Hypergamy vs. Madonna/Whore

While I am an anti-feminist, this does not imply that I agree with all things said by all anti-feminists, for I am a unique individual with a unique life and therefore a statistical outlier by most commonly-known metrics of today.

While I support the choice of a man to “go his own way” I find MGTOWs to be oddly conflicted, not the least of which is the presence of the “T” for “They” in MGTOW—as if MGTOW is a herd comprised of individuals swearing allegiance to that herd-mentality while denying the existence of authoritative hierarchy (a natural outgrowth of the older generation effectively betraying the younger, in so many ways, while not providing a particularly sustainable backlash).

Whereas Feminists use the sophistry of Not All Feminists Are Like That as a deflection from all rational charges of hypocrisy, apparently All MGTOWS Are Like That, or else they are kicked out of the club. I don’t blame them for this reaction given that “inclusiveness” gets old however intuitively, and dare I say maternally, wish to spare them from some of the pain I have encountered in the course of my own path.

Meanwhile, there really is no right answer or happy medium between “everyone should be a little girl forever and ever” and “you are either with us or against us.” Debates between the merits of kindergarten inclusiveness vs. militarism or other objective-oriented top-down cohesiveness need to concede that both dynamics are necessary and neither will ever be “equal” nor even “opposite”. However, when it comes to MGTOW, it isn’t clear to me whether a leader can possibly truly emerge (albeit there are plenty of pretenders) or whether it strives for a false “Communist” structure with members either being in “the party” or consigned toward slavery to it as a “good comrade”.

None for me, thanks.

Meanwhile, a statement by “Jim” tells me that I had best address this whole Patriarchy vs. Female Feral Behavior thing before notions of “one true way” male supremacy get out of hand:

Moment to moment female sexual choice needs to be forbidden, and Islam needs to be forbidden outside of Dar al Islam.

Have you guys learned nothing? Forbidding something makes it more desirable/sacred/etc. in the long run. There have got to be exceptions even if there’s no good reason to reveal such exceptions to children, our “glasnost” age notwithstanding. However, in a “democracy” all rhetoric has to be geared down to the lowest common denominator for maximum adherence thereto. Democracy has some serious drawbacks and requires revolution from time to time.

For the record (and I suppose I should have made this announcement before I caught the eyes of a bunch of Christian Bigots) I am not opposed to Islam. Nor Christianity. Nor Judaism! I’m not opposed to religions albeit, it is a given that every pyramid scheme eventually becomes corrupt.

As Rupert Sheldrake’s guru says:

All Paths Lead to God.

However, I’m not personally super-keen on monotheism myself, because I think that diversity of Gods is actually a good thing albeit probably not all at the same time. I believe that there ought to be seasonal Gods and rituals, with not all seasons being universal constructs. Location location location.

All utopias are destined to fail eventually and longevity is not its own reward. That said, of course, I can see the value in keeping most women on a short leash. Specifically most women are happiest with guaranteed outcomes; i.e., “security” and depending on men to provide it, at least until they grow the fuck up. Monogamy sounds like a reasonable trade-off for that security during a female’s reproductive prime. Exceptions to that rule however must apply to exceptional people such as my special snowflake self.

I would like to introduce the concept of the Gangbang vs. the “Mitzi Gaynor” dynamic, with the former being ideally (or at least historically—in my own lifetime) male dominated and the latter a dancing diva on a stage full of identically-dressed men who defer to Mitzi in every way (and might even be gay).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xXo2Fgrnj6c“>

The female member of the first configuration is a slut and the latter is a whore. I realize that nowadays (and perhaps always) it is very difficult for the outside observer to tell the difference. Whores make a business of pretending to be sluts, and sluts who desire to live long often pretend to be whores. The relative weight of money vs. sex is the deciding factor.

If the point of an engineered utopia is to constantly increase population then:

Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

Source: http://newamerica.net/node/8092

However, at some point, more babies is not better, and, in my view, overpopulation relative to opportunities and resources combined with the technology to hold-up a calcified dystopia invariably leads to some sort of “feminist” population correction mechanism a.k.a. “The Apocalypse”. More on the subject here: Population Sustainability

Moreover, as the quality of available men degrades, such as now, thanks to the estrogenization and shaming of men, forcing women to be faithful to these chemical-eunuchs is not going to work. Men who play rough will always be—at least secretly—in demand. I ought to know. Moreover a “Dominant” man willing to pay for the privilege of whipping a “slut” is a case of two oxymorons coming together.

