With Ken Dodd and Hawking dying, with the Russia biz and a dozen other topics raging about us, you could be forgiven for thinking that getting tied down with Brittany Pettibone and Lauren Southern is not the highest priority for N.O. to be indulging in.
I say it is and I give my reasons further down, with my headmaster’s mortarboard on the head. You can take the man out of headmastering but you can never take the headmaster out of the man, so please bear with me here.
I mentioned yesterday that previous posts on those girls plus Hope Sandoval were setting up a “culmination” post – that there was method in this apparent fixation with three young ladies.
Actually – only two, Brittany and Lauren for the good work they’re doing, not Hope who is a lost soul like many.
You see, I can decry and bemoan what has been done to Millennials as well as the next pundit and reader – we are ever scathing about SJWs and the foolishness in universities etc. etc. No argument.
But in the middle of that, here are two girls [B&L] struggling to make sense of the world and find a good way, a sane way and anyone remotely fatherly or headmastery among us would support a couple of essentially good kids.
The dismay is in how vilified these two have been, also Christy O a couple of years back – quite viciously attacked for trying to call a halt to this global push on young females to turn them into “pleasure models”.
You need only say the words Telford and Rotherham to know which tidal wave we’re speaking of. And where are the bleedin’ protections and protectors? Where are the adults doing the right thing? I think you understand where I’m coming from here.
We cannot get one simple fact out of our heads – these girls [and the boys too but they’re another issue concerning masculinity – there’ll be a post] are our future, this earth is in their hands once we shuffle off or even as we become decrepit before that.
But this other madness is a slow road to destruction and it is not me who brought this up – it was Lauren and Brittany themselves who were 1. brought up well in good families and 2. had epiphanies which they describe, going into dozens of examples of where their peers have gone wrong.
What they can’t see themselves [forest for the trees] is a point Tommy Robinson of all people made – you are not guilty, girls in your views, you did nothing wrong, you did only what your situations had you do. The wrong was being done by Them out there, long before.
And many of their troubles Tommy knows full well are down to his war with the State. They were caught in his wake.
I look at little idiots like Laurie Penny, Amy Schumer or Jennifer Lawrence who are not able to find the right path [they need someone praying for them to wake up] and so we get constant bollox from that lot, aided and abetted by the Machine, by a world evil which we mercilessly savage.
THAT is why these two girls [B&L] are so damned important for the world, as much as the Donald is – because they are already deep inside Millennial World, they are not old men and women preaching down.
People mention the beauty of these girls, an irrelevance, so let’s address this immediately – in straight “cardboard cutout” terms, they’re not the most classic beauties, they’re OK.
What imparts real beauty is the personality coming through, who that human is, what that human is about, the little quirks and mannerisms, the voice, all the rest of it. Beautiful person, not beautiful hottie, though they’re no slouches in the latter department either.
You can easily criticize their videos for the inability to clinch the argument, that they were a bit sweeping and generalizing here and there, that there were many points that could be picked up on in the presentations, plus I can only take so much of young wimmin of that age rabbiting on to each other [girls talk] and then I go into a daze.
Point is that they had a shot at trying to make things right and this is the professor coming out in me now – I for one am behind them in this brave attempt, albeit from a distance.
I do understand that our readers come from all walks of life and might not share the same horror of what Brittany and Lauren describe among their peers, especially as we woz once lads eh, whoa, and we’re pretty scathing about Millennial SJWs and the “new woman” in general, with some justification. My mate sent a youtube about 14 feminists dumped on an island in order to survive – I think you know what happened. It will be at 6 a.m. tomorrow. They were pathetic.
Also, there is this tweet below from this morning, a savage reaction to what has been happening in this current crop of US elections:
Can we fire Ronna McRomney now? How many elections must we lose before we admit she isn’t up for the job?
— Steph (@steph93065) March 14, 2018
Think it’s quite significant that the person writing that is a woman herself, a mother and housewife from America’s heartland.
And so to Kassandra again:
So @ScottAdamsSays taught me something: it’s very hard to reverse decision on moral grounds.
— ☆ Ƙαѕѕαη∂яα 🌷🍃🐣 (@KassandraTroy) March 13, 2018
The games people play
This post, after that long preamble, is about games played by people, strategies far too many women employ and the “long game” the new woman is now getting clean away with.
And it’s wrong. Two names and dates:
Hope Sandoval was born in 1966, actively singing around 1996. Taylor Swift was born in 1989, active now.
Before getting onto all that, best I throw in the two vids referred to above.
There was a third youtube in which another girl that age speaks in the manner these two do, with that self-assurance and in a slightly lecturing way but what was spewing forth from her mouth was pure SJWism, pure PCism.
Our intrepid two posted message after message after message onscreen from their peers but there are just so many difficulties in dismantling moral wrong turns, as Kassandra mentioned.
The greatest barrier is that “times change”. There’s a whole lexicon, a whole industry perpetuating this myth that change is “inevitable”. Bob Dylan’s song was about it.
It is only inevitable when a catalyst is present and there is one in this case – Them, the PTB who have been working on women since the 60s [actually from before but it took off in the 60s, starting with the Pill].
Another difficulty with the girls’ arguments is that they did not go into the spiritual side of fidelity and family, loosely headed “sanctity”, a major factor left out of almost all discussions on the issue.
It’s an alien concept to most, even to many readers here.
The Pill was a huge factor in the 60s, as mentioned, plus places like Laurel Canyon where things were devised to deliberately push onto kids, not least being Kesey’s and Leary’s drugs. Film, music and the lives of the “stars” were not far behind.
Taylor Swift has been criticized by many for her game of sleeping with one man for some time, writing a song about how he did her wrong and then moving onto another.
“Unlucky in love” is her schtick.
Look, it has nowt to do with love, she is a cynical woman in thrall to her masters, it is serial inconstancy in her case, a dysfunctional and poor quality human, thumbing her nose at society, but couching it all in emotive, victimhood terms.
The difference between Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus is that the latter is so openly and obviously thumbing her nose and derriere at decency that there’s not a lot left to say – it is what it is, ditto with Gaga. Those two appeal to girls already lost.
But Taylor Swift is far more subtle about it and cocoons her real life moves in song, which both excuses her and casts her as the victim in each case. And her target audience is the normal kid at home, very young. Swift is far more dangerous because she is presented as the cleancut, good girl, parents like her, as they liked the Beatles, she doesn’t sing of raw sex like the rappers, like Minaj, she sings of forlorn love [get out the violins]. That’s approved by parents who breathe a sigh of relief.
There is a troubling truth in Swift’s whole schtick – in order to write so many songs about love gone wrong, how he did her wrong, how they just weren’t suited – something any young girl can relate to – she had to have actually done them.
Over and over and over – her body count must be well over Grace Kelly’s by now.
She said this herself – that the songs were inspired by her experiences. So she goes out and has those experiences.
Or in other words, she sleeps with partner after partner after partner, then dumps them or they dump her. There’s even cleverness in that – she chooses sexual partners she knows can’t last, otherwise they’d cramp her career. And she draws her young fans into that, being fairly young herself.
But she’s singing of situations which someone 25 to 35 might find herself in, not someone 12 to 18 and that is the embedded evil in what she is doing, very well known by her too that she’s doing this – have you seen interviews with her and her handpicked, sycophantic coterie, her coven? There is nothing remotely accidental about what Swift’s people are trying to do.
She is currently onto yet another man [it was in the weekend news] and the photoshoot has her being super-serious about the new “relationship”, walking beside him, holding hands, trying “yet again” to find love.
That’s how she gets it past the parental critics and is not labelled a slut, except by men from their late 20s to 40s, because each individual relationship, taken in isolation, is so tragic and heartbreaking in itself – kids sobbing everywhere.
The cumulative effect though is that here is a woman who has not the slightest intention of staying with one man and that cynical dishonesty is what I’m down on. I once had to train a 14 year old work experience girl in the shop where I worked and she thought Taylor Swift so sweet, so tragic, so good as a human being. There was no point me trying to counteract that.
