Yet Another Shooting, and Yet we Miss the Mark:

Male poetry reading 2019 lowres

Illustration: «Group of men reading poetry, 2019», Moiret allegiere

My original intent during my writing session this morning and afternoon was doing a short – or long and rambling, as these things tend to become – piece on hobbies. That is – the importance of hobbies and how they correspond to male health and emotional well-being.

Waking up far too early after yet another night of restless sleep due to severe pain coursing through my entire body combined with this foggy head-space that always follow whenever my symptoms flare up like mad hissing snakes, however, I find the prospect of doing a piece on that terribly difficult. Not so much because of my scatter-brained state of being at the moment, but because there are more pressing matters to attend to. Which just so happen to be both more difficult to write about as well as more pressing. Which is funny, in a slightly sardonic way, I suppose. As the assumption must be that the hobby-thing which I thought of writing about is far easier to tackle with this failing and ailing body and psyche of mine than is the topic I chose. Who can fathom the mind of a bearded bard? No-one. Not even the bearded bard himself.

In order to explain; this topic is more pressing – more pressing at my subconscious – a sensation of strange pressure at the base of my skull – nerves pinched and writhing in agony and soulful despair – something that needs some form of immediate release. Because things I mull over and think about tend to manifest themselves in weird and peculiar ways in my muscles, tendons, bones and joints. Some strange materialisation of the psyche. Psychosomatic illness; pain and death and despair, mind and body working in perfect asymmetrical harmony. Or disharmony.

Did I not know any better, I would say that this culture of ours is making me ill. It is far more complex than that, of course. But it sure as hell ain’t helping.

It was not a good morning to wake up too, nor was it a good world to wake up too.

Usually, I don’t write on relatively recent events. There is a sense of urgency in doing so which does not pair well with my own tendency for long, slow and deliberate thought on a topic – any topic. This is not to say that I consider myself to be stupid.

In all honesty, I do not and I am not.

In order to be even more self-deprecating: I am probably smarter than you believe that I am, yet not as smart as I myself believe that I am. Make of that what you will. I find poking fun at myself makes life more bearable. Something which would translate well to society at large, seeing how everyone and their mums take themselves way to fucking serious, which brings the point to a boil: we have no more room for humour as release or as a point of healing. Because everything is offensive to someone, and no-one can laugh at themselves any more, or at anything else for that matter. Because someone will take offence. Leaving one avenue for self-expression and healing completely closed for everyone.

I tend to prefer looking at – or attempting to look at – the big picture, the grander topics, the greater ideas and so forth and so on, not singular events, happenings or articles. With a few exceptions, for sure.

In order to combat my own insecurities, whichever they may be, I want to be sure that I can defend both morally and factually whatever statements I make. Hence, the long, slow and deliberate thinking I do. Chalk that up to neurosis, if you so wish. I will admit my various insecurities to be plentiful, albeit in a steady decline since I finally began working through them and move onwards with this steady shuffle of mine towards healing.

Which includes self-deprecating humour which somehow people tend to take more seriously than they should. I find that the more serious a topic, the more release is found the moment someone cracks a joke. And an illness causing constant, widespread and chronic pain as well as fatigue is really god-damned serious. Which makes it perfectly reasonable to find release through humour instead of being bogged down with frustration, resentment and anger.

Granted – when this is posted, the topic at hand will no longer be considered recent events in the split-second memories our mass media and social media have brought down upon us. It might as well have been last years news. Or last decade.

…Whatever.

But, Moiret, why this long tangent on humour and release and healing and other metaphysical conundrums of the human soul and condition?

Well, now, my friends, come closer to the fire and I will tell you why: Men, by and large, are the ones telling “offensive” jokes at subjects that are supposedly not to be joked about. And women, by and large, are the ones being offended by these jokes. This goes yet again to show that men and the way men attempt to heal and lighten or brighten the day or the mood are not understood. Instead of attempting to understand humour and the reason for morbid humour, it is painted as men not having empathy and not showing proper behaviour in light of a tragedy. Shame, again, is the point. This removes yet another avenue for men to heal, as we can no longer crack jokes for fear of shame and ridicule from the whamens. Causing build-up of internal pressure that finds no release, for all our ways of release are deemed verboten and in bad taste. Despite being quite the opposite, were only these troglodytes able to understand humour, the reason for humour and the one simple fact that I was told once by someone who worked in a late-stage terminal disease ward; that being that there were nowhere and no-one he had ever been or ever met who had such a grim and morbid sense of humour as those who were months or weeks away from death. It eases and it releases. Humour is far more, and goes far deeper, than merely laughter for the sake of laughter.

This lack of humour, or that is to say: the offence taken at all manner of humour and – by extension – the masculine path to healing brings me to that which is pressing on my subconscious mind; the recent mass-shootings in the USA. If that is not made obvious by now. That is to say – not so much the recent shootings. They are severe tragedies, as are all things of this nature. I, for one, don’t give a flying fuck about what politics brought this into being on part of the shooters.

I don’t care whichever ideology or unnecessary, old-fashioned and outdated side on the left/right political axis they claimed allegiance to. I think it would be safe to say that people who commit such terrible crimes are damaged beyond repair no matter which self-splitting and soul-leeching ideology they subscribe to. It is not necessarily the recent shootings that bother me, as it is that these types of shootings happen at all. Seems to be so commonplace now. Though, this might just be because news travel faster now, and are more sensationalised than ever they were before.

The sensationalism following in the wake of these absolute tragedies always drag with it in its current the usual political pundits and leeches trying to score quick and easy partisan political points on the corpses of those that died before they are even cold. They bathe in the blood of the victims and they feast on their flesh like the vicious cannibals that they are.

And here I am.

Writing on it myself.

I don’t know whether this makes me a hypocrite of the highest order or not. Probably, it does. What I will say in my defence in regards to this is simple: I have no interest in pointing fingers at any political party or any politician. Our western societies are divided enough as it is. And the rank stupidity exhibited on both sides of the great political divide is enough to make me vomit bloody chunks of cancerous sickness.

What sickens me most is of course the usual mass media purveyors of fake news and dubious reporting. This may be bias on my part. I suspect, however, that it has more to do with their reach as compared to those that are not of the mass media persuasion than any bias on my part. Though, I have no problem with admitting that the bias is there.

The so-called reporting I have seen on these tragedies have not been journalism as much as it has been opinion-pieces pointing fingers here, there and everywhere.

…Well, not here, there and everywhere in regards to the mass media pundits. They spew their usual trite and predictable trash, blaming toxic masculinity, blaming men, blaming white men in particular, blaming Donald Trump, blaming the fluent and gaseous, ever-changing, never-static and poorly defined “far right” – their enemy of choice; the Emmanuel Goldstein of their world and their warped and wretched minds that seems to have barely survived a failed coat-hanger abortion.

There is little use, to my eyes, in pointing fingers at this one thing over here as opposed to this other thing over here to try and explain these horrible happenings in the simplest way possible.

Because the partisan political ploy and play on display is far too simple and far too easy, far too emblematic of the great chasm that suddenly appeared in the midst of our societies – that is, the entirety of western civilization. Though this split – this far too obvious and far too ideological split – seem to be greater and more dangerous in North America, it is something that has spread, and continues to spread, all over the west.

These are dangerous times we live in. Not only in regards to violence, but in regards to unthinking stupidity, in regards to immediate knee-jerk reactions from everywhere and everyone. It is one thing for some random person on the vast cesspit of social media to spew some uninformed garbage in regards to things of this nature. It is quite another for so-called journalists who are supposed to hold some manner of journalistic integrity to do the same. This goes for politicians as well. Using tragedies such as these – standing on the corpses of the victims in a blatant attempt to harvest votes and boost ones own popularity – ought to be career suicide. Yet, they keep doing it. And people keep celebrating it. Never once seeing beyond their own ideological idealization of the whatever or the whichever, and never once understanding – or attempting to understand – a broader picture than “men are prone to violence because they are men”. Neglecting the fact that the pain of men is taboo (shameless plug: check out Tom Golden of menaregood.com and his books on male healing for more on this), and that the path men tend to take towards healing is not understood as anything but the wrong path for not being the same path that women tend to take, leaving little cultural acceptance for both the pain of men and the ways men tend to heal.

And I sit here now. Attempting to write on it. Tom Russell filling the room with melancholy tunes from the fantastic “Blood and Candle Smoke” album. Trying to sort out my own thoughts on the matter, as this impacted me far more than I believed that it would when the first reports started trickling in.

It is Wednesday, the seventh of August at the time of writing. This will – most likely – be published a week from now, when all the gun smoke has cleared up and the corpses gone cold. The memory will still linger in some corners of the web, and the sense we attempt to make of tragedies of this nature will be no closer to any semblance of sense. Because it is, in one word, senseless.

My sneaking suspicion – prediction, if you will – is that it will be mostly forgotten, replaced by some new outrage or sensationalised tragedy. The happenings, that is. The rhetoric from all who chose to use it as some quick political weapon will not be forgotten, nor will it be subdued.

Please note that I do not consider possibly fruit-bearing discussions on the possible causes and solutions of and to things of this nature to be quick political potshots.

There is a difference, I think, in pointing fingers of blame hastily at whatever or whomever is in stark opposition to ones own political beliefs and in attempting to find a root cause.

That is to say: there is a difference in stating as absolute fact that this is caused by some defect in men as a group, and in saying that there is something wrong with how our societies treat men that cause them to lash out in a manner such as this – what might that be?

For example.

For there is absolutely no reason in denying or refusing to admit that it is mainly men – and mainly young men at that – who commit such vile acts. That would not be factual. Nor would it be helpful to any cause I wish to champion. Or at the very least spread awareness about.

There is, however, reason to deny the statements made that there is something wrong with men as a whole that cause this. For the very simple reason that men are not defective – being a man is not some biological or cultural defect. There is nothing wrong with masculinity as masculinity is. And there is nothing wrong with men as men are.

There is also reason to deny that it is mainly white men doing this. Because that is not factual either.

But my main gripe, my focus is not on ethnicity, not on matters of race or skin colour or creed or race relations or what-have-you. That is reserved for those who claim to abhor racism, yet do little but encourage hatred and division along lines of skin-pigmentation. And so I am careful when mentioning these factors, as I know very little about them. In particular in regards to North America.

I don’t think there are any easy explanations or simple solutions to these problems. Tragedies such as these will happen and they will keep happening. This is just a sad fact of life – people snap. People reach their breaking point, and they snap. This is something we will never get rid off. I believe, however, that we – as a society – would be able to reduce the amount of such tragedies in a not insignificant way. With solutions that are not simple. Yet would, I hope, be helpful and bear fruit were they to be implemented.

And I have, actually, a few propositions. I admit – willingly – that this is speculation on my part. It seems very obvious to me, though.

I would also like to state that these are based on thoughts, beliefs and values that permeate the structure of my philosophy and my life, and as such are not something that popped up in my mind as immediate responses to these tragedies. This is important for me to mention, as I spent the previous 1600 or so words attacking knee-jerk reactions and quick-and-easy political potshots to these tragedies. I am fully convinced that these propositions of mine would make for better societies overall, not only in regards to extremes such as these.

These are of course not my thoughts and opinions alone; I have a lot to thank the voices, thoughts and work of the likes of Tom Golden, Paul Elam, Janice Fiamengo, the Honey Badger Brigade, Warren Farrel, Erin Pizzey, as well as a multitude of other voices that dare defy the cultural norm and narrative of this day and age. Credit needs to be given where credit is due, and I have a lot to credit these incredible people and their incredible work for.

What sticks out the most to me is that our societies have to acknowledge and understand that the empathy-gap exist. That is: that men are met with far less empathy and understanding than women are, which I think goes a long way in explaining why young men blow up in such a spectacular manner.

These young men are – more often than not – men who have met nothing but hostility and a lack of understanding in this ripped-apart world of ours. From home-life to school to work. They are, as is my understanding, deeply damaged, neglected and ignored men. And damaged people damage people. Or they damage themselves. Or they do both – going out in a blaze of fucking glory and bloodshed, taking as many people with them as they fall as they can.

I would think it bloody obvious that people who snap like this are not well. Mentally healthy people don’t do things like this.

After a tragedy such as this, there is – rightfully – little compassion shown the perpetrators. In my way of thinking, however, showing compassion, empathy and understanding for their troubles before they reached the breaking point would go a long way in defusing the bomb, as it were.

It would behove us, then, as a civilization to not celebrate a cultural zeitgeist that do nothing but paint men and masculinity as inherently defective, that do nothing but place the burden of blame for everything wrong in our ramshackle societies on the shoulders of young men, that do nothing but tell them when they attempt to heal that their way of healing and coping and dealing is wrong. It does not do anyone well having to live with the sword of Damocles hanging over them; to live with the claim that the original sin of masculinity dangles there on a piece of flimsy string, ready to force them to break and snap and kill, maim and mutilate and rape.

When men – be that individual men, or the broader men’s rights movement – speak on issues affecting them as individuals, or men as a group, our societies would do well to listen instead of demonize and smear, instead of shutting down conferences and writing article after article filled with lies about the wickedness of this loosely knit movement.

It is often stated that men need to be more in tune with their emotions – that men need to speak about their emotions more. This presupposes firstly that there are people willing to listen, which is seldom the case. Secondly, it presupposes that men and women deal with their emotions in the same way. Which we do not. It also presumes that men do not understand their own emotions. Which we bloody well do.

There are differences in how men and women deal with difficult emotions, and men are drawn more towards action or solitude than are women.

This can not be stated enough.

Assuming, given this, that men would be cured if only they spoke about their emotions as women do are built around the presupposition that the feminine way is the correct way, and that the masculine way is the wrong way. Once again stating – in so many words – that boys and men are, really, only defective girls and women. Men have an incredible ability to be together in silence – doing something together, yet enjoying silence and merely being in the presence of a good and trusted friend. Men face their enemies and stand shoulder to shoulder with their friends, as the saying goes. The way our civilization has managed to dismantle and destroy any male-only spaces (yet keeping female-only spaces) has removed this one very simple act of healing through action or through silence.

Just the knowledge that this friend with whom one is doing whatever – even if it is just building something together, fixing something, fishing, whatever – is one to be trusted, one who has ones back, goes a long way in making a man feel safe and secure in the knowledge that he is understood.

And when demanding that women be let into what was formerly male-only spaces, thusly removing – under the preposterous pretence of gender discrimination – male only spaces, this male bonding and subsequent healing disappear. Giving rise to ever more broken men who truly have no path to tread in a society in which they are told that all that they do are wrong.

We inhabit societies which have created an entire generation of disillusioned and disenfranchised young men for whom traditional societal expectations have not changed in the least.

This despite the claim that gender-norms have been torn down for all. This claim is simply not true.

It can be as simple as men still being expected to not only make the first move in regards to a date, but also be expected to pay for a date. Or it can be as difficult as men still being expected to sacrifice themselves and their lives to save other people. This is something mainly men do. Just as it is mainly men perpetrating mass shootings. Yet these sacrifices made by men are never mentioned, never celebrated as the grand virtue of masculinity that it is. And make no mistake – I believe that this is a biological trait in men. Re-enforced by culture, for sure, yet encoded in our biological make-up and as such nothing that will ever be done completely away with.

Whenever men do anything bad, it is put up everywhere as men doing something bad. The dominating words then being men and bad, creating a clear link between these two words. This happens despite the good actions of men far outweighing the bad actions of men.

I would think it about time that our cultures began celebrating not only women but also men. There is absolutely no justifiable reason behind labelling it equal treatment when one sex is placed on a pedestal, built up and aided at the detriment, bullying and shaming of the other sex. Equal treatment would mean actually that – equal treatment. Either both sexes get built up, or neither do. Either both sexes still have traditional expectations enforced by culture, or neither do.

To be clear: I see absolutely nothing wrong in celebrating the contributions or importance of women for society as a whole. What is wrong is the lack of celebration of the contributions and importance of men for society as a whole. It is this constant buzz, this constant wretched you go girl nonsense no matter how small and insignificant a contribution any woman may have made.

I remember an article celebrating a female electrician for the simple fact that she was a female and an electrician. Women, then, are to be celebrated merely for doing their job. And yet, men, who are the ones by and large doing all the dangerous work, all the backbreaking labour, who sacrifice and sacrifice all the time, are not celebrated. They are demonized by the very same forces that celebrate a woman for nothing but doing a job that men do all the time.

Young men and boys live in a confusing culture. For it claims one thing – the eradication of gender-norms and traditions – whilst showing, quite clearly, that the traditional expectations are still there where they are concerned. And then the men are blamed and shamed for these traditional expectations as though they are at fault for them being there. Even when it is women – by and large – that expect men to pay for dates, to make the first move, to initiate the whole she-bang.

Claiming that both sexes are treated equal, whilst doing nothing in regards to treating the sexes equally does not make for anything but confusion. This double-standard is clear as the dawn where violence and rape and sexual assault and so forth and so on are concerned as well.

