European Military Expenditure per capita 2016 map
Cat Motya on the meaning of the “European values”
“I have been thinking about how mice have brainwashed the European tribes. The technology of brainwashing is very simple and has not changed with the colonization of the Americas, but with one difference. Native Americans were selling their lands for glass beads. Since then, the “global elites” of the old men sitting on bags with money, use a simple psychological trick to force the Europeans to trade their women, horses and land for virtual beads that cannot even be touched left alone worn.
Just like in The Emperor’s New Clothes, the emperor was wearing virtual clothes and was very proud of it. The Europeans are very proud of their virtual beads. Th glass beads that the Europeans used to trade for gold, fur and lands overseas, came back to them in the shape of terrifying virtual giant beads.
“… with the measure you use, it will be measured to you…”
What goes around, comes around.
How did the mice manage to accomplish this? Let’s analyze it step by step:
Since ancient times, what was the name of some highly desirable objects, like gold, objects of fine art, or antiques? They were called with one ample word: “valuables.” Upon hearing this word, every poor man, or even a middle class man, knew that valuables were something they would never be able to own.
These objects were completely out of reach for people who had to work till the moment they die just to survive. Hundreds of millions dreamed about having objects of “value,” but only a very select few could actually own them.
The word itself became a synonym of an extreme desire to own something.
The rodent psycho-terrorists have done the following: for a long time and with great persuasion they have been equating for the Western audience the word “values” with a system of behavior and beliefs. Why? Because this opened for them possibilities to use a large number of very useful things. To use the women of the European tribes, they persuaded them to believe that it’s freedom for a woman to be a prostitute. It’s a v-a-l-u-e. Surrender your wife and daughter to a brothel, because it’s one of the European “values.”
Without battles and without fighting in a war, Europeans are surrendering their jobs, their lands, their welfare that they have build on their lands. The Europeans are surrendering everything they own to the newcomers and to the invaders from Africa and the Middle East, because the Europeans believe that to surrender everything you have to the newcomers is “to gain the European value.”
Essentially, when something is being taken from them, they believe that they are gaining “values” and that those “values” need to be preserved.
To preserve your boxes of African migrants,… I mean… values, Europeans have to be ready to give up, their bread, their businesses. If someone is trying to stop those “values” from coming into Europe, Europeans have to be ready to give up everything, but to hold on to those “values.”
We see a pauperized European, drowning in debt and without a good job, being happy to support two or three “Ahmeds.” He even gives his own daughter to those “Ahmeds” because they need to be entertained. And this pauper stands there like Nero and proudly kicks dirt with his hoof and says to Russians, “I defend my values… you don’t understand this because you’re slaves and barbarians.”
The show is comical and pitiful, but the rodents’ zombie machine works around the clock. This machine heralds to all those pauper European tribesmen, who work day and night to support all the “Ahmeds” in the universe.
He gave his daughter and his wife to all who wants them. He is being heralded by a zombie-machine, “You are awesome, Hans.” “You’re are rich! Keep it up! Hold on to your values. You’re the f-ing value-owner.”
And the value-owner is getting more and more values in terms of migrants, who want to eat four times a day and get a welfare, and to get dressed nicely, and to bring his entire extended family from Africa.
And the value-owner Hans works day and night to support all this. Every donkey understands that it’s not cheap to acquire all these “values.” That’s why Hans seldom buys himself new clothes and seldom flushes water in his toilet. And it’s not like he is torturing himself, but he does all this for his own good along with all the other “values-owners,” for preservation of his “European values.” He is wearing all those virtual beads, each one weights about 70 kilograms, and in size of an average migrant.
After the brains of the European tribesmen have been thoroughly washed, time comes to con the tribes living on the outskirts of Europe, because if Hans is so proud to be a “value-owner” then everyone should get what he has. Hans has a bag of “values” and all the others have to try very hard to join those “value”-bag owners.
You have to work harder, comrades, because the bags with “values” are not given away for free. You have to give your countries’ mineral resources to kosher nulands, and your arable lands to kosher kogans, your women to all who desire them, your orphans to “value gays,” your children you have to place to schools for common humans, so they could learn how to be the “value-owners.” because if the unexpected wealth in terms of a bag of migrants fells on your child’s head, they might spend it all without thinking ahead. Grandpa Soros teaches your children how to preserve all those untold bags of values. In no time at all you will become just like Nero, I mean Hans.
But, you have to give them your territories, lands and mineral resources first, and only after that you will get a bag full of values like gays and migrants. “You don’t even have to thank us, we all people and have to help each other. You give us you mineral resources, we will give you migrants. Everything is fair.”
After that the brainwashing is getting more and more severe.
If you value the fact that your country doesn’t jail gays, then you get entire community of gays for you to support. You are paying for them out of your pocket and it’s not a humiliation, you are being told, it’s a super-honor. Spain did the math to see how much they spend on gay parades and other sexual minority related activities. It came up to a huge number of more than 1 billion Euros per year. The poor Spanish schmuck who did he math, couldn’t help but said that they spend on their children education less than that. He forgot for a moment that gays are the European values, and children are not. Children are just extra mouths to feed, and women give birth to children all the time. If needed, Ahmed will bring his own children, he has plenty
In addition to this, the European tribes have been trained to pay for “Western values” many times over. Let’s say, for example, that gays are your “value” and you has built a huge entertainment center for them. You just built it, and just sitting quietly in a corner. Out of blue comes Big Badaboom!
They go to bomb isis and you’re not happy about the huge check they wrote to the military, you’re immediately remanded that you, b…, should understand that in order for you to hold on to your bag of gays here in Germany, they have to go and bomb those who kill gays in the Middle East. The connection is absolutely undeniable: all German gays will die, if nato doesn’t destroy their enemies in Iraq. Only the idiot like you, Hans, can’t see the connection, you don’t understand how to preserve the Western values, so just sit in your corner and shut up. And Hans sits quietly in his corner and thinks, “They are right… isis is fucked up to their heads, they don’t love gays, and the gays are my most prized possession. I have to pay all this money so they won’t take my gays from me.”
Furthermore, and as a conclusion…. Wise people and cats, those who think about their children and what they are going to eat this century, they non-stop are pulling gas pipes somewhere, and plant wheat and other potatoes. These people have been already called “poor unenlightened barbarians” because they refuse to understand the “true European values.” These people don’t understand the elementary things like everyone has to work until 40 year old to feed all those African migrants and only after that they are allowed to go and adopt an African child. And the Europeans are seeing these unenlightened people with the gas-pipes as evil, because they might destroy the European values, a bag with migrants and a box with gays. The European values-owners have to think very hard to have business dealings with a guy with a gas-pipe or not. He looks like he is threatening the “Western values.” It’s important not to make a mistake here. It’s a life-death situation for a bag of values, after all.
But…. It looks like mice might be in trouble here, because some of those Hanses (Pl. for Hans) have started to suspect something. Even more, they correctly located the source of evil – instead of media and instead of TV. After pretending that those Hans and his friends don’t exist, mice have started calling them far-rights and compare them with Hitler. However, they don’t kill anyone and don’t burn anyone alive, and don’t make gloves out of human skin. They are creating their own web of information and reprogramming their own brethren.
This path is long and hard, but we have our Putin, and he is a hope for all sane people around this zombified universe. I am certain that big troubles are approaching, because the Europeans and especially Germans are going to lose their illusions. It’s not going to happen at once. First, the Germans have to understand the extend of damages that mice propaganda of fake values has done to their brains.
For now, they are going to walk around with those virtual beads around their necks.
PS: Russians are categorically reject from their minds anyone who tried to push those “virtual beads” on them. They cannot sell those “Western values” to Russians, no matter how much we’re being shamed and chastised for not wanting to own our own bags with “values.” No one wants those “bags”… the biggest grief for rodents…”
The end of Cat Matvey’s analysis.
I am just a guy, you know, terribly nice and cute, but I am not as brilliant in analytics as cats. However, I also want to put my two cents in.
I want to expand on the matter of white and Muslim women being a trading card in this game.
For centuries, public nakedness of women was the sign of their enslavement
For the past 50 years female public nakedness has somehow became a sign of “freedom.”
No matter how hard I think about this I can’t understand why. A woman doesn’t benefit in any way from having her body exposed to strangers. Why would a woman want to get naked or nearly naked? It’s a mystery for me.
Why are the Western women willing to cater to the demands of a male mob? I have only one explanation. Since they were little girls, Western women (read: White women) were brainwashed to believe that their “freedom’ is to get naked in public.
They were told by the propaganda that their freedom is not to be protected and loved by their parents and grandparents; and it’s not to have a direct access to the judicial system for the protection of their rights. They were told that their freedom is not less wars and absence of millions of desperate and enraged people coming to the neighborhood. Their freedom is not when the law enforcement fights with prostitution and sex slavery, where they or their daughters might one day end up. The Europeans and Americans were told that women’s “freedom” is getting naked publicly.
