Radical Feminist Analysis of Dark Shadows, the Television Series (1966-1971)

Spoiler Alert: This analysis of Dark Shadows assumes familiarity with the series and does contain all kinds of suspense-wreckers. 

ds2Dark Shadows was a daytime soap opera that aired on ABC from 1966 to 1971. It began as a conventional soap opera with only ina hint of the occult. The writers and producers of this series relied heavily on classical literary themes. Throughout the series, the writers borrow from Oscar Wilde, H.P. Lovecraft, Mary Shelley, Shirley Jackson, Henry James, Edgar Allan Poe and a long list of others, which you can read about at this Wikia article.

The series creator and producer, Dan Curtis, has said that the idea for the series came to him in a dream of a young women riding a train, which is what is seen in the opening scene, in which Victoria Winters has been hired as a governess by the Collins family of mysterious Collinsport, Maine, a fictional town situated not far from Bangor. The train is taking her into an adventure – a young woman’s adventure, which is very much like Jane Eyre’s adventure in the novel of the same name by Charlotte Bronte.

But, there is another theme, a much older fictional story used in this series, which has to do with a curse placed upon a man and his descendants by a woman. It is the theme of the Biblical Garden of Eden story. This is the central theme underlying the best years of this series, which are those in which the character Barnabas Collins, the vampire, was introduced. It is not listed in the Wikia article I linked to above, perhaps because it is such an ancient theme, one that is taken for granted, and one that is not believed (especially by men) to be fiction, but is taken as the god’s honest truth for it was written, it is said by the believers, by the hand of God Himself – woman as temptress, responsible for the downfall of the first man and all his descendants. She is to blame, never the man, who would be good and not a seducing, murdering vampire, except for her going about the world tempting him to do evil all the time. She, not he, is the cause of all misery.

This part of the series does not begin right away. In the beginning, there was a young woman from an orphanage, Victoria Winters, who accepted a job offer from a mysterious family, one heretofore unknown to her. Ever in search of her true heritage, lonely and without any connection to anyone else in the world just like all the other children in the orphanage, she set out on a train in hopes of reconnecting with some sort of family. She came to find the only family she would ever know. Although, the boy she is assigned as governess to is odd and perhaps even dangerous. He leads her down dark, forbidden corridors, locks her in rooms with spiders and ghosts, and is suspected, at one point, of attempting to kill his own father. But, this is her only sense of connection and so it is easy to see why she stays on in this place. Like many women, she stays because she has no where else in the world to go.

I loved the first season of this series, although, by the end of it, its audience of mostly young women – not a highly desirable advertising demographic back in the 1960s, as they are today – was waning and the writers and producer were desperate to save the show. It was their desperation that led to the introduction of the vampire character, Barnabas Collins, played by a Shakespearean theater actor from Ontario named Jonathan Frid.

I have the feeling that the writers never really knew what they were doing right or wrong. They never really understood the appeal of the show, itself, and many times the actors have expressed their own amazement at the extremes of passion the show inspired in its dedicated fan base. They knew the show was unusual and they were part of something very remarkable, but they never really understood why it worked, either. This fact became a problem for the writers by the end of the series because they didn’t just run out of literary themes to borrow, they completely lost their grip on what made this show so appealing. My diagnosis is that this show finally died, in 1971, of testosterone poisoning. They had too many male characters fighting with each other over nothing and major, very popular female characters, playing damsels in distress wondering when their heroes, the newcomer males who became the primary characters, would return home to sweep them off their feet. This is not what their primarily female audience wanted to see and this is why the show finally died a slow death as the audience waned year after year.

But, in the first year, there was a very good balance of characters and a strong focus on the lives of the female characters. The male characters were secondary, especially to the intrepid, highly intelligent, very likable heroine, Victoria Winters. Even now – and, in fact, it is actually worse now – it is difficult to find a television program that centers on a female character and treats her with some respect. In the first season of the show, this series had four such female characters: Victoria Winters (Alexandra Moltke Isles, a blue-blood from Sweden); Maggie Evans (Kathryn Leigh Scott); Carolyn Stoddard (Nancy Barrett); and Mrs. Stoddard (Joan Bennett, a legendary actress of the silver screen).

Dark Shadows Before the Arrival of Barnabas Collins

Even before the series took off, it was very good and quite different from other programs in its class because of its infusion of metaphysical ideas, even though they were only hinted at in a Radcliffian way, at first. There were doors that seemed to open and close by themselves, which might be explained by an old house that has settled. There were strange murmurings in the corridors, which were explained away by the residents as the noises made by old houses with creaking floorboards and loose mortar. There were voices on the wind at Widows Hill, which was the residents joked about to mask their discomfort.

What made the show good throughout most of its life is that it seems clear that someone behind the scenes had a genuine interest in the occult. It’s a feeling I’ve had about only a very few other television shows (or movies, for that matter) I’ve seen. Dark Shadows seems to have laid the groundwork for these other programs during the 1970s, which some people call the Satanic years because there were so many shows with occult themes – many of which were remarkably good and make modern television programming look extremely pathetic and simple-minded by contrast. One of those old series was Kolchak: The Night Stalker (1974-1975). It is my opinion that whoever wrote that series had a serious interest in the occult. Some people have called it the predecessor of the X-files, but it was, in fact, much better and took the occult much more seriously.  (I hated the X-files!) There was a weekly series of made-for-television movies whose themes frequently explored the occult and Satanism, as well. It was called “The ABC Movie of the Week.” One of the films in that series, The Devil’s Daughter (1973), featured Jonathan Frid.

Another fascinating aspect of Dark Shadows, which makes it more interesting than most television programming, is that it was usually filmed in one straight shot, one roll of the camera, without stopping. It cost the studio a large sum every time the cameras had to be stopped and re-started. For this reason, despite any mistakes, mis-speaking of lines, forgotten lines, tripping, flies in the room crawling on the actors’ faces, loud crashing objects, crew members and sometimes actors accidentally walking into a scene, inexplicable shadows created by microphones and lighting equipment, the microphones themselves appearing in some shots, very bad – hilariously bad! – special effects, and so on, the cameras kept on rolling.

Many of the actors came from the live stage. The cast of Dark Shadows was much more like a live theater troupe than a television soap opera cast. As I watch this show, even so many years later and in black and white, I still have the feeling that I am watching a live theatrical production of the kind that is performed off Broadway in New York City. Furthermore, there was very little editing done before the program ran live on air, usually within a few hours, within a day, or at most within a week of the original filming of the episode.

Dark Shadows, also, differs from almost anything else that’s ever run on television because unlike Leave It to Beaver or Happy Days, it showed, as horror often does, a more realistic view of life. The characters are all troubled in some way or another. Most are victims of fate. They are often constrained by the social order and by the limitation of their status within it. Most of all, the characters are aware of a reality that differs from that presented in the world outside of the town of Collinsport. The center of this activity is, of course, Collinwood, the manor house, its other old structures, its grounds and, naturally, the old family cemetery.

Victoria Winters

rogerandcarolynFrom the beginning, Dark Shadows, hints at secrets, at the idea that we are not being told the truth about important matters. There are many mysteries surrounding the characters. The first mystery revolves around Victoria Winters, who presents a sharp contrast to Carolyn Stoddard, not only in her serious, conservative manner of dress but in her personality, which is often somber. Vickie never laughs quite as gaily as Carolyn does. Vickie has always had to earn her way, unlike Carolyn. There is a stark contrast between this lonely girl with no known family and the Collins family, who revel in their legacy and their heritage. Many early episodes involve her trying to discover her parentage, which she feels certain is connected with Collinwood.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s and, in fact, until the popular commercial availability of the video cassette recorder (VCR), whenever something played on television, you had better pay attention because you may never see it, again. Many fans who missed Episode 97, wondered about the true identity of Victoria Winters, so much so that after the series had ended, Joan Bennett made a video telling fans of the show, as Mrs. Stoddard, “Indeed, Victoria Winters was my daughter.”

It was in Episode 97 that we began to piece together that Mrs. Stoddard was impregnated by a butler at the manor named B. Hanscom. This would have happened before she married Mr. Stoddard, who was the father of her daughter Carolynn. She might have been quite young when this happened. We are left to guess about that. Her brother had been away at school during this time and the baby girl was sent off to a foundling home. In the years afterward, Mrs.Stoddard sent her a little money every month before she invited her to come and be the governess to David.

Now, this may seem very cruel and, of course, it is, but it is a reflection of how life really was for women not long ago. In fact, I know people that something very similar to this happened to. If a young girl was impregnated, there was no possibility of abortion, and she was forced to bear the child in secrecy and then it would be sent to an orphanage or put up for adoption.

We  never know what happened to B. Hanscom, only that a relative of his from a painting which looks a lot like Victoria Winters, left town and was not heard from, again. It is possible that the butler, having raped a young member of the household, went on the lamb or perhaps he was dealt with in some other way. We don’t know and this storyline, itself, is so scandalous that it is only hinted at in Episode 97. The scandalousness of it is further enhanced by the elevated social status of the Collins family. The family still derives its income from a fishing and canning business and such a scandal might have proved disastrous for the family business and their reputation.

Many other mysteries surround Mrs. Stoddard. She rarely leaves the house and she has not left the property in 18 years. Her daughter Carolyn is probably a little under 18-years old when the series begins. We learn that her father ran off and left her and her mother when Carolyn was a newborn.

Mrs. Elizabeth Stoddard

Mrs. Stoddard is the most powerful character of all in this first season.  (In the years afterward and especially in its last seasons, the show takes a lot of twists and turns, for instance, exploring less occult and more sci-fi tyes of themes, and introducing many new characters by the end of the series. By that time, the male characters are the most powerful, also, the most cruel and inhuman.)

Mrs. Stoddard is well-respected and has the ability to inspire great loyalty in the men who work for her, especially Bill Malloy, who is the manager of the Collins cannery and fishing fleet and Matthew, the groundskeeper. Both of these men are so loyal to her, in fact, that they would kill just to protect her from mental distress. When an enemy of the family turns up and tries to buy the workers in the Collins’ cannery, the men who work there refuse on the grounds that Mrs. Stoddard has provided them with steady, well-paid work for so long. Their loyalty stems from self-interest surrounding finances, but it is, also, suggested by Carolyn that Mr. Malloy might have a secret crush on her mother.

Mrs. Stoddard is the beneficiary of a fortunate birth in a fortunate time in which she is able to inherit her family’s wealth alongside her brother, Roger (played by Louis Edmonds). She may have inherited the greater part of the family’s fortune along with the responsibilities of running the family business since she seems to be a little older and more responsible than her brother. It is she who owns the house and the grounds and Collinwood. It is she who runs the business and provides her brother, who squandered his fortune, with both a job and a place to live. She wields the most power in the house and has the final say in all business and financial matters concerning the family’s assets.

But there are problems that go along with living in the “house on the hill,” which is coveted by almost every friend or foe of the family. There is a combination of respect and resentment toward Mrs. Stoddard from the townsfolk. Both Mrs. Stoddard and her daughter, Carolyn, are subject to predators and con men. In Mrs. Stoddards’ case, she has been conned by a team of con men involving her husband and his friend, Jason McGuire, who has been blackmailing her for years. When he comes back to town and tries to force her into a marriage against her will, we finally learn the truth along with Mrs. Stoddard, who for 18 years feared leaving the grounds because she had been convinced that she murdered her abusive husband and buried in a room in the cellar. But, there is no body in the cellar and her husband was never dead.

