"The moral see-saw which decides the fate of battles was evidently coming down on the side of panic." -Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
I always appreciated the class clowns. They made school tolerable. They
confounded bogus teachers with a sort of childlike intelligence that eludes some of the best educated morons. And I laughed and laughed.
And that is what Kanye
West, College Dropout, is acting as right now in this bogus school of life: a crude, misguided, yet
truth-speaking, class clown.
You want us to learn that Hitler was the wickedest
man alive (sorry, Aleister)? You want us to believe that the Holocaust happened
like Hansel and Gretel with the witch in the gingerbread oven? You want us to
burn our Balenciaga clothes yet feel all warm and cuddly still wrapped in our
lives of fornication?
He is right to point out this hypocrisy. A great multitude
of people dress their underage daughters in leggings without a skirt, bring boyfriends and step brothers into the homes of their young daughters, send their children where they are sexualized in school sex ed. programs, or are
viewing underage / pedophile porn daily (supposedly leading to fathers being
uncomfortable dealing with their underage daughters, leading to more women with
"daddy issues" fucking for male approval, etc.), yet these same people will flip
their social media lids over a bondage bear advertisement. We already know all public roads lead to Moloch.
"While Balaenciaga may be a blatant sign of Satan's hand at work, let's think about the broad spectrum of what we've actually accepted as a people, and as a society. It ain't about Balenciaga, I mean, that's just him mocking you. What you've actually accepted in your life on a day to day basis for most people is radical materialism. He's just putting up a flag with the Balenciaga. What does Balenciaga represent? What does this whole deal represent? It represents a sort of vanity, a sort of materialism that corrupts one's ability to discern morals and ethics properly. We've done that at the widest range possible."
-Royce White, Fearless with Jason Whitlock
The media will not often
repeat the things Ye said about the Holocaust, it is too fragile. They can only deem Ye insane by citing his
love of Hitler as an example of his derangement, because we all know about Hitler, and
how he was the only devil that ever really existed, while people still take
courses on how to be successful like mad dog, war mongering, mass murderering Winston
Churchill.
Naked truth coming out of the mouths of the unaffected looks exactly like showman Kanye and his Nettin' yahoo Netanyahu net hand puppet.
And after Kanye exposed the no cheap threats of handler of the goyim, and government sinister something, Harley Paternak, with the usual drugging and making mad a la Marilyn Monroe, the media had to throw Kyrie Irving in the viewers' way.
One message apparently from Harley said: “Second option, I have you institutionalised again where they medicate the c*** out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won’t be the same.” (https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kanye-west-threatened-with-institutionalisation-by-celebrity-trainer-harley-pasternak/ar-AA13KyAc).
Poor Kanye, all these uptight establishment minded morons can't
laugh. It would break their world of straw men, set it on fire, leave them with
ash on their face.
Hardly anyone reads anymore, this is all we have.
No, he'll be escorted to the principal's office, or possibly be
expelled, and tranquility will once again reign in the classroom of agreeable
students.
But you'll remember him.
It kind of reminds me of another man that had
to be either insane or speaking the truth...
And He did not come to bring
tranquility to the Communist's classroom.
34Do not think that I came to send
peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35For I came to set a
man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's enemies shall be they
of his own household.
From a young age, males are trained to be sexual predators:
to obtain free sex with as little
thought as possible paid to the cost to the female, or himself.
Girls learn, overtly and covertly, that: men will only
acknowledgeyou with one aim in mind,
your only value in this world...before the age of twenty, anyway.
Violet Violate Violent
"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices." -St. Augustine, City of God
Slut shaming cannot be demystified, but men must acknowledge
their guilt in grooming the modern women that they disparage for being hos and "easy" if they will take advantage of this and sleep with them. There is no no-consequence sex, even if it is mainly the downfall of civilization that is the result of one's one night stands:
"And if you teach feminism, chances are that young girls are going to end up getting sexually active and they're going to have abortions , and once they've had abortion they vote like Jews.
That's the whole point. That's why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was so adamant about imposing abortion on the entire country. That is how they have their power. That is where their power comes from, it's the sexual corruption of the majority.
You get them involved in horrible sins like killing your own child, and then you create a movement around it called feminism which ensures that they will never repent for the sins that they committed and that's the backbone --I don't think this is an exaggeration--that's the backbone of the Democratic party right now."
