Liberal men: misogynist, violent little brats

My most recent post delved into the issue of the woman-hating nature of the liberal male as it relates to reproduction, and partially to the vitriol non-liberal women are treated to by these creatures, in the form of intimidating, vituperative verbal barrages when the non-liberal female should express unsanctioned political beliefs; a phenomenon that any outspoken, socially conservative, anti-globalist, XX-chromosomed person surely has first-hand experience of.

Well, it appears the methods of the virulently misogynist left are in the process of evolving from “just” aggressive verbal abuse to non-compliant women (which is appalling enough) into outright physical violence. Just last night, a female Trump-supporter was attacked with pepper spray by a left-wing “protester” (violent Stalinist thug) who had helped force the University of California in Berkeley to cancel a speech by libertarian personality, Milo Yiannopoulos (who I am not a fan of, but that’s not the point), while she was being interviewed by a reporter. Let’s boil the story down to its bare bones: a woman was physically assaulted by a man for having a certain set of political views.

This has, understandably, shocked all decent, moral people who have heard about it, but the more I think about it, the more I think that, actually, it is not that shocking at all. We already live in a society where it is commonplace for men to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with women and scream in their face (which is socially acceptable, so long as he subscribes to the correct ideology); we live in a society that teaches boys when they are growing up that women are just the targets of sexual conquests. And to add the rotten cherry to the whole stinking, mouldy, maggot-infested cake of modern pseudo-parenting, we live in an era saturated by pornography, which is increasingly violent and misogynistic in nature; which causes men’s brains to degenerate; and which is only ever a few clicks away for children whose parents spend 34 minutes per day with them, and who have smartphones before they’ve even started school, because apathetic parents find such devices useful in distracting their naturally energetic small children, so they can get on and do the really important things, like watch Emmerdale and message their friends on Facebook.

Additionally, increasingly, being conservative (or even just non-liberal) relegates one to the status of subhuman; a grotesque monster, to be detested, jeered at, and yes, persecuted; violently, if necessary. After all, conservatives – male or female – deserve it, because they’re, like, evil. Thusly, anyone who has ever observed a romantic relationship involving a leftist male will affirm that, in the vast majority of cases, an unhealthy, domineering, psychologically abusive dynamic exists, with the man being the dominant party. Several years ago, I knew a young lady who was in a romantic relationship with a man. The girl was a liberal, but she was a very nice person who I liked, but who clearly lack self-esteem and confidence; a lamb to the slaughter, as liberal, libertine men prey on damaged females, because women with proper self-esteem do not tolerate being treated poorly. This girl’s boyfriend treated her very badly, before she eventually dumped him: he would casually belittle her in front of other people, intentionally making hurtful, derogatory statements; and he would also flirt with other people in front of her. This sort of example is far from uncommon, and the truly amusing thing is that this cretin assuaged what tiny little crumb of a conscience he had by being a left-wing extremist, virtue-signalling about feminism (yes, really), multiculturalism, green politics, and so on. Leftist men know that society gives them a free reign to treat people as hideously as they like, so long as they stay within the confines of the law (which is becoming softer and softer over the generations) and espouse the correct political beliefs.

So, when you consider the confluence of the factors in the preceding paragraphs, men being violent towards women on political grounds is not really that surprising at all. In fact, it’s inevitable. You simply cannot raise generations of badly-parented, empathy-impaired, porn-addicted boys who think women are simply walking sex objects and expect them to blossom into civilised young gentleman; you cannot expect men who have been raised in a culture that devalues women and conservatives to behave civilly towards, err, conservative women. I do not believe humans start off as totally blank slates – I believe we are born with genetic predilections – but it is clear that our early years are absolutely crucial in forming the type of person we become, and can override a lot of the genetic programming we are blessed / cursed with. There are people out there who were born with perfectly healthy brains, who have been turned into psychopaths. Likewise, there are people who were born with brains neurologically similar to those of psychopaths, but who have developed – through good, nurturing, loving parenting – empathy and the ability to consider other people’s needs. So while genetics play a role, we cannot just blame traits that we do not like in people on their DNA, and doing so is not helpful. We have to look at their formative years, and we have to reassess the way we ‘do’ parenting.

Most men know, instinctively, that we do not physically hurt women. It’s an unspoken covenant that is unbreakable if one wishes to be able to participate properly in society – wife-beaters and rapists are never forgiven. Even most men who are otherwise very licentious and very inconsiderate of women fully understand that male-on-female violence is a line that cannot be crossed, without severe, life-ruining consequences. So something has to have gone very, very wrong for a man to even think of attacking a woman; there is a fundamental, key component of humanity and masculinity that is missing in men who raise a finger against a woman. It is appalling, hideous, unforgivable, but given the way society is structured, its manifold and manifest deficiencies, and its lazy, apathetic, amoral, borderline-psychotic method of raising children, combined with the fact that our culture is an incubator of genuine hatred towards anyone with remotely conservative views, it can’t be too much of a surprise. I am not excusing men who are violent towards women: I genuinely hate them, and while my Christian duty compels me to forgive those who genuinely repent, I admit that I am not perfect, and I can’t. I’m offering an analysis on what makes these men the way they are, so that we can avoid the mistakes of our parents and grandparents, and raise the next generation of male children to be emotionally healthy, empathetic people, which greatly reduces the risk of misogynistic violence.

Such politically motivated male-on-female violence is still far from being widely accepted, but the signs are there that it is on the way to being accepted. Think I am being hyperbolic? 60 years ago, the crude, base way in which many men today talk about (and to) women was wholly socially unacceptable. In 2017, this language is considered normal. Our culture and our society is degenerating rapidly, on a daily basis, and so we – people who stand for traditional morality, civility, and decency – have to be prepared to adjust to whatever the new ‘normal’ is in the future. So what are we going to do about this problem? Because our wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends are living in a society that is increasingly dangerous for them. One of the foundational principles of masculinity is that men defend women and children. We are living in dark times, infused with all sorts of dangerous people, and they need us more than ever.

