Tag Archives: Social Engineering

“Male And Female Friendships Always Turn Sexual”. Fuck Off.

A few years ago, this peculiar idea came to me, and I still stick by it – puritans and supporters of promiscuity are of the exact same mindset regarding human nature. They just choose to tackle it in  different ways.

Basically, some people – most people? – think that when a man and a woman become intellectually and emotionally close, in other words good friends, things degenerate into a sexual relationship, or the desire to have one, at least on one person’s part. The general idea is that “things get complicated” by default.

Pardon me but I think that’s complete bullshit. Not just because I have male friends, but because I find this entire concept artificial and a product of indoctrination – both religious and “progressive” simultaneously.

Hollywood doesn’t help, by always using narratives involving a man and a woman who, by the end of a film, are by default expected to become sexually involved. Apparently there’s a marketing issue involved as “successful” films have to contain a certain percentage of what everyone wants to see, which is why so many blockbusters follow a certain pattern. Unfortunately, that marketing ploy, combined with an (un)healthy dose of gossip mongering, leads to distorted perceptions in real life, whereby two people of the opposite sex who become close start looking “suspicious” to others, causing the assumption that another type of intimacy is present.

For quite a few years, I’ve been of the opinion that monogamy simply makes sense, as it raises the chances of a stronger family unit (chances, not guarantees, of course) and reduces the risk of getting an STD, which sadly is a rampant phenomenon today. Also, it’s safer to know where one is spreading their genetic material, as proven by the few (but incredibly creepy) cases of couples finding out they were actually second degree relatives. Reality beats fiction, as usual. For that same length of time, people have called me a number of names, regressive being the mildest. Debating the matter has led me to a peculiar conclusion.

People who argue that we are polygamous by nature and can’t help engaging sexually with those we are attracted to, or bond with in general, basically share the view of puritans, who think the same (but fear and reject it instead). 

Both views are based on the exacerbation of the animal side of human nature. Both are based on the idea that acknowledging someone’s attractiveness is a bolted impetus to act on that observation and one remains by default at that level, without managing to rise above it (naturally, not by forcing the mind) and form beautiful, long-lasting bonds. And that emotional bonds eventually lead to such thoughts.

Religious folks are brought up with the neurosis of remaining pure, both physically and mentally, to the point of fearing interaction with other people, for no other reason than fearing their own reaction to them.

Progressives, at the opposite pole, think there is no harm in interacting sexually with as many  people as one pleases, at random, though medical statistics have shown that to lead to a rise in STDs  and abortions, and potentially mess up people emotionally as well.

Reality, of course, is very different than the foundation of these views.

One can form intellectual and spiritual bonds with anyone, transcending barriers such as sex, age, race or whatever you can come up with. Provided that those bonds are genuine and not predatory, of course (I’m referring to the age aspect when minors are involved).

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the popularisation of this concept – that we are little more than animals – is yet another attempt to drive people apart or make them fear a deep connection to each other.

I agree, as any sensible individual would, that the family is being massively targeted nowadays and ideological groups create needles acrimony.

But I believe it doesn’t stop there. I believe the ultimate goal is to isolate every individual from others, at all cost, and that this needless fear of bonding is part of it.


The False “Bad-ass Woman” Hollywood Pushes

Over the years, to feminists’ masturbatory joy and impacting on young minds, we have witnessed an unrealistic ideal films promote among women. Hollywood heroines have the right temper, moves and strength to get themselves out of any situation, no matter how perilous.  As usual, I tend to disagree.

Fighting men

For a woman who is not highly trained or a body builder, let me just say that attempting to fight an actual man is not an option with a happy ending.

As motivating as those highly choreographed films are, of fit women “kicking ass” left right and centre, surely you realise those are just politically correct fantasies and  not rooted in reality. Men are naturally stronger; so much stronger that even trying is idiotic. It might seem plausible while high on speed, but real life is very different. You should never engage in a physical fight lacking some kind of prop (mace, a blunt object, you name it). And obviously, only when this is absolutely justified.

I can even give an anecdotal example. A few years ago, I ended up in a situation of trying to help out one man who was in a very unfair situation, being attacked by four other men simultaneously. Not very pleasant and adrenaline-rising indeed (by the way, I was not high on anything, just plain sober, whilst they were all drunk, which is supposed to make them weaker, apparently). My only pathetic attempt was trying to remove one of the three guys pinning him down on the ground- though I tried with all my strength, the guy didn’t move an inch; he didn’t even budge. In fact, I’m confident I never moved one hair on his body. And I’m also confident that if he had retorted, he would’ve put my lights out for the night. The only way they stopped was by hearing a blaring siren approaching.

That’s not to say that I’m not ordinarily strong; in fact I have handled quite a few situations where many women would request help in terms of lifting and the likes, and have often taken some measly pride in it. However, when it came down to an actual physical confrontation, I could not even make that guy flinch.

The female killer

Naturally, women are designed for giving, nurturing and assisting life, even against their better judgement.

The core of femininity is now being sabotaged by those wishing to normalise the profile of the ruthless woman taking lives without thought or remorse. Such women exist, obviously, and just as obviously, they are deranged.

We have female politicians nowadays who endorse war and justify the killing and maiming of civilians. They are clearly psychopathic.

There are also women who voluntarily join wars of liberation – and that is completely understandable in those circumstances.

But the false stereotype Hollywood has been pushing,  of the female version of a trigger-happy alpha male on steroids,  is completely unrealistic.

Most women should be able to see that and not be drawn by that mirage of so-called empowerment.

Women are being hit, just like men, with poisonous, damaging stereotypes many will end up internalising as they grow up.

Let’s hope nature prevails in the end.

Animal Rights Fanatics Seem To Be Sociopathic

(I know I’m using very strong language here but I’m fed up with this trend of getting thousands of coffee break activists to harass a stranger – in this case, half a million of them, including celebrities with a large platform, whom I lost all respect for after they chose to participate in this mass bullying. This type of targeting, virtually overnight, can very well lead some people to suicide.)

At the moment, the US is in uproar about an incident involving a gorilla being shot at a zoo, after a child fell into its enclosure and was dragged by it through the water, being in extreme danger the whole time. Regardless of the intentions said gorilla had, it was a very strong, unpredictable animal, capable of killing or seriously injuring the child. The zoo’s management explained very logically and people with a long expertise in the behaviour of these animals backed up the decision that had to be made instantly. A sad decision, but unavoidable.

