Brainwashing Dummies

 

You’re all thinking I left out the word “for” and that this is a “How To” article – nope – not an error, not a missed word. This is a “How did they” article, and the topic under discussion is feminism – bet that’s a surprise?

The inspiration for this hit me last night, I have a ton of research to do, a load of notes and random bits and pieces to organise and a “to do” list that never seems to get shorter, but I found myself pondering on Reyeko’s comment on “How Dare You have an Opinion…..On Me!”

Ok – that was the moan – let’s just move on.

Actually nope – one more moan – I have mobile broadband, I live in Ireland and apparently my broadband thingy (not very techie) can’t seem to locate the other thingy that supplies the magic that makes the broadband WORK!

It reminded me of Dara O’Briain’s classic rant on Sat Nav’s (those things that are supposed to stop you getting lost) and how for some reason his was a bit “geographically challenged” seemingly whenever he got into his car, and switched the damn thing on, so he could find his way to wherever he was going, it would repeat over and over again.

“Cannot locate satellite, cannot locate satellite”

In his frustration he ends up shouting at the thing.

LOOK UP!

Apparently, according to my broadband service provider I “might be out of range” OUT OF RANGE???, If I lived any closer to the mast (remembered the word) I’d be living in a tent UNDER the damn thing!

Ok – now I feel better, (slightly) anyhoo, while I was waiting for the broadband thingy to find the other thingy, it occurred to me that feminists are the experts par excellence at brainwashing dummies, and two things led me to this conclusion.  The first was Victor Zen’s video on AVfM (A Voice for Men) entitled “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” and the second was that comment by Reyeko on yesterdays post “How Dare you Have an Opinion…….on Me!”

“I think it’s rooted in the need for control, everyone wants to control what goes on in their lives, men and women. Our culture currently tells women there is nothing they can control, that they’re leaves blowing on the whims of the patriarchy while it tells men that they are the masters of their world. So we see women’s human need to have control over their lives manifest in a harmful way wherein they need to control what goes on in the lives of people who as you say they ‘allow into their life’. This is all just conjecture on my part but I think it’s a good theory.”

Go watch the video, if you can stomach the whole thing, then come back and we’ll carry on – I’ll wait. there is a link to Reyeko’s blog at the side. ReyekoMRA.

Is that the most annoying, the dumbest young woman you’ve ever seen or what? I cannot even find it in my heart to be kind, or give her the benefit of the doubt for being misled – she has the fervour, the unthinking and uncritical demeanour of the truly indoctrinated.

She waved this book around “Feminism is for Everyone” (and nope, even if I had a link to it I wouldn’t post it)  like an evangelical con artist exhorting the faithful to give their souls (and hard earned cash) into his/her grubby hands in order to be saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaved – hallelujah!

Reyeko’s comment makes an interesting point – that women are to all intents and purposes striving to exercise some measure of control over their lives, and it must be said, over everybody else’s life.

The question is – when and why did women allow themselves to become so dumb, and regardless of how dumb as a bag of hammers most women appear to be, they ARE sentient human beings – though sentience is in the eye of the beholder.  Ergo, on some level, they CHOSE to be the way they are.

Women CHOSE to exercise their autonomy, and to be that dumb.

How they are, is a herd, a mass of alleged individuals who move, think and act as one, like a shoal of fish that move as a mass, as one, through the oceans.

The difference being, that watching natural history programmes that show this, illustrates the beauty and complexity of life on this planet, whereas watching women or listening to women is……………akin to hearing nails being scraped down a blackboard – shudder, being made to eat Brussels sprouts, having a wisdom tooth removed (four) actually THAT was a piece of cake – anaesthetic rocks!

But there is no anaesthesia strong enough to numb one from suffering the pain of being either in the company of, or listening to the unutterable shoite that women say about “ being women”

I could only listen for a very short time to the witterings of the young woman on Victor’s video, if she was my daughter I’d be embarrassed, seriously, I would be hiding my head in shame, and wondering – “where did I go wrong?”

But, there is a point where one becomes an adult, and one takes responsibility for oneself – when there is no-one, other than you, who is accountable FOR you – for what you say, what you do, who you are.

Which actually answers the questions – why and when and how feminism has managed to pull off the brainwashing trick of the millennium – they had the perfect candidates to work with.

Women have made an art form out of being as thick as two short planks, while retaining a primitive core of nastiness, spitefulness and mendacity – feminism harnessed that, then sold it to both women and men wrapped up in pretty bows and ribbons, and embarked on a campaign to hollow out the humanity of women and leave this nasty shell behind.

None of which they could have done without the complicity of women themselves. NONE OF IT.

How they did it.

Ok – every now and again I get to catch a glimpse of TV – I find myself standing or sitting there in amazement at the sheer level of stupid one has to be, to believe some of the reasons given why women should buy or do or believe a particular thing.

There was a series of advertisements some time ago for matching underwear – women’s underwear, and the crisis of embarrassment that would ensue if one was caught not wearing said matching underwear. 

One scenario was of a female being wheeled into an emergency room and her horror and the medical’s staff’s mockery at her mis-matched knickers and bra!

Seriously? THAT’S what would be exercising your mind if you found yourself on gurney? Your knickers!

Of all the TV series, that I loathe above all others Sex in the city, takes the top spot, it is without doubt, almost a documentary on how to be the most annoying vacuous, shallow, vain and useless example of a human being one could possibly aspire to be, if one happened to be a female human being.

And apparently, this series “empowered” women? THIS total and utter crap represents laudable role models for women? This series is the benchmark for female behaviour, for female aspirations, and for BEING female?

Feminism might be the engine that drives and is driving this civilisation over the cliff, but media representations of “being female” is the PR campaign – and it has worked like a charm for nigh on 30, maybe 40 years.

Because there is one other series which I happened by chance to catch a few glimpses of – Bridezillas – aptly named, these females were…….there are no words……another example of “how women are” – and the thing that shocked me the most?

The usually shell shocked but compliant men who literally stood there and allowed these females to display all the charm and grace of rabid dogs – of  hyenas tearing a carcass apart –  then they married them!

My sympathy for these men it must be said, is stretched to its absolute limits, and only because of one thing – feminism has not only managed to convince women to abandon all semblance of humanity and civilised behaviour, but has also managed to convince men that this is NORMAL female behaviour.

