Link: Men explain things to me

https://www.guernicamag.com/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/

I did have a post explaining the real features of mansplaining but I need to find it to post it. At least I doubt I posted it. It’s hard to keep track. This will be blunt for the spergs.

You’re not holding court if the other party hates you and wants to leave.

I have never seen a woman do it. We keep out. It seems a male feature, especially a bitchy gamma male type. Internet bitch fights between guys. Think the atheist talking about sky fairies when nobody asked.

When men do it to other men, which is uncommon, they’re just called jerks.
There should really be a term for this behaviour though.

It’s toxic, it’s antisocial and it’s ignorant to think a conversation is an excuse to chop the other party down.
You can say someone’s wrong if you think, but there’s a respectful adult, mature way, and then the way where you make them never want to speak to you again and act like it’s their fault you’re an ass.

Also a favourite with the guys who complain of being friendzoned. They’re normally not friends but acquaintances.
I insult her! I demean her! I disrespect her! Why won’t she date me? I’m such a Nice Guy!

Really they’re passive aggressive and blow hot and cold while thinking they’re being smouldering and mysterious.

One of the assumptions is that a woman, despite credentials, has no idea what she’s talking about (even as she’s teaching you the thing, thereby proving it) or randomly invalidating their opinion purely because they’re a woman (that’s just sexist, like when SJWs dismiss men on that basis).

Opinions don’t need to be right.

 

So the bloviating moron just rattles off his opinion like a fact glibly and expects the presumably ditzy girl to be sexually impressed. And that’s the worst part, they think cocky is sexy.

No woman fancies House.

None.

Have you noticed that?

…Why do you do this?

It’s the shittiest flirting tactic known to man.

Look how smart I am! they think they’re signalling.

Look how obnoxious I can be! women see.

You are not at work and you’re not the boss there either, so you couldn’t bully people like that at work. If you did bully work inferiors, they’d leave. If you’re mean when you’re trying to be ‘nice’ on first meeting, imagine what an asshole they think you are once they get to know you, who wants to? Really it’s the bottom rungs of men who do this because negative attention is better than none, they’re already unattractive but this makes it hard to look past because there isn’t even inner beauty or some sympathy.

Woman thinks:

Why should I be nice and carry you in this conversation? Next!

It’s this alpha posturing BS going round. The old term for this? False bravado.

It’s fake as those thots’ nails. Pretending it’s about the intellect doesn’t make you less superficial than a guy in a tight tank top, you’re still being vain. It’s a false image of leadership. Who is inspired by catty comments?

There’s a sexual element where it’s like negging but instead of appearance or something superficial like a laugh or posture, they’re dehumanizing you. It’s the dehumanization part that rings true to regular, non-SJW women and made this such a Thing, thanks to EQ. I’ve had men on here try to deny women’s EQ when there are plenty of studies, since the idea of women being good/better at anything triggers them to their tiny fragile peanut balls, but then go on to say women are too sensitive. ….like -how? How does your brain keep you alive when it’s so dumb?

They’re patronizing but in doing so, demonstrating their stupidity. If the woman defends herself, let alone fighting fire with fire? He gets really offended and maybe calls her a sexist bitch.

ugh.

You don’t take the time (SQ) to explain something for free only for the ingrate to turn around and begin implying that, because they don’t like what you say, you have no right to say it.. also because you have tits. Ironically they talk about freedom of speech constantly…. yeah, they just mean their speech. So you can’t punch them for being jerks….

That was April 2008 and it struck a chord.  It still seems to get reposted more than just about anything I’ve written at TomDispatch.com, and prompted some very funny letters to this site. None was more astonishing than the one from the Indianapolis man who wrote in to tell me that he had “never personally or professionally shortchanged a woman” and went on to berate me for not hanging out with “more regular guys or at least do a little homework first,” gave me some advice about how to run my life, and then commented on my “feelings of inferiority.”

Don’t be this guy.

If it’s something a nosy old woman might say, don’t.
Hearing something you don’t like isn’t a personal insult.

Don’t make it personal.

He thought that being patronized was an experience a woman chooses to, or could choose not to have–and so the fault was all mine. Life is short; I didn’t write back.

the way someone else speaks to you is THEIR fault

they are the responsible one for their tongue

even being wrong isn’t a provocation

it’s a learning opportunity

a bonding opportunity

or maybe that’s my EQ talking

not a bitchy high horse shade-throwing competition

cause?

straight men are acting gay

to attract women

it puts off women

homosexual men do this

that’s why they do it

they always did this

look at Oscar Wilde!

Young women subsequently added the word “mansplaining” to the lexicon. Though I hasten to add that the essay makes it clear mansplaining is not a universal flaw of the gender, just the intersection between overconfidence and cluelessness where some portion of that gender gets stuck.

arrogance

empty arrogance

nothing between the ears

literally no self-awareness, like, autistic levels but no autism

It’s like being nagged but about something you don’t need to do, by someone who acts like they know you and has no idea what they’re talking about. They seek you out and maybe corner you and trap you with a question to make it look less like bullying.

to the sincere fools:

you can’t banter until there’s a bond

Busybodies is too archaic a term. The worst were crotchety old men. At least the women would feed you and it wasn’t about sex.

