Praise to the Conduct-or

And if the young man had bitch-slapped her in return, as he ought to have done, all hell would have broken loose. Something like this will happen if women are setting the standards for behaviour. Men are emasculated because their best instincts are vilified and incriminated. Notabene that this didn't happen in America, but in a Catholic, European country. It's creeping in everywhere.

Hat tip: So much wrong.

Men Who Deserve to Perish

The following was triggered off by a discussion about cinematography and the fact that more and more mainstream films that do not feature homosexuality AS SUCH, include "gay sex" scenes. I don't even own a TV set, hardly ever go to the cinema and buy a DVD only if it's become cheap enough, so I am usually years behind, but I have never found that a disadvantage. However, I find this instant of yet another offputting "in-our-face" strategy of the "gay" lobby still worth a comment. Homosexuals are a small minority (although they are working hard on changing that) yet the heterosexual majority is FORCED to acknowledge their sexuality, once it's featured in mainstream films. This is not new but still topical:

DANIEL CRAIG is urging movie bosses to revolutionise the JAMES BOND franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers. He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it."

So the perversion and corruption has already gone far enough for a (presumably) straight man to want to appeal to his female AND MALE "admirers" (in a sexual sense). Now come, all you straight people and tell me that the thought that a nude display of your body might "please admirers" of the same sex does NOT make you puke your guts out! The time that such a display of my own body might have done that is not all THAT long ago not to be sure that I, for one, WOULD have puked my guts out. As an aside: The fact alone, that an ugly but otherwise insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig could acquire "heartthrob" status and be considred "rugged" speaks for itself. He is neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery. And he has just an average physique as well, if that. How anybody who ever saw the pectorals and other assorted muscles of a Lloyd Bridges can find the remotest pleasure (whether aesthetically or sexually) in a nonentity like Daniel Craig is beyond me. Notabene that men in the past weren't afraid either to show that they had chest hair, different from the girlie- or neutered men of today.

In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, that is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that phenomenon. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average male's testosterone level by another 10 percent.

Good luck to you, American men! No doubt, deriving pleasure from the fact that you are really, really good boys and in all thinkable situations impeccably politically correct will, one day soon, give you more pleasure than the act of procreation. You have gone a long way already towards the brave new world of an Andrea Dworkin, whose vision was that men are reduced to sperm banks on two legs, whose only useful occupation would be the occasional contribution to the gene pool. Men who are too scared to preserve their own sexuality deserve to perish.

Posted with a slightly different angle at The Evil Style Queen and Roncesvalles.

The Disregard for Male Physical and Mental Integrity

I admit that the current woes of the cutest and bravest of all terriers has led me to write this and it may be over the top, but okay, here it goes: Have you noted, as I did, that people are over-zealous when it comes to castrating male dogs, but never about bitches? It may be a German thing, it may have something to do with the fact that the castration of dogs is, for obvious anatomical reasons, easier (and less expensive) than the castration of a bitch, but I STILL want to bellyache about it!

The little guy is sitting at the door, whining and moaning for days now because our neighbour's bitch is in heat. Now they have TWO little pooches, a dog and a bitch and guess who is castrated? Well, obviously not the bitch.

ONE bitch in heat spoils a huge entire area where people let their dogs run free. But no, they do not, as I did before MY bitch was castrated, walk her on the leash where no dogs are running loose anyway until the heat is safely over, they expect the dogs' owners to keep THEM on the leash or stay at home. I know dogs who refuse to eat and degenerate into one rackabones within days once they've caught a whiff of a bitch in heat.

I notice, too, that people pre-suppose that a dog is castrated and are actually amazed (and a little bit taken aback) if they discover that no, this one isn't. He is a stud dog, but I'd never have him castrated anyway. Have people ever observed how a castrated dog is treated by those whose peer he once was? Studying animals' behaviour can teach one a lot!

Am I now over the top if I say that this is just a symptom for the general disregard for the male sex in our society? They have no regard for the physical integrity or mental wellbeing of male dogs, but for that of bitches. The males' suffering is met with silly jokes and a few cuts of the scalpel. If one female spoils the fun of dozens of their male counterparts, it doesn't matter. They are supposed to swallow that or to go away. Does that remind you of something? No, we haven't arrived at the scalpel-solution for the human male YET, but everything else bears a frightening resemblance.

I wonder whether it gives those females (most pooch owners happen to be -- or rather ARE -- female) a kick to have an emasculated once-male creature on the leash. Yes, maybe that's over the top, but maybe it's food for thought.

Is my little bitch impaired, now she is castrated? You must be joking! She is still as bossy, mean and manipulative as she was when she still had her ovaries.

Oh yes, and did I say watching animals can teach us a lot?

The Chicken of Equality and Tolerance are Coming Home to Roost

Two comments from my other blog:

Alligator said...

