The golden words (also cited by Father Z) in the article (which is long and very instructive, in an alarming way) are:
No one wants to wife a sex expert.
I have written about this several times, and have tried to imprint in the minds of my younger readers (particularly female readers; but also male readers, if they are tragically blue-pilled) the following concepts:
First: every sexual partner of a woman diminishes her value in the eyes of the following partner
Second: the ideal number of sexual partners for a woman is either zero (if unmarried) or one (if married).
Feminists don’t get that, because they are, fundamentally, childish and stupid besides being great, great sluts (more about this later). Feminists are like cats who want to bark because dogs do it. What they don’t understand is that a barking cat is an impossibility, and a cat pitifully attempting to bark (which cats don’t do, being smarter; but feminists do, being dumb) becomes a ridiculous object of pity.
At the root of the issue is this simple fact: that men can sleep with a variety of women and (sinful as it is) feel great, whilst women cannot sleep with a variety of men without feeling cheap, used and, in a word, sluts. That’s the human nature, boys ‘n girls. You can protest as much as you want, you won’t change the basic facts.
Feminism rejects basic facts. The desire to bark (because dogs do it) and the desire to have multiple sexual partners without feeling slutty (because men do it) pushes them towards a promiscuity that they see (because, remember: they are stupid) as a reaction to an oppressive, patriarchal society, and as a prejudice that can be fought against, and conquered, by creating the Age of the Slut.
Once sluttishness has been deprived of its stigma, they reason, Prince Charming will gladly marry Mud Black, happy in the certainty that she is the woke, better version of the Snow White of his ancestors. Alas for them, it does not work in that way, because sex roles and sex differences are in-built and divinely ordained, not the product of a social structure artificially created by religion and “male oppression”.
So, Feminist becomes a big, big slut, and desperately tries to overcome her feelings of sluttishness (which are, clearly, human nature being what it is, still there…) by being more of a slut and condemning slut-shaming.
Here, my friends, lies, if you ask me, the crux of the matter; an issue, in fact, which the author of the linked article has just been unable to see.
Simply put: Feminist slut will introduce her daughter to Xtreme Sluttishness is order to avoid that her daughter realises what a miserable slut she is. She will just not run the risk of her daughter telling her, one day, “dear mum, I want to be the woman of one man and be happy in my monogamous marriage; both because I feel that I was born for it and because I see what a wretch of a woman and a sad, pathetic human being you, yourself, have become”. This is, for every feminist, the horror scenario, the total destruction and demolition of her entire life; made worse by that nagging, unconfessed feeling that, in fact, such a daughter would be right.
This, I think, and no other, is the reason for the early sexualisation of the feminists’ daughters. It’s nothing to do with abortion, because a feminist thinks nothing of an abortion. It’s to do with the total and complete annihilation of her reputation in the eyes of the person they – in their own selfish way -love most.
Therefore, daughter will have to become a big, big slut, the sooner the better. The rising “cock count” (yes, girls: this is how men think; as well they should!) of the younger slut will then bind mother and daughter with a chain of lived feminism and shared filth (for whose feelings of guilt “Patriarchy” and, who knows, “White Supremacy” will be easily blamed) that will last a lifetime.
It’s not abortion. It’s the terror of growing a sane daughter.
One who knows that no one wants to wife a sex expert.
On 2 May of the Year of the Lord 2021, Father Z published a blog post about St Catharine of Siena. I will try to link to the article here, but it seems not to work.
The blog post is, like every other one of the same author, very interesting. It would appear that this saintly woman “travelled widely” and “was enormously influential”.
How does this, pray, square with the usual feminist narrative of women who were treated, more or less, like dirt, and certainly as radically “inferior beings”, before “emancipating” themselves? Well in one word, it doesn’t. Letting aside the issue of the travels (which already demolishes a good part of the narrative), it is the fact of her enormous influence that gives the lie about the role of the woman in the pre-emancipation age. This would never be possible if Catherine had been considered, qua woman, unable to exert influence. You will find no child, bar Jesus, able to exercise such “enormous influence”; and even Jesus chose to exercise his influence later in life.