The funniest are when any woman who uses this word gets mansplained by a broflake guy who says he’s never seen or done it.

It’s a thing you do, that’s why the word is used.
It just isn’t always directed at women, but when it is, there’s a significantly patronizing power dynamic imbalancing tone, regardless of the actual status of individuals involved.

The other cause? Smartphones.

They can’t hold a conversation anymore, we blame the internet.

Then there’s the sociopathic nutjobs-

On two occasions around that time, I objected to the behavior of a man, only to be told that the incidents hadn’t happened at all as I said, that I was subjective, delusional, overwrought, dishonest–in a nutshell, female.

That’s misogyny and gaslighting.

You are woman, therefore must be <character insult>, it’s defamation.
Men used to hold their tongue in days of dueling.

The craziest ones you’ll ever see think they’re playing Freud and can sit judging all women as inferior because they imagine a fetish of theirs, daddy issues (plot twist: because they have the daddy issues) and begin seeing insanity or dishonesty everywhere… because they need a shrink themselves. Put down the schoolgirl/teacher porn!

Men explain things to me, still. And no man has ever apologized for explaining, wrongly, things that I know and they don’t.

that’s the virtue of humility

let me end with

Surely one of these men has died of embarrassment, but not nearly publicly enough.

Cool or pseudomature?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7890529

It’s hard to find studies on this.

They’d rather make money selling them things.

https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/thirteen-in-years-but-10-or-15-in-thoughts-and-action/?mcubz=0

The wide spread in young people’s rates of social and psychological maturation has led some researchers to propose that we think about adolescents not just in terms of their chronological age, but also their subjective age: how old they feel and act.

The concept of subjective age seems like an excuse to drop age of consent.

We already have legal age and mental age.

Agency is similar in root to age.

The Beauty of Loulan

What did Aryans look like? Here’s a famous Tocharian.

Another?

Tocharian woman 1900 BC found in China

“A Tocharian female mummy with long flaxen blonde hair, perfectly perserved in braided hair. Items of weaved material, identical to Celtic Cloth.”

from http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/redheaded-tocharian-mummies-of-uyghir.html

It’s easy to show you when there are mummies available.

Clues about Ancient Egyptian race

http://listverse.com/2015/05/10/10-intriguing-clues-about-ancient-egyptian-ethnicity/

There needs to be a distinction made between the population and the nobility/monarchy.

Nobody ever does in this topic.

Up until around the 19th century, the West referred to black people as meaning they had dark hair.

Hence, Black Irish. The typical Irish.

There were no people with dark skin, and they’d have been called their tribe.

If you read the diarists.

 Their analysis indicated that he had red hair, a trait never found in sub-Saharan Africa. 

i am shocked

Because Ramesses was known to have been of Libyan descent, historians have speculated that he probably had relatively light skin,

Remember, it’s a rookie mistake to assume the current population living there is genetically the same one from thousands of years ago. Wars happened.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian authorities were accused of trying to cover up Tut’s possible Jewish heritage due to the current tensions in the Middle East.

Surrounded by liars.

Yids waz kangs?

No, have you seen their totally straight noses? No.

However, most actual genetic experts acknowledge that ancient DNA is incredibly easy to contaminate (in one famous case, DNA identified as belonging to a dinosaur turned out to be from a modern human), making any DNA study of King Tut highly suspect.

Convenient.

But surely if they kept taking samples that wouldn’t be a problem?
They usually take samples by extraction too, not the surface.

What did the genetics say again?

https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

Half of European men share King Tut’s DNA

Aah. Right.

Most modern linguists favor the “black land” meaning of the word. They argue that the Nile River’s yearly floods brought rich black soil, which ensured the country’s agricultural prosperity. As a result, the Egyptians called their land Kmt. The black soil provided a sharp visual contrast with the desert sands around the Nile, which ancient Egyptians called dsrt (“the red land”). But only the parts of Egypt closest to the Nile would have flooded with the black soil, and the Egyptians did not have any vocabulary to refer to race, so perhaps neither argument is wholly correct

The country with a religion revolving around the Nile, names itself after the soil it enriches?

Boggling.

Truly.

Some scholars have asserted that Arsinoe IV was part-African, meaning that Cleopatra’s mother (and Cleopatra herself) could have been part-African as well. In the 1990s, an archaeologist claimed to have identified Arsinoe’s tomb and skeleton. However, DNA testing on the bones was inconclusive—and we’re still not even sure that they’re her bones. It seems likeliest that Cleopatra was generally Mediterranean, a mix of Greek and various other nationalities. Ultimately, most classicists dismiss the question of Cleopatra’s race

Don’t look, don’t look they say

She was Greek.

