in the name of their
fake-ass pagan PC
Connie.
I AM, however, a BIG supporter of the SubGenius women,
who are sexy as
fuck-all, and wily as...well, wily as SHE-YETI.
>To be a follower of Connie is to have the mind set
>of someone who has risen above the lot of what we're
complaining about.
>Just as there are Bobbies who consider themselves
one true voice of
>"Bob" (and you know who they are), there
are women in the Church who
>just don't get it. They are the ones outside of
Connie's realm.
>Can we let others serve us and dote upon us? I
hope so, considering
>Legume insisted that I gather a gaggle of Rabbinic
devotees (hmm, I like
>the sound of that!) to arrange my camp site at XXX-Day.
However, we
>never should rely solely upon those providers and
instead learn to fend
>for ourselves, if not thrive on our own.
Ah, grasshopper, to seduce others into toiling FOR you
is the HEIGHT of
self-sufficiency.
>Can we dream of a total Connie-ite takeover of the world?
I know I do. Start with my pants and work from there.
--
----------------------------------
Dr. K. "Cortez" Legume
Looking for the New World
and the Palace in the Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: mtrxhzu@aol.com00101110 (kris)
>
> Probably a reason for that, dontchathink?
>
> -st. andreux
It's probably the farting.
I would tolerate a lot more from mine if it weren't
for that.
The gleeful look of expectation while he waits for me
to notice is unsettling,
too.
--
.....kris
"Your eyes. It's a day's work just to look in to
them."~Laurie Anderson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 6:04 PM
Message-ID: <20010205180434.27694.00001659@ng-mn1.aol.com>
headkase wrote:
>you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an angry
man.
>
>headkase
http://www.minitru.org/tampa/b-sikki-and.jpg
I'm the girl in the blue jacket on the far left, shit
for brains.
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 5:52 PM
Message-ID: <T8Gf6.16243$4j2.2994711@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
In article <903FBA3A8CortezLegume18465086@207.126.101.97>, none@yerbiz says...
>
>I'm no Connie-ite. Matter of fact, I can't recall
the last time I even
>THOUGHT of Connie Dobbs...probably back in `92 when
those stupid pagan
>cunts tried to take over the church in the name
of their fake-ass pagan PC
>Connie.
>I AM, however, a BIG supporter of the SubGenius
women, who are sexy as
>fuck-all, and wily as...well, wily as SHE-YETI.
I'll drop my quarter into that "Save The
She-Yeti" donation
cup. You know you ain't gonna get to go to the
prom unless
you donate that quarter. Donate fifty cents
and you might even
get a *sleeve job*.
>
>Ah, grasshopper, to seduce others into toiling FOR
you is the HEIGHT of
>self-sufficiency.
>
>>Can we dream of a total Connie-ite takeover
of the world?
>
>I know I do. Start with my pants and work from there.
Message to all Would-Be Connie-ites:
Think globally, act locally.
-st. andreux
build yer own red-head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: hiway@news.speakeasy.org (Field Marshall Stack)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 6:30 PM
Message-ID: <yIGf6.111491$lV5.2440775@news2.giganews.com>
In article <95n6u4$jj5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, headkase
wrote:
[snip]
>
>you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an angry
man.
>
>headkase
bwahahahahahahaha, whee. _You're_ accusing someone _else_
of not
being of the gender they claim? That's just too sweet
for words.
--
Field Marshall Stack
"Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense
of humor."
-Peter Tork
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 6:32 PM
Message-ID: <3a7f37ec.497743@news.mindspring.com>
thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick) hunched over
a computer,
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>
>headkase wrote:
>
>>you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an
angry man.
>>
>>headkase
>
>http://www.minitru.org/tampa/b-sikki-and.jpg
>I'm the girl in the blue jacket on the far left,
shit for brains.
The one trying to hypnotize a plastic cup?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"... an age that infantilizes us, while stealing
our innocence"
- Andrei Codrescu
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: md_archangel@htmail.com (mykal d'archangel)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: Your Mom
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 7:34 PM
Message-ID: <3a7f45f8.4810390@news.indy.net>
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:45:42 GMT, headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an angry
man.
>
>headkase
Oooohhhhhhhhhhhh no. She's all woman.
Definitely.
Yup.
Ain't no two ways about it.
No mistakin' it.
And she's smart.
st m d'a
http://www.mp3.com/numbersix
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "Rabbi Jacklyn Hyde" <rabbs@subgenius.com>
>
> The one trying to hypnotize a plastic cup?
> --
She is an incredibly talented lady.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 8:22 PM
Message-ID: <20010205202228.27520.00001744@ng-cg1.aol.com>
Oh, always with the poor innocent little cup routine.
That cup hypnotized me
dammit!!!
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 8:30 PM
Message-ID: <KsIf6.17348$4j2.3082109@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
In article <3a7f45f8.4810390@news.indy.net>, md_archangel@htmail.com
says...
>
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:45:42 GMT, headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>you are not a woman, in my opinion you are an
angry man.
>>
>>headkase
>
>Oooohhhhhhhhhhhh no. She's all woman.