P.S. If you would like to send the young lady who was pepper sprayed at UC Berkeley a message of solidarity, you can reach her on Twitter:




Liberal men: misogynist little brats

In the wake of the inauguration of President Donald Trump (don’t those three words sound good?), a series of highly publicised “Women’s Marches” (Soros-funded collective expressions of confused rage at nothing in particular) erupted across the Western world. Though mainly undertaken by radical feminist females who had been wound up by the media into thinking Trump was going to have them forcibly impregnated, or something, these marches were participated in by a fair amount of men – who self-identify as feminists – as well. So what motivated these men, these male feminists?

Though they claim to be very pro-female, and solely interested in defending and advancing women’s rights, my opinion is that this is a cynical ruse; a stratagem designed to win acceptance from the feminist movement, in order to advance their own aims, which are certainly anything but female-friendly. The focal point of the marches were centred around crude slogans such as “keep your tiny hands off my p***y” and “my uterus is not government property” (an absurd statement, given these people demand state-funded contraception); that is, the main thrust of the ‘arguments’ (and I am very generous in using that term) offered by the protesters was to further and retain access to birth control and abortion, given that President Trump and – especially – Vice-President Pence had just entered the White House.

This begs the question: why did a substantial number of left-wing men join in on these marches? Is it because they love and feel a deep respect for women? I do not think so, judging by the sheer, vile hatred that is dished out by liberal men to non-liberal women. A very close female friend of mine – a young girl, just out of university age, and not really interested in politics – told me that she made the fatal mistake of telling a liberal male in her workplace which way she voted in Britain’s EU referendum: Leave. She was set upon in a verbally aggressive way, and condemned for being racist, xenophobic, homophobic, claustrophobic, and LGBTQWERTYphobic; and this verbal assault understandably left her feeling very intimidated and upset. Such instances of genuinely misogynistic treatment towards non-liberal women from tolerant, enlightened men are very common (think of the names female politicians who are unpopular with liberals, like Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May, are called; or even media commentators, like Katie Hopkins; or how about Melania Trump, who gangs of liberal men threatened to rape on Twitter). Another female friend of mine was the recipient of an aggressive, abusive rant on a social media platform the other day, delivered by a left-wing man, simply because she expressed pro-life and anti-casual sex opinions; this left-wing man didn’t react nearly so strongly to another male who also expressed pro-life opinions, because they never do: liberal men are stinking cowards and bullies; and like all bullies, they pick on those they perceive as weaker than themselves. Liberal men are full of misogynistic rage, which they take out on women who dare to reject the liberal principles that the liberal man has demanded they believe in. Sounds like patriarchy, to me!

So, it is clear liberal feminist men are not motivated by an intrinsic love of womankind, given how appallingly ladies who think for themselves are treated. So what does motivate male feminists to scream and shout from the rooftops about how contraception and abortion (I thought men weren’t allowed an opinion on abortion, anyway? Must be only pro-life men that aren’t) are some sort of inherent, God-given right of women?

Put simply: selfishness. If we consider what contraception and abortion do, we come to the obvious conclusion that they establish and maintain the illusion of ‘safe’, sterile sex that doesn’t result in giving birth to a human child. Contraception disassociates sex from fertility by drastically (but definitely not completely) reducing the risk of a woman becoming pregnant; abortion – sold to women as a minor, non-invasive procedure with no lasting negative effects – is there as a fail-safe last resort, when the contraception doesn’t work. Without contraception and abortion, the illusion / delusion crumbles: the creative potential of a heterosexual union is made starkly apparent to both sexes, but particularly women, who see that casual sex is so risky that it is not worth partaking in – if you think about it, why on Earth would any woman risk not just pregnancy, but also being left high and dry to care for a baby on her own, just for five minutes of “fun” with someone they barely know and cannot trust? To do so would be insanely dangerous, and if the medications – contraception and abortion – for “accidental” pregnancy did not exist, no woman would be so reckless.

So the liberal man fights tooth-and-nail for those birth-prevention measures, because without them, he can no longer use women he barely or, indeed, doesn’t know, for fleeting physical pleasure; to have sex with a woman, he’s going to have to be a gentleman over a sustained period of time: he’s going to have to get to know a lady, and he’s going to have to demonstrate to her over a period of time that he’s a trustworthy, dependable, loyal partner; and then, he’s going to have to drag himself out of adolescence, and commit to looking after her and their future offspring for the rest of his life (and that all sounds like a lot of hard work and effort – things leftists are not overly fond of).

Actually, when it comes to courtship and marriage, women were given all of the power by nature / God: even in other species, it’s the males who have to prove to the female that they’re worth of being their partner, and in a human society devoid of contraception and abortion, and which has rigorously enforced standards of sexual ethics that stretch beyond mere “consent“, it’s exactly the same: if men are not willing or able to provide the loving security and stability the woman requires, then it’s simple: no sex, no marriage. I go into much more detail on this in a previous post, but basically, the introduction of contraception (and abortion) completely trivialises sex, and removes the female’s natural power over the situation. Like most things third-wave feminism advocates, it doesn’t liberate women – it enslaves them; it relegates them to the status of mere sex toys, who can be plied with alcohol, used for sex, and then coldly disposed of. Men who advocate contraception and abortion very well know this, and it is why they do so.

What man, who has genuine respect for women (which only comes from sound moral teaching and loving platonic relationships with females in early life), could possibly fight, in good conscience for abortion? Leaving aside the fact that it – along with contraception, as explained in the paragraph above clips the wings of female autonomy, and leaving aside the more obvious impact – the dead human child, let’s explore the lesser-known effects of abortion: the deleterious effects on the mother. A woman’s first pregnancy permanently changes her breasts: during that pregnancy, she is at higher risk of breast cancer, but once the pregnancy reaches its natural conclusion – childbirth – the cells in that area stabilise forever, reducing the risk; but if her first pregnancy is interrupted, her breasts are permanently stuck in the volatile period before birth, permanently increasing her breast cancer risk. Also, abortion raises the risk of future miscarriages by 60%, meaning that many women who have had abortions, who want to start a family later on in life, find it difficult to do so. And that’s not all: the risk of women who have an abortion attempting suicide is increased sixfold, because abortion is an invasive, traumatising procedure: women who have miscarriages are devastated, often barely able to function, for months on end; some never recover. Why would it be different for vulnerable women who opted for abortion, just because society lied to them, selling them the fake idea that abortion is a quick and easy solution to all problems?