Carolyn Stoddard

Carolyn Stoddard is probably my favorite character in this first year. One of the reasons I like this character so much is because she is truly dynamic. She is young and has to grow up fast because of the goings on at Collinwood, which are both mundane and metaphysical in nature. Carolyn is very isolated. She has no social equal in Collinsport. She and her mother have been the subject of ridicule by Carolyn’s childhood peers, who laughed at the witch who never leaves the creepy, old haunted house on the hill.

Carolyn’s singular social status is a gilded cage. Although, Collinwood is no palace. It’s more like a large, ornate, Gothic-style tomb. It is dark, cold, and foreboding. Young, vivacious, golden-haired Carolyn, the contemporary teen, is a contrast to the stagnant timelessness and decay of Collinwood. When the series begins she is a mirror contrast to her secret half-sister, Victoria Winters, who dresses plainly, much like a librarian, and as suits her station as the governess to Roger’s son, David. Carolyn giggles like a common teenager. Her wardrobe vacillates between conservative classical styles and contemporary teen-aged styles with peg-leg pants, striped shirts, and sneakers.

The only “action” (a popular variety show followed Dark Shadows in 1966, called “Where the Action Is,” which featured acts like Hermans Hermits, Dick Clark, and Paul Revere and the Raiders) in Collinsport for young people is at the Blue Whale, a local watering hole featuring trademark rock ‘n’ roll music and a dance floor.

I don’t know what bars and taverns were like back in the 1960s in New England. In my time and in my part of the country, bars are not frequented by decent folks. (This may be regional. My grandfather was a tavern-owner and I was told that this fact may have been the source of some very nasty and perverse town rumors about me when I was a child. In very religious areas of the country like where I live, bars, taverns and the people who frequent them are looked down upon as sinners.) In the early episodes, we often see Carolyn dancing with men at the Blue Whale, often while her boyfriend, Joe, looks on in exasperation.

From the beginning Carolyn seems a little angry to me. Although, this character can certainly be read all kinds of different ways, which makes her all the more interesting. For instance, Joe and Burke Devlin describe her attitude as being one of “the belle of the ball.” Burke, a man old enough to be her father, seems to take some sort of satisfaction in taking her down a few notches in his quest for revenge against his rival Roger Collins and the entire Collins family.

Joe is frustrated that Carolyn won’t behave the way he thinks she should. Mrs. Stoddard wants Carolyn to marry Joe and he, also, seems to have nuptial intentions. Joe is favored by Mrs. Stoddard because, although he is a have-not, he is a hard worker with ambitions of buying his own fishing boat. It’s interesting that with all the Collins’ money, her mother never once suggests that she go away to study for a career, perhaps to take over the family business, at a nice university. Of course, if Carolyn went away to school, we wouldn’t have this interesting set of story lines surrounding her.

Like other fictional stories, the plot(s) relies on circumstances and actions that most sensible people would find a logical way around, but if we did without these things, all of which are a tutorial in how to complicate your life, then we wouldn’t have an interesting story. Examples of silly plot devices, which are a lesson in how not to live your life if you want to avoid complications, include basic things, such as, not:

  • Answering the door to anyone and everyone who knocks, without even bothering to inquire who it is
  • Answering the telephone every single time it rings
  • Accepting rides from men you barely know, don’t know at all, or whom you know well enough to know that they are hostile to your interests
  • Accepting invitations to the hotel rooms of men who fit any of the above descriptions and/or, also, have a criminal record
  • Visiting crumbling, apparently abandoned structures, especially alone at night
  • Visiting men, known or unknown to you, in a wide variety of other potentially deadly circumstances
  • Talking to the cops – ever

The women of Collinsport rarely, if ever, hesitate to do any of these things. They, also, fail to arm themselves in any way, no matter how frightened they become. Although, on, at least, two occasions Carolyn does threaten a couple of potential rapists with Uncle Roger’s revolver, which is kept in a drawer in the Drawing Room that is easily accessible by anyone.

carolynandjoanIf Carolyn is resistant to an eligible young suitor of her own age, she has very good reasons. After all, she is is young, has experienced nothing of what the world has to offer, and she is the daughter of a mother who was abandoned by her own husband, so she has a good reason to be leery of men. So, does her mother. Despite this, Mrs. Stoddard tries to push Carolyn together with Joe. She tells her that marrying Joe is an opportunity to escape this dark tomb, which is her ancestral home  – but, to what? What would Carolyn’s life have been like had she married poor, but ambitious and very blue-collar Joe?

Carolyn’s status and station in life, not to mention her lifestyle, would probably suffer quite a bit, if she married Joe. It’s easy to picture her living in a modest house with plaid, cotton curtains in the kitchen, standing over a hot stove, looking frumpy and frazzled while Joe is off conquering the world in his fishing boat and taking accolades from his buddies for having landed the rich shrew, the blonde whore in the haunted house on the hill, who is simultaneously coveted, envied, and hated.  There is still a lingering suspicion that Joe is a gold-digger, too. By marrying Carolyn, he would improve his station in life and, eventually, his finances to a very great degree. He would, also, be privy to the privilege and power the Collins family enjoys in the city founded by their own ancestors.

He would gain and she would lose by this union, as is traditionally the case for women in marriage. This must be in her mind, these images and these suspicions, along with all the whisperings from the have-nots in the town, which go on behind her back, but which she is yet acutely, unceasingly aware of. This is why I see Carolyn as angry. She has a good reason to be angry, anyway. Behind the facade of well-learned upper-class, long-suffering smiles and careless, girlish giggles, these things seem to be on her mind.

So, she resists Joe in rebellion against her mother and her mother’s ways. Instead, she embraces an enemy of the family, Burke Devlin, a man old enough to be her father, who spent five years in prison for manslaughter. But, Devlin isn’t a realistic suitor and, therefore, presents no real threat to her future. Devlin is both worldly and wealthy – unlike young, poor, uneducated Joe who knows only his trade.

Carolyn romanticizes Burke Devlin until she realizes that he really is trying to use her to harm her family. This reaches fever pitch when David’s mother, Laura, a witch who has a relationship to the mythical phoenix, returns to take him away. We learn that Burke Devlin may be David’s biological father, rather than Roger. Burke Devlin throws Carolyn over for Laura, but Carolyn doesn’t really begin to change until her mother becomes gravely ill with a condition the allopaths cannot diagnose or treat. At this point, Carolyn is must assume her mother’s responsibilities over the family’s assets.

Even Uncle Roger is forced to acknowledge her supremacy in the house as her mother’s heir. She decides to employ a parapsychologist, who uses a seance in order to learn the truth of her mother’s illness, which is, of course, the result of black magic perpetrated by Laura.

When Laura dies, Mrs. Stoddard recovers, but Carolyn is much different for this experience. She is changed in ways that Burke Devlin and Joe clearly do not understand, only seeing her in the ways the men see women, as objects devoid of individuality or humanity which are to be used as a means to an end. Devlin used Carolyn and Joe tried to – and in the next season when we go back in time, we see what Joe’s character is probably really like beneath the facade. He is, in fact, a gold-digger.

After this experience, Carolyn seems to lose her interest in men. From that point forward, we see that she understands how she is perceived by them and realizes the limitations of any relationship she might have with them, with the exceptions of the males in her immediate family – Uncle Roger and Cousin David. The only time she displays any interest in men is when she is trying to impress a point upon her mother or to obtain information, in which case, she uses her appearance and innuendo to manipulate the men by means of their mental weaknesses. In another instance, she is attacked by the vampire and becomes his unwilling servant.

Carolyn Stoddard may be the closest thing to a radical feminist in this show. Mrs Stoddard is a very powerful woman, but she still trusts men far too much, as evidenced by her faith in Joe. On the other hand, Carolyn sees the writing on the wall after what happened with Burke Devlin, who lied to her and used her, almost to the peril of her mother’s death. She is never the same after this experience. She is a quick learner. It would be good for all of us if we could study men so quickly and come to this conclusion at a young age.

Maggie Evans

beginnMaggie Evans is the first friend Victoria Winters made when she got off the train at Collinsport. Maggie works in the diner at the only (apparently) hotel in town. She serves up coffee, pie and gossip and may be seen as a mirror contrast to Carolyn Stoddard. Maggie, Carolyn and Vickie Winters are all about the same age. But, Maggie and Carolyn are never really friends, mostly because they never really cross paths with each other since they are in two very opposite social classes.

Maggie is a have-not from the town, whose mother is dead and whose father is a guilt-ridden, alcoholic, impoverished artist. Their relationship represents a role reversal in which she is more the parent and he is more like a child. They live in a simple, modest home. When Maggie is done working at the diner, she has to come home and prepare dinner for her Pop.

When Joe can’t land Carolyn, Maggie is his natural source of solace. Although, she has a good-heart, generally, she still assigns some unkind characteristics to Carolyn Stoddard and the entire Collins family. The source of this seems to be envy, since she does not really know Carolyn or her family.

Joe and Maggie are a much more likely match. Maggie can even recite all the different types of ships that sail on the high seas and she seems like a girl who bathes with plain soap and water and wears cotton dresses and sensible shoes. She is pretty, but not glamorous. She’s the kind of girl men marry, whereas Carolyn is the kind of girl men fuck and fuck over. This contrast between the two is very easy to spot.

A similar contrast between Carolyn and Vickie seems to exist, too, and eventually it is solid, practical Vickie that Burke Devlin proposes marriage to.

Overall, what I love about this series, especially this first year, is the focus on the female characters, especially the three younger ones. There is, also, the almost constant dark, moodiness of the show, which is only briefly relieved by the rock ‘n’ roll music at the Blue Whale. Despite all the horrors, there is something reassuring about it. It is some how gratifying to know that other people, perhaps these writers, do not see the world through rose-tinted glasses.

To illustrate why I think this show is so comforting, consider what I said in my previous post about supposedly wholesome family shows treating evil actions by men as comedy. In Happy Days when two men terrorize women in their bedrooms in the middle of the night, it’s humor. In Dark Shadows, when a man enters a woman’s bedroom with ill-intent, it is taken as a serious offence. Other people are concerned. Even men appear concerned and show compassion toward the victim instead of treating the event as a joke. It’s a fact that men enter women’s bedrooms with bad intentions while we are sleeping, but, at least, in Dark Shadows the men are sorry, they feel remorse, or they are punished and it is seen as a horrible act by others, rather than something light-hearted, not to be taken seriously. When the women on this show are terrorized by men and monsters (often the same thing), it is treated as a serious problem.

Barnabas Collins

2barnsDespite how good this show was, it was beginning to lose its audience, and in an effort to save it from cancellation, they decided to introduce a vampire into the story. Originally, this story line was only going to last for about 10 weeks, but the television-viewing public loved Barnabas Collins, and perhaps Jonathan Frid as that character. This not only saved Dark Shadows from oblivion, but it turned the show into a modern pop cultural phenomenon.

To fill in the gaps regarding the story lines of the show, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Shadows_(televised_storylines)

Barnabas, while protecting his own interests, brings to an end many of the problems plaguing Mrs. Stoddard, including the intrusion of Jason McGuire’s sleazy friend, Willy Loomis, and he, also, unwittingly avenges her against her blackmailer, McGuire.

barnandbrideHe becomes fixated on Maggie Evans, who is a dead ringer for his 18th century bride, Josette. He bites her, abducts her, and holds her captive in a prison cell in the basement of the Old House. The episodes depicting Maggie’s imprisonment as Barnabas Collins are metaphoric to domestic abuse commonly experienced by women at the hands of ordinary men. Barnabas insists on her learning her place as his bride. He takes away her identity by dictating her hairstyle and her clothing and tries to convince her that she is someone else, a person with a different name: Josette Collins. (When this is done to prisoners of war, it’s called “brainwashing.”) When she resists, he tortures her. He threatens his servant, Loomis, when he tries to intercede on her behalf to keep him from killing her. When Maggie finally escapes, Barnabas calls her back to him and holds her captive, again, this time insistent that he will kill her if she does not conform to his ideals of how she should look and behave. (This is exactly how men treat women, especially women who look like the women in porn because we are expected to behave in specific ways that men expect from us, but which are not natural to female human beings. When we do not meet these expectations, they become violent and punishing.)

