Translate

Showing posts with label Camille Paglia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Camille Paglia. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Ireland has gone gay, will the Mail go libtard when Geordie Greig takes over?

Eye 1351: 18-31 October 2013

Eye 1392: 15-28 May 2015

Eye 1393: 29 May - 11 June 2015  



Camille Paglia:


"Much violence against women originates in emotional territory that they already command. By midlife and early old age, as the hormones of both genders change, women are in total, despotic control of their marriages."







Is social conservatism to be even further marginalised just because the wife of the proprietor of the Mail dislikes having the views of her husband's newspaper mocked by her libtard friends?

Under the rules of no fault divorce she could divorce Lord Rothermere for this reason alone and take half his stuff or more. 

If you were Viscount Rothermere, would your most likely response to be obey She Who Must Be Obeyed if only for the sake of domestic harmony? After all, what is a journalistic principle, eh? 

Paul Dacre on Desert Island Discs

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain

Fleet Street rumour has it that Kay is being moved because he upset friends of Lady Rothermere, the proprietor’s wife, and that she is also behind the abrupt departure of the columnist Melanie Phillips, apparently on the grounds that her style – particularly during a June appearance on BBC1’s Question Time – is too shrill. Lady Rothermere, it is said, is desperately keen to oust Dacre in favour of Greig. Senior Mail sources pooh-pooh such tales, but they stop short of outright denials that Dacre is nearing the end of his days on the paper.

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

The self-evident truth that feminism denies

Some things are easy for men but hard for women and vice versa. Most women are easily offended and find it hard to think logically, for example.

Most men find it easy to talk about sports and politics endlessly which would bore women silly.

If we acknowledge these differences, then we would have to acknowledge that men find it harder to say no to no-strings sex while women have more offers of sex than they would like to accept.

The problem with feminism is that it denies this self-evident truth, and uses all its legislative power to suppress the pointing out of this self-evident truth: that men are the weaker sex at saying no to no-strings sex.

For most women, sex is a chore while for most men it is a physical and all-consuming imperative.

If sex were a drug then men would be the user and women the dealer. The cancer of feminism is now so bone-deep that expecting the Western man to denounce feminism is like expecting a drug-addict to call the cops on his dealer. Ain't gonna happen.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet and just voting UKIP is not going to be enough because UKIP are too afraid even to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

What does the elephant in the room consist of?


  1. indiscriminate universal suffrage
  2. representative democracy when we should have a one-party state that protects the rights of its members operating under the principles of Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
  3. anti-discrimination legislation
  4. no-fault divorce
  5. gay marriage
  6. the civil partnership
  7. the consecration of our right to have extramarital sex (which is dysgenic) and the desecration of the institution of marriage (which is eugenic)
  8. the powerlessness of our politicians hence their despicable cowardice and hypocrisy
  9. the existence of the welfare state - another sacred cow - which supports all of the above making governments borrow recklessly to keep the whole shebang going

The operation of democracy prevents these tragic and continuing errors from being corrected and we are heading towards the edge of the cliff like lemmings.  

Please help me save Western civilisation by discussing this with any woman intelligent enough to understand this, even if you think she will disagree, become offended and never speak to you again.  

This would be your wife who will divorce you under the ruinous terms of no fault divorce, your daughter who will never speak to you again, and your slut girlfriend who will dump you, right?  

Ain't gonna happen, I know.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet.  

Any civilisation in which the overwhelming majority of men are afraid of women and husbands afraid of wives to even discuss politics cannot survive, let alone prosper. 

Can you imagine David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg discussing any of this with their wives? Or even Barack Obama?

I rest my case and my case is not based on a conspiracy theory. Men really are stupid and women really are crazy. Women are crazy because men become stupid the moment they say it is OK for women to be sluts, and women go crazy when they get the go ahead to be sluts.

We are all to blame if we do not work up the courage to confront the perniciousness of feminism.

Remember: once upon a time, a Wise Man created God to protect himself from feminism and his susceptibility to sluts.

When Aristotle said that the greatest injustice was to treat unequal things equally, he meant feminism would be the greatest injustice, and feminism is a cancer, waiting in the wings for its cue, for the right conditions to makes its entrance, to thrive and flourish. and then eventually kill its host ...

Athens did not become successful despite its alleged misogyny but because of it, but you won't hear classical historians like Mary Beard saying this, even if she agreed, cos she would be out of her job and out on her ear.