Women and men are the same and can do the same thing is the message delivered all the god-damned time.

This message makes an exception where violence, sexual assault and rape are concerned, however. For that is still the domain of men and men only. To such an extent that men who have suffered violence, rape, sexual assault and so forth at the hands of a woman are not believed, are met with ridicule and laughter and hollow mockery, and are victim-blamed into silence. Only for these same forces to then complain that men don’t talk about their emotions. And then, when this is brought up, the blame is yet again laid at the feet of men. For is it not the ideology of masculinity that has made it impossible for men to speak openly about things of this nature? That is the claim. Despite the fact that feminism does nothing but ruin the spaces where men speak about things like this, and then bitch and moan and shut down the voices of men who dare speak on things of this nature. Catch-22 and the circular logic of feminism as well as the societies surrounding us.

…For this is obviously driven by the culture we inhabit. And the culture we inhabit have listened nothing to men’s advocates where this is concerned. Quite the opposite. Yet, the blame falls on men whenever these topics are brought up, which is odd considering that it is feminist lobbying that brought these double-standards into dubious and neglectful policy in the first place. We just conveniently chose to forget that fact, I suppose.

The point being – men need to be listened to when we speak, the problems of boys and men are not that they are boys and men. It is that we live within a society which do nothing but smear and scorn and shun and ridicule and blame men and masculinity for being nothing but men, for being nothing but masculine. As though the mere trait of masculinity, the mere existence of a man as a man is enough to bring doomsday upon his fractured head and torn shoulders, breaking from the weight of the world.

There is also the issue with fatherless homes to consider. Boys who grow up without fathers do not do well in life. Girls who grow up without fathers tend to do better, but still do worse than girls who grow up with fathers in the home. Fathers are important. I am not interested here and now in placing any blame at the mother or the father for the absence of the father. It is not as easy as placing blame here or there. Because the blame is seldom here nor there on a societal level. On an individual level, it most assuredly can be. That would be another ramble, another long-winded and depressive affair that surely need to be explored. But this is long enough, and going of on yet another tangent would not do anyone any service. My view-count is low enough as it is – ha ha.

Suffice it to say: fathers need to be in the lives of their children. Children need their fathers to be in their lives. Particularly young boys. For stable, good, loving masculine role-models are of immense importance to them.

And to girls.

This is not something new. This is not some wicked scheme of the patriarchy to downplay the role and importance of the mother. Or, for that matter, force women to be mothers. Whatever the hell that means. This is the pure and unfiltered truth. And our societies… their celebrations of single motherhood have got to stop. There needs to be a celebration of both parents, a re-implementation of the family unit, of understanding the importance of a whole and functional family. Not necessarily in any traditional sense, as I have come to understand it.

Just the simple fact that both parents need to be present for the good of the child, be that child a boy or a girl. Even if these statements will bring hate and fury, rage and ruin upon my insomniac head and crippled ass from scores of single mothers feeling slighted and attacked for me daring to state that fathers are just as necessary and important in the life of a child as are mothers. There is genuinely something deeply wrong with a culture that celebrates the absence of one parent, that only celebrate the achievements and acknowledges the importance of one parent. That neglects the importance of the masculine and over-amplifies to the point of tonal distortion the importance of the feminine. This has gone to such an extent that we now have people lobbying to change father’s day to “Special Persons Day”, because – they claim as the reason – some children don’t have fathers. Some children don’t have mothers either, but no-one is lobbying to remove mother’s day, for some strange reason. For, you know, single fathers do also exist. Even if it is rare. And this is rare because of the biased nature of family courts, which holds as the golden standard of parenting the mother, no matter who is the best parent in any individual relationship. Of course, despite feminist lobbying to not have 50/50 as the default custody, this is also blamed on the patriarchy and therefore by extension men. If this does not tell us something about how our cultures view fatherhood, nothing will. It does not matter how small or big the movement lobbying for the removal of father’s day is. It is bad enough that it not only exist, but are given media attention.

Despite what one would probably be led to believe, considering the overarching theme of my writings – I do not place the blame on this solely on feminism. Though I do consider feminism to play a major part in it, and though I consider feminism to be a global fraud and sham, a blight on this earth and a foul and horrible den of hypocrites, double-standard aficionados and control-freaks that will eventually cause the collapse of our civilizations by crafting and crafting again, this narrative, by spinning and spinning again, yarns that do nothing but exaggerate and amplify a manufactured and nonsensical gender-war that does nothing but create rifts and lack of co-operation and understanding where there should be co-operation and understanding between the sexes – there is far more at play in this than that of their forces and their forces alone.

We also have gynocentrism to contend with, we have the biological impulse in men to protect women, we have the – from what I understand – biological bias exhibited in women’s greater in-group preference as opposed to men’s greater out-group preference where the sexes are concerned. Meaning that both men and women will rather look out for the interests and well-beings of women as a group than men as a group. Then there are trad-cons and white knights and the blue pill and the whole buckaroo banzai, the whole fucking thing. There are more forces at play than feminism, and feminism exploits all these other forces, being little more than trad-cons in alluring disguise. It is, as are all things, more complex than it is not. And as much as I would like it to be as simple as pointing a finger of blame at feminism and nothing but that, it really ain’t. I have a bone or two to pick with feminism, for sure. And I tend to focus on it. This does not mean that I am not aware of the other forces at play, making the coinci-dance of society such a difficult fox-trot that I always end up stepping on my own nose when trying to learn the moves.

I must also make it perfectly clear that I do not absolve the young men who go on these shooting sprees of any guilt. The responsibility of their heinous actions fall flat on their shoulders, and so they must also suffer the consequences of these actions. It is a far greater problem than men = bad, is what I am getting at. Obvious to anyone but those who have decided that men = bad, I suppose.

In order to combat mass shootings – in order to do something to reduce the risks for these tragedies to happen – we need to show more understanding and compassion and empathy towards men and boys and what they go through. We need to understand – on a grand scale – that men and boys are not so privileged as we have been led to believe. We have got to stop bombarding boys and men with messages of their inherent wickedness. And we need to stop telling girls and women that they can do no wrong, whatever they do. For – as it stands – any action done by a woman is empowering in some way or other, even if that entails nothing but doing her fucking job. Either, we start celebrating and building up boys and men in the same way we do girls and women, or we celebrate and build up neither. As the world is now, boys and men get all the hatred, all the shaming, all the dark and despicable forces we would rather see hidden in the shadows. And girls and women get all the celebration, all the love and care and empathy and compassion we can find, no matter if this is deserved or not. This goes for gendered scholarships as well. Women outnumber men in higher education, and there is still this immense push to get women into higher education. Even when boys and men are dropping out completely.

We have got to understand that bombarding men constantly with messages of how horrible they are, how bad and vicious and evil they are, has a terrible effect on young men and boys.

Particularly when we see, time and again, women being praised and praised and then praised some more. Our societies – our cultures – show nothing but contempt for boys and for men, made possible by some strange and predetermined biological traits perhaps, yet amplified immensely by a culture that has decided that its one scapegoat, its one wrench in the mechanism, is men.

For our cultures are in the act of auto-cannibalism; are in the midst of self-destruction. They are melting down due, in no small way, to the insistence, the message, the constant reminder that boys and men are no longer necessary – that masculinity is archaic and toxic – that women and femininity are the only saving grace we have. Despite us needing both in co-operation to survive and to thrive, we have decided that we only need the one and that the other should be destroyed. And destroy it they will. Bit by bit and piece by piece, tearing it down from within individual men who are shown and are told over and over that – no matter what they do – they do only wrong. That they can do nothing right.

And all that they experience is a loss of love. A loss of love from the culture surrounding them, and a loss of love for themselves. And they have no purpose. And they have no place. And they have no help. And they gain neither empathy nor understanding for their plight, being told that they are privileged patriarchal oppressors. And there is no guiding hand, no guiding light, no masculine role-model whom they may emulate and aspire to become. And there is nothing but the constant droning, the constant gnawing, the constant tearing-down of the self and all that is, was and ever will be the self. And they reach the end of the rope and they snap.

And the rope becomes a hangman’s noose; tied about their necks. And seeing nothing but death and seeing nothing but destruction and seeing nothing but despair and neglect and hollow tunes and mockery of their misery, they stand upon the gallows and upon the trapdoor underneath their feet, destined to die and destined to take as many with them while they fall as they can.

And then – when the fall is over and done with, when the damage is dealt and the damage is done, when the neck is snapped and the body is dead – the internal injuries now externalized – the whole vicious circle begins anew. For now, his actions and his rampage and his massacre are shown as absolute evidence of the rhetoric that brought him to the breaking point in the first place. Building ever more of the same. Repeating and continuing the rhetoric; a perfect circle that perfectly feeds into itself and into our cultural narrative and the societal zeitgeist, solving nothing yet claiming to solve everything. Rinse and repeat. Ad infinitum.

   – Please like, share and subdcribe

   – Moiret Allegiere, 14.08.2019

__________________________________________________________________________________________

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon:

Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Advertisements

Vile cacti sodomy: A ramble on the empathy-gap:

rock n roll will never die lowres

Illustration: «Rock’N’Roll will never die», 2019, Moiret Allegiere

 

In this weird and strange hay-stack world of ours, where all manner of elusive illusion reign supreme, one figment of fantasy tower above all other. That would be the illusion – the phenomenal fantasy – of some grand global network of conspirators aimed at making men the privileged sex. This is dubbed the nefarious patriarchy, thriving and revelling on the subjugation and enslavement of women.

The claim that the voices and concerns of women are never heard is so ridiculous given the state of things that wilful blindness is the only possible reason for people to make this claim. Personally, I much prefer the reptilian conspiracy to that of the patriarchy. I think it makes way more sense.

The fact of the matter is that the shrieking tunes of the feminist death-squads and marching bands are heard and given credence no matter how absurd and ridiculous their claims, no matter how much their statements are debunked time and again by people far more clever than both them and myself. If it is a problem predominantly facing women, you can bet your pontificating arse and snivelling snoot that heaven and hell will be moved in order to fix it. Or at the very least alleviate it. Even if it is a ridiculous first-world problem easily mended by taking some more responsibility for one self, as is the case with the horribly sexist air-conditioning; a non-issue and personal pet-peeve of mine, remedied quite easily by the woman or women in question putting on more clothes.

Imagine that.

Considering that the dress-codes for men in workspaces where air-conditioning exist tend to be far more rigid than they are for women, business-suits of course being the only acceptable form of clothing for a professional man, there is little wonder that men in these workspaces would be far warmer than the women in these spaces. A business-suit is a hot thing, warm as the devil himself. And not being allowed to wear anything but this suit; no shorts, no shirts, no nothing of the sort… All to give the veneer of professionalism sorely needed by the company, it would be fair to say that the air-conditioning should keep the space cool and that the women being cold should maybe do something as simple as putting on a sweater or wearing pants or something of that nature. Radical notion, I know. But that is what happens when you get radicalised by the horrible patriarchal reptile forces of the internet.

This is, of course, an incredibly sexist and horribly misogynist thing to say, as women should be free to do whatever the hell they want to do, even if that includes blaming other people for their problems of feeling a slight chill in the workplace when the only thing needed to do is to put on one more layer of clothing. I assume this will be held forth as a shining example of a man trying to control what women do with their bodies; not taking into account the dress-codes for men in these spaces.

This does not matter, obviously, because men being uncomfortable in the stifling heat and lack of oxygen in the sauna-like room temperature that seems to be preferred by women everywhere is just another manifestation of primeval male toxicity calling for the governance and patriarchal regulation of female body-temperatures. Where will it all end? At some point – men may be so rough and domineering as to keep the temperature of the room at a level where they are comfortable.

Cor blimey, governess, we can’t have that, now can we – men can not, under any possible circumstances, be expected to be comfortable? Holy hell and shining madness – soon you’ll be expecting they be allowed to sit comfortably as well… soon, you’d be expecting men to sit in the manner their biology dictate… and we’d see a horrid rise in episodes of vile and violent manspreading. Best get that man-spread-combating chair of monumental stupidity – designed by a feminist apparently considered a hero by the frail and fragile forces of frantic and frazzled feminism – rolled out to meet and greet the world at large. Knock it into the law-books; manspreading to be punished by public castration. That sounds good! YASSSSSS! Slay QUEEN!

…And various other ululations of feminist preposterous pandering and self-congratulations; patting themselves on the back on their path towards irredeemable and superfluous obsolescence.

Anyone not currently basking in the radioactive glow of unlubricated feminist sodomy lovingly delivered by the strap on cacti-dildo of some-odd dominatrix, should be able to see the lack of empathy where men are concerned scrawled across the crossword patterns of our wretched and decaying civilization. Born as much from men being the disposable sex as it is from lobbying feminist activities and academic institutions indoctrinating young minds into the victim cult, it is everywhere. Right out there in the open for all the world to see. If only all the world were willing to see it. The pain of men is unfortunately taboo to the vast void of the world, and so men who suffer and who struggle are shunned. They are told that there is something wrong with them for being men; that they deal with their emotions all wrong and so need to open up and talk about them. Only to be met with ridicule, shaming and god-knows-what when they do. Toxic masculinity causes men to not share their feelings and emotions. And fragile masculinity is the terminology of choice used to shame men when men do. Odd how that works; almost as though the ideology and preposterous ideas therein are manufactured to paint this picture that men are wrong no matter what and how they do.

See, women in general don’t seem to want this emotional openness in a man. And men know this. More oft than not, they know and learn this by experience, the moment they go from being boys to being men and get met with far less understanding and cozy comfort. So men learn how to process and handle their emotions on their own, in their own way. By and large.

When being told that this is the wrong way to go about it, and being shown that trying to talk about their emotions the way the feminist-infused school of thought demand brings nothing but the same feminist-infused school of thought crashing down on them with all the horrid power of the ancient ones, the breaking point is closing in.

And damaged people damage people.

Snap, crackle, pop.

Everyone has a breaking point.

In seeing how much protest any-and-all conference aimed at the issues men face meet, not only by the awesome might and fury of the feminist forces, but also by society at large – so much so that they are shut down, forced to change venues, forced into obscurity – one can not help but wonder how the claim that the voices of women are never heard can make any manner of sense. Nor how it makes any manner of sense that only the voices and concerns of men are heard. Consider the backlash to Cassie Jaye’s documentary the Red Pill, where genderless gender-studies professors of – apparently – no ill repute prop up their terrified and trembling forms on television to completely and utterly lie about the men’s rights movement and what it represents, sculpting clay-models and straw-men of men who want nothing but to be free to rape and plunder like Mongolian hordes. Consider television hosts in Australia admitting to not seeing the film, but bashing it nonetheless… consider screenings of the film being shut down on feminist insistence… and tell me, with a straight face, that issues facing men are taken seriously; that only the voices of men are heard to the detriment of women.

When the voices of the men’s rights movement are shut down at every turn and men are being constantly bombarded with negative messages regarding their sexuality, their sex and their masculinity.

Like the APA guidelines for dealing with men and boys, in which the finite and infant-like wisdom of the dominant ideology reign supreme, putting into place the notion of masculinity as some form of toxic and destructive ideology. IDEOLOGY. The psychiatrists will then, of course, deal with the issues boys and men face when coming in to seek help by telling them that it is their masculinity – that is – their identity as boys and as men that is the main problem facing them, nothing more, nothing less.

So, one would have to wonder – why is the suicide rate of boys and men so high? Not that we hear that much about the suicide rate and how many men kill themselves, of course. Because women attempt suicide more, so that must be the focus point of our societies in which women are hated so-so much. Never taking into account that the women who attempt suicide survive and the men that kill themselves die. Not taking into account that women who attempt suicide may be crying for help – something that, I absolute believe, should be taken seriously, but which is a far cry from actually dying by their own hand. Nor is it taking into account repeat attempts at suicide by the same woman, boosting the numbers some. Or “simple” self-harm documented as suicide attempts. Nevertheless, it is painted as some preposterous problem facing women first and foremost, as are all issues. Even when men are most affected, it must be somehow twisted and turned so that women are the main victims. Men dying don’t matter. Because women didn’t die. It makes perfect sense, of course. When one sex receives empathy and understanding and the other sex does not.

Yet, the claim is there: the empathy-gap does not exist, as we all should well know by now. It is for the lack of the empathy-gap that women who snap and kill their children or their partners prompt us to feel sorry for them, opening for dialogues of immense importance in regards to mental health and how horrible the state of women’s mental health is. Women are, in other words, and by the insistence of the dominant feminist forces in our society, crazy.

You will excuse me giggling like a rabid schoolgirl.

In so doing, they are creating all manner of ways in which the partner of the woman may be made to be the perpetrator after the fact, being that he most assuredly abused her to the point of her snapping and killing him or their children or both. What a splendid thing, what a tremendous stroke of luck, that he is dead then, and with no possible ability to defend himself. Victim-blame much, you trite troglodyte?