The editor’s note: [ I just want to add that women are being told to get naked by the patriarchy, to be consumed by the male gaze. Originally, feminism told women to cover up to NOT get naked, not to participate in their own sexual exploitation. I want to make that perfectly clear. Nowadays, western white feminism is what is telling women to be naked and also, western white feminism DOES NOT CARE about women of color. That is why black feminism such as Audre Lorde coined other terms such as “womanism” because they DID NOT SEE THEMSELVES in Western feminism]
As a reasonable human being and an Orthodox Christian, I see the public nakedness of women as a sign of their sexual exploitation by the states, by the liberal elites, by the industries and by the mob. Add to this the fact that under the fear of severe punishment men are prohibited to have a normal reaction to this displays of female nakedness, and you get the perfect case of cognitive dissonance inflicted on the white people on daily basis.
If you drive a car, let me ask you a question. What happens when you step on the gas and brake simultaneously? You might have just blown an engine.
But, not to worry. These are the “Western” and “European values” we are talking about. They change and switch around every fifty years, to fit the political and financial objectives of the neo-cons and neo-liberals, or whatever is in power.
Compare these two photos: 1953 Italy, a fine for wearing a bikini, and 2016 France, a fine for not wearing a bikini.
Don’t get too comfortable and don’t act alert if tomorrow they demand from you to cover your entire body. After all, Western values are something you get by trading your country’s wealth and sovereignty, and also your religion, labor and your family. European values are something that don’t pay dividends, that cannot be re-sold on the market. Instead of becoming a bit of wealthier from owning those “values,” you pay taxes to maintain those values. But don’t call them liabilities. You were told that those are values. Not believing in it makes you an enemy of Europe, and the West in general.
For now, France, enjoy the naked breasts of your wives and daughters. Only, remember, the whole world is looking.
‘Naked breasts, not burkinis!’ French PM wades into stormy waters with national identity speech
Men don’t arch their backs
Writing about the “European values” Matvey has not mentioned feminism, one of the “Western values” which is the most deeply unappreciated by the Russians.
In the West, feminism has been pushed down our throats by all possible means of communication. Never since its invention, feminism had sought to truly achieve things like equal pay, or equal rights for legal representation. Instead, the idea of gender equality was remarkably masterfully perverse as all the other “Western Values.”
Feminism strives to force the gender equality in the bedroom, not in the boardroom. The “Western feminism” (or “White feminism” as Western liberal feminist women have no interest in furthering or upholding women of color in social or economical contexts) project is a long term psy-op to take sexual power away from men.
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that this sexual power was transferred to women. Western liberal women applied this newly gained power to their men, and they have blown their engines.
The results are truly spectacular. As the recent studies indicate, the majority of American women simply psychologically are unable to have sex and can’t feel pleasure when they do. Women have been socially re-engineered and re- programmed to consider any sexual behavior of men as an abusive and threatening.
The editor’s note [That’s not to say that plenty of men aren’t abusive or sexually threatening, but lots of angry single momma’s boys are reading this right?]
This attitude has become truly paralyzing for the majority of white men.
The editor’s note [Read: white men specifically, because Western feminism does not acknowledge or want to acknowledge the trials of men of color in America or in the West.]
That’s why many American men admit that they are so much afraid to be accused in acting inappropriately, that they just want to lay there quietly and let women “do all the work.”
The editor’s note [Also good]
It’s also explains why the “millennial generation” is being also called an asexual generation. Young people just don’t want to be bothered to pursue sexual partners and they don’t see any reasons in having sex.
The editor’s note [They’re right, btw. Let’s also not forget that through colonialism and Imperialism, Western cultures have historically pushed rigid gender and sexual roles onto cultures they invaded and saw as “primitive” and backwards, as a way to establish their new world order not just economically, but socially and sexually. And now, in 2016, while those cultures still reeling from being suffocated by “traditional Western values” (i.e. unwavering gender roles, lack of opportunities for women, extreme sexual conservatism, extreme hatred of women) they are being called “backwards” for not conforming to “sexual and gender liberation.” The very elements of gender and sexuality that the West tirelessly forced down those cultures throats are now being branded as the “normative behavior” of those “primitive” culture, while the West rejoices in their so-called progressive liberalism. ]
The truth that any psycho-biologist and any priest would tell you that the underlying principle of healthy family dynamic is for wives to surrender themselves to their husbands.
By nature or by God, men are created to be dominant and women are created to be submissive. The gender equality in the bedroom simply a sex killer. Biology hardwired such reflexes as lordosis into female brain and nerve system, whereas men, as I have stated above, can’t arch their backs.
There are some very hidden attempts of the Westerners to find their way to more traditional dynamic between men and women that wouldn’t involve any spirituality. It’s a tall order, mostly because in a totalitarian society it cannot be allowed. There are forces that spend huge amounts of taxpayers’ money to keep the Western societies off balance.
The quest to define more traditional roles for men and women in the West has been hijacked, turned upside-down and inside out and brought to the point of a complete insanity. I suspect that the same brilliant minds that engineered the fascist fake Islamic societies of the Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, to place on display the horrors of Islam for the gullible Europeans and Americans, the same think tankers are hard at work, engineering the horrors of the traditional gender roles. I did some research and it left me a bit of shell shocked. I dare not to offer you any links. If you wish just search the keyword “domestic discipline” to understand what I am talking about.
This is being done to ensure that people, and even entire nations, like the Russian Orthodox, who have preferences for the traditional gender roles could be easily branded as being “backwards,” “totalitarian,” and anti-“Western values.” Whereat the real perversion is being portrayed as a return to “Christian values.”
In essence, whenever you see the word “values,” European or Western, just run, don’t walk and don’t look back.
P.S. Western values are being rejected not just by Russians. Israel is an example of a country that outright rejects most “Western values,” while benefiting largely by acquiring real tangible values, while pushing the West to own those virtual.
My book is a fun to read illustration
Ministry of culture of Israel to issue “modesty guidelines” for Government-funded Events
The decision was made following the Celebrate August festival in Ashdod, in which a female singer dressed in shorts, a bikini top and an open shirt was removed from the stage.
@eggplant_USA @katMotja @semargll оказуется,оне не такия: мышр.минкульт заботится"о скромности"(если за гос.шекели)https://t.co/G6Imc2ixwM
— Renard (@renardrote) August 29, 2016
End of an era for the West
http://bit.ly/1tH6G2O
Hmmm, women should not go naked, therefore be ashamed of their bodies? What about men? Don’t know about you, Scott, but I’d much rather see a landscape peopled with nude ladies than one full of naked guys. :D That irrational fear of female nakedness sounds very talmudic and catholic and is definitely not to my tastes.
@ Anon:
“Hmmm, women should not go naked, therefore be ashamed of their bodies? What about men? Don’t know about you, Scott, but I’d much rather see a landscape peopled with nude ladies than one full of naked guys. :D That irrational fear of female nakedness sounds very talmudic and catholic and is definitely not to my tastes.”
Oh come on! I’m not being funny but you’re just describing a well known truism!
Of course straight men wouldn’t want to see male naked bodies, and, OH – SHOCK! Straight women don’t fancy being exposed to female naked bodies either! – Given the choice, that is –
And I’ve said, “oh shock,” only because men seem to have this idiotic puerile ‘fantasy’ that even true straight women “love” to see other women naughty bits all the time, while true straight men don’t :/
Well… how about we flip this nonsense on its head and say…. that true straight males secretly “love” to see other men naughty bits too? How would they like it?
They’d be outraged at the accusation, let me tell ya.
Oh, but why it’s acceptable for straight women to be suspected of secretly liking other women naughty bits?
Oh… that’s because – according to ‘them’ (mostly males, btw) – men and women are inherently different! You see? To the point they might as well be considered a completely different species from each other, who for some ‘bizarre’ biological reason are sharing a compatible DNA, that allows them to reproduce.
A bit like horses and donkeys producing mules *eye-roll*
Yeah… sure.
So either; straight men lust after other men’s butts just as much as straight women supposedly lust after other women tits, or this is just one big male induced psy-op, heavily leaned in favor of male depraved tastes/sexual-fantasies.
I’m opting for the last alternative… to be fair.
But to address your premise; women (or men, or anyone) should be allowed to wear whatever they feel comfortable with. Can’t agree more with your statemment, but…
… I’m well aware this is kindda linked to the ‘Burkini’ ban on French beaches.
Look! There’s nothing wrong with wanting to cover yourself-up (as humans, we all have our own insecurities to deal with after all).
On the other hand, there’s everything wrong with wearing a beach garment, in a western beach (non the less) with a rather obvious Islamic-looking attire design, when there are plenty of other non-ethnic options to go for that’ll do the exact same job just as well… like a wetsuit, a surfer-suit, a black cat-suit even!
There’s no excuse whatsoever to go for a “burkini.”