Feminazis have been victimising Camille Paglia for decades for speaking the truth.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Why Claire Khaw does what she does

Saturday, 22 November 2014

White woman thinks a convicted black rapist has a higher status than a a convicted white rapist

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/18/charlie-webster-quit-sheffield-united-ched-evans-return

TV presenter Charlie Webster says she cannot stay at Sheffield United if Ched Evans returns.
Webster, who has said she was sexually assaulted as a teenager, told BBC Radio 5 Live: “You will have young people cheering him on when he scores a goal. Not under my name, under my club or community.”

Webster, who is a member of the Ministry of Justice’s victims’ panel – set up so that those affected by crime can tell ministers how the criminal justice system could better serve victims – said: “I feel like it is my duty and responsibility to stand up to this.

Webster tweeted on 10 September:

“Just bumped into Mike Tyson in the hotel lobby as I was randomly talking about him! I chickened out on asking for a photo … damn.”


Charlie Webster wants to trash the career of convicted rapist Ched Evans, who is white and Welsh.
Charlie Webster wanted to be photographed with this convicted rapist, who is black and American. What does it all mean? Are you racist if you discriminate against a man of your own race for no particular reason that you can explain apart from the fact that he is white and Welsh and won't apologise for raping a woman he has always denied raping? If Charlie Webster really had to be raped by one of them, which one do you think she would choose? Do you suspect, like me, that she would rather have sex with Mike Tyson than Ched Evans? Is Charlie Webster racist against white men? SHOCK HORROR.

White feminists don't really care much for men of their own race, for some reason

A revealing photograph of Charlie Webster

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males

Ten Reasons Why Females Prefer Alien Males

Women are exogamous, men endogamous.

White feminists REPULSED by anti-immigration white proletariat and DON'T CARE what happens to them

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Ambitious young women today are taught to ignore or suppress every natural instinct, if it conflicts with the feminist agenda posed on them. All literary and artistic works, no matter how great, that document the ambivalence of female sexuality they are trained to dismiss as “misogynous.” In other words, their minds are being programmed to secede from their bodies … there is a huge gap between feminist rhetoric and women’s actual sex lives, where feminism is of little help except with a certain stratum of deferential, malleable, white middle-class men.

Middle-class men, neutered by office life and daunted by feminist rhetoric, are shrinking. Lesbianism is increasing, since anxious, unmasculine men have little to offer. Women are simply more interesting to them. Male homosexuality is increasing, because masculinity is in crisis and because maternal consciousness, severed from the support network of the extended family, has become a psychotic system, forcing the young to struggle for life against clinging personal fantasy.

White middle-class girls at the elite colleges and universities seem to want the world handed to them on a platter. They have been sheltered, coddled and flattered. Having taught at a wide variety of institutions over my ill-starred career, I have observed that working-class or lower-middle-class girls, who are from financially struggling families and must take a patchwork of menial jobs to stay in school, are usually the least hospitable to feminist rhetoric. They see life as it is and have fewer illusions about sex. It is affluent, upper-middle class students who most spout the party line — as if the grisly hyperemotionalism of feminist jargon satisfies their hunger for meaningful experiences outside their eventless upbringing. In the absence of war, invent one.

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Will Professor John Dunn answer my questions on feminism and politics?



I have emailed him for the following questions.


  1. How would you define feminism?
  2. Is feminism a force for the good?
  3. Has feminism been good for men?
  4. Does feminism ever consider the long term national interest?
  5. Is feminism really only the amoral and tribal privileging women simply because they are female?
  6. What has feminism to offer men in the short term other than the false impression that sex is cheap because it affirms the right of women to have sex outside marriage?
  7. Has feminism desecrated the institutions of marriage and family?
  8. If we repealed the Equality Act 2010 and abolished no fault divorce, would we have cut off both legs of feminism?
  9. What is there to stop any political party from proposing the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 and abolishing no fault divorce?
  10. If you could, would you repeal the Equality Act 2010 and abolish no fault divorce? 

Professor Dunn says more sensible and interesting things at 

But his hair is untidy, his collar awry. Doubtless he could have been made to look less like an old tramp if his ex-wife, the delectable Ruth Scurr, had not abandoned him, but she had other ideas.  

I do hope Professor Dunn is not too old and ill to answer my questions. In answering them, I trust he will arrive at the answers to the points he himself raised, which was about understanding our own political and social structures so that we may change them if things go wrong, rather like a mechanic with a broken down car or a driver with a punctured tyre.  

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/a-battle-of-self-versus-state/153901.article

Dunn argues that politics is about struggles between individuals, or sometimes groups, in complex social orders to resolve competing views about the organisation and ends of society. It is about the "collisions between human purposes" commonplace in complex social organisations such as modern states - "an endless and highly unstable round of struggle and quest for understanding". He investigates the ways in which designers of political institutions have attempted to address the implications of this need to organise.

