Feminists copy Neo-Nazis by re-writing history

Feminists copy Neo-Nazis by re-writing history

A particularly chilling article by a Swede.


– the town of Uppsala in Sweden, first had The State Institute for Racial Biology
connected to the University of Uppsala – for racial studies,
an important influence for Adolf Hitler.
Today, Uppsala is foremost notorious for being Sweden´s Feminist Capitol.

The University of Uppsala have updated their racial studies to the 21st Century:
now they call it Gender Research.

I’m Not Like Other Women

I admit it. I’m an odd one. As I struggle to understand the modern gender wars, feminism, gynocentrism throughout the ages, and the Men’s Human Rights Movement, I am repeatedly struck by the realization that I’m unique as an American Woman and perhaps as a woman in general.

Moreover, resentment of mothers—including women who look like they must be mothers—or women who “selfishly” eschewed the imperative—means that I must bear some blame for the prevalent maternal alienation afflicting the generations that I precede. As a victim of maternal alienation myself, I don’t accept that blame. Rather, I deliberately chose to not perpetrate the pathology of my family tree nor to bring a child into a world of which I do not approve. Given all the goodies that would be available to me if I were to have reproduced, my choice could not be called “selfish” by any stretch. Rather, it would seem to me that women who have children for utilitarian purposes define selfishness and narcissism. That’s not me by a long shot.

It would seem that the feminine and feminist dictate to conform is shared by many American MHRAs who are so certain that bogeywomen lurk around every corner that they don’t recognize an ally in me. If I don’t fit in the Bell Curve and even outly the outliers, then I don’t exist and have no business blogging my existence. Yet, I persist. At least when I get emotional reactions from men who think they know me but don’t, I realize that I am hitting a nerve and therefore I exist.

However, here’s the thing: I believe I’ve learned a lot from my unusual life. The fact that I’m alienated from any particular place, having grown up nowhere nor with any particular demographic—no, my father was not in “the service”—sets me apart from most. However, since I have no “people” or “place” I’m relatively free of much of the school and media-based “programming” that is part and parcel of the social engineering experiment that defines the United States since the early 20th Century.

But here’s the thing: it irks me that when I participate in a Men’s blog—adding a comment—why I am repeatedly replied to under the assumption that I am a) a feminist; b) like the other women who apparently hurt the other commenters in some way; c) with powers that I don’t have? Moreover, it would seem that a new breed of fatherless son is every bit as histrionic, resentful, and entitled as the most ardent female feminist. The future of humanity doesn’t look very good to me.

Part of the allure of anti-feminism has to do with my social alienation from pretty much every institution and most particularly feminism. Why wouldn’t I be opposed to it? It would seem to me that any rational human being sees that there’s no real advantage to elevating one sex over another—or degrading one. Why else would I be participating in (I hope) positive and encouraging ways if I didn’t feel a kinship with the manosphere?

Not only do I sympathize with many of men’s complaints against women, I can empathize. As a large woman curiously deprived of protection or chivalry as a young girl now fully expected to be self-reliant, strong, and independent because I wasn’t presented with an alternative and who was also a victim of a vindictive spouse (vindictive toward all humanity it would seem but most particularly my phenotype and archetype) and have been intimate with many (many!) male victims of domestic violence and abuse, of course I have empathy with Men’s Human Rights Advocates. In fact, I take it a step further. I am more than willing for my rights and all rights of women to be rolled back just so that I won’t have to be the scapegoat of the next feminist petty dictator or bureaucrat who decides that it is my responsibility to pay for all her personal grievances. I have female ancestors who made history—huge differences in civic life—who did so without even the dubious benefit of “the vote”. I’m eager for a regression to The Stone Age. I’m strong and resourceful. Bring it on!

Does my lack of “wallowing in victimhood” mean that I’ve never been victimized? Hardly. My story defies credibility with its abuse and sheer brutality. Do I blame men and masculinity for it? Of course not. Rather it would seem to me that women and feminized or emasculated men have comprised the majority of my tormentors. In fact, the record is so obviously slanted that I have to assume that any man who decides that I’m a force on the internet to be silenced and shamed is obviously lacking in masculinity whether from psychological or actual poisoning. Am I sorry that this happened to the poor fellow? Of course. Do I take responsibility for it? Not on your life. Meanwhile, I happen to prefer the company of strong, self-assured masculine men whose self esteem is not elevated by attempts to humiliate me or “put me in my place.” Rather, my place is fighting alongside those men or in proud subservience thereof.

So, Mr. Castrated Weenie, bring it on. Mr. Beta Loser, you can wish you’ll get the better of me if that redeems your lifetime of marginalization and rejection by what you assume are “the likes of me”; however, I have a secret weapon: I’m not like those women. I’m entirely beyond the limited experiences of your sheltered existence and I don’t back down.