For psychopaths, sociopaths and people with personality disorders its “normal” not I might add acceptable, but rather simply, expected.

So feminism has harnessed the raw material of all the worst possible personality traits inherent in women, written turgid and incomprehensible rubbish justifying it, and infected an entire culture with the notion that being a 24 caret, Grade A bitch is not only “Normal” but is something to aspire too?

And almost three generations of women, and now apparently a fourth, will quite happily and with a depth of smugness that defies reason and logic, endorse, applaud and justify this.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

Advertisements

How Dare You Have an Opinion……On Me!

 

Two things – first this delightful little quote I have often heard women use with regard to the “men in their lives” (and this little phrase is one we will be coming back to)

when I want your opinion, I will give it to you

The second thing is about me, a piece of advice I was given by a careers teacher way back in the mists of time when I was “young”

you’re very opinionated for a 16 year old – you should think about curbing that, and doing a secretarial course

Now, before any feminist decides to pounce on this as an example of “oppression” and “patriarchy” the teacher was female and she had never had an original thought in her entire life – of this I am convinced, and she didn’t like me, at all, for various reasons, mostly centred around me being “opinionated”

As you can probably see, if you’ve read any of my scribblings, not a piece of advice I took seriously or followed, ever.

Moving On.

Women, with the bedrock of feminist cant and drivel backing them up, have now inculcated a very insidious and egotistical state of mind – no-one, especially men, is allowed to have an opinion, other than a positive one, of anything they do, say or are.

In fact, with regard to having opinions, men are now not allowed to have an opinion on anything, just in case it clashes with whatever ephemeral or passing “opinion” on said subject that a woman has, any woman, on anything. Though, that “opinion” could change on a daily basis.

If as a man for example, you like go kart racing, and a female has allowed you “into her life” and in her opinion, go kart racing is stupid/boring/ridiculous/not my cup of tea – it will then be expected that you, a mere man, will now abandon your pleasure, your hobby, the thing that is your cup of tea – forever.

Woe betide you, if you sneak off on a Saturday afternoon with a couple of mates for an hour or two of sheer unadulterated pleasure – while she is at the hairdressers (could be anything up to four hours), at her mother’s (at least three hours) at her best friend’s (anything between an hour and eternity, depends on how much you have pissed her off that week) shopping (on a Saturday, and there are sales on? – at least six hours)

Annnnnnnnd she finds out!

Mate – you are now in the absolute shit – the doghouse – the outer realms of the universe where all men are consigned who do something that a female has specifically told you – SHE doesn’t like.

I might add, this egregious calumny is compounded if she has assigned you tasks to be done “while I’m off doing something really really important”.

I know, I know, you’re going to try logic and reason – everything on the list was done in record time, so “what’s the big deal?”

Sigh – tut tut – it’s “all about trust” doncha know – “you prooooooooooomised”.  It’s all about “letting her down” about her “feeeeeeeelings

By the way, even if you “cheated” and hired an expert to do whatever your assigned task was – it will be a “shit job” – it was “done wrong” – now she has to “hire someone” to “get it done right!”. Probably the same bloke YOU hired to do it in the first place.

I can almost guarantee that as he walks in to “do a proper job” you will exchange looks – because he probably has his own live-in wretch, tormenting the life and soul out of HIM, every bloody minute of the morning noon and night.

So, what has this to do with me and being “opinionated”? Well, granted in my youth my opinions were half and half actual knowledge of something that I had formed an opinion about, and my “feelings” about something – they of course tended to be very black and white – right or wrong – good or bad, no gray areas.

But my parents would have none of that – my mother – “give me a reason” sigh. My father – “how do you know that, have you checked to see if it’s true/right?” double sigh.

The little scenario I outlined above is a bit of a conglomeration of various different incidents I’ve observed over the years – the go karting thing though – was actually the secret passion of a bloke I knew.

What underpins all this is that SHE “let YOU into her life” – did ye not know – men don’t have lives, passions, interests or a separate existence? Men are only “of use”, men either “compliment a woman’s life” or “make it harder

As for the original premise, and the title of this essay – “How dare you have an opinion, on me!” this is the female ace in the hole – it IS the get out of jail free card par excellence – because if you take back YOUR right to have an opinion on any damn thing you like, the “magic spell” is broken the one where being “allowed into my life” is not so much a gift, the beneficence of a higher being allowing you to bask in her glory – it reveals itself as what it really is.

A selfish, egotistical, vain, shallow wretch, bullying another human being, using emotional blackmail, and coercing another human being into doing things that undermine and make little of their value as an autonomous human being.

To all those men who might be thinking, especially with regard to Getting you to “do things” her way – “ah sure, she just likes things done right, she just wants the house to look good

Bullshit. Shall I repeat that? BULLSHIT.

Most of the petty, useless things that women assign you to do, and will never thank you for, appreciate or acknowledge are designed to “keep you busy” to “keep you on your toes” they are devices, artefacts created to control, to demean, to enslave you further and further into a state of existence where your only function is to meet and serve  – “her needs

Any person who would throw the equivalent of a tantrum because another person has an interest or hobby that they don’t like/share/find interesting is a wretch.  Any person who demands that you “do things” for them, on their terms, and will explode/sulk/whine/ if you either can’t, or don’t want to do them is a bullying wretch.

 

I believe I just described quite a lot women. In my opinion.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

PS Go Karting is great craic (fun) 🙂

Time for you to Get Back in Harness Guys – Suzanne Venker Says So!

 

Suzanne Venker’s articleIt’s time to end the gender war” on the Daily Caller while well meaning misses the point, and the barn, and doesn’t even hit anywhere near the barn, by a country mile or several hundred.

The first error she makes is the title. By characterizing  the current social, cultural and legal climate that exists, as the result of a “Gender War” she fails to take into account this:

War is to all intents and purposes a battle for supremacy between two factions or possibly more, with each protagonist engaging the enemy or enemies – that is not what has happened here.

This has been an invasion, an occupation, a takeover – a coup. Most definitely not a bloodless coup. Men did not, and could not fight back – but they are fighting back now – and THIS is the war that women don’t want. Women are afraid that if men don’t stop fighting back, then the war that never was, will end up with them being the losers.

