women

All posts tagged women

Wow. I discovered a few things recently. First, that there is a thing called “MGTOW.” This means “Men Going Their Own Way.”

Seems right up my alley, don’t it?

Fuck yeah. I’ve been all about that for…a long, long time.

If you’re new to this concept, here’s a handy dandy video:

According to this, there are a few levels.

1. Level One MGTOW. Here’s a dude who realizes what women are really like, yet suffers and goes through the motions in order to get laid while in a long-term relationshits, or to get married, and-or to have children. This was me from 2000 to 2004. And from 2007 to 2011.

“Purple Pill Man,” as he’s called, is a believer in the NAWALT (“Not All Women Are Like That”), and searches and searches for that rare, elusive unicorn—that woman who is not a clone of every other woman out there.

I’ve come across a lot of brothers like this. They sometimes tell me: “You just haven’t met the right girl” or “Oh, you’ll find someone who’s right for you” when I try to talk about this stuff… They simply do not understand that I do not wish to find anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Not even if she’s into everything I’m into and wants to live in the wilderness, too—not even if she’s a cute, hard-working mute who wants a cabin a few hundred yards away from mine, where we’d just visit each other from time to time.

[Me, I know there are some very rare women who are different—personally, I just don’t care anymore. I don’t need any woman and I have better things to do anyway. Even if I didn’t, I think I’m too far gone—feminism has destroyed all hope for me, and now I’m far too cynical and mistrustful. If I did care, I mean. Honestly, in moments of extreme loneliness, or extreme lustiness, I do have weak periods in which I *think* I could stand a woman for a while.

Yet it fades pretty quickly, thank God.

I’ve had two offers of sex over the last two years, and, thankfully, I was able to turn them both down.

Good to know that after three years by myself, I have remained strong.

Strength is the key to freedom…]

2. Level Two MGTOW. This guy stays clear of marriage, co-habitation and long-term relationshits, but “dates”—fucks—women here and there. This was me from 2004 to 2006.

3. Level Three MGTOW.
This edified fellow doesn’t “date” women at all, and limits his interactions with women whenever and wherever possible. Me from 1997 to 2000, and from 2004 to 2007.

4. Level Four MGTOW. This clever chap believes in limiting contact and interaction with the State as well as most people, in addition to women. And “ghosts” it for the most part (stays off society’s RADAR). This guy would be the ultimate Zeta Male.

Here is where I’m at—2011 to present.

Neat. I’m part of another movement and didn’t even know it.

That was the second thing I discovered recently—that I’m a Level Four MGTOW.

The third thing is that I am also what is called a “Zeta Male.”

Interesting stuff. Great to see men of all ages starting to free themselves from the system and from the women who witlessly keep us shackled to it.

Fuck them. Fuck the system. And fuck the mangina clowns, the religious shamers, and the “white night” cocksmokers who try to manipulate and ridicule us back into this rigged game of horseshit. One of the rigged games, anyways.

“Take responsibility,” they parrot. “Do your duty,” they tell us. “Be a man,” they say. “Man up,” they squawk.

Man up?

Man up your ass!

I’m no longer a slave. I don’t work on Maggie’s farm no more…

Anyway, not that I need or want titles, I just found it quite interesting. And overall inspiring—after seeing and meeting so many pathetic, deluded, or-and hopeless men in cages, it’s awesome to see so many busting the fuck out.

In other news, I’m in Edmonton, trying to get my shit together before heading back to the coast. I spent 10 days in detox and got off everything—quit smoking as well. I’m about to start an exercise program (had to wait due to another back injury…more on that below) and get back into shape.

Yeah, I got some X-rays taken. My knee is fucked—something grinding in there. And my lower back appears to have major damage to the ligaments/tendons, which seem to have been yanked out where they connect in a few places, from that stupidity last summer. But I did something similar back in 2006.

Surgery might be an option, although this may tie me up (and I’ll get out of shape again and have to waste more fucking time, after recovering, to build myself up again) for months…and I won’t be able to return to the coast until the summer.

And where would I stay in the meantime? I’m homeless. I could not impose on anyone—and Jordan has helped me enough.

So, in short, fuck it. I’ll have to suffer and tough it out—get into shape as best I can here, and just be careful next time I head out.

For fuck sakes, never think that you can get into good physical condition while doing dangerous shit alone—don’t be a tit like I was. Get into shape first—you will prevent costly and unnecessary injuries…

That is all for now.

Oh, and as for Christmas—bah humbug.

Do something for someone else on a day of the year that doesn’t obligate you. Think for your-fucking-selves!

And stop buying shit, you wage serfs…

But I know you won’t, so “have a nice time with friends and loved ones,” yadda yadda…

Laterino.