As expected, fanatics worked themselves into a frenzy and have now started a petition for the child’s family to be investigated, out of feigned concern for his safety at home. They want the state to get involved and hold the parents accountable. For what it’s worth, it was an accident, FFS – no one can determine a single aspect of that child’s life based on that. He sneaked away and fell. It is very clear to anyone with two functioning neurons that this lot is not concerned with the child’s life – and wasn’t to begin with. They want revenge in the form of human suffering.

The unadulterated pieces of scum behind this petition will not rest until they  damage lives; they want their witch hunt, their pound of flesh to place on the altar of a dead animal. You see, instead of the barbarism of sacrificing animals to God, as in Biblical times, we, the progressive lot, are now idolising carcasses and sacrificing people to them. We dedicate memorials and art pieces to creatures which would literally urinate on them (that would be incredibly funny to watch).

The sanctimoniousness, the hysteria is only in these people’s heads; it’s self-congratulatory and nothing more.

The number of people signing this, some of them probably without much thought, in order to align themselves with the latest trend on social media, is indeed alarming. The text you can see there was much briefer originally and has now been edited in order to pretend they are not encouraging the hoards to harass that family – although said harassment did take place, at the prompting of these idiots. Such hypocrisy is vomit inducing; they are taking legal precautions now, whilst to start with they encouraged a mob outrage.

I read the petition as they first wrote it, and it can still be seen below the diluted, half-assed disclaimer that it only seeks to help – including the parents, to make sure they have access to resources and support in their family life. Its only – unveiled – goal initially was revenge and it was going for them like a bulldog in attack mode. That cannot be taken back, whatever sweetened variation of it they present now. It’s ludicrous to claim good intentions towards people you caused to be harassed and threatened with murder.

I’m not saying the gorilla’s death is not regrettable – but FFS, have some common sense. Who are they doing all this for? Is the gorilla watching from gorilla heaven? Is there any point? How well did they know this animal, as to be heartbroken by its death?

This is solely a manifestation of some people’s festering hatred of their own species, of their hysteria and desire to persecute others. It is reminiscent of medieval or political trials, where little logic or compassion was employed and the only standard to judge others by was the fanatical dedication to a cause, be it religion, fascism or communism.


Far from disliking animals and from rejecting the hypothesis that they are spiritual in some form, I can’t help noticing the current trend of animal worship and loathing of humans, common not only to “save the planet from us” fanatics but to people from all walks of life. Somehow, instead of rejecting the system we live under, they have started rejecting human nature altogether, although they know that they themselves are not monsters. Over the last few years this type of rhetoric has become very tiresome, if not worrying.

There is an actual debate whether human lives matter more than animal lives.

Here’s my take on some of the memes encountered out there.

Animals don’t lie. Because they can’t talk. Honesty is not something you value very much in your fellow humans, let’s face it.

Animals don’t disappoint you. Except sometimes, when they behave so much like animals (aggressively) that you have to neuter them or put them down mercifully, for not adapting to the rigours of human society.

Animals don’t tear your heart to bits. They might tear off smaller parts though, depending on their strength and their mood that moment. After all, they are unpredictable, as well as we claim to understand them. Certain dog breeds are famous for attacking their owners out of the blue, after spending a few happy years inside their homes.

Animals understand you better than humans. They listen to you. No, fuckwit. They just stand there and gawk at you because you’ve probably locked the door, despite the fact that they can’t bear your winging voice. They have a vested interest in remaining there; they depend on you for sustenance. And more than likely, they can’t twig 90% of what you’re saying anyway.

The animals these fuckwits (I’m only referring to those who claim animals should be prioritised over people) enjoy the company of so much have been domesticated by their fellow humans for hundreds or thousands of years. That is how they warmed up to humans in the first place and imitate human behaviour to some extent.

Try finding that connection with feral animals in the jungle, untouched by morally corrupt human hands. Good luck.

Even the animals which are uncommonly held as pets (reptiles, spiders etc) are also in the homes of these fuckwits because they’ve been studied by humans and declared safe to have around. You wouldn’t just grab one from the wild and put it next to your pillow.

The very fact that the fuckwits can have pets is a result of others having tried it before, repeatedly, since the beginnings of civilisation. So give me a break. Please.

May I also add that the fuckwits proliferate on how awful and stupid people are on their laptops or phones, which humans invented, from the comfort of their homes, which humans built.

Later edit

Some of the few articles calling this internet mob justice phenomenon for what it is are heavily trolled – they simply could not settle for less; every dissenting voice has to be stifled.

It turns out they flooded the mother’s workplace with threats and demands and might stage a protest outside. They want her out of work as well. And all this, remember – because they are so worried about the welfare of her child.

There is no end in sight to this just now (except to this so-called civilised society which is anything but). People have become cannibals. Or some, I should say.

Yet another edit

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the petitioning hobbyist who started the witch hunt did not get her pound of flesh.

Those who carried out the investigation had more brains and decency than the frothing hordes and no human lives or jobs were lost.

The hordes had to pack the popcorn and go home; there was no hanging to watch.



The Progressive Art Of Fucking Up Valid Points

Have you come across people who express a perfectly good point, to then ruin it with ludicrous arguments? For a while, this article gave me hope in terms of finding decent rationales on that (disturbingly absurd) platform. It is based on the concept of vegan campaigns being inconsiderate to the suffering of human beings, prioritising animals over them.

The article mentions a case of  police brutality against a man from an ethnic minority (in the US), who intended to perform a ritual involving a seal, in a public place. I’ll take their word for it as the video has been deleted, but unfortunately sounds very plausible. Apparently, there was nothing violent about it; however, hysterical onlookers called the police, afraid that harm would come to the animal, and the police, without reason, evidence or provocation, had beaten the man to the point of breaking some of his bones. As this was happening, the ones who had called – whose sole excuse would be mental illness – filmed the event, which had reduced one woman to sobs, not out of guilt regarding the severe abuse an innocent man had suffered because of her paranoia, but from the emotional “trauma” she had suffered by fearing that the seal would be hurt. This case is indeed disgusting and deserves all the public attention it can get, to exemplify how things have gone way too far for some animal lovers.

However, here’s where the approach screws up.

It’s not okay to use the protection of animals as a validation for the perpetuation of state violence on marginalized bodies or the continued colonization of cultural heritages we’re struggling to sustain.  