>Definitely.
>Yup.
>Ain't no two ways about it.
>No mistakin' it.
>And she's smart.
...you'll never catch Dr. Kimball.
-st. andreux
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 8:36 PM
Message-ID: <95nkfa$h$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
yeah well that proves it ......doesnt it.....
my point was not about you proving your gender, it was
trying to get
you to see that your regurgitating a bitter mans thoughts,
there is
nothing postive about girl power in your post, come
back when you have
something to say that doesnt generalise all women as
pain in the asses
american princesses, my suggestion would be to travel,
see the world
meet some people then your views might be balanced by
life experience,
not just based in american teenage angst and pettiness...
thanking you for that oh so original insult
headkase
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 8:53 PM
Message-ID: <3a7f584b.8785819@news.mindspring.com>
>
> Try farting back in response. You'd be amazed
> at the new level of closeness your male friend
> will have for you.
See? Now THAT's progress !
Really though, if you want to gain utter respect with
your guy
friends, get to the point where you can produce a short,
recognizable
tune by farting. It doesn't have to be much, a few
notes of 'mary had
a little lamb'.
And this could also come in handy if you were ever mugged
or attacked
for whatever reason. I think if I was mugging somebody,
and they said
"sure, but watch this" and then farted 'mary
had a little lamb', I
would probably not be capable of going through with
it.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our
intelligence
by means of language.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: thatsikkichick@aol.com (ThatSikkiChick)
>
>my point was not about you proving your gender,
it was trying to get
>you to see that your regurgitating a bitter mans
thoughts, there is
>nothing postive about girl power in your post
So if there's not enough "girl power" (which
is another fashionable way for the
Con to make women think we all have to share one brain
BTW) in my posts, then I
couldn't have thought of them myself? Do you think
a girl is too stupid to
form her own unique and personal way of viewing the
world? And are you so
blind that you can't see how much you're utterly contridicting
yourself?
sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
> >whos sock puppet are you?
> >you almost got away with it, but you had to
push it didnt you?
> >
> >
> >headkase
> >
> Why do you have such a hard time accepting that
a woman could have an
opinion
> that might not fit your established ideas of "what
women think"????
hmmmmmmm?
i dont have established ideas what women should think,
it is you that
have established ideas of what women are, if you doubt
this reread your
post, what i found most offensive about it all is the
last thing women
need in this world is women like you stating stuff like
this, yeah join
the patriachy and fuck any sort of inroads that women,
who you seem to
have convienetily forgot about, have made in the last
100 years,
next time your sitting at a party and the man beside
you decides that
in the 21st century he cant get away with rape, even
though you deserve
it, thank a woman, not a man......
headkase
>
> I'm exactly who I claim to be, but you'll probably
never be lucky
enough to
> make my aquaintance.
lucky..lucky...jesus lady sems to me we wouldnt like
each other
anyway....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2001 11:24 PM
Message-ID: <95nua7$85i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
girl power is a phrase, thats all lets not argue semantics,
if your
perception of that phrase it is a con, then thats fine,
i dont buy into
the con, if you want to, go for it, not my problem,
the real problem
has nothing to do with any of this actually im giving
up pot and i
would fight with a crowbar at the moment.. you, because
of your views,
were just a convenient target...
so if you really want to continue this, i shall, but
my hearts not in
it anymore, ive gone from being angry about the situation
(re ganga) to
being depressed, and ive lost the energy to argue....
headkase
thank Eris you aint as mean as a crowbar.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: md_archangel@htmail.com (mykal d'archangel)
>i dont have established ideas what women should think
Well *I* for one would like to challenge what women think!
Most women think "Ya know - that saint mykal is
good for nothing but
hot sexxx and hours o' snogglin"
Lissen up ladies - THERE'S A LIVING THINKING FEELING,
*PERSON* IN THIS
HUNK O MAN FLESH AND DONCHYOO FORGET IT! I will no longer
be trated
like something to be used and used and used ...
Oh nevermind. I doubt I'll change anyones mind.
st m d'a
http://www.mp3.com/numbersix
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joy@coil.com
I was listening to the radio today at work and an ad
came on for the
Oprah show this afternoon. The topic today was about
how to go about
setting boundaries and learning to say no. What, people
need lessons in
this?
I guess I have been lucky, while I have to put up with
my share of the
women described above, a goodly number of women I know
are just not like
that. It's not fair to paint all non-Yeti women with
the same brush.
> Too many women raised to truly believe that brutality
has no place, that
we
> should hold hands across the world and other completely
ridiculous fairy
tales.
Missed that one too.
> I personally hope women are NEVER in charge of
the world, most of us
shouldn't
> even vote; lacking the intelligence and common
sense to do either.
I don't feel that it's a matter of Men vs Women. I
know a hell of a lot
of men who don't have the common sense of a doorknob.
> sikki
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "Paul Murray" <pmurray@nospam.bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2001 2:58 PM
Message-ID: <QIMf6.18688$65.93641@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
"nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote
in message
news:3A7DD0AC.2D13@succeeds.com...