No! At that point, you’re just trying to make an ideological public statement: I’m wearing this, I’m Muslim, and you’re not. So, there! *sticks tongue out*
Hence, the reason why this is rubbing non-Muslim people the wrong way. Particularly since some of these ‘burkini’ ban on French beaches are not far-off from Nice.And I trust we all all know what happened there…
-TL2Q
Actually, I think there is quite a lot of evidence that both men and women prefer to look at women’s bodies. Straight men and woemn, that is. Adding homosexuality to the mix would really mess up the results!
But, as we know, this is an area in which everyone is an expert.
So, expert away.
BTW, and for the record, just in case, I was horrified, bemused, infuriated, dismayed and just plain confused by the French police forcing a woman to remove her clothes at the beach.
I really wish a gang of females had swarmed those guys and made them take their clothes off. The cops were the ones totally inappropriately dressed for the beach. Obviously. I guess the French just don’t understand beaches the way we do here on Cape Cod. Most normal people do not wear lace-up shoes at the beach . . .
Katherine
@”First you ran with a throw away line I wrote as joke, then you misrepresented the rest in order to launch into some Islamophobic nonsense about what women should wear on a beach. I resent your use of my comment as an excuse to promote zionazi bigotry. You things disgust me.”
Huh?
Which was the “throwaway line”?
What have I said that is Zionazi?
What have I “misprepresented”?
I wrote a lighthearted response and added my own thoughts regarding the action of French cops re the burkini, whose intention was to ridicule the French cops, who didn’t need much help with this from me.
Too Legit’s post wasn’t about the burkini, was it?
My dear, I am speechless. I have zero idea what part of my post has triggered this hostile comment.
Maybe some quality beach time is in order
Katherine
@ Katherine:
“Huh?
Which was the “throwaway line”?
What have I said that is Zionazi?
What have I “misprepresented”?
I wrote a lighthearted response and added my own thoughts regarding [etc]”
To be fair, Kath (may I call you that? You’re free to slap me silly if you disagree, though), I think he or she (or it) was actually talking to me rather than you.
Oh, well.. Never mind, uh!?
In any case; I loved your answer, and if you must know… I’m working on an answer of my own to your previous post.
I’ll post it shortly (once I’ve spell checked it, that is).
Hope you don’t take it the wrong way, because that’s so not my intention at all :)
-TL2Q
K
The heading in my comment addresses tl2q, not you. I did write response to your comment in which I simply wrote “cheers”, meaning I liked it. This comment failed to make it past mod pc…er, ps.
@ Katherine:
“Actually, I think there is quite a lot of evidence that both men and women prefer to look at women’s bodies. Straight men and women, that is. Adding homosexuality to the mix would really mess up the results! [etc]”
Outdated and skewed, not to mention dodgy ‘studies’ those are. And, oh yes! I’ve read them.
I suppose those same “experts” are scratching their heads, totally baffled at why women drool uncontrollably at the Magic Mike movies, Poldark or that Loki guy from the Avengers to name just a few in a long, long list.
I’ve said those studies were skewed (and now are most definitely out of date) because… back then, women grew-up in the psychologically conditioning environment of the ‘male gaze.’
Those studies didn’t take that crucial factor into the account, which automatically makes them worthless, I’m afraid.
To elaborate; the ‘male gaze’ is what women themselves are subjected to, day-in-and-day-out from men, but also, it’s about being exposed to images of naked or semi-naked women designed to please the ‘male gaze.’
Even glossy women’s magazines were (and still are) a big psychological reinforcer of the ‘male gaze’ in women.
It’s only now, in the last, what? 10 or maybe 20 years that women find themselves more often exposed to images of attractive men designed to please their female gaze.
There’s a reason why the largest fan-base of Spartacus (the TV series) is mainly comprised of female fans, and somehow I doubt they like the show because of its plot ;-)
But! I do agree with you too there…
….it’s true that women can appreciate the female form, but it tends to be more like on an aesthetic level rather than a: ‘I like to get me some of that,’ if you know what I mean…
No different from men being able to appreciate a piece of male nude art like Michelangelo’s David.
When it comes to straight women, they like to gawk at good looking men (preferably with no ‘broads’ in the picture), just like straight men like to gawk at good looking women.
There’s no mystery in any of this, really.
It’s just that men like to twist everything into something that suits them when it comes down to gender politics.
“[..] Adding homosexuality to the mix would really mess up the results!”
On that subject; according to polls, it turns-out a good portion of lesbians are into gay-porn (as in: male-on-male porn) rather than any other type of porn, and also a good portion of gay-men are into faux-lesbian porn.
Go figure that one out, because I sure can’t *shrugging*
-TL2Q
PS: and I actually have a Part II to that post, but I didn’t know if I’m going over the character limit per post, so I left it at that…
Too Legit said:
“But! I do agree with you too there…
….it’s true that women can appreciate the female form, but it tends to be more like on an aesthetic level rather than a: ‘I like to get me some of that,’ if you know what I mean…
No different from men being able to appreciate a piece of male nude art like Michelangelo’s David.”
I believe that that is what the studies I referenced were about. *Not* about sex but about enjoying looking the female form as aesthetic appreication. I thought that that was obvious in my post, but I guess some readers assumed I meant “looking at a potential sexual object/partner.”
Aesthetic appreciation of bodies, not “I wanna get it on with that set of muscles and tendons.” And I think this view/ results, etc. would be reinforced by the fact (or, “fact”) that many men find a type of types of female forms very attractive that women don’t think are attractive. I wonder whether the same goes for men. Somehow I doubt it, but . . . In other words, I expect there is more agreement among women as to what makes the ideal male form for purposes of romance than there is among men as to what is their ideal-shaped/proportioned woman. There is a large body of research evidence that (human) males are far more controlled by visual stimuli than human females, at least when it comes to mating . . . er, romance.
Katherine
@ Katherine:
“I believe that that is what the studies I referenced were about. *Not* about sex but about enjoying looking the female form as aesthetic appreication”
+
“I thought that that was obvious in my post [..]”
No it wasn’t, and I won’t claim to know what studies you’ve read, but the ones I’ve read; always had this sexual slant about them (meaning: their conclusions always implied that women, no matter how straight they’ve claimed to be, they are all inherently bisexual)
And if we’re purely talking about aesthetics here, chances are women like kittens, or any fluffy baby-animal above all else, nothing tops that, not even human babies (which probably comes a close second).
That’s how aesthetics works for you. It’s the human capacity of being naturally attacked to (and/or stunned by) anything that is inherently beautiful, a cute baby animal, or an awe-inspiring sun set, or a breath taking landscape…
It all depends on the nature of the study, and how biased it was (or wasn’t) to begin with.
It depends on what type of images they’ve exposed their females subjects to (picture something like a young and sultry Michelle Pfeiffer, and something like this: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/da/4c/d4/da4cd42589a03bb225636c3b21f791fa.jpg or this: http://www.bajiroo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/weird_bad_ugly_thin_thinest_man_male_boys_guys_skinny_models_pics_images_photo_pictures_10.jpg or this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zOuH9BT1TSc/TLRI7YoUfxI/AAAAAAAAGkQ/AFfAzfbOxFI/s1600/17-american-flag-speedo-0710-lg-8636817.jpg )
Of course, male or female you’re gonna choose the pretty lady! Given the choices…
Like I’ve said, those studies were well dodgy, I’m afraid.
“ [..] males are far more controlled by visual stimuli than human females, at least when it comes to mating . . . er, romance”
Again that’s just another outdated thing from them old male/female-attraction dodgy studies.
Here’s an example (mainly because I’m lazy, and also, I don’t wanna post a million links on the same subject, plenty more where this came from if you search the net)
Are Men More Visual Than Women?
“[..] 2. Some studies challenge the idea that men are more visual
Most studies that gain popularity reinforce conventional wisdom. Thus there are easily found studies which support the idea that men are more visually stimulated than women are. Much rarely discussed are the studies which conflict with this notion.”
More at the link: https://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/men-more-visual-than-women/
-TL2Q
PS: But like I’ve said, don’t take that link at face value. There’s an ocean of other similar links/articles/modern-studies all over the web arriving to the same or similar conclusions.
biology is stronger than ideology – hence the fascination with cocks even with lesbians
tlq2
First you ran with a throw away line I wrote as joke, then you misrepresented the rest in order to launch into some Islamophobic nonsense about what women should wear on a beach. I resent your use of my comment as an excuse to promote zionazi bigotry. You things disgust me.
That was a great read about western values, Scott.
History does not believe in tears. The de-naturalisation of Western Europe, which began with de-colonisation in the 1960’s, has become even more rapid and even more diverse and factional – as sure-fire recipe for civiel war. As, by the way, brother Dugan has argued. The die, as Caesar said, is cast. Resolution of this conflicted arena will take many generations of action, much of it probably violent and cruel. This is terrible.