Venker almost immediately nails her colours to the mast, as to what it is that women fear losing the most – the prospect of a marriage.  Because it is starting to become self evident that men and “marriage” are no longer simpatico. That men are saying – in droves – thanks but no thanks.

Venker hails her model of marriage as natural, as something that men and women are almost designed for, and implies that this is some wonderful “tradition”  and that this alleged “battle of the sexes” has thrown a spanner into the works of!

“Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to be a lifetime merger of masculine and feminine beings. Imperfect or not, it’s Mother Nature’s plan. But today it’s faced with a new threat, and it’s not same-sex marriage. The real problem is America’s gender war: the decades-long battle that has almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes.”

Actually NO, it is not, it wasn’t, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, this ideal template of what this version of marriage is rests on myth, fables and a fairly shaky grasp of history, and from my perspective, OTHER cultures – cultures that did not, and do not view marriage through the rather grubby rose coloured spectacles of Hollywood Rom Coms and/or looooooooooooooooove stories, nor through the prism of execrable chick lit, or the fevered fantasies of overexcited and hormonal teenagers. never mind mentioning that when this “model” was created, you were lucky and considered old if you made it to your 40th birthday.

Venker is pulling this “tradition” card, alluding to some mythical period in history when marriage was just this perfect union, this long-standing “tradition” that is now being sullied by modern influences.

Well now Ms, Venker, I will see your couple of hundred years of manufactured history and tradition and raise you a couple of thousand years of actual history and really really REALLY ancient tradition. Because the word that describes this attitude is ethnocentricity – the cure is pulling your head out of your backside.

“Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’,marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’,an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’,marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property, which are similar in some important respects to that of a lord and his vassal, a father and his daughter, a student and his teacher, an abbot and his lay-tenant—other pairs that hold property in common and, on occasion at least, run a common household.

What each of the pair may have given the other, consumed, or spent in good faith cannot give rise to a legal action; what has been taken without permission must be replaced if a complaint is made about it; and legal penalties are involved only when the complaint (and the appropriate legal procedure which must follow it) is ignored or when property is removed by theft or by violence.” (my note – by either party)

And yes, any of the three main types of marriage one could enter into in Ireland – right up to the 17th Century, did NOT absolve either party to that marriage from being subject to the law (Brehon Law) if they committed an act which was contrary to the law. ALL persons were held, once they had reached the age of accountability – generally about 12 years old – fully accountable for their actions, no matter what their status OR sex.

If whatever type of marriage one entered into was of persons of the same social status then:

“It was a dignified state for the wife in question: if it was a marriage ‘with land and stock and household equipment and if the wife was of the same class and status as her husband, she was known as abé cuitchernsa, literally ‘a woman of joint dominion, a woman of equal lordship’—a term which seems to be rendered domina in the canon law tracts.

Neither of the spouses could make a valid contract at law without the consent of the other. The lawyers list exceptions to this rule but, apart from the specification that these must be dealings which advance their common economy, they are mere run-of the-mill matters in the ordinary business of farming—agreements for co-operative ploughing with kinsmen, hiring land (presumably for grazing), getting together the food and drink to meet the duty of entertaining one’s lord or to celebrate church feasts, acquiring necessary tools or equipment and the like—and one would expect either spouse to make such arrangements without necessarily consulting the other.”

Naturally enough, as a marriage was a contract, breaching the terms of that contract had penalties, and could be exercised by either party.

“Besides, the grounds for unilateral divorce (with or without penalties being incurred by the guilty party) are specified in very considerable detail.

A woman could divorce her husband for many reasons: sterility, impotence, being a churchman (whether in holy orders or not), blabbing about the marriage bed, calumniation, wife-beating, repudiation (including taking a secondary wife), homosexuality, failure of maintenance.

A man could divorce his wife for abortion, infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management. Insanity, chronic illness, a wound that was incurable in the opinion of a judge, leech or lord, retirement into a monastery or going abroad on pilgrimage were adequate grounds for terminating a marriage.[40]

I might add, that some of these things would have been also unlawful, and not only would the guilty party be divorced but he/she would be punished.  Needless to say the taking of a life would have incurred a greater punishment than the beating of a wife.

And before you all start boo hooing over “wife beating” unless the wife was of the Warrior class, and yes we had female warriors, then she was not TRAINED in combat skills, ergo not able or deemed capable of defending herself.  It is anecdotal to say this, but wife beating would have a rare thing in ancient Celtic culture, Irish women are not known for being passive, nor would Irish men have considered beating up a smaller person an honourable thing to do.

This extract that I took these quotes from, talks of a time circa 700 AD when Irish culture was being influenced by the spread of Christianity and by other external influences, but these “traditions” these Laws go back to the bronze age.

It was in the 17th century that finally our Laws, our traditions and our culture were irrevocably changed.

So, this “tradition” that Venker is pining to return to is a mix of gynocentric bullshit, hypergamy gone wild and a culture that allowed itself to be hoodwinked, conned and bamboozled by the machinations, ploys and feminine wiles of females who wouldn’t know how to be autonomous human beings if their lives depended on it.  Which by the way, they DO now.

Your “traditional” marriage is not the union of equals, the coming together to form a household in common, but a grown person being allowed to remain a dependant, a child, a burden, a person who contributes very little but expects to be crowned Rián for that.

What betimes makes me narrow my eyes at the arrogance of feminists and certain types of women, is the sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude they adopt when they talk about “other cultures” and how western culture is the savior of and the model for “other cultures” how your “traditions” are superior, more highly evolved and developed than those inferior and unenlightened “other cultures”

From my perspective – again – YOUR culture is savage, barbarian, unenlightened, inferior, and a plague on humanity. Your culture has been corrupted by feminism and feminists and the toxic gynocentric poison that has informed the agenda of YOUR culture and “traditions” it is superficial, shallow, tawdry and vile.

I sound angry, don’t I? that would be because I am, because YOUR rotten culture, your rotten “traditions” are now part of my culture – part of my everyday life – have infected and corrupted my culture.

The saddest part of all? My people have embraced and now revel in this toxic cultural template.

