ANGER BUILD-UP
We can feel it, it's in the air, male anger is building up around the World, especially in Western countries. Feminists are afraid of this, they feel something is wrong, but they don't know exactly what. It may take a long time for this anger to become apparent, but there are signs everywhere now, and we know that some day it will be unleashed. It will be strong, stronger than anything we witnessed or read about in history. It will change everything: government, society, the workplace, family, the gender roles, the way we see women and children and even our duties as men.
Maybe, you'll learn that your first duty is to yourself. But rest assured of one thing: something is coming. It is big, it is powerful and this tidal wave will leave a permanent trace. Do you hear something, do you feel the wind? Brace yourself gentlemen, the rightful Anger of thousands upon thousands is coming.
Read your masculist Bible and learn all about the storms and the devastation to come.
I- ULYSSES AND THE SIRENS
The Sirens enchant all who come near them. If one unwarily draws in too close and hears their singing, it will be his undoing. They will warble him to death with their sweetness. There is a great heap of dead men's bones lying all around them. Therefore stuff your ears with wax and pass these Sirens by without listening. This is a piece from Homer's classic work The Odyssey written in 800 BC, and also one of the first recorded references to the legendary Sirens who, through song, lured men to their deaths.
They are a manifestation of the peril that women hold for men. The feminist movement has changed the nature of the rocky shore upon which males find themselves dashed but the rocky shore still remains. It is an integral part of the male/female dynamic. The context has changed but the underlying metaphore remains constant. A beautiful young woman can bring a hero to his doom as successfully today as she did in 800 BC.
II-TITANIC
Thinking about the men on the RMS Titanic who have surrendered their places in the liner's too few lifeboats so that women and children could be saved when the great ship went down on April 15, 1912, one cannot help but wonder: If the Titanic was to sink a second time, would they still do the same?
There were only 16 lifeboats. Three hundred sixteen women were saved, with 57 children. More than 1,300 men -- passengers and crew -- went down with the ship after a relatively orderly evacuation of "women and children first."
% of men saved 20%
% of women saved 74%
% of children saved 55%
a greater percentage of women was saved than even children.
One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where 'women and children first' was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the 'oppression' and the 'low status' of women in those days.
Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!
It is absolutely inconceivable that women would have been given priority for the lifeboats if their welfare was considered to be less important than the welfare of men.
The feminist-inspired myth that women were treated as second-class citizens in recent history is a downright lie - like so many other myths that feminists promulgate.
And these myths - and there are hundreds of them - are designed with one aim in mind - to stir up hatred towards men.
To The Brave Men Who Perished
In The Wreck of The Titanic, April 15, 1912.
They Gave Their Lives so
That Women and Children Might Be Saved.
Erected By The Women Of
America, 1931
WHAT WILL HAPPEN THE NEXT TIME THE TITANIC SINKS
While in the past, men were not allowed to disembark before all women had been saved, things are different now. One could finally ask the forbidden questions as to why should women always get the lifeboats and men should always get the icy waters and have to swim hundreds of yards and drown? Why in hell should they sacrifice their lives for such selfish shallow nonentities as the likes of women? Because they are pure? We know now they are not. Because they carry children? Children are no more important than grown-up men. Children and youth for that matter are only a potentiality, they are certainly not more important. The child, in most cases, will become an average human being doing an ordinary job. Not a genius.
Next time around, men may refuse to sacrifice their life for the royal sex. They will grab a life jacket and get into that boat. If another man interferes and wants them to sacrifice their lives and defends the royal sex, they might feel compelled to kill that man who stands between them and safety. This could be considered an act of self-defense. So, the next time the great ship sinks, do not get in the way of the men running for the life boats: the message is clear.
If the Titanic sinks a second time, men and women are now supposed to be "equal" under the law. So the days of the expendability of the male passengers should be over, even in Maritime law. The slogan "women and children first" should then never be announced over the PA. If it is and if the crew tries to disembark all women first and forbids men to get to the lifeboats and to safety, it is not only the right but the duty of all male passengers to revolt.
Any crew member that stands between a male passenger and safety and tries to impede his rescue is in violation. The use of force even deadly force by the passenger in such a case is justified. A modern man has not to sacrifice his life for the other sex anymore. His duty is to grab a life jacket and get into that boat. If the captain, one of his crew or a steward gets into the way, to whack him should be considered an act of self-defense.
III- Feminists Responsible for Global Warming
Feminists Responsible for Traffic Congestion
So many hours of one's life wasted, so much of the economy disappearing as petrol fumes. And it's the feminists' fault. You mean: you didn't realise that traffic jams in your city are caused by Feminism? Feminists have managed to destroy family relationships to such an extent that more and more people now live apart in single-adult households. It means more traffic.