Sounds like the rhetoric of an abuser to me, but what the hell do I know? Men can’t be abused by women, after all. Because feminism said so. And since they said it, it must be true. Proven, of course, by the severe lack of domestic violence shelters for men… or for boys, given that boys above a certain age who are abused are not allowed within the premises of these shelters for women and their children fleeing the horrible and tyrannical patriarch at home. A son is only to be sheltered as long as he is a boy and not a man. For, when being a man, he clearly can take care of himself – as women are absolutely incapable of doing, apparently. The train of ridiculous logic that follows is circular – there are few – if any shelters – for abused men – there are many shelters for abused women – therefore it follows that women are abused more and men are abused less. This is despite the fact that feminists have protested and done all in their power to not have shelters available for men. This goes all the way back to the first shelters created by Erin Pizzey – a woman I have an immense respect and admiration for, and whose experiences I recommend any and all to read – in which she quickly learned that women who sought shelter were just as, if not more, abusive as the men from whom they sought shelter.

She then tried to open a shelter for abused men, and got met by a campaign of harassment by the feminist forces that is difficult to believe in a society in which feminism is painted as a force of good and nothing but. But that is the way of revisionist history and historians; she who controls the past controls the present. She also controls the future.

For the simplest and most profound example of the empathy-gap, one could simply point to male genital mutilation being allowed and – in many cases – recommended, whereas female genital mutilation is illegal, in order to best showcase the glaringly obvious presence of said empathy-gap. But that don’t matter none, because mutilating the penises of baby boys ain’t no problem. Boys don’t have bodily autonomy, my little pumpkin. And that is quite alright; nothing sexist or horrible about allowing one sex to be genitally mutilated at birth – shaming those who oppose it – and making it completely illegal for the other sex. Nothing wrong with using these severed foreskin in facial creams, for the vanity of women either. This is just to be expected; fresh baby-facials for the women, and shame on you if you disagree, or find this a bit icky. These women have all the right in the world to smear severed baby foreskin on their wrinkly faces, you boorish blue-collar slobs. As if the genital integrity of boys mattered more than the unwrinkled countenance of some past-her-prime woman in superficial distress; woe betide you, should you dare oppose the facial gluttony of the barbarian queen.

Honk, fucking honk.

I could go on and on about this. This is just a rambling introduction to the empathy-gap; a roguish ballad sung by a bearded bard riddled with spontaneity, insomnia and sudden bursts of insanity. There is a lot to unwrap, to ponder and consider in this silly world of ours.

I will leave you with some more thoughts on incels, which I touched upon in an earlier piece – “Shame and Ridicule on the Howling Plains of Twitter”, available on Bitchute, YouTube and my blog. Incels have been on my mind quite a lot lately, and I am pondering doing some larger piece on the phenomena of inceldom, if I find more thoughts on this accumulating within the vortex of my cranial madness.

Norway has a television channel very much like the BBC, which of course is far more than a television channel now. Funded by the population by force and the government by choice. It is also infected very much with the vampiric forces of regressive progressivism and the holy ghost of feminism, obviously making them less-than unbiased. Even when they claim that they are unbiased.

That is the problem when people are so engulfed by their beliefs and convictions that they do not consider it properly – they do not see their own bias. This is a very human thing. For itself, there is nothing wrong with it. We all have confirmation bias, one way or the other. It is wrong when something that everyone is forced by law to pay for does not represent the interests of the population in any objective way, mirroring only one set of beliefs, values and convictions and claiming this to be unbiased, thus colouring the mainstream view of the thing by presenting itself as nuanced and unbiased.

Some years back now, they had a news-article on their website about a woman in a wheelchair complaining that the lack of interest she received from men – when sitting in a wheelchair, as opposed to pictures where she was not in her wheelchair – on tinder was a form of sexual harassment in itself, as she felt herself ignored by men for being in a wheelchair. Hardly worth doing an article about, I thought then and I think now. There followed a few lines about her being just as deserving of love as someone not wheelchair-bound.

Maybe she should have used some of that baby-foreskin facial cream. That might have helped. Probably not though. Wouldn’t have helped. Not with those legs.

What sticks out here is, of course, that she sounds very much as though she is involuntarily celibate, forced into a state of permanent singlehood by forces beyond her control. As though she is one of those disgusting incels we’ve been hearing so much about. You know; the ones who feel as though they are entitled to companionship and to sex. Those horrible people whose situation in life has been turned into a quick and easy insult for disgruntled feminists and their orbiting white knights to pull out at their whim and fancy whenever arguments are lacking.

If said incel is a man, of course.

If a woman shows up and acts as though she is entitled to love, companionship and sex from men, she is met with empathy and understanding. To such a degree that woe-is-me type news articles pop up from the wood-works and make themselves heard to make us feel sorry for her and do all that we can in order that her plight of being single – that is, being an incel, is alleviated. For how could any man be so horrible as to have romantic and/or sexual preferences on their own? Men are not allowed this, you see. If a woman shows interest in a man, the man is expected to reciprocate in kind – lest he be considered a superficial arsehole. Does not matter whether the woman is fat, or in a wheelchair, or whatever it may be that throws the man off and makes him not turn on the testosterone-fuelled rape-cannon below his belt – if he shows no interest in her if she shows interest in him, there is something wrong with him. Some would maybe call this behaviour entitlement, but what do I know? The inverse does not apply, but that is part and parcel of life in the strange purgatorial afterlife we have inhabited since 2012.

This is not the only article I have read in which female incels are shown care and compassion that male incels have never been shown, nor ever will be shown.

I sent a complaint to this state-sanctioned, populace-and-government funded channel of ours regarding this article. I worded this complaint properly, of course. Thinking that – since I bloody well pay for this mass of propaganda and nonsense, I have every right in the world to complain.

In this complaint, I asked them if they would publish the same kind of article were it a man complaining about – in essence – not getting laid due to circumstances beyond his control.

They never replied.

As they usually never do whenever I complain. I have sent them a few complaints in my time. Only when their bias is clearly shining through, proving that they do not for one flat-farted second represent the interests of the people who are forced to pay for their spewing of biased bile.

There is that which is so strange to me; that mist floating out there on the horizon, within which all manner of ghosts and ghouls and terrors roam; that outpouring of empathy and understanding where women are concerned, that majestic lack of it where men are concerned. Men, who feel a lack of companionship and of sex are scorned and shunned and ridiculed; are told that they are not entitled to sex, nor are they entitled to a woman’s time. Which I, admittedly, agree with. I also agree that women are not entitled to sex, romance, companionship or what have you.

However; women who feel entitled to this are given empathy and understanding; are given a place in our government-funded public broadcasters of propaganda and sanitized trash to vent their frustrations in regards to this, to lay all the blame on men for not wanting to bang her, for not wanting to enter into a relationship with her for her being in a wheelchair.

And it is not that I don’t have empathy for her. I actually do. Just as I have empathy and understanding for men who are in a similar situation to her. It is that society at large demonize men who are in that position – men who long for meaningful relationships, men who long for physical touch, who long for anything beyond the purely platonic. It is that our newspapers and our public broadcasters paint these men in a horrid light; as haters of women and as rapists-in-waiting, as potential mass-murderers and whatever they’ve got to throw their way, whilst simultaneously making empathetic fluff-pieces about women who act just in the same way that these so-called foul, horrid, basement-dwelling, neckbearded, fedora-wearing incel-bastards do.

Women who feel entitled to sex, love, romance and relationships are to be listened to and understood. And be allowed to shame men for not wanting to fuck them, love them or caress them.

Men who feel entitled to sex, love, romance and relationships are to be shamed and ridiculed. For wanting to fuck women, be caressed, or loved by women.

And yet, there is no empathy-gap to speak of.

And all men’s dreams are torn asunder.

And all men’s love denied eternal.

And all men’s pain invisible.

And all men’s all lost.

And still, men are supposedly the ones whom all the world listen to.

 – Please like, share and subscrive

 – Moiret Allegiere.24.07.2019

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Howling at a Slutwalk Moon:

Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Emotional coping mechanisms and the Spark of rebellion:

Female nude lowres

Illustration: «Female Nude», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere

 

 

Way back in the ticky-tacky days of late January or early February of 2019, something happened of a severely personal nature which caused a severe decline in my health and happiness – a rather significant double-barrelled shotgun shock to the solar plexus of my misfiring central nervous system, if you will allow me my poetic flights of fancy. Now, the nature of this happening and the circumstances surrounding it is something I aim to keep private and personal. Suffice it to say that it was directly related to my writings.

What I am interested in, is not so much exploring and explaining the severe emotional and physiological distress I found myself in as a result of this happening, but the coping tactics I employed in dealing with it. Of course, I will be explaining the pain and distress. But not in too much detail.

See, it has bothered me for quite some time this insistence that boys and men don’t deal with their emotions, or that when they do, they deal with their emotions in an inappropriate manner, whatever the hell that means. That we suppress our emotions and pretend we don’t have any. I find this to be both insulting and belittling, and more like than not, I can find several other words to use as proper descriptors for this nonsensical idea, each of these hypothetical words more inflammatory and pissed-off than the next.

The whole thing smells and reeks of social engineering, and that is a frightening prospect in and off itself.

See, back in the days of high-strung muscle-tension that is the ever trembling body of feminist “research”, it was decided that the one true way to properly express – and deal with – ones emotions is the feminine way of expressing – and dealing – with ones emotions.

Since the feminine way is deemed the only way, boys and men have needed to be re-structured and re-programmed on a societal level to express their emotions as women tend to do, and in so doing toss their own nature to the fires of Hades as the sinful parasite on society that it is. What else could one gather from this hopeless denial of biology and this shameless shaming of masculinity, than the attempted re-engineering of the nature of men, the biological truth of men mastering their emotions instead of being governed by them; than the tired old view of women as moral and emotional superiors to men, and so the only moral and emotional guidance needed?

If you, like me, have been a victim of this attempted re-engineering, a victim of this brainwashing which claims masculine identity to be wrong and feminine identity to be correct, despite both apparently being solely societal with no biological underpinnings at all, you might know what is coming up next. And that is very simple: our society do not wish to hear about men’s emotional pain. Or the pain of men at all, for that matter. For all the slack-jawed talk that men need to emote, need to open up and talk, there are sure as all hell few ears – if any – willing to listen. More often than not, a man is shamed and shunned should he dare to express his pain and his insecurities. By both men and women. That is to say: by society at large. Strange that this should happen in a society which claims that men, in order to be free from the constraints of traditional gender-roles, need to express their emotions with tears and valuable dialogues; how odd that this should happen in a society which claims that men are treated far better than women in all respects. When the same forces that claim this are the same forces that shame and ridicule men when men do what they claim men need to do, confusion and isolation creeps in.

On the one hand, this is said.

On the other hand, this is shown.

And both hands do nothing but shove a giant middle-finger right into the glazed-over eyes of confused men, trying the best they can to be heard above the hubbub and the constant background noise of women-worsting.

Men, being of course fairly practical by nature, goes by what is shown them. And what is shown, time and again, is that no-one will listen, no-one will offer support. Quite the contrary. People will go out of their way not to listen. People will derail, hijack the attempted conversation, ignore completely or completely miss the point of what is being said. Or they will, quite simply, state that women have it worse or that women experience this as well, and so the man should consider that before complaining. Because in this society in which women are hated ever-so-much(!), the happiness and well-being of women goes above all. Even on an individual level, when speaking of one-self and not having gender as a part of it, it will creep in. This, it seems to me and my perplexed and eternally confused mind, is due solely to the fact that our societies are completely obsessed with gender whilst claiming that gender does not matter. It is a strange level of discord and chaos; gender does not matter, so lets bring gender into everything, even where gender has nothing to do with it – as in the emotional or physiological distress of one individual.

I would dare to offer this one thought in regards to this; or to point out the elephant in the room, as it were: gender does matter. And in trying to not make gender matter, we are making gender matter even more by our insistence that it does not. The elephant can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, something or someone will be trampled.

What I mean by this should be self-evident. Men and women are different. We deal with things differently. We are wired differently. We are biologically different. In trying to erase these differences and claiming complete same-ness in body and mind, we are shooting ourselves in the foot whilst riding the elephant in the room straight over the cliffs, to tumble to the doom of both itself and ourselves. In trying to eliminate and disregard gender and gender-differences, we can not help but see them and in seeing them, we can not help but bring it up. Even when it should not matter.

The simple solution to this should be, in my humble opinion, to let people deal with their emotions and their pain the way that works best for them, regardless of their gender. To treat the pain of one individual and the way this pain is processed as both the pain of, and the path to healing, of that individual, not wrong or right, but his or hers way of dealing with it. Let be, and let others let you be, instead of forcing someone to do something that goes contrary to their core being.

If he would talk and cry about it instead of seeking action or solitude, as men are known to do, this should be treated the same as if he seeks action or solitude. There is no shame in either, and there should be no shame in either. Clearly, this is something I believe should apply to women as well. My focus, however, is on men.

And men, by and large, are drawn towards action or solitude as a way of dealing with their pain. The action, I find, is more often than not of a constructive and creative sort. And I can think of no better way to tackle difficulties than to turn what could easily be a destructive force – for instance depression or anger into something constructive. To create something out of that which would otherwise seek to destroy. To claim, as the feminist hive-mind do, that men suppress their emotions because they do not deal with their emotions as women do – and I am speaking broadly, of course – is to claim that one way is better than the other, instead of it just being different paths to take.

It is as insulting as it is stupid.

In particular when the experiences of men, by and large, who listen to and are suckered in by this attempted re-programming is that no-one listens when he attempts to speak about it. Or that he is shamed for it. By women as well as men. Now, imagine if the feminist hive-mind had not been so hell-bent on dismantling any and all male-only spaces, whilst, of course, keeping female-only spaces female-only. Men have always offered support to one another. It just takes a form different than the one women tend towards, and in dismantling male-only spaces, a whole hell of a lot of that support flew out the window. Just look to the men’s shed stuff in Australia. But more on that in a later ramble, I think.

From personal experience, anecdotal as it may well be, this holds true. I suffer from chronic pain and chronic fatigue, as well as being constantly in the grips of insomnia, which one would expect does not exactly benefit my emotional state. These three are fairly severe. Of course, it is all intertwined and interconnected, and when the mind is in distress, the body is in distress, and vice versa. Which makes the usual view that body and mind is somehow separated bother me immensely.

Those few times in the past where I have been so bold as to complain about this in writings or in social media posts, the resultant reactions have been interesting, to say the least. More often than not, it has been ignored. This, I think, is to be expected with posts on social media as a general rule. Other times, I have been shamed for it. With one instance in particular tickling my rage-boner something awful.

In short: I was sent a private message on Facebook by a woman who, of course, self-identified as a feminist, telling me in no uncertain terms that I was “not allowed to make myself out to be so pitiful”. A very interesting way of treating someone in severe pain, don’t you think? In particular considering it is the feminists claiming that men need to talk about their emotions and how they are doing. And that women are more empathetic than men!

Another very interesting observation I have made in regards to my declining health, is that the first instinct of people – and this goes for everyone – is to ask how my wife is doing whenever my health is declining. Her happiness is more important than mine, and the way in which my declining health impacts her is more important than how it impacts me. Now, of course, I am aware that this is a normal thing to ask of people. It has to do, in these instances, with context. And the context here is simple: I am/was in pain. And the first instinct of people was and is to ask how my wife was or is doing in regards to my pain. The first question asked. Not “How are you doing?” but “How is she doing?” In short: how is my pain affecting her?

As a result, and as my eyes have opened more and more to the reality of the world we live in, I have learned to process emotions and to deal with my pain in a manner far more creative and far better suited to me as I am. I have learned that all this talk that men need to open up and be more expressive in regards to their emotions and their health, be that mental health or physical health, is nothing but talk. Because the moment you – as a man – start to open up and talk, you realize that it will hurt you more than it will help. Telling men that they need to express their emotions in a more feminine way presupposes firstly that someone is willing to listen, and that is seldom – if ever – the case. Secondly, it presupposes that what men do and how men do it is harmful, whereas what women do and how women do it is not.

I would be so bold as to state, as I have done before, that neither is bad or good; that they are merely different, that different people have different needs and different methods and that to shame and ridicule and to un-learn, through force that which comes natural does far more harm than it does good. I would also be so bold as to state that it is only ever how men, generally, do or do not that is shamed and need to be un-learned. Yet again, something incredibly self-evident to anyone willing to see and to listen.

