To Shill, Or Not To Shill…

It is a sad fact of life that most people wear at least two faces; while one face is carefully constructed and maintained for public consumption, there is another that is strictly a private matter.  Nobody is immune, but not everyone’s intention is evil.  Some people simply want to keep sensitive matters private, and are sincerely embarrassed by their own dirty laundry.  There are, however, those people who construct public images for profit, and profit alone.  In some cases, the profit might be social status, in others, it might be financial, but regardless of what the profit is, it is still profit.

The ‘person of many faces’ is not the topic of this entry, however.  What I am concerned about is the proliferation of talking heads who are heaping up Patreon profits by riding the storm of political right-left tensions.  Some of them, such as the university professor in the screen-shot below, fell into internet fortune almost by accident.  In this case, the individual got into trouble with his employer over the use of gender pronouns, and suddenly the radical right got wind of it and made him into an overnight sensation.  A Globe and Mail reporter did what could loosely be called a ‘hit piece‘ on his rise from obscure professor hawking a writing program, to internet heavy-weight, in which the reporter mentioned that he now makes $30k Canadian via his Patreon account.

This was his response:

Screenshot j peterson

I will admit that I initially felt a degree of sympathy for the man.  That, however, was only in the early days of his crusade.  I am deadly opposed to being forced to use silly non-words in order to describe people.  While I accept the usage of the now common ‘Ms.’, I do remember when it was first invented, and I do remember how silly the whole thing was.  In other cultures, such as the German one, ‘Frauline’ is no longer used when addressing any adult woman, regardless of marital status.  Its usage has been relegated almost elusively to that of denoting an underage girl.  ‘Frau’ is now used for both married and unmarried women.  In the French culture, in Quebec at least, ‘Madam’ is used in exactly the same way as the German ‘Frau’, while ‘Mademoiselle’ has likewise been relegated to the underage crowd.  No fuss.  No commotion.  Just a simple solution to a modern problem.  Problem solved.

The English-speaking world would have done well to have followed  the German and French examples.  Unfortunately, the English-speaking world being what it is, the powers-that-be had to make things complicated in a big way.  We are now facing the same thing all over again, and it may not be long before such detestable words as ‘zhe’ find their way into common acceptance.  We can ignore it, we can go along with it, but in the end, only time will tell if this new scourge has any more staying power than the expression ‘I dig it’ had.

All of that is to say that, while I did sympathize with the man, I stopped sympathizing when I saw how he started working his followers in order to extend his fifteen minutes of fame into something more substantial.  That made me uneasy.  Something rang false.  Then came the article, with points galore that he could have fairly contested, and what did he choose to do?  He corrected the reporter on how much he is actually earning, which happens to be almost double the amount she quoted.

His mask slipped, albeit briefly, and revealed something ugly underneath.  The thing that it revealed was a man willing to ride the wave, and shill for a political stance, because suddenly he became someone special, and was making a lot of extra bucks, too boot.

Meanwhile, his ‘followers’ praise him bigly, and feed his ego largely.  For him, it is a win-win situation, and as long as he can keep whipping them up, he can continue growing his audience, his fame, and his fortune.

But, slap my ass and call me ‘Sally’, if he is still sincere in what he has to say.  I’d be willing to bet that he isn’t the quiet, soft-spoken professor he comes across as on YouTube.

I should add that I don’t know the man, and do not know anyone who does, so I can’t say what he really is like in his everyday life.  There is, however, another university professor – this one from Montreal – who is also stirring things up for the profit of his own ego, and possibly his pocketbook.  He choose anti-Muslim sentiment as his stepping-stone to internet adoration, and is now the darling of the anti-Muslim conservative Canadian and international right.  He comes across as a jolly bon-vivant, and his followers routinely post adoring comments, telling him what a wonderful person he is.

This gentleman, admittedly, has some grounds for his hostility, due to his background and life experiences.  Unfortunately, to package personal rage as political truth is quite a leap, and I cannot condone validating other people’s hysteria by feeding into it, which he does.

Yet, again, I got the niggling impression that the man was not what his YouTube persona made him out to be.  I wondered about this.  I thought it over.  I sent a text message.  The answer I got back was, ‘euwww’.  In fact,  ‘euwww’ was mentioned twice in the same text reply.  The second ‘euwww’ was a summation of the opinions of my contact’s colleagues who also know the man.