How abortion effects women. But you don’t care, do you, liberal male? All you care about is your own short-lived “fun”.

Given not only the profound damage dealt by abortion, but the stripping of natural feminine power by contraception and the casualisation of sex, it is clear that if a man genuinely cares for women, he cannot possibly be pro-abortion and pro-casual sex; he can only be an advocate of those things if he is either a) ignorant; or b) misogynistic and selfish. Given the acidic, venomous – and usually female-specific – hatred directed towards women of various unapproved ideological persuasions, we can safely rule out option A, in the case of liberal men. Since the Sexual Revolution in the late 1950s and early 1960s, men have had carte blanche to use women for aimless sexual ‘thrills’, which at best “just” exploit the women involved, but at worst, cause them long-term psychological – and even medical – problems. Men who support this cannot legitimately be called pro-female, and I am staggered as to how female feminists cannot see that they are aligned with a bunch of woman-hating misogynists.

Personally, given various relationships of different types and degrees, both present and past, I quite like women, and think they should be treated with dignity and respect, not as cheap sex toys for unscrupulous men. Male feminists: you may have fooled your female feminist allies into believing you are pro-female activists, fighting for a safer and more accepting world for women; but we social conservatives – male and female alike – can see straight through you. We know what woman-hating, spoilt, selfish little boys you really are.

For more writing on a similar matter, please see my previous post, “Why contraception is misogynistic (and gay)”.

Kool-Aid Christianity and the Marxification and Infantilisation of Christ

Far from representing the lunatic fringe, liberal “Christians” who advocate completely un-Christian policy now constitute the vast majority of believers in the UK.

One of the few highlights of my disastrous recent stint at university was meeting the people who comprise the university’s Christian Union: on the face of it, largely an affable, easy-going, good-natured bunch of people who were pleasant to socialise with. Interacting with those pleasant people was a refreshing change from dealing with the other students I dealt with, who were vulgar, destructive, hedonistic, had no respect for property, and seemingly no understanding of the concept of human dignity. I first encountered the Christian Union after a thoroughly demoralising first weekend at university, and doing so injected me with a new hope that maybe staying on at university was a viable proposition (ultimately, it did not prove to be, but through no fault of the Christian Union).

Recent events on Facebook – the great medium of our time – have completely obliterated the positive feelings I harboured towards my former “Christian” ‘friends’ at university. On November 8th, I posted a short status just before television coverage of the American election results night began, stating that I hoped Donald Trump would win, because I do not want the planet to be engulfed in an annihilatory nuclear war – a perfectly reasonable sentiment, you might think. Well, apparently not, as several of the aforementioned “Christians” (whom I shall now refer to as Kool-Aid Christians, due to their willingness to cave in to peer pressure and accept philosophical principles and values that directly contravene traditional Christian values) promptly decided to defriend me on Facebook. In the days and weeks after the election, I posted further statuses outlining the reasons why I was pleased Donald Trump won the election, focusing on globalisation and the erosion of Christian values in the West. It seemed that each status I posted triggered (I’m not sure if the pun is intended or not…) another wave of defriending from the Kool-Aid Christians; and now, I have now reached the point where there are none of them left on my friends list – every single last one has seen fit to expunge me from their lives because of my ‘offensive’ (i.e. Christian) views on social issues.

This phenomenon tells me two important things about modern Christians. Firstly, it tells me that they are intellectual and moral cowards, adopting even the most abominable principles of cultural Marxist social doctrine, no matter how antithetical to Christian values it be, purely because they are too frightened to stand up for authentic Christianity, as doing so tends to make one rather unpopular with one’s trendy liberal atheist friends. These yellow-bellies would rather propagate anti-Christian doctrine than speak profound, age-old Christian truths. They would rather spread Satan’s message because doing so is easy and wins them patronising congratulations from their friends; spreading authentic Christianity essentially ensures that one becomes a pariah – Christ himself said that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). Being a genuine Christian in this Marxist, Satanic, relativistic age is not easy, and unfortunately, many people will always choose to do what is comfortable and easy, rather than what is right, including those who profess to be Christians. Today, there is nothing easier to be than a cultural Marxist: the entire establishment and its media mouthpieces are on your side; you are congratulated and praised from virtually all quarters; and anyone who express a conservative opinion on social issues is shouted down and effectively barred from the public debate. You face no opposition. Genuine Christians, on the other hand…

In other words: Christians for abortion, Christians for gay marriage, Christians for state-enforced atheism. But that’s okay, because what really matters is not being virtuous, but being popular. Supporting the continuation of the industrial-scale slaughter of unborn babies is perfectly fine, just don’t support the eccentric rich man who occasionally says ridiculous things.

The next thing my treatment at the hands of the Kool-Aid Christians tells me is that – in every single way apart from belief in a deity – they are exactly the same as a typical cookie-cutter, atheist liberal clone. Not only are their views identical, but their behaviour is as well. My experience of atheist liberals is that they are superficially very nice, right up until the point you disagree with them on anything social or political, at which point the monster inside reveals itself with a great whirlwind of outrage, and they seek to suppress and silence you, using whatever means necessary – intimidation, bullying, emotional blackmail, or just plain old Stalinist purging. This is exactly my experience with the Kool-Aid Christians: in the few weeks I interacted with them in the flesh, no controversial political subjects were really broached in any significant depth, and so I experienced them as they are when they think you agree with them: cordial and mild-mannered.

But when I started posting my opinions on Facebook (I hadn’t done so previously; I am not a prolific poster), my eyes were opened to the true, intolerant, very un-Christ-like nature of the people I had previously considered, if not overt allies sociopolitically, then at least people who would accept that my traditionalist, conservative beliefs come from an honest and humanitarian place, unlike the atheist liberals, who immediately denounce anything they don’t like as evil, motivated by supremacist hatred. That the Kool-Aid Christians behave in exactly the same manner was made very evident to me, when I witnessed a debate on immigration on Facebook, between a bunch of middle-class, Kool-Aid Christian males and a working-class young woman. The exchange can be summarised thusly: the the ‘Christians’ were posting the usual liberal, open-borders nonsense, and the young lady raised very reasonable, common-sense objections to this, such as the impact on culture, infrastructure, and the threat posed to safety by uncontrolled, mass immigration; and she was pounced upon by the compassionate Kool-Aids and accused of being racist and xenophobic, which are ill-defined, erroneously applied terms that appear – in the minds of liberals – to be synonyms for “evil”. I intervened to support this besieged person, and was myself called names and promptly blocked. I was forced to reassess my perceptions of the Kool-Aid Christians, because their behaviour in the face of mere disagreement had proven to be indistinguishable from the behaviour of an atheist liberal when faced with the same proposition: condescension, snarling aggression, and the petulant expulsion from their lives of anyone holding a controversial opposing opinion.

So what actually sets the Kool-Aid Christians apart from the atheist liberal mainstream, other than a belief in Jesus Christ? Their social and political views don’t, and neither does their behaviour, when it really counts. And let’s be clear here: the Kool-Aids have even remade Christ in their image. They have redefined him to be some marijuana-smoking Marxist with no moral standards, passing no negative judgement on any behaviour patterns, no matter how decadent, destructive, and/or dangerous. Thus, apparently, Christians today are not allowed to expect people to adhere to higher standards of behaviour, and we are not allowed to condemn things such as sexual licentiousness and perversion, because didn’t Jesus Christ himself say “judge not, that you may not be judged” – ? Yes, he did, but what the dishonest liberals – atheists and “Christians” – do ALL THE TIME is extract that single line from a wider passage, in order to support all manner of moral degeneracy. Let’s look at the line in its full, proper context:

Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Clearly, this is a warning against hypocrisy; Christ is telling believers not to judge people for undesirable behaviour they themselves may be guilty of. “Judge not, that you may not be judged” is not an instruction to Christians to turn a blind eye to unrighteous, harmful behaviour; it is a command to make sure that one lives up to one’s own moral standards before using those standards to judge; a rule that unless Christians themselves are personally striving to repent of their own sins, they are not to condemn the sinful actions of others. And this is perfectly logical and perfectly true: if I am an adulterer, I have no place in condemning other adulterers, because I’m a hypocrite; if I am not an adulterer, I have every right to reprimand an adulterer for their selfish, damaging behaviour, as I, myself, am free from the guilt of that sin. So unless Christian “homophobes” who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle are secretly engaged in romantic relationships with members of the same sex, which seems incredibly unlikely, then yes, they’ve every right to disapprove.

Jesus Christ, according to 21-st century Kool-Aid Christians.

Fallaciously misusing Biblical quotes in order to promote materialistic, atheist hedonism is a staple of Kool-Aid Christianity, but it is to be expected, when Kool-Aids do not follow Jesus Christ, preferring instead to follow their bastardised, infantilised, cultural Marxist distortion of Christ, who has no basis in scripture, and indeed, directly contravenes age-old Christian social principles. Their perversion of Christ infects their thinking on social issues; instead of supporting wholesome family values centred on the qualities of discipline, consideration, loyalty, and selflessness, which are conducive to stability and human happiness, they promote a dangerous, self-centred existence, based on giving in to impulses – “so long as it’s consensual” – and live-and-let-live indifference in the face of destructive behaviour patterns, no matter how damaging their actions prove to be to themselves and others, because one of the guiding principles of liberalism – that Kool-Aid Christians have wholly and enthusiastically bought into – is the frankly baffling idea that the kindest thing to do is always to allow people to do what they want to do.

And Kool-Aid Christians have accepted this laissez-faire principle with such avidity because just like liberalism itself is an infantilised perversion of civilised culture, their Pseudo-Christ is a juvenilised perversion of the real Jesus Christ. Their idea of Christ is of an amoral, timid liberal, who never got angry about anything and never condemned anything, which could not be more wrong. He came to uphold the laws of Moses, not abolish them, and he was known on occasions, in righteous indignation, to use physical force. Jesus Christ is no lily-livered, shilly-shallying liberal coward; he is extremely principled, never afraid to do what’s right, no matter how unpopular it may be. “But Jesus loves everyone!”, they wheel out any time there’s social degeneracy to be defended. Yes, he does, but there’s an important distinction to be made here between the sin and the sinner, that liberal Christians never seem to make. For example, proper Christians despise homosexuality as a phenomenon, correctly seeing it as a dysfunctional disorder that leads only to stagnation and death (this is borne out by a number of politically inconvenient statistics showing that homosexuals abuse substances at a higher rate than heterosexuals; that homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse; and that they attempt suicide more often than heterosexuals), but we do not hate homosexuals as people – we just do not think that perpetuating the delusion that homosexuality is a perfectly legitimate, “equal but different” lifestyle choice is the kindest way to help homosexual people. We believe that guiding them towards an alternative, heterosexual lifestyle is kindest in the long run, even though it is not an easy path.

Jesus Christ cleansing the Temple of the money changers (usurers) with a whip, for “turning my father’s house into a den of thieves”. Righteous indignation at its finest!

Liberals, whether atheists or Kool-Aids, do not understand the concept of tough love, because ideologically, they are just children. They are unable to fully comprehend that loving someone doesn’t mean you just allow them – indeed, encourage them – to surrender to their impulses, even though those impulses have great potential to harm. Liberals think that just allowing everyone to do whatever they want, and giving them whatever they demand, is the key to everlasting happiness, but that isn’t the case. Children want to eat ice cream and doughnuts all day, and then stay up playing computer games all night; parents do not let them do that, because the children will soon become malnourished and sleep deprived. In other words, the parents accept that, while the children might want to live life a certain way, it isn’t good for them, and so they don’t let them. While adults cannot impose their will on other adults directly, in the way parents can on children, this doesn’t mean that we have to indulge dangerous delusions. We, as Christians, must always be clear-headed and able to disentangle ourselves from emotion-based politics, and formulate consistent, logical, humane policies that protect and uphold our most sacred principle, which is the sanctity and value of life. We should not be hoodwinked into supporting socially destructive, damaging ideas and lifestyles, just because they are cloaked in the language of compassion – this is exactly what secular liberals do.