It appears clear that the, undoubtedly, very manly and very “patriarchal” Christian society of the time was extremely ready, eager even, to be influenced by a woman who was also – besides being woman – very young!
Watch with me the feminist edifice of lies crumble in front of your eyes, leaving behind a huge cloud of smoke and debris everywhere.
It is extremely wrong, and the result of the stupidity of our times, to make women’s position and human dignity directly related to her voting rights, or to her ability to parrot men in this or that activity. It is like thinking that cats will be inferior to dogs until they are finally allowed to bark.
Intelligent women have always been influential. However, their influence was exerted in a different way than the one proper of men, and was used (when a good, positive one) in perfect harmony with the special graces that God has given specifically to women. It appears, as we read in the blog post, that men of the past perfectly understood this. I wonder how many men, today, can think with the same lucidity; though they have, no doubt, smartphones vastly exceeding the computation ability of their ancestors.
Also, it is not known to me that St Catharine of Siena, who was “enormously influential”, ever used her influence to advocate for women’s vote, or women’s emancipation, or the right of women to become part of the Imperial armed forces, or priestesses, or deacons, or lectors at Mass. It is, in fact, not known to me that this saintly woman ever thought that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the societal structures of her time.
But no, we are to listen to Hillary Clinton and (*if* she is a biological female, of course; which is said in jest, but not so much…) Michelle Obama. They clearly know better than St Catherine.
Modern Western societies are deeply, deeply intoxicated with feminist poison. Yes, even many males who think themselves conservative. They might think of themselves in that way, but every quisque de populo in a factually independent, largely self-administered city (“Comune”) in Italy in, say, the XII or XIII Century, would have actually laughed at hearing these people defining themselves as manly, or even “conservative”.
They would, in a word, laugh at people with such smart phones, but unable to get the basics of the God-given order themselves.
Rose McGowan has started another very noisy catfight with Alyssa Milano. The language is not very ladylike, but then again none of these women are ladies, so this is par for the course.
To an external observer, this kind of behaviour says a couple of things:
Firstly, the vitriol and acrimony that acidic women can mobilise dwarfs everything that men are able to muster, against even their worst enemies.
Secondly, this acidic behaviour is seen, at its most vitriolic, in women of the alternative kind: feminists at large, assorted leftists, promoters or enablers of any kind of “rebel” behaviour (McGowan was once in a relationship with a chap called Marilyn Manson. Look him up…).
Feminism is just pure, unadulterated poison. It makes of women toxic, repulsive war machines, whom men find as amusingly disgusting and strangely fascinating to behold as the Bearded Woman and the Cannon Woman.
Feminism is, also, the easy escape for women who, once beautiful, start to fade and look for other ways to gratify their vast egos. Just to make an example: I don’t remember Natalie Portman ever talking about feminism when she was in her prime. But when she started approaching her Forties, and started to see roles she would once have competed for going to younger women, she miraculously discovered Hollywood’s sexism. Ouch! Should she ask to be electronically erased from her role in the Episode I of Star Wars, a role clearly obtained thanks to her being an extremely pretty, ready-to-eat, white chocolate truffle? Or was she so thick that she didn’t know it, and realised it only when her beauty started to fade?
Feminism, like all forms of leftism, destroys everything that it touches. It makes of women who could have grown to be sweet wives, mothers and aunts, living a happy life and giving happiness to those around them, resentful, bitter, ugly beings whom even other women look at in repulsion.
Enjoy your online feud, McGowan and Milano. Of the two, McGowan is the lesser witch, and she might slowly be on her way to recovery from witchdom. But she is one of the driving forces behind #metoo, so she is toxic all right. And no, her past is no justification for #metoo, or anything leftist or stupid.
I look at the ocean of poison these women can unleash, and wonder how it was that women were allowed to vote.
