Before You Ridicule Social Justice Fanatics…

The most popular sport these days is liberal-bashing, and it is the actions of the liberals themselves that is making them an easy target.  However, it is not all right to simply dismiss their concerns simply because they have been wrapped up in asinine packaging.  Yes, it is like having to dig through vomit bare-handed in order to get to the legitimate concern, but it must be done before dismissing it all as paranoid nonsense.  Anyone calling themselves a scholar, or any sort of researcher, must look at the whole argument before ridiculing it.  Sadly, I have seen a number of such individuals doing just that: jumping on the ‘ridicule-the-SJWs’ bandwagon.  Some of them even hold chairs at universities.

They should know better, and it says a lot about academic thinking that they don’t.

I will admit, even I don’t believe that many of the SJWs having meltdowns over things people normally take in stride is in any way normal, or that these people can even be  considered ‘normal’ human beings.  There is something extremely wrong with how they handle disappointment, and how they relate to others, yet that does not mean there is no validity to their concerns.  When they are shrieking about the then candidate Donald Trump disrespecting womanhood, the concern at the core is the fact that he is backed by conservative and far-right interests that do not respect a woman’s right to live her life as she sees fit.  When they scream ‘nazi’, they are expressing concern over the willingness that they see on the right to give over personal freedoms to an authoritarian ‘volkish’ state, and so on… .

Initially, it may have seemed that the concerns were stupid.  Yet now, it seems that they may have been dead-on.  The right is, indeed, taking on the ugly overtones that characterized Nazism.  Anyone who comes from a family that actually experienced daily life in Europe at that time has probably been trained by their parents to recognize the warning signs – and I am not talking about people from Jewish backgrounds when I say that.  I am talking about Germans from German backgrounds, Italians from Italian backgrounds, French from French backgrounds, etc… . We know the signs, and we have concerns.  The insanity of the ‘lunatic left’ is doing damage to the credibility of people who see what is coming, but that does not change the fact that there is something to be concerned about.

I will say this to the far-/alt-right: you romanticize the rise of the right, and the nationalist state.  It was not like you picture in your rosy day-dreams.  People were not free to live their lives in volkish-communities, and women were not happily baking cherry pies for their eight children.  That is bull-piss and poppy-cock.

To the ‘classical liberals’ who have joined with the far-/alt-right, Pastor Martin Niemoller had this to say to you:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Is the temporary applause from your new bed-partners worth what you’re ushering in?  You who are Jews, homosexuals, and women?  I say this because something big is coming, and you will be the first ones in line to feel its hatred.  The applause will stop and you will be quickly discarded.

Liberal hysteria explained to the ignorant

Liberals, sadly, allow their emotions to overtake their capacity for reason.  Nobody should be completely without empathy, however the SJWs and feminists out there have taken things to levels beyond the galactic.  I will now explain why this happens, and how, despite the claims of the conservative right to the contrary, the right suffers from the same blind-spots.

I am going to illustrate this with a real case: A woman stabs her husband to death.  During the course of the stabbing-spree, she pauses to tie him up and put her children to bed.  That done, she returns and continues to stab him.  By the time she is finished, she has stabbed him a total of 193 times, including slicing at his penis.  She claims she is a battered woman, and her actions were in terrorized self-defense.

Believe it or not, once the woman in question played the battered-woman card, people, mainly other women, jumped to her defense.  They claimed, and still claim, her actions were clearly those of someone who was terrified.  They think the jury in the case was wrong to convict her.

This is a prime example of the skillful use of the victim card.  Whether it can be attributed to a desire to abdicate personal responsibility, or simply suffering from bleeding hearts, the left loves nothing more than standing up for a perceived a victim.  Frame the crime in the proper terms, and they will see even the most sadistic of murderers in a sympathetic light.  All that is needed is to is to come up with a half justifiable reason and a sympathetic-seeming victim, and you will have many a liberal rushing to that person’s defense.  They mean well, and honestly try to see the good in everyone.

Liberals actively search for a victim in every scenario, or something else that mitigates the issue.  Because of this, they will take a more sympathetic stance on even the most horrific things – such as terrorism.  They feel terrorism is the result of the west bombing the shit out of helpless civilians abroad, and so it is something we have brought on ourselves and must be approached that way.  It is not that they believe terrorists are good people, it just that they can see a reason why jihadists would be pissed off at us.  They can therefore be manipulated fairly easily.  Parade a photo-gallery of sad-eyed, injured women and children in front of them, and they will turn into oozing balls of putty.

By the same token, they can be easily provoked to outrage.  Just show them pictures of the US army bombing innocent civilians, and they will become so outraged that their heads practically explode.

That said, the hard-hearted conservative right is not immune to this phenomenon, either.   The primary difference between it and the left is who it perceives as the victim, and what it takes to cover someone’s sins.  The right automatically looks for nobility and moral rectitude when balancing out someone’s shortcomings and justifying their acts.  A person with the veneer of an upstanding citizen will always be forgiven, provided their accuser comes from a less palatable background.

We can take as an example someone who is considered a pillar of the community, perhaps a preacher or a president.  This man happens to be a womanizer who carries on behind his long-suffering wife’s back, year after year.  Everyone knows he is a serial adulterer, but that’s all right, he does good works, donates to charities, and he’s freakin’ all-around great guy – except for that one minor detail.  He’s projecting the right image, framing his infidelities in the right way, as a family matter, and all is forgiven.  He’s not held up to the moral compass, even when one of his lady-loves dies in circumstances that may be a drug overdose, or may be something else.  Of course, this example is a composite picture, but I have to ask, why is the right so miffed at Clinton being a womanizing pig, while lauding JFK?  Probably because JFK is their hero.  But JFK treated women as obscenely as did Clinton.  JFK even passed on Marilyn Monroe to his brother once he was done with her.