Being able to empathize and fear for a seal and not for the Native man being beaten, or the Black man being shot, is a symptom of white supremacy and colonization.  

This has nothing to do with minority status. It has everything to do with some people valuing animals more than humans – of any race, ethnicity, culture etc. If the unfortunate victim of communal hysteria, stupidity and baboon-like behaviour had been white, there would’ve been no difference at all in terms of the injustice. That person was innocent, wrongfully suspected, wrongfully accused and brutalised without provocation. These are the aspects which matter, ethnicity being the last on the list.

Those who take an extremist vegan stance, at times threatening or downright harming their fellow humans, are dangerous to everyone – not only to minorities and their traditions. Some would gladly put a gun to your head in order to force you to adopt veganism. Their fanaticism does not discriminate, if your brain is more evolved than that of a primate. You would not stop them if racism, classism & Co suddenly became history.

PETA disregards hurricane victims for being POC

Television hosts cry over Cecil the lion being shot, but no tears are shed for all of the Black and Brown folks being murdered and experiencing violence every day. PETA sends rescuers to save animals during Hurricane Katrina, but offers no assistance to the thousands of people (mostly people of color) who are stranded.

Whereas it is not mentioned specifically that this was their reason, the article insists on race, as if that made a difference where victims of a catastrophe are involved. Don’t get me wrong; PETA turns my stomach. Not only do they come up with vile, nightmarish adds which could safely be employed for the most gruesome horror films – they actually euthanise over 97% of the animals entrusted to them, whether they are ill or not. All evidence considered, I have no trouble calling some of them deeply deranged. If you follow the second link, there is an article regarding their mind-boggling attempts to resolve the situation between Israel and Palestine by… promoting veganism on a mural visible to both communities.

And, of course, the even more disturbing story of them rescuing animals and not people who needed assistance, besides spraying “animal killer” on the walls of homes where dead animals were found – because the owners had (perhaps) thought of the children and themselves first. For more details, you can read direct and detailed stories here.

PETA is one sick organisation. And not because of racism. They seem to hate the human race entirely.

The vegan lifestyle is classist

Although this is entirely true and vegans simply don’t realise that not everyone can afford their fancily manufactured foods, the following just had to be added:

This might be due to any combination of factors, ranging from food deserts to increased mainstream (read: White) use of foods like quinoa or soy, thus driving demand and therefore prices sky-high.

(I clicked on that link, there’s the material for another blog post – now I feel like a vulture, but this is just too good. Or too crazy; take your pick.)

I agree that vegans completely ignore those who can’t afford a diverse diet based on 100% non-animal products.Perhaps reiterating the fact that people of all skin colours and origins can be poor or extremely poor is redundant. Again, this has nothing to do with racism and the oppression of racial minorities.

Vegan campaigns against farming are “trans-exclusionary”

As the article puts it, attempting to draw feminists into veganism  by claiming that farming is based on the exploitation of the female reproductive system is in itself oppressive. To those women who were not born as such, that is. Because, it seems, including certain categories in discussions they have nothing to do with is mandatory nowadays. You might wonder what trans people have to do with egg-laying chickens and piglets. Or why – or if – they would want to be a part of that discussion at all.

Of course, the broader question would be what human females have to do with pigs and cows and hens, in general.

On the whole, this article is just one example of radical groups cannibalising each other.

Multiples, Transabled And Otherkin: Welcome To The 21st Century


Img1 copy

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone was constantly on LSD. Right now, a substantial part of the SJW generation seems to have had its drinks spiked (while on a binge).

Sensible people have long considered it a dismal idea to encourage everyone to think they actually are whatever they want to be identified as, eliminating limitations imposed by reality. There are still questions regarding the day those who think they are Jesus or Napoleon will be vindicated by general validation. In this post, I joked that gender fluid people sounded like they had multiple personality disorder.

Little did I know.

There actually is a community of folks referring to themselves as “plural” or “multiples”, who consider something resembling schizophrenia as their perfectly natural state. The way they describe it, one cannot tell it apart from  a pathologically fragmented identity, possibly hearing voices as well.

The other… entities populating their minds are referred to as “headmates” and the whole thing is seen as merely a different way of existing. There are, of course, dozens of problems with that. As this analysis details, they seem to be trivialising, if not glamourising, what may indeed be a serious condition (unless they are making it up in order to be different, but honestly, who would do that and risk being hospitalised).

There is a jargon associated with this condition personality type as well; for instance, when one of the “headmates” is “fronting”, it means they are coming forward for a discussion or taking over (I’m not sure which).


Some people still think the slippery slope of identity politics is an exaggeration – in spite of our planet boasting a growing community of Otherkin, who believe to be a mixture of human and non-human beings, the non-human ranging from animals (a dog or a wolf is common) to made-up entities such as unicorns, angels, dragons and elves. I understand those who identify as animals call themselves “Therians”.

Surprisingly, no one has claimed yet – to my knowledge anyway – to be the missing link in the chain of human evolution.


Some also argue it’s preposterous to claim leftist education is by itself responsible for these fables – however, most who display this aberrant thinking, on the internet anyway, are young and impressionable (usually teenagers) acting out on social media.

It seems the “wild side” of this generation has left Marilyn Manson behind, the black nail polish, the upside-down crosses and wrist-slashing music. Now they just think they’re dogs. So much better.

There was a story somewhere by a young lady who was confident enough to tell her boss that she was partially a wolf and while at work she was behaving oddly because she was “shifting”. The result of that was very predictable (she shifted from employed to unemployed, and of course she felt discriminated against). What ever goes through someone’s mind when they expect that to be taken seriously by people in the real world? I’m not trying to be insensitive; they are obviously troubled and look for a fantasy to take refuge in.

When seeing people with extreme body modifications in order to resemble animals (who are by now famous), one is obviously puzzled but still respects them as a fringe phenomenon, an oddity – yet don’t fancy their sons and daughters undergoing socially impairing, irreversible mutilations on a whim.

There are voices claiming the connection to an animal is spiritual and those who imagine that these people want to lick their balls  are just ignorant. Yet as much as I try, I cannot understand how identifying with an inferior species is somehow special; it’s like downgrading your brain by hundreds of thousands of years. There was a time when being called an animal was an insult.

The jokes must be cracking though. Hey darling, did you hear about the Otherkin? Half-human, half-animal. Like harpies. That would explain your mother.