I focused on marriage, because that is the focus of Venker’s article, to be honest the rest of her article is a gosh golly darn it, why don’t you men get back into your “real men” strait jackets, so that we women can get back to destroying the planet, corrupting the legal system, emotionally abusing your children, go on murderous rampages, and find the time to sit around on our fat arse’s whining about how hard it is to be a woman.

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

The “M” Word

 

Women are crap at marriage, the “M” word” even when they yearn, they cry into their pillows at night for marriage, even when they think they believe they know what marriage is – they are still mostly crap at it.

The reason is actually quite simple, the marriage they dream of, they expect to have, they pine for, and in some instances pour scorn on (hello feminists) is a creation, a fantasy, an illusion that they created themselves, to get out of responsibility for being adults, grownups.

Lastly, but not, by any stretch of the imagination least, the western worlds model of marriage was created and cultivated for women, as a device for women to play act their way through their lives, to play at “being married”

Problem is, the illusion they created had a very short shelf life, historically speaking, the conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created “to serve” no longer exist – let me repeat that.

The conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created to serve, no longer exist – except in the minds and imaginations, and to be blunt unrealistic fantasies of women.

If ever there was a “thing” that should be consigned to the – “seemed like a good idea at the time” – category, marriage is it.

Even then, way back when the kiss of death for marriage began to take over – (that would be romance by the way) – it was a pretty shit idea. For a while it served its purpose, and depending on the maturity and intelligence of the parties involved, a lot of marriages were successful, workable, managed to stay standing, or at least did, till the kids were old enough to leave home and forge their own lives.

And our two lovebirds could stop pretending that they could stand the sight of one another.

I mentioned that the kiss of death for “marriage” is romance? It is, and right now every woman who has ever dreamed of “walking down the aisle” in some ridiculous clown outfit called “the perfect wedding dress” has fallen to the floor in a swoon. Oh please! Grow up – get up – and shut up – don’t even think about commenting or emailing me with some tearful (and probably pages long) diatribe about love, and showing your love, and how I don’t understand what romance is.

Bite me.

I know exactly what romance is and I also know, that it to love, to friendship, to loyalty, to honour, what feminism is to truth, to human rights, to sanity. And feminism is the vilest, most corrupt and corrosive set of twisted beliefs that ever found their way onto a page or into the mouths and minds of any person. I repeat.

Bite me.

The ironic thing of all, to me at least, is that women allowed feminism and feminists to destroy, to corrupt, to make unbearable (for men) the very thing that generations of women, whether they admit it or not want, yearn for, spend their lives trying to enter into – the unholy state of matrimony.

As our cultures and societies developed and progressed, many women began to feel a bit discontented, a bit unhappy, not “fulfilled”(sigh) in their marriages – enter the nutcase lesbian harridans and self promoting hippy sluts of feminism, to give these discontented and bored “housewives” a “get out of jail free” card, an excuse, a nicely exaggerated, completely and utterly false set of reasons and explanations for their “boredom”

Something is wrong with “marriage”? It can’t be me, therefore it must be you! With the “you” being men – as we all know, it doesn’t take much for women to completely lose all sense of proportion, or reality for that matter – therefore marriage must change – the legal and social framework within which marriages must be conducted in western societies must change so that women can “be happy” again.

Because, women still wanted their fantasy, their romance, their illusion – alas – of all the tinkering, all the changes, all the remodelling of marriage that feminism, feminists and women insisted needed to be done so that marriage was something that suited women – the ONLY change that could have made marriage at the bare minimum workable was not done, was never even considered, and to this day would induce rage, hysterics and poisonous articles from women and feminists with the intellectual capacity of a tree frog.

There is, and was ONLY one “thing” that needs and needed to be changed – WOMEN!

This is where I’m going to say, what for a lot of women will sound if not odd at the very least, then once again consign me, to that sphere of outer darkness that women reserve for those who “betray the sisterhood” boo bloody hoo. I LIKE it out here guuuuuurls  🙂

I like men.

I like the way they think, I like the way they talk and express themselves, and I like, with a few exceptions their sense of humour. Men are great fun, they are kind and generous (and no, I don’t mean that in a monetary way) they are loyal and trustworthy. You can depend on a man to keep his word, you can be sure that if a man says he will or won’t do something that it will or won’t be done. And yes, of course I am aware that some men can be just as big arseholes as women – but there is a vindictiveness, a spitefulness and nastiness within women that you don’t find in many men.

Most women don’t LIKE men – just the way they are – men are projects – blank slates upon which women get to write instructions upon. Women don’t SEE men as autonomous separate entities to themselves – men are an extension, a reflection, an appendage to a woman – a man is only as good as the woman in his life can either force him to be, or make him be, and that fits in with whatever bloody Disney fantasy they’ve had running in their heads since they wore their first “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” tee-shirt.

For women, men are bit players, not even co-stars, but bit players in the drama, the fantasy, the illusion that is, the life and times of ME!

Of course the other ridiculous and asinine thing that women bleat and wail about and demand that men do is to “work on our marriage”?

Excuse me?  Do what?

Like the various bits of random engines and whatever they were, my brothers used to “work on”? Like an inanimate object that you were creating, be it a piece of sculpture, a painting or a piece of furniture? Like that?

There is only one “thing” that one could possibly “work on” that would make any difference to whether or not you are in a positive, enriching, worthwhile and workable union (I’m getting fed up writing the word marriage – and I think I might be breaking out in a rash!)

YOU!

You read that right, and by the way, I AM specifically addressing women – if you have a problem in your union – then that is YOUR problem.

But, but, but, but………….he does this, he doesn’t do that, he won’t do this, he won’t do that…..boo hoo!

Answer: So?

Are you suggesting, demanding and expecting that an autonomous human being accedes to your command, your order because YOU demand it?

Personal example: I cannot explain this, I have no idea why, but whistling drives me mad, seriously, it sets my teeth on edge, my late partner didn’t whistle – much – and only did it unconsciously – so, the first time – I explained, more or less as I just did above – then I ASKED – politely, civilly. His response, sorry darling, I’ll stop,  just let me know if I do it without thinking. End of conversation.