Now take that attitude into the current climate of world-wide terrorism.  While the left gets hot under the collar seeing images of foreign women and children maimed and injured, the right has the same reaction when shown images of their own, ethnically and culturally, being maimed and injured.  You can work them into the same state of hysteria by using the correct images.  One, the left, has empathy with outsiders, while the other, the right, has empathy with members of their own clan.

Neither, as far as I can see, can put aside their biased emotional reactions long enough to address the actual issues of right and wrong.  Neither has the capacity for the type of true empathy that justice requires.  A man steals a loaf of bread because he is hungry, and the left demands forgiveness, while the right wants him strung up.  The truth is, the man had limited options, no one would hire him, and he had no way to earn money to eat.  But, the shopkeeper is also suffering from a loss.  Maybe the he, himself, does not make enough profit to feed his family.  Justice means helping the thief find a way to earn a living so that he can pay back the shopkeeper.  That also means someone has to be found who is willing to hire him, and chopping his hand off is only going to make that an even more difficult task.

The sympathetic nature of the left has definitely gone too far at times, to the point of seeming insanity, but there is a genuine concern for others at its core in most cases.  That people who claim to be scientifically minded dismiss that, without even questioning why the hornet’s nest has been so badly stirred up, only proves the very sad state our ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ communities have fallen into – and the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of most of these people.  It goes without saying that we need to take care of whose camp we choose to follow, because, put plainly, the vast majority of those claiming to be ‘intellectual’ and ‘scholarly’ these days are tiny emperors running around in non-existent clothing.

Advertisements

Ufology- Some Fun Ideas About Body Duplicates

Anyone who has dabbled in ufology, as well as many who haven’t, know about the infamous alien anal probe.  Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has any explanation as to why aliens like probing humans anally.  The aliens, for their part, have a tendency to keep changing the story, depending on whom they happen to be kidnapping, and what they are probing at the time.  In general, however, it is pretty much agreed that what these extraterrestrial visiting kidnappers are doing is harvesting human genetics and tissues.

Though what sort of genetic materials they are hoping to find by rooting around up people’s anuses is still a complete mystery.

Cattle mutilations are another infamous alien predilection, and, again, the theories are rampant, but truth is thin on the ground.

One interesting theory, and I believe that it is probably the best of the best, is that these aliens are not innocently creating hybrid off-spring in order to keep their dying race alive, but are actually creating human clones, or fleshly bodysuits.  The late Karla Turner did some interesting research into UFO phenomena, and came up with ideas on the topic that have somehow gotten lost in the mists of time.  One important thing that she noted was the complete unreliability of  witness testimony.  She theorized that people’s memories of the events could not be counted on, as there was evidence that the aliens themselves implanted false memories.  Another theory that she came up with was the one I mentioned above: that the aliens were constructing human bodies out of parts taken from both their human abductees and the animals they had mutilated.  She reported several witnesses telling her that their alien captors had threatened to ‘replace’ them with duplicates that they had constructed of that individual.  One or two witnesses even reported being forced to watch as their duplicate went out into the world and replaced them for a few hours or days.

This theory is absolutely amazing, and could well explain the inexplicable.  Why do some people in high-profile positions suddenly start behaving in ways completely alien (pun intended) to the character they have shown thus far?  Could it be that they have been replaced by a duplicate version of themselves?  One created in an alien laboratory?

Take the most recent example of Bill Nye.  Suddenly, out of the blue, poof!, he’s turned into a raving proponent of bad science!  Could the real Bill Nye have been replaced?  And what about President Donald Trump?  Could he also have been replaced?  Or is he just an opportunistic businessman who goes wherever the money takes him?

If this is possible, and there are aliens working for their own, nefarious agenda, wouldn’t it make sense for them to simply replace respected scientists, doctors, politicians, and entertainers with clones, and then use the very respectability these individuals have acquired to lead everyone down the garden path?

It doesn’t stop there.  If the aliens really are creating hybrids and inserting them into our societies, wouldn’t these illegal aliens of an extraterrestrial sort be charged with inciting havoc and forcing changes in the moral and intellectual fabric of society in order to soften it up for the coming takeover?  Wouldn’t you expect them to act sort of like the SJWs of both the political/social left and the political/social right as we are now seeing?

In fact, if you dig into ufology, you will find that these ‘hybrids’ don’t consider themselves human at all, but aliens who have been put into human bodies in vitro.  A partly human fetus is created, and their alien ‘soul’ is inserted into it.  They are then born to human women.  A number of ‘indigo‘ children claim this heritage, though, of course, it has not been proven.  But do note the emphasis on ‘feeling’, instead of thinking, that these people claim.

The concerning thing in all of this is the warm welcome many groups are planning for the aliens, should they decide to reveal themselves to us.  Groups such as Dr. Steven Greer’s ‘Sirius Disclosure’ and CE-5 Initiative, are actively attempting to reach out and touch alien life.  Literally.  They claim to have perfected meditative techniques that enable them to psychically contact aliens, and even switch psyches with them so that the aliens can enter their bodies and experience this planet, while CE-5 members have the glorious opportunity to psychically experience the alien’s planet.

In other words, they are now psychically channeling these aliens.