On a serious note, some people (kids in particular) are enamoured with this concept of coming out of the closet; there are so many tutorials on the internet on how to tell your family that you’re “different”, which most times (I’m sure) is a disappointing experience, bound to confirm that your family couldn’t care less about you since they’re not supporting you in your transition to a Canadian beaver. It has clearly become a fad.

In terms of legal reforms, here’s a tight opening to squeeze into for fans of bestiality, no pun intended. If you want to fuck a goat, just pretend that at heart you are a goat as well. You’re trans-species (the term actually exists). If that becomes common enough, why should society keep you from consummating your natural love?

Unlike those special snowflakes who attach artificial tails to the back of their trousers (for whom it’s Halloween every single day), some people wish they could lose their perfectly functioning limbs or physical abilities. Referred to as “transabled”, they are yet another “trans” category wishing (and hoping) to transition to disabled. Yes, that’s right, this happens whilst others struggle with their disabilities and are striving to overcome the difficulties of life, which is the ultimate insult. There was a lady who got a psychologist to pour bleach in her eyes so she could become blind. For most people who are able to see, being blind is an absolutely terrifying prospect.

Others want their arms or legs amputated – fair enough, hands can be arranged if they just go to Yemen and steal a bike, but supposedly it wouldn’t be very pleasant. Though some of the methods they use (crushing their limbs with concrete blocks, cutting them off with chainsaws etc) are not very pleasant themselves.

The most extraordinary thing is that unlike other types of mentally distressed individuals, they are starting to be taken seriously, even by some doctors, as I understand. Which says it all regarding the hold leftist propaganda has manage to attain.

Turning against conventions and the rigid, hypocritical society has a point when it evolves organically; these people claim to do so while unaware that their “revolution” is a product of social engineering, on a mass scale.

A revolutionary act today is declaring yourself simply male or female, with no other proclivities or curiosities, starting a family before you’re 35, getting married without a prenup and trying to save your marriage instead of running to a tabloid with your duck-face poses and sappy story of emotional neglect. A revolutionary act is turning the TV off for good, instead of watching so much fiction you end up believing you’re a vampire or an extraterrestrial warlord.

In any case, if you have any questions on human nature, you can always turn to Tumblr, where you can be exhaustively educated by thirteen-year-olds. Just don’t tell them to bite you. They might.



Quotas In Art – The New Insanity

Recently, uproar was caused by the fact that a TV series killed off a lesbian character , followed by another sudden fictitious demise, as the article mentions. Apparently, enough people can find the time and energy to consider the importance of a TV character dying to make this international news, at least on the internet.

Words fail me. For a few good reasons.

  1. When art is governed by the politics of the day, in any way, shape or form, it becomes political propaganda.

There was a time when the distinction between art and propaganda was very clear, at least to nations which had suffered the plague of socialism, of nauseating state-lauding works, including common entertainment, all peppered with the day’s indoctrination. Part of the youth now, especially in countries where art has been free of boundaries for decades or centuries, seems unable to see the direction the west is taking. There are sky-scraping road signs reading “do.not.go.this.way”.


This means creativity is completely strangled by PC standards: certain social categories have to be cast as heroes and other categories as villains; a certain narrative must be adhered to; certain feelings have to be stirred up in readers.

It all started with minority quotas in education and employment, going to ridiculous lengths and ensuring the highest level of awkwardness, as well as decreased efficiency, as selection should be based on aptitudes or merits and not on irrelevant criteria such as race or sex.

But trying to enforce actual quotas and politically correct narratives  in the fictional sphere, so the world of pink unicorns is complete with a fantasy land, beats the imagination of any reasonable person.

Art is the last bastion of freedom a community has; it’s inseparable from the concept of expressing ideas without any constraint. Trying to stifle and subjugate creative minds, to direct their pathos into the “desired direction” ends up dehumanising the whole of society, when the last of what was meant to be pure and genuine, transcendental, is suddenly controlled.Who in the world is comfortable with the idea of controlling art in a supposedly free country? This is what the Nazis did. This is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes; as soon as they seize power they start burning anything they deem subversive or unpleasant.

Obviously, this is only a television series and anyone who is aware of the nature of television knows it is not meant to get people thinking, or is not innocent entertainment  in the slightest. However, I suspect this is only the beginning. How long will it be before writers are challenged by fuming crowds regarding the characters they choose and the fate those characters have?

2. Isn’t art supposed to/ at least allowed to mimic real life?

In real life, anyone can die, and minority status does not grant immortality. One vocal protester I believe said  “the LGBT community deserves better”. Again, as if there were some obligation of moral restitution everyone outside the LGBT community shared, some burden of conscience, making anything connected to that community – even fictional characters – untouchable.


3. Maybe, just maybe, we’re spending so much time in front of screens that we’re starting to take fiction too seriously.

Breaking away from reality has become a pastime in itself; it shows how bleak reality has become at times, I guess.The whole saga surrounding “gamers” shows just how deep into public life this escapism has reached; gaming is the new football, basically. It surprises me to a great degree.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against video games or any other entertaining activity of this type; after all, reading and writing fiction (especially writing) are forms of stepping into a different world. Any writer can tell you that they’re not making characters up; they’re simply introducing them to other people. 🙂 But I’m surely not expecting another person to take my characters as seriously as I take them and have the same level of emotional attachment. Of course, when it comes to video games the escape is extremely limited in terms of possibilities; it’s robotic and totally artificial, eliminating imagination from the process.

Getting emotional to the point of protest when a character is killed in a TV series (for practical reasons) seems like too much, especially considering the calculations behind television productions in general.

4. Art is not a bespoke product (unless there is an agreement with the artist beforehand). I know money is involved in the equation… But still.

Of course, I seem to be contradicting myself, as I see TV productions as motivated by anything else but the love of creation. Yet, as mentioned above, I fear for the day that this will be applied to books as well.

Back in the day, there used to be quiet fan fiction to alter the unpleasant ending of a book, for one’s eyes only. There was no chance of actually being able to communicate to whoever had written it (produced a show/ fill in the blank) that you were unhappy with the turn of events and wanted them changed. That was unheard of. In a very good way, I dare think.

Now, it seems the public is treating whatever it views with an acute sense of entitlement, as they would treat a pack of bubblegum or a can of soda.

Does this make me happy? Does this offend me? Does this trigger me? Is this the perfect product I expected? No? Then by all means, I will complain!