Understandably, a man-boobed social reject is likely to throw a hissy fit and commit violence against someone to include himself. He’s been fooled, badly, by propaganda among other constructs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, in my view, let such men serve as living examples of the hazards of being born of an emasculating mother and an abandoning father.

Perhaps I embody a cautionary tale myself. Time will tell.

There are more than one, two, or three female archetypes. There are more than one, two, or three male archetypes. However, in monotheism, only certain archetypes are considered valid.

The Holy Father, Son, Virgin, and “Holy Spirit” are the only acceptable Christian archetypes, with that last undoubtedly standing in for “mother”, but, after some past Apocalypse, someone combined the female archetypes and removed the sexuality of the “goddess” as a means of staving off the next Apocalypse. My theory, of course. Alternatively, Christianity might simply be Judaism-Lite for the masses, because “give the people what they want” and that will repress peasant rebellion indefinitely. This simplistic view might be better applied to a particular brand of Christianity rather than another, but, I digress.

Removing the goddess archetype might seem like a grand idea however, eventually, all good ideas engender backlash. Nowadays, all sorts of women want to be goddesses, princesses, queens, etc. Fail!

I’m still trying to figure out which archetype am I but clearly, if I were to be forced to marry and be faithful to an effeminate man, I’d probably turn gay or celibate or crash planes full of civilians.

I’d rather be beaten and humiliated regularly and forced to gag on cock as a dietary regimen. Oh, did that sound sarcastic? I meant to say, I’d prefer… However, due to my awareness (among other reasons) of the Madonna/Whore disassociation of female archetypes in the male mind, I chose not to reproduce. I couldn’t take the chance of reproducing my father’s dysfunction in a man of my choice. Whereas my mother was clearly sexually available, my father it would seem barely acknowledged her once she adopted the maternal role in his mind. He might have preferred to sex it up with whores, perhaps, but given that his moral sensibilities didn’t permit that, he chose to use his daughters that way instead, but without corrupting us by any sort of compensation whatsoever. An extreme example for sure but meant to illustrate that “hypergamy” is not limited to women. Rather, narcissists of all sorts tend to disassociate or split archetypes rather than to love, honor, cherish, and fuck the same person at the same time. This being the case, prohibiting women from disassociating archetypes but permitting men to do so is bound to backfire eventually.

However, this one-sided disassociation is probably a really good idea if one wants an unbeatable utopia thanks to endless growth. Additionally, one might wish to avoid making a woman like me into some sort of role model for other women because productivity is likely to lapse.

The Virgin Mary is the ultimate in hypergamy given that she couples with the top dog of all, while remaining utterly “unsoiled” by mortal man. On the other hand, Lilith, the bad woman, seriously needs a good gangbang. That could have forestalled a whole lot of shenanigans, and there we would be, happily living a tribal, nomadic, hunter/gatherer life, without the need for crop rotations, fences, Great Big Walls, etc.

Meanwhile, Bacchus, that rolly polly God of hedonism and war, has no business getting married. Rather, what that man needs is a bunch of coke whores. As for me, however, I don’t respond well sexually to mere money nor gluttony, therefore, Bacchus is not the man for me. Rather, in my view, there is freedom in slavery. This particular Oracle likes to be whipped. Lacking such I issue all sorts of disruptive prophecy. Someone get that Oracle a gag! There goes the neighborhood.

Atheists Are Classists

It is important for me to occasionally jab ideologues who presume superiority, with Atheists the most superior of them all.

First of all, Atheists don’t have “class” only an easily-accessible knowledge structure that requires mere repetition and obedience to absorb. Even a very stupid person can absorb it, unless of course that person is evil, in which case we ought to at the least starve that person of economic opportunity, and prohibit such a person from “violence,” while pretending we’re giving him or her an “equal chance”. Here, repeat the daily mantra, and have some food stamps, you uneducatable idiot. How dare you question the equality of all human beings.

Since Atheists don’t have “class” the fact that obviously some people have more things than others and some absorb their lessons better proves that individual atheists are evolutionarily superior to other persons, according to whatever theory is democratically agreed upon by individuals appointed by superior persons of authority who just happen to command all resources and get all the pussy.

