One of the things that we at Bloody Nib Manor find themselves wondering is how some people hate themselves so much, or, if not themselves, those of their cohort that they insist that they, and their type are just not much more than a cancer of some sort killing the earth or every "other."
Examples are parts of the climate change crowd who insist that humans, modern humans, are a combination of cyanide and plutonium to the life and survival of all the Earth and all the creatures, other than human, and thus should be done away with. It's kind of a variation of the old Animal Farm gag of two legs bad, four legs good. But, of course, most, if not all these prophets of doom mean is that those who shop at Wal-Mart and Target for their groceries and lawn furniture and drive Toyota pickup trucks instead of going to Whole Foods and Bristol Farms to buy "organic" chard, buying their lawn furniture from Restoration Hardware or Vermont Country Store, and drive Teslas or 5 Series BMWs, are really a mote in God's eye. A trip on a budget airline from L.A. to Las Vegas is considered killing the planet and denying the opportunity of some God benighted New Guinea headhunter the opportunity to live to the age of 100 because of global warming and lack of oxygen while the climate screaming mee mees are not loath to jump on a Lear Jet with a couple of other Richie Rich types to fly from L.A. to Davos, Switzerland to wring their hands about how the hoi polloi are destroying the planet because all the civilized world, except them, are just selfish people who will kill a polar bear by using air conditioning on a hot summer's day. They have no problem with electricity generating windmills killing thousands of protected birds by the blades of the windmills every year, or thousands of birds in migration frying in flight over mirrored solar powered electrical installations. It's all green to them because there's no oil and no coal involved.
One comes across the same madness when one reads of some college professor, and it usually is a college professor (once these idiots get tenure they'll say any stupid thing that rattles around in their sad and empty noggins), says that white people are just awful termites. People of European descent, to them, are just a worthless bunch who have brought nothing to the world except suffering and sadness, cruelty and oppression. That can be argued, but with that bunch it's akin to trying to teach a coyote to fetch. It ain't going to happen. And, invariably, these people are white and of European descent. In fact, if one sees their photographs they are usually as white and European as a 19th century Swede or or yokel from Shropshire. They are really, really white and really, really European. They make a Welshman look like an East Indian or a Latino. But they think that white people are a sort of AIDS that can't be cured and they say that white European culture should be done away with and that the world should follow the cultures of the Hmong, the Bantu and the Aztec.
What both of these group of "thinkers' have in common is that they they hate themselves (or their species or ethno-culture), and want to do away with themselves without doing away with themselves. They want to do away with those who are like them. But they do not want to do away with themselves or suffer the results of their ideas. They except other people, the two legged to do so while they pretend to walk on four legs until it is convenient for them to get up on two feet.
And while they bitch and moan about how humans are ruining the planet or about how Europeans are bad they except themselves from their equation. After all, they are educated and enlightened and will lead the New Age.
If they meant what they said and believed what they say they believe they would do a simple thing in a small way to make a "better world." They'd eat a gun. But they don't. They expect everyone else to.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Sunday, August 25, 2019
One Wonders Why
Between 1938 and 1945 the government of Nazi Germany killed approximately 6 million Jews. This, despite Holocaust deniers, is a fact. The Nazis, and much of the German population, wanted to rid itself, and the world, of Jews because they saw the Jews as a threat to Germany and "Aryan" Europe. The Jews were the ultimate "Other" in Germany and were seen as a threat and also an easy scapegoat for the Germans. This is, or was, all grade school stuff and was part of the education of anyone who had gone to school in the 1960s to the 1980s.
As readers of this awful blog are aware, this writer is a Christian and may have no business writing about Jewish matters. But since there is nobody standing behind him with a gun to his head to make him stop he will write something.
One finds one's self wondering if the Nazis had been a bit patient whether modern Jews would not have performed a sort of Holocaust on themselves.
Consider the fact that much of modern Judaism seems bound and determined to make themselves and their religion a fossil. To much of the Jewish world being a Jew is not to practice religious Judaism. It is not to wear a prayer shawl, a kippa, pray "Hear O' Israel.." in the morning, attend a synagogue weekly, or observe the holy days in any other way or sense of belief that the average Japanese attends a Shinto shrine on a festival day. There is no belief. There is a tradition or habit.
