The Most Destructive Single Cause...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:37:41 +0000

This comment has been hidden from the blog.

noreply@blogger.com (dfordoom) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:56:23 +0000

This comment has been hidden from the blog.

Just a minor clarification what I mean by Romantic...

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Pathologist) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:28:45 +0000

Just a minor clarification what I mean by Romanticism. It has only few intersections with romance.

My use of the term is probably exactly the same as yours. Romanticism is the justification of action through the "nobility of grand sentiments". Crudely put, an action is justified if it is motivated by noble, or "intense" sentiment. I've always thought of the National Socialist movement as a "romantic" movement. Likewise, the many of the early "Communists" were similarly "romantic", hence the appeal to the arts community. (BTW, Nazi "romance" inspired quite a bit of good art. In my opinion, Wiesel's "Farm Family from Kahlenberg, is greater work of art than Grant Wood's American Gothic.)

Whilst German "romanticism" may have cumulated in the Holocaust, Anglo "romanticism" finds its expression in a far more insidious, and therefore difficult to treat evil. An evil which may herald a new age of quite literal barbarism. "Chav" man(and woman) is the product of such romantic ideation, with all his deleterious features. The Nazi's may have been good at destroying the bodies of their victims, the Anglo's are far better at destroying their souls. A cultural darkness is overcoming the West, its consequences won't be good.

Yes, you are right. What I do is sheer empiricism....

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:34:41 +0000

Yes, you are right. What I do is sheer empiricism. I am learning a lot through the scientific approach.

Just a minor clarification what I mean by Romanticism. It has only few intersections with romance. German "Romanticism" is probably unique in shaping the minds of an entire people. Not to put too fine a point upon it: English Romanticism culminated in Agatha Christie novels, German Romanticism in the Holocaust. What Germans are doing if they think they are doing "the right thing" can be frightening. It goes far beyond the soppy, corny, mawkish concept of "romance". My real name is well known and "The Editrix" only a gimmick. People about whom I could talk at my blogs are only a few steps away from exposure, therefore I hesitate to quote some hair-rising examples.

But generally, you are right. Women in the West do it with the blessing of the poets. Wonderfully put!

Actually, "The Evil Style Queen" is my favourite blog. I sometimes think I ought to close down all the other ones and focus on that one.

Firstly, thank you for your kind comments and seco...

noreply@blogger.com (The Social Pathologist) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:52:22 +0000

Firstly, thank you for your kind comments and secondly, the Evil Style Queen is a wicked blog. I love it.

Women are not able to live their sexuality in a self-reliant and responsible way.

I would probably phrase it differently. Women are not designed to be self-reliant, rather they are wired to move towards groupthink. Acting alone, or more importantly independently, is unsettling for them. A woman is quite capable of being independent as long as she follows group norms.

I think your example of idealistic German women, justifying their infidelity out of love, is actually in accordance with the dominant cultural theme of the west. The Romantic ideal, that love will conquer all, is profoundly influential in modern western thought. When a woman leaves a boring marriage to passionately fornicate with her new lover, she does it with the blessing of the poets, Hollywood script writers and other romantics. The theologians just shake their heads, however no one listens to them. They are Western Society's nerds. They carry no social weight.

According to the Italian press, those young women ...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:36:33 +0000

According to the Italian press, those young women were paid to be there. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to the validity of anything said after receiving money, and to an Arab journalist. I still say that these women, in the manner of their kind, just took the money. Incidentally, the Italian press was dismissive of the whole stunt, which has done nothing for Gheddafi's already dire image in the former colonial power. Gheddafi has a startling instinct for doing exactly the thing which will make him look most ridiculous.

Thank you, blogger with the interesting name! From...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:36:51 +0000

Thank you, blogger with the interesting name! From the brief look I just had at yours, I can return that compliment. I will come back for more.

Including myself, yes you are right. Thank you for...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:00:32 +0000

Including myself, yes you are right. Thank you for pointing that out. Restoring traditional morality would put an entire industry out of business.

A few significant facts about the professional per...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:40:07 +0000

A few significant facts about the professional person who made these remarks seem to have been missed. One, he is no doctor in the Hippocratic sense of the word. As deputy medical director of the Bridge Centre fertility clinic in London, his trade is in "fertility" - making women pregnant for money, and, I would suspect, a nice side-line in removing pregnancies from those who don't want them. At any rate, this is at an infinite distance from anything to do with curing illness and prolonging life, which, to his likes, is a mere commodity for sale. Second: any kind of sexual morality, and especially of conscious control of fertility - except in the mechanical way called birth control - must be anathema to him and his fellow merchants. If women had children early (when they are young and strong enough to care for them) and in a marriage, people like him would see the demand for their services sinking close to zero. I do not find it strange that a newspaper should have given this creature some space: they have to have screamers on the front page somehow, and can't just say "boring day today, peace reigns". But I am astonished that nobody seems to have picked the obvious element of corrupt self-interest in his preaching.

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) ...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:11:41 +0000

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:57:08 +0000

This comment has been hidden from the blog.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:07:40 +0000

This comment has been hidden from the blog.

But of course. I feel honoured.

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:52:30 +0000

But of course. I feel honoured.

May I copy this on my LJ? As I have just had a ru...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:37:05 +0000

May I copy this on my LJ? As I have just had a run-in with a particularly disgusting kind of Catholic hater, I would like to have a little more material for future encounters.

Interesting blog you have here. (I like to keep m...

noreply@blogger.com (Fidelbogen) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:58:35 +0000

Interesting blog you have here.

(I like to keep my eye on many things, even at the risk of spreading myself thin sometimes!)

