Tenants From Hell

In Canada, July 1 is moving day for huge numbers of people.  It also is our national day.  The reason it is both our national day, and our moving day, is probably obvious: it is far easier to move on a holiday than to have to get time off from your boss.  Because of this, July 1 can be a living hell, anticipation-wise.

Why do I say such a thing?  Simple; you never know who will be moving into your building.  Or, if you’re the one moving, you don’t know who your new neighbors will be.  As a tenant, I’ve gone through both scenarios, and nine times out of ten, it has been bad.  Very bad.  I’ve been a bit more fortunate in the building I now live in, thank God for that, however my neighbors still fall short of considerate at times.  When the last lot moved in this past fall, well, they didn’t make a very good impression.  Fortunately, they did not turn out to be as bad as they first appeared to be, and I can pretty much live with them next door without too many issues cropping up.

I can only imagine how much worse it probably is for the owner of a building!  A tenant might look good on paper, might even have great references, but once they move in… .  Well, you never really know who they really are until it’s too late.  The person themselves might not be the problem; it could be their friends, their family, or even their dog which is causing an uproar and/or doing damage.

I found myself pondering this as I was going about my business today, mainly because something has been bothering me about the Old Testament.  Having stepped back from theology and scripture for several years, when I finally did get back to it, I found that I viewed the whole thing from an entirely new perspective.  The great and mysterious ‘covenant’ that God made with Abraham no longer looked like a divine selection of a chosen people, but a standard rental agreement.  No matter how I now looked at it, it always came back to a series of terms and conditions under which Abraham was given permission to live in the land of Canaan.   There were also plenty of clauses that allowed for eviction should he fail to respect the terms he’d agreed to.

As a tenant, Abraham turned out to be not half-bad.  He respected his neighbors, caused minimal problems, and generally honored the terms of the rental agreement.  It was as his family grew that the problems began.  Like so many renters, his sons stopped seeing the abode as someone else’s property, and started treating it as if it was their own personal possession.  They started fights with the neighbors, did what they pleased, and generally ignored the terms of their lease.  The neighbors complained, and God finally had to throw them out.

There was plenty of back-and-forthing going on throughout all of this, with God telling Abraham’s family that if they would just adhere to the terms of the lease, he’d let them back in, followed by their making endless promises to do so, only to renege again and again, over and over, again and again.  Finally, as all good landlords do, God gave them the boot, once and for all, and rented out their apartment to someone else.

And that is where it was supposed to end.  Unfortunately, they appealed to the rental board, and the rental board allowed them to force their way back in.  The peace of the neighborhood was once more destroyed.  In fact, it became an area and a building that no one in their right mind – except those who are truly desperate – want to live in.

That is the sad story of how all neighbors from hell cause property values to go down, and end up attracting other bad tenants to the building.  On this moving day, let us all remember how one bad tenant can wreck an entire neighborhood.


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.



I need to address a topic from the flip side once again.  This time, it is the concept of sensitivity to criticism, and all of the other things that have come together to create ‘snowflake culture’.  Conservatives like to believe that there is something inherently wrong with anyone taking exception to what they, the conservative right, deem justifiable criticism.  If such a person expresses upset, hurt, or indignation at the criticism received, then that individual can only be a liberal wuss.

The problem, however, lies in defining what justifiable or ‘constructive’ criticism actually is, when it is appropriate to use it, and what the correct approach to it should be.  Sadly, many people these days have difficulty understanding the concept of boundaries insofar as what can and cannot be criticized, what should and should not be criticized, how far to go with criticism, and the importance of tone in its delivery.  Contrary to what they believe it is not okay, and it is not their ‘right’ to tell someone else that the shade of green they are wearing today makes them look nauseous.  Nor should the victim of their barbed tongue simply ‘suck it up’ and change into more complimentary clothes.  The same goes for a whole host of other things that many people these days believe falls under the category of ‘freedom of expression’.

One of the worst ideas bouncing round in people’s heads is that of  ‘tough love’, which is often used as an excuse for being direct, blunt, and unforgiving.  You don’t like your friend’s new hairstyle or significant other?  Then grab her/him by the arm, drag her/him off somewhere, and tell her/him what a lousy choice she/he has made.  After telling her/him this, just use the excuse that you are only doing it because you care, and you like seeing her/him making a fool of her/himself.  Behavior like that is not only way outside the ballpark of what anyone who actually cares would do, it is also socially inappropriate – and this where the problem began.  When people refuse to acknowledge that there are limits on what can be criticized, other people within striking range will end up being subject to endless brutalization at that person’s hands.

The same can be said of those people who refuse to show others respect unless it is ‘earned’.  The inverse is actually true: people deserve respect until they do something that proves they haven’t earned it.

It is important for everyone to understand that society created codes of civility in order to protect people from insensitive clods.  It is not simply a matter of people having to ‘suck it up’; it is about people not having to put up with being bludgeoned day in, day out by other people’s nastiness.  If things have now come so far that young adults are having meltdowns over insignificant ‘micro-aggressions’, it is because that code has been smashed to pieces in recent decades.  The elastic band has snapped and overcompensation is the result.  As a reaction to one section of society becoming increasingly rude and insensitive, another section has become increasingly obsessed with stamping out that rudeness and showing concern for people’s feelings.

That’s life / live with it.

The attitude of “that’s life / live with it” is often used as an excuse for the uncouth to behave in a mean or malicious manner, to the detriment of our society.  If everyone had the empathy needed to put themselves in another person’s shoes, then there would be no need of moral codes to govern our conduct when interacting with each other.  Since that is not the case, and because there are numerous individuals who get a sadistic pleasure out of the ‘cruel to be kind’ bandwagon, we have no choice but to create codes of conduct.  The right of one person to be mean, nasty, and insensitive to others does not override the rights of everyone else to go about their lives in a peaceful manner.  That is why every culture has developed its own set of social conventions.

Now to the ‘snowflakes’.  Is it normal, or even acceptable for them to behave as they do?  Ummm… no.  That is taking it way too far.  But they are the product of increasing rudeness in our society.  Their parents, their teachers, and other people around them have all had their own experiences with the rudeness and vitriol that is currently infiltrating every aspect of our lives.  They now see increasing incidences of bullying in their own children’s lives at schools, at parties, and on internet sites, and are concerned.  As parents, educators, social workers, etc… they want to do something to protect the young people under their care.  They also want society to return to a saner time, a time when people actually treated each other civilly.

The only way to get society back on track is, in fact, re-education.  That means teaching children the old rules of behavior, and having a zero tolerance policy towards uncivil behavior.  Etiquette needs to be reinstated, with penalties for anyone who feels it is their right to run stomping on other people’s sensibilities like a maddened rhinoceros.  Children need to be taught, in no uncertain terms, that it is rude to comment on things that are considered to be of a highly personal nature.  They need to learn to keep their opinions to themselves if nothing constructive can come of them, and to never use ‘constructive criticism’ as an excuse to tear someone else down.

Verbal abuse is one of the most painful things you can inflict on someone else.  Sad to say, much of what goes by the name of ‘criticism’ these days is little more than that.  This is the end result of loosening social constraints way too far, and the emphasis on ‘personal freedom’ over respecting and genuinely caring about others.  People have become so battered and bruised that they really do need safe-places to escape into.  As someone who endured verbal abuse throughout my childhood, I can vouch for the PTSD it leaves you with.  The ruder our society becomes, the more people will find themselves unable to cope.  That is something to be concerned about.  Unfortunately, people who believe they are saving the world by spewing venom at others are not going to listen to me, or anyone else.

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.


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.

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?