I wonder, in fact, how difficult it is to see that reasonable and feminine women will always have their own interests protected by men – and their own big, beautiful hearts and big, beautiful emotions, kept in check by the more rational thinking of their fathers, brothers, and husbands – much better than if they are allowed to vote, unleashing on themselves wave after wave of mass feminism, mass abortion, mass divorce, mass dissatisfaction and, ultimately, mass betrayal of their God-given role as women.
Reflect on this without the spectacles of the uncritical thinking of this age, and realise that female suffrage has allowed women to relentlessly work against themselves, creating an ocean of frustration completely absent in the contented, feminine, gentle, soft and giving hearts I remember in the old women in my extended family when I was a child. How miserable they would consider the life of today’s “liberated” woman, working 60 hours a week in her Forties as she keep trying (without success!) to persuade men that she has a wiener, wondering how she never found the “right guy” as the clock now ticks furiously (answer: because you were toxic to him!) and being slowly, but every year more clearly, eaten alive by the two abortions she had in her youth.
Were the men, and women, of past generations more stupid than we are today?
I think the contrary is the case.
They understood life. We don’t.
Callista Gingrich is slated to be appointed ambassador of the US to the Holy Sea.
From the linked article we know that she is active in the usual charitable activities, authors books about rediscovering God and writes stories for children. I am moved to tears, I tell you.
We also know she was in an adulterous relationship with Gingrich for years, so I wonder what the children would think about that. I have never run a chariteee, but I have never run an adulterous relationship for years, either, so this makes me too boring to write a book called Rediscovering God In Other Men’s Marital Beds. Actually, in my experience a lot of these charitee people are either appeasing their conscience, of they are managing to look good with other people’s money, or they use their activity to network and make a lot of extremely useful contacts.
Callista means, in old Greek, “the most beautiful” or “extremely beautiful”. In this case, nomen non est omen.
So no, we are not in front of a role model here. However, this post is not about this. This post is about the role of the Catholic Callista Gingrich as the wife of the Catholic Newt Gingrich.
The wife should stay at the side of her husband and be submissive to him. By marrying Newt Gingrich this is the role she, a Catholic woman, chose for herself. Instead, we have another case of “emancipated” aged Catholic who sends the message that it is fine to leave her husband one ocean behind, because feminism. If this is Catholicism, I am an elephant.
This is wrong. The place of the wife is at the side of her husband, and the place of a prominent Catholic wife is at the side of her husband whilst she proclaims that it it should be so. Who does she think she is, Nancy “Botox” Pelosi?
Don’t tell me that Newt has certainly approved. It does only make two wrong, but the wife who goes away from her husband the more so. However, this makes Newt a cuck, too. A man who does not even have her wife under control should not be allowed to run for President.
This is another example of modern secular culture running counter to our traditional values, amidst the applause of the more or less Catholic press. Catholic values are defended by having wives in public positions publicly espousing and defending their Catholic role, not running the rat race.
Callista Gingrich should have publicly stated that, as a Catholic wife, her role is at the side of her husband. This would have sent a beautiful message and would have contributed to have her less than exemplary past seen in the light of a reformed woman. But what I see here is not this; what I see here is arrivism, power grab, and feminist attitude. This is, in fact, the same attitude that leads a woman in the bed of a married man and reach a position of prestige and eminence through this adulterous relationship.
Callista Gingrich reminds me of Nilde Iotti. A smart woman for sure, she was a collaborator of Palmiro Togliatti, the head of the Italian Communist Party, and his mistress before Togliatti publicly ditched his wife for her. Nilde Iotti managed to make a prestigious political career for herself, but smart people always remembered what stood at the beginning of it all: the marital bed of a powerful man. But she was a Communist at least.
One day, Callista Gingrich will run for senator.
I wonder if we will, then, get another book about “rediscovering God in Italy”.
Breitbart has a very funny (though tragic at the same time) story about a hoax study passing peer review with flying colours.
The story just shows to what extremes madness is carried in the world of “social science”. There is, of course, nothing scientific in any of that. There is a rabid hate of everything that is traditional morality, pushed by people either living in very strong opposition to this morality of too afraid to oppose it in any way. In this particular case, the “peers” who reviewed the bogus document managed to dig themselves into an even deeper hole and make themselves even more ridiculous in the process.
Will the “peers” lose their job because of manifest incompetence, pathological bias and congenital stupidity? Don’t bet your pint. In a world that revels in its fanaticism there is no point at which fanaticism become excessive, or sanity and competence required.
Still, this little episode will contribute to opening the eyes of a number of people. The same, by the way, can be said for the other sectors in which bogus science is peddled everywhere: from global warming to the destruction of the forest, to the imminent death of the polar bear.
Enjoy the article.
Fat Wiccans are “feeling the Bernie”. Hat tip to CMR
It is **not** a parody! They really *are* so stupid.
At some point there is a dude dressed in drags. I think without him the fat Wiccans would not have wanted the camera. The dogs is invited to walk in circle with them, and he might well be the most intelligent of the bunch.
The song is so atrocious even the dog must be suffering.
Boy, these people must have a shitty life.
Nothing, however, compared to what expects them if they die unrepentant.
The disturbing, clearly satanical, statue you see above has been installed in London, where the Tyburn Tree used to be.
The satanic monster is, we are assured, “symbolic of female strength and a desire to care for the young”.
Words fail. The picture says it all. This, my dear reader, truly is feminism made statue. Utterly unfeminine, completely threatening, and through and through disquieting. I would call it some pagan cruelty deity, but actually the adjective “satanic” comes automatically to mind.
The funniest thing of them all, is that the feminist/satanic “artist” complains that the homeless have decided to live around the monster. Not because it’s beautiful, mind; rather, because it gives them shade.
Words fail… again. One would have thought that the heroic (male) defender of the oppressed female of the world would be proud of having his oh so beautiful work used in such a way by other oppressed of the earth? No solidarity? Tsk, Tsk.
What an ugly bitch, this man. I think he looked at his soul for a moment or two, and came out with the idea for the monument.
I hope petitions will be started for the removal of the satanical monster. It will scare the children. Actually, it will scare the adults, too.
It is the perfect representative of the satanic, ugly world awaiting the coming generations when Christianity is – which is not improbable – wiped out of Europe, in one generation or two.
I knew feminists are hard cases of resentful, bitter ugliness – I have written about it in the past -, but this article actually drives home the extent of the madness.
It was already evident that by every feminist – feminism is, as an “ism”, unavoidably angry bitches – lesbianism can’t be far away, as it is in the nature of such an hostility toward the other sex to refuse any contact with it; or more probably, the other’s sex utter refusal to touch a feminist with a barge pole slowly pushes the already abnormal angry nutcases from latent dykedom into an outright one.
What is amusingly tragic is the concept that every God-given intercourse of the God-given way – yes, the one used in order to make children; dykes not excluded – would now have to be classified as rape. Which clearly means – if words have a meaning – that it should be outlawed and punished with a jail term.
From here it gets obviously funnier and funnier. How do these dykes imagine the continuation of the species, assuming they do not hate themselves so much as to wish their own (good!) and the human race’s (bad!) extinction? With artificial insemination of an all-lesbian, rape-free couple, one thinks. But how to obtain the necessary ingredient of healthy male sperm, considering no sane man would be interested in giving his semen so that two dykes can pervert a child? By raping the males, perhaps? Or, perchance, by keeping them in slave farms until they get to the appropriate age? And which dyke “couple” would, then, not prefer to abort the baby in the womb upon knowing it’s going to be a boy, instead of giving birth to another exemplar of the hated, violent, penis-armed, raping oppressor?
I am sure the dykes have some theory about that. I would not be surprised.
I am more surprised that they are allowed to vote, and not locked in some psychiatric institution where something useful could, if at all possible, be done for them.
Obama’s vanguard, no doubt.