Why not create a movement telling women that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong? Well, that would be sexist. But it is quite alright to tell men that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong. That is not sexist. That is equality made manifest! Because, to these people, equality is whatever they say that it is at any given moment, as long as women can somehow be made to be better than men at something – preferably all the things. Or, as long as the feminine can be made to be better than the masculine, despite none of these, apparently, existing as anything but socialisation and as such could be written off as just as expendable and nonsensical as each other. So why, then, pray tell, is the feminine better and more natural than the masculine, when both are made-up cultural constructs, just as much as cultural construct is a made-up cultural construct which, of course, might just as well be dismissed alongside all the other cultural constructs? In short: why is one better than the other, if none of them are real anyway? Nihilism ho! They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

This is not to say, of course, that I believe culture and society does not play a part in how we behave. It most certainly does! But to claim that biology plays no part in it is, to my bloodshot and near-catatonic eyes, nonsensical.

How I have learned to cope is fairly simple; I write, and I draw, or I retreat into solitude to mull things over, thinking on it and grinding on it until it is ground into dust and I have transcended it. Some things are of course far more difficult to transcend than others, as is the case with what happened in late January/early February, the results of which still manifest as a severe flare-up of my pain, fatigue and insomnia. Even in the midst of April, when I should be enjoying the early days of spring. Of course, I should give a big shout-out to the wonderful world of self-deprecating humour as well. Finding something to laugh about, even in the midst of severely debilitating pain, loosens the reigns of the thing. And that thing, that wonderful joy of finding something to laugh at, or about, even in the darkest moments of life, lifts the spirit immensely. It turns the whole thing on its head. So; I may be ill. But at the very least, I get to sit at home and get high on painkillers. And that ain’t all bad. Heh.

My writings and my drawings are, as a result of this being a big part of my coping mechanisms, subject to my emotional state at the moment of writing or drawing. As a general rule. Evidently so, considering the bleakness of the thing and things since February. For all my logic – or illusions of logic, depending on which way one sees it, I assume – my writing is highly emotional. And this does not bother me in the least. It may bother other people, of course, which, when one tries to get other people to listen or to read might prove itself to be a problem. The point of it is that it gives me a healthy outlet for anger, depression, anxiety or good old fashioned sarcastic snark. It’s either that, or self-loathing. And I have done enough self-loathing to last me a good dozen life-times or so.

See, in my darkest moments – in prior incarnations of my ever-evolving personality and barely contained psychosis – I was very much a prisoner of feminist indoctrination, and as such considered myself to be a fault and a flaw in and off the world around me. Growing up with the message that men are scum imprinted upon the plasticity that was and is my brain, I could not help but internalize the message. If one viewed it from the outside, one would not hesitate to label it as political indoctrination. For the very simple reason that this is exactly what it was, is and always will be. It was not until I was 28 years of age that I actually heard someone say anything positive about men in general. Prior to this, it had been nothing but shit; hardly a day going by without the message of men’s inherent wickedness and cruelty being fired into my subconscious mind with all the subtlety of a nuclear bomb.

When teachers, subtly or not-so-subtly, constantly and consistently hammered the message of the flaws of men into our immature and under-developed psyches, one could not help but embrace it as a part of ones own personal belief-system. Couple that with the media insisting the same, as well as relatives and everyone else in the social circles of days gone by, one is left with the resultant war-cry, echoing and reverberating within as well as without: “There is something wrong with boys and with men!”

How one can look to this constant message, this constant bombardment, this constant assault upon boys and upon men and upon masculinity as a force of pure good instead of the destructive force of pure chaos and hatred that it is, speaks volumes to the might of gynocentrism and of the manipulative powers of the immense fraud and sham that is feminism.

To look upon the way boys and men are constantly devalued, ridiculed and shamed by not only feminism, but by the society which we inhabit, and then claim that it is a force seeking equal treatment of the genders is absurd on its face. But that is the level of indoctrination, that is the level of manipulation, that is the level of our societal psychosis and the value women have in our society. How one can look upon the treatment of men and the treatment of women in our societies and claim, in unison, that women are oppressed and that men – all men everywhere – are guilty of oppression is as ridiculous as it is laugh-out-loud funny. We ought to howl with mocking laughter at this ridiculousness. But we can’t. The tears get in the way. A wondrous male privilege this; to be allowed to see my very nature dragged, kicking and screaming through the mud and ground-up glass all the way to the hang-womans noose, sentenced to death by our moral superiors!

For years, I believed it all. Swallowed it hook, line and sinker. To sacrifice myself and what I want for the betterment of women. To step down and shut up, not object, not even to the gravest trespasses upon my own personal space or to the devaluation of my mental well-being, were it done by a woman or someone claiming to do good for women. And as the self-loathing grew, so too did my natural expressions of my own masculinity diminish. To the point where I was but a shell, a flimsy transparent nothing. My previous ability to say what was on my mind in regards to any given subject was thrown into the abyss, alongside what was left of my self-respect. I had been, not only told, but shown time and again that any objection to the feminist rhetoric would be shot down, no matter what facts I had, no matter what the truth was. The objections were not shot down by facts, reason or logic, but by shame and ridicule from women, which, for a young man burdened by puberty, the insecurities of puberty as well as insecurities emanating from the feminist insistence that there was something wrong with me by my very nature, was and is absolutely horrible.

For years, I did not cope. I settled for disappearing instead. Isolation and a bleak and nihilistic outlook took precedence. I sought the void, and became a lost boy; not going anywhere, not staying anywhere, not being anything but an over-medicated mess of man forced into psychiatric help which did not wish to see the root cause of the issues I was facing, but chose to medicate the symptoms into oblivion instead, and in so doing medicating me into oblivion alongside the symptoms.

And so, when realisation dawned after years and years of this vast and empty nothing, it dawned with the crash and the bang of a thousand suns imploding and exploding, a constantly repeating pattern of implosion and explosion, immediate, immense, powerful, mighty, frightening and masculine as though the gates of hell were opened, unleashing the hounds of war!

I marched to war with what strengths I had, which was – and is – art and writing, wrote the piece “Remembering Rebellion”, not knowing whether or not I would keep writing about these topics. Turned out I would, even at great personal expense.

That, I think, is one of the great masculine virtues: being able to turn something severely destructive into something fantastically constructive, no matter how long it takes to get to that point; to transcend tragedy and despair, not through crying, not through talking, but through action, through creativity, through honestly translating pain and heartbreak, trauma and destruction into language, into symbols, into lines and scribbles aiming, always and ever to transcend, to overcome, to grow and then to follow the process and become stronger, better and even more suited to survive whichever difficulties life – with all its suffering – will throw at one self.

Through “Remembering Rebellion”, I found the rebellious spark which was present in my formative years. And I would urge others to re-find, regain, re-awaken that spark of rebellion, that force seeking to rebel against all that is, all that was, all that ever will be and capture it vividly, fantastically, glowingly, immediately within your minds and guts and balls. To explore it, expand it, explain it through what ever strength one has.

Teenage rebellion is one thing – an unfocused force of self-exploration and self-expression; a force designed to rip one-self loose from the looming authority figures of that time in ones life. Something deep inside which makes one pound ones chest with ones fists and roar primeval, primitive, primordial, beast-like, reptilian that “I am here, and don’t you dare challenge my right to be here or belong here!”

And now, in adult life, with the damage done by feminism so clear to all who are not indoctrinated, who are not clinically insane, who are not still caught in the grips of our dominant ideology, of our demand for ideological purity and conformity, that spark of rebellion seems to me to be more important than ever it was before.

And now, in adult life, with boys and men being beat and shamed and medicated into submission and subservient subjugation to the demands – not of women, but of feminism – an adult mind would be, should be, could be capable of focusing that spark of rebellion through a lens of reason, truth and a demand for consideration and compassion, to make that spark of rebellion so focused, in fact, that it tears through the feminist rhetoric; that it burns right through the skin of feminism and so exposes and utterly dismantles the core, showing it to be nothing but what it always has been; Marxist rhetoric of class and class-warfare re-clothed as gender and gender-warfare.

This is not a war of the sexes. It is a war of ideology against one sex, harming both sexes in the process. It is not men against women or women against men. It is feminism against men and against the very fabric of our societies and all common sense. It stuns me in how cleverly it has been implemented; how fantastically smart it has been in painting any opposition to feminism as an assault on women and on equality between the genders. And how sly and manipulative it has been in painting the abhorrent hatred of boys, men and masculinity as nothing but the actions of “a radical few”, even when the hatred of men evidently lie at the very core of feminism! In order to make people understand that feminism cares for nothing but feminism, fearless rebellion is necessary in exposing feminism for what it is.

It ain’t easy. But then, nothing worthwhile is.

Feminism employs terrorist tactics, terrorizing any opposition, creating fear and layers upon layers of fear in any who dare oppose and object to their ridiculous assertions. Don’t want to lose your job and livelihood, your place of study or your social life?

Better not object.

This is the means through which they maintain power and control. Total social domination under fear of total social death and annihilation of the self. Tyranny clothed in justice. The emperor has no clothes, and only a few are willing to point this out. When one does not show fear in pointing this out, their power diminishes. In the end, they will expose themselves to more and more people as having nothing but flimsy emotional manipulation and the threat of social death and ostracising on their side. They themselves are doing the non-and-anti-feminists the greatest service there is by behaving just as they do, and in not backing down, not showing fear, but countering and re-countering, they will be forced to expose themselves for the hateful pile of ideological serpents that they are.

Rebellion ain’t easy.

But: we have two things on our side. The truth, and the very simple fact – however silly it may sound – that everyone, whether they admit it or not, loves a rebel.

Please like, share and subscribe.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 13.04.2019

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links:

Visit my blog:

https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/

Check out my youtubechannel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA

Check out my bitchutechannel:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/

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

twatter:

https://twitter.com/MAllegiere

Gab:

https://gab.ai/Moiret_Allegiere

Minds:

https://www.minds.com/Moiret

Flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152465815@N04/

What makes a man suicide? Rambling on traditional expectations and suicide.

Portrait artist cofee lowres

Ill: «Selfportrait with morning coffee», A3, 2019

What makes a man?

Is a man naught but muscles, tendons, organs and primal lust vibrating within a shell clumsily assembled to resemble a human being; an imitation of humanity manspreading viciously beneath a monochromatic sky, nervously anticipating his next oppressive conquest?

Is a man naught but an unfeeling automaton, completely and utterly devoid of basic human emotion, empathy and intimacy; a mass-manufactured cybernetic organism slowly gaining sentience and self-awareness and, in so doing, coming to realise his might, strength and ability to subjugate others to fulfil his own selfish needs?

Is a man naught but a replicant, an android created specifically to do the hard, uninspiring and menial labour society deems to be the low-status jobs; the hard and monotonous, the filthy, dirty, sweaty, dangerous professions filled only by those whom we – in our weird and dissociative state of being – consider to be of less importance, those whom we consider to be disposable, expendable, nameless, faceless, those who move the world?

Is a man naught but a nervous, trembling mass of violent impulses and barely contained rape; a sexually deviant beast, malformed, shapeless, barely cogent in his guttural ululations resembling language and emotive expressions consisting of mere primal urges; to fornicate, procreate, expand his territory, conquer his enemies and then exterminate them?

Is a man naught but a perpetual work-horse, the doer for others, a vibrant shade of history, of his story; to do for others, to sacrifice and to do for others, existing within the frame of mind of those for whom he is expected to sacrifice as nothing but the protector/provider, to be is to do, to do is to be, toodle-do… Does he then disregard his own state of being in order to be locked down in a state of doing so he is not disregarded by others as a being of less value from his lack of doing?

Is this state of being really and truly the state of privilege? Is the bogged down, simplified, dehumanizing view of a man as a human-doing, not a human-being an example of gender-privilege?

To put it in other terms: if a man is killed in war, does anyone hear him scream?

Even more bluntly: when a man is killed in this nonsensical gender-war, why won’t anyone hear him scream?

Why do we refuse to see the suffering of men and of boys in this shivering mass of tentacles and cosmic horrors we have allowed our societies to devolve into?

There is something to be said for traditionalism, apparently, as traditional values is still the expected state of being for a man: to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those around him, disregarding his own well-being, be that well-being psychological or physiological. In a very strict sense, I am not a traditionalist. The simple reason for this is that it chains both man and woman to pre-determined destinies, removing a degree of individual freedom which I would rather not see be removed. In a biological sense, however, it seems the traditional path is the path upon which we all thread, subconsciously, led by the hands of our very nature; our state of being being such that women and children must be protected to ensure the continuation of our species. And if that means the self-sacrifice of men, so be it. Or so the story goes. It does make sense, from a biological perspective. We are, however, in a state of being in which we are able to transcend the purely biological.

This state of being is very clearly reflected in the gender argumentation; the feminist assault on all things traditional whenever a traditional path involves women. Women shall be freed from the constraints of traditionalism. OK.

That I think, is more than fair.

I have no qualms with this.

I believe everyone should be free to follow their own path and do with their lives as they wish to do. And when I say everyone, I actually mean everyone – man and woman alike. And when I say do with their lives as they wish, I mean exactly that – as they wish. As long as no-one does anything against anyone against their wishes, I don’t care what people do with their lives. Thread whichever path you wish. Just remember that your rights end where the rights of someone else begins. In simple terms.

This, of course, does not mean that I will not judge people on their actions. Nor does it mean that I will not comment on these actions. It means, quite simply, that I see absolutely no reason why I should force someone to live a certain way, whether I agree with a certain way of life or not.

When the feminist hive-mind of ravenous virtue and vulturous morality raise their screeching voices in opposition to traditionalism, and howl dementedly at the moon-goddess Luna about freedom from gender-roles, they speak only in regards to women. This would all have been fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that they propose to speak on behalf of both man and woman, that the groin-grabbing metal-claw that is their hands have firmly clasped the scrotum of our distorted discord in regards to gender.

When the clearly female-centric ideology of feminism, whose legacy has granted us such vitriolic hatred and contempt for all things masculine as to be completely dismissed when speaking on behalf of men and boys, proposes to speak on behalf of men and boys, we ought to be worried and we ought to protest this. This is one of those things that are truly worrisome and frightening, and one of the main reasons I have launched my own war against feminism: an ideology orbiting one gender is the only voice heard, or allowed to speak, on behalf of both genders. And this is absolutely nonsensical. However, it ties firmly and neatly into all things traditional. Women must be protected and must be granted any-and-all, if we are to carry this human DNA into the future of mutual delusion that seems to be the path we have chosen. And men and boys must be sacrificed, or be called to, forced to, made to sacrifice themselves on behalf of women and children. And here come the he for she, once again, a speech lauded as revolutionary and fantastic, as something profound and something clever whilst being absolutely nothing but a rehashing of what we have already been doing all through the murky haze of our shared collective history. He for she.

Him go hunt big mammoth, him protect mate. Him make sure harm not come to young. Him bring meat and warm skin of mammoth. Him protect, him provide.

Of course, traditionalism was based around a sense of mutual respect, cooperation and – dare I even say – love, with both parts of a relationship doing for the other part, and in turn for the rest of the family unit. All doing their part. Or, that is my understanding of it. I was born far too late to see traditionalism in full fucking swing. I was born into the era of feminism, within whose auditorium I was told relentlessly and repetitiously about my own wickedness and the sins of my father and my fathers father and my fathers fathers father, for whose sins I must pay with my self-respect, my well-being and my blood, if need be. And in front of the shining and shimmering altar of feminist revisionist history, beneath her fragile goddess-form, I was made to kneel and told to do all I could for whichever woman was unlucky enough to cross my path; whose mere countenance I was lucky to behold and whose footprints and whispering voice should be the be-all, end-all of my life. He for she.

And here come the traditional expectations thrown at men; shackled and chained still in the good old gender-roles which feminism purports to have broken down, disassembled and done away with. To do for women. To do and not to be. To prove himself worthy by virtue of his ability to protect and to provide for her, for the family, for the union of their loins and sweaty groins, or merely for the hope of the unity of their loins and sweaty groins. And all this whilst proclaiming freedom from pre-determined roles for one and all, arguing past oppression as a means to justify the fervent, violent, never-ending assault on all things masculine. Justifying and popularizing hatred and subsequent subjugation of one gender and one gender only through a wilfully hazy recollection of things past.

And just as the future ain’t what it used to be once we grow up and become more cynical and less hopeful, the past ain’t what it used to be once we grow intellectually and are able to critically analyse history and data both, to see that the mirage offered us by feminist historians and pedagogues mirror not history, but wish-tory, a wishy-washy way of pointing to this or to that in order to show how horribly women were treated in ages past; chained to the kitchen and to the home while the men were free to cavort joyously in the wild and gigantic jungles of societies past, swinging from the branches of the trees drunk on their own power with no obligations, no chains and no shackles and no worries, free as free could be in the horrid morning of our modern civilization, prior to the feminist utopia we now see spread-eagled before us on the dusty ground.

If by “free” you mean 14+ hours a day in the coal-mines for incredibly little pay. If by free you mean obligated to provide and to protect for someone who was of far more social worth; of so much worth, in fact, that they could not possibly be expected to sacrifice those hours, days, weeks, months, years of their life and of their safety in dank and horrid caverns, gaining nothing but a barely liveable wage and black lungs from inhaling coal all day, every day, all week, every week.

