Woe unto the state of it all! (A slightly coherent ramble):

Disintegration lowres

Illustration: «Disintegration», A4, 2019, Moiret Allegiere


Quoting George Orwell is easy. More likely than not, it is done to death. As well as being too easy. This ramble could easily begin with a quote from that marvellous prophet, that seer of visions and visitor of the future without there being the slightest doubt about the accuracy of his wisdom or his words. It would tie nicely and neatly into the present, into the absolutely abhorrently absurd state of it all. Because who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

I don’t think there should be any doubt about me being a fan-boy of his, drooling at the feet of his literary output and worshipping at the altar of his steadily increasing pessimism regarding the future, which turned out to be the present.

Our present.

The here-and-now absurdity of our fragmenting layers of forced and superficial inclusivity; this neglectful hallucination of altruism and equality where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. I say neglectful, because neglectful is precisely what it is.

It has been declared by those who control the past and the present that men as a whole are the non-penitent bourgeois; the all-oppressive, non-inclusive tyrants of our day and age. And so, for forced inclusivity, for the flimsy and ever-changing notion of equality, the needs and rights and value of men must be neglected for the altruistic intentions of the inclusivity-brigade, ever and always shining the wonderful spotlight of non-discriminatory measures at the most superficial characteristics they could possibly hope to find; race, sex, sexual orientation. A lack of one and an overabundance of the other here, there, anywhere, must necessarily mean discrimination at play, as all and one are exactly the same in this brave new world we see, spread-eagled before us. And crucified for our convenience, spread-eagled and castrated on the cross, are all semblance of reason, logic and thought.

There are no differences, as differences necessarily mean, to the thoughtless tinkering thinkers of tinkering sociopathic sociology, that one is better than the other. Viewing, through this lens of smoked glass, differences in outcome as institutionalized differences in treatment instead of differences in biology, in brain-chemistry and thusly as differences of interest and of outcome.

Through this way of thinking, more men at the top has to mean discrimination of women. Of course, neglecting the fact – for philosophical convenience and convenience of conviction – that there are more men at the very bottom of society than there ever will be women. This does not fit into the world-view concocted by ideological academics with more hallucinatory and ideological dreamery than fact, truth, sense and reason. And so it can be ignored, or, through stunning mental gymnastics, be portrayed as some fault of men as a class. Because it is all about class in the modern gender-war. This gender-war being naught but a cleverly veiled and highly traditional Marxist class-warfare. It is Marxism with gender thrown in there for good measure, as well as sexual orientation, racial characteristics and so forth and so on – the path of secular feminist intersectionalism slam-dunked and bravely implanted in our brains through thoughtless wishes for absolute equality of outcome. Not of opportunity, but of outcome. Kneel before your goddess-empress, puny mortal untermensch! Kneel, and repent, and do penance for your sins!

Equality ain’t what it used to be, by golly. In my way of thinking, and I should think this is a very reasonable way of thinking, equality simply means equal treatment under the law and on the land and the law of the land. And that is all there is to it.

When all and one are free to chose their path, understanding that their chosen path also comes with other paths being closed due to limits of time and limits of options from time being a limited resource and taking personal responsibility for these choices, that is equal treatment, that is equality, that is all there is to it.

Equal treatment means just that: equal treatment. Slap as much word-dodging and word-salads and re-structuring of language on it as you wish. It does not change that fact. Treating people equally is treating people equally, and understanding that being equal means that people also need to take equal responsibility for their actions; that choosing one path and thusly closing another path is ones own personal responsibility to deal with, and not some nefarious scheme concocted by the fragile hetero-normative patriarchal kyriarchy – or whatever the current year buzzword of choice is. In short; you can not have your cake and eat it too.

Very often, the choices one has to make boils down to this or the other, not this and the other. Every choice one makes has consequences. Big or small does not matter. What matters is that we have to acknowledge this fact – simple as that fact may be. And, in acknowledging this fact, people have to take the responsibilities of the choices they make, not cry foul discrimination whenever something does not go their way for reasons of a previous choice.