I thought this is a parody of feminism. It isn’t.
Some interesting tenets of feminism are exposed here with a candor that allows us a deep – if deeply disgusting – look at the moral desert that is a modern feminist – nay: a feminist of all ages; the word itself should be banned from neutral conversation and land in the region of mocking words, like “dyke” and “faggot”-.
Some of the pearls of wisdom:
“Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.”
Curiously, I have the same reaction whenever I hear the word “feminism”. Whenever something is said that is in contrast with God’s command that the woman be first mother and nurturer, and the husband first protector and provider – for which respective role God has provided them in a clearly distinct way -, we are deep in feminist territory; though admittedly many do not smell the stench anymore, or they think there might be a “good feminism” and a “bad feminism”. And yes, a woman may obviously work if circumstances allow. Heck, Joan of Arc was a working girl, and men were ready to go to march to their death for her.
But God’s plan first.
“Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same”?
For whom should the doctors, then, care? Is a woman so good for caring for the health of children on whose mothers she looks down as “not taking care of themselves”? What is the good in caring for the product of other people’s vomiting-inducing behaviour?
“Oh, but life is important”. Well, then…
Besides: how does a mother not take care of herself? Because she follows God’s and Nature’s call and works in a partnership with her husband, where the dignity is the same, though the roles are different? And why exactly would a woman who does not want to do what is most obviously natural in a woman – giving birth – be on a superior footing? And if she does – so if she thinks it is important – why should this obviously very important role cause her not to be on an equal footing?
Boy, this dyke here must be an Anglo. Try this in Catholic countries and hear (most) people laugh at you.
“We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with”.
Being knocked up is not so difficult, and one thinks even the ugliest feminist – if she finds a man horny and drunk enough on the occasion – might accomplish this feat. Some men aren’t very discerning and, like dogs, if there’s no alternative they will eat the scraps. Still, what is astonishing is that even the fundamental basis of society, marriage, should be looked down upon. Not, mind, in favour of “free couples” who still care for raising children. This female here doesn’t want even that.
Boy, that must be an ugly one. She certainly doth protest too much.
“I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job”
Eh? Ah? What?
Sound the Dyke Alarm. This is the complete negation of nature’s obvious design. It shows an utter inability to understand how God shaped the world, and why. It is denial of the very fabric of humankind.
On the contrary, I say that the woman who backpacks through Asia, gets the “promotion” (wow, are we spiritual) and lands the “dream job” (ditto) will deeply regret wasting her life with trifles when she realises this cost her the chance of a happy, fulfilling, God-given family life. Not many men would even consider a romantic relationship with such a drake. Women are supposed to be sweet, nurturing, forgiving, wonderfully giving beings. Not backpacking career freaks.
Unless, of course, the female in question is a feminist so rabid and so ugly she doesn’t have any chance at all, then no sane or insane man would ever tie his destiny with hers.Or else, obviously, a dyke. Then she can go backpacking, and good riddance. Afghanistan is beautiful, they say.
“I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this.”
You don’t say? Astonishing! And I bet they do not talk about “women’s issues”, either!
Sports, cars, politics, and women. That’s it. Oh what a disgrace, a man! Why, oh why are they not like women!
Thanks, dear Lord, that in your Goodness you have given me a wonderful mother; the utter and complete opposite of this wretch here.
From Bioedge, something as tragically funny as the modern word of “empowered” women’s right is:
A fascinating case is unfolding in Israel pitting a anonymous sperm donor against a woman who demands his sperm. The arguments are worthy of a novel – or at least an afternoon soap opera.
As reported in Haaretz, Galit (not her real name), a 39-year-old single mother living in Florida, has conceived a daughter with the sperm of an Israeli donor. She purchased five more samples and stored them in a sperm bank. However, when she decided to conceive another child, she was told that the man had withdrawn his consent. After a religious conversion he felt remorseful about allowing his sperm to be used by a woman he did not know to conceive a child he did not love.