Let’s use the liberal position on immigration – open borders and amnesties for all – as an example to further illustrate my point about liberals. According to liberals, opening the borders is the morally correct thing to do, and anyone who objects is some sort of racist troglodyte who doesn’t want to share things with immigrants, or some such childish nonsense. But let’s employ logic here: an open-door policy to refugees is disastrous, for the migrants themselves, and for the host country. The migrants invariably fall in with people traffickers and human smugglers, who are some of the most psychopathic, exploitative, abusive people on the planet, who sexually assault women and children on a large scale. The migrants endure long and hazardous journeys, many dying en route, whether in the Central American deserts or in the Mediterranean Sea; and it cannot be denied that there is a serious risk posed to civilians in the migrants’ destination countries. Not just from terrorism, but from people coming into the West from backwards cultures with very different views on all sorts of things, who – in the case of Islamic migrants – don’t seem to see a problem with sexually assaulting Western women, whom they see as whores and infidels, not even fully human. Am I, as someone who sees no reason whatsoever for importing Islam into the West and weaving it into our social fabric, wrong for wishing to protect my own people from foreigners? If so, then I don’t want to be right, because what the left – including the Kool-Aid Christians – deems right on this issue is hideously repulsive: putting vulnerable women and children who were born in our countries at risk simply to make ourselves feel good by facilitating the influx of millions of people from alien cultures. There are many horrible things going on all over the world, but we in the West will not prevent them by destroying our own countries in the process.

The most efficient and effective ways to help people in these war-torn countries is to stop the morally repugnant, interventionist Western policy of regime change (ironically, this is an idea the “racists” like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage support – it’s the liberal politicians who support endless foreign wars which result in the deaths of millions of brown-skinned people), as well as properly utilising the military by deploying it not to topple foreign governments, but to secure our borders and defend our territory, so that no one comes in without going through the proper, legal channels and being rigorously vetted. Any boats containing illegal immigrants should be evacuated, then sunk, and the passengers sent back to the shores of Africa, with the traffickers themselves getting decades-long prison sentences. This smothers the despicable people smuggling industry by making it fraught with danger and unprofitable for the traffickers; and then, while the war continues, we should take in limited, sensible amounts of refugees in the form of women and children only, to be immediately repatriated as soon as their countries are safe for them to inhabit again. Furthermore, we must exert heavy diplomatic pressure on perfectly safe countries in the Middle East to take their fair share of refugees; a country like Saudi Arabia, for instance, which is Islamic and Arabic-speaking, as well as very wealthy, and largely responsible for the chaos in Syria, could easily house the bulk of the refugees fleeing Syria, but it refuses to do so, and instead encourages them to risk their lives travelling to the land of milk and honey – Europe.

Doing these things would strike a very good balance between fulfilling our duty in assisting foreigners who genuinely need it, and defending our own people, which should be the highest priority of any government. But of course, these are nuanced policies, which require some detailed, complex thought, which is a defining characteristic of proper adulthood. Sure, it might make a Kool-Aid Christian feel warm and fuzzy to open up the floodgates and allow potentially tens of millions of people from the Third World unrestricted access to the West, but that’s neither here nor there, because what Christians should be focusing on is doing what’s right, not what’s easy, not what’s popular, and not what makes one feel good. Advocating for uncontrolled immigration will certainly gain us the respect of our liberal friends, but it isn’t the right thing to do, because of the enormous social cost for both the host countries and the migrants. Therefore, Kool-Aid Christians should stop clinging to the idea, because it helps no one – except themselves and their egos, which enjoy being stroked by the leftists, who tell anyone who subscribes to liberal politics how wonderful they are. But the purpose of Christianity isn’t to be popular – it’s to struggle against man’s imperfections in the search of salvation, and to defend truth, justice, and dignity, in the name of Christ. In the current social climate, this is harder to do than ever, but it’s also more important than ever.

The explosion of solipsistic instant self-gratification – whether it be by sexual debauchery, substance abuse, or simply by sufficiently conforming to the liberal consensus so that the atheist liberal majority massage your ego by congratulating and praising you – that our society has endured since the engineered collapse of the moral authority of the Christian Churches and the secularisation of society post-1945 is one of the great curses of our age. It’s bad enough that atheists tend to hold laissez-faire, liberal sociopolitical views and engage in destructive, debased behaviour, but Christians should not be succumbing to this as well; we should be living examples of a viable, wholesome alternative; we should be making our voices heard, advertising our social principles clearly, eloquently, and decisively, because they are a core part of our faith – belief in God is pointless if one doesn’t also subscribe to Christian moral principles and hold them sacred.

2016 was the year of political revolution, with Brexit and Donald Trump. Let’s make 2017 the year of religious revolution, with a return to traditional Christian morality.


Why contraception is misogynistic (and gay)

One of the biggest falsehoods of the dominant cultural narrative of our time is the idea that traditional, time-tested sexual morality is intrinsically and irredeemably misogynistic, and that the liberal remedy of meaningless promiscuous sex – given a dangerous, false sense of sterility by carcinogenic condoms or hormonal contraceptives – constitutes a wonderful, liberating solution for women (try telling that to young girls who are essentially bullied into sexual acts they do not feel comfortable with, all to please males – how empowering!).

Well, I feel beholden to ask the question: on what planet is radically altering, and in effect neutralising, someone’s God-given reproductive faculties liberating? One of the defining characteristics of being female is the possession of a womb and thus the ability to carry and give birth to children; yet the purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy from occurring. The explicit purpose of contraception is to obstruct female reproductive processes, thus relegating women to the status of sex toys. How is that not appallingly misogynistic in nature? Why do feminists, whose raison d’etre is supposedly to raise awareness of female-specific issues, focus on completely ridiculous non-issues like manspreading, instead of on this very real and very important violation of female dignity?

In my experience, the most passionate advocates for contraception and ‘sexual liberation’ are a certain type of man – very promiscuous, commitment-phobic, unwilling or unable to hold down a romantic relationship for very long, and most significantly, self-declared male feminists who claim to care deeply for “women’s rights”, because they just love and care about women so, so much. They are rotten hypocrites, who absolve themselves of any guilt they may feel about how sub-optimally they treat the women in their own lives by preaching from the progressive pulpit to all and sundry. I once knew a leftie (who was even called Oliver…) who fits exactly this archetype: spent whole evenings flirting with girls who were not single in front of his own girlfriend, but assuaged whatever walnut-sized conscience he had by spouting the usual, often-recycled, empty feminist platitudes about “choice” and “consent” to anyone who would listen.