Oh, yes.  Indeed.  And these days, aliens also walk through walls, take people bodily through walls during kidnappings, and perform many acts that we used to ascribe exclusively to ghosts and spirits.  They also outfit their victims with implants that effectively control the people who have them – and these implants have actually been found and removed from numerous people.

In the face of all this, it is the idea of body-duplicates that really intrigues me, because it could be an explanation as to why you suddenly don’t know a person anymore, and why decent, logical people suddenly go weird – just like Bill Nye.  Karla Turner interviewed a number of people who claimed to have been threatened with replacement by their alien-clone if they did not go along with the program, and who knows if that is not now actually happening?

By the way, if you are interested in ufology, please start with the likes of Karla Turner, and steer clear of Steven Greer and his alien-loving outreach.  As in all things pertaining to the supernatural, do not allowed yourselves to be used as a conduit through which a non-physical being communicates.  You are giving your body over to someone else, and giving them permission, bit by bit, to take it over for themselves.  Anything, any spiritual path that demands ‘channeling’ of this nature is up to no good that I can see.  Your body is the underwear your spirit wears.  Only a real pervert lets other people wear their underpants.

Self Deception and Giving Away Your Rights Out of Fear

One of the more incomprehensible things that people do – at least from my perspective – is watching horror films.  Why people enjoy being scared silly is beyond me.  It makes no sense.  Maybe there is some sort of an adrenaline rush, but it is an unpleasant one.  So why do people so love being scared?

Beats me.  I happen to be particularly sensitive to getting the crap scared out of me.  My parents and siblings actually liked watching horror films and television shows like ‘Night Gallery’.  While the television was on, I was under the table, trying to block my ears and not see all the scary stuff on the screen.  I’ve also been plagued by horrific nightmares my entire life, so being scared silly is something I have a lot of experience in, and something I really don’t like.  I have found that there are things to rightfully be afraid of, and things that make you behave in the stupidist, self-harming ways.

What I now see going on in the world around me is a case of the latter.

Fear-mongering, fear-porn, whatever you want to call it, people seem to love it to the point of addiction.  It is no wonder that they are now enjoying the thrill of scaring themselves silly over politics and world events.  The problem is that, through their fear, they are being manipulated without even being aware of it happening.

We are all aware of how 9/11 changed the world, and how terror ushered in an increased acceptance of authoritarianism in government.  Since that time, the assault on personal and political freedom has been unrelenting.  Then, seemingly simultaneously,  Erdogan unleashed the immigrant floodgates, and the political left went completely bat-shit crazy.

Two seemingly unrelated occurrences, or the German Sheppards set loose to herd the flock? 

Did the political left going bat-shit crazy over gender-identification, cultural appropriation, and Hillary Clinton have anything to do with the sudden influx of violent migrants into Europe?  Is there a correlation?  I believe that there actually is, and that this too is a way of herding everybody closer to the acceptance of authoritarianism.  If it isn’t intentional on the part of political planners, then it is one hell of a big bag of opportunity that has landed in the lap of the conservative/far-/alt-right.

Seeing the left go crazy has struck fear in the hearts of moderate liberals, and sent them scurrying for cover.  Guess where most of them have landed?  In the welcoming arms of conservatism.  It may be an uncomfortable fit for many of them, but it is a better fit than the utter lunacy of the tyrannical politically correct.

The truth is, most people are fed up at seeing how loose things have become.  Just yesterday, I was on a public bus where a woman had the audacity to breast-feed right in front of a group of high-school kids – boys among them.  When I say ‘right in front’, I mean directly in front of the kids.  That is not something I think teenage boys should be forced to witness while travelling home on public transit.   Another interesting thing that I also noticed yesterday, was an advertisement inside another bus encouraging people to call 911 and report inappropriate touching, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.  This is the first time I have ever seen such a thing, and it is an indication that people are getting fed up with what they’ve been expected to put up with.

The best way to explain what is happening is to liken society’s tolerance to the elasticity of a rubber band.  You can only stretch it so far before it either snaps in two and hits you in the face, or you have to let go the tension and allow it constrict back to normal size.  Knowing that, if you force society to the absolute limit of what it can tolerate, it will snap back in the form of a conservative revival.  Either that, or it will collapse into complete anarchy, and it is the fear of that anarchy which can be counted on to drive everyone, except the truly mentally unbalanced, towards a more conservative, authoritarian perspective.  Yes, we are being herded toward the right.

So, once the normal left has been nicely tenderized, it only remains to purge any stubborn remnants.   As we learned from Stalinist Russia, that can be done at a later date, once the power structure has cemented itself.

Now to the right, and Erdogan’s masterstroke

The political and social right has always been gung-ho on authoritarianism.  They love nothing more than a hierarchical structure in the home, the workplace, the government.  They cherry-pick biblical passages to put women in their ‘place’, and their air-headed womenfolk chirp the joys of baking pies at home, instead of becoming master chefs at 3-star restaurants.

How easy do you think it will be to get these guys go along with the program?  Hell, they practically wrote the thing!  All it will take is the right amount and sort of stimuli.  Turkey’s Erdogan, ever so eager to join the European Union, adds the needed kick in the pants by flooding Europe with rampaging migrants.  The sky starts falling on Chicken Little!  They look to the left, and there they see women-who-are-really-men-who-want-to-have-lesbian-relationships-with-underaged-girls!  They feel they must flee, and flee quickly, into the loving arms of questionable far-right political groups who, seeing an opportunity like no other to have come their way since WWII, ratchet up the anti-Islamic rhetoric and promise to close the borders nice and tight.