This is all a metaphor to marriage and the domestic abuse that commonly takes place in it in which women lose their identities, forget their former selves, their friends, and even their family as they become imprisoned and isolated by the men who claim, as Barnabas does, to love their victims. Women who fail to conform to the man’s expectations are brutalized until they are dead or lose control of their own minds. Attempts at escape fail because the abuser is never far behind and the victim is mentally and physically weakened, often through repeated rapes (metaphorically, the draining of her blood), which destroy her life force, which is the seat of the lower will (this is the physical aspect of the will as opposed to the mental will), rendering her unable to get power over her legs.This is a literal feeling that is experienced by victims after rape, which render us unable to run from our attackers. We are paralyzed not only by fear of further violence, but by this loss of energy, a condition not recognized by Western medicine, but understood in other systems of medicine (including American Indian and Chinese medicine).

When Loomis, now Barnabas’ unwilling servant, tries to warn Maggie, he is accused of entering her bedroom to harm her. He is arrested and physically and mentally incapacitated for a while. Eventually, Maggie Evans is driven mad by Barnabas and ends up in a sanitarium.

loveA psychiatric doctor, Julia Hoffman, tries to help her, however, she falls under Barnabas Collins’ spell, too. In brief, this story line, in which Barnabas repeatedly strangles Julia and eventually tries to kill her, yet Julia insists that he can be cured of his vampirism, illustrates women’s relentless faith in the possibility of redemption for men, despite the fact that they are attacking, abusing, and trying to kill us (and, in many cases, succeeding at this). Julia sticks by Barnabas, believing in his humanity despite every monstrous thing he does, every murder he commits, and every threat he poses to her own life. Julia might be considered as an example of a liberal feminist because she believes that if only the evil influences were removed from men (e.g. the white man’s racial oppression, the Jewish manipulation, the influence of porn, the influence of violent video games, and so on with excuses ad nauseam), they could be human, they could learn not to rape and kill women and girls. As a scientist and doctor, she is trained to look at the facts – or supposed to be, anyway – yet, she repeatedly ignores the evidence and all the facts where Barnabas is concerned.

The vampire’s thirst for blood is a metaphor for sex, according to Dark Shadows writer, Joseph Caldwell. But, this is only a man’s perspective because for the female victims of this “sex,” who are unwilling, who must be tricked, cornered and trapped, placed in a trance, essentially drugged by the vampire’s bite, and who, if they survive the attack, are rendered weak and unable to act normally, under their own power, this is not “sex,” at all – it is rape. So, the vampire is a metaphor, instead, for the rapist. His blood drinking is a metaphor for his theft of women’s life force by means of rape. This may be why vampire movies, and horror movies, in general are almost therapeutic for victims of rape and other forms of male violence. Watching them is a way of coping with real-life horror, which is far, far worse than anything these writers could dream up in their fictional worlds. But, you can see how this horrific male violence against women is trivialized by men, in the words of one of the writers, himself – it’s sex. It is representative of eroticism rather than unspeakable – literally unspeakable – deadly, every day, as common as oxygen, male violence against women and girls. The vampire, like the rapist, has some control over who he attacks and when he attacks them. He only attacks when he knows he’s likely to get away with it. He seeks out the most vulnerable victims and those with whom he has developed a sick obsession. The vampire is a stalker, a pre-meditated sexual predator. He has the power to drive his victims insane or, at least, to make them appear crazy. The vampire, like the rapist, destroys his victims lives, murdering their spirits without completely killing their bodies. The rapist, like the vampire, appears as a gentleman, sometimes he’s a member of your own family – at the very least he appears normal and you never know he’s a vampire until that moment when he first tries to kill you. Furthermore, if you try to tell anyone that he is, in fact, a vampire (or a rapist), no one will believe you. They never do until maybe after there is a long trail of bloody victims and it’s far too late.

Still liberal feminists, like Dr. Hoffman, believe in redemption for metaphoric vampires. Julia gives up her paid work, her entire career, in fact, to help Barnabas, to serve him at her own expense and at great risk of physical danger (Barnabas is a classic domestic abuser), to redeem him, to gain his love (an illusion, since he’s a demon in the flesh), to cure him, to make him like herself, to mold him in her own image of humanity and compassion. So, she protects him. She lies for him. She covers up his crimes. She works side by side with him, imagining that he is or could be her equal and, all the while, he is only using her for his own secret, evil motivations. Is this not the very picture of a liberal feminist?!

The story of the return of Barnabas Collins from the grave is the subject of, at least, two movies, one of which I recommend and the other I cannot. The movie, House of Dark Shadows (1970), reprised this story line pretty faithfully, although more succinctly and more graphically. Some horror fans say that this was the best vampire movie of the 1970s. I wouldn’t go that far (I have other favorites – one obscure one, but I like it better, is called “The Vampire,” which starred Richard Lynch), but I definitely recommend it. Fairly recently (2012), there was an unfortunate remake by Tim Burton, starring Johnny Depp, called simply “Dark Shadows,” which I cannot recommend, unless you just want an excuse to throw things at your television screen. In the video, below, the vampire movie reviewer, Maven of the Eventide, explains everything that went stupidly wrong with this film. It’s far better than the movie, itself:

Genesis: The Return to the Year 1795

This is the final major story line of the series that I will address in this post. There are many more, but this one explains the mysterious legacy of the Collins family, its ghosts, the family vampire, and other unusual occurrences surrounding them. It is a revelation of the genesis of the vampire.

This story line is initiated by a seance, which is being held in the drawing room of the manor at Collinwood with the aim of contacting the spirit of a little 8-year old girl in period clothing, who first appears to play with David. She is soon seen by other members of the household. They believe that Sarah may be able to provide them with information about the strange things that are going on.

Every time a seance is held at Collinwood – and they hold quite a few, which is absolutely delightful! – it seems that Victoria Winters has some kind of classic trance mediumship experience. In one instance, the spirit of Josette speaks through her in her native French language, even though Vickie does not speak French. On another occasion, she experiences what Josette Collins experienced emotionally and visually the night she went over the edge of the cliff at Widow’s Hill.

On this occasion, something more surprising happens: Vickie goes into a trance and collapses. When she is roused, we see that it is no longer Victoria Winters sitting at the table, but another woman who is from another time, as evidenced by the fact that she is wearing period clothing. In the present time, Victoria Winters is only gone for only a few minutes. But, she has traveled back in time to to Collinwood in the year 1795 and what takes place then encompasses a long series of thrilling episodes – in my opinion, the very best of the entire series.

Victoria Winters has traded places with the 18th century governess for the little girl, Sarah. When she arrives at the door of the Old House, she is dressed in contemporary 1967 clothing and carrying a large book, which contains the modern record of the Collin’s family history. She is greeted by Jeremiah Collins,  who looks just like her recently deceased fiance, Burke Devlin (now played for some time by a different actor, Anthony George).

When she arrives in 1785, we see that all of the actors are playing characters that are either complementary to or in contrast to their 20th century ones. For instance, Louis Edmonds (Uncle Roger) is now playing the role of the stern and powerful old family patriarch, Joshua Collins, whose portrait is hung over the mantle in the drawing room. We see that Joan Bennet (Mrs.Elizabeth Stoddard) is playing the role of Joshua’s demure, powerless wife. Although Barnabas Collins is the original Barnabas, he is their son. He is betrothed to Josette duPres (Cathryn Scott Leigh, who plays Maggie Evans in the 20th century), a titled French noblewoman, whose arrival with her entourage is anxiously awaited.

On this same day, they are, also, expecting the new governess, however, when Victoria Winters arrives at the door, confused and wearing strange clothing, she is quickly accused by Abigail Winters (Clarice Blackburn, who played the Collin’s housemaid, previously), the sister of Joshua and Jeremiah Collins, of being a witch. It is she who calls in the terrifying witch finder, Reverend Trask (played by Jerry Lacy, who previously played a 20th century lawyer), who terrorizes Vickie by tying her to a tree to determine whether or not she is a witch. Afterward, she is imprisoned and put on trial for witchcraft.

In fact, many strange things are happening at Collinwood, which are, indeed, the work of a witch, however, it not Victoria Winters, but Angelique Bouchard (Lara Parker), who is the servant of Josette duPres, a member of her entourage who all arrived on the same day as Vickie. Angelique is the poor daughter of a Voodoo priestess from the island of Martinique.

cd4f1e6006e320c96ff425199d01ddf3Soon after the arrival of the entourage, we see a revelatory scene between Angelique and Barnabas, in which we learn that during the course of his courtship of Josette, which began at Martinique, he toyed with the affections of the servant girl. While Josette is a woman of a class, at least, equal to his own (she is titled, however, and this is controversial, especially to these American revolutionaries), he is tempted, perhaps by the power imbalance, itself, to seduce Angelique. Men tend to do these things when they think they can get away with them and they choose situations in which there is a great power imbalance. The power imbalance seems to be some sort of aphrodisiac!

He wants to keep this indiscretion between the two of them. Above all, he does not want Josette to find out. Naturally, Angelique is upset by being used and cast aside. But, far from being the powerless servant girl Barnabas thought she was, she turns out to be in possession of a very powerful occult knowledge and force.

If Barnabas had chosen to have an illicit affair with a common, powerless servant, then there would be no story here. She would have gone away quietly, without any other options. But, Angelique is resolute and determined to get what Barnabas promised her. She wants to be his wife. So, she begins to manipulate the residents and other guests of Collinswood by means of witchcraft.

In his own mind, his mistake was not so much deceiving a servant girl, but deceiving one who turned out to be a witch! This idea is repeated quite often by him. He blames Angelique for cursing him to become a vampire, so that whoever he loves he must kill. He never once blames himself for his own unethical actions against her. He only blames her and, in fact, everyone in this story who knows the secret of the curse blames Angelique. Furthermore, Angelique only placed this terrible curse on him after he shot and mortally wounded her! Still, he rages at Angelique, never seeing his own role in his downfall.

After Barnabas is bitten by a bat, initiating the vampire curse, he falls ill and doctors suspect it is the plague. His father Joshua insists on keeping his death a secret and he is placed in a coffin in a secret room of the family mausoleum. It is falsely written in the family history that Barnabas went away to England. It turns out that many things written in the history are wrong.

During the course of this story line, a rogue soldier named Nathan Forbes (Joel Crothers, who played Joe) courts Millicent Collins (Nancy Barrett who plays Carolyn Stoddard), who is a wealthy heiress. Millie marries the fortune-hunter, Forbes, but before she does, she signs all her wealth over to her younger brother Daniel (David Henesy, who played Cousin David). When Forbes learns about this he drives her insane and plans to kill Daniel in an effort to gain control of her fortune.

Soon after, Barnabas Collins goes on a rampage, murdering and terrorizing into insanity the members of his own family before his father finally chains him into his coffin in the secret room of the mausoleum. Only Joshua and David survive to become the roots of the modern Collins family tree.

Simultaneously, Victoria Winters is still on trial for witchcraft. Despite the best efforts of her defense team, she is unable to successfully defend herself against Reverend Trask’s charges and is hanged. At the moment of her death, her spirit is transported back to modern day Collinsport and the original governess is hanged in her place.