Years ago, when I was in university, I discovered to my extreme dismay (a little precious back then :-) that I was short a few credits and unable to graduate when I expected I would. So I ended up taking a Women’s Studies course as a filler. In that course, we read Betty Friedan’s, “The Feminine Mystique”, the book which launched the whole feminist movement in America. Friedan’s research centred on how the US government had created this ” feminine mystique” post WWII, to coerce women to stop participating in paid employment. The men returning home needed the jobs now. This book is a tremendous read,I think, for everyone because Friedan as an excellent researcher, carefully connects the dots to show how the feminine identity was a construct, a fake, created by the US government. With, like, really big repercussions.
Interesting how the original beginning never comes up anymore when “feminism” is discussed.
“Without battles and without fighting a war, Europeans are surrendering their jobs, their lands, their welfare that they have build on their lands. The Europeans are surrendering everything they own to the newcomers and to the invaders from Africa and the Middle East, because the European believe that to surrender everything you have to the newcomers is “to gain the European value.” Essentially, when something is being taken from them, they believe that they are gaining “values” and that those “values” need to be preserved.”
This sounds familiar, change Europeans for Russians and Africa and Middle East for Europe and Usa. Short story of falling Sssr.
“For the past 50 years female public nakedness has somehow became a sign of “freedom.” No matter how hard I think about this I can’t understand why. A woman doesn’t benefit in any way from having her body exposed to strangers. Why would women want to get naked or nearly naked? It’s a mystery for me. Why are the Western women willing to cater to the demands of a male mob? I have only one explanation. Since they were little girls the western women were brainwashed to believe that their “freedom’ is to get naked in public”
It doesn´t seem like Scott is a part of the North Euorpean culture. I would have understod if he had ment women in the MENA region.
….or how to destroy a site’s brand without apparently trying?….
Odd the impression, self created by the instigators, that the terrorist nations (those without European values – some well identified above – all obvious turkeys) shipped the hordes into Europe as a payback for daring to show a smidgen of support for the Palestinians….such support which has actually been not dissimilar to the reason Iraq and Libya had to go, with Syria the current problem for that particular ethnicity which rejects Western values (identified at the end above thank you – ie: great uncle Sam’s favorite nephew). Including Russians within that group is your brand destroyer, one might ask why.
Maybe a more accurate question should be: that the artificial so called ‘religious’ values we create in our minds is not the way to bring all folks together to experience actual life, rather that the ethnic divisions so created have bred the conflicts experienced down the centuries in order to prove that ‘mine is bigger than yours’ therefore I’m going to plunder your treasure because you’re a worthless nobody….and might even be gay, to the horror of humorless ‘religious’ bigots everywhere.
I am told that it goes much further than brainwashing and that the Western Corporate values include a chemical and dietary war on testosterone as well.
This may be another prime reason why the sissified “hipsters” aren’t interested in sex with a woman and raising the children that result from that most natural act: They can’t “get it up” in any case!
Besides culling the population of the world, it is said that the war on testosterone is calculated to produce a more passive and enslaved work force, by steadily eliminating as many strong males as possible, (who might commit the politically incorrect and rash act of standing up and defending their rights……….) as another component of “Homeland Security”. Security for the corporatocracy, that is, not for the slaves.
Also, by “busting balls”, so to speak, the NWO “elites” create millions of women who love this new sort of State, as a surrogate Daddy-Protector, as the remaining males lack the huevos to stand up for sisters, mothers and wives, themselves or anything else, for that matter. But Big Brother will! Or so they (particularly women in USA and Western Europe) have been brainwashed to believe.
Excellent comment bro! Yes, the state has taken on a surrogate male role. It’s not an over feminisation but rather a de-masculinisation of society, (which as you point out may have been enhanced by the gender-bender chemicals in our environment.)
Well in Gemany if you are against immigration publicly first time ,
you`l get fine of 1.600 €. 2nd time and you go to jail.
We live in a totalitarian police state.
….and you allow destruction once Christian nation
Scott, twas great you had translated and published our brilliant blogger Cat Motya. By that you brought a bit of truth about what happens in our world!
Seriously, pity that colorful language of Motya is impossible to translate. The nature of English language is not that playful and flexible.
However, great job Scott!
Speaking of public nakedness and feminism;
I vividly remember 70’s, the time of my youth. It was definitely a different time. Nakedness was genuinely and innocently a symbol of freedom from rigid norms of the past. Like it was music and sex.
However, the era lost its innocence very quickly. Almost immediately. It was taken by entertainment industry and got perverted through the minds of money making old farts.
I’d say that this is happening to every idea on this planet. No matter how good, it eventually gets twisted, abused, dirtied and taken upside down.
Did it not happen to Christianity during the era of witch-hunt and Inquisition? Isn’t it not happening to gay movements, women liberation and whatnot.
With ISIS as a fake, pseudo Islam, we can see how deeply and dangerously it can go. Propaganda is subtly and not so subtly working overtime, causing people to willingly or unwillingly equate terrorists and Muslims.
By closely observing circulating concepts – it seems (to me) that almost everything is getting infected with pseudo ideas – from politics to personal relations, nutrition, health. Maybe I’m just too old. But even even the normal light bulbs are replaced, what else to say.
You are certainly right in what you say about all those symbols of freedom and progress having been perverted by spurious interest.
In what I fully disagree is in considering the language of this “Cat Motya” colourful. Definitely not.
His use of the term “Ahmeds” to speak about Muslim migrant people I find it contemptuous to Muslim people in general, included many Russians, and trasluce an ideology that brings me back smells of the darkest eras in Europe.
For what I have seen so far of his comments, could well be creditor to the title “Hooligan of the RuNet”. The only thing he does is to spread hatred and sow discord amongst Russians and between Russians and other peoples of the world.
To see if it is not him who works for the 5th column.
Here perhaps is a good place to respond to the documentary Sodom, reviewed on August 10 in Russia Insider by Stephen Engel. I’d like to begin with two statements taken directly from the Russia Insider article:
“The film reflects popular attitudes towards LGBT in Russia, and is interesting in that it shows what Russians are told about LGBT and Americans in their mainstream media.”
“The film closes with a brief profile of how Russian society rejects LGBT.”
It is not easy to tell what the conclusion is of the reviewer – his mentioned point of interest, namely that the film “shows what Russians are told about LGBT and Americans in their mainstream media” does not indicate why this is so interesting; is he suggesting that what the Russians are told is misleading? Or is he suggesting that what they are shown in the film is an accurate portrayal of the so-called LGBT movement in the U.S.?
Here we have an example of the prevailing assumption that “Lesbian”, “Gay”, “Bi-sexual” and “Transgender” could all fall into a single category. Which is certainly not possible. The impossibility of this assumption brings me to the last statement in the article about how Russia “rejects LGBT”. What precisely is Russian society rejecting? An untruth? A sexual perversion? A moral dilemma? A heresy? an attempt by western elites to corrupt Russian society from the inside?
Are we to understand from Mr. Engel that all Russian people reject all of the above? Many of the Russian people? Some of the above? Is he suggesting there is no homosexuality in Russia, or no tolerance for it? Or perhaps that Russian society is, in general and also in this particular matter, capable of discretion and maturity?
I would have to say, from the point of view of residing in Portland, OR, that (as the review states) what Russians are “told” by the film bears some factual resemblance to reality here on the ground. Of course the film is making a point, and draws on the most extreme examples in doing so. However, the suggestion that there is no questioning of the long term consequences affecting children of gay parents is represented quite accurately in this film. I have not met the gay couple that admits to doubts about the short or long term effects of raising children with homosexual parents. I know many more normal people than gay people, and I haven’t heard any of them them admit to harboring doubts either. My guess is because they wouldn’t want to appear discriminatory.
There seems to be a veneer of certainty here in the foundational right of a human being to do whatever he or she prefers for whatever reason – and that everyone covered by the veneer is absolved from any individual responsibility to examine the potential consequences of their choices. This unexamined certainty is quite pronounced in North Americans in general; history shows it also in our European predecessors. (Obviously what I say does not pertain to the actual original North Americans that called this their home until a few hundred years ago.) And when this collective unexamined certainty is applied to the political correctness of gay family life, it fuels the force of the collective response from people with opposing views on the subject. It’s one big veneered thing against another – no individuals. There is no dialogue, no openness, no interest in the other individual human being despite differences. The left in the US is big on inclusion, as long as it doesn’t mean including people whose principles are inconvenient. The right in the US is big on righteousness, as long as it doesn’t require removing the beam in one’s eye. And you have to be on a side – no room for individual thinking. Which means no room for the truth to emerge. Meanwhile, the great Untruth stealthily grows rooted in all aspects of life until they are death, while we are all preoccupied with maintaining our one big veneered thing and we aren’t paying attention.