> I still had to spend considerable
> time trying to convince them that matriarchal systems
> of leadership are inherently different than patriarchal
> ones, though I will confess that it is a difficult
> concept, matriarchal rule being diffuse and decentralized.
As Orwell said of Swift's land of the horses, it is
a totalitarianism so
perfect that no secret police are nessesary, because
the people police
themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------
0x29A - opcode of the beast!
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
ICQ: 26066755
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 1:38 AM
Message-ID: <3a7f9bf9.6040469@news.mindspring.com>
md_archangel@htmail.com (mykal d'archangel) hunched
over a computer,
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, md_archangel@htmail.com (mykal d'archangel)
laughed
madly, then wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 02:10:12 GMT, headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>i dont have established ideas what women should
think
>
>Well *I* for one would like to challenge what women
think!
>
>Most women think "Ya know - that saint mykal
is good for nothing but
>hot sexxx and hours o' snogglin"
>
>Lissen up ladies - THERE'S A LIVING THINKING FEELING,
*PERSON* IN THIS
>HUNK O MAN FLESH AND DONCHYOO FORGET IT! I will
no longer be trated
>like something to be used and used and used ...
>
>Oh nevermind. I doubt I'll change anyones mind.
Dang the luck.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Careful how you respond, noting who I am, how well
I'm in tune with
communicating near future events.....with an established
history of
accuracy.
- Another year and another classic Tim Rue quote!
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 9:10 AM
Message-ID: <3A8005BC.54A4@succeeds.com>
Paul Murray wrote:
>
> "nu-monet" <nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote in message
> news:3A7DD0AC.2D13@succeeds.com...
>
> > I still had to spend considerable
> > time trying to convince them that matriarchal
systems
> > of leadership are inherently different than
patriarchal
> > ones, though I will confess that it is a difficult
> > concept, matriarchal rule being diffuse and
decentralized.
>
> As Orwell said of Swift's land of the horses, it
is a
> totalitarianism so perfect that no secret police
are
> nessesary, because the people police themselves.
>
Well, not exactly. The matriarchies that still exist
today
are blended with other systems to peculiar effect.
The
Navajo, for example, have extended 'families' (often
running
into the hundreds) with a matriarch; but at the same
time
have a patriarchal tribal council--a requirement for
interaction with other governments. (It should be added
that
the tribal council kowtows to the 'families', and that
the
'families' continually vie for patriarchal power and
government largesse.)
I can envision a much weaker central government in the
U.S.,
along patriachal lines, as the "de jure" government,
while
"de facto" power has devolved to (ad hoc?)
assemblages of
various types, of women who really pull the strings.
This
would be accompanied by an equivalent shift in other
national
institutions, corporations, etc.
The clarity of national boundaries also would become
fuzzier,
with territory more along the lines of cultural and
liguistic
differences instead of arbitrary lines.
An important point is that (thinking of how difficult
government
classes were in your youth; trying to figure out how
the damn
thing works), matriarchal leadership is incredibly difficult
to *explain*, approaching economics as a descriptionless
monster. But that means *neither* that it doesn't work
or is
inefficient. In many ways it is *more* efficient than
patriachy.
Pity the poor government students, for they shall suffer
the
most. Happily, we shall all be dead before the evolution
has
become intolerable to our sensibilities. "Evolution
not
Revolution" does have its saving grace: patriarchy
gives up
the reigns only grudgingly, and then with gentleness
and ease,
and only as demanded of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 10:12 AM
Message-ID: <95p49j$gga@dispatch.concentric.net>
"headkase" <headkase@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> girl power is a phrase, thats all lets not argue
semantics, if your
> perception of that phrase it is a con, then thats
fine, i dont buy into
> the con, if you want to, go for it, not my problem,
the real problem
> has nothing to do with any of this actually im
giving up pot and i
> would fight with a crowbar at the moment.. you,
because of your views,
> were just a convenient target...
> so if you really want to continue this, i shall,
but my hearts not in
> it anymore, ive gone from being angry about the
situation (re ganga) to
> being depressed, and ive lost the energy to argue....
*standing ovation!*
Thank you for that LOVELY demonstration. C'mon, everybody,
let's hear it for
her! It's not her fault, she's not only a woman, she's
depressed, and she's
giving up drugs! Outstanding work! Now, if we can get
her to admit that
she's premenstrual, she'll have swept the side! Of course,
to be in the
running for the Dworkin Cup, some allegations of abuse/rape
will have to be
skillfully played. I remember back in '98 a real contender
mixed up her
uncle abuse/date rape chronology, and not only did she
get knocked out of
the competition, a crowd of women who'd been assaulted
by their
EX-boyfriends for actually reporting them to the police
tore her to little
pieces and made a collage out of her intestines. So
a lot of finesse is
required here.