Therefore, everything that might be construed as “class” or “knowledge” is a matter of sheer evolutionary adaptation, with some individual collections of organic matter being more evolved than others, so get used to it. It’s “Science.”

There is no past because the future just gets better and better as we evolve more and more.

There is no justice or karma in the universe, only “Science”. Oh, and violence is bad. Accept the status quo, idiot, and starve gracefully, because you had your “equal” chance to obey.

It is fortunate for atheists that I don’t agree with them and that I believe that there are truths which are unknowable. I believe that those with the most hubris will, eventually, karmically, be made the greatest fools. Such persons are done-in, poetically, by their own lizard brains.

The Feminist Father is Projecting

Men who sympathize with the “powerlessness” of young women in their sexual prime and want to “empower” them with self-determination might be advised to give their daughters prophylactic hysterectomies. The sheer hubris that “education” is more powerful than the uterus and vagina is practically Darwinism in terms of the likelihood of poor reproductive outcomes.

However a father who does not wish to take responsibility for his daughter, and neither does he want to allow another man to take the reins, may in fact be acting on a pedophilia impulse, whether realized or not, to keep his daughter for himself or otherwise limit the success of her progeny.

“If only women had the same ‘freedom’ as men to exercise their sexual impulses misguidedly then they wouldn’t be ‘oppressed’,” cries the white knight, Oedipus. Moreover, such women would thereby gratefully and joyously extend their sexual favors to all irresponsible men, for no compensation whatsoever because, “the best things in life are free” and “math is oppressive!”

Such fathers shouldn’t be too surprised to discover that their daughters come to embody Artemis, while meanwhile father is Dionysus, and guess what’s for dinner?

The more successful becomes a career woman the less likely she is to find a man who will ever supplant Daddy. Perhaps, however, the Feminist Father believes the myth that such a woman will bring home a better man than he being so well exposed to men by the numbers, and he secretly, masochistically fantasizes about being cuckolded by such a man.

To be born isn’t “fair” and nothing is “fair”. To be capable of acting in one’s own interest however is not something that is guaranteed by simply being the age of majority. Most people never learn how and little girls and boys who refuse to grow up probably least of all.

Little Girls Determine Who May Own A Gun

The rate of female homicide rises with the rate of firearm availability, and 74 percent of all women homicide deaths happen in their home.

This horrendous arithmetic illustrates why new legislation introduced by Gabriela Mosquera (D-Camden) is the most logical proposal to deal with domestic violence to come around in a while, because it takes guns out of the home where abuse has occurred.

This bill, headed for the Assembly Judiciary Committee, is 10,000 words long but actually direct: If there’s a gun at the scene of a domestic violence case, the responding officer can take the attacker’s firearms, his permit, and his purchaser I.D. card.

Source: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/take_guns_away_from_domestic_abusers_-_permanently.html

The “attacker” is of course a male; because to insinuate that a female is capable of attacking anyone else including another female isn’t credible because good girls don’t own guns nor do they attack. Only bad men have guns.

The next time a feminist request an escort to her car, through a rough neighborhood, or any other protection of any sort, explain to her that only bad men have guns; good men don’t and therefore, she’s on her own.

That last applies double to this woman:

Little Girls Create Truth and Justice

Expanding on my notion of our perfect utopia, I reprint herewith my remarks from that other forum, edited for clarity. The occasion for the remarks herewith was the insistence by a young 20-something feminist that women should be allowed to go topless, all the time, without either legal or social censure, or the oppressive male gaze, etc., because men can.

My response:

Men tend to be valued for their productivity and if such productivity gets them all overheated then taking their shirts off such as to air out their glistening muscles with or without benefit of chest hair, just slightly moistened by their perspiration, the scent of which, strengthened by the heat, wafts freely into the air, driving some people–not to name any names—to the vapors—then it shall remain legal, under certain circumstances.

However, susceptible voyeurs are advised not to operate any heavy machinery immediately after viewing and smelling such an apparition.

Meanwhile, if women were to walk topless down the street there might be a boom in the auto body repair industry; so ‘yes’ to all toplessness, for the economy!