This theme continues wherever you go on the internet.  Pundits present one face, and gullible idiots fall for it.  I could come up with a long list of wanna-be philosophers, purveyors of ‘alternate’ new sites, supposed reporters and thinkers.  It’s all the same.  Adoring followers emptying their pocket-books into their idols Patreon accounts, while their idols feed into the fears and prejudices of their fan-bases in order to squeeze out more.  Then, when the hour-long rant against cholesterol and how mega-fast-food chains are killing us for profit is over, and the camera is finally turned off, the internet idol heads straight out to McDonalds for a big, greasy hamburger, with a side-order of super-sized fries and a milkshake.

The moral of this story is: you don’t know who these people are in real life, or what they are really like _ as one YouTuber, I believe it was T.J.Kirk (the Amazing Atheist) straightforwardly pointed out about himself.  But, unlike T.J. Kirk, many of these people want you to believe that they are exactly what and who they tell you they are.  They get off on your adulation, as well as your donations.  While they may have started out as sincere individuals, they have consciously made the choice to shill on behalf of a political or social agenda because it makes them important people on the internet.  Their ego and their wallets are what’s talking now.

Advertisements

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

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.

 

Something Disturbing About the Composition of the Far-/Alt-Right

There is something disturbing going on with the far-/alt-right these days, and it isn’t something that I feel bodes well for the future of either the left or the right ends of the political spectrum.  Yes, I know the far-/alt-right is already disturbing enough on its own, but this new trend seems to run completely contrary to the tenets of common sense.  In its essence, it is actually very similar to the KKK suddenly deciding to accept blacks, Jews, and homosexuals .  The reality, I am afraid, may be something a lot  darker.

On the surface, it would appear that the far-/alt-right is loosening up, and becoming more accepting of Jews, homosexuals, and other groups that traditionally shy away from the hostile rhetoric that the right is known for.  The question is if hard-line conservatism really is attempting to change it’s core belief system to fit the current era.  Maybe what this really is, is just some sort of marriage of convenience?  Another possibility is that the far-/alt-right is only using these people just useful idiots, or that the newcomers are possibly operating according to their own agenda, and are turning the far-/alt-right into their own useful idiots.

We need to add to the mix above a small, but significant, number of new converts that are former ‘liberals’ who, out of a professed disgust at the way political correctness has spun out of control, claim only to be lending their strength to the right for the purpose of fighting the Social Justice Warrior/political correctness scourge.  These individuals are probably the most light-weight of all of the newcomers, primarily because their egos completely outstrip their intellect.  They enjoy the limelight of being lionized by the right as great minds who saw the light and switched sides.

They haven’t.  They’re just taking advantage of what they perceive to be the gullible idiots of the far-/alt-right.

That said, what the collective right now appears to perceive itself as is a coalition of diverse groups, united for one specific purpose, and one purpose only.  Sadly that purpose has increasingly become the rooting out ‘the enemy within’.  This time around, ‘the enemy within’ are Muslims.  Oh, and women who don’t know their place, and don’t want to breed until their uteruses shrivel and dry up.

There.  I have said it.  I have addressed the elephant that is clunking about in the far-/alt-right room.  Far-/alt-righters will howl and pitch a fit, claiming that what I have said is a lie, a distortion!  Or that I am a Muslim-loving leftard.  They would flame the shit out of me, if I allowed comments – but I don’t because I don’t have the time for that bullshit.  Some might even go so far as to dox me as an act of revenge.

I other words, they would stoop to the lowest of lows simply because I spoke the truth: the far-/alt-right is obsessed with painting all Muslims as dangerous, and that they hate independent women as much as fundamentalist Islamic preachers do.

I will now go on the record: I am as angry over what hoards of Islamic immigration into Europe and North America has done as anyone who is not blind to the rapes, terror, and murders that it is bringing with it.  However, I also take into account that this latest wave is the result of very specific political conditions, and global agendas.  Over the years I have had the chance to get to know, to work with, and made friends with plenty of Muslim immigrants who posed no threat whatsoever.  Some wore the hijab, some dressed and acted in exactly the same way as anyone else in the west does, and some dressed western-style on some days, traditionally on other days.  I even acted as a travel agent to one North African man who was pissed as all hell because he suspected his brother was up to no good in Algeria.  In other words, I don’t blame one Muslim for the actions of another Muslim, and I do not get indignant at the sight of a woman wearing a hijab.  Sometimes, I might get pissed to see one after a terrorist attack, but I quickly calm down again.  I would never insult a woman for wearing one, nor would I try to rip it off of her head.  I don’t see the hijab as a ‘statement’ unless it is on the head of some dumb bitch who is participating in a ‘slut-walk’ with her boobs swinging in the breeze.  I am more offended by women who participate in slut-walks than I am by women in hijabs.