If you think this is an odd post for me, then you don’t really know me. It is a subject in which I have quite an interest…it is also an important subject for the future—of the real world, I suppose. But that is another subject altogether…

Since we’ll almost never meet any outstanding, strong, honourable real women, we’re left with fictional characters. Characters on the following list seem to be one-in-a-billion, or just out-right fabrications. Nevertheless they show us what is possible—they help keep hope alive, I reckon…

These aren’t the female characters that feminists (with a few exceptions from Cameron and Wheedon) cram down all of our throats (essentially: bossy, misandric (man-hating or-and man-bashing), smug, greedy, materialistic, superficial control-freak sluts or bald-faced whores…or some combination of these) on a constant basis. What they term “powerful” women. Power is another word for control.

I’m not talking about women who are adept at controlling others—there is nothing great in one’s character if one does this. Nor is there anything independent about controlling others—without the others, the control-freak is lost and inept at life…

How many women are capable (or even interested in) controlling themselves?

What is greatness? What is character?

I use the word “great” here in place of the word “strong.”

Greatness of character is not just found in positive action, assertive and direct action (not using “magic” or forces—or other characters—to do one’s bidding), which needs courage, since there is a risk of injury or worse in such action; nor is it limited to having great or vast abilities. It is moreso about being honourable, standing by one’s word, having integrity and honesty—and being humble—as well as putting one’s convictions into practice. It is also about growing out of vices and childishness and into virtues and adulthood…

What about the willingness and ability to fight for a righteous cause? What about wisdom? What about sacrificing oneself for the cause? What about giving to and helping others, or enduring hardship and suffering for others?

What about doing something selfless and not wanting rewards or credit?

I would say so…

Anyway, here is my list of great female characters—or, maybe more accurate: “great female action performances of women with strength of character.”

(Yeah, these are not performances of chicks sitting around yapping and sounding witty. Or standing around looking ‘pretty.’ Nope. Sorry, the girls actually have to do something. Something great…)

I’ve chosen ten for this entry. [Edit: I’ve revised the list. After finishing the testicle-numbingly-tediously-bogglingly bad (or kinda good? or too confused to judge it?) series Lost a second time, and reviewing the character of “Kate Austin,” I opted to replace her in the list and not mention her anywhere. I really don’t know what I was thinking, putting in the top ten—she’s not fit to be in the top one hundred. I must have remembered a couple of episodes in which she did something (other than whine, cry, butt into everyone else’s business, wear ultra-tight T-shirts, use sex to get her way, get people killed for her own selfish reasons, and try to be self-righteous and instead come across as a spoiled brat). I am embarrassed, and my head is lowered in admitting my mistake. Carry on.]

Nord’s Top Ten Great Female Characters…

10. “Kara Thrace” or ‘Starbuck’—series: Battlestar Galactica. Played by Katee Sackhoff.

Why?

A very real character—I couldn’t stand her at first (because she displayed several loathsome characteristics that I see and dislike in men, as well as some I dislike in women), yet she started to grow on me as the series went on. She grew as well—she went through a lot of shit and through it she became less arrogant, less bratty, less willful. I once called her a great ‘right-brained’ female character, and I still stand by that.

Also, she would have rated higher if her character hadn’t used Apollo as she did. As well as Anders. (I know she was based on the Starbuck of the original series, a male played by Dirk Benedict, a character who was a shallow, not-so-heroic womanizer, so I’ve taken that into consideration. If I hadn’t known this, she would not have made my list at all.)

9. “Rain”—movie: Resident Evil. Played by Michelle Rodriguez. (Similar character in Lost, if a tad bossy at first.)

Why?

Yunno, I am not really sure. Gonna think on it…

She is similar to the “Vasquez” character in Aliens, played by Jenette Goldstein. Who is also worthy of mention—I’d put her on my list if there was room.

Show »

And Rain’s a good, solid, tough, stand-up soldier in the movie—but that’s not really it either…

I really had to think about this one—for years the character stuck in my mind. And now I know why: she’s infected; she’s likely going to become a zombie, and she knows it. Does she cry and give up? Does she insist upon becoming the center of attention? Does she put herself before everything and everyone else?

No. Not at all. Look at how she handles it! With poise, courage, integrity, and even humour. I don’t remember her complaining—not once.

A female who does not complain when she’s suffering, even when facing a fate worse than death—that’s the main reason this one made my list.

8. “Ellen Ripley”—movies: Aliens and Alien3. Played by Sigourney Weaver.

(Similar character in Alien, but that’s it. What I mean is that I will not acknowledge any later movies in this ‘franchise.’)

Why?

She’s easily one of the most (if not the most) famous ‘strong female’ characters of all time, as far as action movies go. I didn’t always approve of how she did things, but she got it done. And she wasn’t just a total bitch—or just like a dude with no dick—character; she’s got a heart, and stands up for what’s right.

7. “Sarah Connor”—movie: Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Played by Linda Hamilton. (Somewhat* similar character in The Terminator—yet I can’t speak for the “Sarah Connor” character in the TV series.)

Why?

*Somewhat because in the first movie she’s just an average slob. She’s thrust into a role she never wanted and a future that will give her nightmares, and she handles it pretty well.