This story line is a kind of Garden of Eden theme telling the origins of man/vampire, in which Angelique represents a forbidden temptation, woman, who is the cause of all of mankind’s suffering. It is a spin on one of men’s oldest surviving works of fiction, Genesis.

The results of this original work of horror fiction, Genesis, are the centuries of men’s witch hunts against women and women’s culture, women’s science, women’s medicine, women’s ways, and women’s power.

Witchcraft and the women who practice it are a threat to the order of things, to men’s power, to the status quo, to man’s laws, and his conceptions of the world.

Being called a witch, being accused of sexual desires (even as children) and sexual offences, are matters that still hang over all our heads. Men are not sorry for the horrors they perpetrate against women. Furthermore, anytime men choose, they could begin the witch hunts, again. If a repeat of the so-called “Burning Times,” sounded far-fetched 20 years ago (and it did to me), it sounds much more plausible today. You need only look at the words of white supremacists online to see how much they hate white women, how they accuse us the same way they did centuries ago, to see how this happened in the past and how it could happen, again. Even as the white male entertains thoughts of reparations for black men, some of whom he enslaved long ago, he never gives one thought to the horrors he continues, to this very day, to perpetrate against the women who gave him life.

This last story line is not so much metaphorical as it is absolutely straightforward in its revelations of man’s inhumanity to woman and his continuing accusations against us along with his perpetual fear of our power and of what we will do to him once we get the upper hand. There will be Hell to pay – just as Barnabas paid for his crimes against the original woman of this story, Angelique, who set the rest of the family’s strange legacy in motion.

Was Angelique a Feminist?

angeliqueThe character, Angelique, possessed great strength and she was one of the most popular characters on the show. She was loved by many young girls in the mid-sixties, when feminism was experiencing a strong resurgence, who wished they had her power. Angelique had the power to confront and defeat men and, in fact, anyone else who got in her way. But, the character was not a feminist one by a long shot.

What makes Angelique a non-feminist is her obsession with a man, Barnabas. If she had used her power for herself, to better herself, to attain independence from men, then she could be seen as a feminist. But, Angelique was the opposite. She was both the temptress and the scapegoat, neither of which are positions of power.

As I pointed out in a previous post on the subject of witches in movies, it is almost always the case that women with power must use it to help men. Those who do this are the good witches like Samantha Stevens of Bewitched. But, those who use their power for their own ends, even when such use is perfectly justified, are the bad witches. Bad witches must be punished – they must die or they must be sent to an insane asylum. Angelique is an example of a particularly bad witch who is driven, not by a desire for power of self-improvement, but by the sexual desire for a man.

Could it be that Angelique wanted to marry Barnabas, which she did in the 1795 story line, in order to attain a position of social status? But, why does a witch need social status? Furthermore, if she wanted to attain such status, could she not find a way to achieve this without involving an obsession with the male form? I can think of half-a-dozen possibilities for doing so in a matter of seconds, all of which might have made a good storyline, but would not have suited this or any other fictional story written by men, to suit the ends of men, because it involves women doing things that do not revolve around men.

Men simply cannot stand this idea. That is why Angelique is not a feminist. She would never have been written as a feminist because in order for that to happen, she would have had to have a life and ambitions that revolved around something that wasn’t a man.

According to Lara Parker, in the video below, some young women in the 1960s seemed to be confused about what feminism is and mistook Angelique for a feminist role model. It’s safe to say that many – perhaps most – women (and virtually all men) are now more confused than ever about what it means to be a feminist. If Angelique could be considered a feminist, at all, she would have to be a liberal feminist (liberal feminists are far more liberal than they are feminist!) although they are no more feminist than Angelique because, like this character, they concentrate their efforts on changing men, on re-training men not to be rapists/monsters/vampires, on trying to re-socialize men and re-make them in their own image. Liberal feminists are nominative feminists only. It is easy to see how Angelique might be considered one of them, except that she was subject to a male power. She had a male overlord, who gave her the powers she had to do evil. Therefore, Angelique fails the test completely and could not really be considered any kind of feminist because, not only is she obsessed with a man, she is unable to act independently, under any power of her own.

 

Additional material:

Director, Lela Swift, discusses the supernatural themes of the show and the vampire’s mystique:

 

Three favorite cast members, Edmonds, Scott, and Frid, appear on Good Morning American to discuss Dark Shadows in 1987:

 

Television tropes in Dark Shadows: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/DarkShadows

 

The Push to Normalize Pedophilia and the Demonic Male

I was going to do separate posts about each of the two subjects in the title: The incessant male sexual perversion we female human beings are surrounded by and the demonic male. But, I have trouble separating these two subjects, anyway, and then I read a post by NoMorePaperTowels, entitled “Being Able to Say ‘No’ is Sexual Freedom, ” which is a rational refutation of an article, “Will the Left Turn on Sexual Freedom,” by Damon Linker.

Before I get to the substance of her article, I’d like to mention what stood out to me about this dudebro’s name. I laughed out loud when I read this guy’s name, which could be a pen name or maybe it’s really his legal name. But, I have noticed that men often tell us what they are in little ways. I’ve had men say, “I’m an onasshole,” under their breath while I was on a date with them, years ago, and this was my clue that they were plotting some evil against me, that some horrible, violent thoughts were going through their minds. They seem to get off on giving us clues about themselves and their motives, sometimes it’s subtle, sometimes it’s more direct.

This guy’s name says what he is. “Damon” is an old name from Greek, which means “subduer” or “subjugater.” His last name, “Linker,” is a term frequently used in the German news these days to describe “lefties” or “left-wingers.” So, this guy’s name means “left-wing subjugater.” This made me laugh. Then, I clicked on the link to the article and there is a picture of this guy. Now, “Damon,” sounds a lot like “Demon,” and if you look at this guy’s picture and just pull away from your computer screen a little bit, he’s got little tufts of hair on each side of his head that – I swear! – look like devil-horns! LOL!

Men really are telling us who and what they are, if we only observe and listen!

Back to NMPT’s post, which is a commentary on an article written by the demonic left-wing subjugater: NMPT points out that, once again, women are not being regarded as human beings with basic human and civil rights with respect to being able to say “No” to sexually predatory males. Saying the word, “No,” to men and to contact with men is, in fact, sexual freedom. The men regularly argue that we should not be able to refuse contact with them because it is a violation of men’s rights to sex. This concept of men’s rights to sex and sexual rights, in general, is rife with problems and we are seeing the idea put forth more and more with regard to such issues as Amnesty’s International’s Refusal to acknowledge women and girls as human beings with a right not to be trafficked and prostituted, with the legally sanctioned intrusion of males into female safe spaces such as restrooms and locker rooms, and with the push to lower the legal age of consent and promote pedophilia. The push may appear to be coming from the left, but it is both the left-wing and the Christian conservatives who are pushing it. Again, the problem isn’t really left or right, it isn’t a race or even a religion, but it is MEN who are doing this.

The demonic left-wing subjugater seems to be very confused about a few things in his article. Not only does he fail to understand that women are human beings, but he uses the term, “moral libertarianism,” over and over. First of all, the idea behind Libertarianism is morality. I tried to look up the term, “moral libertarianism,” and could not find a definition. It is possible that the author is confusing the term “Libertarianism” with “libertinism.” This seems to be the case, although, his confusion carries over into his politics and he, also, refers to Rand Paul as a Libertarian. Paul is a Republican and has publicly stated that he is not a Libertarian. His father ran on the Libertarian ticket for president back in the 1990s, but he is a poor representative of the party’s platform.

The Libertarians have suffered, in the past few decades, from an influx of men who are very good at recognizing the  civil rights of men, but very bad at recognizing that those same rights apply to women. This is a problem among Republicans and Democrats, as well. All three of these parties are dominated by men. The author of the original article says that Libertarians have “a laissez-faire attitude toward sex.” I don’t know what he thinks that means. What it does mean is that Libertarians do not believe in trying to legislate sexual behaviors, in general. Although, it is a major tenet in Libertarianism that you can do what you want as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. So, not legislating the sexual behavior of adults does not mean that it’s okay to rape women and children – which is how the author of the article seems to view this statement.

I can only assume based on the context of the rest of the article he wrote that the author is actually talking about “moral libertinism,” which is an absolute contradiction in terms. A libertine is a man who is devoid of moral or sexual restraint. So, let me make a quick list of the things this guy has gotten wrong so far:

  • He thinks women have no right to say “No” because it interferes with men’s sexual freedom.
  • He thinks the Republican, Rand Paul, is a Libertarian despite the fact that Paul has repeatedly denied this and his political views reflect that he is, in fact, not a Libertarian.
  • He thinks that “Libertarian” and “libertine” are somehow equivalent terms and uses them as such after the introductory paragraphs of his article.

When I go back and read the article using the term “libertinism” in place of his “libertarianism” it begins to make slightly more sense. Although, I am still unclear on what is moral about immorality. This is an oxymoron. I re-read the article and when I got to the conclusion I was still baffled by what he is trying to say here, but I do see that he is speaking about “morality” from an entirely male perspective. Thank goodness I have NMPT to sort it out for me. It’s like having a translator. She is translating his Liberalese into something I can understand. But, it’s more than just Liberalese – this is men’s language, it’s all coming from a semen-drenched point-of-view, which is, also, why it is baffling.

The Push for Sexual Rights: The Dangers are Becoming More Evident

To me “sexual rights for all” is a lot like “patriarchal health care for all” or “freedom to worship God whichever way you choose.” These ideas are all prisons.

The idea that we all must have a sexual “orientation” is pushed – not having sexual contact is not an option, at least, not for girls and women. It’s an old sales trick. When you want someone to buy what you’re selling, you don’t give them the option to say, “No.” What you do is present them with a dichotomy: Are you heterosexual or homosexual?

This is what they started doing, in my memory, back in the 1990s. When I was in school, nobody talked much about homosexuality. “Gay” was just a word to call someone, often as a joke. I didn’t know what a lesbian was, had never even heard the term before, until probably my senior year in high school (1983 or 1984) and then I had only a vague idea. Then, I saw the media and the public schools pushing homosexuality. I remember catching a glimpse of a television show in which the teacher stood before a class and wrote on a chalkboard that we are all a little bit homosexual. He presented a chart that looked like a gasoline gauge and he asked the students to consider where they fell on this sexuality chart. This idea became prevalent – that we are all a little bit homosexual and if we deny that, we are homophobic. (Does this sound, at all familiar?! Say, “No,” to men and you are some kind of phobiac.)

What is not allowed is the possibility for women or girls to say, “No, I do not hunger for dick, neither do I have sexual urges for other girls or women.” The girls and women – who quite likely, if they were anything like me and Shere Hite’s work suggests that most are – are probably confused about what the term “sexuality” really means in anything other than an academic sense.

When you are doing sales work, you might present your prospect with more than two options. Again, this does not give them the opportunity to say, “No,” and, if they object, you have a scripted response to their objections to put them back on the track where you want their thinking to go. In sales, we don’t want to overwhelm our prospect with options or else they might walk away, but we can present them with some other ideas to sell the idea that sexuality is inherent to all, desirable for all, that there must be sexual freedom for all – although, we’ve already determined that this does not include the option to say, “No.”

So, they began to present different options: Are you bi-sexual? Are you bi-curious? Are you a trans-sexual? 

And, now, it goes on, they are adding more options: What gender are you? Then, there is a long list of supposed genders. Along with these there is a wide range of sexual orientations.

One of the new sexual orientations is “pedophile.” There is a huge push to normalize this as simply part of “sexual freedom for all.” Of course, it does not consider the child in the “all” anymore than women are considered as part of the “all.”

This hyper-sexualized, sperm-drenched world we are living in is the true meaning of “It’s a man’s world.”

