The real angel of the West

Never thought I’d ever agree with Damien Hirst [note the first name] but perhaps this would be a great reminder for the UK:

Damien Hirst’s 67-foot pregnant Angel of the West: Controversial new landmark set to tower over the Devon coast

A reminder not just of the single issue of teenage sexual abuse and sexualization but of the whole set of circumstances under which we’re now living – the falling away, the progressive [and the word is used both ways] policy deterioration and the appointment of people who are unfit to be appointed.

The benefits society, rampant porn, the rejection of sane values [e.g. Sermon on the Mount], the ethic stemming from that, perverting of classic liberalism, rejection of the liberal arts education, forgetting of a sense of history and heritage, weakening of families with insane parents not brought up properly themselves.

Plus this time, it’s not a bad work of art, unlike much of his other guff.

The post so many didn’t like, outlining in nine points the mindset of the modern woman, illustrates just part of the whole slide and I’d now like to look at it in reverse, concentrating not on the poor women at the end of the process but on where these things sprang from anyway.

If it were an enemy of humanity [Ephesians 6:12]:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

… then the issue would surely be: “Who precisely is this ‘enemy in high places’?”

It’s been argued for years. Christians are in no doubt that it’s a sentient spiritual entity, others are divided between it being just Man’s dark side or it being the political Them we go on about – the oligarchs/politicians/banksters/fat cats.

It’s not even necessary to decide on that in order to see the Agenda [of which Agenda 21 is but part and which They now attempt to play down]. If it was anyone or any group sentient enough to wish the subjugation and destruction of humans, then certain questions obviously arise:

1. Just why would anyone wish the subjection and destruction of humans?

2. What steps would be taken to ensure the subjugation and

3. What would the model of society look like which followed that?

The answer to 1 is dead easy. If it’s a sentient dark side, then it’s insanity and that insanity is seen in everything from the green religion to paganism to the body scarring and return to the primitive yahoo. Lord of the Flies had much to say about that.

I’d say that that insanity is present today.

In its milder form, Julia M catalogues much of it on a daily basis, while the Mail catalogues the more gruesome aspects, e.g. child abuse by parents and carers, murder over a pair of trainers/sneakers etc.

If you can’t accept a spiritual foe, then let it be the swirling combination of oligarchs/politicians/banksters/fat cats … and the reason?

That’s easy – to make humans incapable of rebellion against the enemy’s privileged position in control of the world’s resources. The only issue in their dog-eat-dog world is whether you’re on the gravy train or one of the new plebs.

If humans were fat, malnourished, distracted and bickering between themselves over irrelevancies, dumbed-down [education] and the new teachers had suppressed the Sermon on the Mount and were teaching a “do as thou wilt”, then the next two generations of kids would produce your desired result for you – drugged out and pregnant, with no actual family surrounding the New Child, at the mercy of feckless wild boys in the Burroughs sense.

Hence Hirst’s apt sculpture – a spit in the face for us, the human beings but also perfect just before the long-hijacked Olympics as a salient reminder of what Britain now stands for.

3 Responses to “The real angel of the West”

  1. CherryPie July 2, 2012 at 00:14 Permalink

    I don’t normally like to comment on this type of post of yours, due to the way you respond.

    But on this occasion I feel the need to.

    The reason that your readers don’t like your posts on women is because the way you write on these issues you are denouncing all women (not just the ones you refer to as feminaza or modern woman).

    In my daily life I don’t encounter many ladies who fit your descriptions, the only place I see those ideas promoted to a high level is the media…

    Moving on to my thoughts on that statue:

    I find it quite offensive and inappropriate. An image of femininity and womanhood does not need a sword of masculinity. It portrays all the things you despise.

  2. James Higham July 2, 2012 at 10:10 Permalink

    you are denouncing all women

    Most readers know that’s not so, of course and is a slur on me but heh – I get that all the time. That includes women seeing this too. It’s quite easy to see, for the unbiased, that my posts on the topic are targetting a specific demographic and do not, by definition, mean “all women”. Feminists have tried to make it so because it’s easier to turn it back on the writer as misogynist than face up to the facts but that’s par for the course.