Obviously, what one indulges in affects one's beliefs, a fetish for bathing in a pigsty will color one's views of hygiene, and both parties of the political system are two sides to the same bad coin, and a dead end, no matter what a woman votes for.
While both men and women are to blame for the crimes of the "free" sexual congress economy, women have more to lose by it (like time: youth and fertility) without artificial society-corrupting props to hold up their ho side (contraception and abortion pills, surgery, the male-punishing court system).
Men, unless in matters of syphyllis, lose more in the matters of the abstract, such as self control, masculinity/manhood, his good name, or even freedom (rape allegations), potential children to a women's choice, and in the material: their money.
Plus, the societal stabilizing effect of strong women raising and teaching children with strong fathers, or Florence Nightingales and self-less nuns caring for the sick and poor, et cetera; there's not much of that left now, and one can tell.
Men training themselves to ignore their knightly roles of chivalry as protectors of women and children harms their masculinine nature, making them weak and effeminate, even if it is as a "stud," and only adds to the self-embittering circle where each sex is blaming and exploiting the other endlessly. Ultimately all men are punished for the (fewer) "successful" irresponsible players that take the free, yet poisoned bait, of "free sex," thus cheating good women, while rewarding, and proliferating the hos that want to be fuck boys TOO. Only personal virtue can go against this cycle, whether it is ever rewarded or recognized in this world or not.
When I was a youth and being confronted with the enormous stupidity of life and my worthless place in it, I came to realize, as many before me have, that one person was everything and nothing at the same time. Of course, I saw how individual wicked people had more of an effect on fallen world history than the seemingly good, yet most wicked acts could not have been carried out, would have died like seed on cement, had not many other individual people of otherwise no seeming consequence carried it out.
Leo Tolstoy, who had more of a sense of predestination or fatalism about history, expressed similar sentiment about all of the single individuals that had to be swayed to make history -along with the culminating variables - through their choices- that then seemed "irrational and incomrpehensible" in retrspect, all this, in regard to the Napoleonic Wars:
For us their descendants, who are not historians and are not carried awat by the process of research, and so can look at the facsts with common sense unobscured, a countless number of causes offer themselves. The deeper we delve in search of these causes the more of them do we discover; and each seaparate cause or whole series of causes apears to us equally valid in itself and equally unsound by its insignificance in comparison with the size of the event, and by its impuissance (without the co-operation of all the other coincident causes) to occasion the event. To us the willingness or unwillingness of this or that French corporal to serve a second term has as much weight as Napoleon's refusal to withdraw his troops beond the Vistula and to restore the duchy of Oldenburg; for had the corporal refused to serve, and aa second and a thrid and a thiusand corporals and soldiers with him, Napoleon's army world have been so greatly reduced that the war could not have occurred.
If Napoleon had not taken offence at the demand that he should retire beyond the Vistula, and had not ordered his troops to advance, there would have been no war. But if all his sergeants had objected to serving in a second campaign, then also there could have been no war. Nor could thtere have been a war had there been no English intrigues and no Duke of Oldenburg, and had Alenxander not felt insulted, and had there not been an autocratic government in Russia, or a Revolution in France and consequent dictatorship and Empire, or all the things that produced the French Revolution, and so on. Had any one of these causes been absent, nothing could have happened. And so all these causes - theses myraids of causes - coincided to bring about what happed. And so there was no exclusive reason for that occurrence: the war came about because it was bound to come about. Millions of men renouncing their human feelings amd their common sense, had to march from west to east to slay their fellows, just as some centuries previosly hordes of men had moved from east to west, slaying their fellows.
The deeds of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose fiat the whole question of war or no war apparently depended, were as little spontaneous and free as the actions of every common soldier drawn into the campaign by lot or by conscription. This could not be otherwise, for in order that the will of Napoleon and Alexander (the people on whom the whole decision appeared to rest) should be effected a combination of innumerable circumstances was essential, without any one of which the event could not have taken place. It was necessary that millions of men in whose hands the real power lay - the soldiers who fired the guns or transported provisions and cannon - should consent to carry out the will of those weak individuals, and should have been induced to do so by an infinite number of Diverse and complex causes." - Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, New York: Penguin,, 1982).
One is always cooperating with Satan or Christ by the smallest intent.
And into all this must be brought the Christian view of the enormous value of suffering, and then you end up with St. Benedict throwing himself into the thorn bush to avoid sin. And what, you ask, would his potential single sin of lust have mattered? And then, you must ask, where would Western Civilization have been without just Saint Benedict?