We have all been “pitched” this idea by some master salesmen, some men who have mastered psychology and how people respond. They know how to overcome your objections and, of course, where women and girls are concerned, that includes violence! It includes social and religious coercion. It starts young.

To continue the analogy I made at the beginning to this idea of “sexual freedom for all” being like religion and patriarchal medicine, if you object to these other two ideas, you will get a similar salesman-like response.

For instance, I have had religious people tell me that “freedom of religion” does not include “freedom from religion.” Here in the states, this is usually a reference to our 1st Amendment, which does guarantee, in fact, freedom from religion. But, religious people will just give you a belligerent, nonsense response like that and stick with it – it’s the equivalent of calling someone a homophobe or a transphobe because they don’t want to engage in sexual behaviors, they want to keep their vaginas and other body parts to themselves. This is not an option.

In the case of Obamacare or universal health care, you get a zombie-like response from people that health insurance is a right, which makes no sense. Insurance companies do not have a right to anyone’s money simply because they say so. Even when you state your very valid objections to allopathic medicine. They will insist that their medical system is the only legitimate one and you must pay for them to use it. Since a lot of the people who object to allopathic medicine, the vocal ones, anyway, are Christians who believe in faith healing, you will likely be brushed off as a religious kook. This is a way for them to refuse to look at the facts, to think only about their own selfish motives and absolve themselves, in their own minds, from this responsibility. In a similar way, we are all pre-supposed to have sexual desires, especially girls and women are expected to have sexual desires for boys and we are not allowed to opt out. Like master salesmen, they simply refuse to hear our objection – our “No.”

When people – most people – think they have only one or two options, they will either comply or choose one of the options presented. Presenting people with a bunch of options, all of which are options you want them to choose and none of which are “No” or “I opt out” is a classic sales technique. It is manipulation and it is mind control.

What is “Morality” to Males?

Let me being by telling you what “morality” means to me as a woman. I’m, also, going to talk about what “morality” means within Libertarianism, since the demonic left-wing subjugater is trying to confuse people about this.

To me, morality is simply what is “right.” This is pretty much inherent, at least, in women. The laws and religious rules that have been set up are there to govern the predatory behavior of males toward females. The rules exit to mitigate male perversion.

To me, stealing is an example of something that is morally wrong. I don’t need a religious organization or a government entity to tell me this. But, men – who are the biggest class of thieves on this planet, who steal mostly from women – do need these laws and rules. They don’t enforce them well or at all most of the time, but they do have such rules and laws and this is why.

This is something I figured out years ago: The laws are there to control them. The “them” being the demons in the flesh – males. I really believe that if we had a nation or a society made up of entirely or mostly women, we would not need many or any laws.

Within the philosophy of Libertarianism, which really is more of a philosophy than it is a political party in many ways, morality stems from the basic concept of “right and wrong,” which is believed to be best represented by the U.S. Constitution. A whole lot of our law was based on the Magna Carta and Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which pre-dates Christianity and has a foundation in the basic concept of fairness. It means, for instance, we don’t steal from each other through taxation or other fraud. It means we don’t perpetrate acts of violence on other people. It means we do have a right to self-defense. And, we have a fundamental right to our property (the right to private property is a major concept in Libertarianism), which includes our own bodies.

Somehow, the demon left-wing subjugater seems to have the idea that Libertarianism is about Sex, Drugs & Rock ‘n’ Roll and this is not the case. It is, however, the natural interpretation of what I just said by a perpetually horny male who never graduated from adolescence.

“Morality” to men, more often than not, centers on their patriarchal religious establishments. They see everything in relation to the male and the male God,  who they invented and who is a reflection of their own degradation. Even men who say they are atheists hold this point of view. Even male Satanists see freedom from god as freedom from moral behavior as I described it above. They see it as license to harm other people, especially women and girls – and sometimes little boys.

We run up against this problem in paganism and it is something that has been discussed before. When you have men come into a group of pagan women, they usually see it as an opportunity to practice “libertinism” upon the women in the group – flirting, playing class clown, pawing and groping, and sometimes devising rituals or other situations in which they can sexually coerce or outright attack the women. In fact, every group starting with Gerald Gardner’s Wicca and moving on through LaVeyan Satanism and I have no idea what is going on now that I don’t want to know about – we see that men prey upon women’s liberation from Christianity. They take it as an opportunity to do more sexual harm in the name of either sexual freedom or religious freedom.

Male “morality” centers on the opportunity to fuck women and little girls. In their filthy, degenerate book, The Holy Bible, it says that men and women are to “go forth and multiply.” There are other passages about “storing treasure in heaven,” which the Quiverfull movement takes to mean providing bodies to souls and this is a way to acquire “credit” in the afterlife with God. The Mormons believe that the faster the women reproduce the sooner the Lord Jesus Christ will return to reign over them – they long for the apocalypse, which is why they are hell-bent on out-reproducing the Catholics. The Catholics do it ostensibly because they believe that sex for any other purpose than reproduction is a sin against God – that is you’re not supposed to do it recreationally. Again, this is obviously an edict for the males because it has been established (by Shere Hite, for which she was run out of the country) that most women do not derive pleasure from PIV (penis in vagina) sex. The real reason these perverts want to produce more children is because they are violent sex perverts who have sick urges to do violent things to children, especially little girls. But, more about this at a later time.

What is immoral to us is moral to men.

It is moral for men to have access to women and girls to fuck. The Bible says so. It says how to fuck us, when to fuck us, and details what is and what is not pleasing in the eyes of their perverted God character with regard to raping us. It blames us for not fighting back hard enough, for not crying out, for not choosing suicide – which they say is a mortal sin at any other time – over being fucked by a man.

Nobody ever asks our opinion about this because we are not allowed to have one. We are not allowed to opt out. Even when we scream, “No, ” we are not heard. Man’s focus remains on his dick and his sick perversions, which he projects on to women and little girls. He wants to fuck women and little girls, therefore, he believes that women and little girls want to be fucked by men. You will not be given the option to state your objection and even if you do you will be beaten down, called “slut” and “whore, be pelted with accusations and abuse. Men insist on putting their filth on women and girls.

When we are heard at all by men, from the male perspective, we have no validation because we are “immoral.” Our objections to having semen smeared on us and dicks poked into our orifices are deemed “immoral.” From his perspective, we are defying God. Our refusal to sexually submit, to be enslaved by males is a sin.

This applies even to atheist and Satanist males because they still believe that females are here to be sexually harmed by men, for their use and abuse as livestock, slaves, and vessels, and if we resist, we are doing something unnatural and wrong.

Furthermore, everything we do or don’t do with regard to males is taken as “consent” to their violence.

The Patriarchal Belief that Little Girls are Sexual Beings

The first sin was a sexual sin, according to the dominant religion. Although, there is some disagreement about what exactly happened. An earlier echo of the Biblical story says that Adam’s first female sex slave was Lilith, but she refused to be penetrated by his dick from underneath and wanted to be on top during sexual intercourse. Lilith does not object to dick, altogether, but just being on the bottom. She wants to be on top and this is evil, thus saith the Lord. So, she got in a snit, sprouted wings, and flew off to a mountain top where she had endless sex with all kinds of demons (demons must have dicks, I think it’s safe to say) and so God had to provide Adam with a second woman named Eve.

Eve, too, was an evil sexual temptress, who offered Adam an apple from a forbidden tree. This is often presumed to mean that she offered him her body to stick his dick in. At any rate, Eve is responsible for the so called “fall of man.” And, she is responsible for every other evil, horrible thing a man has ever done to her, her children, or this planet, thus saith the Lord. Because of Eve’s sexual insatiability, all girls are cursed and doomed to be a servant or “hand maiden” to a male. We are forbidden to speak during church meetings. We are accused of practicing witchcraft, as if it were a bad thing, and, of course, of desiring to be fucked by men – sometimes just one man and sometimes lots of men.

Christians (I don’t know about Jews or Muslims but that whole genital mutilation/bris thing makes me thing they have similar ideas and, of course, Judaism is the foundational religion to both Christianity and Islam) believe that little children are born with “sin.” They must be baptized so that these original sins of Eve will be washed away. There is a lot of discrepancy with regard to how soon or how late a child should be cleansed of this sin, though.

With the Mormons, it is quite late. They say 8-years old. With the Catholics and some others, the child must be saved by God, shortly after birth. The reason is that the child, unsaved, is in the hands of Satan and they believe it is Satan who acted through Eve. They, also, have a lot of writing about how girls and women are easily subject to Satan and are instruments of Satan.

In the churches, which are havens for pedophiles, it is believed that little girls tempt men to do sexually violent things to them. It is believed that the little girls, even little baby girls are temptresses, agents of the Living Devil, who work to bring down good men by means of their dicks.

This is one foundation for pedophilia in our society.  (I speak of the U.S. because it is what I know. I’m sure it applies equally well to other countries.) This is why the churches are rife with pedophiles and all manner of male perverts.

This is probably why when people hear about the results of studies like the ones conducted by Alfred C. Kinsey, they are willing to accept the idea that little girls (and I speak of little girls because I once was one and I know nothing of little boys except that they do act out with sexual violence against girls at a young age – again, because I experienced this) are temptresses, full of sexual desires, longing to be fucked by males.

They believe this because “God” said so and if they don’t buy into that, then they believe it because “Science” said so. These are the same things – absolutely the same! – both invented by men to serve the purposes of males. Science and Religion are two sides of the same coin.

Both God and Science inform us that females were made for males, were made to be fucked by males, desire to be fucked by males, at least, as much as males want to fuck us. Women are a reflection of the male, they say. Women are the “other half” of men. Women need men, they say. We need each other, they say. We long for each other, they say. This is either God’s will or natural, according to which side of the coin you’re looking at.

Either way, girls want to be fucked by men, according to men.

Everything a girl does – even a little baby girl – is taken as evidence of her “sexuality” or her supposed desire to be fucked by men, if not  now, then at some later date, not too far off because someday soon, maybe at age 9 or maybe at age 12, she will have her first period, thus signalling her overwhelming desire to be fucked, all according to men.

I did a post about a sorority a while back, which was targeted by perverted males online and by liberals. A lot of things struck me about that story. It was the same sorority house that was allegedly targeted by Elliot Rodger (I now believe that story to be a staged hoax and I say why in some other posts here), but this was the Alabama chapter. The women were targeted in part because they are white and mostly blonde and because this is the group that is largely targeted by males for pornography. I found the story interesting, too, because liberals were commenting on it and saying that the girls looked like whores that they looked like Playboy bunnies and so on.

What bothered me so much about it was that I have an entirely different perspective, especially coming from a rural and fundamentalist religious upbringing. The concept that these young women really were just older girls (somewhere between girlhood and womanhood and probably very sheltered from things that highly sex menand many liberals take for granted) who were promoting their sisterhood, which looks like a big pajama party, was lost on a lot of men and libs. They innocently put the video out on YT and a bunch of fappers showed up and made violent and sexually disturbing comments on the video. Ultimately, the video had to be pulled and it seems like the girls got in some kind of trouble for it – of course.

There are portions of the video in which the girls are blowing glitter and beckoning at the camera for other girls to come and join their sorority. It’s an advertisement with a targeted audience – which was completely lost on the perverted males and the liberal males. To them these girls, who really are just innocent girls with an extended childhood, which they should be allowed to have, were pornography. They interpreted baggy, ragged, cut-off shorts worn at the lake to be “Daisy Dukes.” This is just how males view girls and women and this was a very public incident in which a bunch of men stole a portion of these young women’s innocence. They accused them of things that existed only the men’s own sick minds.