For many people who call themselves Jews being a Jew is a sense of ethnic identity that, in reality, is little stronger than an American who is one quarter Irish. The Jewish person may have a Passover meal, the 1/4 Mick will drink a lot on St. Patrick's Day. And when one asks both parties why they bother celebrating those days the answer will be something like, "Well, my grandfather did it, and it's good to carry on a tradition even if I don't believe what I'm celebrating", or in the case of the pretend leprechaun, wants an excuse to get drunk like his Granddad did while singing The Wild Colonial Boy.
Many contemporary American and European Jews are, by abandoning the practises and beliefs of their religion, eliminating themselves as Jews except in the sense of DNA. And that DNA does not make a Jew despite what the Nazis insisted in the days before DNA was known. That DNA only identifies, at the best, a Middle Eastern origin, and often shows instead of a pure line of Semitic genes, but Indo-European genes.
To be a Jew is to be a person who practises Judaism even in a casual way, and believes in the teachings of the Torah and Tanach. Judaism is a religion. It is not a race. Even in ancient days there were Jewish missionaries to traveled outside of Israel to make converts to Judaism among the Gentiles. It has been speculated that the ancestors of the Polish Jews were converts and not ethnic Jews.
But today many Jews have ditched their religion and the sense and teachings of their religion and have become secularists. One could say that they have become Sadducees. And in doing so they have abandoned, and even become contemptible of, the religion that they claim to adhere to. It's akin to a person who claims to be a Roman Catholic saying that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood and that it's more religious and enlightened to sit in bed on a Sunday morn reading the L.A. Times.
The modern secular Jew, while identifying himself or herself as a Jew, works to eliminate Judaism in the name of being enlightened. He or her will say that the idea a Jewish homeland is stupid and silly and should be Muslim. And the modern secular Jew does not reproduce to the point of replacing his or her self in the name of planetary salvation. In other words, the modern secular Jew, who like Hitler and his minions hoped, is eliminating himself in a way that the Nazis could not foresee.
When a woman Reconstructionist rabbi is given more approval and attention by the mainstream press and the popular Jewish press than a Hasidic rebbe you know that it is all over for mainstream and orthodox Judaism. And the Nazis didn't do it. The mainstream secular Jews decided for some reason to commit the suicide that Hitler and company had hoped for.
As readers of this awful blog are aware, this writer is a Christian and may have no business writing about Jewish matters. But since there is nobody standing behind him with a gun to his head to make him stop he will write something.
One finds one's self wondering if the Nazis had been a bit patient whether modern Jews would not have performed a sort of Holocaust on themselves.
Consider the fact that much of modern Judaism seems bound and determined to make themselves and their religion a fossil. To much of the Jewish world being a Jew is not to practice religious Judaism. It is not to wear a prayer shawl, a kippa, pray "Hear O' Israel.." in the morning, attend a synagogue weekly, or observe the holy days in any other way or sense of belief that the average Japanese attends a Shinto shrine on a festival day. There is no belief. There is a tradition or habit.
For many people who call themselves Jews being a Jew is a sense of ethnic identity that, in reality, is little stronger than an American who is one quarter Irish. The Jewish person may have a Passover meal, the 1/4 Mick will drink a lot on St. Patrick's Day. And when one asks both parties why they bother celebrating those days the answer will be something like, "Well, my grandfather did it, and it's good to carry on a tradition even if I don't believe what I'm celebrating", or in the case of the pretend leprechaun, wants an excuse to get drunk like his Granddad did while singing The Wild Colonial Boy.
Many contemporary American and European Jews are, by abandoning the practises and beliefs of their religion, eliminating themselves as Jews except in the sense of DNA. And that DNA does not make a Jew despite what the Nazis insisted in the days before DNA was known. That DNA only identifies, at the best, a Middle Eastern origin, and often shows instead of a pure line of Semitic genes, but Indo-European genes.
To be a Jew is to be a person who practises Judaism even in a casual way, and believes in the teachings of the Torah and Tanach. Judaism is a religion. It is not a race. Even in ancient days there were Jewish missionaries to traveled outside of Israel to make converts to Judaism among the Gentiles. It has been speculated that the ancestors of the Polish Jews were converts and not ethnic Jews.
But today many Jews have ditched their religion and the sense and teachings of their religion and have become secularists. One could say that they have become Sadducees. And in doing so they have abandoned, and even become contemptible of, the religion that they claim to adhere to. It's akin to a person who claims to be a Roman Catholic saying that the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood and that it's more religious and enlightened to sit in bed on a Sunday morn reading the L.A. Times.
