The Briffault effect and how it affects us

The following breakdown appeared in an article, explaining this well known yet unknown phenomena.

“….Robert Briffault (1876-1948), was an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author. He came up with a series of observation commonly referred today as Briffault’s Law. Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood.

Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)

If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)

A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.

In economics there exists the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory…”

If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing and marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits. Hence the reason why women get bored and restless in long-term relationships or marriages. More than 200 years ago, a majority of women stayed in a relationship they find boring, due to lack of options. More than enough stories abound about the nagging wife, was really stories of her trying to placate her lack of coping mechanism as she negatively expresses her dissatisfaction with what she perceives as diminishing returns in her relationship.

Today, with the advancement of feminism, the sexual degeneration in society, the drug of equal rights legislations, no fault divorce and a lopsided family court acts, women are now free to exercise their options to opt out of any relationship they find doesn’t benefit them anymore. Until they realize the grass was never greener on the other side but in fact was AstroTurf. This myopic view euphemistically labeled monkey branching or the more benign hypergamy, created a dilemma for modern women. Feminism and equal rights fed and support the tendency to selfishly act on their boredom. And modern society enables them in their recklessness. Thus removing from them the responsibility and consequences of they behaviour, and lessons they should have learn from that mindset, the first time. The recklessness in how modern women approach monkey branching, expecting….no… feeling that they can always have a do over, if one or fi e branch breaks, has created generations of sad, frustrated bitter women, who place blame for many of their failed situationships entirely on outside sources. And never on their own decisions and irresponsibility’s.

The same can be said of women’s tendency to be sexually reckless. By responding that men do it too. Or why do men get to sleep around and they cant. Which has never been true. Women choose to ignore the reality that men don’t get pregnant. Nor do men go through the same physical stress women do, after countless years of promiscuity. The fact that it has always been easier for the average woman to get sex or sexual attention, more so than the average man, shows that even with all that access to a good time, as she plays musical matrass, women will never be happy unless they deal with this need for excitement to combat their boredom.

In a different era women do get bored. But those women were not driven by boredom, because they usually found constructive things to occupy their time. We live in a period of more leisure, more access to information, yet less common sense and critical problem solving skills. It has been said that Disney movies and entertainment in general, encourage unrealistic expectations of and from women. Couple those two with the intersectioning of modern the social experiment of ” women can do whatever she feel like”, and empowering women to not accept responsibility for their actions, is the perfect confluence of consequence meeting action on the bridge of deniability.

Regardless of what the baby killers proclaim from their dung heap, the womb naturally carries a tremendous amount of value as life giver. The ability to have life pass through her body is a sacred responsibility and gives women easier access to the spiritual realm than men have had. However, its a very delicate state, the womb, that is consistently being knocked off kilter through the indulging in carnal or base thinking and action. The over use and reckless use of her womb devalues the product immensely. Also a woman’s psychological and emotional stability is greatly affected by how she uses or misuses her womb and as such, mental health issues and the rise in prescription medications, seems to be a part of modern women’s lives.

Men don’t get a break from this fall out either. We can’t continue to lament the dearth of quality women while at the same time celebrate and participate in the recklessness. The good woman you think you found to “wife up”, after running through some other reckless female, may just be one who was ran through by a group of other men, herself. Modern women feel that in order to get male attention, they have to monkey branch or ride the proverbial cock carrousel. However, if there are less cocks to carrousel on, less woman would be as stupid as the woman in the following video.

Statistics indicate that there are roughly 16-20% of the men that 95% of the women chase, have sex with or breed for. And I am certain most of us men are either friends with or admire those 16-20%. Just like many women are friends, interact with, or secretly admire women like this train wreck below.

The race to end all races

According to the scholars, and the edition of the dictionary called the Webster’s version, the more popular of the many out in the world:

A race is any one of the groups that humans are often divided into, based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry.

Webster’s also go on to say that:

a race is also a group of people sharing a common cultural, geographical, linguistic, or religious origin or background.

This use of race, as an automatic scholarly, social and political description of people, dates to the late 18th century, and was for many years applied in scientific fields such as physical anthropology, with race differentiation being based on such qualities as skin color, hair form, head shape, and particular sets of cranial dimensions. Advances in the field of genetics in the late 20th century determined no biological basis for races in this sense of the word, as all humans alive today share 99.99% of their genetic material.