It seems to me that the smudging of truth begins long before the 1st step in 5 of “tolerance” that Scott Lively offers us in the film. We have here a false assertion preceeding any cultural tolerance: that the “LGBT” issue as described is even possible. That homosexuality is the same thing as the idea of being able to transition, transform or transcend one’s gender. Which is baffling, as homosexuality is certainly a possibility and becoming a different gender is certainly not a possibility, all questions of right and wrong aside.
So we begin with untruth – that sexual engagement with a person of the same sex is interchangeable with insisting that one is a different gender than one is and demanding others to pretend with you. If our starting point already insists that a possibility and an impossibility are equally possible, then there is little hope of sorting it all out down the road.
I hereby call for clarity and precision in the use of language. To call one-self homosexual is at least a revelation of one’s proclivity in the area of sexual desire. To call oneself transgender is just wishful thinking. Those of us who go along with the transgender charade are participating in a kind of Emperor’s New Clothes scenario.
Given the obvious, that any issue identified as “transgender” ought to be dismissed out of hand, we can return to the real problem: today’s normalization of promiscuity in general and homosexuality in particular.
Promiscuity has a number of definitions, and some of them include “having multiple partners” or “having casual sex”. Because there are many people today who live within committed homosexual relationships for many years, these definitions are not applicable in the context of this writing. I prefer the following:
Promiscuity: including or involving too many people or things; not limited in a careful or proper way
Promiscuity: lack of discrimination when it comes to sexuality
Here are 2 definitions that are a more precise illustration of my meaning. The first could certainly apply to all aspects of life for almost every citizen of the US: our lives superficially include and involve too many people and things, and is not limited in a careful or proper way. In addition, for a vast swath of us – especially our falsely guided youth and those corporate (and other) interests who prey on youth – there is a pervasive lack of discrimination when it comes to sexuality. Also in all other age groups; the variation of indiscriminate sexualized behavior and belief in the US is longer than this essay.
We can agree, since it is a fact, that one is unable to walk down a street today without passing multiple females attired in clothing that is designed for and has the effect of drawing the lustful attention of other people. Usually the lustfully attentive people are also in evidence.
We can agree that it is not possible to enter any place of retail business without having one’s ears assaulted by what is called – but certainly is not – music, with lyrics unimaginatively limited to various expressions of sexual desire (often quite bizarrely under the name of love).
We can agree on the inability of escaping billboards, signs, buses with advertising – these days using enormous enlarged photos of human faces and bodies – with diverse levels of suggestive gesture, many involving various and sundry configurations of male and female.
Are any films produced today without the requisite “normal” gay couple, or “normal” teen exploring her gender identity or sexual leanings? I don’t mean the raft of films now available under the heading “LGBT”, but just your regular old family movies?
Of course there are many more politically driven issues: elementary school textbooks that illustrate gay parents as “normal”, Planned Parenthood’s mandate to freely insert hormone producing IUDS in girls and women, but not remove them (it’s not their mandate to remove contraceptive devices, only to insert them).
These are a very few of the many examples of the normalization of promiscuity in the U.S.
The normalization of promiscuity is one prominent phase of the campaign for total normalization of all that is untrue. The domination of the Untruth.
Any human initiative or invention that insists on being beyond submission to the test of Truth, will always be hiding a profit or power motive. Behind the insistence that a human idea does not need to be held up to the standard of a Divine ideal, is the great Untruth.
The idea that women are “free” to dress in an intentionally and sexually suggestive way – and at the same time insist that people whose lust is aroused are to be condemned; this is straightforward denial. This is not freedom. This is abasement of self and other.
The idea that two human beings are free to display their sexual longing openly, in public, in front of anyone who is standing, sitting, walking nearby – this is not freedom. This is insult.
The idea that children should be forced into so called educational settings where they are taught about the mechanics of sexual intercourse, bereft of all suggestion that the intention of this act is for reproduction of the human race and is therefore sacred…this is not education – this is falsehood.
Any form of sexual engagement that exists outside of a desire for 2 people to procreate is a departure from the origin of sexual intercourse. We KNOW this is so, because we have to give so much attention to preventing pregnancy! It’s quite simple: each man and woman who have sexual intercourse must either use a contraceptive, or take the chance of conceiving. How can we deny this?
So sexual intercourse is for procreation. Can it be used responsibly for other aims – such as deepening intimacy or showing love?
This is an enormous question and “responsibility” is a key word here. Many of us human beings would say “yes”. Our record shows, however, that the use of sex for means far less lofty than procreation and love is what mostly happens in the world – beginning with oppression of women and a whole string of other deviances: manipulation of others, seduction of the weak, trafficking of vulnerable people and children, torture, profit, advertising, violence…
The privilege of sexual activity is a bit like the privilege of driving a car: humans really aren’t mature enough to have acquired it.
Which brings us to the question of homosexuality. Is homosexuality a perversion of human sexuality? Yes. Is it wrong?
In principle, because sex is for procreation, and procreation requires a male and a female, homosexuality is “wrong”.
And, just for perspective, so is divorce. So is adultery.
Drinking coffee is also wrong, if you think about it. Also eating too much, or being lazy. Also paying taxes to criminal governments. Also lying. Also using Round-Up to kill weeds. Also mass vaccination of children. Also giving children smart phones. Solitary confinement. Sweat shops. War. All wrong. Big or little, wrong is wrong. And we all do things that are wrong, otherwise we would be perfect and only God is perfect.
The LGBT movement, even pushed and supported by governmental propaganda, would not have gained momentum if no homosexual person was ever persecuted by someone who couldn’t forgive him for being thus. Yes, protest gay curriculum in your school. Yes, refuse to make flower arrangements for a so called gay marriage. That’s not the same as policing the private lives of others. We can be principled, we can object to things that impact us negatively, and we can also mind our own business concerning other people’s private choices which we cannot possibly understand unless we are clairvoyant.
There is a difference between tolerance and embracing a lack of morals. The tolerance – as first of five steps rued by Mr. Lively for homosexuality – might better be rued for the normalization of promiscuity and the insistence that one person’s sexual activity should be a subject of interest to another person. Tolerance in itself does not lead to the kind of violence and abuse portrayed in this film. And lack of morality in the creation of laws is also not from tolerance.
Frankly, concerning homosexuality or anybody’s sexual life beyond my own, I would be happy to not know about it. I am not interested. I don’t want to see it on film, or hear about it in so called songs, or read about it in novels, or talk about it with my neighbor. I don’t want my thoughts or imagination polluted with the vision of other people’s sexual behavior, and most of all I do not want to be forced by political correctness to talk about what other people do sexually.
There are so many other things to talk about and work on – so many things that really matter. The forcing of the “LGBT” agenda is a distraction by the great Untruth, who continuously insinuates that nothing else exists beyond our physical and soul desires – that these desires are the voice to follow rather than the voice of our conscience: the voice of the Spirit, the voice of the Divine. Whatever spiritual stream we might live in, the great Untruth does not discriminate – it will tempt within all the spiritual streams of humanity.
We are all born into a stream of spirit – Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, many indigenous religions. If we listen to our conscience, we can hear the voice speaking to us from the stream in which we are incarnated – the voice of the Spirit. It will tell us the Truth. Otherwise, we are listening to the great Untruth, which arises from the material world and will always call us to pursuits of the flesh. It will always tell us to either live out of our physical desire life, or to live out of our inclination to judge and condemn others. Both lead us to hell.
Dear, Sheila Wildfeuer
You analyzing an article that wasn’t written by our author and wasn’t published by us.It’s simply unfair, because i wrote none of those things that you quote here.
Please, take it on with the “Russia Insider.”
Dear Scott – Please accept my apologies, I should have read the rules. My intention was the analyzation of an idea, prompted by the review and journalistic assumption about acceptance of catagories; I did not wish to “take on”, and had not thought of the unfairness of sending it. Thank you for pointing it out – I assumed it would not be posted if it was inappropriate in any way.
Thanks. It was great analysis of the West’s use of body issues to use as an attack weapon. The west’s Elite is using body issues for control of the people of the west and the world in the end. The west’s Elite will use anything to control the masses. People focusing on body issues instead of global or community issues is good way to keep people from seeing what the west’s Elite has done to the middle east, Ukraine, and Latin America. “My body and its desires is all that counts everything else is not important” is the mantra the west’s Elite want to brainwash the masses with in the west and unfortunately it seems to be working.
So true and so deeply insightful. Real Men don’t wear pink.
Great article! On a little different tack, the way I see western freedoms is simply this: Don’t worry about your paycheques (going down in real terms relative to profits in the US since 40 years now). Don’t complain about job security (we are a free market economy, everybody is free to make a killing or to starve). Don’t moan and whine. Remember you are free! You are free to marry a man or a woman, or a transgender; you may even marry your dog. You can choose any washroom you care to go to, men or women. What more do you want? You live in the free world!
@ guestsept1:
You’re spot on, btw. Who cares about trivial things such as; food on the table, roof over your head, utilities being paid on time, job security, wage increases just enough to keep-up with inflation, pensions in old age, affordable health-care….