This pissed her off so much that she started insulting me. Since there is no way that I can respond in kind to such a sweet young thing without being accused of being an old witch (the shoe fits you say?) I backed down and thereby other forum members piped in, and otherwise friendly banter resumed, albeit said young feminist had already flounced.

So I thought I’d heat things up a bit:

I think men should be allowed to expose their testicles in public. Just because women can’t expose their ovaries doesn’t meant that men should be bared from a healthful activity. Those guys don’t like to be kept too warm!

Airing out one’s balls is a fundamental right.

This led another commenter to imagine that I meant that men should expose the entire apparatus, which, was his way, I’m sure, of attempting, once again, to engage me in fantasy role play of his own castration fetish (which I abhor). I was therefore compelled to clarify my position:

My point, if I have one, was to expose (ahem) the fundamental right of men to air out their testicles–not dicks. Dicks are a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

This conjured up another commenter who got where I was going, but also wanted to makes sure that I knew that the social rules against nudity were religion-based and therefore religion is a big meanie. My response:

There’s no reason to forbid testicle exposure albeit to expose one’s testicles in public is not a very good idea. Of course, exposing one’s breasts in public is an extremely good idea, because young women tell me so. Young women are so much smarter than I am and they’ll just keep right on getting smarter, until they reach my age, upon which point they will be idiots just like me. Something to look forward to.

Religions are the basis of social rules that allow for a particular population to preserve that population including culture. One important way to preserve a culture is to try to tamp down the notion that every little girl deserves her own baby. Given that babies provide huge social perks, but more babies is not better, anything one can do to persuade little girls to keep sexuality in check tends to result in fewer marginal babies [I remain in debt to this blog post: http://blog.jim.com/culture/sex-and-natural-law/]. In order to persuade little girls not to do what they want to do when in fact little girls tend to have the whole of society jumping to fulfill their every need, there needs to be an easily repeatable rule that doesn’t require a whole lot of complex language, that can easily be obeyed, and that basically uses both the carrot and the stick approach: Religion. However every good idea gone hog wild tends to have a backlash. Persons who are particularly angry (and that’s a feeling) at religion, tend to come up with the notion that logic and science will make everyone smarter and better behaved. Since that doesn’t work, government must be enlarged to insist that logic and science will make everyone smarter and better behaved, insisting louder and louder until the “carrot” is gone and all that’s left is “the stick”—in the here and now of course.

Power hungry little girls then all get jobs in government, where they can enjoy absolute power to make everyone else do what they want them to do and not what they don’t want them to do. And to that end, they are now the people who define what is “logic” and what is “science”.

As for everyone else other than little girls going naked, that would probably work out just fine however imagine the tantrums from all the little girls!

Second point, whereas the notion of separating religion from state is a good one, it doesn’t much account for plurality of belief systems particularly in a climate where all belief systems are being degraded that do not adhere to the majority belief system, which pretends it isn’t a religion, when what it is is justification for an enlarged state, led by little girls, who know everything, because they are just that smart. However, separating “religion” from “state” is only necessary when you have an enlarged state. At the microcosm level, like minds tend to live together and people who live together tend to adopt the same values, and together they can decide the mechanism of how to keep all the little girls from getting together and demanding the right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. Apparently, telling them that they’re the smartest population of all is not considered a religion.

Imagine my surprise when Ogle, I mean Booble, I mean Google, came up with a method to disseminate the rules of “true facts”:

Via:

http://takimag.com/article/michael_shermers_immoral_arc_david_cole/

To:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPONBoY76nP

THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free “news” stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.

So far, when one enters the search term, “Caprizchka” in Google, one arrives at this very un-truthy website that you, Dear Reader, are reading now. Perhaps not for long.

The Mutagenic Effects of HPV that Lead to Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Sounds like a pretty good title for a comprehensive article on the process.

However for a free article written under a pseudonym, I hope that the reader’s expectations are not too high.

If a person avoids all “risk factors” for mutagenesis, perhaps cancer can be completely avoided. However, the relative-weight or the “factor” part of “risk factor” is politicized rather than using statistical analysis. While “factor” is a mathematical term, in terms of the “risk factor” jargon, it is meaningless. Moreover, I’ve read elsewhere that pretty much everyone, if they live long enough, will eventually get cancer, regardless of whether their eventual cause of death is cancer or some other cause.

Therefore, obsessive “avoidance behavior” might not necessarily make one live longer. It would only feel longer.