For this reason, the concept of distinct human races today has little scientific standing, and is instead understood as primarily a sociological designation, identifying a group sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.

Back in the pre-ourstoric age, of my teen years, I used to compete in track and field in high school, as a sprinter, though I more enjoyed the suicidal environment of tackle football. One of my older sisters and an older brother, also ran track in high school. I had two younger brothers who competed in track and field in high school as well. The one brother that came directly after me, actually ran internationally for a number of years. One could say he was the biggest celebrity in a family of people that were never in the shadows. Even as a youngling, I overstood that race was connected to movement, motions and competition, more than I thought it did for people. Growing up when race was mentioned in conjunction to people, it was background noise to my youthful understanding. It was not really until I went to post secondary school and got caught up in increasing my knowledge of the black liberation struggle, reading copious amounts of books and listening to a lot lectures and viewing videos, that I really started to look critically at “race” as it pertains to people, and as something others held on to religiously. The term “race,” used infrequently before the 1500s, was used to identify groups of people with a kinship or group connection. Today’s version of nationality. The modern-day use of the term “race” is a human-invented, shorthand term used to describe and categorize people into various social groups based on characteristics like skin color, physical features, and genetic heredity.

Race, while not a valid biological concept, is a real social construction
that gives or denies benefits and privileges.

Western society (white nations), developed the modern notion of race early in its formation to justify its new economic system of capitalism, which depended on the institution of forced labor, especially the enslavement of Afuracans. Racial classifications appeared in so called Western (white world), and in many other parts of the world, as a form of social division predicated on what were thought to be natural differences between human groups. Analysis of the folk beliefs, social policies, and practices of the so called Western (white world) about race from the 18th to the 20th century reveals the development of a unique and fundamental ideology about human differences. This ideology or “racial worldview” is a systematic, institutionalized set of beliefs and

The modern theory of “race” was wrongly attributed Charles Darwin, who’s theories of natural selection and sexual selection were significant scientific achievements, although his understanding of race and gender was defined and limited by his own life circumstances and the sociohistorical context within which he worked. Darwin was a product of his time and station in life, as well as his status as a upper crust European during the heights of European expansionism into the larger world. When I found out that Darwin had shelved his signature work,  On the Origin of Specie, which to his scientific brain, was a way to not only connect humanity, but to try and explain why some groups succeeded and others didn’t, it caused me to step back and reevaluate his intentions. He began to observe how European overseers of enslaved Afurakans and how the enslaved Afurakans would react to each others presence and situations. Somewhere along the way he realized that it was environment and circumstances and not phenotype that determined the success of one group over another. It was Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton who unshelved and misused On the Origin of species,  during the passion of European imperialism and colonialism to propagandize Euro-savagery and worship in the Church of race-ism. On the Origin of Species, was published on 24 November 1859, but this work did more to cement race pride and race hate in Europeans and all others infected by the religious disease of the Euro-savage’s belief in their superiority. What made race pride and race-ism a thing really, happened 407 years prior to Darwin’s book, that got a foot hold in the psyche of everybody moving forward. And it was something called Dum Diversas. Dum Diversas is a papal bull
(decree) issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal, the first European nation to officially embark on the modern colonial war on Afuraka, to conquer Saracens (Saracen was a term used in the early centuries, both in Greek and Latin writings, to refer to the people who lived in and near what was designated by the Romans as Arabia Petraea and Arabia Deserta)  and pagans and consign them to “perpetual servitude”. Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Inter caetera, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. Thus the modern theory of “race” as an ism (a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory; an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief), was invented by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Arabia Petraea or Petrea, is  also known as Rome’s Arabian Province (conquered territories) or simply Arabia ( North East Afuraka before the Suez canal separated it from the rest of the continent), was a frontier province of the Roman Empire beginning in the 2nd century. It consisted of the former Nabataean (black) Kingdom in Jordan, southern Levant (mostly Black), the Sinai Peninsula and northwestern Arabian Peninsula (mostly all Black).
Arabia Deserta, also known as Arabia Magna (Greater Arabia), signified the desert interior of the Arabian peninsula. In ancient times, this land was populated by nomadic Bedouin tribes ( Blue black, Afurakan people) who frequently invaded richer lands, such as Mesopotamia and Arabia Felix (Arabia Felix was the Latin name previously used by geographers to describe South Arabia, or what is now Yemen).

Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful Ham was blessed black like the raven …”

The above written between the 1st to 2nd century AD by Rabbi Eli`ezer of Israel, from the Pirqe, pereq 24 – cited by Yafeu Taom ha Levi (of the Resource Center for African Jews in America).

“The Arabs used to take pride in their darkness and blackness and they had a distaste for a light complexion and they used to say that a light complexion was the complexion of the non-Arabs” Al Mubarrad, 9th century born in Basra, Iraq.

“…these tribes – with the exception of the Harasis – have a tradition of African origin, the order of their local antiquity being Shahara,– Bautahara, Mahra, Qara. “

Yafa Tribe of Yemen 
Yafa Tribe of Yemen

“The inhabitants of this part of Arabia nearly all belong to the race of Himyar. Their complexion is almost as black as the Abyssinians…”
cited in Geography of southern Arabia by Baron von Maltzan in ‘Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London”, Vol. 16, No. 2 p. 121 published between 1871-1872, on the tribes of Southwest Arabia near modern Yarim – the Aram of Genesis.

“The people of Dhufar are of the Qahtan tribe the sons of Joktan mentioned in Genesis: they are of Hamitic or African rather than Arab types…” in A Periplus of the Persian Gulf Arnold Wilson. The Geographical Journal Vol. 69l, No. 3 March 1927, pp. 235-255. See page 236.

“There is a considerable mass of evidence to show that there was a very close resemblance between the proto-Egyptians and the Arabs before either became intermingled with Armenoid racial elements.”
Written by anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith see p. 61 The Proto-Dynastic Egyptians , Gorgias Press, 2007 originally published 1923.

“In the 9th century Photus of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca quotes the Greek Nonnos of 533 AD saying ‘the Ethiopians, Himyarites and Saracens were the most powerful nations of this time’”
(Sir Richmond Palmer p. 207, Bornu Sahara and Sudan 1970, originally published 1936 by John Murray).

Today you have disingenuous and utterly stupid people who still believe the lie that Arabia, is the largest peninsula of Asia, in the southeastern part of the Asian continent. From this belief in Arabia being Asian, came something called “Oriental studies”. An academic field that studies Near Eastern and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, peoples, history and archaeology; in recent years the subject has often been turned into the newer terms of Middle Eastern studies and Asian studies. Overstand that during this time period of the creation of Oriental Studies, everybody and their butler was scavenging and grave robbing the remnants of the Ancient land of Kimit, reduced to being called Egypt after the Europeans conquered it. Oriental studies was mostly about studying the Afurakan people of Kimit, to see how that “race” functioned. According to the grave robbers…er.. archeologists, the Semitic languages are a branch of the Afroasiatic ( there is that word play again- Asiatic)language family. They are spoken by more than 330 million people across much of West Asia, the Horn of Africa, and latterly North Africa, Malta, West Africa, and in large immigrant and expatriate communities in North America, Europe, and Australasia, according to Wack-a-pedia.
Geographic, distribution: West Asia, North Africa, Horn of Africa, West Africa, Malta
Linguistic classification: Afroasiatic Semitic
Proto-language: Proto-Semitic

The name Semite was given by A.L. Schloezer in 1781, to the language family to which the biblical Hebrew belongs because the languages then reckoned among this family (except Canaanite) were spoken by peoples included in Genesis 10:21–29 among the sons of Shem. The Semitic family forms part of a wider grouping generally called Hamito-Semitic, but lately also known as Afroasiatic or Afrasian. This includes with certainty:

(a) Ancient Egyptian and its descendant, Coptic; (b) the Cushitic languages, comprising a large number of mostly little-explored languages spoken in the northeast corner of Africa, the most important ones being Beja (on the Red Sea coast), Galla (in Ethiopia), and Somali;

(c) Berber, with numerous dialects, spread from the Siwa Oasis in Egypt to Morocco, and southward into the Sahara (Tuareg). Less well established is the status within this family of the Chadic languages of West Africa, the chief of which is Hausa, and of the Central-Saharan group. Genetic relationship has often been claimed between the Semitic languages and the Indo-European family (to which English belongs as one of the Teutonic languages, as well as Latin and its descendants, Greek, Slavonic, Iranian, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc.). Though such a connection is intrinsically probable, no definite proof has been provided.