If not a sparrow falls to the ground without it concerning God's attention, ..everything, in the spiritul realm, affects everything else.
And so one would think the very act, biologically primed, no matter what rubber or chemical it meets with, for the possibility of bringing more single, eternal, souls into this torturous world, would matter much, and not much at all.
SEXUAL SLAVERY IS A CHOICE
Increasingly violent, prepubescent, and sodomizing
pornography and media keep instilling further bitter and unnatural tastes in
its viewers. A boring animalistic culture with little beyond the banal permeates everything, and no-fault divorce makes men socially castrated slaves of ex-wives,
and wasted and expired, flabby 'gay divorcee' women pathetic cougars or bitter and moribund Target employees; such a division creates estranged or non-existent
family life, disloyalty and jealousy, and often the sexual abuse of children from a parent's live-in,
non-biological partner, which is rampant.
Females are groomed to be sluts, to prefer the passion to the rational. This need go hand in hand with "sexual liberation," being a fun, easy going slut, as reason would otherwise tell her being a receptacle of male fun would not be in her best interest, despite how much fun it may seem at the time.
Females are often put on chemically lobotomizing contraceptives from a young age, so that
their bodies may be used by men without the obvious consequences to their parents or themselves. Women watch porn to learn and experiment in becoming "good at sex" as if it were public speaking. And the more they fuck the crazier they seem to get, almost as if the phallus were the lobotomizer's trephine to the nether parts, a sort of sexual version of the original psychosurgery.
The very nature of hookups is a Catch-22: Who he fucks, he ends up preferring, despite himself. Getting hooked on Mister Wrong. Plus, bacterial vaginosis.
The fact that over half the population of one sex is being
chemically crazified by taking unnatural hormone disruptors cannot be underestimated in significance of its social consequence, especially when these pills show they may permanently change the female brain, and temporily affect the choice of mate, as for a more effeminate man (and
we are all drinking and eating the contraceptive's pollution).
"I was seeking male validation and it all sucked." Why admit to shameless hos that it was a mistake? Good women rarely make history
The sentiment that a man cannot handle a strong woman is
often thrown about by women who think that self control is not part of
feminism (they're right). To them, a strong woman does what she wilt no matter what anyone
says. This, Aleister Crowleyesque plagiarization of Moses Maimodes, 'do what thou wilt shall be the ho of the law' woman, is a crazy woman, and men cannot handle a crazy woman, even though they do try to, for the fun of it, until she drives them off a cliff.
THE INSEXTIVE
But the market for crazy does sell.
The crazy woman is what modern feminists propose is a strong woman:
one who is proudly ruled by her passions, and hence, out of touch with reality, by refusing to restrain her will to it.
This proposed false strength of the modern woman deceives females into seeking to
become the biting, fire-starting, mad woman in the attic, the all passionate albratross around Rochester's neck, Mrs.
Rochester, in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (published in 1847).
Feminist literary criticism of this novel seems to gloss over what the reader should be schooled in: the
self-sacrifice of Jane Eyre herself, who, when tempted by passion and adultery with a man she truly loves, falls back on her
well-founded morals to sustain her:
Still indomitable was the reply--:I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and no mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation : they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their riguor; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them , what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed ; and if i cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot." (Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre, Ignatius: San Francisco: 2014. p. 401).
And Jane Eyre nearly dies making this right choice.
ALL GOOD GIRLS GO TO HELL (on earth)
Women are often considered the muscularly weaker weeping and ephemeral sex, but men have such a strong Achilles Heel to be sexually controlled non-neutered dogs that it makes most hysterical females seem quite brilliantly stoic in comparison.
HEY, WHO WANTS A STRONG WOMAN IN THE STAW?
The sentiment that (the modern weak) man cannot handle a
"strong woman" may be correct when it refers to strong women whose
strength is self-sacrifice and submission, one whose strength is virtue,
because this then requires of the man similar virtue. The duplicitous Mr. Rochester cannot handle Jane Eyre either, until he is chastised and literally blinded in attempting to save his real wife, which only happens after Jane has behaved virtuously.
Many men cannot handle a "strong
woman" because they are soft and have been spoilt from eating from the sexual trough for free all of their lives.
One who has been eating cotton candy all of his life cannot
handle a steak.