Feminists believe that marriage and relationships oppress women. They want to see marriages disappear. So, the number of single-adult households has increased; which means: more traffic. more jams. more hostility, more pollution, more road rage, more deaths, more children driven in cars, rather than walking, etc... So: more tension, more arguments, more violence, more misery.
Everywhere, new houses are not coming into the market fast enough to match the increase of the number of new households, since more people choose or are forced to live alone. The notion that we can somehow pin these on feminism may seem laughable, but it is true. The lives of MILLIONS of people are affected EVERY DAY by traffic congestion and its numerous negative consequences. The huge increase in traffic flow costs us and the planet, A GREAT DEAL.
This has happened largely because both genders now go out to work, whereas, in the past, it was mostly the male gender that did so. This is the direct consequence of the feminist agenda, which wanted women in the workplace rather than at home. There has been a HUGE cost associated with this change - resulting in increased traffic flow - YET until now, it has never been identified as being a true cost of feminism! It is a HUGE cost and people deserve to have their eyes opened to the connection between it and feminism. The enormous traffic problems that people face today are caused by these changes in the working practices brought about by feminism.
Global Warming
Millions of new houses will have to be built over the next decade in order to accommodate people's housing needs, since more and more are living alone. NOT OFTEN have we heard a politician, scientist, or journalist suggest that living together rather than apart might be a good idea.
1. According to current opinion, global warming is the biggest challenge of the new century. It presents serious dangers to the entire planet.
2. One of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases is to encourage people to share their living space with someone else rather than living alone; i.e. maybe marriage.
3. No one mentions this. So, there must be enormous forces silencing people on such an important issue. The answer is that it is simply not permissible to oppose the feminist ideology. To do so would be to invite intimidations of all sorts.
Feminism is about breaking up people's close relationships. So, feminists will oppose anything that is likely to achieve the opposite, even to save the planet. It is such a powerful force that some obvious strategies to reduce greenhouse gases will never be discussed.
There
is only one common denominator that underpins the various policies and
pronouncements endorsed by feminists: it is a hatred of men which overrides
everything else.
The
costs to everyone else - financial, social, psychological, medical, meteorological
etc, simply do not matter. This is why there is silence on the matter of
encouraging more people to live together in order to decrease the greenhouse
effect. Nothing, not even the prospect of a worldwide catastrophe, must
stand in the way of the feminist agenda.
Like it or not: feminism and global warming are linked. Thousands of scientists and clever people are now beginning to recognise that link: feminism and political correctness. This combination of thoroughly destructive ideologies (the feminists and the politically corrected have no concern for the planet or the truth) exerts the most monumental of forces against those who care for the planet.
The single lifestyle has become the most dangerous threat to the global environment. An international trend towards living alone is accelerating the extinction of endangered species and eating up natural resources at an alarming rate. Rare animals such as the giant panda, the bald eagle and the golden lion tamarin are facing fresh risks as a result.
The problem of shrinking family units has become so acute that it now poses a more serious challenge to conservation than human population growth. Small households of just one or two occupants are very inefficient users of natural resources, when compared with the traditional nuclear family unit of five or more. Declining household size means more homes have to be built to accommodate the same number of people, bringing urban sprawl and the destruction of vulnerable habitats.
Small households use much more energy per head than larger ones and create more waste, making their ecological footprint worse. A one-person flat and a four-person house, for example, will typically each have one refrigerator, at considerable cost to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. "This emerging fashion for living in smaller units has become one of the greatest challenges for conservation that we face today". "It starts a chain reaction of environmental damage. As well as land use, there are negative effects on greenhouse gases, waste and forest clearance. More roads are needed, which divide threatened populations. Everything is connected."
Late marriage, high divorce rates and ageing populations are largely responsible for the phenomenon in developed countries, while migration to cities in search of work is the prime driver of change in the developing world. The impact is most serious in countries that contain "biodiversity hotspots" -- regions with many native species that are threatened by human activity -- because these can least afford the damage to their fragile ecosystems.
Concern for the planet
If you care about the environment, studies suggest moving back in with mom and dad, getting and staying married or moving in with pals. Households with fewer people are less energy efficient. For example, just as a couple or a person living solo would typically be one-refrigerator households, so too would a household of five or six people.
The growing number of households and the shrinking number of people living in each one is damaging the environment more than the overall population growth. More households mean more housing units, requiring more building materials, land and infrastructure. It also means higher per capita resource consumption.
The causes range from higher divorce rates to an aging population and a decline in the frequency of multi-generational families living under one roof. Feminists and the politically corrected don't want you to know about this of course, because they have no concern for the planet or for the truth.