Strange, that the past is viewed as though it mirrors the present, even when not the case. Childbirth was far more dangerous in those horrible days of yore. For both mother and child. Survival was not guaranteed. Medicine was not what it is today. Our modern miracles of medicine have not always been there, you know. Surely, it makes sense then, in order to keep the woman and the child safe, that they should be at home? That the man should take care of the risky business of making a living – making a living for all, I would add. Life was harder. Things were tougher. One can not look at the past with the lenses of today, claiming that it is like this now, so it was like that then. Things change, times change, progress is made and things do not stay the same, and things have not stayed the same. Sacrifices had to be made, by one and by all. Note, please, that I do not in any way intend to downplay the role of the mother, the wife, the woman in this scenario. Things were surely tough and hard for all. I am simply trying to offer perspective. The past was not hard for women. It was hard for everyone, except the few who wielded power. Yeah, most of those with power were male. This does not mean that men had power. Nor does it mean that now. It does not mean that men in power would benefit men and men only. Nor does it mean that now. That would be the apex-fallacy, gracious xister, wondrous xir. The one percent at the top being this or that does not reflect the 99 percent not at the top, who happen to be this or that.

*

Which brings me to the beginning. What makes a man? Or, to the strangely convoluted point of this ramble: what makes a man suicide? As we can see from the statistics, men are far more at risk of suicide than women. This goes for the entirety of the world, with very few exceptions: ( http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html )

This is very clearly a subject with no easy answer, and it is a subject I am somewhat reluctant to tackle. There are many factors and variables at play, and for personal reasons it is a subject which is very near and dear to my heart and gut and balls. It is difficult to write about, because it is a difficult subject.

Speaking from my own personal experience as a thirty-something male, I can not remember one single instance from any school I attended where I heard anything positive and uplifting said in regards to boys and men. Quite the contrary: the focus was always and ever on lifting girls and women up and above, often at the detriment of boys and men. I mention this frequently in my writings, as I consider it to be very important. I don’t think there is anything wrong with lifting girls and women up. Of course there isn’t. There is something wrong with lifting girls and women – and only girls and women – up. Giving positive messages to one gender and one gender only for perceived equality is quite obviously contrary to equality. It is treating one better than the other. And this is happening at schools all the time, across the entire fucking western world.

Not one instance of boys being lifted up and told that they could do whatever they wanted to, be whatever they aspired to be. It was always, from teachers as well as pupils, Girls rule, boys drool. Overt or covert, it did not matter.

Our teachers, infused with feminism and the high-and-mighty flap-jackery of moral virtue, dignity and compassion granted them by the feminine divine, saw no qualms in telling boys that they were the root cause of the evils of the world, as well as telling them – driving the point home with pin-point accuracy as often as possible – that their emotional maturation was far slower than the girls, and as such that the girls were far more mature than the boys. Our very nature was, through this, made out to be wrong, to be of lesser worth and of lesser maturity than the nature of girls. At the same time, we were told that gender was a social construct. Odd then, that emotional maturation in itself was something to be trusted, given the social constructionist bull-shittery of the thing. This of course translated into a covertly – or overtly – hostile environment for the boys.

No mind, never matter, this ain’t no thing, as armies of indoctrinated feminists spouted feminist dogma in their early teens, completely incapable of understanding it or viewing it with any form of critical eye but the severe moral grandstanding of “we – the girls – are oppressed by you – the boys. You owe us.” And there come the entitlement from noxious drones fighting the good cause; a cause into which they had been brainwashed from early days at school, indoctrinated into severe entitlement translating into a distrust and putting-down-off boys, whose lives and value to themselves through the very same indoctrination mattered less and became less than that of the girls; whose aspirations in life mattered little and whose ability to reach, as it were, for the stars had to be put aside and trodden into the ground so that the girls should be lifted up, at the expense of the boys. Boys whom, it must also be mentioned, were diagnosed with ADD or ADHD and put on brain-altering and highly addictive chemicals for the crime of being a boisterous boy trapped in an environment not tailored nor suited to him.

Is there any wonder, then, that suicide is such a big killer of young men? There has never been – in my lifetime – any focus on lifting up boys, on making boys feel good about themselves. Quite the contrary. Boys have been told to make amends for years of so-called oppression carried out by their forefathers. Boys have been told that they are rapists-in-waiting, that any sexual desire they may feel should be a source of shame, that their sexuality is simplistic and primitive.

And this from schools, whose teachers are supposed to be the ones from whom facts and truths about the world shall be made clear. It translates into confusion. Chivalry. Confusion. Girls and boys are of equal worth, we are told. So why shall boys and men sacrifice for the well-being and the up-lifting of girls and women at the expense of themselves? Why shall we then not expect the same standards, the same responsibilities for one self from girls as we do for boys? Shall not girls and boys cooperate? Shall not women and men cooperate? Giving and receiving in equal measures, being told the same so as to lift both up? In this age of equality, why is it only the lives, well-being, future, of girls that matter, and why must the boys be thrown to the wolves?

Revenge.

Revenge and retribution for perceived prior oppression.

Revenge.

Reparations paid by a generation of boys and young men who have done nothing wrong but be born with a set of cock and balls on their battle banner in this manufactured gender war, manufactured by ideologues whose gripe with the world at large translates into psychosis – a dissociative state from whose point of view all is translucent, fleeting and nonsensical, with no values but the emotional knee-jerk reaction of offence taken for the sake of taking offence.

And growing further from this den of indoctrination, young girls grow up to be young women, and still being told the same thing – girls rule the world. You can do anything, you can be anything, boys drool, girls rule. And young boys grow up to be young men, still hearing the same – girls rule, girls can be all, boys and men must help girls and women.

And no-one must help boys and men, not even themselves.

Boys and men are driven into a life of servitude – driven into the same traditional gender-roles which the feminist hive-mind claim to have eradicated. Now, they may claim that they have eradicated it for men as well. But this is simply not true. And this is made evident in the words and actions of feminists themselves, who still demand men do for them, sacrifice for them, giving them their all whilst having no right to demand anything in return. In our secular societies, for lack of God, we have given the position of deity to the exalted state of womanhood – to give to her, to do for her, to make for her, to pray to her so that she may absolve us of our sins and so that we may become – to her eyes and mind and ears and claws – redeemed, cleansed and worthy of the heavenly bliss that is her companionship.

Through this lens of equality, boys and men are told that their path towards healing is wrong. That we need to open up and talk about our feelings, instead of repressing them. As if the feminine path to healing wherein emotions are discussed is the one and only path towards healing. Men, in general terms, are drawn towards action as a means of healing. Or, failing that, solitude. To mull things over on their own. Whereas women are drawn to social circles, seeking comfort in friends and in family. There is nothing wrong with this. The issue comes when boys and men are told to heal in a manner contrary to their nature, as if their very nature and their natural path towards healing is wrong. As if we only act a certain way, not that we are a certain way. The mere notion that men only act manly is insulting in and off itself. Try telling a woman to stop acting like a woman all the time, and see what results you get. It wouldn’t be accepted. But boys and men are supposed to accept it; the narrative of toxic masculinity being what kills men. As a boy becomes a man, the first thing he realizes, if he listens to this gobsmacking advice, is that there is no-one there willing to listen to his problems. He might open up as much as he may; the best he can get is half-interested nods and blinks. The worst he can get is being told he suffers from fragile masculinity, which is odd considering his apparent toxic masculinity is what causes him to not talk about his issues. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Laying down, as the ground-rules for discourse, that the very nature of men is faulty does contribute, in my view, to the suicide rates in no small way.

Keep in mind that I am writing on feminism, not women. That, although feminism wishes it to be so, feminism does not equal women. And women does not equal feminism. Feminism have become, for all intents and purposes, a religion. It is a cult. It is a dogmatic victim-cult, hell-bent on revenge, fuelled by its own mythology, maintaining a canon of saints and prophets whose words and deeds shall not be taken in vain, or be set upon by arguments. Feminism has become untouchable. And dangerous. And its reach is such that it has infiltrated everything; the medieval catholic church packaged anew. No-one expects the feminist inquisition! Yet, one and all should expect the feminist inquisition, as they come rampaging and roaring and screeching your way the moment you voice opposition to their dogma and their orthodoxy.

Young boys shown feminism as the true path towards equality between the genders from an early age are sure to believe it. Even when experiencing, time and again, that it does not view the genders as equal. Even when experiencing, time and again, that the dogmatic victim-cult treats the genders quite the opposite of equally. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Through indoctrination and through brainwashing, their belief, as well as the belief of the girls, in feminism and feminism only is ground into them from an early age. And experiencing the forked serpentine tongue of feminism upon their soul and their bodies may only breed cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they are told that we are all equal and that we are all treated equally. On the other, they are shown through actions and words that they are not. And being told, time and again, of the errors of their ways by their very nature, through no fault of their own, confusion breeds within. Confusion and inner turmoil.

Men are overrepresented in all the negative statistics – victims of violence, drug and substance abuse, homelessness, suicide, joblessness, hopelessness, despair and grimness, lower age expectancy and dying more often at work. And what are we doing about this? We are focusing solely on girls and on women, and are told when trying to bring up these facts, that it is not a gendered issue and so we must not view this through the lens of gender. The gendered lens is brought out solely when girls and women are perceived as, or can be made out to be, the sole or main victims of some societal ill or other. Then – and only then – will it be perceived as a gendered issue. But when boys and men fall victim to the horrors of societal ills, it does not need to be treated as a gendered issue. Incredibly strange, is it not? It is a gendered issue whenever women can be made out to be the most affected. It is not a gendered issue whenever men can be made out to be the most affected.

It is the grim sensation of hopelessness settling in our chests and in our stomachs. A grim spectre of purposelessness and a loss of direction. Boys and men are not needed, we are told from a tender age. Because we need to lift the girls and the women up and above. The point is driven home, time and again, through mass-media mass-manufacturing the same vile hatred of boys, men and masculinity due to the mass-media now being infected with the girls and women who grew up with these tall tales of feminism being served them on a silver-platter all through their education, teaching them that they are above reproach and that boys and men are below them and owe them their lives and their servitude. And it has such a stranglehold on our societies that speaking about it like I do gets me labelled a misogynist.

Me, the foul misogynist, wanting the genders to be treated equally and given equal rights under law. Sounds like a horrid hater of women, no? Me, the foul misogynist, wishing for cooperation and balance to the discourse on gender. Imagine what paths we have been made to thread to make it so. Imagine how crooked these paths are, and with so many forks in the road being made necessary in order to justify labelling someone wanting equal treatment of the sexes as a hater of one sex and one sex only.

These talking points that feminism is only about equality, that it is not about hating men, need to be taken away. For they are simply not true. At the rotten heart of feminism lie the blatant hatred of men and of masculinity itself. Which is why I constantly bring up feminism. To get to the root of the rot within our societies, we need to examine feminism. And then we need to dismantle it, remove it from its positions of leadership and get this ridiculous neural imprint of ours that it is only about equality stripped away. To heal the hurt of our societies, we need to remove the rot. And we must bring balance to the discourse. Equal treatment of the genders is not a topic to be discussed by one voice and one voice only. In particular when that one voice has as its sole focus one gender and one gender only. How incredibly authoritarian, how fantastically totalitarian, how astonishingly arrogant, must one be to imagine to be the only set of ideas worth anything, and thus the only voice allowed to speak on behalf of gender? Feminism proves time and again that it knows jack shit about men. So why in the snoot-fuck should we allow them to speak on behalf of men? It is ridiculous, preposterous and ideological. And that is all it is.

I am frightfully aware of the fact that my writings tend to be bleak and hopeless, offering little in the way of solution; perhaps only offering some cathartic release. This is, more like than not, a product of my own bleak hopelessness and despair in regards to how the winds of our societies are blowing.

This despair and hopelessness goes contrary to what I actually wish to achieve with these writings.

I have no intention of staying lost in a pit of hopelessness and despair.

I have no wish to stay trapped within a cage of anger and rage either.

And I do not wish this for others.

The fact of the matter, though, and the pure realistic view of things makes it very easy to justify both feelings of hopelessness and of anger. And detaching from justified anger is as difficult as detaching from hopelessness when once it has settled within oneself.

This hopelessness leads to bleak outlooks, leads to checking out and not returning. And that is not good. Unless one turns it around. Turning ones back on society and becoming the archetypal rebel-character, living by his own rules, may well be a strength within itself; a fantastic picture of self-reliance and individual strength as much as it may be a picture of someone who society has cast aside. Own your self and own your shit.

The message sent to girls and women is a message that should also be sent to boys and to men; that they are strong and able and that one should aspire to live to the best of ones abilities. So why not send it to boys and men as well?

The sensation of hopelessness, the loss of direction, the loss of a sense of purpose and a sense of self all ties into, I think, the view of men as doers of things; as being what we do and defining ourselves from what we do, instead of what we are. Men as utilities, as disposable servants for the greater good (Cue Hot Fuzz – “the Greater Good”) of society. This is an archaic notion of men upheld as much by traditional values as by feminist dogma demanding men do for women – by which they mean, of course, feminism – even when claiming they don’t need no man. Again, I am reminded of He for She, which I think is one of the most insulting speeches I have ever heard. It is the view of men as protectors and providers, of caretakers and chivalrous knights saving the poor maiden wrapped up neatly and nicely in a new package; painting women as helpless victims and objects acted upon by evil men and in need of being saved by good men, even if the view is that all men are wicked and false at heart. Men are being told that we are not needed, by and large, whilst still being expected to rush to the aid of damsels in distress. We are not needed. Except when called upon to help women.

What we need to do is to consider ourselves as human beings first and foremost. To get to know our self. To define ourselves from what and who we are, not from what we do. To consider ourselves as our selves first, and what we do second, so that our humanity comes before our utility. In so doing, the need we feel to prove our usefulness comes second to the strength we have in our sense of self, our belief in our own strength and value as a human being. This, I think, will lessen the stranglehold of feminism in no small way, as there will be no men rushing to the forefront of the gender-war to prove themselves useful and thereby valuable. Because we have already become aware of our selves; we will already know that we have value in and off ourselves. Through this way of thinking, I think, it will all begin and it will all end – beginning with a whisper in the depths of the manosphere, and, given time, ending in a cacophony of vibrant, fantastic, rapturous and celebratory laughter vibrating fantastically throughout our societies.

– Moiret Allegiere, 09.03.2019

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Visit my blog:

https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/

Check out my youtubechannel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA

Check out my bitchutechannel:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/

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

twatter:

https://twitter.com/MAllegiere

Gab:

https://gab.ai/Moiret_Allegiere

Minds:

https://www.minds.com/Moiret

Flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152465815@N04/

Circumnavigating Circumcision (Or: How I learned to not trust the government or shut my mouth):

unpretentious study tree A4 lowres

Ill: «An unpretentious study of a tree I found as a stock footage somewhere on the internet», A4, Moiret Allegiere, 2019.

 

We, in our eternal quest for the fabled land of equality or equity or both; in our lost mirror-maze of confused altruism, have forgotten to thread the middle-path and consider all as individual beings of equal worth and as such deserving of equal protection under the law. We are lost in the dead-pan idea that a society should be judged on how it treats its girls and women, disregarding how it treats its men and how it treats its boys.

The mythology of the ever-expanding and all-devouring patriarchy defiling Gaia in her beautiful state of true balanced neutrality and compassion is all-encompassing and drowns the discourse in a septic pool of stagnant rot. It does not matter how boys and men are treated, because boys and men are privileged by default and oppressive by nature and so all our focus and all our altruism ought to be focused on the well-being of girls and women, as they are the ones who are struggling to get by in this glorious and nurturing world we would have inhabited were it not ravaged, raped and defiled by the patriarchy.

It is world-and-mythology building on a scale rivalling the fantastic world-building of Tolkien; both a world and a view of the world built from the ground up by ideologues with an axe to grind and a chocolate-chip-cookie on their shoulders; ideologues with fingers deeply embedded in every pie there is. Ideologues of such cleverness and such clarity of vision that they have succeeded in painting the world in vibrant and stunningly nuanced black and white, making it so easy to understand as men bad, women good.

This, of course, leads us onwards on the left-hand path, straying from the middle-path, easily turning the whole shebang on the head. Of course, men also struggle. But women struggle more. And men struggle because of men and women struggle because of men. And more men benefit even if men struggle and no women benefit, even the women that benefit do not benefit, and so, really, since men struggle less and women struggle more, we ought to focus our attention on how women are doing. An incredible quest and unbelievable mission guiding us towards equality by considering women and women first and foremost in the dilapidated duplexes of equal rights.