I have to go and be phlebotomized now, all this irony
is making my blood
clump up.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Holder of Some Titles
Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio)
Redundant Head of the Department for Arbitration of
Redundancy (without
portfolio,) Acting
Can't Wait For the Weekly Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: prostata@bronze.coil.com (Rev. Prostata Cantata)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 9:04 AM
Message-ID: <u80p59.qbv.ln@news.concourse.com>
In article <9tqt7t42qopauhgg2ok83cdhalsleu8kpo@4ax.com>,
Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com> wrote:
>
> I say we take an IQ test to determine who should
vote. Okay, that's
>granted a blanket statement. We all know IQ tests
are silly. But damn,
>there has to be SOME way we can determine if Joe/Josephine
Dumbass are
>voting and how to stop them.
I have consistantly advocated that as a society
we should get rid
of all those little "crutches" that allow
stupid people to not die off
like they should. After all, you can't vote if you're
dead. That may not
be as effective as an IQ test in limiting who can vote,
but it's harder to
cheat.
now, I'm not saying we should kill anyone, but
there really should
still be some kind of natural penalty for being a dumbass
and who are WE
to stand in the way of nature?
If you're dumb enough to stick a blasting cap in your
mouth and bite down,
why should a doctor waste his/her time trying to save
*your* ass when
there is probably someone in the room who really deserves
help? That's a
true story by the way. Some doctor spent all night working
to save that
guy's butt and the redneck asshole probably just went
and beat his wife
when he got home.
Kids do a lot of dumb things that would likely
kill them, so just
to be fair we should probably stick a minimum age on
this. Like 15. If
you're 15 years old you should probably be bright enough
not to play in
traffic. If you're 16 and you end up in the hospital
bleeding to death
'cause you thought it would be a cool idea to play chicken
with a train in
daddy's SUV (as happens around here on a regular basis)
you're probably
not going to get any smarter.
Shit. Come to think of it, as a species, if
we don't wise up we
may be facing extinction in a number of interesting
ways.
This may *sound* like a joke, but it kind of
makes SENSE when you
think about it. Why should a species mollycoddle those
who are unfit to
survive in a world where survival is actually really
EASY.
Let the dumb ones kill themselves off and the
smart ones who are
left, male and female, will likely *all* be worthy of
leadership and we
can stop squabbling over this whole "men vs women"
thing and just get over
it.
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
+++~ath0
NO CARRIER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 12:32 PM
Message-ID: <95pcev$k6n@dispatch.concentric.net>
"Rev. Prostata Cantata" <prostata@bronze.coil.com>
wrote in message
news:u80p59.qbv.ln@news.concourse.com...
> now, I'm not saying we should kill anyone, but
there really should
> still be some kind of natural penalty for being
a dumbass and who are WE
> to stand in the way of nature?
"Stupidity is the only universal capital crime.
The sentence is automatic,
there is no appeal, and it is carried out efficiently
and without pity."
Or something like that. Anyway, it's a fine sentiment
and I like it, but
here's the thing...
I have a little slang term that I use with my own "in"
crowd. When I see
someone demonstrating truly Darwin-discrediting stupidity,
I just chuckle
and say "Cave bears." This is short for "What
we need around here is more
cave bears."
See, thousands of years ago, stupid people would go
into caves without
checking for cave bears. Then they would get eaten by
cave bears. Smart
people would always check for cave bears. Then they
would be killed by
wolves. However, since wolves tend to favor the old
and the sick, the smart
people had a better chance of breeding and the general
intelligence of the
populace was maintained.
Eventually, the smart people figured out ways to kill
cave bears with little
or no risk to human beings. Demonstrating that "smart"
is a relative term,
they let the stupid people get hold of them, and they
promptly killed off
all the cave bears. With no cave bears to eat the stupid
people, they
started breeding like stupid people and now we're up
to our eyeballs in
them. Since the smart people have allowed us to build
societies where you
have to be very stupid indeed to meet an untimely end,
what we now see is
that we are getting to the point where there ARE people
who are stupid
enough to do things like race trains across crossings.
Lots of them.
The smart people have made society SO safe that even
THIS is rare enough to
warrant discussion on the evening news. (The stupidity
of society is further
evident in that it usually produces a sentiment that
we need to protect
people EVEN BETTER from such intricate dangers as thousand-ton
freight
trains which travel on fixed paths which are clearly
marked and have lights
and bells to indicate their approach.)
I don't know how we undo this without causing all sorts
of headaches for the
rest of us. I mean, I *like* the bells and lights. I
*like* not having to
check for cave bears in my garage. But if we have to,
we have to.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Disciple of Eris
Holder of Some Titles
Most Powerful and Revered Being (without portfolio)
Redundant Head of the Department for Arbitration of
Redundancy (without
portfolio,) Acting
Hand Me That Bear Costume
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
I just said the exact same thing in another thread.
I was sick of
arguing about something, so I said so and stopped.
But that's different, right?
>I have to go and be phlebotomized now, all this
irony is making my blood
>clump up.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"... an age that infantilizes us, while stealing
our innocence"
- Andrei Codrescu
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
>was fed to women: You Must Care. If someone says
they are going to commit
>suicide You Must Care. If someone is crying about
anything at all You Must
>Care. If the same messed up "friend"
continually ruins her life and then sobs
>to you about it You Must Care, rather than tell
her what an utter waste of
>flesh she is. Once women realize that being nice
to those that haven't earned
>it lowers everyones standards, maybe we'll get somewhere.