And so, finally, back to Hope Sandoval. Not having the same mass appeal as Swift, you might say she’s not done as much damage but Hope Sandoval is more subtle even than Taylor Swift – her schtick is the fragile, innocent little girlish lady who must be treated with kid gloves and who is so unlucky in love – same motif. Apart from some covers she chooses, she writes the material, which reflects the schtick she’s projecting:
Waitin’ for a sign from you
Waitin’ for a signal to change
Have you forgotten what your love can do?
Is this the end?
Was it all in vain?
Superstar in your own private movie
I wanted just a minor part
But I’m no fool
I know you’re cool
I never really wanted your heart
There are some alarming things in that attitude [it was one of the covers]. She was always going to play with the man, so she chose one she knew would mistreat her, handing her her reason to leave and getting onto the next one.
She latches onto bad boys or saps, is abused or misunderstood by them in her eyes, she then sadly “realizes” they don’t want her any more and moves on.
Like Taylor Swift.
Before I let you down again
I just want to see you in your eyes
I would have taken everything out on you
I only thought you could understand
They say every man goes blind in his heart
And they say everybody steals somebody’s heart away
And I’ve got nothing more to say about it
Nothing more than you would me
No mention of sex in the least, just of tragic love dashed. All good and cleancut, yes?
No it’s not, because it presupposes the changed culture now, aided and abetted by teachers in school and peers, where the sex and drugs start in early teenage. And that is evil, it’s ubiquitous.
She is beyond that now, Ms Sandoval, she assumes the girl is already doing those things as a matter of course and so they can relate to what she sings. Which they did at the time – she had brief popularity.
There is always a cost to going astray and the giveaway in her case is that she is now 51 years old and still doing the same thing – no hubby, no family. Interviewed, when asked about husband and family, Ms Sandoval said she was single and “happy” about it.
The only way a woman is “happy” about that is if she is getting nooky and a pair of arms from somewhere else and/or she is strange, and/or she has pursued her project with a singlemindedness in which any relationship is merely an adjunct to help her on her way.
Long ago, a girlfriend and I met up after some years and she admitted that the only one she’d ever really loved was herself – everyone else [she did not use these words] were satellites around her. At the time, all I could think of were the Seven Deadly Sins, of narcissim too.
Sandoval’s major crime, in my book, is not just that she is a serial monogamist for a few months, it is the dishonesty. It is that it’s done in a way which always exonerates her from any real blame, any real guilt, only lip service regret. It’s always “unfortunate circumstances”, which she actually engineered. And she was in the public eye, imparting these values to kids.
Compare her cold cynicism to, say, Susanna Hoffs of the Bangles in the 80s. Look at their songs and the Bangles’ were about romantic/erotic love – aimed at a similar age group to them, not at young teens.
Oh yes, she married in the 90s and is still married to the same man. Not the done thing.
“Virtue” is a cheapened commodity now, almost a meaningless concept in society – and girls have had this now since puberty – what’s wrong with having many lovers they’d ask if challenged.
I’ve only ever once challenged a young lady on this because she was boasting about her exploits [she was a private client in Russia] and she justified it by saying it was what “men have always done”, so why not have everything she imagined men have always had?
Except that not all men do have her attitude, it’s a figment of the female mind used for self-justification purposes. I’m not talking of the cads among men here, I’m talking about the poor sods who actually love the Hope Sandovals, which I came close to before waking up.
Many of these poor sods pour themselves into some female and then this comes back:
Before I let you down again
I just want to see you in your eyes
The Taylor Swifts and Hope Sandovals consider they’ve done no wrong – relationships come, relationships go in their eyes and they were always the ones wronged. Whether it’s a full on relationship at 12 or 32, it means nothing to them.
It’s not just the Millennials
Even gramps and grandma have caught the disease – they see the available meat out there among Millennials and want some of the action themselves – it’s grotesque. Brittany quoted the percentage increase of this sort of behaviour among the “eternal youthers”, the oldies.
The rise of the cougar is also part of the general malaise.
Any Christian could tell you what this is all about but in sociological terms, it’s a nightmare for society.
Women define society’s values
“Price above rubies” is no accident and though I do not like Patriarchal overtones to things, nor Matriarchal, there’s still truth to how much power a virtuous woman has.