It’s fair enough applying that to consumables, but please, leave anything that involves originality and creativity out of it. Especially when you tyrannically decree that the choice someone makes regarding a character is immoral. It is no longer a matter of “I didn’t like it”, it’s a matter of “you screwed up; we deserve better”.

I’ll tell you what you deserve. You deserve nothing. Someone who has such a mutilated understanding of the creative act that they think they can bully others into submission is incredibly arrogant. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it/ read it.

Rant over!


SJW Rhetoric -Noises From The Bush

Not necessarily human noises. We wouldn’t want to  risk discriminating against any terriers, seals or turkeys, just in case the audience is more diverse.

On a more serious note than feminist theatre, demonstrating can involve a series of elements; however, during SJW manifestations, impromptu or well organised, one often comes across the following:

  • Shrieking;
  • Booing;
  • Other loud inarticulate noises designed to prevent a speaker from actually speaking;
  • Shouting threats or swearing loudly to disrupt an event;
  • Asking other speakers to shut up, repeatedly;
  • Throwing things at people;
  • Taking things from people, especially placards, and smashing them to pieces;
  • Threatening to remove people from their midst by force;
  • Assaulting people;
  • Chanting mindlessly, to cover up someone else’s voice;
  • Smearing themselves with paint;
  • Stripping and being obscene.

A few common facial expressions and attitudes you can find in a crowd of hyped-up social justice warriors:


SJW facial expressions-page-0


The best description of these individuals and their sad political fate was given by Yuri Bezmenov in the 80’s, this being just one amazingly accurate fragment. Basically, they are used as amplifiers for the current forms of misanthropy, swapping one type of bigotry for another, in order to destabilise a country. Once  they have served their purpose, that inebriating power/ attention will be pulled from under their feet. The hegemony of their mindlessness will be short lived, even though now it seems they can mould the world with impunity.

The expression “regressive left”, I suppose, Is based on the fact that once dialogue is suppressed in a society, no innovation can occur, thus no progress, causing a phase of stagnation, inevitably followed by regression. This can be noticed as the ultimate fate of any communist country – the initial enthusiasm of “egalitarianism”  is replaced by a bleak existence in lead-coloured cities, in deprivation, frustration and constant fear.

However, one can also (quite often) notice the lack of an eloquent discourse on their part. Unless screeching and booing to the point of inducing migraines is a good way to get a point across.

Take this famous video for instance, of Milo Yiannopoulos  patiently attempting to give a talk at Rutgers University, being interrupted dozens of times, with a large segment of the allocated time spent listening to the ear-piercing noises made by some participants (instead of, let’s say, engaging him in a dialogue, as intended). At some point, a couple of women stood up and coloured their faces with red paint, a feminist gesture, the paint symbolising menstrual blood (which defines women to the extent that any bodily fluid defines men). The whole scene was evocative of a tribal quarrel in some remote part of Papua New Guinea. It seems some leftists aren’t content with mediaeval blasphemy-type laws and witch hunts – they want to drag us right back into the bush.

For a demonstration of how actual conversations with them tend to go, here is an example  and a second one; YouTube is full of these recordings. Of course, it can be argued that these are small samples from a very wide community of like-minded idealists and are not representative; however, those who have interacted with them on multiple occasions know the score. It makes sense for them to not be able to provide logical arguments for illogical points of view; mocking and bullying is all they have left.

The surprising aspect – besides the lack of productivity of said methods – is that these people can actually read and write. One would think that any ideas put forward by their opponents can be combated very efficiently through a compelling analysis.



Normality – The Phoenix

(No, this has nothing to do with recovery forums, although they have hijacked the powerful symbol of the phoenix and turned it into a cliche.)

Most of all, this post is an attempt to reach out to those who embrace (like I once did) the fight to preserve normality as it was understood in past decades in western societies  – revolving mostly around the concept of meritocracy, a free market, family values (including libertarian parenting), local traditions, prosperity and freedom (including the freedom to express one’s religion).

In the face of cultural Marxism, it’s easy for people who oppose it to be drawn towards conservative causes and groups; religion greatly strengthens this stance as well, defying militant secularism.

If previous years allowed a degree of doubt regarding the direction the west was headed in, (some considering the information regarding social engineering a conspiracy theory), now it’s plain to see that the moral foundation of past generations is energetically being cremated so a new one can be put in its place.

Traditionalism has lost the fight; it was lost before we were even born, as the agenda predates us. The question is if we really have to mentally go down with this ship, or if the ship itself is an illusion, a Fata Morgana. 

Majority versus counterculture 

Normality basically encompasses a set of conditions, principles, laws and values a generation is used to; by the time that generation is gone, things are radically different already – hence it is fluid and will continue to change throughout time. The majority embracing it at one point in time is seen as rigid, whilst the counterculture is meant to be innovative and progressive.


When clinging to this notion, we fail to see that traditionalist ideology has already been replaced with a completely different one and thus ceases to be normality; on the contrary, it is now the subversive way of the opposition. The word itself therefore becomes inadequate and irrelevant.

Of course, many of us associate it with what is logical and what has been proven to work best so far. An example is the nuclear family; monogamy makes sense from a biological point of view, as each individual benefits from knowing their lineage. A great warning against procreating randomly consists of the few -but very disturbing – cases of involuntary incest, when siblings who were unaware of being related met in adulthood to form couples and even had children of their own. Reality beats fiction sometimes.

Logic aside, conservatives are now the opposition – which is a paradox in itself.

Normality and law

In past centuries, states didn’t have to simulate democracy and could pass any wacky idea into law, such as taxing people for the sunlight entering their homes according to the number of windows they had (London, 1696). Anything went.

Nowadays they tend to be more subtle about it and familiarise people with the issues they ultimately impose, in order to prevent unrest. Before being formalised, culture is planned and diffused through education, through the media, through art and any influential aspect in a community. It does not belong to the masses; it never has.

Expecting to hold on to certain legal provisions is like expecting the powers that be to actually act in the best interest of the people they are meant to represent. That probably hasn’t happened since tribal communities. Worshiping man-made law (whether it’s something simple or a country’s own constitution) is a waste of energy – laws come and go; there’s nothing carved in stone or sacred about them. It also does not help to imagine one can use them in a corrupt system, before those who have never cared about them and never will.