How would he be loyal to one woman, support her and a family, monetarily
or morally, when he has not disciplined himself? And why should a good woman commit? Non-ho wives and girlfriends are eventually told by their weak men that
the ho at work who sleeps with everyone, causing senseless drama like a queen, and who sends out photos of herself sticking
root crops up her backside as if they were Xmas cards, is preferable to them. So, why bother?
Where many woman are eschewing good men who have been made redundant by ladies' careers or the government, many males are living as symbolic sodomites wherein, if they can obtain sex with females, because it is an anonymous, selfish, transient, and sterile refrain back on themselves, they are symbolically fucking themselves. Since nothing is meant be sacrificed of the self, this obsession with pleasing oneself seems to morph into the pathetic and exaggerrated pride and delusions of grandeur often observed in sex or porn addicts.
You might think you are a good baker if no one ever eats your cake.
This sodomizing of the culture has largely been influenced by pornography's grooming with sodomitic acts, such as anal, oral, etcetera, to be paired with the similarly sodomitically sterile (contraceptive) sex practiced by the heterosexual population.
Many men have helped create generations of men-hating
monsters through "casual sex." Many females do not realize they have largely been robbed of actual bodily autonomy by societal expectations until it is too late. This is hard for a man to understand. And it is no wonder that many women seek to obliterate their sexiness, hide it under the guise of being fellow men, or refuse to do anything constraining, such as give up cupcakes, to please the voracious men who they have learned can never be satisfied because 'variety' is beyond them...
A female (although she is not allowed to admit this) is largely destroyed as soon as she loses her
virginity (as the biological priming for failure to pair bond presents), if it is to a man who is not committed to death do us part and parting from the endless variety (cue Don Giovanni) of other women.
As a bandaid that has been applied to a male's temporary weakness, she is hard to stick on to another. That close rip off of the male, may briefly sting, and he may lose a few hairs...but she has lost her honor.
FEELINGS AND FLEEING, GO DIG MY GRAVE
Even this benign-seeming corruption of the female for a feeling (lust) without feelings (sacrifice), is more significant than most realize, as even the most clever garden snake knows how it is best to be done, to corrupt men, forever: through feminine influence; this is known as TEE, The Eve Effect.
CATCH FEELINGS (EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST)
While men are accused of being callous of women's feelings in their seeking of sex without love attachment, women can be much more callous of men's feelings in general, and hence, her participation in hook-up culture will result, in extremis (so far), in such man-hate, or inordinate emulation of (the reckless) males, which we see in the "transsexual" fetish culture, where men want to be dominated by women by "becoming" them, or women wanting to dominate and punish irresponsible men, in the like want to behave as irresponsibly as them as well. And this "may" be, biologically anyway, because detachment from feelings of love for sex is supposedly more natural to a man, whereas when it appears in women it is more unnatural, derived from a callousness coming from a feigned (or drugged, as in the Pill) freedom from such feelings, or vexation and disregard for feeling altogether (I wouldn't know, I have none).
Men's emotional disregard toward females being used for sex, which entails much more for the woman (remember prostitutes and porn stars openly admit to the need for drug use and alcohol as they are not made for such usage without dulling it's sting, and the "happy ho" is usually an Oscar-winning front to be desired and praised by narcissistic and sad women), and is often the premise upon which females first learn to disregard men's feelings and humanity altogether, thinking that he must have none, when he "loves her and leaves her."
Men may have sex without love and women can love without love, actually, few can be hated as thrououghly as by a woman who "loves" him, and this has much to do with a women's selfish desire to control, punished in the Bible to always be confounded as each attempt, than with true sacrificial love tried in adversity and rejection. As with so much in life, most of what we deem is love is merely a meaningless attribute of control and manipulation, proven once the "loved" one rebels.
The Everyman: Men want variety, but you can't be everyone.
The only thing is that we don't understand what variety and experience entails. Fornicating with hundreds of women is very similar to reading the first few pages of all the great novels, but never getting to the end of one. One needs to choose one book or partner to gain the wisdom of a whole Russian novel, and that is true variety, in which one makes a choice, which necessitates exclusing all others.
MASHED AMANDA
In that fuck outside of
the marriage bed, that eye out of the socket, the female becomes blind from
mishandling, a plaything for weak men who take the wrapping paper and discard
the gift (debatable, I know) even if she thinks she is in control and is acting on liberating
sexual desire: she is not meant to be passed about like a hot potato. And the
more she is passed, the hotter she becomes, apparently (because who doesn't like a free meal?), until she is totally
mashed...