The Taylors and Hopes, on the other hand, see only the power of sexual allure. They can’t see that a virtuous women has the capacity to calm and order the society around her. She’s the one reinforcing her vision of extended family. If it ever came down to tawdry baubles and trinkets, he’d pay a lot for such a woman. She’s the lynchpin but girls today just can’t see that.
Nor the power in the word “No”.
Hemlines and cleavages have always defined societies, so has the strength of the word “No” from a woman – to the extent it’s her default reply.
In its extreme form, it involves chaperones, Victorian prudery.
At the other end of the scale, too many young and not so young women have lost all pretence of virtue and descended to being public clubbing meat, not unlike all those grooming victims – this has been increasing for a long, long time and the influx of Muslims of late has just exacerbated it, blown the scam out of all proportion.
The perfect feminist set up
A lost woman’s main sexual game is to be able to sleep around with as many men as she can and still carry no social stigma for it. She recognizes no difference between herself being entered and someone else putting a tadger in. She sees them as equal things.
You could almost call this game the “impossible to counter” game. Why should they not have exactly the same right to put it about?
And it gets worse when motherhood is involved. The ideal now is for the woman to be on her own, supported by the State dogooders, ruling the roost [she loves her kids of course, in her eyes], not a father anywhere on the horizon, no one she has to deal with as an adult.
I suspect that these days she deliberately chooses the cad who’ll leave her with her State supported kid. Good result. She relies on his fecklessness to achieve it.
And when the urge gets to her, she brings in a man for the job until he gets uppity and starts talking about love. Lauren Southern in particular attacked this in one of her vids. It’s a cynical whoring about, disguised behind a layer of social justice and the logic of equal rights to sleep around.
I notice that at least one woman in the public eye has partly woken up to what’s going on but she still gets it wrong:
A recent example I can’t find the url for but it’s some Brit celeb who split from his wife and she went on an 11 months sex romp around the world, then came back to him but her old schoolfriend romping partner didn’t want it to end and there’s been all manner of trouble. She doesn’t care, she feels vindicated as a desired woman. Idiot. It’s the Natasha Giggs syndrome.
Men’s fantasies include a whole population out there of nubile receptacles they can bonk at will, with no strings attached and that has openly become the same with women now. The flaw in that, without even bringing in any religious notion of compromised soul or astrological notion of compromised aura, is the way it kills the ability to commit and be true to someone, to be fair to another human being.
And it’s not just the sex – it’s in so many fields of endeavour – in other words, it produces flotsam, rubbish people. Rod Stewart sang about “them Brooklyn girls” – we’re talking about those you wouldn’t bother with.
There are the openly slatternly, such as you see at Cheltenham races right now but far more insidious, far more Hope Sandoval, are ordinary women already inside a marriage who start getting these ideas into their heads. All they then need is an excuse. Over 70% of divorce applications are filed by women.
Getting off that and coming back to the Millennials and those after them, Lauren Southern has been attacked for not being married with kids when she herself has attacked the free-for-all sleeping about of her sisters and don’t you dare call us sluts.
This was her response:
She makes the point that it’s confusing enough for her to make sense of the world as it is, as she has no code from the past to compare anything to – her generation has been left value-less.
But just like The Who in 905, she came to realize there was something missing in this sick world youth culture, this lifestyle she’s grown up in and then she met Brittany Pettibone who agreed with her. And we all know how they came to our attention.
A religious person might say that this was meant to be, as they are espousing counter-values and what better way to get an audience than to be handcuffed and jailed trying to enter Britain.
So not only does the political cause get publicity but the spinoffs are their views on marriage and family. Thank you, British police.
Oh, why is Laura not married with kids, as the left think the right want every woman to be by 20?
She points out that at 22, she’s not ready. It’s on the horizon but first it requires a decent man and she can’t just order one from a menu. She’s not into the IVF/abortion cycle, not into the marry for marriage’s sake, she wants but only in the context of love.
You might call that young and naive all you want, I call it the only hope of this world surviving. Patriarchy in its Hitleresque form destroys societies but so too does Matriarchy, which we’re in now.
These two girls are rays of hope – isn’t it interesting that it was them, not the dozen returning jihadis, who were stopped at the border and handcuffed.
Number of women having IVF without a man soars by 35%: Experts say many use donated sperm after failing to find ‘Mr Right’