Nature abhors a vacuum and I've heard that the same applies to spiritual beliefs. The West has abandoned much of its spirituality (primarily Christianity) for secularism. Perhaps this has left a void that is now being filled increasingly by Islam. Many people no longer have a basis (spiritual or historical) for refusing or opposing it. That and they have been conditioned by multiculturalism to see Islam as co-equal to anything produced in the west. Its just another way to live. (We must ignore the stoning of women or homosexuals, honor killings or threats to assimilate or annihilate those who do not embrace the true faith)

I don't know, I'm just casting a line out here for reasons. So many people seem hell-bent on proving they tolerate or accept Islam while overlooking its significant dark acts. Yet they are quick to pounce on any shortcomings of conservatives, Christians or Jews as reasons for rejecting and ostracizing those people, be they real or as is frequently the case, imagined. It puzzles and confounds me.

23 August, 2009 05:03

The_Editrix said...

Western submission to Islam has many reasons. Material considerations, love for totalitarian ideologies or, the spiritual vacuum you describe or, as in Germany, the well-founded hope that Muslims will finish what Germans were forced to stop 64 years ago.

Also, there is the aspect of Western women who have totally emasculated their men and are now nostalgically seeking for aggressive, violent, sweaty masculinity. That they are totally ignoring the rape statistics is probably something that has to do with the mental incostistency from which the majority of the female sex suffers.

Another, and specifically unsavoury, aspect is that of a certain cross-cultural affinity, which is largely overlooked, probably because the mere thought is too repulsive to most sane and healthy people to be taken as something that ought to be considered. How debased and rotten to the core is a society whose media publishes a justification of sex with children with the goal of excusing Islam of what it is? This aspect is more important that we wish it to be.

24 August, 2009 20:49

Women have not just alienated and emasculated their own natural protectors, but those of their sons as well.

A Plea for Mendacity

Sometimes, I dislike America intensely. Maybe it's partly a matter of linguistics, but still...

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's mother said yesterday that she was praying for her son as pressure mounted for a criminal probe into his secret trip to visit his lover in Argentina. "I love him and support him," Margaret Sanford, 83, said while sitting on a wooden picnic bench outside her home.

After going missing for days, the married father of four admitted Wednesday to a yearlong affair with a woman who lives in Argentina. In a tearful news conference, the two-term Republican asked for forgiveness and explained that a friendship with the woman had blossomed into romance a year ago, around the time of a state-funded trip to South America.

For Heaven's Sake, can't she pray in privacy? Certainly her brand of Christianity hasn't done much for the son she (presumably) brought up. Alright, we Europeans (at least we Germans and certainly the English) are a stuck-up bunch when it comes to religion, but this is obscene.

But what I find even worse is to describe the making of an adulterous relationship as "a friendship with (a) woman (that) had blossomed into romance." Romance? BLOSSOMED? Pukebags anybody?

Not that politicians at this end (or people generally) do not commit adultery. But at least it isn't hyped to the max (to use another disgusting Americanism) or maybe they are just not as often found out, be that because they are less dumb than their American counterparts or because there is just less interest in other peoples' sex lifes. Whatever, so far we have been spared that cheesy view of adultery, the snivelling of the perpetrators and, thank God for small mercies, Mum's sanctimonious drivel as the icing on a turd that tries to sell itself as a chocolate truffle.

There IS, after all, a difference between mendacity and hypocrisy. The former can sometimes be necessary for sanity's sake, the latter destroys it.

The rest of the tripe is here.

The De-Masculinisation of War

The German language knows, different from English, a specific term for soldiers who are killed in action at wartime. They are not soldiers killed in action or in a war, they are "fallen" soldiers. A soldier "falls" in a war. "Mein Vater ist im Krieg gefallen", somebody whose father was killed in the war would say.

Now I am writing this I realize it doesn't sound all that good in English, but trust me, in German it pays tribute to the extraordinary circumstances under which a soldier is killed in action.

The day before yesterday, at the memorial service for the two German soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan, our minister of defence Franz Josef Jung spoke about soldiers who "fell" during their peace mission for our country.

That is totally new. Until now, politicians had shunned that word carefully. In the same spirit, there are no enemies anymore but adversaries, no wars, but conflicts and no terrorists but insurgents, as the entire discourse has become flattened, euphemizised and (dare I say it?) de-masculinised. Cynics even jested that those soldiers had been the victims of a "qualified industrial injury".

So finally our minister of defence has come to the conclusion that we are at war, a conclusion to which, no doubt, the families of the soldiers deployed to the Hindu Kush have come long ago.

The Creeping 'Woody Allenization' of Males

I found an interesting article from last November, but topical nevertheless. Its implications are far beyond just the military and are not confined to America, or at least so I think. To me, there is more to it because "soldierly" values transcend a society and America is usually the vanguard of the West -- be it for good or for bad. Without a functioning male, the nucleus of our society and culture, the family, has lost its meaning and we our armour. We have nobody to fight and nothing to fight for anymore. In a society where it is not just considered "rational", but has become well nigh trendy to be a confessing "coward", where the existence of shooting ranges (for sport purposes) has become the object of derision and fear, where people like to think that shooting wildlife is cruel (of course, if it weren't for those nasty guns, wildlife would be put on a drip and nursed to death by their fellow critters) manly and soldierly values have become not just obsolete, but anti-social. I think the widespread societal demand for emasculated males should be seen in the same context as the obedience towards... no, the ANTICIPATING obedience towards other cultures and specifically Islam. And all that for the sake of some "fashionable" trends. Or maybe it's REALLY time for us, the West, the Whites, whatever, to withdraw and descend down to the bilges of history.

