Pornography has always exercised the Puritanical, anti-freedom elements of society. Porn and prostitution are of course, intimately related to each other; pornography is defined as ‘images depicting the activities of prostitutes’, after all. so we should not be surprised to see that, as the current attempts to restrict porn gain ground, this is happening alongside an attempt to ban all forms of sex work.
Feminism is not about equality and has not been since the 1960s. So-called ‘second wave’ feminists abandoned all pretence of that. Instead it became about women having power; not just equal power but total power. Specifically, power over men.
Feminism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because it is rooted in Marxism, which is against democracy. However, this form of Marxism is not identical to the original materialist one; it has been modified because women rank social power more highly than material wealth. So the original economic form of Marxism was modified using another philosophical system, this time called Postmodernism. This ranks everything and everyone in terms of social power.
Some years ago I watched as a mouthy but entertaining young journalist called Milo Yiannopoulos was defenestrated, his career shattered. I was minded to write something about it now because of a statement Victor Davis Hanson recently made about how Wokeness has become the New Terror.
Milo Yiannopoulos was not destroyed because he is a conservative, despite the rabid political climate of the West today. His adversaries were stymied there, because Yiannopoulos has gay privilege. He is in a protected identity class. So how did they do it?
Until quite recently, I had no idea what the ‘Red-pill’ was. It turns out that this comes from the Matrix series of films, in which the hero is given a choice: “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Over the last 15 years I had increasingly become sympathetic towards feminist voices. They seemed reasonable. Women should have equal rights to men, shouldn’t they? The basic premise — of ‘equality between the sexes’ — seemed unassailable, and this was how the feminist case was being presented. Men, they said, oppressed women and this had to be changed.
We in the West are lucky. We live in the most varied, rich and progressive culture the world has ever known.
This culture, which has given the world so much, is under attack. The attackers are a vile alliance of female, black, Islamic and gender supremacists. These are collectively known as the ‘woke’ Left. Their target, principally, is white men, especially Christians.
Feminism long ago stopped being about equality between men and women. In the West that was achieved decades ago anyway. The current fashion is to try to persuade us that there is no difference between males and females. The ultimate purpose of this is to replace males with females and, in the end, to eradicate masculinity. But this disregards the science completely, in favour of flat-earth concepts that have no foundation in fact
Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens.
The 19th of November being International Men’s Day — which you probably did not know — I thought I’d do a humorous little piece about freedom. Escaping the gynocracy and its would-be closed sex market, that is.
An essential part of the gynocracy’s closed sex market is that women must be the only permissible sex providers. But the fact is that men are not so fussy. In the dark, well, then — one cul is much like another, n’est-ce pas? So why can’t we have a free sex market? Why do women have to control it, especially in cultures where they have effectively given up motherhood?
Women have always tried to make male sex with other males taboo, in order to control men. After all, it would not do if a man refused his wife’s demands because he was getting his knob polished by that cute batang bakla from next door, you know. Women have to maintain power over men somehow. And shaming them for the way they have sex, well, that’s an easy one. It’s the go-to weapon and always has been.
Despite this, across the planet, especially where cis girls are strictly verboten, men pursue sex with other males, who look like girls and can be fucked.
This is an unusual post for me. It is likely that my web presence will have to be significantly modified in the future. I’m afraid Covid-19 has caught up with us and we have lost all our sponsorships and support. This website generates no income and is really a vanity. So things will have to change and it is likely that I shall use other media more in the future.
However, before beginning these changes, I want to make a few things quite clear, regarding the ‘trans debate’, if something so vicious can be called a debate.
It’s clear that there is a deal of brouhaha about the extent to which transsexualism is impacting on the lesbian and gay, and to a lesser extent bisexual, lifestyle and political hegemony in the West. This is contributing to an increasingly bitter spat about young transitioners — people transitioning gender before they reach their majority.
There is no doubt that political activists are operating on this body of young people, some with laudable motives, others not so; but why is the lesbian and gay community so exercised?
I first published this article on 5 May 2018 and while my thinking has evolved since then, the article remains sound and particularly in an era of increased transphobia, especially in the UK, on point. Today I would perhaps use some different terms but the sense is correct.
In order to rescue civilisation we must act quickly. The following sets out a viable manifesto.
Men and women are different. This is innate, not the product of ‘socialisation’.
Men are risk-taking and women are risk-avoidant.
This is an evolved adaptation linked to the two-group tribal structure in which women and children are protected by shielding them from risk, while men are expendable. This structure gives rise to ‘female privilege’ in which women are deferred to by men and there is a taboo against violence towards them.
It is generally the case that the two-group structure is present in all non-urbanised cultures (ie, those which do not build cities and have a low level of technological development, though they might be extremely sophisticated in other ways).