Another thing that women don't seem to realize is that
they are
playing by a double standard. If a woman has the slightest
moment of
irrationality, then it is pounced on as an example of
why women are
inferior fluffy bunny ditzos. Men are irrational all
the time, but
generally in a different way. They appeal to the old
boy club
sentiment and it's okeedokee.
Women I see trying to gain respect have to be ten times
harder than
men. And if they have one bad day because, say, a relationship
ends,
the whole thing is blown, forever.
A man gets dumped and has a crappy week, drinking himself
in a stupor
and fucking up at work, and that's OK. Admirable even.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Getting in Touch with the Universe: Sell Your Worldly
Possessions
and Lead a Life of Austerity in the Woods, or Just Smoke
a Doobie?
- Philosophy for Dummies, Chapter 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 12:51 PM
Message-ID: <1RWf6.21$PL4.43125@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
For some reason, prostata@bronze.coil.com wrote:
>
>In article <9tqt7t42qopauhgg2ok83cdhalsleu8kpo@4ax.com>,
> Shit. Come to think of it, as a species,
if we don't wise up we
>may be facing extinction in a number of interesting
ways.
> This may *sound* like a joke, but it kind
of makes SENSE when you
>think about it. Why should a species mollycoddle
those who are unfit to
>survive in a world where survival is actually really
EASY.
> Let the dumb ones kill themselves off and
the smart ones who are
>left, male and female, will likely *all* be worthy
of leadership and we
>can stop squabbling over this whole "men vs
women" thing and just get over
>it.
IQ's aren't really the factor here.
Case in point:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
I mean... REALLY.
--
===================================================
saint andreux || andreux@jehovahatesphred.com
po'bucker backwoods faith chapel & taco stand, inc.
"would you like some possum on that there torta?"
===================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
playing by a double standard or being played by the double standard?
> Women I see trying to gain respect have to be ten
times harder than
> men. And if they have one bad day because, say,
a relationship ends,
> the whole thing is blown, forever.
>
> A man gets dumped and has a crappy week, drinking
himself in a stupor
> and fucking up at work, and that's OK. Admirable
even.
ohhhhhhhhhh i dont think so, i think a woman will act
like the whole
world is blown forever, she will get way more emotional
about it and
have a good cry or whatever, but the difference is a
man will get drunk
about it, cause generally his emotions are way more
suppressed and he
cant let anything get him down, its his training from
infancy, men are
tuff, men dont cry, men can handle it, but on they inside
they is
wailing like a big fat baby.
headkase
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: CmarkB <c-bee1@staff.uiuc.edu>
> IQ's aren't really the factor here.
>
> Case in point:
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
>
> I mean... REALLY.
What? Where's the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Artemia Salina <y2k@sheayright.com>
>
> I just said the exact same thing in another thread.
I was sick of
> arguing about something, so I said so and stopped.
>
> But that's different, right?
No, not at all. You're just a gurlyman, that's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joy@coil.com
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday
What I think Nu-monet has done here is try to propose
a false dilemma.
He is saying either women have to be in charge or men
have to be in
charge. Thus perpetuating the "battle of the sexes".
Men are not the
problem. Women are not the problem. Each gender is
fucked up in its own
unique and beautiful way but those ways generally complement
each other.
Those ideas Nu-monet addressed in his original post
show me rather than
women *dominating* men we are taking more of an active
role in achieving
the equality we have been striving for the past 50 years
or so. If it
seems to some that women are taking over, think of a
pendulum. For
centuries the pendulum has been *way over here* on the
man side of the
range. For the past 40 or 50 years it has ever so slowly
been moving
toward the other side towards the inevitable backlash.
For awhile women
as a group are going to become an even more vocal and
powerful group
until they almost drown out the men. What will happen
then is the
pendulum will swing *back the other way* but not as
violently this time
until eventually all of the momentum is lost and there
is more-or-less
equality.
We have already witnessed a small backlash towards the
ultra-militant-feminism of the late 80s and early 90s.
Men suing women
for sexual harassment, The Man Show on Comedy Central,
a show I love BTW.
I'm sure I could think of some more if I tried, but
those just popped
into my head.
As my debate professor in college told me "beware of the false dilemma".
XXOO
Joy D'Veeve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: "Paul Murray" <pmurray@nospam.bigpond.com>
"ThatSikkiChick" <thatsikkichick@aol.com>
wrote in message
news:20010205095152.27839.00001639@ng-mn1.aol.com...
> nu-monet wrote:
>
> >You mention an argument that I used, in the
"cast the weak
> >and useless from our ranks", but had to
discard because it
> >was so very frightening that several women
wanted to end
> >the discussion right there.
>
> Doesn't suprise me a bit. The drama queens, professional
victims,
crybabies
> and attention sluts comprise the vast majority
of women. There aren't
enough
> GOOD women to hunt them down yet.
