The two villages where mothers killed EVERY baby born a boy for ten years

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by Kailassa Whoever believes this newspaper-selling nonsense has no understanding of the strength of the maternal bond and what mothers will go through to protect their children.

How can you just ignore hundreds of years of human history? Infanticide as population control, birth control, and societal engineering is a well-established human tradition, and continues today. Of course, these days we've made it a bit more palatable by being able to kill the baby before it's born instead of after.

Yes, infanticide has an ancient lineage, but usually singly, not as a group effort, and usually due to reasons of lack of food, and certainly not publicized! Group infanticide by new moms to stop future warfare, apparently with the approval of the other members of the tribe? No way, something doesn't smell right. In these traditional societies it is the elder men who make the political decisions, not new moms!

Actually, the more I think about it, I wonder if the NWO is 'floating' a new idea here--the aforementioned mass neutering of the male population, in order to 'help' the human race stop killing each other.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by starviego]

reply to post by Heike



the suggestion was made that women choose macho aggresive males and that is why the offspring are aggressive too

so my suggestion is that not all women choose macho and aggressive men - some women are foirced instead

this means that it was suggested the tribes in PNG - its their fault that this war has lasted so long for choosing macho and aggresive males to mate with

I hopw that clarifies how this post WAS relevant to the discussion

Originally posted by pieman
personally, i think it isn't a simple cause and effect thing with violence and testosterone, the cause and effect is sex and testosterone. the fact that women are so undersexed by comparison is what causes the violence. sexual frustration is the real issue.

think about it, gay men are really nice usually, in fact "gay" is actually a word for being happy and nice. they have all the testosterone straight men have but they also have partners with equally high sex drives.

then there's the hippies, i hardly think it's a co-incidence that all that peace stuff went hand in hand with the free love stuff.

if anything, we need more testosterone, not less.

women HAVE to be undersexed because they are not here to fulfil mans needs - they are here to nurture the next generation of people-
that is their nature-intended purpose

females of other species are the same - nature does not care if the male gets as much sex as he needs - only that females have babies and have the males back off with their sex needs so that the females can focus on the needs of the offsprings

reply to post by megabyte


I didn't say that your post wasn't relevant to the discussion.

I SAID that a few forced marriages or rapes aren't going to significantly or statistically impact the results of women who are able to choose consistently choosing aggressive men.

Or are you suggesting that a significant percentage of women were either raped or forced into a relationship they didn't choose? That would be different from your first assertion which was something like "prove their wasn't even one rape." As I said before, ONE rape - or even a few rapes - wouldn't be statistically significant.

The point is, as simply as I can put it, that men are more aggressive than women but it's not their fault - we've collectively "selected" for that trait over hundreds of generations. It's like having a pack of hunting dogs - who've been selectively bred to hunt and kill for generations - and then being upset with them because they got out and killed your chickens. You can't blame them for doing what they were bred to do just because you don't like their choice of victim.

Men are more aggressive. Everyone knows this. All the crime statistics show it. Domestic violence statistics show it. Violent sports show it. What we need to do (and those village women needed to do) is accept it and help them find more constructive ways of dealing with it.

bottom line is that this was mass murder of babies over a prolonged period- any woman found guilty should be executed

Originally posted by starviego
Yes, infanticide has an ancient lineage, but usually singly, not as a group effort, and usually due to reasons of lack of food, and certainly not publicized!
[edit on 3-12-2008 by starviego]

Nope, try again. It WAS a group/societal practice, it WAS public, and in fact it is a fairly common theme in mythology and even religion (Romulus and Remus, Oedipus, Perseus, Gilgamesh, Moses, etc.).

Exposure of Infants

The Exposure of Infants

This is what extreme feminism leads towards. Amazonian woman mentality with no men.

These women should not be allowed to practice infant genocide. USA needs to step in and send in a few tanks to wage war. We need to get NATO involved.

Originally posted by megabyte
females of other species are the same - nature does not care if the male gets as much sex as he needs - only that females have babies and have the males back off with their sex needs so that the females can focus on the needs of the offsprings

1st, that's utter rubbish, the animal kingdom has a wide range of animal sexual behavior and none of it is close enough to make a good comparison to human sexual behavior. there is no real correlation between the two in humans, this is clear because women ovulate while breast feeding.

you were the one suggesting we should dick around with nature and our biological chemistry. i'm saying that you're wrong in your assertion that testosterone causes anger, it clearly doesn't.

you seem to be suggesting that womens natural drives are good and mens natural drives are bad, is this correct.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I think you misread there. It seems that the Salvation Army and the pastor are actually latecomers, not trying to get other ways for the women to end the wars, instead of killing the babies (which, for some reason, makes me think of Obama's (supposedly) proposed full-term abortion idea).

But if the people would just get politically correct and read the Georgis Guidestones, they would see that there is still more than 5.5 billion people too much on earth - according to the NWO/Luciferians. So why stop the killing, when they might ensure the extinction of an entire tribe or two? Less for the NWO to kill in the coming purging, there.

Before anyone reads this wrong, i am totally anti-NWO. And also anti-OWR and anti-UN. I used to think the UN was a good thing, until finding out about what happened in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And of course, the ties to the coming NWO.

As for the PNG killings, it's not likely to stop as long as the people keep believing in the power of witchcraft and hexes. All that will help there, is to give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It worked here in SA, when 500 people were killed in a few weeks' time during a violence outbreak in Richmond in 1998.

[edit on 2008/12/5 by J.Smit]

Originally posted by megabyte
women HAVE to be undersexed because they are not here to fulfil mans needs - they are here to nurture the next generation of people-
that is their nature-intended purpose

God's purpose was that Woman be an equal and helper to Man. As for the idea that women need to be undersexed: it good to see there are other also that do not go clubbing (-any more). Ever been to a rave? the "*bathroom stalls*" are often crowded with girls and boys - on average, one of each per stall. And believe me, they aren't talking politics in there...

As far i could see, women have the same sex drive men have, maybe even higher.

reply to post by J.Smit

I think you misread there. It seems that the Salvation Army and the pastor are actually latecomers, not trying to get other ways for the women to end the wars, instead of killing the babies (which, for some reason, makes me think of Obama's (supposedly) proposed full-term abortion idea).

Ok. Well I certainly hope I misread, because my initial reaction was that I was horrified at that.

I will go back and re-read it.


Edit:

You are right! I really did mis read that. Wow.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
smoking pot lowers testosterone production. i don't see lower crime rates among pot smokers. I see quite the opposite.

WOW, have you or will you ever try smoking pot.!!! because thats just bull#. I know thousands of people that smoke, an non are into crime. You are full of it, and you know it. if not PROVE IT show me some kind of artical or paper that shows a pot head doing some kind of demolish/stealing/etc. and creating anarchy of any type.

Prove IT bitfatfurrytexan!

Shows like Nature or National Geographic tends to exaggerate things so viewers will be more interested. The same is applied here.

-Ign0RanT

Has anyone here seen the "Wicker Man"?

Maybe a male dominated society isn't working. Maybe men and women need to work together.

Team work seems to be the answer.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Teeky]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Teeky]

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Teeky]

Has anyone here seen the "Wicker Man"?

Maybe a male dominated society isn't working. Maybe men and women need to work together.

Team work seems to be the answer.

reply to post by Heike


So you're saying the world is messed up because women choosed tribal warrior men throughout time?

I swear the internet is full whinning men.