SHOCKER!!!!!! Politics in the Effeminized U.S.A.

 

 

Yesterday morning, I bet wife Rita that the tabloid headlines this week will say, McCAIN SHOCKER!”

 

John McCain, you see, is said to have had an affair with a lobbyist.  Female that is.  Too bad for the media, actually – an affair with a male lobbyist would have been oh, so much more “sexy.”  Excuse, please, while I barf. 

 

Before the rise of feminism, let us not forget (and we have – it’s the politically correct thing to do) tabloid garbage like that would never have become news.  A few weeks ago, it happens, I harkened back hear to a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd entitled "Liberties; Cuddle Us, or Else!"  In her essay, Dowd observed that women have taken over control of the two great male preserves here in the land of the free become the land of the fee, and – I quote the lady - "ruined them."

 

They’ve also taken over the language, and left it in state not unlike the mind and emotions of a woman suffering PMS.  How else would you explain an MSN item today that purports to help women “get over (their) body issues.”  I suppose, what with Katie Couric not long ago having advised her nationwide audience that she was “having issues in bed,” that’s good advise. On the other hand - like the time I watched a female friend in a fit of PMS triggered by something I seem to have said drive her new car through a fence and into a deep ravine - I’m just not sure. 

 

I should think stoppage of “body issues” would not be good.

 

Like Dowd’s description of the Sydney Olympic Games, politics are being “redecorated . . . with silk and velvet and pink light bulbs.  We have draped our leading warrior rituals in yards and yards of chintz.  We have made them so mawkish, so hideously fluffy, so sentimental, kissy and fraught with personal travail, that these gladiatorial contests play more like those old Bette Davis/Joan Crawford weepies.

 

"This used to be guy season,” Dowd observed then concerning the Olympics. “Aggressive, muscular warfare focused on winning and losing, stats, handicapping, training, strategy and impenetrable debates on the modernization of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad.  Now it's girl season, soaking in sentiment, soap opera, romantic walks along the lake, long, deep kisses on stage and guys making Cher-like hair and wardrobe changes.  The pols and TV execs have decided that what women want is to be cuddled."

 

That concerned the Olympics, as I said.  It now includes the campaign for the highest office in our” nation.  A candidate “tears up” and wins a state primary.  God – “she” – forbid that anyone should say anything rational, much less definitive or concrete, concerning matters like national health care and the like.   With the candidate in question now having lost something like ten primaries in a row, only god can know what’s next.  Pickles and ice cream?  Let’s just make sure Hillary isn’t behind the wheel of a car, huh?    

 

Now, what follows here is for guys older than fifty (the age of feminism was the silly sixties, if you recall).  Males reared after that – the time of the “one parent family” that all the ladies knew “needed a man like a fish needs a bicycle” – wouldn’t understand.  Boys reared by women, we’ve now “discovered” with all those wondrous psycho-babbling studies women so dote upon, tend to think and emote like women.  Hence, I suppose anyone remotely rational might infer, the rise of the “metrosexual” male. 

 

It’s girl season, all right.  And the car that is the United States of America has been driven through the fence into a deep ravine.

 

Worse, there are no men left to haul it out and mend the fence.  “Where have all the leaders gone?” Lee Iacocca’s recent book title asked.  Well, Lee, they went to a day-school nursery, because mom – that’s “single parent family” mom – left them there.  She left them there determined that they needed the association of mature males “like a fish needs a bicycle.”  And, now – if I may continue to the dizzying heights of metaphoric altitude – the “chickens have come home to roost.”

 

No roosters, of course. 

 

I have also quoted John Stuart Mill here often.  I choose to do so again – a reminder, if you will.  “A State which dwarfs its men,” the man once called the most intelligent alive said, “in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”

 

Mr. Mill, we are being so taught – umbriaggo!

 

And nowhere, never, do we hear even the slightest indication that feminism regrets its ingratitude for having been given by male muscle, male intellect, and male courage a world whose civilization, industrialization, science, and technology made women’s ascendancy possible in the first place.  We hear not the slightest indication that feminism has had second thoughts about their heist of male authority and prerogatives; nor do we hear any hint of willingness to accept responsibility for the hideous mess they have made with that stolen authority and those arrogated prerogatives.