"Please pass me the Mashed Amanda, thanks."
Strong or virtuous women will only obey a real man whom they feel is
superior to themselves, and yet who loves them as is admonished in the bible (Husbands,
love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for
it).
Love is sacrifice, and selfishness kills it, so few can find a good love match now as we are all extremely selfish in this decadent culture.
In Charlotte Bronte's Shirley, the headstrong, beautiful, heiress confounds her uncle with "strong woman" sentiment as much when being pressured to marry another rich aristocrat:
"What, madam - what could be your reasons for refusing Sir Philip?"
'At last, there is another sensible question: I shall be glad to reply to it. Sir Philip is too young for me: I regard him as a boy: all his relations - his mother especially - would be annoyed if he married me : such a step would embroil him with them: I am not his equal in the world's estimation.'
'Is that all?''Our dispositions are not compatible.'
'Why, a more amiable gentlemen never breathed.'
'He is very amiable - very excellent - truly estimable, but not mymaster: not in one point. I could not trust myself with his happiness: I would not undertake the keeping of it for thousands: I will accept no hand which cannot hold me in check.'
'I thought you liked to do as you please: you are vastly inconsistent.'
'When I promise to obey, it shall be under the conviction that I can keep that promise: I could not obey a youth like Sir Philip. Besides, he would never command me : he would expect me always to rule - to guide, and I have no taste whatever for the office.'
'You not taste for swaggering, and subduing, and ordering, and ruling?'
'Not my husband: only my uncle.'
'Where is the difference?'
'There is a slight difference: : that is certain. And I know full well, any man who wishes to live in decent comfort with me as a husband must be able to control me.'
'I wish you had a real tyrant.'
'A tyrant would not hold me for a day - not for an hour. I would rebel - break from him - defy him.'
'Are you not enough to bewilder one's brain with your self-contradiction?'
'It is evident I bewilder your brain.'
'You talk of Sir Philip being young: he is two-and-twenty.'
'My husband must be thirty, with the sense of forty.'
'You had better pick out some old man - some white-headed or bald-headed swain.'
'No, thank you.'
'You could lead some doting fool: you might pin him to your apron.'
'I might do that with a boy, but it is not my vocation. Did I not say I prefer a master? One in whose presence I shall feel obliged and disposed to be good. One whose control my impatient temper must acknowledge. A man whose approbation can reward - whose displeasure punish me. A man I shall feel it impossible not to love, and very possible to fear.'
- Charlotte Bronte, Shirley. Penguin: New York, 1985. Pp's 513-4
Even if everyone else is rioting, you are not excused to go grab yourself a stereo.
This male superiority takes more than game or lifting heavy weights. A man is not a man until he has gained control of his passions, to lead as a knight does his horse.
Many modern women are unaware of who is their superior, because they have been led down the primrose path that a woman's most important accomplishment, alongside getting good at sex with many different men, is her career.
And it is often
heard amongst women with these career and formal education accomplishments -- which they are unaware are actually worthless to good
men -- that there are few men who appreciate them for how accomplished they are.
As the virtuous Shirley found, in a man lower in status, than the usual prince charming, superiority is of a moral
nature, to be found in one's character, the character of a tutor in her case. But
masculinized, over-sexualized modern women are looking for likewise accomplished men, "virtuous" Don Juans with a lot of money, or a business magnate,
to "dominate" them, one epitomized by Mr. Moore who, in Shirley , proposes to Shirley
merely for social advancement.
I WILL BE YOUR WATER SPANIEL
It is said that men need respect more than they need love. And it is extremely important that a woman has respect for her husband, or she will be unable to submit to her husband's authority (which is often very hard for a woman to do, even under the best circumstances).
Nothing destroys this respect more than the evidence that her man will submit to a woman, even if that woman is herself, but especially if it not herself.
There is always a soul and personality attached to the body of the woman of the supposedly "meaningless fuck,' that a man is submitting to through the wiles of his lower nature. Man is submitting to much more than he realizes when attempting to satisfy (no such thing) his lust: it is similar to attempting to pet just the top of the head of a submerged alligator.
"I will be your water spaniel."