Thoughts like these immediately pop into my mind whenever I read, hear or see some nonsense from some gender-studies major or other complaining loudly and incoherently about the lack of women in STEM-fields. If this is such a big concern to you, why then, in the name of the hallowed womb of lackademia and all her incoherent splendour, did you yourself not chose to enter the STEM-fields?

It strikes me as absolute arrogant absurdity; to study some useless and pointless and futile degree, then complain that women are not represented in some other and more useful degree which they themselves could have studied had they just made that choice instead of the other choice. Or had the brains, wits and will to do so.

Grievance studies” is a term for a reason. And that is what this field of study is; perpetual grievance, political platitudes and nonsensical bullshit designed to perpetuate the silly notion that women are victims of their own choices, their own choices being forced by the almighty patriarchy from them being far too frail and weak to think for themselves. Gender studies teaches this, that and the other, giving no agency to women. Simultaneously giving all agency to men, loudly claiming with double-vision and minds spinning from huffing ether all day that men – and only men – are responsible for everything bad. In being responsible for everything bad, men are also the ones responsible for fixing everything bad. By bending the knee and succumbing to the alluring succubus-will of feminism and its ideological cohorts. Both God and the Devil; the saviour and the original sin and sinner. Such a powerful force and divine will is masculinity that men are both the cause of, and solution to, all the problems of the world. Were we only to bend the knee and accept feminism into our hearts and souls, all would be fixed by men and men alone.

And so, for lack of women in STEM fields, we need to shoehorn women into the STEM fields for the perceived diversity this creates. The superficial sight of seeing more women there and having more women there, not for any talent in the field, not for their merit, but for their sex. Of course; substitute sex for race or sexual orientation if you so wish – the sentiment remains the same.

And so, for lack of women in position of leadership, we need to shoehorn women in there so that it looks good for our pre-fabricated and mass-manufactured notions of inclusivity and representation.

Representation and inclusivity is, after all, far more important than talent and merit and the hard work and sacrifice needed to gain these positions of leadership. Because it looks good in a photograph and it looks good on paper.

If there is any inequality of outcome, it must be due to inequality of treatment. And, since it is inequality of treatment, inequality of treatment is needed to fix this. Thus; white men need not apply. Thus; all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And don’t you dare object to this, you manlet-pig, son of a thousand oppressors and defiler of virginal womanhood.

Wanting people to be treated equally, regardless of their sex, race or sexual orientation is contrary to the tenets of holy feminism, whose church is so profound as to have found the way around this silly notion of equal treatment by treating women far better than men and labelling it equality.

Any objection then, is of course painted in the gobsmacking and sacrilegious light of men just being scared of powerful women, or afraid of losing their privilege or some-such nonsense. This is because feminism acts on dishonesty when it does not flat-out lie. And it acts on lies when it is not flat-out dishonest. And round and round it goes, where it stops, no-one knows.

Men and women are completely equal in every aspect. Excepting where women are better than men. And you have to remember this bucko, wielder as you are of the double-edged sword of male privilege. It is absolutely confusing; biological sex becomes an established fact whenever women can be found to be better than men at something. Sex becomes nothing but a social construct whenever men can be found to be better than women at something. It is almost as though it is a matter of convenience, not a matter of being factual.

See, I have no doubts that women are able to do all that men can do. And vice versa. Excepting, obviously, childbirth, production of sperm and so forth and so on, these biological factors that somehow seems to elude the elucidated hordes of the feminist hive-mind whenever it suits their needs.

Biological factors like bone density and muscle-mass should also play a part in explaining the overabundance of men in professions such as police and firefighters and so and such. You know, where physical strength and endurance is an absolute necessity.

Being the stout-hearted saviours that they are, feminism remedied this by lowering the physical tests and standards needed in these professions so that more women should be let in, despite women being just as capable as men and thusly capable of competing for the job in just the same way that men do.


Women are just as capable of men, so we need quotas, affirmative action and lowered standards for them to compete on equal footing with men. This is equality on the rocky road towards insanity. Or insanity painted in the colours of equality.

When all else fails, cry discrimination.