Now, to the point.  The far-/alt-right is problematic enough on its own.  There is no denying that.  It’s nature is a stifling conservatism that punishes people for things they have no control over.  There is no empathy on the right, and thus, no sympathy.  As a woman, I find their attitude towards women to be backward, and well-suited to men with small dicks wanting to be men with big dicks.  Control the woman, and she won’t know what a truly little man you are.  The far-/alt-right has a weakness for xenophobia.  Please note that, when I say xenophobia, I mean xenophobia.  I am not talking about justifiable concerns regarding mass-immigration.  The right is quick to reject anyone who is not exactly like them, and to see ‘outsiders’ as threats to everything from security to the family unit.

So, what we had to start with was a political/social grouping with plenty of weaknesses that could be infiltrated and exploited towards specific ends, such as, let’s say, ending Muslim immigration.  Now, who would be most interested in doing that?  Who hates Muslims enough to incite hapless idiots against them?  Or should I say, ‘who sees their grip on the balls of the collective west as being threatened by another powerful group?’

Is it coincidence that the loudest voices on the far-/alt-right are owned by Jewish individuals, or by people who have Jewish connections through marriage, for example?  Much of the conservative religious right is staunchly pro-Israel, and practically frothing at the mouth when it comes to hatred of Muslims.  Methinks someone is playing with their heads, and that there is a connection between that and the increased number of Jewish-owned far-/alt-right news and information websites and YouTube channels.

Who else has reason to hate Muslims?  Ahhh, yes, members of the gay community.  Muslims don’t like gays very much, now do they?  Surprise, surprise!  The biggest gay pundits to have come out on the side of the far-/alt-right are also rabidly anti-Muslim.

Do you see a pattern developing here?  Oh, and those ‘classical liberals’ who joined the fray on the side of the far-/alt-right?  Most of them are either gay or Jewish.

What I see shaping up here is something that I do not like, and I believe that other people have noticed it too.  The far-/alt-right is being cleverly (or so they think) packaged as the ‘answer’ to the rising migrant crisis, and the heroes of the war against the totally flaked-out left.  My answer is that the far-/alt-right is being used as the hammer that will force in a very ugly form of government, where women are basically used as breeders, racial purity is pushed as the ideal, and the ‘enemy within’, whomever it happens to be today, is rooted out an destroyed.

Yes, I know what I am describing sounds like.  I will be accused of hyperbole, of saying the same things as out-of-their-minds social justice warriors are shrieking, but a fact is a fact.  The fact is, the far-/alt-right is getting pretty ugly, and showing itself to be a mirror image of the lunatic left in the wake of the French presidential elections, where it suffered its first major disappointment.  A mirror image is identical, for those who don’t understand the terminology, except that the left is on the right, and the right is on the left.  What this means is that radicals are being given a choice between a corvette and an SUV.  If you prefer the SUV, step to the right.  If you prefer the corvette, step to the left.  You’re both going to the same place, it is just the style of how you get there that is different.

In a final remark I am going to point out that voting for a government, or supporting a group that offers a convenient solution to a big problem – but at the cost of losing certain freedoms – is the most idiotic thing a person can do.   Freedoms are too hard won to be given up because we are shitting our pants in fear, and need a strongman (or strongwoman) to make it all go away.  Give in to the lunatic left, and we lose freedom of speech, as well as a society where there is such a thing as truth.  Give in to the right, and women become possessions of their husbands, members of other races lose their sense of being part of our society, and homosexuals are back to cover-marriages, and ‘praying the gay away’.  Meanwhile, in both scenarios, the elite will be fucking each others’ wives, diddling little boys and girls, and basically just carrying on as they have since time began.

Politics is a broken system, and it can’t be fixed.  So why the hell are people still putting their faith and their energy into it?

Something to be Praised About Modern Feminism

This morning the totally expected happened.  I opened twitter, scrolled down a bit and came across an Alex Jones tweet luridly mocking feminists for failing to vote for the woman candidate in the French presidential election this past weekend.  This was precisely the reaction had I envisioned, and wrote about, in post just before the second round of voting took place on 07 May.  I figured the alt-/far-right would go bat-shit crazy when Marine Le Pen lost, and start behaving the way that the far-left had after Hillary Clinton lost the US election last November.

I wasn’t disappointed.  The alt-/far-right promptly spewed vitriol at both the winning candidate, and the French people in general.  They even mocked and ridiculed Macron’s wife, intentionally posted bad photos of her to further insult her, and called her a pedophile in a concerted attack very similar to the one that the left launched against Melania Trump.