The modern secular Jew, while identifying himself or herself as a Jew, works to eliminate Judaism in the name of being enlightened. He or her will say that the idea a Jewish homeland is stupid and silly and should be Muslim. And the modern secular Jew does not reproduce to the point of replacing his or her self in the name of planetary salvation. In other words, the modern secular Jew, who like Hitler and his minions hoped, is eliminating himself in a way that the Nazis could not foresee.
When a woman Reconstructionist rabbi is given more approval and attention by the mainstream press and the popular Jewish press than a Hasidic rebbe you know that it is all over for mainstream and orthodox Judaism. And the Nazis didn't do it. The mainstream secular Jews decided for some reason to commit the suicide that Hitler and company had hoped for.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Shotgunning
Your faithful friend has decided to stop posting long pieces on Facebook.
The reason it twofold. The first is that Facebook is not a proper platform for posts of more than four sentences. It is forum more suited for short, pithy entries, and photographs and jokes. Facebook is not a serious platform. It is, in a sense, a back fence over which exchanges gossip and Polaroids with neighbors who are far away. The second reason that the people running Facebook are both intrusive and grabby. If what one posts on Facebook something that the Facebook "team" does not like, or has been complained about by some sensitive soul, the said post will be deleted. Facebook owns the platform and is not loathe to kick and entry off it. And Facebook seems to think (or to be more accurate, the corporation that runs Facebook) that anything published on the Facebook platform belongs to the corporation. It does not belong to the person posting or the creator. It is as if one wrote a novel and had it published by a book publisher only to find out that one did not own the copyright to one's own novel, but, instead, the publisher now owns the copyright and takes all the profits without paying royalties. Facebook reserves the right to do this. And it does so without even paying an advance or giving a notification to the creator/poster. One becomes an almost eternal "intern" for Facebook i.e, working without being paid or considered. And the reward is, well, nothing. Facebook controls and steals. Who needs that?
Now, to get down to cases:
The reader is, one hopes, aware of the unrest in Hong Kong.
Basically it comes down to the fact that when Great Britain handed the colony of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China there was a promise by the PRC that Hong Kong would be allowed to operate in the same way it had under British rule for fifty years before the PRC installed its form of governance upon Hong Kong. The hand-over took place in 1997. That means that Hong Kong should have been expected to remain under its pre-transfer condition until 2047. In other words, another 28 years.
The PRC, being the PRC under the rule of Xi JInping, aka Winnie the Pooh, has decided to slowly violate the agreement by increments, and the Hong Kongers have noticed. It started with a decision by Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, to allow the extradition to the PRC or citizens of Hong Kong despite the fact that the people who were to be extradited to the PRC had never committed a crime in the PRC. That was the catalyst of the protests.
Ms. Lam backed down, but the PRC did not. Instead the PRC increased pressure on the government of Hong Kong for extraditions and then began a campaign to sub rosa violate the 1997 treaty. The PRC and Xi Jinping got hungry and wanted what it wanted now. And the result was more protests and protests that have become more violent in reaction to the increased heavy-handed tactics by the Hong Kong police who seem to be directed by the PRC.
For some reason the protesters are appealing to United States for help and support. They have taken to carrying and waving American flags during their protests. One finds one's self wondering what the protesters expect the United States to do? Send in the Seventh Fleet along with a division of Marines to protect them from the PRC's People's Army? File a complaint in the useless and termite ridden United Nations? Send a "Good Luck" card with a million signatures? The best that the U.S. can do without setting off an out and out war with the PRC is to tariff goods from mainland China and have no tariffs on goods from Hong Kong until it becomes apparent that the PRC has taken over Hong Kong. And when that happens the tariffs on goods from Hong Kong become doubled of those in mainland China.
One question that arises for this writer is way are the protesters in Hong Kong appealing to the United States and not to Great Britain? It was Great Britain that handed Hong Kong over to the PRC. The only thing that the U.S. had to do with Hong Kong was as a port of call for the Navy's Pacific Fleet. It was Great Britain that sold out Hong Kong at the insistence of the the leaders and intelligentsia of Hong Kong. And those leaders actually expected the PRC to keep its word and expected Great Britain to intervene if the PRC did not keep its word. The PRC has not held to its promise and Great Britain protect the Channel Islands, let alone demand that the PRC operate according to the agreement of 1997. So the protesters, seeing that their former colonizer has become a weak and silly self-hating nation has turned to the U.S. for hope. And this despite the fact that many in the U.S. and outside the U.S. see the nation as an outlaw nation of oppression i.e., Antifa, universities, entertainers, much of the media. Or as unwanted invaders and regime in countries that don't want regime change. The Hong Kong protesters are going against the liberal narrative and there is nothing that the U.S. can do.