Galit was outraged at this injustice and launched a lawsuit. Her daughter must have a biological full-sibling, she contends. “It is out of the question for a sperm donor to change his mind,” she told Haaretz. “I planned a family, and then, one fine day, after donating sperm – and who knows how many children he has already – he changes his mind. He changed his way of life, but what about my way of life?”
The High Court of Justice was sympathetic, but supported the sperm donor’s right of autonomy. “One can understand the viewpoint of a person who, after thinking it over, reached the conclusion – which he had not entertained when he decided, for various reasons, to donate sperm – that he does not want children to be born from his sperm, because he did not choose them or their mother, has no ties with them and will not raise them.”
Galit begs to differ. “All through the judgment the justices refer to his feelings, but no one mentioned my feelings. I am a mother raising a daughter alone.” She plans to appeal the ruling.
One would almost feel sympathetic for the struggle of our heroine, the single-mother who complains she is a single mother but wants to be a single mother of two (at taxpayer’s expense, I wonder?), and God forbid her sister should not have a sibling with the same genetic sperm donor. She must be able to tell her sons that they are both the sons of the same man they have never seen. I mean, this is really important. Clearly a human right.
I have tears in my eyes. I’ll have to try to stop laughing…
Think of this: she is bitching with the father of her children without having ever managed to even see him…
“Mom, do Jessica and I have the same father?”
” ‘course you do, Janice”.
“And where is he, mom?”
“erm, ahh, well…”
Brave new world…
It occurred to me some liberal nuns and people with similar orientation play with the idea of a she-God.
It must sound very new and daring to them. besides, it takes away that dreaded figure, The Male, from the picture.
I wonder why they never do the same with Satan?
One of the scariest features of modern Anglo-Saxon societies is the inability of people to tell things as they are. Facts become taboo on the very day that some “minority” has decided that they are “hurt” from them.
A prime example is feminism. It has always been my experience (and I ain’t the youngest, and have lived in three different countries) that feminists are ugly. I do not mean here the actresses and singers who, after getting to fame (in which way, I will not discuss) decide they’re “feminists” to give themselves some airs. I mean the real examples out there.
When I was at school, you could see some attractive young women who showed clear feminist tendencies. Young and “idealist”, you know. Probably with the wrong parents, certainly with the wrong influences around them. You saw them here and there and thought: “what a waste”. All other boys thought the same way.
Some of the girls had begun to notice.
At University the situation had already radically changed. You could clearly see the attractive leftist women paying much attention not to be on the wrong side of the fence. In the conflict between their (still probably existing) ideals and the necessities of their fight against all other women for the favour of men (another fact as plain as the sun, but that it is forbidden to mention), they understood that they couldn’t fight the fight of their life with the right arm disabled. At that age, the ruthless disregard of Italian men (people who, when they are men, take no sh*t from any feminist, and may she be Claudia Schiffer’s pretty sister) already started to be painfully noticed. Therefore, language, behaviour, talk, walk, and entire attitude toward the other sex were already adjusted.
The ugly ones, though, continued to be feminists. They complained against the “sexist culture” of the country, the expectation – nay, the demand – of a woman being (shock! horror!)… a woman. Their isolation drove them to extremism, their ugliness drove them to think that if you’re ugly, your best bet is to be a feminist and thunder against the traditional culture.
The attractive young women began to smile at them.
The years went on, and the workplace brought a further polarisation. Women with an income and money to spend wanted to be extremely feminine, no expense spared to enhance whatever beauty and femininity they possessed (and in Italy, many of them possessed it in spades). A small minority of less and less vocal women continued to spit the same slogans, and voice the same concerns. All of them (and I mean, all of them. No, really!) ugly. The other women, the feminine ones, began to be openly sarcastic about them, even in the presence of men. Talks of sour grapes became heard, veiled references to certain unsatisfied emotional needs; at 25-27, there was a general climate where the feminist is a mixture between the village idiot, and the ugly village idiot.
At this point, only the ugly and angry were still feminists.