And here come the loud wailing of the air-raid sirens. Here come the death and the destruction, here come the shades of shame from time immemorial, the shaming of men daring to consider the human rights of boys and of men as being of equal worth to the human rights of girls and of women. What do you mean, the human rights of men and boys? Human rights are human rights and are not gendered, you filthy misogynistic jack-hammer-rapist you, you foul basement-dwelling sexual assault co-ordinator, you! You are scum. And you better believe it.

Strange and odd then, is it not, that male babies do not have the right to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, whereas female babies do? Strange that the feminist insanity consider an adult woman’s choice to cosmetically alter her genitals for appearance and nothing but appearance a sign of female subjugation to men, whereas a baby boy being genitally mutilated by the wish of his parents is not a sign of male subjugation. Strange that the right to have ownership over ones own body do not extend to boys but only extend to girls. “My body, my choice” is the sentence and the rhetoric of choice. For women and for women only. Excepting, yet again, if women chose to do with their bodies and lives what the feminist orthodoxy does not approve of. His body, his choice does not exist. For religious freedom. For the glory of suppression of sexuality – of male sexuality, the beast of the revelation, the foul harbinger of doom and of the end of the world.

One would be inclined to believe that any-and-all should be protected from being forcibly mutilated. One would be inclined to believe that the quest for bodily autonomy – the my-body-my-choice rhetoric of ages upon ages – should also extend to the bodies of boys and of men. Alas; this is not so. The realm of chaos which we inhabit has deemed it not so. The lawful protection of female bodies do not extend to male bodies. Female genital mutilation is bad. Male genital mutilation… well, that is just religious freedom, dont’cha know. And here we go and there it goes, our notions of equal treatment going down the drain again in silver-tongued and lopsided madness posing as egalitarian concerns for the religious rights of the parents of the child, not of the child itself. Strange that the religious freedom of someone should override the bodily autonomy of someone else entirely. A child is its own being, not merely an extension of its parents. As such, one would not be amiss to believe that the religious freedom of the parents end where the body of the child begins; that the religious freedom of the child begins where his body begins. This is very much the case in regard to girls. But not in regards to boys.

So strange and so curious, so weird and unheard of in this age of supposed equal treatment. Of course; I am aware that the madness of male genital mutilation in the USA is not only a product of religion. That it is an issue in-and-off itself. I choose to focus on the religious aspects in this ramble, as that is the reason given for the legal mutilation of boys in my own country.

Last year, I contacted the Norwegian department of equality (yeah, that does sound slightly Orwellian, does it not? Who decides the meaning of equality? Feminist ideologues.), inquiring amongst other things as to why in the world genital mutilation of boys were still allowed, when it is illegal – and has been since 1995, with a maximum prison sentence of 8 years for anyone caught doing so – to mutilate the genitals of girls. Now, I consider 1995 to be far too late in regards to making it illegal to mutilate girls. In my opinion, mutilating children should not be allowed at all. It is odd, then, that this reasonable approach to things – that is: don’t fucking mutilate the genitals of children, you worm-licking ass-hats – should still be subject to debate where boys are concerned, but not where girls are concerned. It is incredibly strange to me that we allow the mutilation of one gender at birth, but not the other, under the pretence of religious freedom. It is incredibly strange to me that parents of baby girls do not have the right to ritually mutilate their daughters, whereas the parents of baby boys have the right to ritually mutilate their sons. One would almost be inclined to believe that the well-being of girls is considered far more important than the well-being of boys. But that can’t be it, can it? Not in this land of supposed equality, where all are just as equal as the other and the other is sometimes more equal than the all, but we don’t mention that. That surely can not be it, in this land of equality where men and boys apparently have it far better than girls and women?

Well, the department of equality, after I sent two follow-up emails requesting a reply because they took their sweet time in replying, sent me an email linking to a governmental hearing on the issue from 2011. ( https://www.ldo.no/globalassets/horingsuttalelser1/2011/91935_1_p.pdf ) That is, seven years prior to the year my email was sent. Seven years. Let that sink in a bit.

After reading the hearing they supplied me with I sent them another email wherein I uttered my dissatisfaction with their reply, their conclusion and the entire god-damned hearing. In short; legalizing genital mutilation of baby-boys and not baby-girls is not considered gendered discrimination. It is a question of religious freedom. Which, to my rupturing ears, fracturing mind and gobble-smacked eyes, sounds an awful lot like rhetorical bullshit to justify gendered discrimination. They replied to my follow-up email with another email in which they told me that they did not wish to hear from, or speak with, me any more.

In short; I got dumped and subsequently ghosted by a governmental department whose funding is very much dependent on my taxes. They stuck their fingers in their ears and sang la-la-la-la-la, pretending that I did not exist and that they could not hear me. I wish I was making this shit up. But I am not.

Now, what first struck me about this hearing is the fact that every single argument they made for still allowing the mutilation of baby boys could just as easily be used to justify the mutilation of baby girls.

I will go through a few points in the hearing. Translated from Norwegian, to the best of my abilities. I will not translate the entire thing, but that which sticks out the most to me.

Today, the expenses of circumcision is funded by the public, but there are few possibilities of getting it done at a hospital because the procedure is not prioritised. Some procedures are done at private hospitals, paid for by the parents themselves (3500-9500 NOK).”

Now, this alone is frightening. Paid for by the public of course means paid for by by our taxes. Why anyone’s taxes should be spent paying for unnecessary ritual mutilation is beyond me. In particular since it is a fairly uncommon practice over here in the frozen wastes of Norway. I would much rather see it completely abolished than just uncommon practice, but that does not matter much. What matters here is that I am paying for boys to be mutilated. My money is spent mutilating boys. And I am not OK with this.

The department expresses concern that this situation causes many parents to chose ‘non-professional help’. Both model A and B therefore contain a plan for full financing of circumcision from the public – as it, in principle, also is today.”

How horrible this is, that the current model is so much of a travesty that it causes the parents to seek unprofessional help to get the circumcision done. Instead of just, you know, not mutilating the penises of little boys, we make the public pay for it so that the mutilation at the very least is done professionally. And free of charge. Ha-ha! What a fantastic idea. Strange, however, that mutilating girls is not funded by the public, even though one would be inclined to believe – should this logic be followed through with – that keeping it illegal only leads to the girls being mutilated unprofessionally, as opposed to being mutilated by a professional. But, you know, better to be professionally mutilated than unprofessionally mutilated when one is a boy. Very compassionate this. Very humanitarian.

The ombudsman is of the opinion that it is important that boys who are circumcised get qualified treatment and is followed up by qualified health-care professionals.”

Instead of, you know, just not mutilating them to begin with. Instead of just, you know, not allowing religious beliefs to be of more importance than bodily autonomy and genital integrity. Again, where boys are concerned. Parents of girls are not allowed to practice their religion faithfully. Parents of boys are. Lucky them!

Circumcision of boys can not, after the view of the ombudsman, be considered a medically necessary operation, but a ritual act. Circumcision of boys are accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. If the government should take responsibility to finance this practice, because demands that the parents pay for it themselves might lead to unprofessional circumcision, is a difficult question. Basically, religious practice such as circumcision should be paid for by the ones who wish to get it done. It is difficult to imagine that parents wish to gamble with the health of their children to save money. With the right to religious practice one could argue that it also follows an obligation in regards to society and in regards to the rights of others – for example the rights of children to not be inflicted pain or trauma upon. It may seem stigmatizing and prejudiced to suspect parents who practice ritual circumcision of not maintaining the health of their children, without documenting that this is the case today.”

Oh boy, where to begin? Firstly – it is not considered medically necessary. It is a ritual act, accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. OK. Why is it only upon boys this grand and glorious freedom of religion is inflicted so viciously and brutally? Why does not this religious freedom extend to the parents of girls who wish to “ritually circumcise” their daughters? After all – thinking that this would harm their daughters would be both stigmatizing and prejudiced. How in the festering cesspit of filth and double-think is this not clear and obvious gendered double standards? Everything quoted above could just as easily be used to justify the public financing of female genital mutilation. But, nope, that would be foul misogyny; that would be mutilation, not circumcision. That would be hatred of, and attempted control and coercion of, girls and women.

Also – gamble with the health of their children? Is that difficult to imagine, when they willingly allow their children to be mutilated? Is that not gambling with the health of their children by default; mutilating them for no reason other than muh religion? And children do have the right to not be inflicted pain and trauma upon. Excepting boys, whose pain and trauma may be inflicted as long as there are religious reasons to do so. Remember: religion supersedes the rights of baby boys to genital integrity, bodily autonomy and an infancy without pain and trauma. But the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls supersedes any-and-all religious freedom. Girls are precious and must be protected, boys are not precious and do not deserve protection. And if anyone interjects with the old argument of FGM and MGM being different, I will only say this: mutilating the genitals of children for religious reasons are bad, M’kay? Cutting peoples genitals without their permission is bad, M’kay?. Mutilating children are bad. Why in the salty, sub-standard gates of hell does this need to be spelled out? Why in the world is it so difficult to understand that boys and girls both ought to have the right to keep their genitals intact and their bodies unspoiled, religion or no?

The ombudsman enforces the laws in regards to discrimination, and keeps watch that, amongst other things, public officials work determined, methodically and actively to promote the purpose of the laws. In order for such discrimination to occur, there are terms that for example a practice treats some one worse than others based on one or more reasons for discrimination, for example gender and/or ethnicity, without there being a legitimate reason for the discrimination.”

I would dare say that a lawful practice that allows for the mutilation of the genitals of one gender for nothing but ritual reasons, but at the same time disallows the mutilation of the genitals of the other gender for ritual reasons are very clearly treating one gender worse than the other under law. I would dare make the claim that this is gendered discrimination of boys written into law. I would dare to make the radical claim that both boys and girls should have the right to genital integrity and bodily autonomy, and that granting that right to only one gender is institutionalized sexism, telling us nothing but this: Girls are more important than boys. End of story.

The practice of ritual circumcision of boys are debated, and some hold the opinion that the practice should be forbidden, amongst other things because it raises questions as to whether or not this practice discriminate against boys on the basis of sex. The ombudsman for children wish for a lower age limit in regards to circumcision, which protect the children. Today, only circumcision of girls and women are illegal.”

Well, yes. It does discriminate based on gender. Don’t believe me? Flip the genders. Make it illegal to genitally mutilate boys, but legal to genitally mutilate girls. Does that seem discriminatory to you? Does that seem as though it is unfair, as though it protects one gender but not the other gender? If yes, why is it impossible to see this when the genders are flipped back to their original position in the flip-flop experiment; in the old switch-a-roo? Could it be the empathy-gap once again? Could it possibly be – like stated before – that we quite simply do not care for boys and men as we care for girls and women, that boys and men are treated as lesser human beings? To me, this is evident, considering there even is a debate on whether or not baby penises should be cut, considering there even is a debate on whether or not this is gendered discrimination. Were it flipped, the answers would be clear, bright as the confounded face of God himself and self-evident. Since it is boys, however, we need to consider the religious rights of the parents before the rights of the boy. I know. I am repeating myself. Clearly, I have to. There is no way for the boy to comprehend religion, no way for him to chose his own religion – or lack thereof this early in life. It is forced upon him through bodily trauma. Here’s your religion, boy – snip, snip. Stop crying, and be grateful! Welcome to your life; first we hurt you physically, then we dehumanize you socially. Hope you’ll have a good run. Just remember to not complain about it, foul rapist-in-waiting that you are.

The ombudsman do not know of any European states that forbid ritual circumcision of boys today, or that the practice is considered as a possible violation of human rights.”

Yes. An “Everyone else is doing it” argument from the government. Need I say more? I also find it very peculiar that it is not considered a possible violation of human rights. From what I have understood, it is a very basic human right to not get needlessly mutilated. I assume this only goes for girls, then. Human rights are human rights, but some humans are more human than others and boys? Nah – they don’t need to keep the most sensitive part of their penis.

Not to mention that the foreskin is fused to the glans until early puberty, which means that the foreskin needs to be torn lose from the glans before the actual cutting is done. Want to lose sleep for a good few nights? Go watch a video of the penis of an infant boy being mutilated. Absolutely astonishing, this lack of basic empathy. Absolutely mindbogglingly absurd that we do not extend the same rights to genital integrity to boys that we do to girls, whilst claiming equal rights for all! Mutilating girls bad, mutilating boys good. Because religious freedom trumps all, even the right to an unmutilated body. As long as the victim is a boy. Because the vulva is holy, and the penis is unholy. Because we care for girls and not for boys. I wonder – were someone to drag a fifteen year old boy kicking and screaming into the doctors office, strap him to the table and then proceed to brutally and savagely remove his foreskin with no anaesthetic, against his wishes, would that be considered abuse?

In both these proposals for a solution, the department proposes a law that the regional health-services shall conduct ritual circumcision as a health-service.”

Our public health-service shall perform unnecessary religious rituals. All paid for by the taxpayers. There’s nothing wrong with mutilating baby boys. The public shall pay for mutilation. When will the public be forced to pay for the mutilation of baby girls, then, I wonder? Or may we maybe perchance and perhaps just stop fucking mutilating the genitals of babies, whose consent to the procedure or to the religion can not be given? May we maybe perhaps and perchance treat girls and boys equally, giving them equal rights to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, or is that simply to much to ask from the department of equality? Is it also to much to ask that this religious freedom be granted to the baby boys in question, so that they may chose their own religion – or lack thereof – when they are old enough to understand both religion and the procedure of circumcision, thereby granting them the possibility to make their own choice in regards to the intactness of their genitals? The foreskin is supposed to be there, right where it is, protecting the glans. The glans is supposed to be internal. You twatwaffle.

The ombudsman is positive to the proposal if a public health-service reduces the real risk for damage and trauma for the boys.”

There is a real damage and a real trauma done already. Removing the foreskin is damaging. It damages the body. It amputates part of the body. It removes a part of the penis. This is damaging to the body. This is damaging to the boys. There is trauma to the body. There is the ripping of the foreskin, the cutting of a penis attached to a boy who is attached to a table, often without an anaesthetic. Why do I need to spell this obvious fact out? Are our politicians of a special breed? Are they insane? Have they no grasp of words, reality and of the male body? Do they exist in a different sphere of reality? Are they the Anunnaki; grand reptilian overlords with no empathetic understanding of human beings, be that human being a boy and thus less biologically important for the continued production of human drones? Are they blind and deaf? Clearly, they are not mute. Something resembling coherent words and sentences seem to slip from their mouths and serpent-tongues ever so often. But blind and deaf? Perhaps and perchance. At least they are blind and deaf when their subjects are of a male persuasion; wielders of the horrid attack-cocks and swingers of the giant, pendulous, testosterone-poisoning ballistic assault balls.

On the other hand, we can not see that there are any documentation that the risk is less when the boys are circumcised at the health-services than if they are circumcised through private solutions”.

No, no, the risk probably stays the same. You know; the risk of bleeding to death. Or the risk of severely damaging the penis, removing more than planned. Or the risk of infections. See; why in the world would one deem it safe, proper and quite alright to have an open wound in a diaper, in close proximity to urine and faeces? Why should it not be considered more or less risky to have a penis with an open wound nesting comfortably atop a bed of piss and shit? These risks, and more, are not considered a problem for the powers that be. Boys don’t need safety. Hell, just mutilate them at birth. That’ll teach them humility. That’ll teach them to know both God and the Government; the biggest G’s in the life of boys and men outside of the G-spot, in front of whose hallowed and sacred countenance you shall learn your place and bend the knee in subdued submission.

The ombudsman sees that model A, which proposes that people who are not medical doctors should be able to perform the procedure are in line with the religious practice such as it is today. Such a practice should be carried on if there does not exist any documentation that says otherwise. The ombudsman also agrees that there should be demands in regards to competence when people other than medical doctors perform the procedure”.

Ah, yes, religious people who are not medical doctors can mutilate their baby boys because religious people who are not medical doctors have done so in the past. At the very least, they agree that there should be some demand in regards to competence. How very humanitarian and compassionate of them. See; you may be mutilated by a non-professional, as long as the non-professional mutilator has some competency in regards to mutilating babies. We can’t just let any riff-raff of the streets mutilate babies. They need competency in regards to mutilation, god-damnit. Bring on the professional mutilators! Personally, I have dubbed the professional mutilator “Mutila-Thor – wielder of the sword of the desert-sands!”

The department further proposes that the access for other people than medical doctors to perform ritual circumcision should only be allowed when the child is below two months of age, because the risk for complications are then reduced. The practice, such as it is today, varies somewhat.”

I can’t be reading this right. This can’t be right. Surely, I am stuck in some comatose state, or lost in perpetual limbo, doomed to wade through shit until the rapture, so that I can pay for my multitude of sins, as well as the sins of my ancestors. Surely, this is me forced to do penance. This is the government telling us, if I read this correctly, that children under two months of age should be mutilated by non-professionals. Because that is very considerate. Remember; boys don’t have feelings and don’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things. First we hurt them, then we hurt them some more when they grow up so they learn their place in the world. The rights of boys to a whole and unmolested body is of less importance than the religion of their parents, which may or may not be the religion of the boys later in life. The government agrees with this, of course. Boys are subject to cruelty authorised by the state. Girls are free from this cruelty.