Everything these people claim is West Asian or Semitic, has its origin in Afuraka and North East Afuraka before the political separation of the area called the “middle East” in to Arabia. How else could European descendants of the Turks and Khazar can lay claim to our story? Today you have converted Turks to Islam, who for more than 1200 years, before the Europeans made enslavement a business practice, rebranded themselves as Arab, and who then proceeded to rape, pillage and enslave millions of Afurakans and converted them by sword to their religion of Islam.

Now according to the scholars many of you consider credible, a Semite is someone who speaks a particular language and its derivative. So when did being a Semite a specific thing exclusive to a particular ethnic group? And what is an anti-Semite? Well according to the World Jewish Organization, The United Nations and numerous nations who hungrily “eat the Groceries” of the Western Powers,  Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an anti-Semite. Antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism. 

Who remembers or know of this quote from my spiritual father El Hajj Malik Al Shabazz, when he stated emphatically, “Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you’ve got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. And once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how you can get yours straight”.

So again I ask, what is a Semite and what is anti-Semitism. Those of us willing to examine this should then ask yourself why does a certain group of people get to define languages, universal truth or opinions of a multitude of others? We live in a world now where people refuse to or actually are unable to define what a woman is. What patriarchy is. What masculinity is. What hate is. And most importantly what is truth? You see Truth is consistent despite opinions. People use opinions and feelings to circumvent truth and to oppress truth speakers or people who have a different opinions.

If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.
― George Orwell

When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar,
you are only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
-George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
(A Song of Ice and Fire)

Over the last few weeks particularly this weekend,  Kanye West stated that Slavery was a choice, people who live their lives emotionally retarded, accused him of demeaning the ancestors of Afurakan people across the globe. And when Kyrie Irvin in searched the origin of his name in of his Hebraic faith, shared the link of a book being sold on Jewish owned Amazon, the world of the culture vultures, the bought and sold kneegrows and the white liberals and the just plain fucktards, blew up.

The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
― Malcolm X

What is happening to Kanye West and Kyrie Irvin is telling. Not because those who wish to maintain tyranny over others, chose to demonize them. But those who ourstorically have seen this game over and over, still end up on the side of evil. Why? Because slavery is a choice and the slaves chose to stay in the Matrix, even though they know what the Matrix is

This part of the movie points to the emptiness of many people’s ambitions. Many simply don’t know what they want in the world, even when armed with a blank check. Cypher could have chosen to be the wisest ruler, or someone who brought world peace, some type of hero, or developer of some world-saving medicine, all while being rich. It is very telling, after reviewing other analysis of the details gone into Cypher’s character, that he simply states he want to be “someone important, like an actor.” Like many other parts of the movie, it makes you rethink about the world we live in. Yet we have actors on sports shows and other entertainment shows, who kiss the ring while on their knees, or grabbing their ankles, because they wanted to be someone famous, like an actor or celebrity of note.  All those who embrace cancel culture. Those who see hate or injury where none lays, those are the ones looking for monsters’ where none resides. And “he who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you”.

To all the Kanye’s and Kyrie’s of the world, and all the Afurakan men fighting for your lives in a media driven and anti Afurakan world, you are my brothers. Our Journey may not be the same in its entirety. The road we take may not be the road less travelled. Or it may. It may be that you got to your destination before I did/do. All it means is that each of us has a personal legend, a purpose to manifest and achieve. Yet men like you and I with all our flaws are still children of the most high. And as children of the NTR, being flawed is a good thing. Its exciting and teachable, for perfection of one’s character is a destination and not a journey. In this is where the excitement lies. How then can we grow and evolve if we don’t embrace our flaws and grow from it.

“You don’t have to be a man to fight for freedom. All you have to do is to be an intelligent human being.”

— Malcolm X