The reason these men approve of the idea of female promiscuity and contraception is not because they have great respect for women, as they claim. You see, loving and respecting something means to accept and embrace it; not to attack its fundamental characteristics. These men love an imaginary version of women, who are exactly the same as men, except physically; these men reject the very essence of what separates a female from a male – her ability to conceive and carry new human beings. You cannot have any meaningful, real respect for femininity if you are so petrified of one of its core defining features that you try and change it. It’s rather like how middle-class leftists profess to love the working classes, but actually love a romanticised image of the working classes, who are essentially just poorer versions of middle-class leftists, holding the exact same views on everything. But the reality is that the working classes generally hold an entirely apathetic view towards, for instance, the rampant LGBT agendas the middle classes are so obsessed with, and that they actually take a downright antipathetic view of multiculturalism and mass immigration – which the middle classes cannot accept, just like the male liberals cannot accept female fertility, so they seek to suppress and neutralise it instead.

Promiscuous, contraceptionist men are petrified of female biology, of the creative potential of the female body, and so contraception is a mechanism they seek to use to control and suppress these things. When a man has sex with a woman, from the moment of climax, all control of the situation is taken away from him. He has surrendered his genetic material to his partner, and the internal processes of her body will dictate whether she conceives or not – the man has no natural influence over whether the woman will bear his offspring or not after the point of ejaculation.

Removing this (as contraception attempts to do), and giving men the option to have unprotected sex without the implicit possibility of pregnancy (not that contraception is 100% effective, but it is marketed as being so), puts women into a very dangerous, difficult situation. Men can walk away from a sexual encounter and not think about it ever again; women who have sex always bear the risk of becoming pregnant, and the impact of pregnancy reverberates for life – the woman either carries the child to birth, or has an abortion, which very often psychologically scars the mother for life. It is, therefore, absolutely crucial for the well-being of women for communities and society at large to strictly regulate sexuality by enforcing strict codes of sexual conduct which everyone is expected to adhere to; something natural, sane societies have always done, but which, I am afraid to say, the insane dystopia we all currently endure does not.

Healthy social attitudes towards sex, which are properly enforced, provide invaluable protection for women. The context of a properly functional society built upon the foundation of a proper moral code that goes beyond mere “consent” helps to ensure that women who become pregnant are provided with the protection, support, and stability they are going to need, by effectively barring men who are not prepared to commit for life to their partner from having access to sex, which is one of mankind’s most powerful motivators. This ensures that women are not left high and dry, unsupported, holding the baby, which is never anywhere close to ideal for the mother or for the baby.

Contraception removes all of these essential safeguards. It has given rise to the extremely destructive idea that the force which literally creates life can be sanitised and transformed into a frivolous pastime; it cannot. What it does is encourage promiscuous sex, putting women (and any resultant children, who will almost certainly be aborted or grow up in a broken home) in dangerous, difficult situations that can be entirely avoided with a little bit of self-discipline – it’s a radical thought, I know, but if you don’t want to have children, then you could practise abstinence.

Men who apologise for contracepted sex are, in actuality, undisciplined, desperate, frightened little boys, waging a war on nature, trying to assert male control over the female body (which is ironic, considering that when it comes to abortion, the same men disingenuously insist they have “no right” to be anything but pro-choice, because it’s not their body). Men have no natural right whatsoever to exercise any control over the female reproductive processes, but liberal men endorse contraception because it provides an artificial safety net, enabling women to debase themselves and engage in casual sex, and also because it is a way of allowing them to indulge in such sex whilst also evading the consequences that would be a lot more likely to occur without contraception; essentially, contraception is a tool to enable men to treat women as living, breathing masturbation machines.

Well, you know, I am a man, and I have a higher opinion of women than that: my best friends throughout life have been female, and I think they – and all women – deserve an awful lot better than using contraception, which puts them at significantly increased risk of all sorts of medical issues, including strokes, heart diseases, blood clotsbrain cancerclogged arteries, and even clinical depression. A man who genuinely loves women acknowledges, accepts, respects, and embraces the life-creating capabilities of their bodies; he does not try and mould them into more convenient sex objects for his own gratification, by encouraging them to sterilise themselves with poisonous chemical cocktails.

I have to add as an afterthought that one cannot help but notice that, as well as being misogynistic, there is more than a hint of the homosexual about men who advocate the use of contraception. It is well-known that gay men find the female form not just unattractive, but repulsive as well; even this extremist feminist website admits that fact (tedious disclaimer: not all gay men… just 99%). Gay men just cannot fathom why straight men are attracted to females; they find the external reproductive organs disgusting.

Well, heterosexual men who engage in promiscuous, contracepted sex with women may not be homosexual in the sense of being attracted to other men, and they may be aroused by the female form, but they are absolutely petrified of the internal female reproductive organs; they are scared stiff of what the womb leads to – babies, commitment, sacrifice, selflessness… in other words, proper adulthood.

One of the most notable traits of homosexual relationships is that they are completely and unchangeably sterile; there is no potential for procreation. This is what contraception does to opposite-sex relations – it almost totally removes the creative potential of heterosexual intercourse, rendering it at best completely pointless, but at worst – and more typically – very damaging, leaving a trail of destruction in the form of dead babies and broken hearts in its wake.

I will allow Henry Makow to better encapsulate exactly what I mean:

“Forget about what you normally think of gay or straight (same-sex , opposite sex attraction etc.) Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and dedicated to rearing children; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake.

Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is a form of arrested development caused by an inability to form a heterosexual bond. As a result, homosexuals compensate using sex as a surrogate for love.”

Does what Henry is saying there about homosexuality not apply perfectly to contracepted, promiscuous heterosexual sex, too? Sex within the context of a loving, committed marriage, with the consequences fully explored, understood, and embraced, is great; sterile, meaningless sex between people who barely know each other – sex for sex’s sake – serves no purpose, and has the capacity only to harm. The comparisons are absolutely clear, and it can be in no doubt that contracepted heterosexual sex shares more in common with homosexual sex than it does with natural sex within an appropriate, loving context.