For those who would like to see some scholarly links on the process of the cancer that is killing Axel, I recommend these:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3317947/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/56/11/2488

The first article, however, is not without politically-motivated jargon. It starts out promisingly however:

Over the past 20 years, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection has been established as a risk factor for developing head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, independent of tobacco and alcohol use.

I point out to the reader that the phrase, “independent of” could be a substitution for “without taking into consideration the presence or lack of”. In other words, a nonsmoker and nondrinker with HPV exposure may still possibly get oral cancer, with the level of risk for the combined effect, if any, not specified herewith.

An active participant in The Sexual Revolution to include group sex, swinging, anonymous hook-ups, etc., is very likely to be exposed to HPV, as well as tobacco and alcohol. However, according to some, pretty much everyone who has had sex during the period which encompasses the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s has been exposed to HPV. Most people, however, fight it off successfully, meaning that there is no active infection at some point after exposure. However, even fighting off such an infection does not rule out the latter possibility of HPV-induced mutagenesis leading to SCC, or some other cancer, even without having an active HPV infection. It is a risk of multiple-intimate partners for sure but by no means a foregone conclusion. There may indeed be additional co-factors not yet discovered such as say, mercury fillings.

Axel has been a two-pack-a-day smoker from the age of about 11 until he met me four years ago. After meeting me, I switched him to a stronger, purer, higher-quality cigarette which I roll myself. This effectively brought his habit down to about a pack a day, albeit each puff was a hair stronger, albeit free of those nasty “additives” that everyone is so terrified of that they eschew new carpet, new cars, paints, and walking around in the city, where the concentration of those “additives” exceed that found in ambient or directly inhaled tobacco smoke. But, I digress. Back to the article:

In particular, HPV is strongly associated with the development of oropharyngeal cancer and a small minority of oral cavity cancers. In this review, we summarize what is currently known about the biology of HPV, the mechanisms by which it effects malignant transformation, and the potential impact of HPV status on the clinical management of persons with head and neck cancer.

Axel started experiencing his first symptoms of SCC on his wrists and neck, one year after his experience as a first-responder at Katrina, whereby, coincidentally, he decided to temporarily quit smoking. He was treated in an unusual manner with regards to an unusual condition, whereby a mass was removed from his neck in a horrific, inexplicable, or largely unbelievable treatment plan. Katrina occurred in October 2005. I could relay his tale here of what happened in 2006 but it would be heresay and thereby a distraction from my argument. If someone else has a story to tell of a similar incidence, I recommend that you relay it to me privately and we can decide how to approach it.

Back to the article:

In 2008, an estimated 47,500 people were diagnosed with head and neck cancer in the United States, representing approximately 3% of new cancer diagnoses, and an estimated 11,260 people died from this disease (Jemal et al., 2008). The vast majority of these head and neck cancers were squamous cell carcinomas. Over the past 20 years, the overall incidence of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has been declining in the United States, a decline which has been attributed to a decrease in the prevalence of smoking (Sturgis and Cinciripini, 2007). Although there has been a reduction in the overall incidence of HNSCC, an analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data from 1975-1998 found that the incidence of tonsillar cancer increased by 2-3% annually in males under 60 yrs of age from 1975-1998 (Canto and Devesa, 2002). A more recent analysis of SEER data from 1973-2001 showed an annual increase in the incidence of oral tongue, palatine tonsil, and base-of-tongue cancers, by 2.1%, 3.9%, and 1.7%, respectively, in 20- to 44-year-old white patients, while the incidence of HNSCC at other sites declined (Shiboski et al., 2005).

In other words, one form of cancer has gone down, another form of cancer has gone up, and supposedly tobacco is the changing factor? How about the virulence of HPV itself? Could it be possible that HPV has become less virulent and mutagenic? Could it be possible that HPV is no longer the danger that it was? That would not be politically expedient to the mandatory HPV vaccine crowd, now would it? As for the anti-tobacco crowd, they have some pretty deep pockets too.

What if the increase of tonsillar cancer can be attributed to a reduction in tobacco use? Or what if HPV is itself mutating to be more mutagenic in tonsils and tongues? Viruses mutate. For the record, Axel is free of tumors in his gums, tongue, and tonsils. His cancer is largely in the lymph nodes, lip, and chin, and impeding on the vocal chords, and carotid artery, along with general oral irritation that may be a function of the cancer’s necrosis.