It is what she becomes that interests me—the growth from a silly little girl into a tough, responsible woman of profound resolve. The arc of this character is truly epic. (If it wasn’t for her slight feminist rant in Judgment Day, I’d have rated her higher.)

Ro

6. “Ensign Ro Laren,” Star Trek: The Next Generation. Played by Michelle Forbes.

Why?

She’s the only decent (regular) female character in the whole series… Forbes was also quite good as Admiral Cain in Battlestar Galactica, if a wee bit borderline sociopathic. But anyway, Ro Laren is cool because she has an attitude, a conscience, and has character. She grew up suffering under an occupation by a brutal alien regime. At some point she joined the resistance and fought for her freedom and for the freedom of her people and planet, while other meaningless Trek characters like “Counselor Deanna Troi” were munching chocolate and naming emotions…

Later she disobeyed Starfleet and dull, dreary company-man Picard again when she refused to betray the spirit of her people (when she assigned to infiltrate the Maquis).

I like her because she’s a rebel and has guts. She’s tough and is a survivor. And she’s honourable.

5. “Aeryn Sun”—series: Farscape. Played by Claudia Black.

Why?

One of the all-round best female characters I’ve seen in films or TV series. If I was ever in a fight for my life, against all odds, this is the type of woman I’d want by my side.

Again, what an amazing character arc Aeryn has over the four plus seasons of Farscape.

A brutally honest, straight-forward, loyal, honourable female character. Tough as nails. And yet still human. She is a character that was in many ways a robotic killing machine, now adapting to a different world, a different life, and an uncertain future.

A really outstanding character.

4. “Seven Of Nine”—series: Star Trek: Voyager. Played by Jeri Ryan.

Why?

Nearly every time I mention strong characters (regardless of sex) in Star Trek with other guys, and bring up Seven, immediately there is some implication of me choosing her because of her chest size. It’s fucking annoying.

You may have noticed that nowhere in this post will you find any references to female body parts whatsoever, nor is there anything concerning appearance. I really don’t give a shit about all that. This is about character, for crissakes.

That said, I really liked Seven’s character in Voyager (which was almost unwatchable, for the most part, otherwise). Janeway was a smug, hypocritical Kirk-wanna-be; Torres was just an annoying bitch (too bad they could not have made her a full-blooded Klingon chick—then we would have had something). Seven blew away all other characters on that series—the male ones too. Made them look flighty, immature, insignificant, 2D and weak.

In fact, she was more impressive than any female character in any Star Trek series. (The TGN chicks were especially god awful, with one exception…see below.)

A ‘recovering’ borg drone, Seven adjusts to being human again—and being female again. There are some interesting stories, and I enjoyed watching the character develop over the seasons (a bright spot of an otherwise dull TV series full of cardboard cut-outs and boring motherfuckers).

She is brave, resilient, and an all-round stand-up chick. She’s all business most of the time, very intelligent, and can kick butt. She’s the strong, silent type.

3. “Illyria”—series: Angel. Played by Amy Acker.

Why?

She was a powerful demon-bitch at first, and then she gets humbled, losing almost all of her powers, and goes through some shit, trying to find where she belongs and what she’ll be in this thing that has become her life. From being immortal and being worshiped as a matter of course…to being mortal and having to earn the respect of others.

I found Illyria an extremely compelling character—I think she steals the show in season 5 of Angel.

Like Seven of Nine, her character is trying to discover her humanity (and neither one does this by choice). This speaks to the female human condition, I think, in that no girl or woman will or can enter into greatness by choice or through the force of her own will. Those who try can become ‘leaders’—pale, lesser reflections of feminized men who sought wealth and power as well—but nothing great at all. Just twisted control-freaks and money-grubbers. Status-seekers. Losers in fancy clothes made for them by far better human beings…

Great men—and great women—do not seek leadership; they have it thrust upon them, or they come to it inadvertently, accidentally, and painfully.

It is the same for great characters, I think—you come to it not of your own volition. Shit happens and how you adapt signifies whether or not you reach greatness—but shit always has to happen first. Like genius itself, you can’t learn it in school; you can’t pick it up at a workshop or seminar… Only life can teach it and make it happen—and what you go through to reach it barely makes it all worthwhile.

Such is life…

Anyway, Illyria’s character is strong, fierce, direct and honest; her arrogance and self-absorption gets replaced by humility and the desire to help the group fight evil.

2. “Michonne”—series: The Walking Dead. Played by Danai Gurira.

Why?

She is ass-kicking awesomeness; a troubled warrior with a heart of gold. One of the most watchable characters on The Walking Dead. And among the few female characters who aren’t irritating in one way or another.

Another strong, silent type. Gets it done, takes no shit, and never complains. Absolutely stand-up chick. And it’s so refreshing to have a non-sexual character who is as tough and capable as she is (i.e. no fucking ‘love interest’ for her yet—yeah, I know it’s coming, but I’m going to enjoy this extremely rare event before it does).