I hear women moan and whine about “what an arsehole” their husbands or partners are – and two things – arseholery is in the eye of the beholder – and like it or lump it people have the right to BE arseholes if they want to be.  If you don’t want to be around an arsehole – LEAVE, and leave the kids behind, you’re the one with the problem, not them.

I’ll admit, I am constantly shocked at how women speak to and treat their partners, I know I shouldn’t be, but I am, and when I say things like;

“If you spoke to, or treated me in that manner, I would probably find the biggest bucket of pig swill I could find, and dump it over your head”

I am equally shocked at how shocked THEY are, at being criticised!

If she was in my house, I would throw her out, and invite him to remain, and no, I’m not kidding – women seem to believe that the normal rules for civil behaviour, for how one treats other human beings are suspended, no longer apply, magically disappear in the context of a union or partnership.

THEY DO NOT!

The problem with modern marriage, and modern relationships, partnerships, unions, whatever floats your particular boat is WOMEN – and the problem with women is that women believe and expect that getting married means at the ceremony, or whatever, a marriage fairy flies in and sprinkles magic marriage dust on you.

That the recitation of some words, the physical act of standing there in THAT absurd dress alchemically changes you – and him – and even worse should.

What you bring to a union is YOU – warts and all – and wedding ceremonies are not some kind of supernatural Compound W* that makes all YOUR warts disappear, for women actually, it does seem to cause a major outbreak of warts – big massive hairy ones.

So – women are crap at marriage, because women designed and created marriage in their own image, and need I say it – in general, with a few rare exceptions, most women are a pain in the arse.

Ladies, the wheels fell off your trolley a long long time ago – you all better start learning to walk.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Compound W is a liquid you paint onto a wart to make it disappear, sometimes it works, sometimes not, try rubbing half a potato on your wart – seriously – try it. 🙂

 

 

 

“I Wonder………..”

 

For some odd reason I recalled a conversation I had with a lovely and very charming young woman some time a couple of years ago, she had apparently heard me give one of my impromptu “speeches” about “the evils of feminism” in the middle of the day to some bewildered students.

Anyhoo, outside the arts building she approached me and asked “what kind of woman should I be?”

She also elaborated a bit, she had a brother who had died tragically the year before and she mourned him deeply, he was “her best friend” and she couldn’t correlate the things she was hearing in her lectures with either her beloved brother, her father or any male person she knew, or had ever known – she was a first year, and without even asking I knew what she was studying.

But of course I did ask – Sociology, Anthropology and History – sigh, (not the History, obviously)  the next question I asked of course was,  “What do you want to do, what area do you see yourself working in?

“Teaching or social work?  She said.

Which of course means, after first year she would probably drop history, and take the modules leading to the Social Science/Work Degree.

But my answer was that she stop thinking about what kind of woman she should, or could be, and simply embrace  her humanity, and that focusing on “being a woman” would suffocate and eventually extinguish her ability to do this – her current study path was one sure fire way to do exactly that, diminish her ability to exercise her humanity. Well, I know what they teach in these lectures, you all know what they teach, and we all know it is total and utter crap – which is why I said to her  –

“Forget about “being a woman” forget about your darling brother as “being a man” – and concentrate on being a human being, and remembering what a wonderful human being your brother was”

Being “a woman” or “being a man” is incidental to being a human being, because if you focus on that, you will realise that this opens up a whole world of wider and higher principles to aspire to, it allows you to transcend petty issues of “gender” of alleged differences in treatment, of manufactured “inequalities” and superficial social and cultural conventions.

It will allow you to shake off and reject the script written by small minded, spiteful, vindictive and malicious female human beings who call themselves feminists and have hijacked the conversation, the discourse, the very language of and about human interaction, of humanity, and what it means to be a human being.

Even our language has been warped and twisted, words have become vested with nasty meanings meant to deride and vilify one half of humanity.

Words like, courage, valour, strength, integrity and honour – and while you probably won’t find them in the library, the tales of valour, of courage and strength that epitomises the endeavours of the men who explored, challenged, strived and struggled to create the civilisation of comfort, safety and convenience you probably take for granted around you –  are worth reading.

There is one other word that should be added to that list – inventiveness.

Try and imagine for one moment if men such as Johannes GutenbergThe Printing Press (though there is some dispute about whether he invented it, or as a result of tinkering, developed a workable and viable model) Thomas EdisonOver a thousand inventions, Alexander FlemingPenicillin, had all decided – “sod it, couldn’t be bothered” and no other man could have been bothered either.

Try and imagine for one moment that no man ever looked at the world around him and began thinking; –

 “I wonder……..”

Because that is what feminism not just seeks to persuade you, to pressure you, to tell you, but to demand, to coerce, to insist and to make unlawful for you and any other human person to do; –

To wonder, to question, to examine, to be curious, to explore possibilities and follow the trail that leads from “I wonder………” to wherever it ends up.

Feminism seeks to trap and ensnare you in a cage, in a shell of being, in a rigid uncompromising and limiting entity called “being a woman” and if you think THAT cage is restrictive, you have no idea of the cage that they assign men to.

The shackles and chains, the bonds and ropes that men must – they insist, they demand, wear inside THEIR cages. These cages that they constructed to contain, to control, to destroy, what they have named “toxic masculinity”

These cages that have been constructed of lies and myths, of false and manufactured data and statistics, of the hysterical and poisonous rantings, writings and incomprehensible garbage of dysfunctional, hate filled, spiteful and malicious females.

It kind of sounds like I hate women, doesn’t it?

Actually I don’t, neither as a class, nor with rare exceptions as individuals – derision, contempt and scorn, these are the words that best describe my “feelings” towards women as a class, and as women on an individual basis, to varying degrees, as and when I encounter them. They are directed at what women say, what they do, how they behave, what they have become – not at them as female human beings or as autonomous entities. The reason is simple, they are autonomous sentient human beings, ergo they CHOOSE to act, to believe, and to be the way they are. To be this limited, superficial and vacuous creature called “woman”

I hold them, and will continue to hold them, and myself of course, accountable – because that is what defines and marks human beings out from every other species on this planet. The unique ability to be self – aware, and to CHOOSE, every single, without exception – action.  Absent of course human beings who have an intellectual, psychological or physiological disability which robs them, or deprives them of this ability.