Here is the radiologist’s report on Axel’s chest X-ray after about 47 years of “heavy smoking”:

47years

Back to the article:

Tobacco and alcohol use are the primary risk factors for HNSCC and are associated with the majority of these tumors worldwide. In addition to these traditional risk factors, high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPV), and in particular HPV-16, are recognized as independent risk factors for a subset of HNSCC and are most strongly associated with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) (Schwartz et al., 1998; Gillison et al., 2000; Morket al., 2001; Wiest et al., 2002; Herrero et al., 2003; Hobbs et al., 2006; Ernster et al., 2007; Andrews et al., 2008). HPV has also been associated with the pathogenesis of oral cancer; however, the association of HPV with HNSCC is strongest for oropharyngeal cancer (Gillison et al., 2000; Furniss et al., 2007; Sturgis and Cinciripini, 2007; Chaturvedi et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2008). In this review, we briefly summarize the current, generally accepted knowledge regarding the biology of HPV, and the mechanisms by which it effects malignant transformation, and subsequently focus on presenting recent research relating to the association of HPV with HNSCC, as well as on the future implications this research may have for the clinical management of persons with head and neck cancer.

That first sentence sounds like a contradiction of the very first sentence quoted above. How much money and from whom determined whether tobacco and alcohol use are the “primary” risk factors for HNSCC when HNSCC has already been found to be independent of tobacco and alcohol use when there is HPV?

Frank Davis, as usual, weighs in on the subject in a manner more articulate than mine:

https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/hpv-yet-again/

Davis even entertains the possibility that tobacco might possibly increase susceptibility to HPV. Could be, however, perhaps tobacco does not increase susceptibility to HPV but rather is part of a pattern of oral exploration risk-taking which would increase the likelihood of exposure. For all we know, use of a fluoride-containing toothpaste soon after exposure might increase the likelihood of immune compromise. There are too many agendas and deep pockets to back them up to ever know for certain. As society becomes more polarized, all researchers are forced to choose alliances, and therefore no one is truly objective.

While I would certainly not be one to discourage someone from quitting smoking, if that’s the individual’s reasoned choice or if one feels better as a nonsmoker than a smoker, personally I prefer to focus on discouraging men from cunnilingus, in that engaging in the practice has not resulted in a quid pro quo from feminists in terms of permission to reopen men-only smoking lounges.

Hindsight is 20/20

First they came for the misogynists, and I can’t understand why everyone doesn’t love women, I mean, I do!

Then they came for the animal abusers, and that’s just reprehensible. There’s no torture too harsh for those monsters.

Then they came for the traffickers in women, exploiters of female sexuality, who ought to be boiled in oil at the least.

Then they came for the drunk drivers, who are so foolhardy and hateful that they drive while under the influence according to the legal limit, which is entirely too high.

Then they came for the pornographers, and those awful people have no idea of what damage they wreak, so good riddance.

Then they came for the rapists, because if there’s sex and it doesn’t feel good to a woman, before, during, or forty years later, that’s a crime, so throw the book at them.

Then they came for the sexists, because a woman can do anything, how dare anyone bully her or tell her differently.

Then they came for the homo/transphobes who are just like everyone else and so those haters ought to be locked up and raped. That will teach them.

Then they came for the racists who don’t deserve to live, those haters. They need to learn to love everyone, like I do!

Then they came for the gun nuts who don’t understand that the Second Amendment was for benefit of the government, you know, the good guys, not the bad guys! Gee. Everyone knows that!

Then they came for the climate deniers, who obviously hate the earth, and just want to drive around in their gas guzzlers in order to kill us all, so, let’s kill them first.

Then they came for the smokers, who are hurting themselves, hurting everyone else, and are ignorant and stupid. They ought to mellow out and smoke pot instead, or eat healthy snacks.

Finally, then, we can have a perfect utopia, consisting entirely of 10-year old girls!

And they all lived happily ever after.

California Whistleblower Gets Fired For Exposing Fraudulent Environmental Science

I like this guy. Here’s more on his story: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28

Real Science

California relies on fake environmental studies, and fired a whistle blower for calling them out.

