Monthly Archives: November 2016

Mohawk Girl

Back in community college, I had to read a book called Female Chauvinist Pigs for an English class. The book itself is pure feminist drivel trying to make a point using titillating subject matter. The professor who assigned me the book, a die hard feminist, said that even if we do not agree with the author, then at least we would be able to enjoy the book as smut. I bring this up because something happened a couple weeks ago that reminded me of the book after completely forgetting about it for years. What happened wasn’t exactly exciting or major, just a small interaction with a passenger while doing Lyft (Lyft is basically an Uber competitor for those who don’t know).

It was the Friday before Halloween and I’m told that this is a big holiday in San Francisco. Personally, I don’t get out to the city much as I don’t really have the stomach for it. That Friday was supposed to bring decent business and I didn’t mind driving people around for some extra cash. I remember it being somewhat early in the evening, the time when the city was preparing to party the night away.I spent an hour driving people to parties and bars and around 8, two young women came in.

One of the ladies had that mohawk-like hairstyle that only other girls seem to compliment; it really doesn’t flatter women at all.  If I remember correctly, it looked something like this:

19-backcombed-mohawk-for-women

Sorry ladies, but this is not attractive.

Given the hair and a few other small tics, I assumed Mohawk Girl and her friend to be lesbians. This was proven as both women settled into their ride and told me they were going to a huge lesbian party after I had asked them of their plans. Mohawk Girl asked if she could play her music and I obliged. Surprisingly, I enjoyed the music Mohawk Girl put on and thought the ride would be business as usual.

A few minutes into the ride, Mohawk Girl’s phone rang. She picked up and began chatting. I had no intention of eavesdropping as I was trying to navigate San Francisco’s horrendous traffic. Out of courtesy though, I turned down the music in order to facilitate Mohawk Girl’s conversation. Mohawk Girl also had a loud voice, so I think I would have overheard her conversation regardless.

At first, the topic concerned the caller’s personal issues, something I couldn’t care less about. But eventually the conversation turned to the night’s upcoming festivities and Mohawk Girl began to explain to her female caller that she wasn’t interested in picking up chicks that evening. She had apparently just come out of a relationship and had no interest in starting up a new one, but she was open to some action with any girl that showed interest so long as no commitment or effort was required.

Now, the conversation itself isn’t that important; it was the word choice and Mohawk Girl’s demeanor throughout the conversation that piqued my interest. I can’t really convey the flavor of her language as I don’t really remember the details. But the slang, word choice and cuss words made Mohawk Girl sound like the stereotypical bad boy who pumps and dumps women. You know who I’m talking about. The guy who brags about all the girls he sleeps with, the guy girls complain about but can’t seem to get enough of, the guy whose sexual escapades would make a pastor faint, the guy who exploits women and the guy who women are happy to have been exploited by. Basically, Mohawk Girl was every feminist’s nightmare in female form.  I thought it was funny and wondered what the feminist harpies would say about this because Mohawk Girl was at the top of the “oppressed people” pyramid; she was female, lesbian and Asian.

However, what struck me the most was just how artificial Mohawk Girl’s behavior felt. While she seemed to ape the characteristics of the cliche bad boy, she did it in such an exaggerated fashion that I still question the authenticity of it all. I really do wonder how much this masculine demeanor was real and how much of it was an act.It was this thought that reminded me of the book, Female Chauvinist Pigs.

The author of the book, Ariel Levy, writes about the ways modern females compete with, objectify and encourage each other to be sex toys for men; hence the term female chauvinist pigs. In the early chapters, Levy goes into detail describing the sexual antics of modern teenage girls, antics that should shock any parent. However, the chapter that stuck with me the most was the one discussing lesbian relationships and how lesbians treated each other. The author herself was dismayed as she recounted anecdotes of lesbians exploiting each other, abandoning their lovers and demeaning their girlfriends in ways that even our cliche bad boy would balk at.

Now I’m not here to discuss why women are like this. Others have done a far better job of explaining these sorts of things. I just wonder at the exaggerated antics of women who act like men and vice versa. See, the behavior of Mohawk Girl is a total exaggeration of what she must have been told about men. After all,  lesbians like Mohawk Girl are not male. They do not live in a man’s body nor think the way men do. It seems to me that these women act this way because this is what they’ve absorbed from the feminist propaganda. They believe that men act and think in this exaggerated manner because it’s what they’ve been told. Honestly, I’d find this funny if it wasn’t so sad and pathetic.

The surrounding culture may shout that gender is a social construct until it is blue in the face but reality cannot be ignored. Gender is rooted in biology. A female cannot be male no matter how much she apes the surface characteristics of males. This is, of course, precisely why Mohawk Girl and figures like Blair White do not feel authentic. They are, at best, acting like caricatures of the opposite gender; they will never be the opposite gender no matter how much they desire it.


Did Donald Trump’s Victory Shock You?

Let me ask you a question. Were you at all shocked that the God-Emperor ascended his throne Donald Trump won the US election? When I say shocked, I don’t mean horrified. I also don’t mean scared and I don’t mean disgusted. What I mean is that you couldn’t believe he won because you really thought he would lose. You don’t have to hate Trump to have been shocked; you could have voted for him believing there is no chance he would win.

If you were shocked, I want you to think for a second. Why did you believe he had no chance?  I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that you watched/read mainstream news sources (i.e. CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc). See, these news sources  gave Donald Trump absolutely no chance of winning even the nomination of the GOP, much less the general election. In fact, the few people who believed Trump would win the election were laughed at; Trump campaign was considered a complete joke.