…and the girl cried wolf…

For the sake of clarity, since the feminist hordes struggle with cancer of the reason, and as such are not able to read or hear anything without crying flaccid discrimination and insinuating that I have a tiny dick: I do not object to women in leadership. Nor do I object to women as firefighters or police-officers. I don’t even have a tiny dick. I do, however, have a big nose and a receding hairline.

But I digress.

I don’t object to women in any profession. And there are not many that do object to this, despite what the vitriolic forces of feminism claim. I am absolutely objecting to treating people unequally and claiming that this is equality. I am objecting to lowering the standards so that women should gain easier access, when these standards are there for a reason. I am objecting to the feminist notion that women can not compete for a position on equal footing with men; winning a position for merit and not for sex and gender. And I am objecting to the notion that all bad in the life of a woman is due to men as a whole.

Whenever feminist women meet some critique or other, the reply given is ever and always that it is only because she is a woman. It has nothing to do with her opinion or her toxic sludge presented as a personality.

No, no, no – it is only because of her sanctified vagina and her golden womb. What a nice cop-out. What an easy way to not having to respond to criticism. Cry harassment and neck-beard misogyny from the demonic small-dicked basement-dwellers being scared of powerful women with opinions and what-not.

This strange and peculiar notion that women are victims of their own choices show up time and again, not buried beneath some old layers of feminist academia, but right out there in the open for all to see. Women should never have to face the consequences of their own actions, as seen most exemplary in what happens when a woman gets drunk and fucks a man who is also drunk. He is painted as a rapist. She is a victim of rape. Despite both being drunk. And this is incredibly strange.

One would think that women should be treated as adult human beings, and then – when they make poor decisions in a drunken state of drunkenness – they should be held to the same level of accountability as the man who made a poor decision in a drunken state of drunkenness.

She is, for some strange reason, painted as a victim. Whereas he is not.

Men are actors, women are acted upon.

Sounds like objectification to me.

But what the hell do I know?

Must be my neckbeard creeping into my brainstem again.

This is just keeping in line with the radical feminist notion that sex is something men do to women, something women have no control over excepting being victims of his brute primal sexuality. Exemplified through the old saying that “He got her pregnant.” She did not get pregnant. She did not participate in the act. He got her pregnant. He bears the brunt of the responsibility of the pregnancy and all that led up to it. Oddly gender-traditional, is it not?

Women have no agency of their own, then, and particularly not when drinking alcohol. Alcohol is the ointment used to remove responsibility. From women. Not from men. Then, it stands to reason that women should not be allowed to drink alcohol, if they lose all responsibility for their actions when they drink alcohol.

Sounds harsh, no?

This is the inevitable conclusion of the flimsy and faulty logic of feminism when followed to its end result. Women are children, incapable of taking responsibility for their choices and their behaviour. And so, they must be protected and tended to as if they were children. This means, of course, keeping them away from alcohol, giving them a curfew and making sure that they are safely and securely tucked away in their beds round and about eleven at night. Also never letting them go anywhere without a chaperon, so as to make sure that their honour is not spoiled and besmirched by horrible, predatory men luring them into alluring nights of sullen ecstasy. Because women – to the eyes and minds of feminism – are weak of will, and easily ensnared by the webs of men.

Traditionalism is the progression of feminist ideals, don’t you know, buddy-boy!

Now, come over here and protect this woman from the lurkers in the basements and the shadows.

Do your part in protecting women from their own choices!

Do not treat women like children if you expect them to be treated like adults. Do not expect not to face any consequences for your actions, choices and so forth and so on. Do not push the burden of responsibility for drunken one-night-stands straight into the lap of the male; proclaiming virtue and fragility and virtuous fragility for lack of your own responsibility for your own actions. Do not use the morning-after regret of drunken sex to lay accusations of rape in his lap and on his drained testicles.

Equal treatment means just that; that your drunken actions are just as much your own actions as his drunken actions are his own. Your actions are not his responsibility. Being drunk does not suddenly absolve you of responsibility.

Of course, not having stupid god-damned drunken one-night stands in the first place is probably a good idea.

But that would be slut-shaming, would it not?

Even when I think this applies to men as well.