This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with gendered discrimination, of course. There is, after all, only one gender to consider when it comes to discrimination. And that gender is female. Once again: reverse the genders in this, and see if you do not come to the conclusion that this is gendered discrimination through and through. If you do reach that conclusion after flipping the genders, why is this only visible after flipping the genders? Could it be that we do not offer the same level of empathy to boys that we do to girls, and later that we do not offer the same level of empathy towards men as we do towards women? Nah, no, nope, of course not. Because something-something patriarchy-theory and muh severe oppression that allows me my genital integrity. At least men don’t have to worry about the air conditioning, you sexist scumbag, you. I know. The air-conditioning one is a pet-peeve of mine. It just really boggles my mind and shows the astonishing level of first world problems evident in feminist orthodoxy.

This question should therefore be discussed closer with those belief-systems that practice circumcision later than the proposed age-limit”.

Why, yes, of course it should. Instead of, you know, not considering it a violation of human rights. My body, my choice only matters when it is a female body. A male has no choice over his own body. We must consider the feelings of the mutilators before the feelings of the boy.

The question of anaesthetic in regards to the procedure is a controversial topic. Research on the importance of anaesthetic is not unambiguous. Therefore, it is important here as well that the department invite the religions affected by this to a consulting dialogue in regards to the question.”

Yeah, no, you know, pain is only pain and it toughens you up. Should I happen to go into surgery in the near future, for whatever reason, I will demand them not use any anaesthetic. I will also demand a Buddhist monk perform the procedure instead of a licensed professional. Hell; I’ll just ask them to remove my spleen and one of my kidneys while they are at it. Don’t need them, I believe. Just take one of my lungs as well. As long as it is an unprofessional doing it, it should be quite alright. And I’ll fucking demand that the public pay for it. Fuck, come to think of it, perhaps I should demand the public pay for my various, and completely unnecessary, facial piercings as well as my tattoos. Why the hell not? We’re all mad here, after all, and my religion of choice dictate I pierce and decorate myself with sharp metal objects and sew vibrant colours into my skin for the fun of it. What religion is that, you ask? Well, I don’t know yet. But I’m sure I’ll come up with something convincing before long. My religious freedom, and all that. Why should not my self-imposed mutilation be covered by the public? Where is my free religious freedom?

The departments proposal touches upon a legal practice in Norway today. When the department in this way interferes with, and tries to change the ritual practices and traditions of minorities that basically are considered as legitimate, there is a major chance that the groups in question will consider it as being hostile to religion and minorities. The risk in this case is particularly severe because the proposal don’t affect the vast majority of boys and men in Norway today”.

It is not that long ago that female genital mutilation was deemed illegal in Norway. I am fairly certain that only a minority of girls in Norway were affected by that as well. Changing the ritual practices and traditions of minority religions is quite alright, as long as it interferes with the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls. We don’t need to worry about minorities getting pissed off then, you know. It only stands to reason. Obviously. Not in the least bit hostile to religious minorities when girls are saved. Only hostile to religious minorities when boys are saved. Got it. Also; mutilating baby boys is considered legitimate. Unnecessary surgery is legitimate where boys are concerned. Save the girls, use the rod on the boys. Chop chop, babies, snip, snip. Hope you will enjoy your further endeavours in this vast and beautiful world we have crafted for you.

Thirdly, there is a consequentialist dilemma in the case, in that using the law as a means to an end only has a point if it leads to changed behaviour. The dangers of reactions from the affected groups, as mentioned above is, besides the obvious, that it contributes to a poorer climate for cooperation and community, that the proposed change in law won’t have any effect on the problem that is to be solved. In Sweden, which practices something akin to proposal A, an evaluation done in 2005, showed that there were reason to believe that ritual circumcision still took place outside of the health-services, done by people who had no permission to do so. The ombudsman therefore urges the department in the work onwards to make sure to clarify the knowledge that is at the root of the concern, and that groups at the root of the concern is invited to participate in possible improvements that might contribute to reduce the real risk associated with circumcision of boys”.

Everything written above could just as well be used in regards to female genital mutilation. Every single argument in this gibbering stream of nonsense could just as well be turned on its head and used as an argument for the continued mutilation of female genitals. There is no reason to believe that ritual circumcision of girls have ended. It is just done with people with no permission to do so. It does not matter, of course, as girls need to be protected and boys need not be protected. Is this not clear fucking evidence that the government consider boys as lesser human beings than girls? Mutilation of boys is paid for by the public, done under the diamond-coated hammer of the government, whose fear of hurting the minorities is so grand and so virtuous that they see no qualms in hurting minorities when they save girls from mutilation.

Double standards and hypocrisy is the words of the day when dealing with this supposed gender-equality, whose department cares only for women and minorities and does not give two flying kerfluffled monkey-butts about boys and men. Also worth noting is that the paper from which I have quoted is written and signed by two women. Usually, this would not matter to me. The reason I care now is that the feminists have been shouting and roaring and raging, demanding men don’t have a say in anything regarding abortion. But women sure as hell feel entitled to talk about, and decide, whether or not the genitals of a boy should be mutilated at birth or not. No uterus, no opinion?

OK – live by your own rules.

No penis, no opinion.

Or is that a sexist statement?

OK – live by your own rules, then.

I suppose it is OK, as long as no minorities are hurt. The baby boys whose genitals are mutilated are sure as hell hurt, but that does not matter in the grand scheme and schism of things, as the feelings, the well being, the pain of boys and men are unreal, unseen, unheard and unspoken. And no wonder that it is unspoken, when there even is a debate as to whether or not boys should be allowed to keep their genitals intact. No wonder that it is unspoken, when concerns raised in regards to the well-being of boys and men are met by a department who sees no qualms in telling me that they are not interested in hearing from me any more; the very same department that is put in place to make sure we have equality. Equality as long as it benefits anyone but boys and men of a majority persuasion.

How strange and peculiar, this magicians word “equality” is; how mystifying and metaphysical it is, being able to change shape and form at will to suit the pointy hats and curly toes of those whose job it is to decide what is or what is not equal, and who is and who is not granted equal rights to their body and to their choices.

The department of equality proves that it is a department of feminism, not egalitarianism. Made evident by the lack of concern for baby boys, whose genitals may be mutilated by professionals and non-professionals alike, as long as it is a minority religion and a minority of the population, it is alright and it ain’t no thing.

Made evident by the concern for baby girls, whose genitals may not be mutilated by neither professionals or non-professionals, as that would be trespassing on their goddess-given rights to a whole body and to intact genitals.

Welcome, yet again, to the enlightened age of equality, where all are supposedly equal under the law, though some are exempt from the law and some are not. Leave your enthusiasm at the door and stab yourself in the groin with this pair of gardening-shears, please. It’ll save us the trouble later on. Welcome to the wonders of religious freedom, whose grasping god-hands surpass the freedom of choice where boys are concerned, but whose grasping god-hands may not touch the frail bodies of girls, for they are protected by law even from the face and hands of God himself.

*

What is to be done, then? Well – make it illegal to mutilate baby genitals, period. It really should be as easy as that. When the boys and girls both are grown up and old enough, they may chose or they may not chose to have the procedure done. Consider this proof of their commitment to their religion of choice. I don’t give two flying blabber-mouthed politicians asses what adults chose to do with their own bodies, on their own money and in their own time. I do care, however, about babies who are completely unable to give consent to such a procedure and to religion at all, being mutilated for the benefit of their parents and their parents only. I do care about the blatant god-damned double standards.

They are so obvious that one has to be wilfully blind to not see them. Or, one has to admit to having less empathy for baby boys in order to defend the position that it should be illegal to perform on girls, but legal to perform on boys.

I don’t care whether or not there are differences in the procedures. I don’t care about the differences of a vagina and a penis. I don’t give a rats ass. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. And completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent are completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent, no matter the gender of the victim or the reasons for the mutilation. One can not claim equal treatment under law when one has written unequal treatment into law. One can not claim gender-neutrality in the laws of the land when the laws of the land are not gender-neutral.

This, of course, does not matter. The arguments are there. It is different, they say. No, it is not, I say. It is mutilating someone with no reason but ritual, but religion, but belief. It is removing parts of someone for no good reason. It is abuse of a child.

Since January 1, 2015, the hospitals in Norway are demanded to perform the procedure if asked. Boys don’t matter. And no one cares about this. I wonder what the outrage would be, were the hospitals demanded to mutilate girls, should the parents wish this? I wonder how many articles we would see then, about this rampant misogyny, this proof that we live in a culture that hates women – just hates them so much that they are mutilated by governmental permission? Since it is boys, however, we are scared to anger the minorities and hurt their feelings. And so we do not only allow this, we fund this. Because the well-being of the boy falls second to the well-being of the group which he belongs to. Because the boy, just as the man, is measured only by the sacrifices he makes for his community, not for his inherent humanity. The community is more important than the male. Whereas the female is more important than the community. It is, truly, a tale old as time. It is the disposable – and despicable – male prototype rearing its head again from the vacuum of a society whose values progress only where it benefits women and minorities; whose gender-roles only change for women and women only, whose lawful protection of body and of soul may be twisted and contorted as long as boys and men fall victim to the twists and turns.

And we don’t care about the sensitivity of the foreskin; that there is a significant loss of delicate and pleasurable sensation in the penis when the foreskin is removed:

( http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/261 ) We don’t care that it protects the glans, that it is an essential part of the male body. We don’t care that it contributes to lubrication during sex, or that the glans hardens and sensitivity in the penis in lost after a circumcision. We don’t care about the scar-tissue. Or the very simple fact that the foreskin is supposed to be there. We don’t care that male infant foreskin is used in the production of cosmetics for women, as this horrifyingly misandrist article tells us: ( https://www.mommyish.com/foreskin-skin-cream ).

I wonder what the reactions would be, were there to exist shaving cream made for men from parts of the mutilated genitals of girls – do you think the article linked would have the same wording then? Do you even think it would be legal?

Not even the link found to sudden infant death syndrome seems to matter ( https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/circumcision-linked-to-sudden-infant-death-syndrome ). Because it is only boys and boys only, and in this world in which boys and men are so privileged and so catered to, it does not matter that we mutilate them, that there is risks for infections and bleeding out, that their sexual pleasure is lessened, that we put them at risk for dying at a very young age.

I could go on and on about circumcision, pointing out that John Harvey Kellogg proposed circumcision of boys to combat masturbation, thereby giving full credence to the thought that it is a concept created to attack the sexuality of men and make them suffer for it; much the same, in fact, as the author of the article on the foreskin-cosmetics lays down as a reason to not compare male genital mutilation with female genital mutilation. Of course, with the genders reversed. Controlling male sexuality is not a problem, because male sexuality is monstrous and primal and needs to be controlled, by any means necessary. Controlling female sexuality, however, is a problem as female sexuality is holy, saint-like, angelic, a chalice of healing passed with much reverence to the lips of those who have proved themselves worthy.

There is, quite simply, as stated time and again, a severe lack of empathy and understanding when it comes to boys and men. A lack of empathy so infused and engrained in our societies that we do not see it, even as it stares us straight in the eyes, challenging us to attack its established dominance. The mere fact that mutilating boys is legal where mutilating girls is illegal should be evidence enough that we do not consider the pain and the body of boys and of men to be of as much importance as that of girls and women.

It is sickening.

It genuinely makes me feel sick to my stomach and has, more than anything else, contributed immensely to my insomnia.

Lying awake at night pondering these things and trying to figure out how to put it into words coherent, meaningful and beautiful takes a good and solid chunk out of my sleep and out of my rest and of my emotional well-being.

This piece is, by far, the most difficult and challenging piece I have written. I find it very difficult to detach from these issues, so prevalent and dominant as they are in the social madness of our societal psychosis.

And, try as I might – try as we might – the message does not reach far enough, the lack of empathy unseen, unsung, unheard, does not reach any levels of social awareness. Because the church of feminist orthodoxy has decided that the only ones allowed to speak on behalf of gendered issues are a)feminism and b)women. Even when the issues affect boys and men, they are the ones supposed to speak about it.

A movement for women and women only are thus the only ones allowed in our collective psychosis to speak on issues affecting gender, even when they are not the gender affected by it.

It is their insistence, coupled with the gynocentrism of our cultures, that they are the ones seeking equality, that they are the voice of God in regards to gender equality, that stifles the discourse, that makes the raising of issues regarding boys and men so incredibly difficult and so incredibly important at the same time.

In order for the men’s movement to be heard and seen, the noose tied around the neck and balls of society by feminism needs to be removed. We can no longer exist in this state of perplexed confusion; saying that women have it worse so we must focus on women and on what the feminist cult say about gender, and disregard all other voices daring to speak on gender, labelling them as naught but backwards thinking conservative misogynists with a wish to chain women to the home so the men may be free to pillage, rape and ruin what is left of our societies with no repercussions.

As a society, we need to remove the blindfolds placed upon us by the might of the feminist movement and its ideologues and prophets, and view gender and gendered issues from a position not tainted by this cult-like frenzied ideology, claiming equality for all and seeking only supremacy through phoney victim-tears-and-points. Boys being mutilated at birth does not matter, because something-something women-worsting. I can not for the life of me understand how we can view the concept of equality between the genders through a lens focusing solely on women, and claim that this is what will make us equal.

We are lost in an alcohol-induced delirium; hallucinating wildly and rambling incoherently that the path towards equal treatment of all is to put the issues of woman top front and centre, disregarding anyone else in the process, or if not disregarding them, then trying to help them through a view of the world that sees men as the problem by virtue of nothing but being born with a penis that is to be mutilated as quickly as possible for no reason other than ritual, tradition and religion.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose the concept of equality. To oppose feminism is to oppose a lack of empathy for boys and for men; a lack of empathy that sees men being sacrificed, or expected to sacrifice, so that women and children shall benefit from it. Women and children first, and the men be damned.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose women. This should not be so difficult a concept to grasp. But there you have it. Opposing an ideology claiming to speak on behalf of all, when only speaking on behalf of a few representatives of half the population, sharing nothing but genitalia in common, is not opposing women. It is opposing a set of ideas built around men as oppressors and women as oppressed throughout eternity. It is opposing a set of ideas that has vengeance, retribution and a thirst for power, dominance and supremacy as the core of their values; a set of ideas that have managed to worm its way into the collective consciousness as the light of salvation, the only path able to lead us towards the exalted state of equality. That is: paradise regained through men doing penance for the perceived sins of their ancestors which taint their own DNA and their own behaviour, because feminism has said that it is so, and because of this it was so.

Claiming allegiance to feminism, however, is opposing the very basic human rights of boys and men for no other reason than them being boys and men. I would argue that feminism is in opposition to women as well, as feminism constantly and chronically paint women as helpless infants unable to navigate the world on their own, constantly in need of help, demanding others drop whatever they are currently holding or doing in order to rush, all heroically and brave and stoic in shimmering armour, to the aid of women whose frailty and weakness is such that they can not even handle air-conditioning or paying for dates or taking the first step in a relationship; whose soft and frail nature is such that they can not handle criticism without labelling it harassment. These are not my views, to be perfectly clear. These are the views spouted by feminist dogma, claiming strength and independence and showing naught but weakness and dependency. Women are so weak and so frail, in the eyes of feminist dogma, that they need the benevolent and all-seeing church of feminism to guide them on the path, to speak on their behalf and to tell them what to do or not to do.

My own views, obviously simplified for convenience, are that women and men are complimentary. My views are that women are completely capable of navigating the world and all its pitfalls just as men are, that men and women both have their own strengths and their own weaknesses, and that it is through cooperation and mutual respect – that is respect earned, not given – we will be able to grow, to overcome difficulties and function together in a shared space. Cooperation should be the unifier, not enmity and constant warfare.

This, however, will not come to pass as long as the voices trying to bring sense into the discourse by stating the obvious, for example that laws and rules and rights should be equal for all, and that with rights also come responsibilities, are shouted down as foul misogynists hating women by the same voices that, unashamedly, have nothing but contempt and hatred for men and for boys, future rapists that they all of course are. And the stranglehold this cult has on the governments of our ailing societies is self-evident to anyone, even the feminists, who are fully aware of their power and are utilizing it cynically; who are utilizing it in manipulative ways by claiming women to be victims of everything and men to be victims of nothing, claiming women to be victims and men to be victimizers, even when it is illegal to mutilate the genitals of girls – as it fucking should be – and legal to mutilate the genitals of boys – as it fucking should not be – in a society where we are supposed to be treated equally, regardless of gender and regardless of status. And as long as this unequal treatment is written into law, there is no equality between the genders.