It also sounds like I am doing what feminists claim the mystical patriarchy has done to women throughout the ages – written women out of history.

Again, nope, but until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, women were constrained, were limited, with very few exceptions, by not just their own physical limitations, but by what they were designed to do –  I suppose by Mother Nature/evolution,  and what they COULD do.

Therefore, when it came to sometimes being able, by the very nature of the limited range of occupations available for both men and women, to do significant things, things that impacted upon the course of human history it was simply that men worked in areas that positioned them in a place where they could wonder, could reflect on what they had to do and say; –

“I wonder………”

Some of those early inventions, the prototypes that generated and precipitated a succession of improved versions, of a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, that led to the myriad range of devices and objects we don’t even notice any more. Never mind wondering where did the original idea come from, and from whom?

To the development of the improved and constantly improving physical structure of our societies and cultures, that came about as the result of tinkering and striving to create a better tool, a better way of “doing something” of performing some essential task, that generally benefitted and improved the lives of those for whom the vast majority of men worked FOR.

Their wives and children.

A rather simple example, I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s, if I wanted to talk to someone about something, I had two choices, I could physically go and knock on their front door and say “Hi, can I talk you about something?” or I could write a letter, walk to the post office, buy a stamp and post said letter, then wait – and depending on how far away they lived, that wait could be anything up to a week, for an answer.

Of course, we had access to telephones, but we, my family that is didn’t have a telephone till about 1980 (ish) In an emergency, we could ask a slightly more affluent neighbour, but it would have to BE an emergency.

I’ve had real time conversations with people in the UK, in the USA, in Canada and in various other far flung places in the world in the last few months – I rarely give it a thought now – I text friends with random questions or just say “Hi, how you doing” and get a reply back almost instantly. So, who do we have to thank for this?

Step up Martin Cooper. If you click on the link, the size of the first “mobile” phone will make you laugh, if you were born after say 1983.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s and definitely before this would have been considered magic, in the 1970’s and 1980’s it WAS considered science fiction – look at the communication devices in the original Star Trek series – can you see how that might have been the inspiration for mobile/cell phones?

Because somewhere, some man found himself thinking “I wonder………”

 Our physical lives have improved in ways that would have stunned and rendered speechless our ancestors and previous generations, including my own generation and my parents, but with an enormous sadness that I sometimes find quite difficult to articulate, as human beings, as sentient autonomous beings with access to the writings, the thoughts and the inspirational thinking of too many great men to list, and to be fair, a few great women – we have floundered, we have de-evolved, we have become base creatures, driven by the most crude and unenlightened impulses.

For 50 years and more our cultures and societies have been subjected to a mode of thinking, a set of beliefs, an ideological influence that is as coarse, as primitive, as corrupt and as vile as the worst of all vile ideologies.

It is savage and barbaric, it is as corrosive and toxic as harnessing the worst aspects of humanity could make it.

It IS what feminism is.

All the worst things that human beings could, and can be, peddled as the “truth” as the template for human progress, for what human beings are supposed to be.

So, to the lovely and charming Shauna*, don’t worry, don’t think about “being a woman” strive to be the best human being you can be. Always.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Not this charming young woman’s name. I met her strangely enough last year – she had as she said “started again” she had decided what she wanted to do, really wanted to be – was a veterinarian. Wonders will never cease. 🙂

 

“The Pursuit of Happyness”

 

No, it isn’t a typo or a misspelling – it is the title of a book, and a film based on the book, The Pursuit of Happyness by Chris Gardner.  But yes, it also a concept, and one that is enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America.

Pursuing, and having the Right to pursue happiness.

With an apology to my American readers, I have always found this a bit problematic, making the pursuit of something that defies definition a Right – because as we all know – what makes someone happy is a particularly unique and individual thing.

“One’s man’s feast is another’s man’s famine.”

An example, when it is not raining or cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, I like to sit on my back door step, and watch the sun go down, I live in the country, and I am surrounded by fields and trees, this particular spot gives me a view of nothing but trees with the setting sun shimmering through the leaves. It is a great place to sit and think.  For me this is sheer contentment, peace and stillness – it is happiness.

For others, it would be incomprehensible, just sitting there, doing nothing, looking at trees! Boooooooooooring!  

From my perspective, I’m not doing nothing, I am doing something, thinking, being still, watching the sun go down on another day.  In fact, if I have spent the day “doing something” or a whole lot of “something’s” – sitting on that step and “doing nothing” is what I look forward to doing. In essence my pursuit of happiness leads to a doorstep.

The story of Chris Gardner is the story of a man, his son, and how he overcame what where significant challenges, troubles and a lot of pain to get to a place where he could be happy. On one level it is the story of pursuing happiness, but it is also the story of a man whose pursuit of happiness caused him pain, was difficult, challenged him and plunged him into the depths of despair. It is also the story of a father and his son.

For Chris, happiness was having a job, having a home for himself and his son, feeling safe, being safe, keeping his son safe. It is a remarkable story, a story of a man who set his goal, then worked to reach that goal. Will Smith who portrays Chris in the film, and with his own son Jaden playing the part of Chris’s son,  called Christopher (an adorable and engaging little boy – the type of child what we here in Ireland would say about – “I could just run away with that child”) does an incredible job of acting.

The iconic scene is when after working as an intern in Dean, Witter, Reynolds in San Francisco, for no salary for six months he is called into the boardroom and told, in an especially charming way that out of 20 potential candidates for just the one job on offer, he has got it.

He is told to “wear a shirt tomorrow” as rather than this being his last day, tomorrow will be his first day.

If you do watch the film, pay attention to how Will Smith portrays receiving the news, on the surface he says all the right things, he thanks them, he acts with incredible dignity, but in his eyes, on his face, one see’s the emotion, the gratitude, the joy and happiness and relief of a man who has struggled, who has persevered, who has suffered pain. Did I get a lump in my throat?  Of course I did.

Oddly, even though I knew that Chris Gardner reached his goal, watching his struggles, I found myself wishing, hoping and praying – please let him get the job – please let him get the job – daft, I know.

By the way, I do realise that the film presents this story in a particular way, that poetic licence is taken with some aspects of the actual events that transpired.  Having said that, the story is grounded IN actual events, in one man’s reality – as a story or as a film presentation of a story it is a remarkable and inspiring one.