To help encourage voters to vote the right way – that is, for the candidate most likely to bomb the shit out of whomever they want, on their behalf – ISIS obligingly provides a pre-election terrorist attack (view: ‘This is a recipe for hideous disaster’ – John Pilger on Western arms deals with Saudi Arabia) .   And the lemmings all go running, not to the left-leaning candidate, but the one that advocates bigger bombs being dropped on the enemies of their nation.

The story of what happens when you vote for the right winger can be summed up in the immortal lyrics of Monty Python’s ‘Dennis Moore’:

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Galloping through the sward
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
And his horse Concorde
He steals from the rich
And gives to the poor
Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the night
Soon every lupin in the land
Will be in his mighty hand
He steals them from the rich
And gives them to the poor
Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Dum dum dum the night
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Dum de dum dum plight
He steals dum dum dum
And dum dum dum dee
Dennis dum, Dennis dee, dum dum dum
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the woods
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
With his bag of things
He gives to the poor
And he takes from the rich
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch

A Shame of the Worst Sort

I interrupt my work on an important blog post to bring you the images below.  Can you tell the difference between the two?  The first, of course, is the now infamous image of female Swedish government representatives wearing head-scarves during a meeting with Iranian government leaders in Iran.  The second is an image of Ivanka and Melania Trump wearing hideous head-things during a meeting with the Pope in Rome.

You will note something else also: In Iran, the women are wearing clothing that fully covers the body, jackets, cardigans, and … PANTS!!!  These clothes are also functional street wear in cooler climates.  If it was autumn in Stockholm, or in Moscow, there would be very little to note about the outfits.  This is important because there is nothing bizarre in what they have been forced to put on.  A woman could still function normally in these clothes, and, in cooler weather, be completely comfortable.

Now look at the second image, the one of the Trump women.  Look at Melania, a normally beautiful woman.  What she is wearing on her head is, from my perspective, a typical mandilli – a headscarf worn by Greek widows.  Her dress is black, and hideous, and also in the style of a Greek widow.  From what I know, Italians have very similar customs the Greek one, and so I also assume that this lovely, not-yet widowed woman has been forced to dress like a widowed Italian matron.  Ivanka looks like the anti-bride, that is, a woman who has mistaken a funeral for a wedding.

Which set of women has face the greater humiliation in their respective meetings?

All right, now let us look at something else.  In Iran, women go to university, work in high technology, in the media, in medicine and science.  Iranian women coming out of Iran tend to be extremely well educated in comparison to their western counterparts.  The husbands they are married to also tend to be love matches.  I met one couple who were so into matching everythings that it was almost nauseating – and the husband was the one waiting on his wife hand and foot.

Now let us look at the conservative/alt-/far-right view of women.  I think that Ivanka/Melania photo tells it all.  Are these women dynamic?  No.  What they are is submissive, and the wet-dream of man-boys who can’t handle strong women.  The submissive conservative woman is not encouraged to pursue education and work in the sciences, medicine and media.  She must perfect her homemaker skills, have supper ready when her husband gets home, and keep the kids clean and quiet.  Most of all, she must dress herself up like the piano-tuner’s monkey image we see of Ivanka below – a fairy princess clad in black so the other men don’t get too turned on, while a more mature woman needs to dress like a the shriveled prune illustrated by Melania.

Do you understand why the far-left is more open to Islam than it is to western conservatism when it comes to women’s rights?  They see women in progressive Islamic cultures becoming doctors and researchers, being fully utilized a thinking human beings, and then they look at man-boys in the west who advocate keeping women at home cooking and cleaning.  The truth is, western women know exactly what conservative/alt-/far-right male-dominance culture is all about, while they only see a smattering of images depicting Islamic male-dominated culture.

The fact is, both are odious and dangerous to women, and it is utter stupidity to run from one into the arms of the other.  The two images below should serve as a warning that western conservatism is no different under the skin than hard-line Islam is.  Take another look at what western conservatism has done to the beautiful Melania, and realize that this is what it has in store for all women who are stupid enough to run to it for cover.

Also, watch the video in the following link, if you can stomach it.  It will show you how women who have already been brainwashed into believing in right-wing values think.

Laura Doyle – The Surrendered Wife: Stop Nagging & Controlling, Be Feminine

Swedish Women in Iran:

sweden-feminist-govt

The Beautiful Melania, Humiliated

DAk7G_AXUAAyUzV

Women vs. Women, or Why Should We Let Gay Men Tell Us How To Behave As Women?

A woman’s greatest enemy is oftentimes another woman.  Worse than men, it is women who oppress other women.  Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say that women are the most reliable henchmen for those who would keep all women in line.  Yes, I repeat, it is women who frequently wield the cudgel that forces other women into humiliation and submission.

Why do they do it?  All I can say is that some women are like some parents: they don’t want their children having it any better than they did.

Your eyeballs just dropped out of your head, didn’t they?  Parents not wanting their kids to have it any better than they did?  Aren’t parents supposed to want the best for their kids?  No.  The answer is ‘no’.  Many parents believe that if it was good enough for them, then it is good enough for their kids, and their kids should be grateful for what they have.  Very few parents actually encourage their kids to shoot higher than the social/financial status that their family currently enjoys.

Women are just the same.  Mothers rarely encourage their daughters to live their lives outside of the norms that they (the mothers) have embraced.  If a young woman wants to pursue a career instead of marrying and having kids, you can be sure that 95% of mothers will be opposed to it, unless marriage and kids can somehow be incorporated into the plan.  The young lady will be pressured to produce grandchildren, no matter what her own wishes, and preferably find a suitable marriage partner with whom to do it before baby is born.