They would have no standards, were it not for their double-standards.

So, which is it?

A) Sex between two drunk people is rape of the woman, as she can not consent (even when he can).

B) Women are free to have sex with whomever, whenever they want without having to face any social ramifications for it. Despite how drunk she is.

You can not have it both ways, ladies.

Also, out of curiosity: if two women get drunk and have sex, who is the victim and who is the victimizer? Do you judge this by haircut or something? The one who is the most butch is the one who is the rapist? Or does that simply not matter, since women can never be rapists from lack of personal agency brought forth and laid upon their golden tranquil crown of princess-like unreasonable nonsense by the likes and trembling hands of feminist victim-hood?

Don the crown fantastic!

Carry the golden apple of illusionary feminist pussy-pass transcendence!

Bah, humbug! These people should be punished for their imbecility in the harshest way I can possibly imagine. They should be forced to wear wet socks lined with Lego-bricks for an entire week.

Alas that there should be such power in female victimhood that it can be easily weaponized by some women who do not wish to shoulder the responsibility of their actions.

Alas that these evil days should be mine!

When treating men and women equally; viewing them in the same light, not the bewitching spotlight of women are wonderful, it becomes very clear that women and men are just as capable. Women can do everything men can.

This also includes violence.

It also includes rape.

It also includes toxic behaviour.

It also includes child-abuse.

It also includes domestic violence.

It also includes lying.

It also includes having to take the responsibility for their actions.

Women are capable of anything men are capable of. Even the bad. Somehow, this is not considered in the shining and shimmering spotlight of equality, as all negative behaviour is considered to be masculine and all positive behaviour is considered to be feminine. Transcendently odd, I think and ponder, since gender does not matter.

When gender does not matter, and when things should not be gendered, it makes little sense for the forces proclaiming gender does not matter to gender behaviour.

To categorically label all toxic behaviour as inherently masculine and all compassionate behaviour as inherently feminine.

Both are capable of good and both are capable of bad. This is the view of men and women as equals; as being on equal footing: that both are capable of good and both are capable of evil.

That neither gender is better or worse than the other.

We happen to have different strengths and different weaknesses. Neither bad nor good, just a state of being.

The violence that men do tend to be more physical, more primal, more immediately obvious. The violence that women do tend to be more psychological, more covert, more shaded by layers of self-doubt created in their victims. Women also tend towards violence by proxy, be that by the state or by the simpering white knights, ever and always ready to step in and save m’lady from the man insulting her honour, never-minding whatever events my have preceded it.

Boys have grown up being told that they should never hit a girl. Never. Under any circumstances. They may hit other boys, though, and face far less repercussions for this.

Girls are not told they should not hit boys. And so, when they do, they hardly face consequences for this. When they are children or when they are grown-up.

Now, what does this tell us?

…violence is the domain of men, after all, and so – when a woman is violent towards a man, he must have done something. That is the view we are presented, and will be for a long while if people don’t start listening to fact, truth and reason.

Victim-blaming is, as are all things, no problem at all as long as it comes from feminism and is directed at someone feminism considers incapable of being a victim, and someone they consider incapable of victimizing someone else.

This moronic view of things; this way of looking at equality is nonsensical. In viewing men and women as equals and as such as equally capable, one must also admit to both sexes capability for violence and toxicity, for making bad decisions and then face up to the consequences of these bad decisions. One can not claim that only men do bad and women only do good, and label this as equal treatment, as viewing the genders in an equal light.

It is obviously faulty.

You don’t even need to scrutinize it.

Men act.

Women act.

Both act.

One should not be given excuses for their actions.

Nor should the other.

 – Please like, share and subscribe

 – Moiret Allegiere, 18.05.2019


Visit my blog:


Check out my youtubechannel:


Check out my bitchutechannel:


Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):









Legg att eit svar

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com logo

Du kommenterer no med WordPress.com-kontoen din. Logg ut /  Endre )

Google photo

Du kommenterer no med Google-kontoen din. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer no med Twitter-kontoen din. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer no med Facebook-kontoen din. Logg ut /  Endre )

Koplar til %s