 

Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination against all odds should have proven that he is a force to be reckoned with. Naturally the mainstream news media didn’t seem to learn anything from this. Then continued to double down on Trump losing. Just two days before the election the LA Times, among others, projected strongly for Hillary Clinton. They predicted that Hillary would win with 353 electoral votes against Donald Trumps 186. Turns out they were wrong, very wrong. Not only did Trump win with almost 300 electoral votes, but many states predicted to blue went to Trump by a wide margin: Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc.

I bring all this up for a reason. See, you were shocked that Trump won because the mainstream news media told you that Hillary would trounce Trump. Polls conducted by these news sources had Clinton firmly ahead for practically the entire election cycle. Now, there were news sources, bloggers and authors who predicted that Trump would win from the very beginning, but these guys were seemingly small fries compared to massive news stations like CNN and Fox News; they were “nobodies”. Vox Day and Mike Cernovich, both influential bloggers and successful authors in their own right, predicted a Trump victory months ago. Mike Cernovich, in particular, went further and released a book analyzing Trump’s successful candidacy almost a month before the election. The guy was that sure Trump would win. So clearly, there were some who predicted the Trump victory and their readers, myself included, were not all that surprised when Trump actually won. Those that received their news from mainstream sources were the shocked ones.

There are two reasons that could explain why mainstream news sources were wrong: 1) they were lying to you and 2)they were incompetent. Now it doesn’t matter which reason is true; both should disqualify these news sources as anything worthy of your time. They failed big time and their credibility is now suspect. This is not a matter of liberal news media vs conservative news media. Fox News also got it wrong and refused to take Donald Trump seriously as well. If anything, this election shows how trustworthy the American news media is. I suggest you do yourself a favor and find yourself other news outlets to explore. Let these mainstream news sources burn to the ground.


Thoughts on Religious Freedom

Religious freedom is Under Attack

This is the rallying cry of conservative Christians in America. Religious freedom is the bedrock upon which our society is built. The Founding Fathers believed in the importance of religious freedom and the original Puritan settlers escaped the tyranny of England in the name of religious freedom. Because of this, the government cannot clamp down on religion and must promote religious freedom…

…Or so the story goes. In spite of it all, little incongruities seem the lurk just beneath the surface. There are things that, when really thought about, just don’t line up as nicely as we would want. Let’s do a bit of thinking.

Religious freedom is a moral good; at least, that’s what the average Christian conservative assumes. This is simply accepted without question or thought. But what exactly is this moral good we call religious freedom? Well, it would seem that religious freedom means exactly that. The individual has the right to believe whatever religion they feel is worthy of belief. In addition, the individual can take whatever bits and pieces they find palatable from any combination of religions or even refuse to believe in any religion. In order to preserve this right to religious freedom, the state cannot dictate to the people what religion they can or can’t convert to. In addition, people should be free to proselytize and attempt to convert others to their religion. There should be a free market, so to speak, when it comes to religion and each belief system should sink or swim based how it can attract adherents. So far, I don’t think any of this is blasphemous; these are simply the assumptions that lurk subconsciously within Americans.

Given the above description of religious freedom, let’s now look at this from a Christian perspective. The Christian believes that all religions other than Christianity are false. Other religions may contain grains of truth, but they all lead to damnation in the end. Yes, I know there are liberal Christians who dispute this, but we’ll ignore those heretics for now. I am, after all, talking to conservative Christians.Now, assuming Christianity is the only way to paradise and salvation, why wouldn’t you want your community and nation to endorse, support and establish Christianity as a state religion? Why not unite the Christianity and the state in this way in order to forbid the spreading and proselytizing of false religions?

The response I anticipate is that such a thing will lead to forced conversions. But it need not. We are merely talking about the legitimization of Christianity as the national religion and the clamping down on the proselytizing of false religions. Religions minorities will not be hunted down and killed; they will be left alone so long as they keep their religion private and refrain from any attempts to convert Christians. Defiance of such laws will lead to fines, imprisonment, exile and (in the most severe of cases) death. If you are a conservative Christian (not to mention an average American), then I’m sure I’ve horrified you with my suggestions. It would seem that my suggestions would destroy religious liberty and establish religious tyranny. Such a reaction, however, betrays your priorities.

Again, if Christianity is the only way to God and paradise, then why would you allow false religions to proselytize and potentially cause Christians to apostatize? “But what about liberty and freedom?” says the American Christian. Well, what about them? Isn’t the salvation of human souls far more important than nebulous principles like liberty and freedom? It seems to me that the significance of liberty and freedom pales in comparison to the eternal destiny of souls. Let me illustrate this for you in a simpler manner. Suppose you have your local church or parish. Now imagine that your pastor, priest or whatever allows believers of other religions to come in and attempt to convert the flock because religious freedom. Sound bizarre? Well why should the sentiment change when on a national scale?

The funny thing is that the god-hating atheist is more rational here. See, the god-hating atheist believes that all religions (especially Christianity) are false and destructive to humanity. If you believe such a thing, then it would be logical to do away with religion and clamp down on religious freedom. After all, why would you want such a destructive force running around, wrecking havoc in your nation?

 

As a Christian, you believe that apostasy will lead to damnation. So why would you allow the potential for apostasy into your community in the name of religious freedom? Are you not prioritizing religious freedom at the expense of human souls?