I think about this bunch of girls every now and then when I am here alone and I’m doing traditionally “girly” things. I think about it when I am taking care of my personal hygiene and appearance, when I’m dancing, or working out, or baking cupcakes with pink frosting, or sleeping in my satin sheets, or any number of other ordinary things that I do that I know would be interpreted by men – somehow! – as sexual, as being in relation to them and their dicks. Even though I am in complete solitude, I still have a sense of my activities somehow being interpreted as sexual submission or communicating a sexual desire for men. This is the sick program men put in our heads from the time we are little girls – they tell us every thing we do is about them.

This scrutiny of our behavior for indications of “asking for it” starts young, as does the training in femininity. I have so much femininity training that, frankly, I don’t know what is me and what is the training. I am often regarded as being prissy. I was always taught to sit up straight and to behave in certain ways and there are many things for little girls to know: How to sit in a dress; how to get in and out of a car properly, how to sit down properly at the dinner table; how to walk, how to stand, how to wait for a man to open the door. All these things are training.

We are, also, trained in such things as how to groom ourselves, how to wear our hair, how to apply make-up, how to dress properly.

So, if you are a disciplined and obedient female child, you do what you are told – as I did. In so doing, however, you are perceived by men as having a sexuality, as longing to be fucked.

If you want to see an example of this kind of thing, check out some clips or old episodes from a television show that ran on TLC (The Learning Channels, interestingly enough) called, “Toddlers and Tiaras.” The little girls are trained, from infancy in some cases, to learn to be sexually appealing to men. The little girls don’t know that this is what they’re being trained for – for men to fuck them – but, this is what is going on. The little girls are shown how to “shake it” even when they don’t even have the “it” (mammary glands) and how to wiggle their hips. The girls see these as dance moves (I know because I took tumbling and dance lessons and I was into my twenties before I realized that some of these motions had a sexual meaning – again, to men the have this meaning)  only as that, as motions in dance, the same way you do heel-toe and dosey-doe in some styles of dance.

This obedient and disciplined child, in the clip below, has no idea what she is being trained to do:

 

The child’s only desire is to please her parents – she does not have sexual desires. She would not even understand what that means. She is dependent on her parents and her entire life, her safety, her needs (needs meaning food, water and shelter – not sex) are wrapped up in doing as they say.

This is sexual grooming – done by the parents. It’s an example of what we’ve all been subjected to, either to a lesser or greater extent. What is appalling about this television program is we see sexual abuse of girls being promoted right in front of our eyes.

How do these fathers view their little daughters? Here’s an example:

 

You can bet that if he’s not doing it already that at some point he is going to project his sexual arousal onto his daughter. Religion and Science both say that she exists, not only to gratify the male and serve him, but that this is natural and due to her nature, whether sinful or biological, she wants desperately to be fucked by men. If she resists this, she’s a whore (acting against God and Nature), if she goes along with it, she’s a whore – just like the men said all along.

These little girls have their every move scrutinized on stage. We, as girls and women, have our every moves scrutinized by men from the time we are very young and throughout our whole lives by men who are looking for a sign or a signal that we want them to fuck us. They are looking for indications that she wants it. She has her hair in pigtails – that’s hot! – she wants it, they say.  She is wearing a pretty dress – she’s easy – it doesn’t matter that she’s 8 or 11 or 14 or 40. She’s eating ice cream or sucking on a lollipop – to the men, this is a sex act. They can only think of their dicks, even when it is a child. She’s walking away, “Shake it for me!” – because the male believes that literally every step she takes, that every action, every gesture, is a sign that she wants his dick in her.  This is true even when it is a little baby girl – this is when the scrutiny begins. Many, many times I have heard men talk about little baby girls this way. They interpret the child’s play or childish movements or the way her mother dressed her or taught her to behave as a come on. They think she wants it. This is now considered normal – apparently.

We have religion and Kinsey and the related institutions to blame for this, but mostly we have just MEN who are promoting this. Individual men promote this idea even within their own little nuclear slave units. They are pedophiles – maybe there is a better term, but this is the term that we all know what it means when we use it.

It’s men on the left and men on the right. It’s religious men, pagan men, and atheist men. It’s Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and any other political party created and dominated by men. It’s fathers, uncles, and brothers. It’s the sick bastard next door. It runs from the lowest specimen of the human male on the planet to the highest international players. It is institutionalized. It is codified and regulated. It is normalized.

Usually only when some girls end up dead – like Jon Benet Ramsey – does anybody take much notice, at all. Maybe raped and then murdered baby girls are what the demonic left-wing subjugater is referring to when he says we must have “moral libertinism” or “moral libertarianism,” whatever that actually means. Maybe only when girls are dead is this seen as going too far and I would guess that this is the case, since to men death is the ultimate, the thing they fear most. We women have other fears because most of us know what torture at the hands of men is. We understand what humanity and compassion are, too, and we have a concern about human suffering. This is something men seem to have no understanding of, whatsoever. They are, as Valerie Solanas said, “machines,” nothing more than “walking dildos.”

There is an effort, which I have only alluded to above – I have barely scratched the surface –  by men to normalize and legalize pedophilia. There is a lot of excusing pedophilia going on. There is a lot of saying that the pedophile is the true victim. There is an effort to define pedophilia as a sexual orientation by the same sick fucks that brought us the idea that we are all a little gay – this is where that ended up. Feminists who foolishly supported gay men’s rights thinking they would somehow profit from this contributed to this effort. Instead working to free women from men, they have reinforced the false notion of gender and they have reinforced the institution of marriage, which profits only males, and they laid the foundation for the rest of this perversion. Oh, and don’t think these perverts are going to stop there!

When the gays started pushing for gay rights, some people on the Xian right said this would lead to men marrying dogs and goats. They were laughed at. But, in fact, this is right where these people are going. They want to legalize the abuse of animals, too. And, don’t think that men abusing animals is a one-off because it isn’t. Men abuse animals all the time – they rape female animals.

The Demonic Male

I have tried for a very long time to figure out why this is happening. Why are males doing this to us? There is no materially based answer to this question. It is definitely not societal or cultural because it is simply male behavior across the board. This is discussed in the previous post and laid out in the terms of the scientific establishment by TrustYourPerceptions in her recent blog series. It is borne out by other evidence, as well.

The so-called civilization we have is centered around males and their struggle to maintain control over us. Their parasitism of us is the basis for pretty much everything they do, from the sexualization and sexual grooming of baby girls to their waging of war.

I can only tell you what I have seen and what I have experienced with regard to male behavior toward women and girls. I can tell you exactly what I have seen! It is my conclusion that men are not entirely human.

I’ve seen the question posed often, “Are women human?” This begs the question: “What is a human?”  The only answer I’ve been able to find about that is that the term means “ape man.” “Hu” means “ape.” If you look at men, this is how they appear – they look like some more primitive life form. They are, in fact, more basic. Their reproductive systems are very basic and so are their brains. They are less sophisticated in every way due to their endocrine systems.

It may be that we have been made into a vehicle for a certain type of spiritual being to obtain access to the physical world. This being, although he is our creation and our offspring, is very different from ourselves. He is a mutant. He is a DNA mutation – they Y chromosome being a mutation. He is a secondary being and, by his own reckoning, if you take into account how he wrote the stories of his genesis – an inferior being, since he is secondary and has no god-like creative powers.

I have survived many sexual assaults by men by acknowledging that they are not human beings. This has been a coping mechanism for me. (There’s a line in a song by Tina Turner, “Private Dancer,” in which she says, “You don’t think of them as human.”) After all, if we are humans, then what are they? They certainly don’t act like us, anyway, especially when they rape. They have lightning fast mobility – they can snatch you  like an alligator. The are silent, sneaking up from behind you, to attack. They are emotionless, lacking all compassion or any sense of humanity, in their attacks. Also, they are fond of biting – they literally try to eat our flesh and suck our blood in some of their attacks on us. In this way, men do not seem at all like women. They really do seem like some other type of life form.

The biting thing is very, very common. I have been bitten by men numerous times and one attacker bit me and tried to suck my blood – just like a vampire. He was a guy who mainly got off on beating up women and was a serial attacker. The dancers in the club, since they have insisted on them having closer physical proximity to the male predators, are not infrequently bitten by men. One woman I’ve seen had an entire set of teeth marks, upper and lower, on her breast from a man who bit her. Bill Clinton is notorious for biting women. He is supposed to have bitten a waitress along with some other women. Recently, Donald Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewendowski, was defended by a lawyer (in the case in which he grabbed Michelle Fields from behind and bruised her arm)  who is known for having bitten a woman in a night club.

Taking big chunks of flesh out of women’s bodies and sucking blood is not usually something we associate with human beings. So, if they are human, then what are we?

Similarly, with rapists – if they are human beings, then what are we?

Men will defend other men for these actions and it’s because they all have some understanding of themselves in relation to us, which we don’t really have.

They literally see us as food. They call us “honey” and “sweetie” and talk about how we taste. This is because we are livestock.

Fathers who abuse their daughters do so for the same reason. They know  things we don’t know. Certainly, we don’t know them as children and even when we become independent, adult women, it is very baffling to many, if not most, of us. We are prey. We are groomed to be such. They know it and any insistence that we are human beings or that we don’t want to be fucked by men on our part is disregarded because they know that this is our place in the order of men’s world. It is our place to be dressed up, made-up, dancing whores. Everything we are is shaped and forced into conformity to this end and it isn’t just fathers who do it, but every man we encounter, every male teacher, every male employer, every male religious figure, every male is an authority on us – at least, in his own mind – he believes we are whores, our purpose is to be controlled and regulated, as such. He sees no other option because he is incapable of seeing women and girls as anything else. We exist only in relation to a man’s (or mens’) dick.

We “lose our innocence” when we see men for what they are. When we come to know the truth about men, we lose our childhoods forever.

For these reasons and for the fact that I can actually see them – literally see what they are and they are not like us, they are not human, whatever that word really means – I am convinced that they are nothing like us. That they are, in fact, some kind of parasite on us and on this planet. I don’t think they are a natural part of our world. They are certainly not a natural part of our lives. The only way can truly live is to get as far away from them as possible. It’s the only way to get a good, deep breath. It’s the only way to stop their violence against us.

When I say I see them as something far, far different from us, I literally mean I have had the experience of seeing them in a different physical form that appears demonic – just like all the depictions of demons you’ve seen in art from around the world, including in The Goetia. I started seeing this shortly after I left the Morgue (Mormon Organization) and my sense of everything I thought I knew was shattered and I had to start over with my perceptions of truth. At that point, I began to see men (all men, no women) walking around who are actually demons.

Carefully, I started to talk to people about this and I found out that it was a very common experience, especially among the dancers. I’ve seen entire audiences that look like they’ve been taken over by demons and I’ve seen full-blown, physical demons – as physical as any human in the flesh. They are horrifying and they have often display big, sharp teeth.

I used to go into Yahoogroups years ago, when that was a thing, and I’d find people talking about this. There is a whole discussion about “reptilians,” which has been started by David Icke and which I believe is a cover for the truth, which is that this is what men are. Lots of men talk about this subject in MUFON and conspiracy circles because they are trying to control the conversation. They try to say it’s the Illuminatti or it’s related to underground military bases, but I think this is a cover story.

Demons are not something to do with religion. A lot of Westerners automatically think of Christianity when they hear the term, but these things are very old and are found in the most ancient records and monuments going back for millennia. The depictions are all very similar.

If we just look at one famous Western text, The Goetia, which is a catalog of demons, we se that most have what we recognize as male physical characteristics. There is one or maybe two that likes to appear in a feminine form, but this is not his real form. We, also, commonly refer to the demons as “he” and “him.”