Which brings us to this – theHappiness Survey.

To summarise, women in general are miserable, unhappy, discontented – which is odd when you consider that women in general (and yes I know I’m generalising) have very few “things” that they have to struggle to achieve, to get, to obtain – they are given preferential treatment in school, in applying to college and in gaining  employment.

In one scene of the film, Chris tries to get a place to sleep for himself and his son in a shelter, but is told that they only “take women” ironically he is told they will “take his son in” but not him. So, even when women, in general, find themselves in dire straits – and being homeless with a child is probably the direst of all dire straits – they (women) find refuge, are offered help and assistance – a place to sleep.

Still, women all over the western world are unhappy, and are apparently pissed off about it, because “being happy” has been embedded in the consciousness of women as a Right – they are entitled to be happy – not being happy is an infringement of their “Rights

Chris makes a point about this – this Right to be happy – but rather than taking it a Right to BE happy – he gets the nuance – it is the Right to PURSUE happiness – to be free to achieve happiness by your own efforts. What he defines as “happyness” what will allow him to reach a place of being happy – is centred around being able to provide for himself and his son – a roof over their heads, being safe, being together.

What he never does, is whine, is demand, is expect any of this to be handed to him on a plate – he expects to have to work for it, he knows that it will be down to his efforts, his determination to not give up, his struggle, and he does have to struggle.

The film does not sugar coat this remarkable journey, nor does it shrink from showing that Chris is human, he despairs, he rails against the situation he finds himself in, he loses his temper, with his son, but then almost immediately apologises to the child, and says something to the boy that resonates.

“don’t ever let anyone tell you what you can’t do, not even me!”

Contained in this message, this lesson to his son is another message, another lesson – that what you want to do requires that YOU do it – you work for it – YOU decide how to achieve it. Considering that every step of the way of Chris Snr’s journey, Christopher Jr is alongside, this boy, this child had seen, and was seeing, firsthand how his father struggled, how his father overcame and worked his way to where he wanted to go – it was not just words, it was a message, a lesson that they were living, that this little boy was learning alongside his father.

Almost all writings by women on how women can and should be happy take it from this position – what do women want? What do women need to be happy? What needs to change for women to be happy?

I have never seen a single piece of writing, nor have I ever heard a woman articulate this.  But am willing to be corrected on this – but bear in mind – I read – I read A LOT.

What do I need to DO, what steps to I need to take, how can I WORK towards, by my own efforts a state of happiness?

Happiness is deemed to be something that is bestowed upon one – as a Right – it is an entitlement – it is something that emanates from outside oneself – it is an external “thing” that is given to one. But most of all, it is something that you own, you should own, and it is something that should benefit ONLY you.

Back to the Doorstep.

When I sit on that doorstep, I am content, at peace – not all the time – it is a feeling of stillness, of being alone with my thoughts and of watching the sun go down. Of putting myself into context with the wider world – I am one lone human being in a world of human beings living on a planet – watching the sun go down reminds me that I am not the world, never mind the universe. What I do when I’m not sitting on that doorstep dictates whether or not the next time I sit there and watch the sun go down I will or won’t be in a state of happiness, or contentment or a bit stressed, tired, irritated, sad, angry – whatever.

Only what I do or don’t do will determine whether my “Pursuit of Happyness” ends in reaching that goal or not – so, for all those women bewailing not “being happy” what are you DOING to achieve that state of happiness you want, but more importantly what are YOU doing that has you stuck in that state of unhappiness?

To conclude, Chris Gardner achieved what can only be called the very heights of success, material success, it would be understandable if he “rested on his laurels” and enjoyed the easy and privileged life he had managed by his own efforts to obtain – so what happened next?

“As a single parent for 25 years, Gardner has demonstrated his concern for the well-being of children through his work with and on behalf of organizations such as the National Fatherhood Initiative, the National Education Association Foundation and the International Rescue Committee. Gardner is still very committed to Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco; where he and his son received assistance in the early 1980’s”

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

Note: I was a bit concerned about The Fatherhood Initiative programme that Chris Gardner was cited as a board member of, so I tried to access its webpage, to no avail. Wikipedia was the path I had to take, from here, I was led to here and finally to here.

Was it disappointing? Yes, it was, the emphasis appears to be on re-engaging “absent fathers” with their children, but does not address the core issues that lead to fathers being absent, or rather being forced to be absent from their children’s lives. Does it change my admiration for the remarkable achievement of Chris Gardner? Not at all, but it has confirmed that even though organisations like this one Fatherhood.org  might believe they are doing something positive and worthwhile for and on behalf of fathers, they have only half the story, they are operating on the basis of false information. It is incumbent upon all of us who consider ourselves to be Men’s Human Rights Activists to correct those errors, in knowledge, in attitude, in belief.

To that end, I will go through every resource listed on this site, and when done I will write to them and lay out those errors. I invite anyone who believes that this is an important and necessary task to do likewise.

Will it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we must try, we must at least offer them and other such organisations an alternative perspective.

Anja.

 

 

All My Heroes are Men, most of the people I despise are Women.

 

I know an odd title for an essay, but to give you an idea of what precipitated it, pop over to emma the emo’s blog for a read of this – Women Have no Honour.

“To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

 This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.”

I’ve been doing a lot of research lately, and as I mentioned in the essay about those fruitcakes over at Holy Hormones, and nope, not linking to it again, it was reading random articles about the exploits of men, through the ages that restored my sanity, didn’t prevent me from getting a headache, but made having a headache bearable.

With regard to the title as well, when I think of men, words like nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency spring to mind, as for women – and being the most likely to make it onto the list of people I despise the most – the feeling is mutual – at this point in my life – it only amuses me – to be honest it never actually bothered me – that women in general tend to dislike me – intensely.  In that extra special “way” that women have of manifesting their “disapproval” fortunately for most of my life, any of the things that women value and attempt to punish you for, by withdrawing or sabotaging, are things that I have never actually valued.

Chief amongst them being admittance to the “girl club” or being “one of the girls” I cannot think of anything that would induce a greater feeling of horror in me that either of those things.