To Win A War, You Must Be Willing To Look 'Bad' by Rabbi Aryeh Spero Posted Nov 29, 2005 Listening to the media, the talking heads, and many in Congress, one gets the sense that the most important element in our war against jihadist terrorism is not victory but who can show that he cares more than the other guy about the comfort and “rights” of terrorist detainees. In other words, who can boast that he is more “ethical” than the rest of us. This is no way to win a war. Instead of determining what best can achieve immediate victory, our preoccupation has been more about feeding detainees the Islamic food of their choice; safeguarding the Koran more than our own Bible; trying them not in military courts where they should be tried but in civil courts so they can have the best lawyers and chance at acquittal; providing them with all the Constitutional rights reserved for those born here who wish not to destroy our Constitution; and instituting anti-torture standards whose definition judges can expand so that effective interrogation will be impossible. Better for a million Americans to be incinerated, avant garde thinking goes, than use on known terrorists procedures that might elicit dates, time and place of imminent bombings of U.S. cities and citizens. It is not that the country has gone moral, it has gone crazy. It reminds me of the administration of Mayor David Dinkins in New York City between 1988-1992, where the purpose of government city services was not to supply the service but push affirmative action at all costs and various “feel good” social engineering schemes. For many in today’s chattering classes, the army is not allowed to be used for its purpose of winning wars but for demonstrating our “compassion.” Worse, more effort is spent dangerously telling our troops what they cannot do than empowering them to do what they must to save their comrades and defeat the enemy. No doubt our young field soldier is at risk when in the back of his mind is a picture of a liberal lawyer eager to throw him into jail if he acts like a soldier instead of a nurse. The ACLUnik attorney who puts him in this danger couldn’t care less, since his sons, relatives, and bourgeois friends rarely serve in the military. If we loose this war and our lives, it will be because people cared more about “not looking bad” than our own survival. But morality dictates that you save the lives of your family and fellow citizens before agonizing over the sensitivities of those coming to saw your head off your body. We may loose precisely because liberalism forced us to adopt a demented view of morality, one that is classically immoral. No question, we are witnessing how perverted values engender perverted definitions and decisions. Current liberalism has destroyed our moral compass and replaced it with its own foolish and destructive value system. How did this happen? When a nation becomes tentative about its own identity, it adopts a new “morality” to furnish identity. Such is the reality when people throw off age-old moral surety and replace it with “ersatz” morality. Only men who have lost their masculinity care more about how others will perceive them over what it takes to achieve a crushing victory. My grandfather and his friends, who lived way before the ubiquitous effeminate male, lived their lives based on more than how other people saw them. “What will the other countries and people think of us” is the refrain we so often hear from the Woody Allenized male members of Congress. Those who don’t have the stomach to do what military victory demands find their cover and justification for weakness in “morality.” Sending another 100,000 troops means nothing if they are not deployed to do what armies are trained to do -- demolish the enemy. Truth be told, there are many in Congress who feel guilty having to support war, military means. They want, therefore, to be able to “stand above it” by saying they approve of no aspect that can be criticized. They don’t want to be soiled by it. My grandmother had a Yiddish phrase that described moral midgets such as these who never took a position that could make them look “bad.” They were sarcastically referred to as finer mentshen, too good to get their hands dirty. She also would have been appalled by our post-60s masculinized women whose leftist ideology results more in rage at their own country than gratitude to it for protecting hearth and home. While our President has the correct convictions, often his tenacity atrophies. I sometimes wonder if too much focus is placed upon not harming the “innocents” among the Religion of Peace as opposed to more pressing battle imperatives. We could have been victorious in this war a while back if not for this new “Compassionate War” theology, plaguing even the President. If the United States is unwilling to fight a war with every ounce of its power, it should not go to war, for then it is not the United States at war but some reduced power at war. Yes, the rules of war must be different than those that govern everyday civic life. Even the Bible says so. Instead, we are allowing the ACLU and other leftists to run our wars. We are permitting newly-hatched domestic “humanitarian” organizations -- comprised of a director, staff of three, a fax, and a Soros-type sugar daddy -- to downsize the effectiveness and capability of the U.S. military. Those liberal members of Congress who have become finer mentshen, caring more about how refined and politically correct they appear, are not made of the pluck to lead. We should therefore not follow. Those who exploit this bogus “morality” as a means for America to loose a war in order to topple a President so they can regain power are treasonous. Those who think that the terrorists will go easy on us if we simply announce our proscription against torture are showing that in their mind our safety depends on the goodwill of the enemy. If so, we might as well already raise the white flag. As for the ACLUniks, the Kuntsler-type lawyers, and the perverted lefties who always prefer our enemies over us -- how about reinstating a special draft just for them so that for once in their life they could serve their country instead of diminishing it.

Amen to that, Rabbi!