To my extreme surprise, this continued when I moved to Germany, albeit the conservative office world I moved in might have played a role. In Germany, though, communication rules were different: more allusive, less open, far more prudent. Italians are brutal, Germans were more reserved, particularly at the beginning. But they’d open up to you when they knew you better. Then, you knew that all the world is, really, the same.
And then I moved here. New, strange words were common usage. People were “hurt”, meaning that the facts couldn’t be told to them. The verb “to judge” had, for the first time, a negative connotation. Expressions like “significant other”, “inclusive” and the absolutely omnipresent “diversity” popped in. But some people didn’t even say “Merry Christmas”. That’s when I entered a church again.
Feminists were as ugly as ever. But now, no one told them. Everyone was “sensitive”, and “concerned”. It was just socially unacceptable to tell the truth, because a world that calls sodomites “gay” won’t call feminists “frustrated and ugly”.
Well, let us give a little contribution to address this:
You are a feminist because you are an ugly, fanatic, frustrated cow who never had from men the attention you wanted, and deservedly so. If you had been attractive, you wouldn’t have cared two straws for feminism. You know it, and you know that everyone knows it. Your hate for the male sex is the result of you losing the battle for interesting, caring and masculine men and having to make do with the gamma males, the whinos and the sissies. You were refused by masculine men, who were the ones you were interested in. This increased your hatred, and your exclusion. This is how you ended up being the ugly cow you are now.
In the meantime, men continue to be interested in feminine women, and women in masculine men. That’s the way it is and no amount of attempted feminist indoctrination will ever change this. Ask every woman (who isn’t ugly and full of venom) and she’ll tell you. No male (I do not mean “alpha male”; I mean every man with a modicum of self-respect) would ever lose time with a feminist. Feminists know it, and it burns. It burns because in the end even they are, at some hidden level, women. So they hate all men, and all feminine women, and call them names, thinking that they, the ugly village idiots, are better. They aren’t. Feminine women are far more intelligent and connected to reality, more balanced, serene and happy than feminists living on planet Hate.
The truth that every feminist must be told is very simple:
You would have thought that the catalogue of horrors perpetrated by a nazi culture which thinks nothing of killing babies in the mother’s womb (apologies, I must correct myself: that considers it a woman’s right to be able to kill a baby in her mother’s womb) would have, in the meantime, presented you with all the abominations it could possibly think of: women “married” with women; ditto men with men; surrogate wombs for poofs eager of motherhood (or whatever-hood they call it); abortion on demand; day after pill for forgetful women and, of course, “emancipation” galore. The poor women are not even free to feel and behave like women anymore, with “big sister” always watching them and carefully checking their degree of (how was that? ah….) “emancipation”.
But if you had thought that the catalogue of horrors be complete, you’ll have to rethink after reading this
You would think that when, say, a boy of twelve is uncertain of his sexuality, his parents would lovingly support him in the gradual discover of the sexual orientation God has made him with. But you would be wrong. Eager parents of the S-generation (yes, you know what S stands for) are extremely eager to refuse any common sense and sensible thinking; instead, they yearn for hormones to be given to their poor boy (let us repeat here: if he has a little friend, boy; otherwise, girl; tertium non datur!) so that his sexual growth may be more or less stopped and the poor chap may “make his own choice” as to, well, what he wants to be when he grows up. You couldn’t make it up.
That it is exactly the duty of the parents to guide their offspring toward a harmonious development of their sexuality, is not mentioned in the least; that it is, moreover, the exact duty of the parents to do so from the tenderest age instead of waiting for this poor boy to grow amidst a forest of confusing messages, in a world where every abomination is considered normal, is not considered at all; that a clear separation of roles, and of attitudes, between father and mother is the best way to encourage a natural assimilation of gender-typical roles from the side of the children is, obviously, too fascist to be even hinted at.
