Feminism is a deception perpetrated on women and society by a small group of females, in order to implement a Communist Revolution. If you don’t believe me, read Gloria Steinem: ‘the only thing Marx got wrong is that the means ARE the end’.
The sex-doll issue, which was bubbling in the news-feeds as feminists set it up for attack — until COVID-19 stole the show — is illustrative of how they use sex to exercise power over men. No women are harmed in a sexual exchange between a man and a piece of plastic, yet somehow it is still ‘demeaning to women’ for this to happen. How is that even possible? It’s a SEX TOY.
I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin
We generally agree, as humans, that human life is sacrosanct. It is one of the greatest cultural condemnations we can deliver, that ‘human life has no value’. Yet abortion does precisely that: it places the value of human life at zero.
I spent much of my life as a classical liberal who would have agreed that, within the precinct of one’s own body, the right of self-determination is absolute. And in general, I still hold this to be true. Across a swathe of issues from transsexualism to tattooing to more extreme forms of ‘body art’, as long as it harms no other, then the individual does indeed have sovereignty over his or her own body. Yes there is a responsibility towards whatever collective that nurtured the child and made the adult, be that family, city or State; but we repay these in our love for those who raised us, in our love for those we in turn raise and, should that not be enough to persuade the most flinty-hearted, in the taxes and services we render. Within our own bodies and minds, we are sovereign.
‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men like Harry Hay, one of the founders. He was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of Western LGB could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet. But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? How do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected? Certes, modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
Today is not the first time that feminism has threatened to destroy civilisation. It’s very interesting to note, if you study the mythologies of the ancient Levant on which Christianity is based, how the Goddess, symbolic of women, became identified with Satan. The serpent and the dragon (just a bigger version) were always creatures of the Goddess. The day aspect of the Goddess in Sumerian mythology was called Inanna (later Ishtar) whose uncle, Enki, was her closest ally. Enki frequently appeared as a snake. Later, still in the eastern Levant, the Akkadian god Marduk kills the Goddess in the form of Tiamat, a huge dragon. (This gives us all the Medusa, St George and so on stories.) Satan, of course, in the Garden of Eden, is the Serpent — the Goddess’ closest ally. This identification of serpent/dragon/goddess/woman pervades our culture.
Why does it do so? Feminism, of course, argues that this was a plot to suppress women by demonising them. But that’s not the only possible explanation. Could it be because women have tried to dominate society in the past and the stories are a warning against ever allowing that to happen again? Because our forefathers knew what happened when women emasculated society.
What is ‘sex tourism’? It’s a subject that generates a great deal of copy and little enlightenment. Is it just ‘mongering’, the practice of buying sex, but this time in foreign lands? And if it were, would there be anything wrong with that? Or is it any sex abroad? Is having sex when you’re on holiday ‘sex tourism’? What about if you live abroad and occasionally have dalliances with the locals? Sex tourism? What about, in the same country, if you marry a local? Still ‘sex tourism’?
What does ‘sex tourism’ actually mean? Is it really a thing, or is it just another nasty epithet that the lowest of the low, rabidfems, use to try to shame men into behaving by the rules that they and other feminazis set, without ever getting a say in defining those rules? Can women be ‘guilty’ of ‘sex tourism’, or is that just holiday fucking?
Something that I have thought about a lot over the last seven years is this: why would a man not want to date a transwomen? I see, practically on a daily basis, the hot stares of men as they scope a ladyboy. Most of the t-girls here are slender, with little in the way of silicone, other than maybe a boob job. Men can’t stop themselves. You can see them sliding their eyes up those long brown legs — and legs are something ladyboys do magnificently, never mind those tight little backsides. They know their good features and they don’t hesitate to show them off — exactly as other women here do.
Most amusing, perhaps, is the Western male, the Anglo-Saxon particularly (Mediterranean types have a different take on life.) So often I have been sitting in a bar watching one of them, or sometimes sitting in the same company. I saw them fascinated, practically salivating, over a girl nearby, and then their reactions as one of their companions leans forward and murmurs something crass like ‘You’ll get more than you expect with that one, mate, she’s a bloke!’
On the tenth anniversary of completing the first draft of The Warm Pink Jelly Express Train, I am republishing this article about it. It describes an affair between a Brazilian transsexual prostitute and a Western straight man.
Poaching is essentially a romanticised memoir; Warm Pink is nothing like that. It is far deeper and more introspective and writing it, along with the later Why Men Made God, was what shaped my current world view.
My ideas about gender in particular were formed by the research and writing of Warm Pink. Although it is a breathlessly-paced romantic adventure, it required me to dig deep into the natures of gender and sexuality, something I had never done before.
There are three parameters that I think define the level of freedom we actually enjoy. I call them the ‘3 Ps’.
(This was written in the happier days of 2015, when we measured freedom more casually. Today, a mere three years later, in 2018, the real threat to our freedom is the relentless attack on free speech and expression, being pursued by the Left and its feminist, Portmodernist and Identitarian fellow-travellers. Even stating simple facts today is considered a ‘hate crime’ in many jurisdictions, including the UK. Sometimes, frankly, I wish we had the Cold War back. At least then we knew what we stood for. I still do; do you? Another war is coming, of that we can now be absolutely sure. Indeed, it may already have begun.)
Identity Politics (IP) is a product of Postmodernism, the corrupted thinking that gave us Political Correctness (PC). This operates by denying an opponent the language needed to present a case, and thus preventing that person from doing so. It is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, because it is directly contradictory to free speech. You cannot speak freely if the language you must use has been censored so that you cannot express yourself. However, the Regressive Postmodernist Left has never been very keen on free speech. It prefers that people toe the party line.
IP ‘identifies’ a hierarchy in society, which it defines as ‘relative privilege’. It suggests that there is such a thing as ‘the patriarchy’, which apportions ‘privilege’ to individuals according to their identities — white men, black women, and so on. It proposes to counter this by establishing a hierarchy based on ‘oppression’. It says that those who are awarded most patriarchal privilege should not be allowed to speak about matters that affect the less privileged. This applies even if the person speaking is a recognised expert quoting the best science.
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.