The behavior of the demons, according to grimoires, such as this one and others by Western occultists, is very similar to that of ordinary human males. The demons will try to play on human sympathy and compassion, which they see as a weakness – just as men do to women. They are very deceptive. They will try to trick the conjurer. They will try to consume the conjurer. They are strengthened by the blood and spiritual energy of women and children and by acts of sexual depravity, which cause fear in the victims. The demons feed on the energy of fear.

Men behave toward women very much like demons. The demons are seducers, who can take on a different appearance. They see humans as food, and as vessels and vehicles, just as men perceive women. We are both livestock and vessels for their demon semen.

It is well known that the demons particularly hate women. Men, also, hate us.

In every way I can think of men behave just like the demons and, of course, I have seen many of them either shape-shift into demonic form and back or I have seen the demons staring through their eyes.

If you are still reading – if I haven’t lost you – because I know how absurd this seems because it is very contradictory to how we have been told things are. It is contradictory to everything represented as a fact in media, not only now but for a very long time. But, what if what you are seeing as human men is actually just part of mind control programming? What if it isn’t the truth? What if there are some facts that, although very contradictory to how you’ve been led to believe the world works, explains it all? It explains every horrifying experience you’ve ever had with a male.

Here is an example from the Dr. Phil Show, May 17, 2016:

There are actually two episodes around this date involving the woman above and her abusive boyfriend/husband. She says something similar more than once over the course of the two episodes, you will hear it once at 4:00 (4 minutes) into the above video. She says, “I can see it.” And Dr. Phil (a psycopath in his own right) asks, “What do you see?” The woman replies, “A demon.” This is not a metaphor. She means, literally, she sees that he is a demon in the flesh.

I’ve almost gotten used to hearing these stories because I have now heard them so often always from women and the demons they see are either in the eyes of the men, in the face of the men, or more rarely, you’ll see the full, nasty, malformed body of the demon. It is always a man – always! The only time this differs is when males who are supposed authorities on demonoolgy, Ufology, the occult, or the Illuminatti conspiracy are telling the story. When I talk to individuals, it’s always the same. It is men who take on this appearance. Most of the time it is women who see it. Only one instance do I have of a male telling me this story and he was under the influence of some illicit drug at the time he saw it.

We had this discussion at my old private blog not long ago and there was a mixed response. There are lots of women who never see this. Then, there IS a whole bunch who do see it. In one case, a woman’s friend was married to one of these things. She pointed it out to her friend who said that she was aware that he was an apparent demon, but she thought he could overcome it. That woman was eventually murdered by her husband in an obviously staged “accident, which last I read (and I did follow up on the information provided), he got away with.

With the dancers, it is very common to see because the men cannot control their demonic nature, apparently, when they are sexually aroused (which seems to be anytime they are in the presence of a female human with abundant life force energy) or when they become angry. This is when the demon comes through and you see it in their faces – the face will shift – or just the eyes – and sometimes you will see the whole form shift and then shift back once they regain control.

To these men, we are like dancing sides of beef! It’s like in the Looney Toons cartoons where the coyote sees the roadrunner as a big juicy pork chop. This is how they see women and girls, in general, and this is why they are doing these things to us – to keep the food supply and the vessels close to them, under their complete domination. Men’s life force is very weak (this is known to people who study Qi Gong, but it is obvious if you work with this energy and can see it). They are often drawing energy out of the room (I see this, too) and people who have weak forces always draw off people with larger supplies of this energy who are in close proximity to them – which means women and children. Men are energy vampires – even when they are not biting us and drinking our blood or sticking their dicks in us. Even being near them is very energetically draining to us – not to mention nerve-wracking and anxiety-inducing.

It is very common in cases of so-called domestic violence for the woman to see the man appearing as a demon. Certainly, it is common to see him acting like one, even when he is free of the influence of alcohol or drugs.

When men do horrible, vicious things, they like to say that someone else made them do it. They used to say, “The Devil made me do it.”  Maybe this isn’t far from the truth – except, they are the devils. They are the demons. They act the way they do because they are these things in physical form and they are using women to obtain these forms. They have tweaked our DNA just enough to make it possible for them to infiltrate us and pretend to be what we are – this seems to be a common M.O. with men.

The shapeshifting phenomenon is, also, not unusual around the world. It is not accepted in Western culture or if it is acknowledged it is seen as the work of the devil by the religious people. More often than not is dismissed. Yet, you will find it all throughout the North American continent among the indigenous people, you’ll find it in W. European witchcraft, in African spirituality, and today – right now – if you want to learn about this, look down on our southern border or in Mexico. You’ll, also, find many people having experiences with all kinds of shapeshifters in the Phillipines and probably in every other place, if you can get people to talk to you about it.

This is not a strange thing to people who are not so grounded in Western culture. For me, it’s something I have learned to accept and I, also, think that there is much more to be learned about it. From an occult science perspective, there is a fairly reasonable explanation for how this is possible and it comes back down to what we are on the sub-physical level. On that level, it is clear, that men and women are very different and this is why our physical bodies are different, even when their bodies look like ours, they are still different. They are hairy and smelly with knobby knees – just like a lot of demons! There are many different types and appearances of demons – they don’t all look exactly alike.

There are, also, hierarchies in demonology. Some people say that is from the demons that what we call “civilization” is derived. This doesn’t sound at all incredible to me!

This is why I say the only way to stop every terrible thing that is happening in the micro and in the macro is to, at least, limit the number of these things that are entering the physical plane. It is my sense that the last thing they want is for more of us to be able to see them for what they really are. Lots of us do see it, but just haven’t come to terms with it; we are not trusting our own perceptions. A lot of women are like the woman in the Dr. Phil video – they just expect these demons to act with some respect and humanity toward them. But, this is impossible for them, just as it is impossible for men, in general, to be anything other than what they are or to see us anything other than livestock and vessels for their own purposes.

Playboy, Child Pornography, the Kinsey Institute and the Sexual Grooming of Women and Little Girls

The purpose of this post is to demonstrate through the example of the Kinsey Institute how the entire society has been subjected to sex programming through the public schools and the media. It is to illustrate what I said in the last post, which is that we have all been intentionally subjected to sexual perversion since we were small children, which is designed to groom us and make us more accessible and open to violent perverts.  I call  this “sex programming” and I say it is the foundational mind control program.

In my previous post, I discussed how in recent decades – probably since the 1980s – the public has experienced a greater awareness of child abuse and, in particular, the sex abuse of children. We’ve, also, experienced a greater awareness about male violence against women, girls and sometimes boys in the home, which is euphemistically dubbed “domestic violence.” My main point in the previous post is that we are saturated with mind control programming, which begins at infancy, and that for little girls, in particular, the most basic and foundational kind of programming, that which is the basis of all the rest of it (including religious – “god” and “savior” programming) is sex programming. Such programming, especially when it is very institutionalized (such as in cults, but also in the broader culture, which is saturated with similar programming) precludes “choice,” because the girl does not have full ownership of her own mind. Furthermore, the programming is held in place by coercion, psychological abuse, sex abuse, other physical violence, and threats thereof.

The sex programming, itself, is very old – it is probably, at least, 5,000 years old – but it has become very much more institutionalized in the past few decades. Orthodox science, psychiatry and the media are complicit, as are the public schools.There is, also, the problem of religion – all religions, not just the three Abrahamic ones, but, also, Buddhism, Hinduism, and every religious system founded by men – all sexually perverted men who hate women and little girls. It is always men who create these systems with the aim of getting their hands on women and children to use for their perversions, as domestic servants, and as human livestock.

Men are sick. If you have, personally, been relentlessly subjected to their violence on the basis of your sex (and, if you are female, it is quite likely you have been – the only women who seem to escape this even a little bit are life-long lesbians), then I don’t have to tell you this. It is not a social problem. It is not just a few of them who are “sociopaths” or “psychopaths,” or “narcissists,” who are the problem. It is a mass effort on the part of males against women, effectively it is a thousands of years old war on the minds and bodies of little girls. The systems of violence against girls and women are created by men and are used to encourage the inherent sickness in other males.

They create porn, including child porn, they normalize it through various media and in the public schools with their “sex education,” which as you will learn in the video below came from the institutionalized sex perversion of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his Kinsey Institute. The only “sex education” that children should ever be taught is abstinence, and males should be taught to keep their filthy hands and their dicks off of girls and women. They should be taught not to sexually abuse the other half of the population by any means, not to threaten, not to perpetrate violence on us. That should be the only “sex education.”

Quite by accident, I ran across this interview with a woman named Dr. Judith Reisman:

In the above interview, Dr. Reisman discusses the origins of modern institutionalized sex perversion in the U.S., which she says is the Kinsey Institute, founded by a zoologist named Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey. 

The title of the interview is “Kinsey Sex Report” because she talks about an app made by the Kinsey Institute that allows men to report their sexual experiences including rape of adult women and of children. There is no legal follow up – of course, this is in no way surprising because men raping, including child-raping, is institutionalized and law enforcement at every level is active in promoting it.

According to Dr. Reisman, the Kinsey Institute, a non-profit organization, is responsible for the implementation of “sex education” in public schools. She, also, says that they promote all manner of sexual perversion and violence against women and children through the media. (This is no surprise. If you just look at the example of one billionaire child-rapist like Jeffrey Epstein,  you will see that the perversion, which includes blackmail of politicians, military men (including pretty much every high-ranking colonel or other “elite” according to Kay Griggs), and other men (almost all men, as you know – women are not wanted and you can certainly see why when you realize the true nature of males) in strategic positions in society, runs from the bottom to the top and not just of the U.S. government (see the Franklin Scandal, for instance), but into world governments and  international organizations (like the Israeli Mossad, in the Epstein example, but the FBI, CIA, and Interpol have been implicated by various whistleblowers).

Many people, including many unsuspecting women, have been led to believe that soft-core porn is not really a problem. We are called prudes, religious zealots (hilarious!), right-wing conservatives (equally hilarious!), uptight, etc., whenever we reject pornography and especially when we reject the soft-core version of it, which is exemplified by Playboy Magazine. I mean, really, what’s so bad about Playboy – it’s just some artistic nudes, some “intellectual” articles, and a hilarious cartoon in a slick publication for men. Right?! Wrong.

Moreover, the problem is not an assault on the family and marriage, as the Christian right-wingers characterize it. Marriage, as Dr. Reisman mentions in the above video, is simply sanctioned male perversion.  Society says it’s acceptable for men to rape, abuse, and otherwise enslave women, as long as they promise to do some nice things for the woman, such as love, cherish, etc. But, it is an acknowledgement of male violence and male sickness directed at females humans.

Also, the reason that we object to porn differs very much from that of the religious right (which sees us only as property, in relation to men, with no humanity and no value of our own), which has to do with the fact that we are human beings and we have a purpose in life besides being “whores,” “sluts,” and human livestock. As radical feminists, we believe foremost in our own humanity. Religious fanatics with their marriage and family have in every way betrayed our humanity, betrayed women, literally thrown us to the wolves to be devoured down to the marrow of our bones, so – I will speak for myself – I am vehemently opposed to both family and marriage because they harm women by design.