It starts with mothers pressuring their daughters to marry and have kids. Even if men in society did not push that narrative on women, women’s mothers would.  I will add a brief footnote here, and say that my own mother was one of the few mothers that I have ever heard of who did not push her daughters to marry and produce kids.  In fact, she encouraged us to not be too desperate to catch one, pointing out that one day we might just find that we can live very well without one, thank you.  My mother, by the way, was herself pressured to marry when she did not really want to.  Instead of putting us through what she went through, she chose to encourage us to not build our lives around the insane hunt for a man and a family.

For many women, though, marriage and children is a very comfortable arrangement.  They don’t want to be career women, or single women, and it is their right not to.  However, there is an historical tendency for people who are satisfied with the way things are of resenting those individuals who refuse to confirm.  There is also a tendency for individuals who have been forced out of a comfortable existence that suited their temperament and tastes, to yearn for those halcyon days, even if those days were less than ideal in reality.  Hence, the working woman becoming an outspoken advocate of stay-at-home motherhood.

As long as a woman does not try to force all women into the box she lives in, or would like to live in, her point of view is perfectly all right.  Different strokes for different folks, and all that.  It is only when such women go around attacking other women that a problem arises, and men are usually the reason for the aggression.

Brigitte Macron is twenty-four years older than her husband, Emmanuel.  Her strongest detractors (based on postings from the USA) appear to be young women.  You would imagine that, no matter what her husband’s politics, other women would refrain from going low and ridiculing her for being a ‘granny wife’.  You would also imagine that young women would see her as an older woman who got lucky and, throwing caution to the wind, snagged her self a young stud.  She could be an inspiration; instead she is maligned and called a pedophile by other women, younger women.  What the hell is going on?  Is she just an easy target for political detractors?  Or, are these women attacking her because they see her as an outsider in the marriage and children game?  Charlie Hebdo also got in a swing at her, publishing a cartoon in which she is depicted as pregnant alongside her husband, the new President of France.  The caption reads, “He will work miracles”.

Here we see an example of the ugly side of women’s hen-instinct.  Brigitte Macron can be seen as a prime example of what other women often view as a threat: a woman who doesn’t play by their rules.  In my opinion, part of the hostility directed at her comes from simple jealousy.  Another part of it comes from what such women perceive to be a threat.  Both parts equal the same thing: this woman is a usurper, an outsider, and a danger to the established system.  A youngish male of thirty-nine, particularly one with position and money, should be making himself available to women in the twenty to thirty-something age range.  He is prime breeding material and prime husband material, but he has been poached by a woman who should be looking for a geriatric husband (thus keeping her out of the competition for prime husbands).  Moreover, she is no longer fertile, so what right does she have to go after a young, virile man?

When the chips are down, a woman’s right to a partner is still viewed as an expression of her fertility.  Even in the eyes of other women, once a female of our species is no longer capable of reproduction, it is considered her duty to step aside and allow a younger woman, one who is capable of reproducing, to take her place in the dating game.  Unlike the case with men, a mature woman bagging herself a sexy young thing is seen as a corruption of the natural order.  By contrast, when a man hooks up with a woman 24 years his junior, it is seen as perfectly normal.  In fact, it is taken as a sign of his still viable virility.  A few women – heck, actually a lot of women – will probably make ‘gold digger’ comments behind the back of his much-younger-woman, even if she has plenty of her own money and status, but the outrage will be minimal, and the insults will be whispered.  She is, after all, another woman, and other women have the right to find good nesting, too.

Unless they are too old to nest.  Or refuse to nest.  The single woman of child-bearing age who is not interested in bagging a husband is, if anything, seen in an even worse light than a mature woman.  She is a threat with a capital ‘T’, because she, too, is not playing the game by the rules set out for her by ‘society’, by reproductive nature, and by other women.  The automatic response from those women whose identities and status revolve around being married-with-children, is that she is out to steal any man she can get her claws into.

False, again, ladies.  A women who doesn’t put a high priority on catching a man is usually a woman who has high standards.   That is why she is not married, and this basically means your man is of absolutely no interest to her.  She can do better than that, and if she can’t, she’s already proven that she’d rather go without.  However, the myth of the ‘homewrecker’ is still alive and well today, primarily among conservative women.  This irrational fear explains why there is now a whole political movement in the conservative/alt-/far-right whose aim it is to convince young women of the glories of marriage and having large families.  Sadly, it is the women of the conservative/far-/alt-right who doing the leading in this charge back to the kitchen.

This is what happens when women voluntarily choose to reduce themselves to being nothing more than the sum total of their reproductive and sexual organs.  Glorying in their menstrual cycles, thinking their vaginas have super-powers because new life is birthed through them, believing that getting pregnant and giving birth is a miraculous accomplishment on a par with splitting the atom… well, you can see why anyone who challenges enslavement to their own reproductive cycles would be seen as threatening.

It should be noted that the married-with-children crowd are probably as enslaved to their libidos and sexual urges as their men are, though those urges are primarily predicated upon where they are in their menstrual cycle.  Women like to pretend that only men are that bound to base biological urges, but the opposite is actually true.  Marriage provides them with someone to discretely satisfy their sexual appetites at those times, and they therefore cannot imagine that other women are not as enthusiastic about the mutually convenience institution.  So long as women continue to pin their identities on their reproductive capacities, they will always view any women who is not equally driven by her biology as a threat.  And, sadly, they will continue to revile and insulted those other women in the crudest possible ways.