As St. Augustine said, "Lust darkens the mind." As an extremely lustful (yet supposedly very sexually frustrated) culture, this darkness of the mind has caused us to almost completely ignore the rest of the alligator that is involved in the petting of its head through sexual debauchery. We have endless examples from science, philosophy, religion, and literature of the consequences of failing to rein in one's inordinate desires, but because of the darkness, or the concealing dirty water, we deny that we have been caught in the creature's jaws, often denying the creature has jaws altogether.
Life is, alas, not a petting zoo, and there are consequences to taming wild creatures to accept these unnatural caresses. No one would want the capricious affection of a smitten alligator, and having to make a swamp of one's life to accommodate it. This is why we must behave as civilized creatures with those like in nature.
Without acknowledging natural law, or God's law, written in creation, we devolve into behaving as the wild beasts, only worse, for animal nature is their nature, but when we blindly follow our lower fallen nature, it is destruction and cruelty: human-sacrifice, tribal warfare, rape, and pillage.
Sexual liberation, as discussed by the writer E. Michael Jones, is a form of political control, for both sexes. Easily tempted and controlled men are a severe liability to everyone, but especially their womenfolk, even if it was "worse" before the Nanny State stepped in to rescue and reward these womenfolk from irresponsible breeding and to replace the male as father figure altogether.
The masses are mollified by the strong arms of pornography, entertainment, and abortuaries. And black mail.
How does one think corrupt people keep their power without all-out Mao style-bloodshed but through blackmail with cultured evidence of sexual crime?
A wanker is but a shadow of an imprisoned man.
How many examples do we have of otherwise intelligent or clever men who have been compromised and ruined by their sexual weakness?
In seeking sexual freedom, which does not exist, we behave as a fish "liberated" from the constraints of the walls and water of a fish tank. We do not see that one is only free to swim when there are those structures (marriage, obscenity laws, prohibited contraception, etc.) set by God on our human nature, in place, to hold up our free will. We may choose to jump out of the tank, or as many are now doing, break holes in its glass, but it does not make us free.
"Are you sure that you really want to sit in my lap like Rex does, Goldie?"
Just as there are natural laws of personal health as in how much food or air we need to survive, there are supernatural laws of health, where arsenic and fornication have similar deleterious attributes to natural, and supernatural, respectively, health.
These commandments, laws, orders, from our maker might not make complete sense to us, until further experience, wisdom, or philosophical conversation, illuminates the common sense in the commands, or military matters. And here is where another excerpt from War and Peace, from the War part, since life is a war, may serve for our edification:
"Here, at the very extremity of the left flank, Bennigsen talked a great deal and with much heat, and made, as it seemed tp Pierre, dispositions of great military importance. In front of Tuchkov's forces was some high ground not occupied by troops. Bennigsen was loud in his criticism of this oversight, declaring that it was madness to leave a height which commanded the surrounding country unoccupied, and to be satisfied with placing troops below it. Several of the generals expressed the same opinion, one in particular maintained with martial heat that they were put there to be slaughtered. Bennigsen, on his own responsibility, ordered the corps to be moved to the height.
This disposition on the left flank made Pierre more than ever doubtful of his capacity to understand military matters. As he listened to Bennigsen and the other generals criticizing the position of the troops at the foot of the hill, he grasped their opinion perfectly and agreed with them; but for that very reason he could not imagine how the man who had placed them there on the low ground could have made so gross and palpable a blunder.
Pierre did not know that these troops were not, as Bennigsen supposed, put there to defend the position, but had been stationed in that concealed spot to lie in ambush, unobserved, and strike an approaching enemy without warning. Bennigsen did not know this, and moved the troops forward according to his own ideas, without saying anything about the change to the commander-in-chief." (War and Peace, p. 913)
In disregarding our superior's orders, we may be leading ourselves, and others, to the slaughter, all while duly attempting to avoid it.
Elizabeth Taylor's beast of a wife character in the
self-illusions-bashing Edward Albee play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
rabidly spits to her henpecked husband: "I wear the pants because someone
has to."
Women probably need to refuse to wear the pants. It only further infantializes (bad) men, or repels (good) men, and confuses everyone. The only way for women to prosper is being being what they are. As Oscar Wilde has said on the wall of every English classroom, "Be yourself, everyone else is taken." And yourself is a sex.