Ptolemaic. Greek.
Maybe a little of something else, but mostly Greek.

They look so African

right?

totes African

from http://www.ancient.eu/Ptolemaic_Dynasty/

Cleopatra

Cleopatra Selene, above

Does that nose look African to you? Jawline? Eye shape?

 The Egyptians depicted themselves with skin tones ranging from light brown, to red, yellow, or black. Men were often darker than women, probably to indicate that males did manual labor outdoors, but ancient Egyptian artwork was not realistic and most skin tones were probably symbolic rather than realistic.

Yes, like the colouring on that last picture.

 to distinguish themselves from the Nubians (a people who lived in what is now Sudan), since they drew themselves with reddish or copper skin, but often painted Nubians black. Complicating the matter, a professor of African history has accused modern Egyptian authorities of tampering with ancient Egyptian artwork in order to hide their African features.

FFS

Modern scholars consider it almost impossible to judge the Sphinx’s ethnicity, since millennia of rain, wind, and heat have worn down the statue’s face.

Fair enough.

Link: Who were the ancient Aryans?

http://www.renegadetribune.com/aryan-genesis-part-1-ancient-aryans/

Interesting whether you believe it or not.

The Aryan race, or the concept of “Aryan” as a racial description of phenotype is not accurate. Aryan is both a linguistic tradition as well as a common culture, or rather a number of cultures which share the same common ancestry. Aryan also is a series of religious or folk beliefs that also have a common denominator. And the race which originally created the language, culture and religious roots of the descendants of the Aryans were of the Nordic race, based on both genetic, archaeological and living examples of peoples of Europe and the northern, more isolated regions of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, Kurdistan in Iraq, Asia Minor and many other similar Near Eastern and Asiatic regions. Deceased examples of an Indo-European racial type that share religious, cultural and linguistic traditions in common with Old Persian, Hindu and especially Celtic and Germanic peoples from Europe were the Tocharians, whose best example are the Caucasian mummies of China, which wore Celtic tartan dress, ornamented their belongings with swastikas, bore tattoos with symbols consistent with all Indo-Europeans peoples, held religious items indicative of both India and Europe, and physically were tall, blonde and blue-eyed, or with red hair and a distinct Nordic racial type. DNA testing of the Caucasian Mummies of China, these very remains, show them as having the same DNA structure as those of Northwestern Europeans. However, there is a substantial percentage of their DNA that has no known affiliates among the modern human population. New Age fanatic David Wilcock, made the claim on History Channel’s Ancient Aliens series that because there is no known populations on Earth sharing this percentage of DNA, it must out of necessity be of extraterrestrial origin! No, it just means that there was another human population, another kindred white race which died out millennia ago and has no existing descendants.

Not all blond and light-eyed, surely.

http://european-celtichistory.weebly.com/

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

The orthodox view of the origins of the Celts turns out to be an archaeological myth left over from the 19th century. Over the past 200 years, a myth has grown up of the Celts as a vast, culturally sophisticated but warlike people from central Europe, north of the Alps and the Danube, who invaded most of Europe, including the British Isles, during the iron age, around 300 BC.

Tools were found to prove this.
Invade? Not necessarily.

The swirling style of decoration is immortalised …

uhuh

But unfortunately for this orthodoxy, these artistic styles spread generally in Europe as cultural fashions, often made locally. There is no evidence they came to Britain and Ireland as part of an invasion.

Find what’s wrong with that sentence. So eager to erase white tribal histories.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Occam’s Razor – no evidence of invasion, suggesting at least some originated here.

 For the idea of the south German “Empire of the Celts” to survive as the orthodoxy for so long has required determined misreading of texts by Caesar, Strabo, Livy and others.

really
next sentence

And the well-recorded Celtic invasions of Italy across the French Alps from the west in the 1st millennium BC

why lie
why
PC that’s why
why you lie

“Celt” is now a term that sceptics consider so corrupted in the archaeological and popular literature that it is worthless.

THERE IS DNA.

A typical looking Celt, many had dark hair, eyes varied as they do today.

Longer face, thinner, large eyes and certain ferocity. The nose isn’t quite right nor the mouth because this woman isn’t a Celt, but it’s a similar look. Likewise-

It’s really the pale skin that makes the Aryan. This makes woad brighter.

Note the chin.

Profile.

Not Celtic, but statues with eyes are creepy.

Celtic mummy found in China

They weren’t all lookers.

Celtic, not Roman.

This is quite realistic.

Eyes too small

I would comment on the other races mentioned but I’m sure others know more than me.

Liberals v. Alt Left

I had considered using the term Alt Left when AR became more popular except there was this one guy who really wanted that to happen.jpg and I hated his guts. So.

One loves liberty, the other loves the slavery of others.

The Left always drives down to its authoritarian soul eventually. What we think of as fascism is instinctively leftist. Statists don’t have God, they play god.

From Marx to Mao they just keep swimming, just keep swimming.