The best generation

When people stand for this notion today, they usually rely on the image they had of the world while growing up, their familiarity and their emotional attachment to that image, providing a feeling of safety, which is human nature I suppose.

However, if we look at the whole picture history paints, can we really be so sure our generation has reached the ideal concept of living, surpassing all previous ones and any that may come in the future? It’s like stopping the clock and wanting to hold it still, with a bit of entitlement or arrogance. Obviously, I’m not arguing the currently proposed model (some type of socialism) is appealing in the slightest; however; I have to wonder if it’s wise to assume we have it all figured out. After all, every age has its nostalgic aspects, whilst others hardly ever evoke that feeling (drafts, workhouses, pandemics).

Life is relatively short. Whereas to us what we’re familiar with and want to maintain within our lifetime is a major issue, when compared to the endless chain of changes in history, this temporary concurrence of circumstances that we call OUR NORMALITY is a drop in the ocean. 

What doesn’t change

Seeing we have no control over where our world is heading, it makes sense to try to establish what is within our grasp, and that is our own nature.

It’s fascinating to think that although living conditions and mentalities were so different hundreds or thousands of years ago, human nature has largely remained the same, psychologically and spiritually, as attested by historical records. Our normality doesn’t have to depend on others; it can consist simply of the values we will never change, regardless of how regimes and paradigms evolve around us.

The search for those timeless elements within us, for the continuity and regeneration, away from the mental constraints of any artificially imposed culture, is what makes life worth living (or so I think anyway). This search is individual, not collective, and does not rely on maintaining the status quo.


In conclusion, it’s obviously worth getting worked up about matters which affect us or will affect us down the line, and try to stop them if possible. But that doesn’t mean emotionally suffering when seeing another bit of our old reality chipped away. The same mechanisms which have operated before us will keep operating throughout our lives and after we die. It’s just a matter of remaining human in the process.


What Is NOT Gaslighting

By now, many people are familiar with this notion, especially if they have an interest in unhealthy interpersonal dynamics. A brief article explaining gaslighting can be found here. First of all, a few ideas are worth noting (though doing so might seem superfluous):

  • -It is inflicted on a victim by an abuser who believes to be superior;
  • -It is a consistent technique ( it’s used more than once);
  • -It is always deliberate (planned, organised in cold blood);
  • -It is meant to cause actual suffering (confusion, self doubt, low self confidence etc).

After encountering this term in a variety of inappropriate situations – its use being meant to accuse someone of foul intentions – there are some observations to make regarding what is – only in my view of course – not gaslighting.

  1. Someone trying to convince you of their opinion (yes, I know how stupid that sounds). A couple of times I’ve seen this artifice used on PF, along the lines of:

You want me to see this event your way, not mine, therefore you are trying to make me replace my version of reality with yours, therefore you are gaslighting me.

Which is of course an eerie, cult-like stretch, caused by a person automatically analysing the world through the lens of psychopathic behaviour – a lens most people do not use on a daily basis. One often has a different perspective and imparts it ingenuously, debating others; most people understand that; it’s only to the paranoid that a different opinion can seem a devious attempt to blur their sense of reality.

From everyone is entitled to an opinion it suddenly becomes  telling me that my view/ my perception is not accurate is abusive.  Which practically means they’re always right and contradicting them is a direct attack on their well-being.

2. Most fleeting conversations (online or not).

With an emphasis on ”fleeting”. Although presumably there are those who enjoy genuinely screwing with the minds of others for the fun of it (as opposed to simply trolling), jumping to bite the jugular of every recently met person for “gaslighting you” is not a healthy reaction.

Gaslighting is known to have a purpose; there is a clear intention behind it; it’s difficult to associate it with a few words exchanged by people who will most likely never meet again (unless criminal intention is present, as those involved in crime have to act fast). Otherwise, for a person to suspect this intensity or interest from a complete stranger, their ego must be quite inflated.

3. A poor way of making excuses.

Yes, someone might say, for lack of inspiration, “I didn’t say that”,”maybe you heard me wrong” or “that’s not what I meant”, while awkwardly avoiding eye contact. Some people are worse than others at apologising (that takes some balls) or even admitting guilt, or might try to cover for others, protect your feelings by not repeating an insult etc. When caught red handed, they might just say something stupid, such as this never happened. Which is not a laudable thing to do and obviously would trigger people who were actually gaslighted in the past.

Does that automatically make a person  a psychopath? Of course not. If it’s an isolated event, it means nothing at all. If it happens repeatedly, then it is a problem – however, if that’s the only thing to go on, I’d still reflect on it before jumping to conclusions.

4. People who lie compulsively out of anxiety.

The only instance in which I can find a valid excuse for repeated lying is when it comes from people who have developed this as a defence mechanism, after a long time (usually years) of suffering serious consequences whenever things went wrong, they made a mistake or they risked angering/ upsetting someone else. These people lie very naturally to pacify a situation, hiding negative aspects others would have liked to know about. The reaction they get when their lies are uncovered is worse than the one they would’ve received for simply making a mistake. But in a way I can sympathise with the chronic fear of attracting other people’s anger.

In a way it’s comparable to what children do. Since gaslighting is based on control and deviousness, not anxiety, it doesn’t apply here.

5. People who don’t pay attention.

Everyone’s met the type who is a bit self-absorbed and has rosy sunglasses on, meaning they minimise and brush off your sincere concerns as if they didn’t matter (and no, I’m not one for writing this post or any others which deal with these complicated issues).

I’m sure you just imagined it! I’m sure everything’s fine! Everything works out in the end! 

Of course they do it in order to keep things comfortable and keep talking about their own preoccupations, without bothering with yours. I’m not saying these people are worth maintaining a close relationship with or confiding in – obviously not – but that doesn’t mean their attitude is devious and seeks to undermine your confidence. It’s just complacent and ignorant. They also do that to protect their own view of the world, of a family, a community, an institution etc. Basically, it’s all about them, not about invalidating or worse, destroying you.

Most people are not out to abuse others – gaslighting is a cruel, premeditated and sustained  form of abuse, just like psychopathy is a chilling disorder, not to be pinned on every selfish asshole.

Later Edit

Nowadays, every other progressive has been harmed by a narcissist or psychopath, has been the victim of oppression and is suffering from PTSD, requiring trigger warnings whenever they are exposed to unfamiliar information. Next on the agenda, half of them will soon claim they are being  or have been gaslighted (probably more since the straws they cling to are so diverse).