And what's this about pink women and fortune tellers,
palm readers,
astrology columns etc etc? How many guys do you see
in those crystal and
rainbow shops? Do these women each belive that they
are so special that the
universe will go out of it's way to sort out their little
lives? Are they so
eager to find someone to tell them what to do? Is it
any wonder that women
still don't rule the world when they spend their energy
trying to find out
what is going to happen, instead of making it happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: headkase <headkase@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 9:08 AM
Message-ID: <95rktf$cha$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <Cy5g6.19302$65.96645@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
"Paul Murray" <pmurray@nospam.bigpond.com>
wrote:
>
> And what's this about pink women and fortune tellers,
palm readers,
> astrology columns etc etc? How many guys do you
see in those crystal
and
> rainbow shops? Do these women each belive that
they are so special
that the
> universe will go out of it's way to sort out their
little lives? Are
they so
> eager to find someone to tell them what to do?
Is it any wonder that
women
> still don't rule the world when they spend their
energy trying to
find out
> what is going to happen, instead of making it happen?
>
laffs
ignorance is bliss isnt it,
i once worked for a man who sold crystals and hippy
shit
we bought from a wholesaler who was a man
there was a fortune teller in the mall i worked in
he was a man
or alternatively
women do that shit cause the money is good and faith is cheap to buy.
headkase
> --------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday
>
> What I think Nu-monet has done here is try to propose
a
> false dilemma. He is saying either women have
to be in
> charge or men have to be in charge. Thus perpetuating
> the "battle of the sexes". Men are not
the problem.
> Women are not the problem. Each gender is fucked
up in
> its own unique and beautiful way but those ways
generally
> complement each other...
>
On the contrary, a large part of my diatribe is dedicated
to anecdotal explanation, though I would call it a mis-
characterization to call a "change of way"
a dilemma; any
more than, let us say, a technological innovation.
People
adjust to the new, some better than others. It is a
process. I suppose it would be a dilemma for those
who
are unwilling or unable to adjust.
Complementary sexes are also a given, even if they are
wildly
imbalanced complements. But that is not at issue.
What I
addressed was 'leadership' (avoiding the patriarchal
attachments that exist with the word "governnment".)
Patriarchy is based on an ultra-ordered, hierarchical
chain
of superiors and subordinates. Its advantages and flaws
are
all well documented. But it is not the only form of
leadership
which exists. Matriarchy is difficult to explain as
a whole,
for there is no hierarchy, no chain of command, and
decisions
are made of consensus, guided by the will of leaders
of the
moment.
My argument is best stated that while Patriachy and
Matriachy
may coexist for a time, one must be de facto and the
other
de jure. Two "governments" may not rule a
nation, nor may
they act in a complementary fashion to one another.
Otherwise
you have a chaotic situation.
But how does this come about? I will provide an example
of
how a Matriarchy overwhelms a Patriarchy that has failed:
Several years ago, in India, the plight of women had
reached
the breaking point. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union,
there had been an explosion of child slave labor and
forced
prostitution throughout the region. In India, the situation
had reached the breaking point, with a combination of
Sutee,
bride burning, and female infanticide (much of which
was done
through abortion, due to ultrasound). Many towns in
India
had been virtually depopulated of young women.
The change began with a nameless woman, in a small town
in
one of the rural Indian States. One Saturday night,
something
happened to her that happens to women throughout the
world:
her husband was paid, spent his weeks' pay on prostitutes
and
drink, then came home and beat her before passing out.
But this time was different. That evening she went
next door
to visit with two of her friends. The more they talked,
the
madder they got. Then they went down to the street,
where
they met other women. Soon there was a mini-riot, which
went
to the liquor store where the husband had spent his
money.
They burned it down. Sunday morning came, and the authorities
did nothing. The following weekend, in three neighboring
villages, liquor stores, and a liquor warehouse were
burned,
along with a brothel, after the prostitutes and pimps
were
driven out of town. Still the authorities did nothing.
Within six months, in that State, a law was passed mandating
that half of the parlimentary seats, as a minimum, must
be
held by women.
And the movement continues in the region. Indifferent
to
national borders, such women taking charge in Patriarchal
institutions continues (notably, it is bypassing large,
urban
centers, for now). They are taking control of Patriarchies,
but doing so in a Matriachal fashion.
And this is not limited to Southern Asia. Similar movements
are taking place throughout the world. Interestingly
enough,
the United States is way behind the power curve.
BTW, you will not find much about this in the media.
What I
wrote here I compiled from a whole assortment of small
news
stories. I guess the revolution won't even be in print,
or
at least until it is so obvious that you can't ignore
it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: prostata@bronze.coil.com (Rev. Prostata Cantata)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 10:35 AM
Message-ID: <4vpr59.o72.ln@news.concourse.com>
In article <1RWf6.21$PL4.43125@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
saint andreux <andreux@jehovahatesphred.com> wrote:
>For some reason, prostata@bronze.coil.com wrote:
>
> Case in point:
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
>
Actually, this is really nothing new. The basic
mechanics of the
problem were worked out in the '70s. I'm surprised
CNN even printed this.