To be fair, I do have, and have had lifelong friends, female friends, who without exception have been women “not like that” I could tell you stories!

So, it has been almost a revelation to me over the last year or so to encounter women like Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat), Janet Bloomfield (Judgybitch), Diana Davison (realityisabitch) and astonishingly, a growing number of other females who are not total and utter wretches. Who think, who can string a sentence together, who can objectively and with great intelligence and humour explore an idea, express a concept that does not begin and end with their bloody vaginas and/or uterus’s

The reason – because those qualities that I mentioned that spring to mind when I think of men, spring to my mind when I think of these women – which can only lead to one conclusion.

These are not male qualities per se, they are human qualities of the highest order, ANY human being can CHOOSE to ascribe, to develop, to enact and to display them.

Nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency are human qualities that women en masse have CHOSEN to reject, to fail to develop, to strive for – in favour of selfishness, self-absorption, pettiness, spitefulness, vindictiveness, vanity and egotism.

By the way, this is not a NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like that) thing – this is a WHY are most women “like that” – thing, and WHY do they not STOP being “like that”

Much is made of the so-called higher order of female qualities, such as caring and nurturing and compassion, of the sacrifices women apparently make for their children, for their “men” of all the tasks that they perform for and on behalf of others.

In fact, I don’t believe it would be an exaggeration to say that women en masse will, and do beat that drum persistently, continuously and ad nauseum about how caring, nurturing, and compassionate they are. What is derisory is that these things – the caring, the nurturing of children in particular – are what one would expect as a natural pattern of behaviour – normal, having children by default assumes that one DOES these things, not as some extra special effort on your part but because – THATS WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO!  If you are a decent human being, that is.

There is one woman I want add to the three female human beings who I’ve mentioned as worthy of admiration and respect and to be counted among honourable human beings – my mother.

Two of my mother’s oft repeated phrases, whenever she felt someone was getting “a bit above themselves” were these:

“self praise is no praise”

and

“empty vessels make the most noise”

From her perspective, praise for doing or achieving something was a gift, a gift from others, an acknowledgment that you had done or achieved something worthwhile – demanding it, or expecting it, or reciting your supposed achievements to garner it, invalidated and negated the value of your supposed achievement, or in this instance – quality.

Because, the other thing she was adamant about was this – if the only reason you do something is to GET praise – then doing it is a gesture, an empty shallow gesture meant to benefit ONLY you.

Back to My Heroes.

One of the things that marks out these particular men below, both real and fictional, as worthy heroes and role models, not just for boys but for girls too, is that invariably they were flawed human beings, they were not as women like to portray themselves “visions of perfection” they strove and failed, they were beset by doubts and fears, and they did not consider themselves to BE heroes, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do – and without exception, for and behalf of others with no expectation of “praise” of “personal gain” or even of sometimes surviving their endeavours.

Janet Bloomfield (aka Judgybitch) wrote an excellent piece on one of my modern day heroes – a fictional character – John McClane – of the Die Hard series of films – I have to say the original is my favourite, and will admit to a secret “admiration” for Bruce Willis – but that’s just between me and thee – ok?

John is everyman, he does what does because he cannot in all conscience do otherwise and live with himself – and no-one else will step up – Janet’s article nails it to a tee, much better than I could.

William Wilberforce the nobility, the courage and the relentless persistence of this man in the face of personal struggles, of mockery, of the disdain of his peers is admirably captured in the film Amazing Grace slavery was, until feminism came along, one of the most egregious stains on the history of humanity – slavery is to dehumanise a human being, to reduce a human being to an object, a piece of property. In William Wilberforce’s time – this was “normal” and here we are in the 21st century, and yet again we have a culture where it is “normal” to view human beings as objects of utility, as property, as less than human.

Aragorn (Strider) – One of my all time favourite books, “The Lord of The Rings” – first read it when I was 16, and read it every year for a long long time – then the  films came out and regrettably I haven’t read it since then.  Aragorn displays that other quality that men have and exercise on behalf of, and for others – leadership – leadership in the face of ,and in spite of their own fears and doubts about themselves, about their leadership abilities – he leads because someone must lead – someone must take responsibility – someone must put the mission first, and their own fears and doubts aside – Aragorn is that man, and is every man who has ever walked towards danger, towards the source of their greatest fear, and towards that which would “chill the heart of me” for others, for a cause, for a mission, for others.

Firefighters, rescue workers, soldiers, almost all men, almost all faced with constant danger, constant threat and always walking towards it, facing it, protecting others from it. Protecting women from it.

“If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. ” Aragorn.

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Ghenghis Khan – now you all think I’ve completely lost the plot. Read this book – Bones of the Hills by Conn Iggulden published in 2009 by Harper – website www.conniggulden.com for more information.

Ghenghis Khan forged a civilisation, a Nation, a nomadic nation out of innumerable warring tribes – never a builder of roads, of monuments, Ghenghis Khan was a unique and exceptional individual, his exploits by our standards were bloodthirsty, but he was a man in, and of his time.

“In the seventeenth century the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote:

Under the reign of Ghenghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

From: Bones of The Hills by Conn Iggulden; Historical Note – page 542 (own copy – emphasis added)

Feminism and feminists have corrupted and have poisoned our cultures and our nations, have harnessed the ephemeral grip on honour that women have always had, and to be fair were expected to have, unlike the true hard won honour that men have always strived, struggled and fought for  – has diminished to nothingness that load upon women, till to all intents and purposes women now believe they have no need for honour, or integrity or decency.

Sadly, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, we worship things, we live in and on the most superficial plane of existence, the banal, the trite, and the asinine have become our touchstones, our standard. The keepers of these things are feminists, they insist, they demand, they blackmail and they coerce so that our cultures remain – dishonourable – superficial – tawdry.

 “A nation lives forever through its concepts, honour, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation’s historical honour, of the nation’s eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honour at all costs.”

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So, when I say that I despise women, with very few rare exceptions, it is not only because they have no honour, but they CHOSE deliberately to have no honour – because – it IS a choice.

The last word goes to my mother:

“You may chose any course of action you wish, good bad or indifferent, what you don’t get to chose are the consequences”

We are living with the consequences of a culture infected with the poison of dishonourable, corrupt and toxic feminism.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Previous Older Entries