Unfortunately, analyses such as this one are not unnecessary, since misinformation is already spilling out of the poisoned well of the victimhood culture, with feminism at the centre of it. This feminist website (which as a whole is possibly the richest source of unadulterated bullshit I’ve come across so far), seeks to take the false victim complex into the mainstream in every possible way.

This particular article, “10 Things I’ve Learned About Gaslighting As An Abuse Tactic”, is precisely the type of  generalisation I was referring to at the beginning of the blog post.

Far from wanting to invalidate the author’s experience, my honest opinion is that here, gaslighting is presented as a common method of overpowering someone using an emotional bond, by which a person gets another to see things their way, and undermines their confidence as a result, whether they intended to or not. There is nothing in the article to suggest maliciousness or duplicity from the supposed abuser.

Direct quotes are essential (the fair use notice is displayed on the homepage).

1. Gaslighting Doesn’t Have to Be Deliberate

(…)Unfortunately, the first definition I looked up was woefully inadequate. Gaslighting does not require deliberate plotting. Gaslighting only requires a belief that it is acceptable to overwrite another person’s reality.

The rest just happens organically when a person who holds that belief feels threatened. We learn how to control and manipulate each other very naturally.

First of all, the fundamental aspect of defining and identifying gaslighting is the clear intention of causing someone to lose their mental balance and self-confidence, manifesting systematically and in cold blood, inflicting as much harm as possible. It is the method through which pathological types gain control over others, with no remorse whatsoever, sometimes resulting in their victims committing suicide.

Muddying the waters to blur the logical differentiation of this technique from ordinary lying, spontaneous excuse making and even expressing a different perspective is very detrimental, as the real meaning of the word is lost, resulting in an excess of zeal and hysteria wherever this diluted information spreads.

Clear intention, calculation, persistence and cold blood are essential elements to identify in order to make an accurate assessment. Gaslighting must by definition be deliberate.

The author of this piece claims the generally used definition is inaccurate, instead of pondering her own decision to use this specific word. Which is what progressives often do – instead of finding their place in the world, they want to make the entire world adapt to them. With no disrespect to her experience, when a concept does not suit someone, what they do is let go of it and find anther one – or why not, invent it. What they don’t normally do is re-engineer that  concept to suit them specifically, claiming that everyone using it previously was going about it all wrong.

Another red flag is using a situation which is charged with emotions and subjectivity – an argument between romantic partners (which almost by default involves accusations), adding that the “gaslighting” was spontaneous and not deliberate; combined, these aspects become very suspicious. One should consider the following aspects:

  • Whether lies were definitely told, with the partner definitely being aware they were lying; the contentions made may very well be the partner’s honest opinion;
  • Whether the contentions were commonly made or just a one off;
  • Whether the partner simply had an emotional outburst, even if they went a bit overboard;
  • What their composure was and if they seemed to take pleasure in winding up their target (arrogance and delight usually become apparent in these situations).

Of course I’m no expert but this is all just common sense. The key issue is that this technique cannot be identified from an isolated incident or from the mere existence of two conflicting perspectives. Deceit (deliberate, repeated lying) and malicious intentions both have to be involved – lying once in order to cover something up does not count.

“Gaslighting only requires a belief that it is acceptable to overwrite another person’s reality”.  I’ve seen this happen with parents and children, indeed, yet the purpose was shitty excuse making (counting on children’s short memory and volatile perceptions to deny they had done something). Therefore this is an interesting nuance, though more of a cowardly thing to do and not intended to destroy a child’s self-confidence.

You can see it in the media constantly.

For instance, every time an obvious hate crime is portrayed as an isolated case of mental illness, this is gaslighting. The media is saying to you, What you know to be true is not true.

The media does gaslight people all the time, no doubt about it, on behalf of an establishment seeking to confuse them constantly, to the point that they no longer know what is going on around them. Alan Watt gives a good example with the contradictory conclusions of  studies, published from time to time, bamboozling those who read them. For instance, today coffee prolongs your life, tomorrow it gives you cancer, the day after tomorrow it is presented as a miraculous cure for some other disease.

However, the example the author chooses is not relevant, as it claims a presumed hate crime should cause a hysterical reaction and not be treated as an isolated incident. Why presumed? Well, when a person forming part of a minority of any kind is attacked (conservatives excluded), the media, followed by a choir of progressive activists, tends to simply assume that “hate” was involved, even before the actual motive is established. Violence can erupt in a multitude of situations and it is idiotic to simply assume, each and every single time.

But now if you abuse your partner, you’re usually considered to be a bad person. So what do you do, with all the beliefs that would lead you to violence, if violence is no longer an acceptable option?

You use manipulation, and you use gaslighting.

Here it is simply assumed that if these forms of abuse both involve control and a power imbalance, one is a suitable replacement for the other. However, causing someone to fear you is not the same as causing them to think they are insane. Moreover, while gaslighting is premeditated, violence is, more often than not, mindless and momentary. Also, violence is commonly used by the run-of-the-mill asshole, whereas gaslighting is a calculated and sophisticated technique employed by devious minds. Comparing the two implies gaslighting is very common and can be used by just anybody, which in turn implies that the world is full of heartless, devious people (basically psychos), fully capable of this level of evil. And since this is a feminist blog, guess which sex the psychos would predominantly belong to.

A gaslighter doesn’t simply need to be right. They also need for you to believe that they are right.

The whole point is getting their victim to believe a lie – it’s not that they think they are right to begin with; they know full well they are lying. This quote reinforces my initial suspicion that the author ignores this fact, which reduces the technique to someone convincing someone else of their perspective, which the other party (presumed victim) thinks is invalid or which later proves objectively invalid.

The description of the “three stages of gaslighting” is too long to paste here; you can find it by clicking the link above. Yet again, it describes a common argument in a romantic relationship, with no apparent, demonstrable conniving involved. The short version:

1.You argue for hours, without resolution. You argue over things that shouldn’t be up for debate  – your feelings, your opinions, your experience of the world.(…)2. Winning the argument now has one objective :  proving that you’re still good, kind, and worthwhile. (…) 3. You consider their point of view as normal. You start to lose your ability to make your own judgements. You become consumed with understanding them and seeing their perspective. You live with and obsess over every criticism, trying to solve it.