Great character.

1. “Etain”—movie: Centurion. Played by Olga Kurylenko.

Why?

She is probably my favourite female character of any film.

I have seen things like: “Etain betrays the legion to Gorlacon, leading them into a trap where they are annihilated.” So, the Legion (an invading army in ancient Britannia that raped and murdered and conquered) is the good guy in this film…?

Fine. Yet I was not cheering for them—I wanted Etain to kill them all. And free her people from opression. Fuck Rome.

Betraying a terrible and ruthless invader is no betrayal. It is just another weapon to fight a more advanced enemy… How is it possible to betray evil? You simply fight it, any way you can…

And there is: “Olga will play Etain, a savage-looking Pict warrior woman.” Yeah. Hell, yeah. Savage, uncivilized woman indeed. Awesome. Outstanding. Wonderful. Unique. Fucking brilliant…

The director, Marshall, said: “Etain is kind of revenge incarnate. Her family were butchered by the Romans, she had her tongue cut out by the Romans, she’s had a hell of a time and she’s out for Roman blood.”

Yet she’s a lieutenant of the leader of this Pict tribe, Gorlacon, trying to drive the bloody Romans off their island—and she does not put her personal shit before the needs of her people.

And she dies for them—not for revenge.

Amen.

Worthy of Note…

Female characters that would likely make my list…if my list was longer:

“Trinity,” Carrie-Anne Moss—Matrix series. Quite good, but I never found her exactly great. Good in some action sequences, but she’s clearly in the story as a dreaded “love interest” for Neo.

“Katniss Everdeen,” Jennifer Lawrence—The Hunger Games movies. Not bad…maybe great by the end of the series. There are some thing I don’t like about this character, but many I do. Perhaps I’ll get more into this another time, and when the series has concluded.

“Alice,” Milla Jovovich—Resident Evil movies. Cool, if slightly not believable. Still, pretty good.

“Selene,” Kate Beckinsale—Underworld movies. She was alright, I guess. I must confess that I don’t recall all that much from these movies. Cannot speak for Rhona Mitra as this character when Beckinsale left, apparently, because I missed that movie.

“Arwen,” Liv Tyler—The Lord of the Rings trilogy. If only there was more for her to do in the Two Towers and the Return of the King, other than sit and stare and cry. In the Fellowship, she rocked. Even though she never really kicked anyone’s ass, she got it done—took out the black riders and got Frodo to safety. Which brings me to…

“Tauriel,” Evangeline Lilly—The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. And the Desolation of Smaug, or however that’s spelled. What “Arwen” could have been…

And last but not least…

“Éowyn” (daughter of King Theoden), Miranda Otto—The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Return of the King.

Female action stars who didn’t make my list, and why…

“Yu Shu Lien,” Michelle Yeoh—Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Never saw the movie…

“Joan,” Milla Jovovich—The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. Never saw the movie…

“Jean Grey,” Famke Janssen—X-Men movies. A very good, complex, strong character. Quite interesting progression, I found, in the development of this character. Yet without the use of her powers, she does nothing really…

“Andrea,” Laurie Holden—The Walking Dead series. The only thing that kept her off my list was that she fucked “The Governor” when she was planning on killing him—and by rights should have killed him. It is deceptive and dishonourable to use sex against someone—not a sign of greatness.

Aside from that, I really liked her character, especially how she grew as a person from season to season. From being a typical useless chick at the beginning, to wanting to kill herself, to becoming hardcore.

“Buffy Summers,” Buffy the Vampire Slayer series. Sorry, I prefer the strong, silent type—not the arrogant, chatty, sassy, snotty, immature, smart-assy, misandric type.

“Faith Lehane,” Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel series. Better, but still too sassy and arrogant. I did enjoy how the character progressed from the self-important, chip-on-her-shoulder nasty punk-ass bitch in Buffy to the reformed semi-arrogant bitch-of-honour in Angel. This alone makes her worthy of note, too; yet it doesn’t make her great…

Am I being too picky?

You bet.

“Lara Croft,” Angelina Jolie—Tomb Raider movies. Something about the character always rubbed me the wrong way, but the movies were so terrible that I don’t remember exactly what it is I don’t like about Jolie’s performance as Lara Croft. Maybe it was the writing of the character itself… (I played many of the video games, the second in particular, for years, so I know what I’m not talking about here. I know the Lara Croft character well. And the movies just did not capture it at all…)

Just can’t put my finger on it. Could it be simply Angelina Jolie?

No, this was way before I found here utterly vile…

“Galadriel,” Cate Blanchett—The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. And…yadda yadda of Smaug. Smuag? Smaug. Very cool…yet does nothing with her funky Elf powers…

Lucy Lawless—various. Character roles are either dishonourable (a treacherous Cylon from Battlestar Galactica) or misandric (Xena: Warrior Princess.) Fine actress; I just see nothing great in her characters…

“O-Ren Ishii,” Lucy Liu—Kill Bill movies. Character is a power hungry psychotic bitch.