IV- JUDITH
I remember in my school days having found this story particularly distateful, but it was Eons ago. Maybe if I would have been a girl, I would have appreciated much more, but as a man, it made me sick at the time. Let me be clear about this, no one revolted openly in those times against less popular parts of the Bible; we were thought that this was THE book, so we accepted those unsavory parts and swallowed our distaste about them.
Over the centuries, men have particularly disliked one unholy trinity of the Bible: three women Judith, Deborah and Yael, but they swallowed their pride and silenced their anger. You never heard what real men think of them. Well, this is about to change and just like what happened to accepted behaviours and postulates of ancient times, Judith will not resist its revisitation. Brace yourselves gentlemen, because this is going to hurt!
We revisited the myth of Judith with new methods recently and the results are simply appalling. No doubt that this new discourse will be quite an experience for you. Secretly you may have thought the same things but repressed these thoughts, set them aside because they were so disturbing. The good thing is that you'll find out: you are not alone.
a- The Story
When the Assyrian army laid siege to her native town of Bethulia, Judith set out to save both the city and its people. Making her way into the camp of Holofernes, commander of the enemy's army, she entrances the soldiers with her beauty. Using her feminine charm she captivates Holofernes who promptly invites her to be a guest at the evening banquet.
The evening progresses and much wine and food is consumed. Holofernes' senior officers and aides can take a hint and leave Holofernes in the company of the lovely and captivating Judith. As Holofernes dozes off Judith, in an act of remarkable ungraciousness, beheads him with his own sword.
The Assyrian army, feeling that Holofernes decision making capacity has been somewhat dimished with the loss of his head, abandon the siege and Judith returns to Bethulia having enjoyed an excellent meal, saved the city, and with the head of Holofernes as a trophy to boot.
b-
What we think of the bitch
and
about all who defend her
1- Can somebody who kills someone in his sleep in such a manner be called brave at all? A bloody coward if you ask me!
2- It is not merely to act with stealth here, but downright hypocrisy. This is distasteful to the extreme! Using one's charm and beauty as a weapon in such a way to perform a monstrous act afterwards is beyond contempt! To use food and drink as a weapon is criminal. Judith and all her Biblical bunch are truly war criminals in the modern sense of the word and should be punished (even after two thousand years).
3- Any normal man cannot see her as a hero, any normal male sees the treachery of the act and her patriotic pretense can never excuse the savagery of the deed. Upon hearing such a story, In any normal man's gut and belly something is moving, a kind of black panther, something screams for vengeance and blood: Judith must be punished! If one phantasizes what kind of punishment he should bring on her, I think the most common would be to have either her belly cut open, her throat cut or her head removed, but death by hanging would also be good, giving her time to reflect on her actions. Speaking of belly cut open, the Jack the Ripper way may have something prophetic about it: it could be perhaps the proper way of greeting Biblical criminals like Yael, Deborah, Jezabel, Delilah and the sort.
4- Why is such a behaviour unacceptable, even in times of war? There is a good reason why part of the Hebrew faith and many rabbis rejected the story of Judith (also excluded by Protestants). If we accept what Judith has done and even glorify it, what would be the consequences in future wars or simply in normal human relations? In future wars, any woman with beauty could be viewed with suspicion. Any smiling woman trying to use her charm would be shot on the spot. Is that what you want? The use of such tactics would earn any nation resorting to them the reputation of treachery and cowardness. Even modern Israel and her dreaded Mossad learned not to play with fire.
5- Upon returning to the city with the head of Holophernes, what should be the reaction of the government official greeting her? Should he be grateful to her for the deed? Should he view her with compassion, warmth, even love? On the contrary, anyone in his right mind would ask himself: if she can do that to the enemy during his sleep, could she not do it to her husband or to anyone else during the night? She is dangerous and must be dealt with. Any governor with a bit of sense would have had her executed. As Jael came out to Barak and said to him: come, and I will show thee the man whom thou seekest, instead of having thanked and praised her for having delivered Sisera, he should have killed her where she stood.