One UCLA science researcher, a 34-year veteran of the school, found himself out of a job in 2011 after examining the data underlying diesel regulations proposed by a California regulator and exposing the shoddy credentials of a lead author of that regulator’s report.

James Enstrom secured victory in a two-and-a-half year legal battle against UCLA last week when the school agreed to settle the case.

The school is paying the “diesel particulate matter” expert $140,000, reinstating his title as “Retired Researcher,” and restoring his access to UCLA resources, “effectively” rescinding his termination, according to the American Center for Law & Justice, which represented Enstrom.

Enstrom had challenged the validity of a California Air Resources Board study on diesel particulate matter and mortality in the state and the regulations that followed. He denounced the research…

View original post 154 more words

Bisexual Female MGTOW Shenanigans

Is it just me or does anyone else find it hilarious that a certain iconoclastic female MGTOW supporter is willing to offer her body in order to recruit a certain brilliant female antifeminist by the name of Karen Straughan to the former’s cause of tamping down all gender differences into sort of a socialist equalism while denigrating anyone who disagrees with her man?

(Be sure to read all of Straughan’s comments in the above linked thread. Pure gold as always.)

If men and women are the same, why not send an homme fatale? Could it be that the former fully understands (and exploits) the higher market value of female sexuality in terms of the male consumer and thereby expects that a bisexual female consumer would be equally inclined to pay a higher price for it because men and women are the same?

For the record, even though my own bisexuality has receded to the point of nothingness, I am such a huge fan of Straughan that even I would be more than honored and delighted to get any sort of attention from her. Furthermore, I hardly would have anything in which to bargain with such as to attempt to change her mind with my over-the-hill female body. Quite the contrary. Furthermore, I doubt that there exists such a woman who could sway Karen’s arguments with sexual and emotional manipulation. That’s one reason I admire her! I will even go so far as to conjecture that Karen’s obvious identification with the male psyche excludes the bargain that she is to sacrifice herself for women, such as she describes as the “traditionalist” bargain of men sacrificing themselves for women in return for authority in the public sphere (as if authority is a desirable goal of all persons or power is the key to happiness and satisfaction in life).

However, in my view, such an attitude of sexualizing the political would be disrespectful to Straughan’s arguments. Moreover, I doubt she is at a loss for offers. Therefore, I’ll say it here right now that what I have to offer is a fabulous home-cooked meal for the favor of her fully-clothed company. I offer this in gratitude for articulating so well the disquiet in my heart with regard to Feminism as well as for her acceptance of the “traditionalist” bargain I ascribe to as being wholly mutually satisfactory within my loving partnership.

In exchange for partaking of a meal of my making, there would be absolute no need for her to renounce any of her associations or otherwise compromise herself in any way except I would fully expect for her to arrive with a good appetite and to be just as adventurous with the plate offered her as she is in her choices to accept speaking engagements across a panoply of venues. If she likes, she can even bring a date, of any gender of her choosing, and together do anything they like in my guest room that does not require extraordinary clean-up on my part afterwards (because I’m a fan but not that kind of fan).

So, how about it Karen? This offer doesn’t have a time limit so long as I have an available guest room and place setting in my home in Southwest Florida.

Just to show my open-mindedness, I would offer the same to the two MGTOW troublemakers, on the condition that in my presence they remain fully clothed at all times, and are fully prepared for any eruptions of laughter I cannot contain.

Hope Dies

Axel has decided to stop fighting his cancer. What is left is merely pain management. It would seem that necrosis of the tumor caused such a painful inflammatory reaction, pressing on nerves and a vital artery, that the fight was no longer worth it to him. If the remainder of his days were to consist of such insults they would be a waste of those precious days. His decision.

We don’t know how long he has.

Of course a miracle isn’t impossible. Perhaps his own immune system will save him. I’m the only one with this faint spark of hope. Of course I keep giving him his supplements and menu items specifically for immune system support. I don’t know what I am going to do without him.

Even writing, reading, and commenting has lost its luster.

I’m still here and who knows? Maybe I’ll get my money back from my international con artist ex-husband’s bank. Maybe I’ll find something else to spark a bit of passion. Maybe I’ll find yet another one-true-love. Maybe I’ll find a hobby, a roommate, a pet. Maybe I’ll get myself “a job”.

At the moment, none of those options appeal.