And please know that this writer has no ill feelings toward the Chinese. His ill feelings are directed toward the People's Republic of China. Your friend has too many Chinese friends to dislike the Chinese. But he has too many Taiwanese,Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai and Filipino friends to have any love, or even like for the PRC and its leaders.
The PRC and its leaders are a sort of Sauron demanding the loyalty and conformity of all those with the borders of the PRC using the tools of the old Maoist regime, the old East German model, and modern technology. At the same time it reaches out to grab and take and effectively colonize to build an Empire: the ruining of the Mekong River by dams, the taking of islands from the Philippines and Vietnam, and the constant threatening of Taiwan. One also must remember that the PRC is not loathe to drive African nations into debt to get its own way in Africa. The PRC is an awful colonizer. Unlike the UK or the U.S. the PRC does nothing but take from a country. It contributes nothing to a country. As bad as the U.S and the UK may seem as colonizers, at least they contributed to their colonies; the making of India as a nation from a group of principalities and the modernization of the Philippines. The PRC model seems to be based on the Spanish and French models i.e., colonize and take plunder and invest nothing for the populace.
But that's enough of that corn pone opinionating. On to another topic. And the last for this all too long post.
This writer has really gotten tired of the glorification of gays (or as he refers to them, homosexuals, both of the male and female variety) and "transgenders" (included in this bunch are included cross-dressers who make a life of their fetish and have brought their "thing" into the public square, and those who have undergone surgery or hormone treatments to make a him a "shim" and a her a "sher" of various types, not to mention adults who claim that they are six years old, adults who claim that they are ponies or doggies or demons or sparrows).
Let us face the facts. According to the media gays and trannies have become America's (and perhaps Western Europe's Chai pets, Furbies, fashion dictators and style influencers despite the fact that homosexuals make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population and trannies make up about .2 percent of the population. Homosexuals have been in modern times part of the performing arts, and have had an out sized influence on the population for some reason. But the fact of the matter is that whether homosexuals are born the way they are or are influenced by various factors to be what they are, they are a vast minority representing fewer people than the number of Scandinavian-Americans (about 4%). But for some reason women (and it is almost always women) find this bunch cute or stylish or endearing as long as the homosexuals are not threatening, meaning that said homosexual is not trying to take the woman's breadwinner husband or boyfriend. Most men, as freaky and as primitive as they can be, seem to hold to an almost Biblical attitude towards homosexuals and trannies. They believe that there is something not quite right about the whole deal. And while most men will put up with homosexual men (though not so much trannies because most trannies are rather clownish in their presentation), they see homosexuals as a sort of chihuahua that one won't kick but which one really doesn't want to take hunting.
Here is the most disturbing thing that your friend finds about the contemporary attitude towards homosexuality.
All too often one will read an article about a man (and it almost always a man) who in early middle age decides/realizes that despite the fact that he's been married to a woman for 15-20 years and has fathered two or more children decides one day, or over a period of time, that he is a homosexual or is a woman in a man's body. Said man then announces to his wife, and every other damn body who is willing to listen, that he has found himself and that he's a homosexual or a woman or a six year-old girl and then abandons his wife and kids to "be himself." Much of the media and idiots will yak about how brave he is that he's decided to live as "who he is" and be honest while at the same time ignoring the ramifications of his either previous lying about or his "realization" of his true self on his wife and kids. The abandoned woman and children are nothing. It's all about this "brave" man/tranny being true to himself. A family has been destroyed by the man's hedonism and yet the man is a hero and the family is forgotten.
Now imagine for a moment, a case that probably takes place more often than the sudden revelation homo-erotic or sexual dysphoria or a married man. A man between the ages of 35 and 45 who is married with children suddenly decides that he's going to ditch his 34 to 45 year old wife and the fruit of his loins in order to take up with some 19 year old woman because he still feels young and his wife is "old." He sees himself as young and vital and sees the woman that he is married to as old, haggard, perhaps fat, and with sagging breasts. He married, years ago, what he thought of as a Barbie who has turned into Ma Kettle and he sees himself as Ken. His kids? They'll get over it. They learn to love the new Barbie and appreciate that Dad is a "cool" guy. And in any world that makes any damn sense the man would be condemned as an awful creep, and, in fact, in most of the U.S. the guy is seen as a a selfish and irresponsible bastard except by his close male friends who hope to get a shot of leg from the new Barbie behind the Ken's back.