Yes, I am sure even a few homosexual couples would...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:11 +0000

Yes, I am sure even a few homosexual couples would make excellent parents. That doesn't change the basic human concept of the family, which means a man and a woman and child(ren). That doesn't change either the female nature. To quote myself: Women simply don't have the moral fibre, strength, reliability, integrity, maturity and devotion to be trusted with the sole care for a child. It's bad enough what only too many of them, specifically but not exclusively, if on their own, are doing to their birth children, so it's sheer and utter madness to indulge their whim "to have a family" and let them adopt. If they are unable to form a stable relationship with a man, how can they be trusted to form one with a child?

The Female Misogynist makes an excellent point.

I repeat my question: Do you believe that this ado...

noreply@blogger.com (Universal Realist) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:32:07 +0000

I repeat my question: Do you believe that this adoption had SO HORRIBLY gone wrong with a traditional married couple of (male) husband and (female) wife instead of this mess of a woman and her mother?

First to be totally honest I see things in America that has made me believe that Americans are getting nuttier. So there’s not much that shocks or surprise me anymore about what people will do. There are plenty of traditional married couples in America who are a mess, the Balloon Boy’s family comes to mind.

So if it’s traditional married couple is based what I considered mentally healthy vs. this mess of a woman. Well then I believe the couple would have handled it totally different. They would have not shipped the kid back to Russia. They would have gotten the kid help. A healthy couple supports each other through difficult times. And if the kid turned out to be a crazy psychopath and the healthy couple felt they were duped by the Russians. I believe they would have personal escorted the child back to Russia and not do what that woman did and just put him on a plane alone.

Now I don’t know why this single woman wanted to adopt a child. It could guess it was some kind of self-center need to be a mother. But a mentally healthy couple would have probably had long discussion with each other as well with family and friends. I would assume the couple’s decision would be more based on wanting to be a family and not just being a mother or father.

Now on the other hand like I said I’ve seen plenty of couples that are a mess and they should never have kids. Yet seen single people male and female who are or would make great parents even single.

This doesn't speak against adoptions, not even...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:30:22 +0000

This doesn't speak against adoptions, not even against adoptions from Russia (although I am not amazed that so many go wrong). This speaks against adoption by single women. I repeat my question: Do you believe that this adoption had SO HORRIBLY gone wrong with a traditional married couple of (male) husband and (female) wife instead of this mess of a woman and her mother?

Excellent! Spot on! Wish I read this before I co...

noreply@blogger.com (Universal Realist) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:16:33 +0000

Excellent! Spot on!

Wish I read this before I commented in the above post. Which I just ended up basically repeating your sentiments.

Excellent post! There are a lot of questions invo...

noreply@blogger.com (Universal Realist) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:29:48 +0000

Excellent post!

There are a lot of questions involved in this case.

They return the child as if it was a defected piece of merchandise. This is a human not a TV.

I feel if you adopt you are to take this child and treat it as your own blood child. If your blood child developed mental issues or emotional issues I believe most normal parent would go to any length to get them help. So I would expect an adoptive parent to do the same.

I don’t want to hear about this family having financial issues. I’m sure they had to spend money to adopt and travel in Russia.

I mean this sounds more like a person adopting a dog from a dog rescue or an animal shelter. If the dog ends up being too much to handle, then just take it back to the shelter. But this is not a dog it’s a child.

I’m not against adoptions but today because the level of drug use and in most cases adoptive parents don’t know the health or mental history of the child’s blood parents. So people need to be sure about what they're doing and they should spend as much time with child as possible before adopting. Adoption can be risky thing but I still believe an adoption is a good and vital thing that should be done.

Excellent commentary! Things like this typically a...

noreply@blogger.com (Universal Realist) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:34:40 +0000

Excellent commentary! Things like this typically are swept under the carpet. So it's good keeping out in the open. She needs a dose of honesty and humility.

"she is now the first booze-bishopette of the same church."

LOL!

I agree with Bruce's comment.

noreply@blogger.com (Universal Realist) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:22:59 +0000

I agree with Bruce's comment.

'gator OF COURSE it won't last. Apart from...

noreply@blogger.com (The_Editrix) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:29:50 +0000

'gator OF COURSE it won't last. Apart from the ethical aspect, it will never cease to amaze me how adulteresses can seriously believe that THEY (THEY THEY!) will be treated differently from their predecessors by the philanderer.

No, that story is so disgusting on so many levels. The feminist working for a "conservative" "think tank" (I'm running out of quotes here) the feminist dropping her knickers for a rightist who equals feminism with all evils imaginable, while same rightist has nothing against feminism in action if it only provides him with some new pussy. And this is only the hypocrisy bit, don't get me started on the other aspects.

For Islam critics like Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji, another major pain-in-the-proverbial, it's not about preserving the West, but about THEIR (THEIR THEIR!) "lifestyle" choices. That comes as a shock if one happens, as I used to, to take women seriously in matters that are more involved and ethical than skirt lengths or skin treatment. Morals and ethics are indivisible, so much for Ms. Hirsi Ali's "Islam critique".

The novelty will wear off for Ferguson and he will...

noreply@blogger.com (Alligator) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:44:44 +0000

The novelty will wear off for Ferguson and he will eventually ditch Hirsi Ali. This is the way of the serial philanderer. I've known women who took back philandering husbands, or took up with men known to be womanizers. "Oh, it will be different this time, because I understand him." I'm still waiting to hear of a case where this worked out. Hirsi Ali being a good feminist may even tire of him some day and tell him to hit the road first. Either way, I seriously doubt they are not going to last.

If a few thousand Muslim women converted to Christ...

noreply@blogger.com (Bruce Church) — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:47:32 +0000

If a few thousand Muslim women converted to Christianity, then it would be even. The Muslims can have the West's weak silly women, and the West will take Islam's strong women.