“Elle Driver,” Daryl Hannah—Kill Bill movies. Character is a dishonourable psychotic bitch. (Why dishonourable?—way before she kills Budd with the snake, she was about to kill Beatrix, still in a coma and helpless, with a syringe of poison and was only stopped by a timely phone call by Bill…and, later, as Budd is dying she tells him her ‘regret’ is that this great warrior, Beatrix, was killed by a lowlife like him. What the fuck?).

“Beatrix Kiddo,” Uma Thurman —Kill Bill series. Character is a revenge-obsessed, selfish, vaguely honourable, murderous psychotic bitch.

“Sydney Bristow,” Jennifer Garner —Alias series. Character is lying, scheming, and manipulative, and she uses sexuality to get her way.

“Max Guevera,” Jessica Alba —Dark Angel series. Another manipulative, and misandric, character who uses sexuality to get her way.

There is no greatness in manipulating the biology of another through sexuality—it is dishonest and simply whorish.

That’s all that comes to mind. I’m sure there are others, but I’m not aware of these…

For those who will exclaim, “What about so-n-so,” fuck off and go make your own list.

This will be my final word on this subject—I really, really, really hope.

I hate this subject, I hate how deeply I got into years ago, and I hate what it did to me. I mostly hate that I was manipulated due to my experiences to “take a side.” Once more, I was duped and thought I was fighting against something, when in fact I was pushing forward an agenda by those who designed it—once more, I was a useful idiot.

(I was steered into the emotional, reactionary direction of blaming women for the feminist movement, and I believed to a large extent that feminists were acting alone, that they were not a tool being used by even more disturbed control-freaks. I was wrong. I more time went on, the more it dawned on me that feminists did not invent this Marxist program. I think it all dates from the 1700s. Anyway. Women are not my enemy—they’re suckers too, same as me, and us—feminists are not even my enemy, not exactly; my enemy is anyone trying to limit or restrict my natural born, God-given (inherent) freedom…freedom to live the way nature intended Man to live, intended men (and women) to live; as well as freedom from oppression, religious indoctrination, corporate agendas, and money itself. Freedom to live naturally and freedom from the evil control tactics of civilization.

Natural, true freedom is about the “to” (do things) as well as the “from” (things). Understand? There’s a verb and a noun here in action regarding freedom. Anyone who forces others, or convinces others, to deny us our freedoms is our enemy.)

But I don’t stay fooled for long.

There have been times (and you can look at these in my archives) where I jumped on something and accepted it before I really checked it out or really thought about it. Why would I do that? Why would anyone…well, let’s see. When you feel isolated, a “minority of one,” and it appears that 99.99% of everyone around you seems completely oblivious to what you know…shit, you feel such relief that (a) you’re not insane and (b) you’re not alone.

If you’ve read Nineteen-Eighty-Four, you’ve seen this happen to “Winston Smith.” He feels so alone in his doubts and questions amid his emerging awareness that he reaches out to the first person who might provide not only answers but also a means to help somehow—he’s invited to join the crusade against tyranny.

Obviously, it was all deception; “O’Brien” was not recruiting him but setting him up; he had even written the gawdamn book that he gave “Winston” to read (regarding the oligarchs, their history and plans).

Anyway, that happened to me. That’s why you have never heard me mention the name of “Warren Farrell” over the last few years—because I eventually deconstructed what he was about and felt I had to distance myself from him as soon as possible. Sure, he might have had good intentions, but I began to suspect that he never truly left the feminist agenda (the Marxist agenda—both which are just different masks of the actual agenda—different gloves, the same old fist of tyranny), at least in theory.

Why? Because although he seems pro-male, he is ultimately anti-masculine (and anti-nature). In the end, he wants what the feminists want: “Gender Transition.” (His own words.) What the fuck does this mean? It means that men should be more like women. Period. More social engineering. More evil bullshit wearing a psychological costume.

(Don’t believe me? Here: “gender” = “sex; male or female;” and “transition” = “movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another.” Make up your own mind.)

I don’t know. Maybe he is, or maybe he doesn’t understand what we’re supposed to be, anyway.

Still, I will not be party to crimes against nature or humanity.

I offer this now in an effort to close this issue in my mind and clarify everything I’ve gone through, studied, researched, thought about, and wrote about for the last decade (I started this back in 1999 in fact—“this” meaning the breaking free of my Marxist-feminist mindscape, trying to understand and free myself out of the hatred I had had for myself—and for my brothers—and trying to figure out where it came from, who was behind it, and why…in other words, I wanted the damn truth).

I also want to pre-empt the attitude that I sense will used to attack me (because it already has—and by “attack” I mean philosophically) later…

 “OMFG this guy flip-flops all over his blog he doesnt know what hes talking about or wot he beliefs!!!!!”