6- If Genghis Khan had built such a fortress of confidence in his lifetime, it was because he played fair and never broke certain rules. His enemies knew that! For instance, anyone having openly betrayed his Lord would never consider appearing before him. Even if the victim was his enemy, the Khan held betrayal in horror. Someone bringing him his former Lord as a prisoner would not be rewarded but punished. The reason is simple: the rule of liege lordship had been broken. Any vassal bringing him his lord's head on a pike would be immediately put to death. What if a woman would bring the Khan her husband's head? She would be beheaded. What if the woman is strikingly beautiful? The more beautiful, the more swifter and harder would the sword stroke fell. Beauty would merely hasten her death. Now Genghis Khan was a real man and had a sense of justice about him!
c- Judith and her criminal friends
In the story, a daring and beautiful woman in her full maturity, dressed for the feast with all her spectacular jewels and accompanied by an apprehensive but faithful maid named Abra, succeeds in decapitating the invading general Holofernes. The moral is as much about the dangers of a beautiful woman, as had been told of Delilah and Samson, and considering the atrocities perpetrated, such a woman could hardly be seen as a culture-hero. To post-feminist listeners, such a story smells rather of war crimes.
Yael
Yael is a character mentioned in the Book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible, as the heroine who killed Sisera to deliver Israel from the troops of king Jabin. She was the wife of Heber the Kenite.
God told Deborah (a prophetess and leader) that he would deliver Israel from Jabin. Deborah called Barak to make up an army to lead into battle against Jabin on the plain of Esdraelon. But Barak demanded that Deborah would accompany him into the battle. Deborah agreed but prophesied that the honour of the killing of the other army's captain would be given to a woman. Jabin's army was led by Sisera who fled the battle after all was lost.
Yael received the fleeing Sisera at the settlement of Heber on the plain of Zaanaim. Yael welcomed him into her tent with apparent hospitality. She gave him butter 'in a lordly dish'. Having drunk the refreshing beverage, he lay down and soon sank into the sleep of the weary. While he lay asleep Yael crept stealthily up to him, holding a tent peg and a mallet. She drove it through his temples with such force that it entered into the ground below. And at her feet he fell down dead. As a result of the murder of Sisera, God gave the victory to Israel. The praise given to 'blessed' Yael in the Bible, is given for her action.
Now, another one of those brave bitches! She offers the man her hospitality and food and drink in her tent. As soon as he his asleep, she kills him with a nail and a mallet. What bravery! Interesting: the holy scripture characterizes the deed as ''murder''. So Yael is praised and blessed for her action: sometimes this Bible can make a real man sick!
Deborah
Deborah was a prophetess and the fourth and only female Judge of pre-monarchic Israel in the Old Testament. Her story is told in the Judges. The first account is prose, relating the victory of Israelite forces led by General Barak, whom Deborah called forth but prophesied would not achieve the final victory over the Canaanite general Sisera himself. That honor went to Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite tentmaker. Jael killed Sisera by driving a tent peg through his head as he slept.
Herodias
Wife of Herod. She was istrumental
in the beheading of John the Baptist.
Delilah
also spelled Dalila, in the Old Testament, the central figure of Samson's last love story. She was a Philistine who, bribed to entrap Samson, coaxed him into revealing that the secret of his strength was his long hair, whereupon she took advantage of his confidence to betray him to his enemies. Her name has since become synonymous with a voluptuous, treacherous woman.
Miriam
Manipulative, bad woman.
Jezebel
In the Hebrew Scriptures, Jezebel is a queen of ancient Israel. She marries King Ahab and turns him away from the God of the Israelites and (Judahites) of the Jews, and towards the worship of her god, Baal. Jezebel uses her control over Ahab to subject Israel to tyranny. After she slaughters the prophets of the Lord, the prophet Elijah confronts her to charge her with abominations. She responds by threatening to kill him as well. After Ahab's death, Jezebel continues to rule through her son Ahaziah. When Ahaziah is killed in battle, she exercises control through her other son, Jehoram. Jehoram is killed by Jehu, who confronts Jezebel in Jezreel and urges her servants to kill her by defenestration. They comply, throwing her out of a window, and her corpse is left in the nearby street to be eaten by dogs leaving only her skull, feet, and hands in fulfillment of Elijah's prophecy.
d- What should be done about them?
What should a normal man
feel hearing all these horror stories and looking at this sick art, those
sick paintings about Judith by Christophano Allori, Caravaggio, Donatello,
Michelangelo, Lucas Cranach, Botticelli, Paolo Veronese, Leonello Spada,
Bartolomeo Manfredi, Artemisia Gentileschi, Gustav Klimt, and Peter Paul
Rubens, about Yael and Deborah by Jan Saenredam, Palma the Younger, Gustave
Dore and all the other pictorial indignities? Do you want to kiss these
women, make love to them or kill them? The gut reaction of any normal male
would be to scream for vengeance and bloodlust, to wish for some kind of
revenge and definitive punishment. Any decent man would like to kill them
himself! If one should ask about the scale of the punishment, how many
should we kill to avenge these men? The only answer that would satisfy
an angry man's heart would be: several millions. For once, a justified
holocaust!