The often overly-optimistic, yet genius, G.K. Chesterton
rather facetiously suspected as much (confusion) from the Victorian women who started to balk (a now recognized wave of feminism) at the
"marriage or governess" options being the few ways for a female to
survive in the vacuum of Protestant European society, one with a dearth of females to fewer males:
"But it is to some extant true that all these Victorian women had a sort of unrest in their souls. (. . ) To what this strange and very local sex war has been due I shall not ask, because I have no answer. That it was due to votes or even little legal inequalities about marriage, I feel myself here too close to realities even to discuss. My own guess is that it has been due to the great neglect of the military spirit by the male Victorian. The women felt obscurely that she was still running her mortal risk, while the man was not still running his. But I know nothing about it; nor does anybody else." -G.K. Chesterton, The Victorian Age in Literature, P. 31.
Rememeber this life is a war, a battle for one's soul, and who actually fights in the wars, but men, and what happens to the women and children, and civilization in general, behind the gates, when men lose this military spirit? The world would devolve into barbarism without real men, and rebllious women will be in the lead dragging their "trans" boys by the pigtails behind them. Feminism could not have survived had not men supported it. The question to answer is: how are you supporting it?
NEVERLAND
There is the joke among comedians about the well known lack of desire for females to see their men enjoying themselves too thoroughly without them. Don't send photos of mayhem at the sport's bar. "Want to really turn your woman on?" jokes one comedian, "send her a photo of you going off to work."
It is the nature of the weaker sex, because they may be weaker, and even if certain structures of society (divorce court, welfare, etc.) and science (contraception, abortion, etc.) have inordinately built up their defenses, that man realizing that life can be a MGTOW funhouse of almost zero responsibilities without them leaves them hyper-vigilant against the corruptions of the "do what thou wilt culture," which has always been there ..in dens of vice and skid row...but is now normalized in a Peter Pan culture of endless video games, drinking, and trolling for free sex. This hyper-vigilance of the possibly goofing off male often occurs while ladies try to seek the same goofing off indulgences themselves, only they view them as much-deserved vacations, because they now have to be (women) homemakers and (men) working full time...(thanks, feminism).
The only answer is that no one should be seeking happiness in this life. Don't shirk your duty and mortify yourself, and then who can blame you?
Well, everyone probably will, but will God?
Many of the early Catholic female martyrs lost their heads,
literally, rather than be sold in to the marriage as prostitution with the
highest bidder racket when there was a bidder far more worthy of their total
abnegation: God.
In the social realm though, men can, and are supposed to be, that image to women on earth through imitating
the summation of perfect human nature: Jesus Christ.
Yes, imitate this, in needlepoint.
We need more females eager to have their pretty little heads chopped off
rather than satisfy the lusts of an un-virtuous man for hypergamy or power or pettish flattery, and we need more men eager to love these
women by symbolically laying their heads down on the altar, before which these women kneel (without oral sex crossing their mind).
In short, we must aim higher than sex, sexiness, and sex, and risk sticking our necks out over what is worth our while. And we needed this long, long ago.
So, Chop Chop.
Copyright GAKM 2022
And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.
St. John the Baptist put his money where his mouth was.
I just saw a post from the Daily Mail where Will Smith was said
to be "groveling," apologizing in an agonizing plea to be forgiven by
the whole world and Chris Rock, who he had slapped for what appeared to be the
dishonoring of his wife with a pathetic joke about her bad "lack of hair"
day.
All I know, after having sat through the groveling video, is
that watching a man having to apologize, and talking about his feelings and
"hurting" all these other people he didn't actually slap, and being remorseful, because his slap-ee has
apparently refused to turn the other cheek, is just stupid and dehumanizing.
In the not so distant past, if it was even "felt" or
merely appeared to be the case that a respectable woman had been somehow
dishonored by a man (perhaps by being a foreigner and offering her a flower as
in Robert Hugh Benson's excellent book The Coward, or by accidentally
breaking into a respectable adulteress's apartment and mistaking her for a dis-respectable
madam inLuigi Pirandello's
excellent play, The Rules of the Game, et cetera, see also: real history)he would most likely be challenged to a duel.
And then someone would most likely die.
VIOLENCE! VIOLENCE! Who's Afraid of a Little Violence?
And if he refused to fight the duel once challenged? Well, he would be a coward (See Benson's flaying of this practice finally banned by the Catholic Church in the before mentioned book).
Men know that you cannot hit a woman, and most women abuse
this knowledge by pushing them past the point to where the only reasonable
thing left for the man to do is walk away through the heckling, or to throw an
eye gouging worthy of Moe Howard.