Well, yeah. How else does one arrive at the truth except through a process of believing something, getting into it, understanding it, then later challenging it, questioning it, discovering the truth or fiction of it? I’m talking about doing this with an open mind, with no bias or bigotry.

Yes, I have changed my mind. It has always been my nature to latch onto something and then eventually, sooner or later, question the hell out of it. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind once you realize that your beliefs are based on lies.

Those who do not value the truth, well, they tend to question nothing that would shake the foundations of their delusions.

So, enough of that. That’s as far as I may be perceived as “defending myself.” So, now you may begin your assault—no worries, I can take it. I’ve crucified myself so many times that nothing anyone can do to me would be worse than that. Bring it on.

What is the Gender Agenda?

It is a eugenics program and a social (engineering) program that has been going on for at least one hundred years. It is in fact far older. This is just the latest version. These are the different aspects of it that I know about:

1. Destroy masculinity (feminize the males).

2. Set men against women (division through feminist propaganda, institutions, using the media, police and courts).

3. Set children against their parents.

4. Destroy the family unit.

5. Devalue and degrade humanity itself.

6. Encourage homosexuality and normalize it.

7. Androgyny (sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender).

8. Sterilization.

I’m not convinced about these so-called “chem-trails,” so I’m not commenting on that. And I have to forgive their plug for their product, because I’d actually like to try it. I don’t mind plugging something that will help people under a premise of education and, well, telling us the truth. And this is the truth.

1. Destroy Masculinity

I’ve covered this for years, thought and researched and studied, and have written about this for years. So I won’t get into all that again.

Bottom line, it’s a real plan and it’s been going on for a long while. It is carried out in two ways:

A. Psychologically feminize the males (have them raised by women).

B. Physically feminize the males (reduce testosterone and increase estrogen, through various means).

Why destroy masculinity?

The same reason you’d knock down a wall—to remove all defense—to get at those more vulnerable.

To get rid the “real man.” The masculine man. Which is a man who will fight to defend his home and his tribe from an enemy or threat. In the future (for a while) only two types of men will be required: the techies and the warriors. The warriors will be replaced by machines; they already are. As soon as they have an artificially intelligent computer that can create and program other artificially intelligent computers, the techie males will be phased out as well. All that will be left, I suspect, will be a small group for breeding stock and for experiments. Sperm banks and lab rats.

To get rid of the “creative man”—a man who is adaptable, resourceful, sharp and alert, and strong and brave. This is an attempt to render males into left-brained beings, rather than their natural right-brained normal state. And this has been going on as far back as ancient Egypt. It has not really worked, however. The irrepressible nature of the male spirit has never been squashed, eclipsed, or destroyed. The harder you hit us and the more you torture us, the wiser we become and the more ingenious.

However, the former has worked.

2. Men vs. Women

This was the primary function of the feminist movement. Division.

Gloria Steinem—

Show »

Oh yeh. Like the shirt, and the little illuminati pyramid, too, you evil fuck.

—was funded by the CIA to undermine, among other things, the “Hippy Movement” of the 1960s.

I’ve talked to death about this subject, so nothing more is needed to say except it is working brilliantly. Any man and woman who can stand each other for more than a few years is a rare case and is becoming an exception to the rule—“dating” is the new normal. Sport fucking. Or just using someone until you’re bored with them and then finding someone else to fuck for a while.

3. Children vs. Parents

Public education was the first step. This allows the State to raise (train) the child.

Show »

All the laws in place now supposedly to protect “the rights of the child” were set up to divide children from their parents. First divide them in terms of ideas and ethics, even values, and second to divide them physically (ultimately to destroy the concept of the parent); remove them from the home.

One result is that children can now hold their parents hostage—children are taught the law where it applies to “children’s rights” and so they can merely make something up to have Dad thrown in jail. Coupled with the feminist demonization of men, no one is going to believe him now when he claims he is innocent.

This goes for Mom, too. She’s next. Mark my words. Over 50% of kids grow up without dads already, and that will increase along with children being raised by the State, through foster care programs and institutions (including prisons and mental health institutions).

This is evident in such works as Brave New World. And, for the record, Aldous Huxley was a fucking shill, like his brother, Julian; he was not warning us, he was not making predictions. He was a member of this elite Fabian Socialist group, which often recruited and hired writers (George Orwell—aka Eric Arthur Blair—believed in the nightmare world he wrote about in Nineteen-Eighty-Four), artists, and later film makers (see H. G. Wells, writer and film maker; author of The New World Order; his film, Things to Come, based on his book, The Shape of Things to Come, again, isn’t a prediction).

About Things to Come—a main character is named “Oswald Cabal,” and “cabal” is a word that means: “a small group of people who work together secretly.” The word actually comes from the Late Hebrew word, Qabbalah, or Kabbalah. But that’s another story…

Point is, the super rich have employed these people to get this future system into the consciousness of society; acclimatization, incrementally. Ray Kurzweil is another modern example, especially more on the technology aspect (the technology that you, peasant, will never have).