Now, what's the difference between the guy who dumps his family to live with a Bruce or become a Jasmine and the guy who dumped his family to take up with some young blood? The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. Both are based on the worst and deadliest sin---pride.
But that's enough of this writer.
The reason it twofold. The first is that Facebook is not a proper platform for posts of more than four sentences. It is forum more suited for short, pithy entries, and photographs and jokes. Facebook is not a serious platform. It is, in a sense, a back fence over which exchanges gossip and Polaroids with neighbors who are far away. The second reason that the people running Facebook are both intrusive and grabby. If what one posts on Facebook something that the Facebook "team" does not like, or has been complained about by some sensitive soul, the said post will be deleted. Facebook owns the platform and is not loathe to kick and entry off it. And Facebook seems to think (or to be more accurate, the corporation that runs Facebook) that anything published on the Facebook platform belongs to the corporation. It does not belong to the person posting or the creator. It is as if one wrote a novel and had it published by a book publisher only to find out that one did not own the copyright to one's own novel, but, instead, the publisher now owns the copyright and takes all the profits without paying royalties. Facebook reserves the right to do this. And it does so without even paying an advance or giving a notification to the creator/poster. One becomes an almost eternal "intern" for Facebook i.e, working without being paid or considered. And the reward is, well, nothing. Facebook controls and steals. Who needs that?
Now, to get down to cases:
The reader is, one hopes, aware of the unrest in Hong Kong.
Basically it comes down to the fact that when Great Britain handed the colony of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China there was a promise by the PRC that Hong Kong would be allowed to operate in the same way it had under British rule for fifty years before the PRC installed its form of governance upon Hong Kong. The hand-over took place in 1997. That means that Hong Kong should have been expected to remain under its pre-transfer condition until 2047. In other words, another 28 years.
The PRC, being the PRC under the rule of Xi JInping, aka Winnie the Pooh, has decided to slowly violate the agreement by increments, and the Hong Kongers have noticed. It started with a decision by Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, to allow the extradition to the PRC or citizens of Hong Kong despite the fact that the people who were to be extradited to the PRC had never committed a crime in the PRC. That was the catalyst of the protests.
Ms. Lam backed down, but the PRC did not. Instead the PRC increased pressure on the government of Hong Kong for extraditions and then began a campaign to sub rosa violate the 1997 treaty. The PRC and Xi Jinping got hungry and wanted what it wanted now. And the result was more protests and protests that have become more violent in reaction to the increased heavy-handed tactics by the Hong Kong police who seem to be directed by the PRC.
For some reason the protesters are appealing to United States for help and support. They have taken to carrying and waving American flags during their protests. One finds one's self wondering what the protesters expect the United States to do? Send in the Seventh Fleet along with a division of Marines to protect them from the PRC's People's Army? File a complaint in the useless and termite ridden United Nations? Send a "Good Luck" card with a million signatures? The best that the U.S. can do without setting off an out and out war with the PRC is to tariff goods from mainland China and have no tariffs on goods from Hong Kong until it becomes apparent that the PRC has taken over Hong Kong. And when that happens the tariffs on goods from Hong Kong become doubled of those in mainland China.
One question that arises for this writer is way are the protesters in Hong Kong appealing to the United States and not to Great Britain? It was Great Britain that handed Hong Kong over to the PRC. The only thing that the U.S. had to do with Hong Kong was as a port of call for the Navy's Pacific Fleet. It was Great Britain that sold out Hong Kong at the insistence of the the leaders and intelligentsia of Hong Kong. And those leaders actually expected the PRC to keep its word and expected Great Britain to intervene if the PRC did not keep its word. The PRC has not held to its promise and Great Britain protect the Channel Islands, let alone demand that the PRC operate according to the agreement of 1997. So the protesters, seeing that their former colonizer has become a weak and silly self-hating nation has turned to the U.S. for hope. And this despite the fact that many in the U.S. and outside the U.S. see the nation as an outlaw nation of oppression i.e., Antifa, universities, entertainers, much of the media. Or as unwanted invaders and regime in countries that don't want regime change. The Hong Kong protesters are going against the liberal narrative and there is nothing that the U.S. can do.
And please know that this writer has no ill feelings toward the Chinese. His ill feelings are directed toward the People's Republic of China. Your friend has too many Chinese friends to dislike the Chinese. But he has too many Taiwanese,Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai and Filipino friends to have any love, or even like for the PRC and its leaders.