No! All that matters is that you can marry whoever you want: man, woman… goat (?)
^ That’s all it matters to this new [faux] “Social Justice” movement we have going-on right now.
But, oh yeah, they’re, oh-so “legit” because on the sidelines they half-heartedly support the Palestinians cause, or Climate Change… or are against Fraking, or TTIP…. *eye-roll*
…don’t get me started :/
-TL2Q
Not sure of the relevance of 2LtQ’s mentioning the Palestinian cause, but for the record I wholeheartedly support the Palestinian cause.
Katherine
Retrograde to the utmost, to the extent that could have been written by the famous missing link in human evolution.
I would like to know, Scott, what do you find wrong with equality in the bedroom or anywhere?
And that advice of “wives must surrender to their husbands”, well, I find it shameful, without further comments, why The Saker allows you to publish such a “message” here is beyond me, if we are supposed to be in an intelligent forum for honest people fighting against “hegemons”
From my point of view people who have problems with equality at any level have them precisely because they feel in inferiority of conditions in a more balanced situation and so need and want some advantage.
“why The Saker allows you to publish such a “message” here is beyond me”. Saker is happy with a wide variety of viewpoints WofXXIC. This is just another viewpoint, another way of saying something important.
Whilst yes, some may take issue with the “wives must surrender to husbands” meme stated without further elucidation, the overall message, that men and women in the AngloAmero West have lost sight of many core values in the name of meaningless fluff ones and that this has led to much that is currently appalling in Europe – is a fair one. It’s fair for open discussion and comment, without any attempt to censor viewpoints. Which is a characteristic of “intelligent forums for honest people” wouldn’t you agree? mod PS
“It’s fair for open discussion and comment, without any attempt to censor viewpoints. Which is a characteristic of “intelligent forums for honest people” wouldn’t you agree? mod PS”
Thanks, PS, for a great answer!
Sadness said:
“….or how to destroy a site’s brand without apparently trying?….”
At first I thought that what Sadness meant was that publishing Scott’s screed was a quick way to destroy this site’s brand.
Actually, though, this site is quite hospitable to types of comments from males that some women find silly and obvious and sometimes downright obnoxious.
Katherine
Dear “Woman of the XXI Century.”
I have not been a “missing link” by any means. I can give you a list of my ancestors for the past 600 years.
It’s interesting that I literally have quoted Bible, and you immediately went on insulting me and demanding me, a Director of Research and Development for thesaker to be banned from the blog.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=wives+should+submit+themselves+to+their+husbands
As for the traditional family dynamics, including an idea that wives should submit themselves to the will and well-being of their husbands… It’s also rooted in human biology. I even provided you with a link to some Stanford prof pontificating about it.
Let me ask you a question. Do you have a husband?
If you do, keep fighting with him. Don’t let my advice, or Bible to stand in your way.
Let’s see how long you get to keep him.
“It’s also rooted in human biology.” Nope. It is rooted in running with the sheep if anything.
Husband and wife/ man and women partnership (for life) is about each having qualities that enhance the other and makes them stronger as a team, as a unit. Without that, without being able to recognise each others strengths and weaknesses and use this to make the unit strong, a marriage will not last.
Perhaps you will learn that as you get older, perhaps not.
It is not that a wife should submit to a husband. It is not that each should be equal or any other fashionable marriage guidance.
The only thing that will hold two people together for life is recognising and respecting the strengths and weaknesses in each other and using the strengths of both. If the strengths of one covers the weakness of the other and vise versa, then I guess that’s a marriage made in heaven. They are a very strong team.
And for a sample, I have taken breakfast reading this news:
“Moscow hikers ditch injured friend in Siberian alps to catch plane home”
http://tass.com/society/896757
So, it is not that neither the West nor the East has to be put as an example of human values, because this is a matter of individuals and the way they conduct themselves in society.
Anyone who only cares for its own profit or its own welfare, even when it could be in detriment of others, is probed wrong, be it Western or Eastern, be it white, black, medium, Muslim, Jew, Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
I do not believe that any culture, religion or any race has the monopoly neither of the truth nor of the good and real human values.
@”Let me ask you a question. Do you have a husband?
If you do, keep fighting with him. Don’t let my advice, or Bible to stand in your way.
Let’s see how long you get to keep him.
Actually, a lot of the discourse here looks to me like what anthropologists call “lekking.”
“Lek” is a space where males engage in activities that are designed to show off their masculine qualities.
Among the higher primates, in the end it is the females who decide who gets to mate with them, not the other way around. Of course this natural state of things has been stood on its head by the Bible, much of which was written by the Jews/Iraelites, the first, most hierarchical, patriarchal, and violent tribe in the ancient Middle East, per the British historian Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews.
The above comment sounds to me like male braggadocio. This is not to say that some of Scott’s observations regarding “values” arguments and also the political aspects of the migrant crisis in Europe are not interesting.
In reality, no one gains points by fighting and creating tension, in society or in a marriage or a relationship of any kind—unless the aim is to oppress another person or reinforce the person’s low status via unspoken, implicit threats implied by the tension-creating activities or utterances.
Katherine
I do not see it as a “message” this is just Scotts opinion, interesting from my own point of view. I (never considered myself as “traditionalist”) agree with many of Scotts views, not all of them but it is still fine for me.
@ Woman of the XXI Century:
“I would like to know, Scott, what do you find wrong with equality in the bedroom or anywhere?
And that advice of “wives must surrender to their husbands”, well, I find it shameful, without further comments [etc]”
^ Hear-hear.
In what language we have to convey that there’s no such thing as gender roles (!?!!!!!)
Gender relates exclusively to genitalia – male or female – and that’s where it begins and ends. “Gender roles” is an artificial social construct which in turn – rather disturbingly – it’s actually a form of class warfare.
A person shouldn’t be bound to a certain role in life purely dictated by the accident of birth. It’s preposterous to even imply that a person born in the working class, is biologically hard-wired to be laborer and nothing else. It’s exactly the same thing with gender roles.
There’s nothing wrong (or gendered) with a husband doing the dishes or laundry, while the wife goes fishing or golfing (if that’s what she likes).
Alternatively; there are lots of men who actually enjoy cooking (again, nothing gendered about that), while some women, by their own admission are utterly hopeless in the kitchen. When these two types meet and later marry, are a match made in heaven. He cooks delicious meals while she does the shopping and the washing-up after dinner. That’s what a harmonious marriage is about; it’s a partnership based on mutal cooperation, which works both ways: he could be totally useless in kitchen, while she’s the chef in the household, but then… his part of the deal will be to clear-up the table and do the dishes.
But according to some Neanderthals who evidently still abound *cough-cough* and are allowed to roam free, for some mysterious reason. To them, you know the type ;-), any kind of domestic work (or child rearing) is considered to be (and I’m using a slang term here, I didn’t come up with) = “c*nt work,” or in other words: a woman’s job if you prefer *eye-roll*
-TL2Q
Excellent essay. At the end of which, the mesmerized Hans may still ask himself, “Why should I welcome the biblical transmigration of millions into what I used to call my “homeland” – whereas now if I refer to it as such I am de facto a racist, when not a nazi? And I won’t even mention the glorification of the LGBT business.”
Clearly we are dealing with an epi-phenomenon, whose roots are masterly obscured in the fog produced by the information industry, by the doctors of the image and by the army of handsomely paid sycophants, ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless.
In February 2016 the Saker published what is in my view the most clear and concise description of AngloZionism, titled “Why I Use the Term ‘AngloZionist’, and Why It’s Important”
One of its key points is that, as a people, the Jews are a sect rather than a race. However, we may add, by passing themselves as a race, those who drive the levers of world affairs can promptly accuse of racism anyone who objects to their ordnances, with dire consequences. I made reference before to the blog, “Death of an Unsung Hero” http://wp.me/p2e0kb-1Yt as an example.
Still, we must stand in awe at the skill. Convincing the world at large that an emaciated man with a turban organized 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan was the gate, or the final test of the gullibility of mankind. After which anything else would be the proverbial piece of cake, i.e. wars, LGBT, miscegenation, biblical human transhumance and sundry other orrors.
Someone sent me a link to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsXTP4aK298 (just over 4-minute long). At one point, this intriguing gentleman (wearing a Christian Orthodox garment), makes reference to books for children titled, “Daddy’s Wedding” and “Daddy’s Roomate.”
Unable to believe anything so perverse, I checked the rather small public library where I live and, sure enough, there they are, in full evidence among children’s books, and available in multiple copies.
Shakespeare would say, “O, woe is me, to have seen what I have seen, see what I see!’”
@ Voltaire
Thanks for your enlightenment (following Arouet’s steps!). I presume to know what’s inside “Dad’s Wedding” and my reaction is a mixture of incomprehensibility and revulsion for a world being shaped by degenerates who are imposing their filth as the new norm.