Men, formed from the slime of the earth, subsist in the
realm of the physical and when things get metaphysically out of control the
only way to restore order and settle the flying disorder is to throw down.
This brings a sort of economy to male relationships that cannot truly exist between a man and a feminine woman.
But this logical conclusion to male disputes and playground
bullies is frowned upon by the effeminate establishment of the religion of
niceness, which considers anything not nice as heretical.
And there are many not nice things.
Words are now considered to be as sharp as knives and snowflakes
bleed real blood (from frosty eyes or ears, supposedly) when even overhearing a
loose "faggot" or "him" when he is really an imaginary "her," and any kind of real
violence is relegated to the impotent or fantastical fists of the military
with "bombs by push button," or paid
agitators, or patsy mass shooters, or really guilt-ridden and angry women at pro-life protests, et cetera.
Good comedy is always slightly offensive because good comedy
must include the truth, and truth is always offensive to our pride, our dark
desires, and the overall state of the fallen world. Exposing that seemingly
absurd conflict with the truth and foibles and sinfulness of fallen man, is
where the best humor (which is dark humor) resides.
It may be argued that Chris Rock's joke was not good comedy,
but that is besides the point.
Will Smith, as well as many others, saw that making his wife
the butt of a joke was dishonorable and so the only logical answer was: since
dueling was outlawed long ago, Will Smith got up and slapped him before waiting
for dawn.
Who's Dawn, you ask?
The point is that he didn't even kill Chris Rock.
He didn't kill comedy, and he didn't do anything horribly
immoral. It wasn't a very classy thing to do, but we are talking about stars
here. A bunch of degenerate stars giving each other awards for mostly degenerate, boring movies. It may be unfortunate that it happened on "formal" TV, but almost everything is recorded and put on a TV screen now, from a brawl on the lawn of a house with a Ring camera to the trashy Oscars. This isn't the age of Joseph Breen after-all.
In an age where there is a majority of those who abhor violence while calling for
it, labeling even opening your mouth and arguing back as violence; they sure
get uppity about a real slap.
Men either have to preach without using words as St. Francis
of Assisi, um ...preached,
or be prepared to put your face on the line with what you say. No, we can't
just expect people to start slapping comedians when they dislike a joke, but it
may happen if your joke is about someone's wife.
Remember, only the court jester could tell the truth to the
King, as long as it was amusing. This is the test of a true comedian, the best
jokes are dangled under the guillotine. Will it fall or no? There is risk
involved. Silence. Boos. Tomatoes. Make the executioner laugh.
And true, also stop being a sensitive iguana who needs to
bring hissy fit violence into everything simply because you are faced with
something you cannot intellectually refute. It is the people who refuse to debate or argue
that resort to, or evoke, the most violence.
When your sword is your only point, you might not have one.
Will Smith only behaved like any other man in history might
have before we started neutering them at birth.
And it did not even include the addition of guns, which has
made such normal male behavior a little more deadly, but not for Toshiro
Mifune, because even a pipsqueak with a gun can't overpower Toshiro Mifune (see the excellent movie: Yojimbo).
Maybe if we let males throw some punches once in a while without pressuring them to talk about their feelings afterwards, boys would tell their mothers, when they are trying to dress them up as dainty princesses, to piss off. Or maybe they'd even slap them. Equality, you know...
One used to be at risk of being excommunicated or put in the tower
and stabbed in his sleep, and it is still this way in many parts of the world
(go to Germany and talk about WWII...). Nowadays, in the States, you may
be cancelled, receive keyboard death threats, or loss of livelihood, for saying
anything that used to be considered common sense.
Words may not be swords, but they do have consequences. In a more manly age one of these men's corpses would be carried out by his second in an honorable fashion. Now we treat belligerent men caught up in this feminized, sterilized, and cauterized time as if they were Don Quixote fighting for a code of honor long abandoned by the female mind.
I'm sure that many of the women in that audience had their unborn children violently ripped to pieces so that they might obtain an Oscar. Why begrudge a man his turn?
We need a little more of that violence on screen.
Not that I am advocating violence, or comedy at knife point,
but most of the Hollywood Oscar attending scum need to be (maybe metaphorically)
slapped anyway. Let's not be hypocrites.
"A skull is more interesting than a naked woman." Blogs are like graffiti ...or pretentious preaching.
Life would be a lot easier if we were allowed to kill ourselves ..without hellfire.
.jpg/1024px-Alligator_(46985113174).jpg)