Because one is protected, and one is not. This is pure fucking common sense slapping you in the face with a rotting fish. The stench ought to fill your nostrils. Instead it is poo-pooed away as a non-issue, because the communities practising this genital mutilation could have their feelings hurt by the obvious. That is: mutilating the genitals of babies just to mutilate the genitals of babies is wrong regardless of gender, oddly enough. And that their religious convictions do not trump the rights of their babies to not have their bodies mutilated, no matter the gender of the baby.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 02.03.2019

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Visit my blog:

https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/

Check out my youtubechannel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA

Check out my bitchutechannel:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/

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

twatter:

https://twitter.com/MAllegiere

Gab:

https://gab.ai/Moiret_Allegiere

Minds:

https://www.minds.com/Moiret

Flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152465815@N04/

Zero-sum Empathy

nightwatch lowres

Ill: «Nightwatch», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere

«The torture never stops», Frank Zappa sang, way back in 1976. He weren`t wrong. In this synthetically manufactured drugaddled world we inhabit, empathy has become a zero-sum game to the cultural conversation; a societal good that must only ever benefit women. More often than not at the expense of men. It is as though empathy is a natural resource, limited in its bounty and as such not available in plentiful supply. I find this difficult to comprehend, but there you have it.

Somewhere in a Polish mine, male workers dig and carry empathy out of the ground on their bent backs, burdened by the weight of it crushing down on them. It is then doled out in limited quantities to those most deserving of it. Not women, not men, but the ones which feminism deem deserving of empathy: the ones who work for the cause of feminism according to their ability are given according to their needs. A maddeningly twisting and turning road criss-crossing the whitewashed castles where empathy is accumulated in great stores and delivered in small quantities to those in dire need of this natural resource.

Not everyone can receive empathy. Responses are dead-panned ridiculous. «What, you want empathy? Well, suck on your thumb and go lick a lemon, this empathy is for the whamens!» The weird fractioning of our societies is born from the tainted shivering skeletons of destructive class warfare. Pitting women against men and men against women in a continually escalating war, born from the stinging sensation that men are oppressors by nature. And as such, men are not deserving of empathy, love, care or consideration by their very nature.

The apex-fallacy back at it in full fucking swing. I`ve got them ol` cosmic blues again, mama, my back is bent and troubled and I ain`t got no home and I ain`t got no job and my children are missing in the crossfires of mad divorce, but it don`t matter because I am privileged here I lie in the gutters sucking on a bottle of dubious homebrew in an attempt to keep warm. Can I please receive some empathy?

Nope. You are a patriarchal oppressor. Sorry, brah. Now check your privilege.

Empathy is a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore. It is reserved for the plight of womanhood. What? Did you honestly believe that you would garner some empathy and understanding for your troubles? No need to make yourself out to be so pitiful. Are you unaware that somewhere out there are people who actually believe that women should not get statefunded abortions brought to their bedside and delivered by caring hands by the hundreds? How can a privileged male expect empathy and understanding when this atrocity of opinion is unfolding before our very eyes and quivering lips? Get rid of that fedora. Go shave your neckbeard, shitlord.

Expecting society to show empathy for troubled men and boys is misogyny by the bucketload; shit and filth dug up from the trenches of gender warfare. Bullets flying by at ridiculous speeds. Coarse screams of pain. Vivid visions of dismemberment. Death and destruction. Pure filth.

Raising concern for men and boys take away from the concerns raised about women and girls. You have to know this. Empathy is a zero-sum game. And the mining of empathy must stop at some point, the stocks must leave the crippled hands of the Polish mineworkers, all grey of skin and bent of back from the laborious process of extracting empathy from the miraculous beating heart of Gaia herself; the essence of all empathy. To consider both men and women would be a task impossible in scope. There simply is not enough empathy to go around. Please leave your empathy at the door. The door just so happen to open up into a orphanage for girls. Or a battered women`s shelter. That`s where it belongs: with the women and with the girls. Boys and men can go fuck themselves in the gutters and be raped by angry needles. Or was that angry beavers, screaming and drooling madly into their faces as they raise concerns over this unequal doling out of empathy?

I`m talking, fuckface.

Shut the fuck up.

Ok then, you venomous harpy. I`ll shut up. Now, please show me the loving, caring and empathetic nature of womanhood you scream so loudly and passionately about, with spittle flying from your plasticine eyes and insane unblinking contempt vibrating in harmony with your shattered chakras. Ohm Mani Padme Harumph. Bah, humbug.

No?

Did not think so. Denying half of the human race empathy is par for the course when looking for the fabled land of equality, all mad frowns and guttermouth trolls. Sun rise, sun shine, but it shines only for thee, whereas the bells do toll for me. And the trolls don`t turn to stone in the sun. It merely solidifies their scorn and contempt.

See, I have tried and tried again to comprehend how talking about issues disproportionately affecting boys and men somehow detracts from talking about the issues affecting women. And I have failed to reach any level of comprehension in regards to this mad intoxicated whiplash-logic. In particular when feminism claims to work for the wellbeing of boys and men as well as the wellbeing of girls and women. Equality between the sexes. That is what feminism is all about. That is their doctrine. Too bad equality does not mean equality. Equality equals women. It is a one way street in a one horse town with one street.

How exactly does feminism help men and boys? Point me in the right direction, please. Is it by telling them that they are scum for wanting to sit in an audience listening to someone talk about the mental health of boys and men, in order to comprehend the suicide of a near and dear friend? Or by telling them that their nature is pathologic? Is it by being a «nasty woman»?

Fucking authoritarian hypocrites.

It`s like watching a mother who smokes five packs a day berate her son for smoking. The habit is picked up somewhere. If feminism do not want to be attacked as an ideology, perhaps they should not attack men and boys as a gender. See; here`s the major difference: feminism is an ideology. A set of ideas to be followed dogmatically and blindly. No idea is above scrutiny and no idea is above criticism. One choses to wear the labelled blindfold of feminism. In chosing this dubiously transparent label in order to work towards what one perceives as equality, one has chosen to think as the hive thinks. One has chosen the path of least resort, the path that grants the benefit of being able to attack with impunity and immunity all those who oppose. Because, after all, it is only about equality, as the manipulation of discourse dictate.

By being born male, one does not chose to be born male. Men are not an ideology to be attacked and picked apart, even if the feminist gobblesmack-theory theorizes that this is the case. No. Asserts. They assert that this is the case. Women are not under attack when feminism is attacked, even if the feminist douchebaggery deem it so. Feminism is under attack. Feminism may own the discourse and they may own the establishment. However: feminism do not own women and they do not own men, and more and more men and women are waking up to the nonsensical screech that is the choir of the feminist illuminati; the establishment pretending to fight the establishment, all jargon, false statistics and gibberish.

Oh, but feminism is not a monolith! Yeah yeah – fuck that bullshit right up the ear and infected sinus. What a great excuse to ignore and falsely push away the damage done. You know what is not a monolith? Men are not a monolith. And yet, men are treated as such by virtue of birth. The future is female. Men must be reduced to about ten percent of the population. Or placed in concentration camps. That`s how it goes. Welcome to obscurity; picking out, picking apart, hiding the shadow under the light and covering the light in nights of bloodstained satin.

Poisonous fumes are rising from the toxic wasteland following the devastating impact of the estrogen-bomb; talking about mens issues detract from the issues of women. OK, then. Is that a admission from feminists that talking about female issues detracts from male issues? Or are the rules – such as they are – designed in just such a way as to only work one way? The mindnumbing arrogance of it all, the maddening double standards. It is astonishing in its cruelty and belligerent abuse. Dialogues are not designed to be monologues. Feminists would do well to learn this. And if, as feminists loudly proclaim, men have no idea what it is like to be a woman… well, then women have no idea what it is like to be a man. Feminists least of all.

Feminists should not be the ones to speak on issues affecting men. They claim to do so. They claim to be the only ones who should do so. They do not. And they are not. Then they shut down our conferences and shut down screenings of the Red Pill movie, simultaneously claiming that they do not and that the opposite is fact. Even when proveably not so.

The mask is failing. They are in their deathtrows, fighting for dear life. The lies are becoming obvious and the hatred brought to light by their best and brightest shine through the dewy mist of equal mornings, bringing with it droplets of reason and empathy for all trickling slowly down onto the fresh grass of non-feminist discourse in a deafening roar of thunder and a blinding flash of lightning.

Strange how this transparent hatred and contempt have managed to keep its place in the heads and minds and thoughts and feelings of our cultures as the true battle for equality. Absolutely incredible how the doublespeak and doublestandards are not picked apart at a grander scale than it is. How the claim that womens issues are not properly adressed is taken as fact, when it clearly is not fact. It is the issues of men and boys that are not taken seriously. Look to the suicides. Look to the homeless. Look to the funding for shelters for victims of domestic abuse. Look to the statistics on domestic violence to see through the broken prism of feminist doctrine.

Whenever these issues affecting men and boys are raised, the feminists come careening in, screeching and hollering on prime-time television how these men are nothing but a conglomerate of misogynists and foul patriarchs firing cannons of vile abuse at women. Sure, sure, men kill themselves more than women. But women attempt suicide more. So, really, we should be talking about how this affects women. Sure, sure, it is mostly men who are victims of assault and violence. But it is men doing the violence. So, really, we should be talking about how this affects women. If, failing that and being unable to show women suffering more, the conversations twists even more. Then the egalitarian foglights come on, and the feminists say that this is not a gendered issue. That we should show concern for both genders, so why are we only focusing on men. Herp-derp, twist, turn, manipulate and carry on.

I absolutely believe that issues affecting both men and women should be taken seriously; that both men and women should be shown the same levels of empathy, understanding and funding. It should, however, mirror reality. Not ideology. The levels of empathy, understanding, funding, what-have-yous are doled out by ideologues sheltered from the reality of the world inside a hugbox handcrafted from diamonds, not by reason or sanity or truth. And any attempt at addressing issues affecting boys and men with state-funded grants of care and compassion are shouted down, disrupted and ripped to shreds by feminists; the choir invincible. Because «What about the whamens?!?», showing their true nature and showing that they believe mens conferences take away from women because they themselves aim to take away from men with their actions and with their calls to action. Psychological projections aimed straight at the cinematic canvas of public discourse. «We do this. Therefore they must do this.» They show themselves time and again completely incapable of comprehending that other people do not think and act like they do. Their mask comes of, showcasing with religious fervor their inability to think outside of group identity. Time and again, this happens, and time and again we are told that it is only a few feminists, that they care about the genders equally.

Well, the lies are rising to the top of the stagnant pool and the masquerade is ending, showcasing the egotistical beast underneath – the spoiled child that never grew up, never reached emotional maturity – the child that enjoyed tormenting others at school, and then ran crying to the teachers that they were attacked when the tormented victim finally struck back; the spoiled child that was believed by the teachers contrary to the evidence at hand, leaving a innocent boy behind, distressed, chewed out by the teacher and crying eternally internally for the obvious lack of empathy which he must now carry with him for the rest of his life, showcased by a society which proves to him over and over again that it does not have the slightest bit of empathy stashed away somewhere for him.

– Moiret Allegiere, 26.01.2019

______________________________________________________________________________________________

links:

Visit my blog:

https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/

Check out my youtubechannel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA

Check out my bitchutechannel:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/

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

twatter:

https://twitter.com/MAllegiere

Gab:

https://gab.ai/Moiret_Allegiere

Minds:

https://www.minds.com/Moiret

Flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/152465815@N04/

Eulogy for the lost boys

Eulogy for the lost boys Lowres A4

Ill: «Eulogy for the lost boys», A4, 2018, Moiret Allegiere

 

Starting from the bottom of lungs suffering a incredible infection of long-lasting and irrational hatred, we hear a roar bellowing forth. Twisting and turning and winding its way up and out, it is transformed through the larynx and trachea – moving from a roar to a screech, highpitched and fierce, as if driven by some latent demonic force. The screech spreads as spittle through industrial fog. It clings to every single droplet of dew, stained black with ash and smoke: spittle from a reverbarating echo of hatred blending with the dew of industrialized zones of spiritual decay. Upwards we are carried, clinging to the spittle still, until we mingle and blend with the clouds and get a full-on birdseye view of the world. Like eagles we soar and float above the world.

From this vantagepoint, much that is lost to us we may now see; strange echoes from a void of cloudy despair fill the air about us, charging it with tremenduos energy. Electricity is building up, and we find ourselves drawn apart from the updraft, drawn away from the clouds, separated from the spittle of irrational hate, we seek the void.

Gazing towards the void until the void is all we can see. And in the void; drifting and afloat from shipwreck to shipwreck we see the lost boys. Perpetually lost and stripped of meaning and direction. Cast adrift by forces beyond their control, beyond reason, beyond madness, beyond the void. Grey cliffs bend over the void, cliffs cast in concrete, in piss and blood; a eternal monument of paradise lost and never regained. A grey spectre of isolation cast it`s grim countenance upon their faces and their eyes. And their eyes in turn reflect nothing but a grim spectacle of a future chopped down and left to rot where it fell, meeting nothing but indifference for those who might see them lying there as they walk past under the scorching sun of summer eternal. There is no future in the void. Empty promises. Enormous, cavernous waiting rooms; rows upon rows of empty seats flashing golden rays of light mocking the lost boys for their absence, demanding at the same time access to their seats.

And we – soaring overhead – mock and laugh and ridicule. We wallow in their demise and urge it on. We pick at their flesh and at their bones with long beaks reenforced with metal and barbwire, asking in a mocking, sing-song voice: «Why aren`t you doing anything with your lives?».

They don`t respond. They drift further away. Deeper into the void. Shadows cast from the concrete cliffs of infallible madness fill their cranial chambers, bouncing from wall to wall, gaining speed, gaining momentum, faster, faster, back and forth, until it all becomes a blur and the cranial chamber, so pure at the beginning of time, turns into a chamber of excruciating hate in it`s own right. And we come full circle. Clouds close down. Rain pours. The ground is turning to mud. It don`t matter in the void. Rain or shine, the void stays the same. And we laugh and mock and frown; our collective faces turn into grimaces of pure disgust and disbelief at how grown men can behave as the lost boys do; clinging to chimes of the past with breakneck loneliness and escaping into that which seems familiar and, at the very least, shows no judgement – and to hell with the rest of the world, to hell with the void and the reason and the madness both. It don`t matter much, in the void.

And from the depths of catatonic despair come the deathparade; a marching gaggle of ghouls and monsters, each marching to their own beat, but all marching still to the same drum, out of rhytm, out of tune and out of touch, but still there, moving ever onwards towards the same goal: the void.

And from their mouths hiss the noise of ill intent, whispered at first but gaining in volume and intensity. Whom but the lost boys themselves know what words the lost boys hear at the peak of yet another sleepless night, or in the hollow tunes of yet another sleepless morning, lost in the perplexing horror that is the hour of the wolf; the long and dreary teatime of the soul? Wash it away then, with booze and pills. From despair shall freedom from despair be sought. Or, failing even that, a piece of despair be carved away, masked as loss-of-despair, but in reality nothing but a postponing of grander despair yet to come.

Through eyes clouded with numb sensations of free-form experimental poetry, come the grief. A great build-up of years wasted. A great build-up of wasted potential. A great failure to launch; turned away at the gates and trampled down into the very gravel coating the roads of misspent youth. Time and again in trouble. Drunk and derailed, faded into obscurity by the very same powers that claimed to work towards a greater good for all. All flowing to and from the same source. To bad the source was poisoned. To bad the source left them behind to float into the ether, and be lost. And then to be cemented as a permanent fixture in the void, and be lost. An entire generation of boys doomed to be lost at sea, clinging to whatever might fill the trembling void in the midst of their souls and in the midst of their manhood so that they do not wither and waste away completely. A generation ignored, forgotten and made out to be evil incarnate. A generation scorned and cursed and subject to the greatest betrayal ever bestowed upon anyone by the same hands and minds that purported to love and care about them. A great and world-encompassing lack of empathy and understanding. The fall of man. Paradise lost. Stuck in permanent purgatory to grow cynical. To grow resentful. To grow bitter. To grow into their own demise, either by their own hand or by someone elses. Either to take as many as they may with them into the abyss beyond the void, or to go fearlessly into the abyss beyond the void themselves.

An entire generation of boys and young men raised to walk gladly into their own death – to be born and to live and then to die in hatred – and to be told simultaneously that they are the lucky ones, and should be ashamed of and make amends for the rare privilege of being bestowed a cock upon birth. And we shake our heads and wonder why our boys are failing so, and we blame them for their own failures just as we blame them for the failures of the girls; and the rage and the riots and the shaming and the unfiltered hatred fill their minds and fill their bodies and fill their souls, and they fall. And as they fall, we are lessened. And we don`t see that we are lessened, and we don`t care, and we dont notice that we are lessened. For they are nothing but lost boys.