In fact, compared to “The Master Manipulator” (my ex-husband’s self-characterization), you’re small potatoes. Offering yourself up to me as fair game makes my day. I practice “rhetorical judo” trusting that you’ll hang yourself by your own words. Listen carefully. You might learn something. Wishful thinking I suppose, for when it comes to your generation you rely solely on major media and “role models” to show you the way and therefore, I am operating from a tremendous advantage having never had that reliance.


By my reckoning, Monsanto is the logical outgrowth of a utopian pyramid scheme that demands endless growth, as economic and religious models. Monsanto “feeds the world,” with its overblown population, a whole lot of crap. But if they didn’t do it, someone else would.

Someone asked on FetLife whether Monsanto and genetically engineered food might be responsible for the modern obesity epidemic. Of course it is a factor as is all “food” that isn’t really “food” but merely a substitution for same. But does the starving or poor person really have a choice? Probably not. It turns out that life is not a bed of roses in defiance of mathematics. Should this swill be labeled? Probably, but, in the realm of unintended consequences, I believe that labeling GE food will result in poor self esteem in the poor sods forced to eat this stuff. Meanwhile, anyone with a wit of understanding (and means) buys organic in order to avoid GE. Do we really need labels in order to set apart the “Loaded with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers but at least it isn’t Frankenfood” vs. “Experimental swill. You be the guinea pig, economically!”

Many still believe that the Universal Law of Thermodynamics is the only serious explanation for obesity, that is, more calories in than calories burned equals fat. However, that logic is seriously flawed. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie regardless of accompanying nutrients then we would be filling our gas tanks with corn syrup.

We don’t, of course, preferring a high octane fuel source, that is, a degree of saturation or hydrogen geared toward the particular engine that is doing the burning.

Moreover, if a calorie is a calorie then merely administering insulin to a person–or various dopamine antagonist/anti-psychotics–with no change in caloric content–would not result in weight gain, but they do. Merely increasing the stress-level (cortisol production) will result in weight gain in some persons but not others depending on endocrine system functioning and health (thyroid, adrenals, pancreas, pituitary, sex organs).

Nutritional starvation–whether on a purely caloric basis or a nutrient deficiency basis–will result in endocrine adaptation of some sort. The nature of the endocrine adaptation is largely based on genetics. However, genetic expression is largely based on generational nutrition, that is what your great grandparents ate has a bearing on your own genetic expression as does your own nutrition, that is, the budding scientific field of epigenetics.

As top soils are depleted and “maximum yield” is produced using synthetic fertilizers and seeds bred for productivity and shelf life rather than nutritional basis, and now seeds bred in order to be resistant to increasing levels of poison–herbicide (a chemical cousin of Agent Orange known as “Round-up”), the sheer nutritional value of food is reduced, and thereby organ “adaptation” such as insulin sensitivity, cortisol over-production, estrogen (fat-producing) over-production and corresponding reduction of adrenalin, dopamine, testosterone, human growth hormone, immune system components, pituitary, thyroid, and of course ATP (with the actual ratio highly dependent on genetics), essentially results in an inferior human animal or what could even be called de-evolution or devolution.

So, keep right on over-reproducing and watch how human cranial size, pelvic size, and jaw size continue to reduce over time in comparison to relatively recent human ancestors of the Twentieth Century, never mind earlier centuries–adjusting for the genetic damage produced by poverty and its accompanying nutritional and environmental stressors.

Monsanto is therefore an evolutionary pressure–assists in the devolution of “obedient” reproductive machines who are “trusting” in an entity that exists solely for profit with no other consideration. Naturally, it wouldn’t do if all of those trusting consumers were to die off instantly, upon consuming their treat. Therefore, any harm done must be subtle and gradual–not instantaneous.

Monsanto requires a constant stream of obedient and trusting consumers/cheap labor and therefore benefits with each phase of human devolution. The movie, Idiocracy is all too prophetic. Fortunately, obesity lowers fertility, and so do nutritional deficiencies in general; however, not fast enough.

The average lifespan is already starting to dip and eventually there will be a virtual split in the human genome such that there will be a “slave class” who is plenty physically productive and utilitarian in youth and then has the good taste to die young, ruled by a “master class” with no such devolutionary pressures.

Do Monsanto employees eat their own swill? They say they do: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/what-monsanto-serves-in-its-cafeterias.aspx

I have my doubts.

Is BDSM Inherently Misogynist?

I found a link to this article: http://oliveseraphim.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/my-problem-with-kinkbdsm/ within a post in FetLife and nearly commented right there in the blog (but thought better of it). The premise of the article is that BDSM is inherently misogynist–regardless of what genders may be playing the top and bottom roles. Since my own dynamic is particularly “Politically Incorrect,” I feel compelled to respond in some manner. Here’s what I’d like to tell Ms. Seraphim:

Re: “I think this from my own personal experience as a woman who was in the scene and abused in it, and despite the visibility of that abuse, everyone else was crickets.” Perhaps the other people in your local scene assumed that you were an adult, with agency, who was able to make your own decisions as to what worked for you, what risks you wanted to take, how to express your sexuality, and keep your sanity in the process. Obviously, they were incorrect.

