Once the sheer insanity of genderless toilets and boys competing in athletics, just to mention two, are finally NOT seen as ‘progress’ in any way, that they cannot possibly lead to a happier, more stable society in which to bring up kids, then the next question is how on earth to reverse this societal suicide?
This came to a head in New York when Cuomo instituted not only full term abortion on demand but post full term, moving it into the realm of legalised murder. Why did Trump not stop him?
Because he legally, under their system, could not. Their beloved Constitution was turned against them and all sorts of unholy things were being pushed through by the dregs of society. Not only that but voted into power too.
I’d suggest that even the most laid back libertarian at least recognises the above as not a good thing. But what of something far more subtle – and this is the diabolical cleverness of it all?
So wedded to individual freedom are we, so tenacious are we in the face of the hard pressing and eroding of all our freedoms, the daily erosion and the State bossing about of our lives, that a major error of the proportion of insisting men and women are equal in every way has shifted to it being men and women being ‘the same’.
And following on from the obvious evidence before our eyes for millennia that the two sexes are NOT the same is the simple fact that one half of those – the females – whether or not individual examples actually do fulfil their biological imperative or not, are designed for enticing the male, having intercourse and then procreating. The examples of Kylie Minogue and Cheryl Cole confirm that biological imperative of women.
And men? They see an alluring woman and what’s the imperative? What has it always been, through the millennia?
Yes, there’ve been aberrations all the way down but even homosexuals recognise the term ‘straight’ and otherwise. What is that ‘otherwise’? The Christian calls it deviant, perverted, unholy, just as with unwedded, indiscriminate sex.
And what’s the basis of his or her view? Firstly the biological imperative – the propagation of the species – then the design of woman for child bearing and rearing, along with her mental equipment designed to carry out same … and then Matthew chapters 5 to 7 inclusive.
All those encapsulate is the only sane way a society can function and not wrack itself to pieces, leaving aside any diabolical intent at this point.
The fact that I even need to say it aloud shows how far we have strayed from any sane constraints on society. The fact that there are some readers here now even denying that need through some skewed version of the libertarian ideal, that they do not see procreation as quite different to the question of smoking or reading books or taking a bath as and when one wants – that attitude, that belief system, allows, aids and abets this Cheryl Tweedy:
And the diabolical precedent it sets to her fan base is so subtle. It all seems so eminently reasonable what she says. Woman is god over any newborn in this twisted, turned on its head philosophy, man is simply a sperm bank, end of. She literally goes to such a bank and has it inserted, for her own occasional need for man flesh she brings in someone for the job – whither commitment, sanctity for the newborn, the chance of any normal upbringing?
And what does it inevitably do to that woman’s soul, completely freed from consideration of any but her own self-perceived needs? It turns her dysfunctional, turns her into a monster. A pretty monster to be sure … but still a monster.
And what is the defence trotted out to ensure that no one at all encroaches on that ‘freedom’? The mocking expression ‘for the cheeldren’. Even some close to me trot that one out in response to leftist ravings.
Why on earth would my friend mock children’s welfare but instead rail against animal cruelty or all the other things we rail against on these blogs?
How on earth can the rape culters get away with mass Rotherhams?
The answer is that the very people doing these destructive things are the same ones saying that it’s ‘for the cheeldren’ ad nauseam. Every wrongheaded policy today is ‘for the cheeldren’.
The whole notion of ‘for the cheeldren’, through the abuse of that expression by the left is therefore mocked, in reaction, by the very people – us – who should be stepping in and stopping these abuses and atrocities.
That’s the diabolical cleverness of the manipulation. It strips away any possible protection of a real, ongoing kind, with a faux, State ‘child protection authority’ which does nothing of the kind.
So terribly subtle, so seemingly compassionate and lovely to twisted modern eyes is Cheryl Tweedy’s stance.
Yes, she’ll dote on that upcoming kid with no father because after all, the kid’s the only thing, meantime banging anything halfway goodlooking with a tadger because it means she needn’t take any responsibility ever towards both the child plus the father of the child. She understands the one but dismisses the other as too difficult for her selfish, me me me nature.
She has successfully split asunder the two halves of the one equation.
And is woman actually capable of rational decision making?
Not modern woman, for sure. Not if she has no code to adhere to. She becomes a harpy in slut-suit and tramp-stamp, she becomes a Wrong Daily, a Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Pelosi, a ‘squaddy’, a Kamala Harris, a St Greta, a Harbag or Hewitt.
And the men? They become Lammys, Schumers, Blairs, Cuomos, Bidens, Clintons, Epsteins, wispy-bearded Antifas. Useless in society, except to do more than donate sperm to sperm banks and bash grandfathers over the head with bicycle chains at protests.
And why would a large number of men who are none of those things, who really are men for better or for worse – the type of men who read this blog – why would they go along with slut-suited, nose-boning tramp-stampers?
Because we know very well that to get hourly eyefuls of acres of female flesh and pink bits gratis, sans responsibility nor the need to outlay cash to procure same – we can have our fill and it costs us nothing.
To have strip shows and nooky on tap, no strings attached, no questions asked, is surely Man’s dream scenario? And modern woman is providing it, under the illusion that she is being progressive, Woke, that she’s to be admired for her ‘courage’.
The woman in the apartment at the end of our landing is not my responsibility unless her shrieking keeps me awake or her apartment turns into a knocking shop, because then our house security is compromised … meaning mine is but I can pretend I would be representing all residents then.
And the one before her had a drug thing going, necessitating Plod at all hours of day and night, something next door finally refused to put up with, thank goodness. See, where do these people finally step off? What’s the point at which we say, ‘No more!’ ???
Why is she not my responsibility? Easy answer is that she is not living next door with all kinds of comings and goings and loud noise and screaming fights 24/7. That’s the easy answer.
The far more difficult answer is that every step away from self-constraint, especially for those born in the past 30 years with no self-constraints at all, all have prizes, lessens the ability to contain oneself. And what of stress, despair, dashed hopes 24/7? No code, no sense of neighbourliness, no sense of anything? Is it only the openly religious, you blessed children of mine, peace be upon you, who can see all this, who can feel similar misgivings?
Of course not, it’s rubbish to suggest the non-religious cannot feel the old style of at least part-responsibility, to recognise limits.
But it does show who Them need to target early to ensure the disintegration continues unfettered. Anyone in accord with the sentiments of this post are on the list.
Why? Because you already have form in Them’s eyes. The types of things you think, say and do are on file. Alexa and Siri have ensured that, let alone the countless other ways from your daily doings elsewhere, unless you’re a techie of the old type, in which case you’re automatically on the list anyway.
Here endeth the rant.