More on the Fabian Socialist agenda.

The object of this third aspect is to get the children loyal and obedient only to the State. They will trust no other figure. The State will be their parent.

4. Destroy The Family

Marxism (which was funded and supported and in fact created by the same types who developed Fabian Socialism) had had this goal for a long time…

From The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (who was Marx’s NWO handler and the true brain behind it all) in 1848…

Goals, “Communist Manifesto”

Abolition of the family! (page 87)

Goals of Communism (page 94)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Note: the above pages reflect the paperback version, 14th printing, April 1976
Note: the above quotes also reflect the tenets of the religion of humanism.

These are now United Nations goals under Agenda 21.

The basic unit of humanity, of a tribe in any region in any time in history, is the family. Maw, Paw, and kid. I’m actually not 100% certain about the precise details regarding why they hate this so much—I understand why rulers and oligarchs have often sought to wipe it out (it just makes their ambitions easier). But the fact that they hate the family seems really odd to me. I dunno.

Anyway, they were the ones who brought the family and society to its current level of decay…so of course they’re going to offer solutions as to how to fix it all.

Again, this is another thing that has never been fully stomped out. Even in Brave New World, when these drugged-out children in the perfect technocratic society come across some more natural humans, and start to learn about parents and what a family used to mean, they begin getting ideas.

I think the ultimate goal is to wipe out not only the family globally, but also to wipe out its history—and make it equal to a hate crime to even consider thinking about it.

5. Devalue & Degrade Humanity

They won here.

Mission accomplished. Misanthropes abound today—the “humans r bad” crowd is growing like fucking wild-fire.

Oh, I know. Guess how I know…

Yeah. Boy, do I feel like a fucktard for helping this agenda along in my own pathetic, sloppy little way.

Anyway, I don’t consider myself anti-human anymore. (I never really, technically did—I was always anti-modern-human. If you doubt me, do some searches on this blog, it’s all still there somewhere. I have always been pro-natural-human.) I’m not really pro-modern-human now, either, though. I’m basically neutral.

I prefer natural humans, I guess, still, and that’s all.

But who cares what I think…and I don’t know how we can get back our self-respect and dignity without becoming arrogant cocksuckers again…

Why this was done was to eventually have humans embrace their own destruction.

6. Encourage Homosexuality & Normalize It

Well, yeah. They won here, too. This should be 5a rather than 6, but oh well.

Being gay used to be a mental illness, but it turned out to be a case of hormonal caprice. This is to say that it just happens, and it’s not good or bad.

“Was it part of the plan?”

Hmm? What plan?

Well. Let’s see. If you know that stressed out mothers develop hormone disruptions as a result, then start sending planes somewhere (say, over the Channel into Germany) and bombing the fuck out of the general population, day and night…. Yeah, I guess that would stress the hell out of the mothers in that city. It’s known that this is why there were be a lot more homosexuals born of those mothers.

“Have a coddled class of women in a fairly rich country, and then start dropping bombs on them in order to traumatize them—that was the plan?”

—and then study the results? I dunno. Maybe it was all incidental—some people like to take advantage of any situation to gain knowledge. I mean, of course Churchill wouldn’t have provoked Hitler into bombong London (as opposed to bombing strategic targets, like the RAF airstrips), would he? Damn, he’d never wanna do that…

“Ughh.”

Exactly. Who the fuck knows.

biological embedding of extreme stress. Strong …. mothers or mother substitutes, but that it was quite a different matter … London blitz noted the traumatizing effects of ….. search on the corticotropin-releasing hormone

On child development.

toms of mental illness, acute stress reaction due to mental stress from ….. of the London Blitz, who were rescued from collapsed …… hormonal mediators of the sympathetic or HPA axis directly …… Our questionnaire survey targeted mothers of

But there some truth in there

“Enough!”

Okay, okay. So, it doesn’t matter what it is, if it’s normal or good or bad, really.

“Well, some people—”

Yes, some people really dislike gays, some wish them harm. But if all the gays moved to Hawaii, and there were no non-gays there, in a hundred years Hawaii would be an uninhabited island…

“Hmmm. right. They like their own sex and so do not breed.”

What matters is why it’s part of this agenda…

7. Androgyny

Sexual ambiguity and the reversal of gender.

We’ve been progressively sold this idea in various forms for a while now. Why anyone would think this is a positive thing is beyond my understanding.

I don’t really know what to write about on this subject—it would be like explaining why is it not good to dart into traffic in a downtown city at noon, or drink bleach, or pound spikes through your own eyeballs. I mean, what am I supposed to say about something so insane, absurd, and suicidal?

If I have to explain why men should be men and women should be women, I dunno…

We are not clams. We are not slugs. At worst, we’re monkeys. Although it might make a funny skit for a future sit-com, when we want to produce offspring, we don’t fuck ourselves to do it.

Whatever you believe—or don’t believe—what other species would divide itself into two sexes and then come back into one gender?