In short, the misogynist is her for believing that adult women need special protections from their own choices.

However, I think that it is wonderful that she is basically telling her friends and admirers to stay away from BDSM. We most certainly do not need more children in the scene. I say we all buy her a stack of romance novels and a vibrator–that would be a whole lot safer.

Pube Walks on the Wild Side

Thank you to Anja Eriud, for bringing my attention to an article about female public hair in the The Irish Times.

Her blog: http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com

The offending article: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/growing-up-down-there-me-and-my-pubic-hair-1.1785558

Trigger alert! Clicking the second link above may result in damage to one’s brain cells by virtue of the possible compulsion to bang one’s head against the wall.

Whereas, clicking the first link will introduce you to the meme, “pube walk” by Ms. Eriud. I am so grateful! Even if her fine sensibilities prevent her from actually reading the second article, that meme was just too juicy for me to resist and I have no such sensibilities. I’m a crude, rude, politically-incorrect American! Thanks for the red meat, Ms. Eriud.

To sum up Ms. Eriud’s stance, whereas “slut-shaming” resulted in “slut walks”, is it possible that “pubic hair shaming” may result in “pube walks”? Not yet, but it could happen! Pube walks could be on their way to a busy shopping district near you. Don’t believe me?

When it comes to feminists crowing their relevance, nothing is sacred. If you want proof, read Amy Schumer’s “powerful” speech about confidence delivered at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women: http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html

In the case of Ms. Schumer, she “celebrates” a “booty call” by a drunk college senior that resulted in the metaphorical water balloon being inserted into the keyhole, or coitus flacidus, if you prefer. The celebration has to do with Ms. Schumer’s own sense of empowerment as a sloppy attention whore. Moreover, as described by the MHRA, she is also a rapist if one goes by the current college definition thereof wherein one party mayeth not be thus impaired-eth and the other party is expected to resist all sexual advances by the less mature, and inebriated party (if a woman is drunk and a man is not drunk is how it works in practice). However, answering a booty call and otherwise invading the poor drunk victim’s space, is clearly an aggressive act, regardless of whether an invitation to enter was issued! Thanks to: http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/05/wait-a-second-did-amy-schumer-rape-a-guy/

But back to pube walks. If you hate pubic hair, a “pube walk” will probably make you hurl. Whereas if you love pubic hair, you might not ever again unless of course you love obese angry entitled feminists sporting it daring you to “shame” them for it.

Since I live near Los Angeles, a town that may be the most body-obsessed of all, where “man-scaping” is as common as landscaping, I couldn’t resist tackling this hairy issue. You see, I am clearly the nemesis of the author of the second article because I just love removing my body hairs. I don’t do it out of shame. I do it out of love. But wait. Guess what I make my man do? Brace yourselves.

Don’t read this Anja Eriud.

I make him trim and shape his beard. I know. It’s pretty abusive.

OK I lied. It’s worse than that. I don’t make him trim and shape his beard. He does this because he wants to do this. I’m fine with whatever makes him happy in terms of his appearance. Moreover, let it be said that I love to rub my face against his beard. Love it! Too much whisker, in my view, is just right. But that’s not all.

I prevent him from trimming his body hair. It’s true! He used to do a little trimming in that, well, he likes to encourage intimate attention of his special parts, and as a measure of consideration for the administrator of such tender affections, he used to trim his hair, here and there. I asked him to stop doing that. If you can’t imagine why I would make this request of him, it is because, I love to rub my face against his… You get the idea. Too much fluff, in my view, is just right. But that’s not all.

I prevent him from tweezing his eyebrows. It’s true! I love that bushy eyebrow look. But that’s not all.

I like the way that he smells, naturally, especially after a day of working hard in the sun. To that end, I discourage him from showering too often, or from wearing deodorant. He is an abused man!

Whereas for me, I get more attention from him when I comply with his wishes and he gets more attention from me when he complies with mine. How’s that for a sick co-dependency?

I suppose that a hairy-love-walk is out of the question?

The Obsolete Ideas of Freedom and Democracy

A discussion on privacy, alcohol, tobacco, leaded gas, and breastfeeding leads to epiphanies. Just at the right moment, this article appeared in my feed:

Frank Davis

Still thinking about freedom. And about something that Walt wrote:

The question for us– who historically knew freedom as a tangible substance– is will we, as peoples, forget what we knew? And/or, will our children be taught to unlearn it?

I was thinking today that ideas like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and so on might be said to be rather 18th century concepts, which have gradually ceased to mean very much. They’ve become obsolete. They’ve passed their sell-by date.

These days, with the rise of science, our elites tend towards a ‘scientific’ view of human life and human society – even though very few of them have any scientific education.

Our current eugenic social engineering programmes aimed at eradicating tobacco and alcohol and obesity are examples of late 19th century or early 20th century ‘progressive’ scientific thinking.

And notions like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ really have no place at all in scientific…

View original post 439 more words