 

We hear no mea culpas, either, now that all the proverbial chickens hatched by feminists during the sixties have come home to roost.  I refer to the execrable state of our youth – particularly boys, to a spastic educational system largely taken over by its pupils, to a society so castrated and permissive that it cannot control even its youth – to say nothing of its borders, or much of anything else - and to social malady after malady directly attributable to national dearth of cojones.

 

While a Congress and government degraded by females, metrosexuals - yes, even homosexuals - dithers and discusses endlessly and un-decisively, doing absolutely nothing actual, a torrent of criminals and crime pours over the border with Mexico, a tidal wave of cultural and national influence for a nation that is among the most vicious, rapacious, murderous, crime-ridden and corrupt on the planet (but you dare not say things like that because its “mean-spirited,” unkind, and – yes, of course – in the effeminate society, “politically incorrect”).

 

Buffaloed by the a swaggering, posturing, bullying loudmouth president, the House of Representatives effectively de-horned and castrated by the effeminizing presence of seventy-three women and led by a woman talks, talks, talks – and talks some more.  In the U.S. Senate, the situation is much the same (sixteen women) – absent, of course, a Nancy Pelosi. 

 

Anybody who doesn’t see the similarity between the fecklessness of the Congress where a president strutting like a rooster about to mount a hen is concerned and that of school systems incapable of dealing with bullying and disruptive students isn’t paying attention.  A kid who disrupts, even wrecks the classroom, and terrorizes the teacher – even assaults him or her - gets for retribution a trip to the principal’s office and a lecture.   Time after time. 

 

The national record for children mothered while in high school has risen to three, and the record for children fathered by high school students, of course, no one knows.  How’s that for Draconian?

 

All of that, course, has to do with students; teachers – where sexism takes on pre-menstrual rationality and character so bizarre no male not reared and educated by females alone has any hope whatever of comprehension - screwing students are in an entirely new realm of the politically correct.     

 

In the nation’s judiciary, where the similarity between female behavior during natural hormone adjustments and that nation’s courts since the rise of feminism is impossible to miss, the situation is even worse.  By the 1970’s, amid the tidal wave of cultural weirdness begun in the 1960s, the nation went cockamamie, nuts.

 

Of course, you had to have been there to fully appreciate the shear bubble-headed vapidity of it all.

 

Parenthetically, I cite for instance things like a young woman who availing herself of feminist-arrogated statutes that forbade defense questioning concerning such things as the accuser’s past sexual practices and mores, sent four young men to prison for forty years, then told me (two years later during an interview), “maybe they didn’t know it was rape – that’s up to the woman, isn’t it?”

 

You might also to have been male, male and raised by parents both female and male.  Trusting that no one fails to recognize the chaotic state in which our nation is currently found jurisprudentially (not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that innocence was not necessarily a bar to execution), I submit the following for consideration – thought, even (no, not discussion; thought – the two things are not the same):

  

Today, women comprise something like twenty-six percent of the judges on state courts of last resort, nineteen percent federal district court, Twenty percent of federal appellate judges, and eleven percent of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The American Bar Association says there has been a fifteen percent increase in the percentage of women attending law school, besides.  A part of these will become judges.  Even as lawyers, they will affect the cockamamie state of our judiciary.

 

The result?  Well, of late we discover that we have been putting innocent men in the slammer – death row, even – for rape at one hell of a rate.  As I write this, more than a hundred twenty guys have been released from prison – after having served as many as twenty-seven years – for rape the woman and feminists put there, but science and DNA said the victims – the real ones, not the accuser and other females desirous of “closure” - didn’t do.

 

Want to do some numbers (yeah, I know girls don’t do well with rational, “guy stuff,” like that, but what the hell)?  Consider this: There are about ninety-two thousand, five hundred rapes reported each year. If we use the percentage of cases where DNA was decisive, there are at least twenty-three thousand women who have lied to put men in jail (FBI stats say that at least twenty-five percent - and as many as FORTY percent - of men convicted of rape aren't guilty).

 

Ah, well – what the hell?!  If you can kill ten, even twenty babies without fear of the law, what’s a few innocent men sacrificed to the great feminist god Emotion by being locked in the slammer?  A girl needs “closure,” you know  . . .