He does so with reference to influential alternative understandings of human motives - whether we are motivated by self-righteous individualism or by the logic of collective action, for instance. Do we think our individual judgements are the only ones worthy of respect, or do we recognise that making political choices is ineluctably a collective process?

Dunn emphasises the importance of accommodating individualism in designing institutions for political stability. He cites approvingly Aristotle's directive that "we need above all to analyse how human beings are best advised to live together, in order both to judge how their common life could go best and to give it the best chance which they can to go well in practice".

Poor old Dunn, hinting ever so delicately, ever so obliquely, about the patriarchy. I already know that hints dropped are not picked up by the deliberately deaf. I know even shouting at people saying the same thing again and again simplified to the point that it even rhymes and makes sense does very little to motivate or inspire a race of men who only want to be seen as not misogynistic and worthy of being given sex from a passably attractive woman not their wives from time to time.

Let us remember what Camille Paglia said about the Greeks.

Women played no part in Athenian high culture. They could not vote, attend the theatre, or walk in the stoa talking philosophy. But the male orientation of Greek culture was inseparable of its genius. Athens became great not despite but because of its misogyny.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

To be honest with you, I think it is too late now. All the establishment white males who would agree with me are already long dead and gone. The ones who might agree with me are now very old and frail, and, because if you are old and frail you look like an old tramp if you don't have anyone to look after you or at least tell you you need a haircut or that your collar is awry or your tie crooked, not matching your shirt or your cuffs frayed, people will just sneer at you and dismiss everything you say as soon as look at you or see you on TV looking like shit.  

The old men of UKIP do not discuss my ideas, probably because they are unable to access them, being so proud of their technophobia and technical incompetence. Those who access the internet might read my blog from time to time, but do not discuss it with each other.

As for the younger ones, they don't get it and won't get it because they fear for their careers and reputations for seeming to say anything that could be interpreted as misogyny. 

Also, if you are old, you don't like using new technology, which means you won't be able to communicate your message well or at all, having to rely on others to put people in touch with you or deliver your messages, and these people would  mostly be women and most women are feminists. 

I have already called him at his number but, predictably, there is no answer.  

Perhaps he doesn't even do email.  


Thursday, 17 October 2013

Camille Paglia on feminism

“Feminists have no idea that some women like to flirt with danger because there is a sizzle in it. You know what gets me sick and tired? The battered-woman motif. It’s so misrepresented, the way we have to constantly look at it in terms of male oppression and tyranny, and female victimization. When, in fact, everyone knows throughout the history of the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why won’t she leave him? Maybe she won’t leave him because the sex is very hot. I say we should start looking at the battered-wife motif in terms of sex. If gay men go down to bars and like to get tied up, beaten up, and have their asses whipped, how come we can’t allow that a lot of wives like the kind of sex they are getting in these battered wife relationships? We can’t consider that women have kinky tastes, can we? No, because women are naturally benevolent and nurturing, aren’t they? Everything is so damn Mary Poppins and sanitized.”

“I am being vilified by feminists for merely having a common-sense attitude about rape. I loathe this thing about date rape. Have twelve tequilas at a fraternity party and a guy asks you to go up to his room, and then you're surprised when he assaults you? Most women want to be seduced or lured. The more you study literature and art, the more you see it. Listen to Don Giovanni. Read The Faerie Queene. Pursuit and seduction are the essence of sexuality. It’s part of the sizzle. Girls hurl themselves at guitarists, right down to the lowest bar band here. The guys are strutting. If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn't repel them. Women have the right to freely choose and to say yes or no. Everyone should be personally responsible for what happens in life. I see the sexual impulse as egotistical and dominating, and therefore I have no problem understanding rape. Women have to understand this correctly and they'll protect themselves better. If a real rape occurs, it's got to go to the police. The business of having a campus grievance committee decide whether or not a rape is committed is an outrageous infringement of civil liberties. Today, on an Ivy League campus, if a guy tells a girl she's got great tits, she can charge him with sexual harassment. Chickenshit stuff. Is this what strong women do?”

“[T]here’s a lot to be said for celibacy, for the concentration of your mental and physical energy.”

“When women cut themselves off from men, they sink backward into psychological and spiritual stagnancy.”

“Women played no part in Athenian high culture. They could not vote, attend the theatre, or walk in the stoa talking philosophy. But the male orientation of Greek culture was inseparable of its genius. Athens became great not despite but because of its misogyny.”


“Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects governments to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother. Feminism has inherited these contradictions.”


Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...