We are the way we are, with two sexes, because our biology works best this way in a natural environment. Like all other mammals.

One might say “God intended it that way.” Or “Father Nature used the force to make it that way.” Or “Nature made it that way.” Or, “Why would we need to adapt that way?” If one half of our gender disappeared suddenly—that’s when we would need asexual types. And that’s when we’d be forced to adapt.

But so long as we keep men men and women women, we don’t need to go that route. We are not in danger of losing half our gender, right?

Right. So, what the fuck?

Without a natural cause, like that, it wouldn’t be evolution—it would be engineering.

“Why fix what ain’t broken?”

Yeah. It might be ill, but it ain’t broken.

Moving on…

8. Sterilization

Fertility rates have been steadily decreasing for years—just do a quick search, like this, and you can see all sorts of graphs, from all kinds of sources, for nations all over the world.

From: Go forth and multiply a lot less

Coupled with rising mortality rates, this paints a grim picture for humanity over the next 25 years.

Now, no one is ever going to accuse me of being a fan of the “Go Forth And Multiply” strategy. I mean, sure, you could tell an ancient people that, but why would you need to?

Unless a disaster, like a major flood, just happened, and there were not many people left.

It is the nature of all life to breed and continue the species.

What’s the difference?

The difference is that natural life has checks and balances in place to prevent things from getting out of hand. What are these?

i. Predation. The only true predators humanity has right now (and has had since the dawn of agriculture) is itself—or, more accurately, the will of the ruling order. Aside from this there have been the odd serial killer, whose murderous deeds are but a grain of sand on a beach compared to the ruling order. Through out-right murder, war, programs of starvation and then bald-faced genocide, emperors and kings and queens have become the predators of their subjects, all the while the ruling order has not had such predation itself, except from its own kind, periodically.

With herd animals, it is the natural predators which largely determine the overall size of the herd. Where predators are low in number or absent, the herd’s ranks swell, and massive disease always follows.

ii. Disease. Nature’s way of saying, “There are too many of you.” This happens in the oceans, too, and this happens in forests—when forests get overcrowded and disease breaks out, the best thing that can happen is a vast purging fire.

iii. Acts of God. Yeah, natural disasters. This includes “the elements,” and what I mean by that is just the environment and the weather.

The difference is that humanity has no natural predators, we have an establishment that fights diseases, and we have become wise enough to avoid the mass carnage that occurs when disaster strikes.

Another difference is that the ruling order’s acts of mass murder are fairly indiscriminate—they do not “prune the tree” very well. In the natural world, predators take down the sick, weak, slow, and young. Essentially, they help strengthen the herd overall. The ruling order has never done this (except for perhaps the National Socialists in Germany, 1930s to 1945), and is not doing this now. The inbred twats are into eugenics, a pseudo-science.

(And those who founded and supported this agenda don’t mind talking about it. Because it serves another of their agendas—racial division. Like the vid directly above, it helps “non-whites” blame “the white man,” whatever that is, for all their problems. You cannot blame an entire race or subspecies for the actions and plans of a few.)

I’m not a fan of any control tactic, and that includes sterilization, abortion and birth control. I’d rather see humans dealing with predators again; I’d rather see natural ways of keeping the human blob in good fit condition. And I’d rather see some discipline, as well; it does not take much to avoid sexual intercourse, if one is not being constantly bombarded with sexual imagery.

Far better than this organized, methodical, scientific slow death that has been imposed not on all of us but just imposed on the “peasant” population. Remember, the ruling order and their minion class are not going through what we are. They are exempt from this soft kill program.

But all this is just me, I guess. My own personal opinion, please ignore.

Conclusion

What is the agenda of gender? Who’s behind it? What’s it all about? Why can’t we all be left the fuck alone?

I dunno.

If it is an agenda, then it is only another agenda of experimentation, which is always deployed to effect control infrastructure. Which is the only endgame of power. The endgame of malice is to enjoy the suffering before enjoying absolute power.

If it isn’t one agenda (or part of a great work), and just a series of coincidental agendas, the what?

I dunno. Skip to the bottom line.

“Wealth? The sick cackling laughter of psychopaths? What? Power?”

All that is power. Wealth is a means; knowledge is a means; control is the goal, giggling ego-maniacally all the way.

What is this agenda? The same as every other agenda—control.

Disclaimer:

This is all my own personal opinion, please deny all the above.

Further reading…

The History of Sterilization Abuse in the United States

Gender-Bender drugs turning boys into girls

Bisphenol A and Child Obesity

Gender-bent fish found downstream of pharmaceutical plants

Gender-bending chemicals put baby boys at risk of cancer and infertility

Chemicals Like Estrogen In Rivers Are Impacting Reproduction

Parliament committee fails to rein in river pollution

‘Gender-Bending’ Chemicals Found in Toys in China

Why Boys Are Turning Into Girls

Little kids given gender-bending treatments

Gender-bending Compounds Cause Breast Cancer, Asthma, Infertility