 

Now, you may not “catch the drift” of things like this, but does anybody remember a chick named Marilyn French's, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are"?  You don’t see the connection?

 

Really?

 

The legal system, folks, affects our lives even more than does the rest of government, and a legal system FUBAR has sociological implications elsewhere, you know. 

 

Think about this (that’s even in the effeminized state in which – if you were born after the fifties – you are surely found):  For centuries before women entered the practice of law, the United States had murder and incarceration rates lower than Canada, Denmark, France, and Portugal, and equivalent to Australia and Germany.

 

Paying attention?  Good!  Since women began entering the practice of law en masse in the 1960s in the US:

 

• Incarceration and illegitimacy rates have quintupled.
• Murder, male suicide, and divorce rates have doubled.
• Twenty thousand unconstitutional gun control laws have been implemented (and with what effect?).
• Every fundamental principle of the US Constitution, except quartering troops in our houses, has been violated.
• In the industrialized world, the US now has the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate, at the same time that it has one of the highest rates of violent crime, at the same time that it resolves a far fewer percent of crime.

 

Here’s another cute little bit of math: For each one percent increase in the percent of female judges there are sixty-one thousand additional men in prison;  three hundred, ninety more murders each year, and two hundred seventy more unresolved murders each year.

 

That’s at the same time, on account of educational system and teacher’s politically mandated inability to establish discipline, our schools have become the chaotic menagerie they are.  What a co-incidence!

 

And – ready? – there are one hundred thousand more female criminals who go unpunished each year (anybody still wondering why Crystal Mangum, who falsely – that’s criminally, people – accused the Duke University Lacrosse players of rape, hasn’t been prosecuted?)!

 

Of course, math – statistics and the like – give most effeminate “Americans” a headache, but if we are to believe feminists and the nation they now hold hostage by means of their relatively new political power – “political correctness,” again - akin to all these phony rape charges, men in the U.S. commit rape roughly seventeen hundred times more often than men in countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Spain, India, Japan, Italian, or France.

 

Do you REALLY think that's likely?  The feminist does, and she says so

 

Then, where the effect of feminism more generally is concerned, there were things like passage of the infamous and infantile Title IX (that’s the nutcase nostrum that forbade “sex discrimination” in schools receiving federal aid.  Worse in the way of PMS rationality was Roe v. Wade, wherein women not only received a power not even nations have without legal and judicial control – that of life or death – they realized their unique power to bend the law to their collective or individual will. 

 

Kind of like the way a woman yelling “rape” can bring everything, not matter what, to a screeching halt, huh?

 

Of course, men had to consent to it all (take away all the “feminist issues” law, “political correctness,” and the civilization built mostly by white males, and mother nature would slam the feminist back into her natural place so fast it would make your head swim).  Need I quote John Stuart Mill again?  I’m reminded of a controversy that erupted a little while ago on an Internet Website, concerning the acceptability of men who cry(!!!)  I don’t cry, I said, and I questioned whether anyone would want to face crisis on a ship or airliner full of crying men.  We live now in a nation of men who fail at almost every conceivable challenge and task.  In Vietnam (and several other places you haven’t been told about), our men, armed with every kind of gee-whiz, Buck Rogers, high tech, blow-it-all-to-hell-and-leave weapon known to man, could not defeat little men two-thirds their size and strength armed with B-40 rocket launchers and small arms like SKSes and AK-47s.

 

Notice, by the way, what while I didn’t utter there even a single syllable that wasn’t truth – and that I only dare do so because there is literally no way for anyone to deliver Don Imus-style, political correct retribution upon me (an example, incidentally, of what it really means to be free) – it is hugely the wrong thing to say today.  Tell me that isn’t an example of a society gone effeminate.  

 

And, oh, yeah, I know our troops didn’t lose even a single battle; but on account of “leadership” already gone to pantyhose character and principles, we didn’t win (hell, just like today, we didn’t even know what the hell “win” meant – what’s more female than that?).  Unless you’re a woman or effeminate – the “metrosexual” male, again – “not winning” means you LOSE!