This has been sort of an "in joke" with science
geeks for years. The fact
that "Astrophysics and Space Science" is printing
that research probably
just means that those two scientists have found a new
and interesting way
to do it or they have refined the calculations. It's
an interesting
problem, the kind that is fun to discuss when reporters
are in the room.
Besides, these things DO take a lot of planning to do
them right. 3Gy from
now is probably too late to start thinking about it.
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
+++~ath0
NO CARRIER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: prostata@bronze.coil.com (Rev. Prostata Cantata)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 10:38 AM
Message-ID: <65qr59.3i6.ln@news.concourse.com>
In article <3A8095EA.61DA43FD@staff.uiuc.edu>,
CmarkB <c-bee1@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Case in point:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
>>
>> I mean... REALLY.
>
>
> What? Where's the problem?
Apparently, astronomers with too much free time
is what is REALLY
causing this contry to go to HELL IN A HANDBAG!
HELL IN A HANDBAG I SAY!
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
+++~ath0
NO CARRIER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 12:32 PM
Message-ID: <3A8186AE.4536@succeeds.com>
saint andreux wrote:
>
> IQ's aren't really the factor here.
>
> Case in point:
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
>
> I mean... REALLY.
>
Everyone knows it would be more cost-effective to have
all the
Chinese jump, repeatedly. Or, one could just build
a really
powerful electromagnet to repel the Earth away from
the Sun.
Maybe a big fan?
--
"Violence in the pursuit of Greed is no Sin."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 1:15 PM
Message-ID: <3a8190aa.1375934@news.mindspring.com>
nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com> hunched over a
computer, typing
feverishly;
thunder crashed, nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
laughed madly, then
wrote:
>saint andreux wrote:
>>
>> IQ's aren't really the factor here.
>>
>> Case in point:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/05/earth.move/index.html
>>
>> I mean... REALLY.
>>
>
>Everyone knows it would be more cost-effective to
have all the
>Chinese jump, repeatedly. Or, one could just build
a really
>powerful electromagnet to repel the Earth away from
the Sun.
>Maybe a big fan?
Roseanne Barr. Problem solved.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Christianity is a rebellion of everything that
crawls on the ground
against that which has height: The evangel of the 'lowly'
makes low."
- Nietzsche
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: mtrxhzu@aol.com00101110 (kris)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 1:29 PM
Message-ID: <20010207132911.10251.00000635@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>From: Rev. Prostata Cantata
>
> Apparently, astronomers with too much free
time is what is REALLY
>causing this contry to go to HELL IN A HANDBAG!
>
>
> HELL IN A HANDBAG I SAY!
>
>
Yes, but "Connie" has shoes to match.
The whole ensemble is "to die for".
--
.....kris
"Your eyes. It's a day's work just to look in to
them."~Laurie Anderson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 4:46 PM
Message-ID: <gnjg6.2679$AE5.594103@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
For some reason, prostata@bronze.coil.com wrote:
>
> HELL IN A HANDBAG I SAY!
>
Yeah man! If they'd quit lookin' at the sky
and tryin' to figure out how to fly by
asteroids to change the course of the earth
and instead spent their time trying to come
up with a better mousetrap like they SHOULD
be doing, then it would be a better world.
Damn scientists.
-st. andreux
--
===================================================
saint andreux || andreux@jehovahatesphred.com
po'bucker backwoods faith chapel & taco stand, inc.
"would you like some possum on that there torta?"
===================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 5:02 PM
Message-ID: <3a81c604.15035924@news.mindspring.com>
fucking mice.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"I done took 'em up. I still believe it's right.
The Bible didn't say they
wouldn't bite"
- Snake Handler 'Little George', died July 25,1955 [from
a snake bite]
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 4:49 PM
Message-ID: <ipjg6.2681$AE5.595009@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
For some reason, joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>Everyone knows it would be more cost-effective
to have all the
>>Chinese jump, repeatedly. Or, one could just
build a really
>>powerful electromagnet to repel the Earth away
from the Sun.
>>Maybe a big fan?
>
>Roseanne Barr. Problem solved.
Damn, boy... you're one of them kids
with a PHd that actually DOES something
ain't you?
purty quick thinkin' there, tex.
-st. andreux
--
===================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
Damn mice-fucking scientists.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Snap their little necks in a trap then fuck them. Damn
NECROPHILIAC
mice-fucking scientist perverts. Makes me wanna puke.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"There are many kinds of 'truths' and consequently
there is no truth"
- Nietzsche
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
You mean it doesn't turn you on?
What are you? Some kind of damn QUEER?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Well there is something about those quivering, twitching
little pink
flanks up in the air, just begging ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: andreux@jehovahatesphred.com (saint andreux)
That's the part that gets me harder
than chinese algebra. What's yer issue?
===================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Joy D'Veeve <noemail@forgetit.gov>
> My argument is best stated that while Patriachy
and Matriachy
> may coexist for a time, one must be de facto and
the other
> de jure. Two "governments" may not rule
a nation, nor may
> they act in a complementary fashion to one another.