But look for one moment at traditionally Catholic societies, those islands of mental sanity where political correctness is, according to the moment, either joke or insult. Over there men are men, and women are women. From men it is expected that they behave like men, and from women that they behave like women. This happens from the tenderest age, and if you haven’t had the privilege of growing up in a traditionally Catholic society (for which fact the author doesn’t envy you) just notice the behaviour of boys and girls by your next holiday and you’ll start to get the gist of the matter. Please also be informed that these boys and girls grow in intact families in much bigger numbers than their English counterparts; that they generally have one father and one mother, who even are their biological parents; and that in general, they grow and behave as if growing up in an intact family – where men are men and women are women – were the most natural thing on earth.
Which it is. Outside of England, that is.
Instead, what we have more and more often in our de-Christianised societies (and far too often anyway even in those traditional Catholic societies; certainly more often than this used to be the case) is eunuchs married to witches of whom they are terrified; witches often working and earning more than their husbands do, spending less time at home than them, and carrying the trousers in every conceivable ways. When this confusion in turn generates confusion in the children (children growing up without clear orientation; with a father who thinks and behave like a woman and a mother who thinks and behaves like a man), the poor idiots find nothing better to do than to chemically stop the sexual development of their offspring, perhaps with a view of ruining them forever by “embracing” whatever perversion they may decide to follow, and perhaps even following this madness up with the surgical, irreparable removal of their manhood.
Simply and utterly monstrous. Monstrous in a way that follows from the utter subversion of the very simple basis of every working society: that men are men, women are women, and that from each of them that mentality and behaviour are expected, that are aligned to their sex and to their profound nature. Too many people have simply forgotten – or are, astonishingly, unable to grasp – that God doesn’t do perversions, Satan does. Is this so difficult to understand for one who says that he believes in God? And if one doesn’t understand this, does he really believe in God?
What next: that God makes people pedophiles?
You will probably not know him but some years ago, a once-leftist Italian composer and singer, Roberto Vecchioni, shocked the champagne-sipping leftist Italy with a rather brutally conservative song against “manly” women (“manly”, of course, for the Italian standard; I will stop here out of sheer charity…….), declaring that he wants “a woman with the rock”. Scandal and anger ensued, of course. But it was scandal and anger the Italian way. Traditional societies know very well where the truth lies; even the leftists, in their own way.
Traditional societies, traditional roles, traditional women and traditional men; in turn, little boys growing and trained to become men and little girls growing and trained to become women. You do that and you’ll see that there is no need for legalised abominations; let alone hormone-fueled ones.
Those who have been reading yours truly for some time are probably aware of his clear, willingly politically incorrect, very Southern-European call to real masculinity and to the end of the effeminate “look at how feminist I am”-metrosexual attitude of our time.
Today I stumbled upon this Michael Voris Video and I thought – as I do rather often – that the chap has actually already said everything I wanted to express.
The only reflection I’d like to add is that, seen from a European/Italian perspective, it would appear that cars and role of the husband have gone in opposite directions. In the Fifties and Sixties – when “the world was still in order” and the roles within the family well-defined – cars had a gentle appearance and, generally speaking, delicate colours. The pastel blues, greens and beiges dominated the automotive landscape and the cars themselves were rather gentle in their appearance (think of the autos of the Fifties, with their rounded and almost feminine forms and theirs, as stated, always delicate colours).
Nowadays we have an abundance of aggressive-looking, huge, “metallic black” metal monsters (up there to the extreme cases, like the Hummer in its various incarnations) which are driven by men who were never able to take the leading role in their family. This is a reflection I have had for some years now (cue the frequent office discussions where there is always the colleague who considers cars like a Mercedes SLK something “for girlies” and obviously nothing less than a BMW M will do, but you perfectly well know he’d never be able to stand up to his girlfriend) and has been awakened by the Hummer in Michael Voris’ video.
“The bigger the car, the weaker the man”? Certainly not, as big cars do have their beauty and their rationale. But “the weaker the man, the bigger the need to compensate with an aggressive-looking car” might get nearer to the truth.
Enjoy the video.