Seriously, men, please – if you genuinely care about women, please don’t endorse contraception or casual sex, because it is degrading and damaging for women. Let’s create a culture that cherishes female fertility and treats it with the delicacy it requires and deserves, rather than treating it like something terrible to be afraid of.


Consent: necessary, but not sufficient

I was reading an article about the recent Air China scandal, and stumbled across another article on the same website, telling the story of Shelby Neuens, a young woman who had been discussing Satanic cult rituals with her friend, and volunteered to have her arm sliced open and little finger cut off, so he could drink the blood (with friends like that, who needs enemies?). Thankfully, this disturbed young lady survived the incident, but reading about it inspired me to compose this entry about a subject that has really been at the forefront of mind recently, as well as in the public conscience, in relation to the Ched Evans story: the issue of consent.

You see, the cornerstone of modern morality – particularly with regards to sex – is the idea that, so long as all involved fully consent to a given activity, then everything is fine, there is no moral issue. According to this line of thought, any activity, no matter how dangerous, destructive, degrading, and damaging, is morally laundered, because of the magic word ‘yes’, which sanitises even the grubbiest pastimes.

This is one of the most corrosively destructive social attitudes of the 21st century (and there are a lot of those). Consent cannot be the ultimate arbiter of morality, because consent tells us nothing about the benefits of a course of action, or its destructive potential. Furthermore, consent has many different forms; consent can be manufactured — it can be given under duress, it can be given upon the basis of incomplete or false information, or it can be given in a decision-making process driven by internal pain or disturbance, a la Ms. Neuens. Does ‘consent’ given when one or more of these factors apply really count as truly consensual?

For example, when a bank robber points his gun at the hapless bank clerk and demands he fill a bag with money, and the frightened clerk complies, he is technically consenting; he is agreeing to fulfill the proposition of the robber. This is an example of consent given under duress, and most people would rightly say that consent given under those circumstances is invalid. But consent doesn’t have to be gained at gunpoint for it to be given under duress. The most pertinent people I can think of to illustrate my point are the female subjects in pornographic films. Most of these women are desperate: driven to pornography as a seemingly easy way of earning a lot of quick money, often to feed drug habits, pay off unscrupulous creditors, or just to earn enough money to feed their children. No woman aspires to be a porn star, because it’s a horrible job; but an unfortunate number are driven to it, feeling they have no other choice.

Technically, these women consent – they are not kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to feature in those wicked productions – but what value does their consent hold? Surely, it holds none – they have no choice, and are consenting out of desperation. Maybe that type of manufactured consent is enough to assuage the consciences of hedonistic moral relativists, but it is not enough to satisfy mine.

In 2012, I discovered that an old school friend, who I had not seen since 2008, had become pregnant. This was a shock, given her young age, and I ascertained soon after that, upon discovering his girlfriend was pregnant, this fine young gentleman abandoned her, and to this day, has minimal involvement with their daughter, who is now 3. The pain, difficulty, and trauma this has caused to the girl and her mother cannot be understated: the baby will grow up without one parent, experiencing all the emotional and psychological problems associated with that; and my friend was thrown into the deep end of single parenting, forfeiting the stable, family life she could have reasonably been expected to go on and enjoy; and if she is at fault for any of this, it is only because of naivety, rather than selfish self-centredness.

Well, here is the thing: my friend consented fully to sleeping with this ‘man’. But her consent was based on inadequate information. The first piece of faulty information she had based her decision on is that contraception is infallible; she soon learned that that is not the case. She had also assumed that her boyfriend was genuinely in love with her, wasn’t just using her for sex, and would face the consequences and support her, should she become pregnant. The package she got – pregnancy and single parenthood – is very different to the deal she signed up for – ‘harmless’ fun with someone who cared.

My friend made her decisions based on information that was wildly incorrect, but that was how the information was presented to her – our culture heavily promulgates the message that contraception makes sex entirely consequence-free, and no doubt her partner paid her the standard lip service that this type of man always does, telling her what she wanted to hear.

Look at the mess her entirely consensual actions got her into: two lives severely hampered. Stories like this are FAR from being uncommon in our wonderful modern utopia, and I think they should serve as indisputable proof that, no, consent doesn’t make everything okay. The lesson to take from stories such as my friend’s is that we absolutely HAVE to judge actions by their impact, not just dismiss the pain and problems caused by consensual actions, just because they’re consensual.

Ms. Neuens consenting to have her finger chopped off is clearly an example of consent coming from a very disturbed place, and therefore being invalidated. Think about it: what good can possibly come senselessly from mutilating your body in that manner? Such an action has no positive results. The only reason she felt such wanton destruction was a good idea is because she obtained some kind of gratification from it, and “because it’s fun” or “because I felt like it” aren’t ever very convincing reasons to site when trying to persuade someone something is justified. Yes, she consented, but so what? She is clearly very disturbed, and the action caused a lot of serious harm – she will never get that finger back, and could suffer from other medical consequences for the rest of her life.

It’s fine, though, it’s what she wanted.

This kind of consent brought about by inner turmoil is also demonstrated by promiscuous women. Sex is very different for women than it is for men: women have much less testosterone than men, and also can only be pregnant only once at a time – it is simply biologically impossible for women to be promiscuous for very long (without contraception and abortion), because they would be perpetually pregnant and always taking care of their children. It is reckless and dangerous for everyone to be promiscuous, but particularly women – women cannot abandon a pregnant partner and run away; even if they get an abortion, they still have to deal with the psychological impact of abortion for years after, possibly for life.

I theorise that promiscuous women are so inclined because they have self-esteem deficits, which are exacerbated by our sex-obsessed culture teaching girls to value themselves not by how kind, thoughtful, loyal, friendly, caring and so on they are, but on their physical attractiveness. Being desired by a man temporarily – very temporarily – fills that empty, gaping hole inside, and makes life seem worthwhile.

