Who invented feminism? …A man.

I’m not shitting you here.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/august/feminism-bologna-findlen-082415.html

Macchiavelli.

cracking up dawn french

Mr Dark Triad himself? No, a different one.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Macchiavelli&prev=search

h/t :takimag.com/article/ye_olde_feminism_fraude_kathy_shaidle

Link: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

…What differentiated the West from Russia, Lukacs identified, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized exactly the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured. At its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship. What was worse, from Lukacs’ standpoint: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The problem was, that as long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the belief—that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution…..

Remember, they want us to feel hopeless.

A creative act in art or science apprehends the truth of the physical universe, but it is not determined by that physical universe. By self-consciously concentrating the past in the present to effect the future, the creative act, properly defined, is as immortal as the soul which envisions the act….

Philosophy of science is very beautiful, if people paid attention to it.

The bones of contention in anthropology

A wide swathe of our understanding of human and human-like origins is limited by practical factors. Chief among those is excavation permissions. London has full layers of history underneath it, but when any new site is found it is usually kept a secret to keep renovation costs down (no need to bring in experts for removal). It used to be that the first modern archeological digs were in Africa, because the land is so undeveloped anyway, it was cheap, and later in the Middle East (primarily the Victorian’s obsession with Egypt).

Scientific theories follow the evidence, or they should do, in theory.

Due to this constraint, OOA, which stands for the Out of Africa model was developed. This theory called Africa the Cradle of Life for all of humanity, long before we had a proper knowledge of genetics. It was useful to the Victorians (yes, it’s a Victorian theory) to support their practice of slavery and the expansion of the Empire to assist the ‘devolved’, later “noble savages”, as part of the Christian mission, which held all peoples to be worthy of help as long as they accepted God’s word.

The tribes and small villages encountered were backward in many ways. Witchcraft, cannibalism, torture, gang-rape…

When the passage to the Orient (Asia) was fully opened and easily accessible, archeology began in full there too. Denisovans were discovered, a highly advanced race on par with Neanderthals. We’d now call them Eurasian, geographically. No one is certain what happened to them, a combination of war and outbreeding (miscegenation). To this day, plenty of Europeans and Asians carry traces of Denisovan DNA, as non-Africans tend to carry traces of Neanderthal. The latter was different enough from modern humans, Homo Sapiens to merit classification as a distinct species, although given new knowledge of interbreeding with Europeans primarily, this is incorrect. You see, the species/racial divide is created by fertility potential. As Neanderthals could and did interbreed with us, they could not correctly be considered a separate species, but a race of humanity. The same goes for Denisovans, and they seem as advanced in some ways as Neanderthals, despite the scant information we have on them. Recently, Denisovans have been inaccurately subsumed into the Homo Sapiens classification because they raised uncomfortable questions about intelligence and their carbon dating, which contradicts the OOA model.

OOA has been rewritten a number of times by frauds now in an effort to retain exorbitant foreign aid funding to Africa with the excuse that we owe Africa our existence as the Cradle of Life. The facts no longer support this. In fact, the negative evidence of non-African DNA at all completely refutes OOA to any true scientific mind observing. Its objective existence is proof of the fraud, yet it is still pushed as fact because of the foreign interest in keeping the NGO money flowing. The theory supported by the evidence is the MRH or Multi-Regional Hypothesis. MRH is exactly what it sounds like, there were many races which developed across all/multiple continents and most of these remain to this day while others (Denisovan, Neanderthal) were driven to extinction. OOA is to anthropology what creationism is to biology. With MRH, however, these different races still living would each require public acknowledgement and protection. Savvy readers know that probably isn’t going to happen.

Either humanity is a very broad umbrella term encompassing the entire spectrum of intellect and ability, or we must ignore most forensic evidence since the 1800s to keep the hippies happy.