It was, however, the condemnation of feminists for not supporting a fellow woman that really pissed me off.  It also blew the scales from my eyes.  I suddenly realized that there was something good to be said about these women who had refused to support Le Pen.  The fact is, they chose to judge the candidate on the basis of her stated positions, her history, and her rhetoric in exactly the same way they would have judged a male candidate.  This the what women have been fighting for ever since the suffragettes demanded the right to vote: to be taken seriously, and to be judged, base on their abilities and accomplishments alone.

And, that is how French feminists judge Le Pen.  They judged her, and found her wanting.  They saw her performance on the campaign trail, and in the debate, and noted that all she did was tear down her opponents without offering any solutions of her own.  She had nothing to contribute beyond the rhetoric of closing borders and deporting Muslims.  Macron may have struggled to formulate policy, but at least he was trying to.  Worst of all, Le Pen turned the big debate into a US-style mudslinging event – something the French have an intense distaste for.  In French, they would say that they have a ‘horror’ of it, however, if I used the term ‘horreur’ English-speakers would have a problem getting past the English usage of the word, and completely misunderstand the context.  I say this because ‘intense distaste’ doesn’t quite sum it up either.  ‘Revulsion’ might, but then it might not.  Perhaps ‘intense distaste for something that is (to them) revoltingly cringe-worthy or disgusting’?  In any case, I think you get the general idea.  The French hate it.

But, I digress.  Le Pen is closely tied to an ideology that open-minded French people find repugnant.  She attempted to display a kinder, softer version of it, yet, in the end, a poisonous snake is still a poisonous snake, no matter what sort of gift-box you present it in.  The French people felt Le Pen’s ideology was dangerous.  They also felt Macron might be dangerous.  They weighed the two, and found Macron to be somewhat less dangerous than Le Pen, and chose him.  It was a case of intellect triumphing over emotion.

It had nothing to do with biological sex or gender.  Le Pen’s father was rejected twice as firmly as she was when he presented a similar ideology.  Perhaps France was a little sexist and went easier on Marine than they had on her father because she is a woman.

If women vote for a woman just because she is a woman, is that equality?  If men and women vote for a woman just because she is a woman, is that equality?  If a country votes for a woman whose platform they disapprove of, even feel to be dangerous, just because she is a woman, is that really equality?  If a country votes for a woman whose platform is morally repugnant to them, just because her opposition is a man, is that true women’s equality?  No.  It is not.   If women have true freedom, then they have the freedom to vote for whomever they believe the best candidate is, even if that candidate is a man.

France’s women, and France’s feminists just scored one for true equality.  They chose to vote for the person, regardless of gender, whom they believed to be the better candidate.  They refused to be encumbered by the notion that women must support women, even when those women are less qualified, or morally and/or materially corrupt.  They refused to view either of the candidates as male or female.  The candidates were simply two people vying for the same job.

So why, when women vote according to a candidate’s suitability for a position, and not their gender, do they get lambasted as traitors towards feminism simply because they did not select the female candidate?  The answer is simple: because the people who are lambasting them only give a rat’s ass about their own agenda, not the competence of the candidate who wins.  It is a sad fact that in the two most recent elections where a man has squared off against a woman, the women were both badly flawed candidates.

In the US election, the female candidate was so corrupt that only people who were equally corrupt, mentally unbalanced, or ruthless ideologues would ever consider voting for her.  Her opponent was an unknown factor, yet logic dictated that it was a far, far better thing to take a chance on him than it was to allow someone so utterly corrupt and immoral to take control of the presidency.  Strangely enough, in the French election the situation was basically the same, only this time the woman represented the right-wing, while the man was more closely aligned to the left.

For those who will split hairs in order to bolster their pathetically weak arguments: I am not saying that Le Pen is in any way as corrupt as Clinton.  She does, however, carry a certain stench about her which the French find repugnant: that of intolerance to people who are from different cultural backgrounds.  The French find this stench to be as bad, if not worse than, abject corruption.

So both of these women lost their races because they were inferior candidates, and feminists have finally progressed to the point where they recognized that and felt free to vote against a woman candidate.  That is something new under the sun.  Women no longer feel the need to automatically support other women if those women don’t measure up.  Those people on both the right and the left of the political spectrum who think they are being clever by invoking the ‘why didn’t feminists support the woman candidate’ card are being disingenuous.  What they are really trying to do is browbeat women into doing what these people want them to, and venting their anger on them for having had the courage to say ‘non’ to a bad candidate.