Now that we have established women’s own complicity in keeping what is commonly called ‘the patriarchy’ alive,  we have to ask ourselves if these women who are now jumping on the ‘traditional housewife’ bandwagon have even the vaguest idea of where this is all headed, or if they even care?

“Women’s virtue is man’s greatest invention.”
―Cornelia Otis Skinner

The strange thing about the notions that women on the conservative/far-/alt-right hold regarding the greater world is that they don’t see the parallels between what they are advocating as the roles of women in our society, and what other cultures that they view as repressive and dangerous advocate.  They lambaste Islam for subjugating women, yet they want what amounts to the same thing done our own women.

No, that is no overstatement or exaggeration.  In Islam, men are the heads of the house, and women exist to bear and rear children.  Islam advocates the spread of Islam through womb-power, that is, large families, while the conservatives and the far-/alt-right see having large families as the the only way to keep the white race and western culture alive.  In Islam, women are not supposed to leave the house unless dressed correctly.  Conservatives and the alt-/far-right tell women to put on makeup and high heels, and to wear dresses and skirts.  Both Islam and the conservative/ far-/alt-right coalition dictate that a woman should dress in a way that pleases men, and not for convenience or her own comfort.  Both Islam and the conservative/ far-/alt-right coalition believe that men alone must make the decisions in the family and in greater society.

Do these misguided women honestly not see the irony of their position?   They dread the takeover of our society by Islam because they see it as repressive, yet what they are advocating is, in essence, a society where their position and lack of rights is basically the same.  Do they not realize that in any male-dominated society, women quickly lose the right to protection from marital abuse, rape, and abandonment?  I suspect that half the problem lies in the fact that these young women do not remember how things really were back in the days they so idealize.  A woman would marry a man who then fooled around behind her back – something that she only discovered when she ended up having a hysterectomy due to untreated venereal disease – and have no choice but to stay in the marriage.  Divorce was not only frowned upon, it was difficult to get.  If one of the parties contested it, it could be denied.  If she did get out of the marriage?  Well, she’d be branded a ‘divorcee’ and all of her old friends would be barring their doors to her, in fear that she would now be out to poach their husbands.

Forget about finding a job outside taking in other people’s laundry.

An interesting fact: the example I gave above about discovering infidelity through hysterectomy is not fictitious.  It is the true story of a former opera singer that I once met.

So Why Do Women Let Gay Men Tell Them How to Behave? 

Another bizarre thing that is happening to the conservative/far-/alt-right is the influx of gay and transgendered men into their ranks.  I can understand that gay and transgendered people might share certain values with them, such as economic and cultural perspectives, and even concepts of monogamy and family.  However, and this is a big ‘however’, why do conservative/far-/alt-right accept it when these individuals start telling them that a woman’s place is, basically, in the kitchen and in the delivery ward?  It makes about as much sense as letting gay men tell straight women how to dress.

Which is precisely what they do, by the way.  The vast majority of high-end clothing designers are gay men.  Make-up artists? Gay men.  Hairstylists? Gay men.  Painful shoe designers?  Gay men.

From that alone, you would think women would have figured out that gay men are not their friends.  The mystery is why women on both sides of the political/social spectrum hang on their every word, and clamor after every bad, misogynist design these men produce.  From a conservative/far-/alt-right standpoint homosexuality has, until recently, been seen as a threat to the notion of the traditional family, which begs the question of why these individuals are now being elevated to such a high status within their movement.

I am going to speak a truth here that is pretty damned ugly.  What I mentioned above about homosexuality being seen as a threat to the traditional family holds equally true in Islamic countries, and it is a belief that is not without reason.  Homosexuals who engage solely in homosexual behavior do not reproduce.  If reproduction is the all and end all of your beliefs and culture, this lack of reproduction is unacceptable.  On a very primal level, the homosexual is subverting the natural order by engaging in sexual activity of an unnatural, non-reproductive nature.  Like masturbation, which is also frowned up, and even forbidden in such societies, it is a waste of potent human seed.  Furthermore, not all homosexuality is due to an individual’s hard-wiring – and this is where women of the conservative/far-/alt-right who are embracing the ‘traditional family’ movement need a wake-up call.

Ancient Greece.  Sparta.  Do those places and times mean anything to these women?  The problem is, most young women today are not well-read enough to be familiar with the social structures of ancient societies, so they don’t have a clue as to the ultimate form a male-dominant society can, and does, take.

To be brief, ancient Greece is known for the prevalence of male homosexuality in its societies, which, like it or not, was an outgrowth of the belief that women were so inferior to men that they were only to be used for reproductive purposes.  For pleasure, men went to other men – though the extent of it varied from region to region.  Sparta was notorious for it.  Athens had a culture where young men of  not yet marriageable age were often taken as lovers by older men.  Once they were old enough to take a wife, the relationship ended.  Eventually, they themselves would end up taking a young man as a lover.

In ancient Rome, male bisexuality and homosexuality was perfectly normal and acceptable, as long as specific rules were followed.  Women did not have a monopoly on men, as a man could freely choose a male lover if he so wished.

So, in some ways, women were in an even worse situation than in ancient Greece.  In ancient Greece women were at least acknowledged as necessary for breeding, and thus had some sad claim on their husbands.  In Rome,  a man was free to go any which way he pleased, thus greatly reducing the pool of available men from a woman’s perspective.

Sad to say, our society is currently headed down the same path as ancient Rome, regardless of whether we take the road to the political left, or the road to the political right.  The left has already embraced it.  The right, with its male-dominance, will create it by the same process that the Spartans did.

So, why are women so enthusiastically allowing gay men to tell them how to behave, again?  And, why are they embracing a movement that is now actively usurping the rights and services that were once intended solely for the safety and security of women?

In at least two Canadian cities, women have been ordered to leave shelters after refusing to share quarters with non-transitioned transsexuals.  When the chips were down, the women’s shelters involved in these two cases choose the rights of men who identified as women, but who had not yet undergone the final surgical procedures, over those of two women who had been born as women.   In another city, a shelter that is devoted exclusively to battered women has had to fight for the legal right to provide shelter to females alone.  I understand that a transsexual woman might have need of a safe haven, however the LGBT community should be providing that shelter.  That women, many of whom have been battered or abused, are now being turfed from safe houses that were created for them in favor of, well, people who are physically male, regardless of what they identify as, can only be seen as women being forced back into second-class citizenship.

Is this what women truly want?  If not, why are they once again stepping back and allowing men to even take over their identity as women?  Is there something in women that makes them submissive to men, any man, gay or straight, simply because he is a man?  For the record, I don’t care about a person’s sexual orientation, as long as they are a good person.  I don’t care if a man wears a dress, or if a man is in the bathrooms when I want to use them.  I do object to gay men telling straight women that they should be submissive to their husbands, and calling women who choose not to marry ‘crazy cat ladies’.  I also object to women being thrown into the street because a fully-functional male wants to spend the night in a women’s shelter.   Allowing this to happen doesn’t just deal a serious blow to women’s rights, it sets women’s rights back all the way to ancient Greece, and a time when women were considered so low that men preferred having sex with each other to having to touch a woman.

Is this really what women want?  Because, when they reduce themselves to being nothing more than the net value of their sex organs, that is what is going to happen.  It is already happening.

 

Hatred and Freedom of Speech

Like it or not, society is now engaged in a war of stupidity.  On the one side, we have the over-the-top-leftists trying to ban everything they don’t like, while simultaneously forcing everyone to accept what they do like.  On the other side, we have crazed-conservatives who trying to twist the concept of freedom of speech to include spewing vile invective at anyone who disagrees with them, and other acts of aggression against people who believe their ideas belong in the stone-age.

Both side are equally crazy.  Any sane person can see that straight up.  The crazed-conservatives, however, are really pissing me off of late.  Why?  Because the positions they have forced freedom of speech into, are more spectacular than those of a contortionist at an orgy.   They are also equally vulgar and repugnant.

Freedom of speech is supposed to be about the expression of ideas and opinions.  Put simply, it is being free to say that you believe orange and blue are a good color combination.  You are free to think it.  You are free to wear it.  People may disagree with you, but there is no reason to put you in jail over it.

What freedom of speech is not, is someone agitating to have you hurt, thrown in jail, thrown out of the country, or heaping insults on you because you choose to wear that color combination.  Unfortunately, this is what crazed-conservatives believe freedom of speech is there for; to heap insults on people for not doing what they want, not being who they want, not ascribing to their beliefs.  Calling a woman who chooses not to marry an old lady who stinks of cat piss (Sheila Gunn Reid, Gavin McInnes, and Faith Goldy of Rebel Media have all resorted to this insult at one time or another in recent months) is not exercising your freedom of speech – it is misogyny, even if comes from another woman.  If a specific person is called this, it is called slander, unless the person actually does wear clothes soaked in cat-piss.  Of course, if the person is a vet, or vet tech, it is just an occupational hazard – and an accident – and your motivation is most likely a malicious one.

Many of the crazed-conservatives of the right are hiding behind the argument of ‘freedom of speech’ in order to justify being mean, vicious, spiteful people.  When you see just how hate-filled some of them are, you can understand why young people of differing political beliefs, and young people from some of the Crazed-conservatives’ favorite target groups are demanding ‘safe spaces’.  Peace loving people just don’t want to deal with the type of aggressive, in-your-face hostility that these right-wing bullies exude even when they are silent.  The over-the-top-left may be going way too far in their sensitivity, and their demands, but I sure as hell would not want to be in the same room as someone who was seething with hatred for whatever they feel I represent.  Some people abhor confrontation, and it is their right not to have it imposed on them.

The problem is that crazed-conservatives don’t know the difference between freedom of speech/expression and bullying.  Or they just don’t care.  They tend to be pompous and sanctimonious, and are probably so convinced of their own righteousness, and the correctness of their positions, that they believe nothing about their behavior is wrong.  If a person ‘can’t take’ their bullying, their vitriol, and their insults, or if a person prefers to walk away from a fight with ignorant idiots, that person is accused of being a wuss who lives in their parents’ basement.  They preach that life is tough, so live with it, while they themselves are terrified of women who refuse to be dominated and dependent on men.

Fucking misogynist assholes, one and all.  They shit their own pants over the threat of Islamic terrorism to the point where they afraid of women in hijabs, while simultaneously calling over-the-top-leftists cowards for demanding the safe-spaces mentioned above.  At least the over-the-top-left isn’t demanding the deportation of the people that terrify them, or advocating the carpet bombing of the countries they come from so that they can feel safe.

You can’t expect much from people who take a sadistic pleasure in such bullshit as being ‘cruel to be kind’, or in refusing to give a beggar a dime is only ‘enabling’ them.  So they’re douches, on a par with the people who gather around below the ledge a suicidal person is standing on, gleefully shouting ‘Jump!  Jump!  JUMP!’.  Living in a free society means we have to live with them, no matter how unpleasant and filled with hate they are.  They have a right to have their own ideas, but there is a line that we cannot allow to be crossed, and they are crossing it.