The PRC and its leaders are a sort of Sauron demanding the loyalty and conformity of all those with the borders of the PRC using the tools of the old Maoist regime, the old East German model, and modern technology. At the same time it reaches out to grab and take and effectively colonize to build an Empire: the ruining of the Mekong River by dams, the taking of islands from the Philippines and Vietnam, and the constant threatening of Taiwan. One also must remember that the PRC is not loathe to drive African nations into debt to get its own way in Africa. The PRC is an awful colonizer. Unlike the UK or the U.S. the PRC does nothing but take from a country. It contributes nothing to a country. As bad as the U.S and the UK may seem as colonizers, at least they contributed to their colonies; the making of India as a nation from a group of principalities and the modernization of the Philippines. The PRC model seems to be based on the Spanish and French models i.e., colonize and take plunder and invest nothing for the populace.
But that's enough of that corn pone opinionating. On to another topic. And the last for this all too long post.
This writer has really gotten tired of the glorification of gays (or as he refers to them, homosexuals, both of the male and female variety) and "transgenders" (included in this bunch are included cross-dressers who make a life of their fetish and have brought their "thing" into the public square, and those who have undergone surgery or hormone treatments to make a him a "shim" and a her a "sher" of various types, not to mention adults who claim that they are six years old, adults who claim that they are ponies or doggies or demons or sparrows).
Let us face the facts. According to the media gays and trannies have become America's (and perhaps Western Europe's Chai pets, Furbies, fashion dictators and style influencers despite the fact that homosexuals make up about 3 percent of the U.S. population and trannies make up about .2 percent of the population. Homosexuals have been in modern times part of the performing arts, and have had an out sized influence on the population for some reason. But the fact of the matter is that whether homosexuals are born the way they are or are influenced by various factors to be what they are, they are a vast minority representing fewer people than the number of Scandinavian-Americans (about 4%). But for some reason women (and it is almost always women) find this bunch cute or stylish or endearing as long as the homosexuals are not threatening, meaning that said homosexual is not trying to take the woman's breadwinner husband or boyfriend. Most men, as freaky and as primitive as they can be, seem to hold to an almost Biblical attitude towards homosexuals and trannies. They believe that there is something not quite right about the whole deal. And while most men will put up with homosexual men (though not so much trannies because most trannies are rather clownish in their presentation), they see homosexuals as a sort of chihuahua that one won't kick but which one really doesn't want to take hunting.
Here is the most disturbing thing that your friend finds about the contemporary attitude towards homosexuality.
All too often one will read an article about a man (and it almost always a man) who in early middle age decides/realizes that despite the fact that he's been married to a woman for 15-20 years and has fathered two or more children decides one day, or over a period of time, that he is a homosexual or is a woman in a man's body. Said man then announces to his wife, and every other damn body who is willing to listen, that he has found himself and that he's a homosexual or a woman or a six year-old girl and then abandons his wife and kids to "be himself." Much of the media and idiots will yak about how brave he is that he's decided to live as "who he is" and be honest while at the same time ignoring the ramifications of his either previous lying about or his "realization" of his true self on his wife and kids. The abandoned woman and children are nothing. It's all about this "brave" man/tranny being true to himself. A family has been destroyed by the man's hedonism and yet the man is a hero and the family is forgotten.
Now imagine for a moment, a case that probably takes place more often than the sudden revelation homo-erotic or sexual dysphoria or a married man. A man between the ages of 35 and 45 who is married with children suddenly decides that he's going to ditch his 34 to 45 year old wife and the fruit of his loins in order to take up with some 19 year old woman because he still feels young and his wife is "old." He sees himself as young and vital and sees the woman that he is married to as old, haggard, perhaps fat, and with sagging breasts. He married, years ago, what he thought of as a Barbie who has turned into Ma Kettle and he sees himself as Ken. His kids? They'll get over it. They learn to love the new Barbie and appreciate that Dad is a "cool" guy. And in any world that makes any damn sense the man would be condemned as an awful creep, and, in fact, in most of the U.S. the guy is seen as a a selfish and irresponsible bastard except by his close male friends who hope to get a shot of leg from the new Barbie behind the Ken's back.
Now, what's the difference between the guy who dumps his family to live with a Bruce or become a Jasmine and the guy who dumped his family to take up with some young blood? The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. Both are based on the worst and deadliest sin---pride.
But that's enough of this writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)