Otherwise
> you have a chaotic situation.
<snip>
You're missing my point. You are giving only two choices
for the future
of our government. I feel that there are more than
two choices and you
are deliberately ignoring them to strengthen your argument.
I thought I'd point that out even though by now a lot
of people probably
have killfiled us.
XXOO
Joy D'Veeve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Please elaborate. I have illustrated two of just
the handful of matriarchies that exist. I would
consider all other "governments" patriachies.
If
you have some kind of gender-neutral management
and organization, I would be very interested in
what it might be.
BTW, defining such current and historical management
styles as "matriarchal" or "patriarchal"
is not my
invention. In either case they are time tested and
effective. What alternative do you suggest that
has not been tried before?
> I thought I'd point that out even though by now
a
> lot of people probably have killfiled us.
>
They might ignore, but I doubt they would killfile
serious posts. If anyone has done so, please raise
your hand.
--
"Violence in the pursuit of Greed is no Sin."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com (Joe Cosby)
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday
Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2001 11:31 PM
Message-ID: <3a837290.14015873@news.mindspring.com>
Thaniarchal. Tested succesfully in Jonestown and Waco.
Not a
complaint.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless
interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an
otherwise dull
day.
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Connieite Takeover
From: Protectrix Amazonia <lifeofcassie@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2001 11:42 PM
Message-ID: <080220012053568699%lifeofcassie@earthlink.net>
In article <20010205180434.27694.00001659@ng-mn1.aol.com>,
ThatSikkiChick <thatsikkichick@aol.com> wrote:
> headkase wrote:
>
> >you are not a woman, in my opinion you are
an angry man.
> >
Heh.
Welcome to my world. =')
Rev. Protectrix Amazonia,
Cassandrian Minister
From: Lilith von Fraumench <lilith@ZubJenius.com>
> http://www.minitru.org/tampa/b-sikki-and.jpg
> I'm the girl in the blue jacket on the far left,
shit for brains.
Give 'em hell, Sikki!!! KANI YUGA!!!
The Prophet Lilith
--
=====Her Ladyship Rev Dkr St Popess Lilith von Fraumench,
Esquire=====
===Prophet===Corrective Phrenologist===Supreme Commandrix===Devivor===
==SSUCC 4739 University Way NE #1302 Seattle WA 98105
(877)=381-9354==
====Web: ssucc.ragnarokr.com = foolspress.com = mp3.com/foolspress====
From: Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
>In the final analysis, the Connieite reeducation
camps
>have their work cut out for them. One heck of a
lot of
>these females(*) need serious adjustment.
Funny, I didn't know there was a Connie-ite takeover.
Seems we were
just fine cruising by right alongside everyone else.
Silly me. But
thanks for the ideas.
"All that coitus taking place under one
roof IS a bit disturbing."
Northern Exposure
Sister Decadence
http://www.subgenius.com
http://www.walkingdead.net/~quijibo/sister_d
http://www.walkingdead.net/~sisd/siscam.html
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
I foresee a day where the Connieites *openly* control
the
Church, not just from behind the scenes. Picture, if
you
will, a Supreme High Connieite Control & Domination
Committee; don't focus on *who* would be on the committee,
but *how* they would operate. A council whose authority
directs and manages the Church, subtly twisting the
doctrines
to more closely align the Connieite "way"
upon Reverend and
the world of the pinks alike.
On the plus side, the males would no longer have to
pay to
dress up in cute little costumes and call you "mistress"
when serving you latte on a chez lounge.
--
"Violence in the pursuit of Greed is no Sin."
From: Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Oh yes. WHO is on doesn't matter to us Connie-ites,
as long as it IS
a Connie-ite!
>
>On the plus side, the males would no longer have
to pay to
>dress up in cute little costumes and call you "mistress"
>when serving you latte on a chez lounge.
Plus side? Since when is that a plus side? *heh*
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
We males would then have extra money (in our allowance)
to
give to the Church!, mistress.
>
From: Sister Decadence <decadence@subgenius.com>
Indeed, and "Bob" needs our money! Connie
HAS "Bob's" wallet
already, no wonder he's broke!
On another note, see you in about a month in the Holy Land!
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
I still think it's hilarious that last time the whole
city
was plastered with pictures of "Bob", and
everyone was
walking around wondering WHO THE HELL IS THAT PIPE-SMOKING
GUY?
Stuff I should say if asked this year:
"He is an international terrorist, kind of like
Carlos the Jackal.
Call the police if you see him."
"He is a crazy American billionaire. If he sees
you wearing
his picture he will give you a million dollars. We
think he is
vacationing in Amsterdam right now."
"That's George Bush, the new U.S. President."
"He's a rock-and-roll star who is *huge* is the
U.S. But I
think his music has been banned in Europe."
"He is a political prisoner YOUR GOVERNMENT has
been keeping in
a dungeon in the Royal Palace!"
"That's Duran-Duran."
>
>
>
>
Original file name: The Connieite Takeover - converted on Friday, 29 June 2001, 22:32
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters