I read things, you see?
I read a lot of things. I know how rapidly everything can change. When I see you try to declare "they're just not regularly around women and don't know them" I mock you and will continue to do so. Because you have no idea what's happened.

I've also noticed that it's often that cheating is what women do when they don't want a divorce but, for a ridiculous number of reasons (most of which are probably ad hoc rationals) are upset.

>Why did you cheat?
>"I don't want to feel equal I want to feel special and I want dick."

>Don't you have a dick?
>"Oh he's so wonderful, so sweet, so kind. He is the greatest man in the world...but, I'm bored."

Welcome to the void.

And so the older study that concluded that "Women cheat because they love their husbands" is only getting more "correct".

This is not a world I was made for.

Ten years.
That's it.

We're not done.

Don't worry it only starts with a poll but if you have a degree in nigga theory, you probably imagine this is because "the pussy game ridiculous"

Words are not actions.
But boy is that a weird shift, huh?

Important though and why I'm really posting this.
This is the first time I've seen this one.

The first reason that wasn't a nullification or "I had a bad day"

Apply a material outlook.

A lot of these women make a claim to be defending the ways which men might woo a woman. To help the men get a woman and heal a fracture between the two with the eventual goal of children.

A material outlook ignores what is said as it's assumed it can't be trusted or known by itself to be sincere. This includes any verbal displays of hatred towards men as frustration may overtake one and lead them to speak what they may not believe.

So what's actually occurring here?
The purpose to which the words are put in the long term are uncertain and always a distant. In the short term, directly, they take to defending a very specific behavior that often falls under what is called "simping".

The dedication by a man of his positive attentions, affections and or funds to a woman that is someone he is not directly involved with and has no relationship or reciprocated romantic connection too.

It is generally assumed the woman has no real interest in him and may be using him. But without the assumption, this is naturally of course very similar to the actual ways relationships may begin.

When we look back at the past we see eras associated with family, household, respectfulness, faith and order and we know them as "traditional" eras. These eras are also unequivocally associated with male domination and power.

When we look back we identify eras that we've naturally associated with a break with this that happens every so often and tends to invert what's associated with traditional eras. Including who has power.

This is no accident.

Indeed, be it that it is one group or multiple sharing power the fact remains that the traditional power holders are characteristically (in these eras) powerless and those who hold power are always the same.

The first anarchist, Proundhon, wrote about what happens when women have power and called it "Pornocracy". He argued that men should do everything in their remaining power to prevent this including using their natural superior physical strength.

He had argued for using everything to usurp a society and establish proper order. Nothing was off the table.
He argued to same towards women for the same reasons.
The debilitating sort of power both possess and the cruelty with which they use it.

Boomers have permanently crippled /pol/.
It's threads on the RV are all taken over by boomer Q posting and babies first conspiracy posts.

If you look at it as a whole, there is no longer an actual effort to connect anything at all from any real information. Instead it's all semantics and the bible.

The only thing gathered on the whole incident is that it is a conspiracy by AT&T and some other big companies that "run phones and voting machines" to create a false flag upon a Q patriot who was exposing the 5G lies of the Chinese conspirators to save America.

You know what I said literally yesterday about having more spirit than you but not intelligence yea I was half wrong.

Cool!

Time once again for my occasional series "Women with great hair fleeing gothic houses!"

And today all the covers are by Walter Popp...

Crucible of Evil, by Lyda Belknap Long. Avon Gothic Original, 1974. Cover art by Walter Popp.

Hornet's Nest, by Evelyn Bond. Avon Gothic Original, 1972 Cover by Walter Popp.

The House In Munich, by Dorothy Dowdell. Avon, 1974. Art by Walter Popp.

The Secret Of Chateau Laval, by Susan Marvin. Avon Gothic, 1973. Art by Walter Popp.

1/ Here are my notes from @robertwrighter's book - Nonzero: the logic of human destiny. I enjoyed the book very much.

The basic premise of the book is that history has a direction which favors co-operation and non-zero sum games, and that causes an increase in complexity.

2/ Starting from the first replicating molecule which co-operated with an outer layer to form first proto-cell, evolutionary and cultural history is full of examples where two entities come together to survive and progress a lot more than they would have done individually.

3/ This co-operative entity fares much better than two individual entities because of specialization. If two entities are in the same boat - that they win together or lose together - then trust is implicit.

4/ In a non-zero sum game, trust causes entities to focus on what they do best.

For example, eukaryotic cells - the ones animals and plants have - emerged when two proto-cells merged, and one took the role of energy generator (mitochondria), the other specialized in protection.

5/ Some scientists believe that even nucleus in a cell is a result of an early cell merging with another cell.

So M&A is not a recent phenomena, entities have been merging because of common interests ever since life started.

Tony Blair is LOTO, behind the scenes, other Blairites are involved too. Keir Starmer is just a front man, Alexandre Samuel Barros-Curtis is Labour's version of Dominic Cummings, he's THE top man. Everything makes sense from this perspective. #LabourLeak #StarmerOut 👇 #BREXIT

According to his LinkedIn profile, Barros-Curtis’s day job is as a consultant solicitor “Providing specialised legal advice in the area of derivatives and structured finance” in particular “Hedging, project financings, securitisations, credit derivatives” #LabourLeaks #HedgeFund

He has worked extensively on derivatives and structured finance matters in Europe and Hong Kong; as well as formerly working for the Clinton Foundation. Asked to comment on Mr Barros-Curtis and his role in the party Labour said they do not discuss staffing issues. #LabourLeaks

Starmer's team members were accused of what's called "DATA - scraping" - seeking to obtain certain information from a wider set of data. Mr Barros-Curtis was also the DATA controller for Keir's campaign website. Who hired Asaaf Kaplan and When?.

Tony Blair has said he would not want a left-wing Labour party to win a general election.

The former prime minister said that even if he thought a left-wing programme was the route to victory, he would not adopt one. 2015

Sunday thoughts:

I've had an untold number of abusive bosses over the years (I speak primarily of before I became a screenwriter.)

A large number. Same is true of teachers, instructors and coaches. I had those before I ever had abusive bosses. 1)

2) I've also lost jobs when it was clear I wouldn't put up with a abuse, or wasn't hired when it seemed like I wouldn't take shit. I interviewed for an assistant manager position in a business in Union Square eons ago. The manager looked at my resume, then looked at me, and said,

3) "it says here you've done a lot of martial arts, and you're a black belt. That worries me," he said. "The owner of this establishment is a former football player. He likes to throw his weight around. You don't look like someone who'd be okay with him screaming at you."

4) He screams at his employees? I asked.

"Among other things," he said. "He's a big guy, he might challenge you to step outside, if he doesn't like the look on your face. How would you respond to that, since you're a black belt?"

"I'd probably call the police, first," I said.

5) I didn't get the job. This wasn't the only time. There were other times I DID have a job & my employer vetted me, knew I needed the job, knew I'd be homeless without out it, I had no family or resources to fall back on.

And proceeded to torture and torment me as a result.

One of the most Monkey's Paw things about my life is my relationship to books. When I was a teenager, I read all the way through the school and public libraries, spent everything I had on books, and still couldn't get enough and dreamt of more.

1/

Today, as a reviewer, I have more books than I can possibly read, huge, teetering mountains of books that I'm desperate to read, far beyond my ability to ever get through them. Periodically, I declare "book bankruptcy," sweep away the backlog and start over.

2/

Even then, my eyes are bigger than my stomach: I keep back a few books that I can't bear to part with and promise myself I'll read them someday. Usually I don't, but I just did, and boy did I ever make the right call with @TheUniverse's BROAD

I have read a LOT of histories of computing, and I had a front row seat for a lot of the events depicted in this book - people I worked with, people I worked against - and yet I was surprised over and over again with details and perspectives I'd never encountered.

4/

For example, for some reason, my ninth grade computer science course included lengthy readings on ENIAC, Univac, the Mark I and the Mark II, but none of those mentioned that they were all programmed exclusively or primarily by women.

5/