It all boils down to the Bell Curve normal distribution observed in the natural and social world being misshapen by the peripheral outliers, a world ruled by deviance.
Kim
Did Michelangelo Secretly Paint Symbols of Female Anatomy in the Sistine Chapel?
http://sputniknews.com/art_living/20160902/1044872129/sistine-chapel-anatomy.html
“Michelangelo painted some of the most recognizable images in art on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. He also, evidently, included a bunch of heretical body parts.
Among a number of famous scenes depicted on the ceiling of the chapel is the Creation of Eve, which depicts the first female pleading with God in the Garden of Eden. Both Eve and Adam are shown without clothes, but Michelangelo took care to cover select parts of the female anatomy.
This was likely due to the Catholic Church’s ban on dissection of the human body, as well as patriarchal ideas about who was in charge (hint: men).
But a study published in the journal Clinical Anatomy reveals that the Renaissance artist appears to have hidden a number of references to the female body throughout his Sistine fresco.
In the Creation of Eve, for example, Eve’s arm is positioned so that it “clearly resembles the shape of an inverted triangle…thus, in the exact center of the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling…Michelangelo may have placed a notorious pagan female symbol,” says the study, according to the International Business Times.
Researchers used imaging software to detect triangles throughout the ceiling, many of which play a clear, symbolic role.
“In times of intolerance and religious persecution, art almost never dared to openly express what the artist was eager to communicate,” researchers said in the study.
“Codes, hidden allusions, symbols and veiled references that were understandable only to a very small circle of contemporaries were the only recourse to those who broke with the traditional dogmas of the time.”
Naturally, Michelangelo could not resist the opportunity to include his notion of “the sacred feminine.”
“Like other Renaissance artists of his time, Michelangelo often introduced anatomic figures, sexual innuendos and rude insults to patrons without them being aware,” researchers said.
“For him, Christianity was not superior to any other form of religion. Michelangelo may have concealed symbols associated with female anatomy to actually exalt the female image that was widely neglected by the Catholic Church.”
Oh, come on. vot tak..
Michelangelo, as a gay, depicted women either as misshaped bags, or men with breasts.
He didn’t like the female anatomy, and could care less about it. He painted the chapel for Pope Julius II, the one who actually commissioned Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel. who was gay, also.
Don’t read into his art something which is not there.
This blog has some very convincing illustrations
http://danielmaidman.blogspot.com/2010/12/michelangelo-and-feminine.html
Italian Renaissance produced some very ugly art. It’s truly the level of pin-up artistry.
Especially in comparison with the the Northern Renaissance
https://www.google.com/#q=the+Northern+Renaissance
It’s just shows why the Catholic church is called “harlot.,” a “gay for pay” or “trade” should be a better term, since it’s all gay men club.
Sexual deviance creates spiritual warfare.
That is the point, Scott. It is gays who repress female sexuality, and repression of female nudity, is part of that.
Haha, we disagree here. The Italian art of that period was much more elegant and refined than the Northern European of that period. Just looking at the pictures alone shows that. But here are another few facts. The examples of art in the link you posted for Northern art,came from the early Renaissance period. And at that time all those areas were Catholic. The artists portrayed there were Catholic artists. And in those days except for a few works they were Church art,or art with religious subjects.Almost all high art was commissioned by either the Church or the courts and nobility in that period. Another fact is that many of the artists working in the North were either Italian themselves,or who trained in Italy under Italian masters.That lasted well into the 18th century. Most of the important artists and architects working in Russia in the 18th century were even Italian. And many Russian artists were send to Italy for training in “court art”. With others being apprenticed to the Italian artists working there.
As to Michelangelo,whether gay or not,he never considered himself a painter.He hated it,and loved sculptor instead.He was forced by the Pope to paint the Sistine Chapel.And he had to do it quickly (for the time). Its a masterpiece because of its stunning affect seen together (and because “he” painted it). But taken individually,especially if done by an unknown artist,it wouldn’t be highly thought of.Then there are also two other issues.Women were rarely portrayed nude in paintings of that time.He got away with it because of the subject matter. And because they weren’t painted “too” accurately. And lastly in that period until the 19th century and early 20th century.The “ideals” of feminine beauty were very different than today.Wealthy women (who were painted mostly) were expected to have “meat on their bones”. To have a “well fed” look was considered a sign of wealth (in men as well).Which is why the early cartoons of the rich always showed them obese.
@ Uncle B:
“[..] The “ideals” of feminine beauty were very different than today.Wealthy women (who were painted mostly) were expected to have “meat on their bones”. To have a “well fed” look was considered a sign of wealth (in men as well) [..]”
Spot on, plus the rest of your post too.
Nowadays a ‘thigh gap’ (please, don’s ask me to elaborate :/) is considered to be the height of female beauty, same with women who look borderline anorexic as per super-models, for example.
In the olden days women were considered attractive when they’ve got some puppy-fat on them. As you said; it was considered a sing of wealth, which in turn translated into a sign of good-health/fertility.
One would have thought these were well known facts by now… it’s not like it’s breaking news or anything, is it?
-TL2Q
The burkini was created by an Australian designer. The idea being to support Muslim women who wanted to become volunteer Life Savers on our beaches. Life savers already wore a hat and ‘rashie’ long sleeve sunproof top. So the burkini just covered a bit more.
This concept was widely promoted and seen as positive. Bear in mind that the Aussie sun burns like hades and most Aussies cover up .. to prevent skin cancer. So going naked 70’s style is passe.
@ Babushka
Was there ever a Muslim woman candidate to the lifesavers ranks? I know it’s a loaded question with many meanings.
Yes there are many Muslim women volunteering as Live Savers. Plus active in all sports just like non Muslim women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3769622/New-range-dramatic-beachwear-launched-China-featuring-pandas-alligators-tigers-no-burkini-style-controversy.html
check these out!!
Plus facebook
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154299882620115&set=a.28461395114.59082.744400114&type=3&theater
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@JJ:
Not being funny with ya, but ^ that means, what?!?
Exactly?
Those Chinese full-body swim gear, if anything, are rather colorful in more ways than one. But are these people wearing them in western beaches? Or just mainly China? Hmm?
More Importantly; are they wearing those right next to a beach were a crazy Chinese guy went on killing rampage, plowing with truck into 40-plus innocent people, while screaming: Buddha is the Greatest!
(?)
Somehow, I doubt it :/
Your other link, the one on facebook… I, personally, have no issues with that garment either (if that‘s what you wanna wear, knock yourself out! I’d say! : -) ).
Trouble is… that some sexually-repressed Islamic men will find even that (a full-on body-suit mimicking human skin with a mock bikini on top) sexually arousing and/or offensive for one reason or another… and then go and attack the wearer anyway.
You go and pick what’s the common denominator here…
…oh ….but be very careful with your hasty conclusions, lest you wanna be labeled an racist, or worst! An islamophobe… :/
-TL2Q
“P.S. Western values are being rejected not just by Russians. Israel is an example of a country that outright rejects most “Western values,” while benefiting largely by acquiring real tangible values, while pushing the West to own those virtual.
Ministry of culture of Israel to issue “modesty guidelines” for Government-funded Events
The decision was made following the Celebrate August festival in Ashdod, in which a female singer dressed in shorts, a bikini top and an open shirt was removed from the stage.”
The other side of that coin:
Tel Aviv: The New Gay Travel Hotspot
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/24/tel-aviv-the-new-gay-travel-hotspot.html
“But unlike, say, Amsterdam or Berlin, which have developed into gay hotspots naturally over decades, Tel Aviv’s coming out was a much quicker and more calculated affair.
Four years ago, the straight mayor of Tel Aviv, Ron Huldai, realized his city had all the necessary ingredients to become a leading gay tourist destination: warm weather, pristine beaches, a vibrant nightlife, a thriving gay community, and some of the most beautiful men on the planet. The problem was, Tel Aviv wasn’t known as a gay town.
Together with the mayor, Waizman was able to secure grants from both the Israeli Tourism Ministry and the Israel Hotel Association. The mayor‘s office allocated a third of its own tourism budget (about $100,000) for the project. “We now spend a quarter of a million dollars a year on gay tourism, a fortune by Israeli standards,” says Waizman.
The first thing they did was send well-known (and good-looking) Israeli performers to gay-pride events in major cities around the world. They also placed sexy ads in major gay rags across Europe and America, including Out and The Advocate. They even reached out to celebrity bloggers, like Perez Hilton, with a hard-to-resist offer: a free trip to Tel Aviv, all expenses paid, in return for a little publicity.
The results were nothing less than spectacular. Soon, gay men from all over the world were flocking to Tel Aviv by the thousands, swiping their credit cards all over town, and breathing new life into the city’s economy.
In 2011, barely three years into the campaign, a survey by American Airlines and Gaycities.com, named Tel Aviv the gayest city in the world, beating out New York and Berlin by a landslide. Mayor Huldai was hailed as a visionary. “We got a call from the mayor of Milan recently asking us how we did it,“ says Huldai with a smile. “Hotels in Tel Aviv are now asking for more rainbow flags because they are filled with gay tourists.”