Yes, these girls consent to having casual sex with strangers, but the fact that it is consensual does not make promiscuous sex morally right. It is exploitative, and furthermore, sex is a powerful, primal force of nature: it is not to be taken lightly, and should rightly be reserved for married couples in a secure, loving union, with its consequences fully understood and explored. Casual sex leads to allegations of rape which destroy careers and lives, such as in the Ched Evans case; unplanned babies, such as in my friend’s case; sexually transmitted diseases; broken hearts; and, in extreme cases, suicide. Promiscuous women are even at greater risk of contracting cancer via the human papilloma virus.

And what good ever comes from it? None, barring very fleeting physical ‘fun’, which simply isn’t an adequate justification for an activity so fraught with risk.

So, you see, consent is definitely necessary – sex without mutual consent is rape, and rape is a despicable, evil act. But consent alone does not morally legitimise a decision, activity, or course of action. Some of the most harmful outcomes transpire after two or more people gave their consent. It’s time we start judging actions by their effect on the individual and others, rather than whether someone – who could be labouring under all sorts of delusions, could be under various pressures, or could be disturbed enough to be incapable of properly consenting –  consented to it.

Is the customer always right?

Anyone who has worked in retail or customer service has surely heard the old chestnut that “the customer is always right” – meaning that the seller or service provider would be prudent to accommodate and indulge the whims of the customer, in order to ensure the customer’s patronage.

But is this stance correct? Customers often make illogical, impractical, or even downright dangerous requests (as a former gardener, the best example I can recall is the time when a colleague and I were asked by the client to install a fence on a slope; but this portion of the fence had to be straight, and of the same height as the rest of the fence…). While institutions and their staff should always try and be accommodating and go the extra mile for their customers where feasible, there clearly exist times when customers have to be informed that what they’re asking for is not appropriate. As someone who has worked in retail, I can testify that this often happens.

However, one type of service-providing institution that is completely enslaved to the demands of its customers are universities (at least those in the UK). Recently, I enrolled on a Philosophy course at a well-known, highly regarded English university, which I will not name for several reasons; and it’s not important, because this is a nationwide issue, not specific to one university. I knew full well that universities in Britain are virtually lawless pits of decadence, but given certain peculiarities of this particular institution, I expected to find a cultural climate and student population that was sufficiently different from the norm for a traditionalist, conservative person such as myself to find a niche and progress through this phase in my life.

Hahaha. Well, I was disabused of this foolishly naive notion within mere hours of my arrival. After thirty minutes, I was offered a bottle of beer by my next-door neighbour; an ostensibly friendly gesture, but this was barely midday, and gave me my first firsthand glimpse of the unfettered drinking culture that pervades British universities. On my first night, when I was settling down to get some rest after a long day of travelling, I heard a knock on my door; my neighbour asked if I would like to go for ‘pre-drinks’ (drinking before you start drinking, apparently – surely an oxymoron?) before heading down to the on-campus bar for a night of drinking.

Needless to say, I refused this offer. A few pints of quality, southwestern cider, in a sensible, responsible context is my limit, when it comes to alcohol. I just cannot for the life of me see the appeal in going out and getting blind drunk at any point, but particularly not in the company of people one has only just met! Not only is there something particularly soulless and vapid about it, but it’s dangerous: you could be assaulted and / or stolen from, amongst other things (particularly if you are a female).

Not content with restricting their noise to the nightclub, my neighbours returned in the early hours of the morning, making noise at a level I have scarcely heard before, showing no consideration for nearby students and staff who were trying to quietly rest in their new homes. Not only that, but it was a stiflingly hot night, and so I left my windows open; only to have to shut them in order to block out the pungent, piercing, nauseous odour of cannabis, which was perforating through the window. Aside from the immorality of screaming and shouting in what are residential areas at night, cannabis consumption in the UK is actually illegal – and where were the staff? Nowhere to be seen.

After eventually drifting off to sleep, I – rather optimistically – hoped the next day that the rowdiness of the previous night was a one-off; that the novelty would wear off, and people would behave in a more civilised manner, and that I’d settle in and feel comfortable.

Oh, how wrong I was.

The next day, I decided to browse through the leaflets that were handed to me on enrollment. To my horror, what I encountered could easily have come straight out of Huxley’s Brave New World. The first thing that jumped out at me in the Students’ Union handbook was a “sexual health campaign”, advertising free condoms for students, and – I kid you not – providing explicit instructions on how to obtain a (free, of course – everything in a leftist utopia must be free!) “shag pack” – ! I immediately informed a conservative friend of mine, and she was equally shocked and appalled. How could anyone not be? Theoretically, universities are where impressionable young adults are sent to be refined into productive members of society; to be confronted with licentious, sexually explicit material within minutes of arrival is, simply, beyond the Pale.

There is a lot of talk about the supposedly misandrist nature of the British – and indeed Western – education system, but in my opinion, it is misogynist (and I am no feminist, or even female). As the above paragraph demonstrates, within moments of arrival, young men are encouraged to objectify young women, to see in them nothing but their sexual attractiveness. This ingrained, menacing misogyny was confirmed for me later on that day, when a group of about 3-4 young men walked past my window, shouting “X loves cock” – vulgar, sexually explicit, harassive language that has no place at all in civilised society. It is not just “banter” (a truly vile term), it is crass objectification and degradation of an individual’s dignity; and it pervades universities up and down this island.

Universities in the UK purport to be serious institutions, designed to prepare young adults for the world of work; in reality, what they are is glorified holiday camps, where anarchy reigns supreme. For my part, the writing was on the wall within 24 hours, and I have since dropped out. Universities in this country are not welcoming or accommodating for conservatives, or even anyone who doesn’t derive any satisfaction from the promiscuous, alcohol-centred hedonism that dominates what passes for culture in 21st century Britain. I strongly urge any conservative-minded parents reading this to reconsider sending their children to university, particularly if they are female. Universities may once have been more wholesome environments, but our culture is disintegrating rapidly, and universities are simply getting worse with every passing year.

To answer the question posed in the title, when the typical customer is a spoilt brat who asks for the freedom to behave in a decadent, destructive, lawless manner, then no: the customer is not right.

P.S. If you enjoyed reading this, please follow the work of my friend, dreamingconspires (link:  – she’s a truly excellent conservative writer. 🙂