    For example, this post was about the way teenagers are induced into this lifestyle and there was a post on it in the MSM today – the lifestyle, not the sculpture. Interesting that this post also ran at OoL and no one tried to turn it into a Higham v Women issue. That’s significant. Have a look:

    http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2012/07/01/the-real-angel-of-the-west/

    Look at this too if you would, Cherie:

    Anne-Marie Slaughter has held top jobs at Princeton University and as Hillary Clinton’s thinker-in-chief. But the American academic’s most important contribution lies in her brave exposure of the Big Lie: women can have it all. For decades feminists have tried to delude themselves and others that a woman can be a good mother and a good professional. No, she can’t, says Slaughter — or at least, not unless she works in a very limited number of fields.

    That’s the sort of thing I’d write, yes? And if I did, and because it was me writing it, then it would be misogynist, yes?

    OK, look who wrote it – Christine Odone. Oops, suddenly not misogynist but a thoughtful piece on the issue. So pardon me if I don’t accept the charge. Pardon me if I am not a woman but understand a hell of a lot about them through proximity for so long. If women can make observations and draw conclusions about men – which they do the whole time – then I can do that about women or certain sectors of them with which I’m familiar.

    Am I offensive? Certainly – to feminists but never to women. The two are completely separate groups and the former are not interested in the welfare of the latter. I am though, hence the articles warning people to wake up because of the consequences of accepting the feminist lie, as Christine pointed out.

    One of the greatest lies perpetuated by the feminists is that they somehow represent women and that to criticize a woman is to be oppressing her or offending her – especially if it’s a man doing it. NO! It is not offending women, it is only offending the feminists – an important distinction. So yes, I shall continue to offend feminists for what women say feminists have done to women. I have many quotes by women.

    Not only that but readers will know that I always quote women on the issue, not men. In fact, it’s women’s views I am reporting. Are these women misogynist and offensive to women too? The reason I quote women is precisely so that this sort of charge can’t stick.

    QED.

    And what is the issue? Kathy Rudy, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Women’s Studies at Duke University writes:

    Christina Hoff Sommers, in Who Stole Feminism?, decries what she calls “gender feminism,” which, she suggests, focuses too narrowly on oppression, inequality, and difference. She opposes any feminism that “is filled with resentment that rationalizes and fosters a wholesale rancor to women.”29

    According to her, there is no reason for women to be angry as no oppression really exists. Because women have been accepted in the public domain, they have already won. Self-consciously valorizing the language of individual freedom, Sommers suggests, “gender feminism has little faith in the Enlightenment principles that influenced the founders of American political order and that inspired the great classical feminists to wage their fight for women’s rights.”30

    In contradistinction to most feminists today, she doesn’t think gender oppression is widespread enough to warrant attention; rather, she sees the project of gaining equality for women as complete.

    The issue is that there were things which needed correcting and all men I know concede those. However, the notion that there was widespread oppression or that women haven’t achieved equality is a lie. From Minette Marrin to Ms Rudy, women are stating that what is happening now is beyond the pale and is nothing more nor less than rampant misandry, backed by the State for its own reasons.

    http://youtu.be/q-_6wwHpAr8

    This is what I am opposing, with the help of women. I have no desire to offend you as a woman and have never attempted to do so, Cherie. Nor do I wish to nor have I ever attempted to offend you as a person. However, I am involved in a fight to the death with feminists and my role in that is to set out, in a forthright manner, the facts in the case, not according to me but according to many women whose writings and youtubes I gather. I’ll do whatever I can to scupper feminism in favour of supporting femininity and the happiness of non-feminist women.

    The tone in the “voice” therefore gets harsh at times and for that, I do apologize. No doubt some issues are close to your heart which you’re also less than equanimous on. I would understand your passion for those issues.

    I find it quite offensive and inappropriate.

    Meaning the statue – yes, it is.

    [15:27: Check email]

  3. CherryPie July 2, 2012 at 21:52 Permalink

    I did and now you know ;-)

    And that statue looks no better on second viewing!!!

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string PtGJXD to the field below: