Sunday, May 29, 2011

Sunday Post

Just some quick words on a nice Sunday afternoon.

North Korea frees a captive American because it wants something.

Sarah Palin has the power of the Matrix. Or something.

Problems at the (Oval) Office.

Watch this:

Are these the starving masses Mr. Ryan was referring to?

It should be noted that when I typed in the search words, "Palestinian shopping mall images", I got quite a few results for Palestinian atrocities committed against Israelis in shopping malls.

(hat tips)

I want to post here a comment I made there:

This idea belongs in the trash bin along with the other things modern feminists thought was a good idea but was really just a way to coddle their sense of selfishness (birth control, abortion, affirmative action, ect).

Which leads me to this: modern feminism, the ugly step-sister of liberalism, is just a form of mental illness. Modern feminists, childless, white, bitter and clueless, hate biology (and perhaps themselves), nor do they understand it. The female of the species is geared toward reproduction. There is nothing whatsoever subjective about it. That's life. Deal with it. Wrap your head around it. Let it soak in. It fries feminists that women have children, or at least other women except them have children.

Why does it bother feminists that women have children? They can deny that all they want but everyone knows the truth. Well-adjusted people who have made conscious decisions about the course of their lives don't need validation for them. Why the incessant need for high-fives from people who have also thrown away their nubile years? Because they need to hear from others that they haven't wasted their lives.

So instead of doing something worthwhile, modern feminists (RE: bitter, white, childless) greedily demand more and more privileges in regions where women already have the basic franchises of citizenry as opposed to campaigning for rights in less open countries like Saudi Arabia. It's easier to be a nag in the Christian West than a firebrand in the Middle East.

If you want to engage these time-wasters, have them first roll up their sleeves and scrub the floors of a hospital in the Third World or hold up a sign outside an Iranian consulate. You know, something practical and selfless. Such things would be beneath them but at least it would tire them out so that they wouldn't blather on.

Or at least cut off the string of these Chatty Cathy dolls.

Yes, I DO say a lot.



Anonymous said...

"Why does it bother feminists that women have children?"

They need an excuse for their state of affairs for when asked why they aren't as successful as their male, or even their first era feminist, counter parts. This is also why they have such resentment towards women who have successful, powerful careers and have children. (how many states have you been governor of?)

This is why the early feminists who were actually fighting for women's rights (like to vote, own property, etc) were all against abortion. They believed it not only to be a crime against humanity, but an implication that a woman was incapable of doing what men do, which is be a parent and successful.

~Your Brother~

Anonymous said...

As a short rider to that, I looked at the "interesting" link ytou ended with and I had a few things to add.

The author touched lightly on the subject that some people try to label themselves one way to give an impression of themselves, which is inccorect. Such as calling themselves "skeptics." Why stop there?

Too many people let others get away with using terms or definitions that are incorrect. Such as "Darwinists." That just gives the (false) impression that the development of evolutionary sciences is indebted to Darwin, despite the first page of his book admitting this was all based on the works of earlier men, and Darwin's own (often racists) theories being debunked. Calling them "Darwinists" bastardises history and enables them turning him into their god.

Then there are those who define atheists as one who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual who uses the scientific method. This is the definition of a scientist, not an atheist, and they most certainly are not the same.

Controlling the language is a way of controlling thought. Don't leave any method used by these people unaddressed.

~Your Brother~

Bradly Jones said...

i totally agree. No need to be with people that will only bring you down. rather, you should be with people that can lift you up.

call Bangladesh

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Indeed, Bradly Jones.

Resentment sums up a lot of things.

I think people rename certain things to take the curse off of other things.