Is it all right to hold talks that question the facts about the holocaust?  Yes.  I welcome that, in fact.  It is a field that needs to be opened up and investigated.  Is it all right to hold a rally in favor of Israeli settlements?  Yes, if you have the correct permits.  The same goes for any rally or march.  If you have the permits and behave yourselves, then it is fine.  No permits, no march or rally.  Engage in destructive behavior and other violence, then I wholly approve of your being rounded up, put into a holding cell, and eventually fined.  That is where free speech ends; when you use it as an excuse to engage in violence, verbal or physical, or to stir up hatred and intolerance against a group or an individual.

Is it fine for US celebrities to be inciting violence against Trump supporters?  No, they are encouraging violence.  Is it fine for them to slander their president?  No.  That is verbal violence.  Is it fine for crazed-conservatives to whip up fear of Muslims in general, and/or whip up anger against Muslim women who choose to wear a head-covering of one sort or another, or a burkini?  No.  That is inciting fear and hatred of a group in its entirety.  Is it okay to spread the lie that all Jews are part of the plot to establish the ‘New World Order’? No.  That is the same as whipping people into a frenzy over women in burkinis a and head-scarves.  It is stupid and intolerant, and the doing of cowards.

Is it all right to force people to refer to you using made-up pronouns, and to try to get a man fired for refusing to use your made-up language?  No.  That is forcing someone else to participate in your fantasy, when that person would rather live in the real world.  Is it all right to denigrate women who choose not to pursue a traditional married-with-kids lifestyle?  No, because we know ourselves better than you do, and are not going to force ourselves into the boxes your fear of independent women makes you want to force all women into.

Do you have the right to spew vitriol and call it ‘freedom of speech’? Sorry, but no.  When I look at crazed-conservatives, I see an ocean of hate, and I see a potential danger that only people who have lived through, or had family that lived through WWII, or other totalitarian/authoritarian regimes seem to recognize.  I find that the over-the-top-left does have some ground to their fears of right-wing fascism.  What I see is a lot of hate being directed at specific groups that don’t belong in their scheme of things.  And that, my friends, is very dangerous.  It is not freedom of speech.  It is freedom of speech being used to silence opposition through verbal bullying.

Eschatology – The Most Important Sign of the End

You may have noticed that lately a lot of people are jabbering on about this being the ‘end times’, when either God will rain down punishment on this world, or the ‘Illuminati’ will achieve their final takeover of human society.  Of course, this is nothing new in itself.  People have been making such claims throughout history.  All it takes is a change in the zeitgeist to send people scurrying about, crying out that the sky is falling.  However… .

However, something big is definitely in the offing.  The world is realigning itself, and big change is in the air.  The question is whether it actually is the end of times, or just another massive global conflict that is coming our way.  If it is a massive global conflict it might just end up being the end of times, though not in the way eschatologists are expecting.  We might just blow ourselves up, no god intervening.

To be honest, I don’t believe that we will inadvertently blow ourselves up.  We’ve got bigger bombs that do more damage than nukes, without the fallout.  Areas might get wiped out, or radiated, but not the whole planet, and not to the extent that life becomes impossible above ground.  Massive damage there will be, yes, but a man-made apocalypse there won’t.

So that leaves an apocalypse as an act of God.  I am pretty sure that one day God will get fed up, and stand up, and take some sort of definitive action.  The question is when?

Well, for many years now, I have held to the belief that the key lies in the fall of Jerusalem.  Luke 21:20 prophesies: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (NIV).  Many people will argue that this already happened two thousand years ago.  There are, however, other passages that reinforce the notion that this also applies to something that has yet to come.  Please don’t make me root around in my bible searching for all of those passages, because I am really bad at that.  I digest passages; I don’t memorize them.  So, when it comes to finding them again, it takes more effort than this post is worth.

I want to make a short digression here, and hope bible-thumpers will look it up and mull it over.  It is in Genesis, in the story of Cain and Abel.  Take a look at how Cain’s punishment for murdering Abel was to become a life-long wanderer.  Now look at the New Testament.  The Jews set Jesus up to be killed, and end up as global wanderers.  Just something that popped out at me recently… .

Anyway,to get back to the topic at hand.  The key to the modern apocalypse, as far as I am concerned, lies in the fall of Jerusalem.  We have a warning that when peace breaks out in the area, then the end will come.  Until that peace happens, I am not prepared to believe the end is, indeed, imminent.

Now how the hell is that supposed to happen?  The prospect of peace in the Middle East is as distant now as it was 40 years ago, if not more so.  In today’s political climate, it would take a bleeding miracle for some sort of solid peace deal to be hammered out, with all sides being willing to show some flexibility.  Unless… .  Unless some sort of a double-cross is enacted.  Or maybe a triple-cross, or even quadruple-cross.  Here’s what I envision, though I may be wrong in the details:

As we know, Israel and Saudi Arabia are bosom-buddies.  No need to get into the details as to how, or why, they have formed this unlikely allegiance.  They have mutually beneficial interests, and that is all it takes.  So, perhaps a deal is brokered and accepted; maybe the Saudis even use some of their influence to bring it about.  On the surface it all seems like a major breakthrough; the Saudis give it their blessing, the Israelis give it their blessing, the Palestinians give it their blessing.  Everyone is happy.  Or are they?  Suddenly the Arab world unites and takes Israel down in a pre-orchestrated and well-planned lightening-fast strike, and none of Israel’s allies come to their assistance.

In effect, Israel’s plans for a ‘Greater Israel’ ends up blowing up in their faces.

When I see this happening, then I will know we are really in the end of times.