 

Now, in Iraq, we have another Vietnam, and for all the same idiotic reasons – none more salient than the thunderously obvious fact that a U.S. Congress riddled with pantyhose and pantywaist politicians can’t summon up the cojones and male decisiveness to be kill and destroy the opposition or leave.  That we haven’t the resolution or moral fiber necessary to succeed is mirrored in the fact of an army similarly limited by female “soldiers” in its ranks. 

 

When you don’t want to win bad enough to put your first team on the field, you shouldn’t be surprised when you can’t move the ball, and that has to do both with Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere of late, it has to do with the fact that deciding to stay or leave is essentially an old ladies’ knitting circle argument between a pussy-whipped U.S. Congress, and a limp-wrested pantywaist momma’s boy wimp president.  

 

History will inevitably conclude that when men uninfluenced by women in power fight wars, war is like Hobbes description of life were anarchy to prevail - “… nasty, brutal, and short.”  Where women have the power to exert political,  they are exercises in dithering indecisiveness – even more nasty, even more brutal, and long – very, very long.  Men, in short, fight wars like they go shopping.  So do women.

 

We can’t succeed or leave in Iraq because it isn’t politically correct to do so – we have to wait until we can be sure everyone has gotten his or her way, no one has been offended, and no one has been defeated - “women’s issues,” in other words. 

 

Somebody ask Katie Couric if issues in Congress is anything like those "issues in bed” of hers, will you? 

 

Seventy-one now, I have watched in abject astonishment and frustration as it all happened.  For some reason it seems only upbringing by women can explain, men began to accept the kind of male criminality imagined by women (“All men are rapists, and that is all they are," remember?), a rap sheet of supposed outrages against women as long as his arm, most or all of it in the character of the rape charges that have put hundreds of innocent men in jail or to death.  For reasons that will leave historians shaking their heads in wonder, the male “American” started accepting the emotion-drive, hormonally-warped ravings of the female.

 

When one hormonal female pontificated from the new sedia gestatoria of feminist prerogative, “Women have been largely man-made,” he sucked up the otherwise nugatory nonsense as though it ranked with the wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, and hundreds more the dispassionately male like. 

 

He forgot eternal truths, the acquisition and promulgation of which had been paid for almost entirely with strife and blood.  The strife and blood of men.  Males.  For the approval of his female, men forgot legal doctrines like “testis unus, testis nullus” – one witness, no witness.  They forgot the U.S. Constitution, and what it stands for – most singularly and defiantly where all of human history is concerned, the dignity and value of every human life.  To appease and gain the approval of woman, came even to consent for torture and murder, not just of children, but – why do you find one so easily divorced from the other? – of anyone. 

 

Handed the Biblical apple by Eve, he ate it.

 

“Abortion” and “waterboarding” come from the same roots, you know.  For a Nazi, the death of a Jew was acceptable because the words surrogate in language for the people made it so.  The male needed only a Fuehrer (in German, the feminine would be “Fuehrerin”), or a judge to tell him so (anybody ever read U.S. Supreme Court Justice Taney’s reasoning in the Dred Scoot case (I’ve included it below).  To change the victim from a man like the Nazi German, or from a person to a “fetus” (a matter of age, after all), required only another expression, or word.  The victim’s death was “die Endlosung” – the final solution.  It could just as well have been “die Abtreibung” – the abortion. 

 

In the erstwhile world of male reality, unlike that of the female, words only serve – they do not rule.  Reverence – valuation – for life is like pregnancy.  You either do or you don’t, you are or you aren’t.

 

The “one parent family,” “metrosexual” male forgot a lot of things.  Emulating his parent mentor in the “one parent family” society, he took on the character of his female teachers.  He became, in other words, mentally and spiritually soft, indecisive and effeminate.  Right and wrong melded, into “relative.”  He, and the matter of fact, no nonsense, nation his forefathers had built somehow decided to compromise it all, to “celebrate diversity.”  Everybody was “okay.”  No one should be permitted to fail – or even be challenged.  As women took over the age-old preserves and prerogatives of the male, the nation once dependent upon him for its character went with him and morphed into something resembling Maureen Dowd’s “old Bette Davis-Joan Crawford weepies.”

 

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.  She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it …. And the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from he had been taken.”

 

An old story; but in the words of Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  And that quote, which you should consider carefully, is here:

 

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

 

On May 12, 1879, in the case styled United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person" within the meaning of the habeas corpus act.