It’s easy to understand why gay tourists might feel at home in Tel Aviv. Walk down the city’s biggest avenue, Rothschild Boulevard, on any given Friday and you’ll see dozens of gay couples holding hands, not to mention a steady stream of same-sex couples pushing baby strollers.
“We call it our ‘gayby boom,’ ” says Avner Bernheimer, the creator of one of Israel’s most popular TV shows, Ima Veh’Abaz (Mom and Dads), about a gay couple raising a child with a single woman. Bernheimer, who based the show on his own real-life story, said it was the easiest sale he ever made. The cable network approved his pitch in less than five minutes.
Unlike other gay-friendly cities such as New York and Los Angeles, where gays live in so-called gay ghettos like Chelsea and West Hollywood, there is no specific gay neighborhood in Tel Aviv. “Every café and restaurant here is gay-friendly,” says Bernheimer. And that, according to him, breeds acceptance. “Israel is a small country where everyone knows everyone. Everybody knows someone who’s gay, whether it’s your son, your neighbor’s cousin, or your best friend’s lesbian daughter.”
Yeah, israel is rejecting the so-called “western values” the zio-freakshow has been the main creator of. That’s a good one, Scott. :D
BTW, repression of female “skin” goes hand in hand with homosexual dominance in cultural/societal values, as one can see with regard to israel. The basics of how this works is very simple, and anceint, psychology. It’s all about control and limiting access.
Scott, I consider the way you demeaned Russians by invalidly comparing them and their attitudes with those of israelis as insulting to Russian people. That was some low blow you delivered there. Not cool, dude.
About Europe:
There aren’t many “naked” people on the beach, unless it’s a nudist beach. From time to time a woman will take off her top to avoid leaving bikini marks. Not because she was brainwashed to do it.
Where Scott is completely right is that males have been wussified by years of feminism. So much that a male won’t dare to speak to a woman showing her breasts on a beach because he doesn’t want to appear to “harass” her.
Women have been brainwashed in a different way. They’ve been brainwashed to think only about their career and that having children and raising a family is bad.
So people don’t flirt much, few families are created, few children are born, the net result of all this? Europe has a native population decline problem, which politicians think can be solved by importing migrants.
Many of those migrants have a different strategy. They cover their women to *increase* birth rates. Because the only way for a man to have sex is to marry a woman and commit to have a family. Any other way is considered deviant and punished.
As you can see, both way are completely different and they’re unlikely to coexist in the same place.
Which is why there’s so much noise about the burkini and why feminist defend them, even though it’s quite ridiculous to go to the beach like that.
The purpose of going to the beach after all is to catch some sun and bath. Being dressed completely defeats that purpose. It’s not about freedom, it’s about a clash of cultures.
The Russian way when it comes to flirting is pretty much the same as the European way, before the later was destroyed by feminism.
US Cultural Colonisation in Asia Pacific
Column: Politics Region: Southeast Asia
68767886Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.
Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.
In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:
His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.
http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/30/us-cultural-colonisation-in-asia-pacific/
The West has appropriated “human rights” as cover for pursuit of its selfish interests. It does not follow that human rights are not worth defending. Nothing here persuades me otherwise.
Read this comments in a discussion on a daily on the “Burkini” issue:
Gonzalo says,
“The Burkini is not a threat to democracy or its bourgeois mimicry; Banning it, yes.
Secularity in France is being killed and fascism then restarts without any pudor.
It will not be enough with putting or toggling the velo. If we not defend freedom, not even God will be safe.
Health.”
Another commenter, unidentified as woman or man, says:
“According to the author, “is the Burkini an Islamic variant of the bikini, or the antithesis of it? Should not alert, <<<>> on the concealment of bodies of Muslim women and the often imposed nudity and hypersexualization of us who are not? ”
— I was stunned by this equation that makes the author. A Western NOT choose to go topless because suffer the pressure in her neighborhood who demands to see her chest or in the worst case they will retire her the greeting, not because she is kicked by her husband, or embarrass her entire family, or they call her “whore” on the street, or is fired from work, or murdeed by her father and brothers for to besmirch the family honor. Instead, to most of the Muslim women, if they do not put the Burkini, automatically happens several of these things.
— The real challenge to defend freedom is to get that a Muslim woman can decide to go without Burkini without feeling terror. The challenge is not in any way to get that she can go with Burkini. The pseudodebate of “to choose the Burkini” is a false debate, enacted selfishly by the Islamo-fascists. It is as absurd as trying to demand the legal right “by choice” to lead a neck ring with chain like dogs (http: //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk _…, or a yellow David star on clothes to self-denounce as a “dirty Jew” (https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki / …. they are only public indignities.
— And public indignity is not a right, and who wants it, let him hiding in his house, not giving degrading example in public in front of children.
A greeting.”
I find them two legitimate points of view, and so, my view on this would be anywhere in the middle.
well thought out comments are appreciated … snide remarks no … sentence removed mod-hs
I would like to remind Mr Humor that bacteria represents most biomass on this earth and they reproduce asexually. We sexually reproducing multicellulars are the weirdo fanatics. The “liquid love” advocates are actually the conservatives!
The extreme flexibility of bacteria doesn’t suit us with our longer development cycle, that is all.
On top of that we have no way to judge the success of our ongoing experiment as we blindly carry on.
Greetings, my dear Rhizomatic Schizomass
“On top of that we have no way to judge the success of our ongoing experiment as we blindly carry on.”
Yes, we do. On top of that some of us even carry on with blindfolds on.
Come to think of it… If we knew the results, how would it be a challenge?
A very good post, Scott. This topic of ‘western values’ has been on my mind and I think you and Cat Moya have summed up things nicely. I think many peoples besides the Russians reject these ridiculous and evil ‘western values’ that are being pushed so vigorously.
However, people in the ‘the west’ are so indocrinated that they cannot see the way their values and worldview has been changed as the generations have passed. Their grand parents or their great great grandparents would be appalled at the way they have allowed themselves to degenerate. And yet they will proudly proclaim they are ‘progressive’ and those grand parents are ‘backward’, etc. In fact, is this not a Marxist mentality that has led to the so-scalled ‘cultural marxism’ that is being used to destroy the people of the ‘the west’.
They would do better to understand that there cannot be balance without god and to look to nature to find god. Yet, instead, they will stick with the fake hippie ‘spirituality’ and not seek real understanding.
Your quote
“Spain did the math to see how much they spend on gay parades and other sexual minority related activities. It came up to a huge number of more than 1 billion Euros per year. The poor Spanish schmuck who did he math, couldn’t help but said that they spend on their children education less than that.”
Is that true or simply made up? If the former, I would like to see some verification for it. Not that I am for or against gay parades etc., I believe in live and let live but it seems a ridiculously high figure.
it’s all about enforcing fraud and removing us as much as possible from our biology. In other words they want Europe (I am from Serbia but I live in the US) to become confused and to lose it’s biggest strength – cultural identity. Once you create chaos (by importing people you bomb deliberately to your country knowing they will never be able to assimilate) – you get another America – a mix of incompatible cultures where everyone is scared of everyone else. That’s exactly what kleptocrats want. The thing they are scared the most of is solidarity and proper social interaction. Americans are the easiest people to manipulate – they have lost connection with our biology – people don’t even know what freedom or democracy means any more.
Corporations and their useful idiots love that (and they deliberately create panoramic fear – I read about it in a good book on marketing called Brandwashed). The more alianated and scared we are – the more we shop and that’s all our psychopathic overlords care about.
Every time I go to Serbia I am surprised with how much happier people are over there and how better socially connected. Every time I come back to the USA I feel half dead after a day or two
This nation of mine is in grave danger, it’s Orthodox Christian faith existed for thousands of years but today it is being considered as a backward belief and is being forced to convert to Protestant by traitors of the citizens. How is it that faith becoming materialistic? Foreign Protestants are buying off the citizens.
Spot on ! Shame Mr Putin wasn’t an American – people of Russia , you have a leader to be proud of . He does what he says and has enough brains to not fall into obama’s trap , kudoes to him . We have needed a leader like this for a long time – 8 years at least , grin . Maybe Mr Trump and Mr Putin will work together – like it or not we are very much alike and should focus and project the combination of power and – well , to be honest , the 2 countries together could insure world peace and stop this one world gov’t nonsense . Thank you for your time , bp .
However, people are so indoctrinated in the ‘West’ that they do not see how their beliefs and worldview have changed as the years have passed. Their grandparents would be horrified by the way they allowed themselves to degenerate, or their great grandparents would be horrified. And yet they are proud to declare that they are ‘progressive’ and that their grandparents are ‘backward,’ etc. In fact, this is not a Marxist mindset that has led to the so-called ‘cultural Marxism’ which is being used to kill the ‘western’ people.