Just a few observations:

  • -One’s feelings and opinions are subjective; they are not absolutes and are always up for debate.
  • -Gaslighting deals with distorting one’s perception of reality, usually by reframing events or conversations, denying them or making them up, aiming to make the other  think they are confused or crazy. Feelings and opinions have nothing to do with this.
  • -The fact that someone eventually convinces their partner of their perspective does not mean that they are deliberately lying – or even mistaking, for that matter, and gives no indication of trying to drive the partner crazy.

By accusing someone of gaslighting you, you are basically accusing them of being a monster. Not every hurtful or difficult relationship involves that and not every insecure, hypersensitive,  overly loving or overly tolerant person drained by arguments is being subjected to an actual form of mind control.

Once again, this is the result of confusing feelings and opinions with actual reality, which opens the door for any argument to be seen as gaslighting, trivialising this notion.

Another article, this time written by a professional, gives three peculiar examples:

  • -A woman is left abruptly at the bus stop by her date (recently met), who prefers the metro and then calls later to justify his strange gesture.
  • -A woman complains to her boss about her assignments and is told she is stressed and sensitive; this keeps happening overtime.
  • -A woman develops anxiety over the fear that she doesn’t care enough about her husband, as he often criticises her for not paying attention to details (such as going to the right store at the right time to get him the right kind of salmon).

Call me crazy, no pun intended, but I do not see any deliberate attempts to make any of these women doubt their sanity. The first case involves a second date and an impatient and tactless prick; it is unclear what he thought he would achieve by dumping her at the bus stop. In the second scenario, the woman is aware of the injustice; she does work harder but nowhere does it say that she feels confused or crazy. And in the third one, she develops this unease because she lets him get away with being so demanding in the first place, taking his shallow reproaches to heart. However, nothing suggests he is being deceptive or that he wants to destroy her self-confidence; he is probably just exploitative and thinks he’ll gain some advantage out of making her feel guilty over trifles.

The list of signs is a long one, describing the targeted person’s feelings. Taken separately, none is a clear indication of being gaslighted, and adjoined, they paint a picture of an unhappy individual in an unhappy relationship, facing anxiety issues and low confidence, possibly depression. And yet there is no mention of actual inconsistencies in this person’s daily reality, of the facts which do not match between their memory and that of their abuser, of this person thinking they might have lost the plot or might be lied to on a constant basis. Someone going through a depression affecting their relationship might apply these filters and end up thinking they are the victim of a deliberate attack on their sanity.

Many comments I read agreed the examples were quite poor; however there were also others, such as this one:

“I recently found the term and its meaning. I was in a relationship (my ex husband) who was a classic gaslighter. I have been divorced from him for almost 20 years. However, a work situation, too bizarre to discuss here, has led to gaslighting on the job more than once, and by extension into the community thanks to ex colleagues. Your description, however, also describes my current relationship with certain family members. I have been feeling that things were not right in the home for some time, and I know this is also an extension of the workplace issue. Very nosy nervy backstabbers. What a great article.”

It becomes apparent that due to such vague criteria, some people end up believing they are being targeted in this manner by multiple individuals (much like others identify “narcs” at every street corner). On a large scale, this leads to a lot of misinformation being circulated.

False Daily Mail Story: Babies To Be Born For Organ Harvesting

Update: It turns out the story was false after all, which is a good thing.

One has to wonder however if it came about as a result of someone’s inaccurate understanding of the issue or if it was a way to “test the water”, as they say, throwing an idea out there to see how people would react.


Though not connected to the general purpose of this blog, this article is too disturbing to not mention. By reading the comments, one can see people are divided on the matter, with some agreeing that saving lives is a wonderful, selfless thing to do (which no one can argue with).

However, the issue remains – is the mere idea of a human being born solely as a source of organs acceptable? Where would this lead to in the future?

People shudder, with good reason, at the thought of abortion clinics selling off body parts for research. To them, dead children, regardless of their age, are sources of revenue, which they cut into pieces – sometimes while still alive, as horrific testimonies of former workers have shown. They shudder at the thought of these bodies being used by companies such as Pepsi to produce food flavourings, evocative of Soylent Green. This level of inhumanity does exist in our very own morally superior western world.

I’m not getting into the whole abortion issue when major defects are involved; people who are directly involved or knowledgeable regarding this experience are the only ones entitled to issue any judgement.

However, consider the immense danger of medical errors or even money-driven deception which could prompt the wrong diagnosis being given, and thus the wrong choice.

Is it unthinkable? Certainly not. It’s only unthinkable for those who are naive enough to think that if they aren’t personally capable of organising such monstrous acts, other people aren’t either.

The organ market is alive and well in many parts of the world – if not all. How would an expecting mother ever know the diagnosis had been correct, if the child was taken right after birth for the organs to be harvested? She wouldn’t, would she? Aside from knowing the child was being kept alive artificially just enough for his/ her body to be used up and would then be killed by the procedure.

How thoroughly would they assess the newborn to check whether their initial estimation was right or the child might actually have a chance to survive? Or would they rush him/ her to be ”harvested” immediately, as scheduled?

If this procedure became very common and was abused, what would stop the exploitation of vulnerable people, who are socially and educationally disadvantaged, by the unscrupulous? Even one life taken in this way is one too many.

To me it feels like a step further in the direction of giving up one’s attachment to a pregnancy. Not the first step of course – women who “rent their wombs” give up their own children (unless they are only carrying someone else’s fertilised egg), creating them for this purpose, for a sum of money. Apparently, that is meant to be different than selling (trafficking) them after birth, which is a crime, although it’s the same thing – the kids still carry their mothers’ genetic material and are deprived of their biological family, as well as heritage. Emotional bonds which might develop are completely excluded from surrogacy. It’s a contract, demand and supply, and one’s reconsidering or emotional distress down the line is not even considered. Maternity is celebrated in some situations and estrangement (depriving a child intentionally of a biological family, as opposed to adoption, which is decided once the child has been conceived and cannot be supported), is celebrated in others.

Not to mention women who donate or sell their eggs for the purpose of “research”, knowing some would be used for the production of embryos (genetically, their own children, no less than any other children they might have), to be used for tests and discarded in the trash. You don’t need religion (as many claim objections are religiously motivated) in order to understand this reality. It’s genetics, plain and simple.

Where is the value of human life in all this, as well as the family bonding, as if I really need to ask? Some lives matter, others don’t.

Everything is arbitrary and utilitarian nowadays.