The following article discusses the nature of Playboy, which includes encouragement and instruction on how men should rape and commit incest. It discusses the harms to women and girls as a direct result of this instruction, yet it also frames it as harms against the family and the institution of marriage,  which is a way of saying that men are harmed, too (a typical male reversal and an attempt to obfuscate and protect the perpetrators), because it is within the family that many of these crimes against women and children portrayed by the magazine find their manifestation as men perpetrate these crimes very often on their own wives, daughters, and step-daughters. Playboy and other pornography is by no means an assault on the patriarchal construct of the family and the patriarchal institution of marriage, which has always existed to deprive women of our assets, of control over our own bodies, of our children which are the fruit of our own wombs, to deprive of us opportunity and of control over ever aspect of our lives, and to literally enslave us. It is in no way an assault on “the family” or on “marriage” because this is and always has been the purpose of the family and marriage,  rather it is an assault on US and this is why we object to it. This is the article:

http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26/the-porn-factor.php

Playboy magazine sued Dr. Reisman in the Netherlands over her allegations about the publication’s promotion of child rape through child pornography. She discusses it in the interview, above, but here is a video about the relationship between Playbody and child rape and child pornography. Hefner was inspired by the child-pervert Kinsey:

One of Kinsey’s assertions is that children are sexual, have a sexuality, and that children can have orgasms. What he described as “orgasms” were clearly attempts by his victims to escape. According to Dr. Reisman, he ritualistically raped infants to death. To be clear, children do not have a sexuality. It is very uncertain whether or not teenage girls have a sexuality (we’ve been told that we are all full of hormones that make us desire males – this is, of course, a male lie and appears to come from the work of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute, which saturates the schools and the medical and psychiatric establishments) apart from what has been programmed into them and which manifests as the girls appearing to men to be “sluts” and “whores,” at which time we begin to perceive ourselves the same way due to relentless psychological, sexual and physical abuse – or by the girls retreating into lesbianism in an effort to escape the environment of male violence and perversion that surrounds them and penetrates their minds at a very young age.

How could we possibly know ourselves when we have been subjected to this relentless onslaught of mind control in the form of “sex programming?” It is the nature of mind control programming that we believe the programs, its thought loops and programmed responses, are really the result of our own independent thought, when they are not. Obviously, after being subjected to this programming, we cannot really know the truth about ourselves without doing a great deal of work on ourselves – isolating ourselves, meditating, and writing (as recommended in the previous post to break programming).

So, I ask you to consider your own “sexuality.” It may be that you don’t have one, at all. You won’t know until you really begin to dig into your own personal past and deep into your own psyche. As I said, this is the foundational programming, so if you have other programming on top of this (e.g. god programming, savior programming), you may have to work on those things first to get down these layers of programming. Once you are there, the world will appear to you as a very different place than it did before – it is similar to other aspects of our journey, as women, into our own liberation – our journey into radical feminism. There is constant self-discovery and rediscovery and it changes our view of the world and everyone and everything in it.

So, again, I urge you to consider the basis of all of this, which is the current order of society that is entirely dominated by males and their filth. We have already learned that we cannot reason them out of this. They cannot be shamed out of it because they have no shame. Religious organizations only institutionalize their violence and filth – allowing child abuse to go on, covering up for abusers, encouraging violence in the home against women and children (i.e. the notion that it is not possible for a man to rape his wife, despite the fact that rape cannot occur without some other kind of violence (including coercion, but often holding the victim against her will, strangling, hair-pulling, beating, and so on)  or subterfuge, such as men drugging or attacking unconscious or sleeping victims).

We must begin re-imagining the world. The order that is in place is not natural and did not come about by accident, but by sheer force. The only way to correct it is by changing our own minds first. We must begin to recognize the inherently perverse and violent nature of the male and choose what is right over what is wrong – choose to value women and girl’s lives over those of the sick, violent pervert class. We must begin to see through their subterfuge. Then, imagine a new world in which women have reduced the number of males born and reordered the society to center around women and girls and our own interests. Right now, the world is centered around males who are violent perverts. We know that’s not right and we know the only way to stop them.

 

Human Trafficking, How Deep and Wide it Goes, and Why Activism Will Not Stop It, Part 2: The Jeffrey Epstein Evidence

dtjebchc

Trump, Epstein and the Clintons

In my previous post, I mentioned that I’d lost the information about the actual documents in the Jeffrey Epstein child rape and human trafficking case, which is still playing out in Palm Beach, Florida. Well, I found it. I thought about just updating the previous post, but I want to make sure you see this.

The reason I want people to see it is that the information has been silenced, completely blanked out, in the U.S. mainstream media and in the U.K. news, which is where I first heard of Epstein, there has been a cover-up attempt. Mostly, it appears they are doing this on behalf of Cousin Andy, aka. the Duke of York, who is seen photographed with the little girl, Virginia Roberts, and in the background, when it isn’t cut out, there is the image of the alleged handler and procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell, whose father is reputedly an Israeli Mossad agent.  Roberts asserts that she was forced to have sexual relations, as a child, with Cousin Andy, whose name was circled in Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book. Maxwell is the woman who reportedly recruited Virginia Roberts from the Mar-a-Lago resort, which is owned by Trump.

Here’s one such article from the UK Guardian: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245036/Virginia-Roberts-claimed-sex-Prince-Andrew-sues-British-socialite-Ghislaine-Maxwell-denying-claims-recruited-sex-slave.html

Here’s another, maybe better one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400831/British-madam-accused-recruiting-teenage-sex-slave-Virginia-Roberts-Prince-Andrew-s-friend-Jeffrey-Epstein-denies-calling-liar.html

If you want to see the legal documents related to the case, look up the Case #: 08-80736. 

Also, look up: “Jeffrey Epstein Probable Cause Statement.”

Now, the ties between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein are pretty undeniably solid. In fact, if this thing continues on, gathering a little more steam, Clinton may actually have to answer some questions about the whole thing. So far, he has been spared. The legal proceedings included some kind of clause that states that certain people involved in the perpetration of these crimes against children are untouchable.

But, Trump is, also, implicated. Admittedly, he knew and liked Epstein. His name was circled in the little black book, along with the names of some of his family members. And, Trump has visited Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, at which the photographs of nude, 14-year old girls are said to be prominently displayed on the walls. This association between Epstein and Trump has understandably been downplayed by him and his surrogates. But, you’d have to be seriously naive to believe that there isn’t a stronger connection between the two.

Furthermore, Epstein is said to have thrown parties at which young, Eastern European women “dressed worse than hookers” mixed up with men, including Donald Trump. Trump has an attraction to young Eastern European women, apparently, since he’s married and impregnated two, so far. His second wife was an American woman, who he grudgingly married only after he impregnated her.

The following video is full of information. If you are interested in the details of this case and its broader implications, give it a listen and keep a pen and notebook handy to make some notes. It’s from this video that I got the case number I provided above:

 

 

 

 

A Comparison of Feminism and Satanism

Feminism and Satanism are two names for rebellion against patriarchal authority. In the following article, I will define each of these terms and talk about how philosophical Satanism might be beneficial to feminists – both the liberal and the radical.

Feminism needs little definition for most of my readership. It is the belief in our own right to freedom and self-determination as women and its goal is our total liberation from men. For most of us, feminism is something we arrived at once we had a series of experiences that led us to certain conclusions about our lives, the truth about the world we live in, and the men who run it all.

There are two main types of feminists: The liberal and the radical. The liberal feminists are most in need of liberation from restrictive ideas. The radicals could just use a little boost. This is where I believe philosophical Satanism could be of great benefit.

Let me first elaborate on what Satanism is. It is a term that can have many different meanings.

Satanism: Definitions and Modern Types Of

The term “Satan,” is a descriptor. It does not refer to any particular person or entity. It means “adversary” or “enemy” and in some definitions, it means “accuser.” The origins of the term are in dispute.

To members of patriarchal religions, Satanism means evil. It means “devil worship” and a belief in a literal Satan, just a they believe in a literal God, Allah, or Jehovah.

But, most Satanists (although this is changing) do not believe in a literal Satan. There are some – in fact, a growing number – who do. They are called “theistic Satanists,” which is really an oxymoron and they are generally dismissed by other Satanists. But, they believe that Satan is the liberator and God, Allah, or Jehovah, is the Evil One, the deceiver and slave master of mankind. They draw this belief from many ancient literary sources, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian texts (particularly the story of Enlil (God the Destroyer and Flood-bringer) and Enki and Ninnurshag (the brother and sister who engineered the human race), and early renditions of the Biblical Genesis story such as the one from the Nag Hammadi, which tells the story of God, the Deceiver, in the Garden, and Sophia and Samael (Satan and the Serpent of the Garden), who told them the truth and freed them.

A number of theistic Satanic churches or temples have been popping up. But, Satanism really does not lend itself well to either religion or organization since it is really the antithesis of those things. Still men – always men! – cannot help creating religions and power structures.

Satanism is not a religion. Although, there are groups and organizations that may claim to be churches or temples, true Satanism is antithetical to organization. Organizations require an authority figure. Organizations, also, usually have a lot of rules and by-laws and documents that declare their motto and what they all believe. This is absolutely contrary to the concept of Satanism, which eschews authority. Therefore, the majority of Satanists are “independent Satanists,” which is a redundant term meaning that we have no membership in an organization.

While men cannot be feminists because they are men and they are the thing women need liberation from, they make very bad, usually very evil, Satanists. Men made God in their own image, therefore, they cannot very well rebel against themselves and when they do mount a rebellion, it is almost always against established social mores, some of which are beneficial to women and girls. In particular, I am referring to social and legal attitudes toward rape and pedophilia. Men, instead of using Satanism as a road to freedom, use it is a way to get power and adulation they don’t deserve and to have sexual contact with women and sometimes children.

Men like to form Satanic organizations like the Church of Satan, The Temple of Set, and the pseudo-Satanist political activist group called The Satanic Temple. When such organizations come into existence, you will notice that they are all started and usually always run by men. The organizations always have a sinister purpose, even if this is not evident on the surface (the outer circle is usually ignorant of what goes on in the inner circles). They usually lie about their real intentions – Surprise! Surprise! – such as when the Satanic Temple says they’re trying to uphold the 1st Amendment while supporting politicians who re-insert prayer into public schools.

The exterior of these male organizations are usually propaganda machines of some kind, such as is the case with The Temple of Set and the new Satanic Temple group. Some of the worst Satanists, however, exist within the churches, themselves. There are many men who enjoy ritualized sex abuse of women and children who are operating at high levels in the U.S. military, politics and government. The Temple of Set founder, Lt. Col. Michael Aquino has most notoriously been implicated in this kind of activity and it appears that the Satanic Temple may be in place to divert public attention away from a plethora of sex abuse cases (some Satanic and some not), at the hands of powerful and often famous men. These stories have not broken into the mainstream yet, but I anticipate that, at a certain point, it will be unstoppable because of the sheer number of survivors now sharing their stories.

Most Satanists are atheists, who do not and will not worship anything or anyone. In fact, the concept of worship seems, itself, evil. While Satanists are atheists, we are not materialists, and are students and practitioners of the occult. Sometimes we call ourselves “spiritual atheists” to denote that we do not deny the existence of the metaphysical planes. We are all witches. Although many, especially male Satanists, like to call themselves “magicians” and get involved in what they call the “left hand path.” This is a reference to some early 20th century writings by men on the subject of witchcraft, mostly in an attempt to turn it into some kind of manly art. And, of course, they have their usual dick-dangling contests surrounding the subject. To the rest of us, however, we are simply witches.

In light of the emergence of the fraudulent Satanic Temple in the mainstream media, it’s important to point out that Satanists are generally apolitical. Satanic organizations, when they exist, are occult organizations at their core – not political ones. I think it’s, also, safe to say that most Satanists don’t run around calling themselves “Satanists.” It’s not the way to make friends and influence people, as a rule.

History of Satanism

It is difficult to know the history of Satanism for obvious reasons. It is something that is generally hidden. Also, the term, “Satanism,” is a pretty loaded one and it has different meanings to different people.

The definition I’m going to use here, however, revolves around the philosophy of rebellion, which started coming into vogue about the time of the American Revolution in the 18th century. In fact, I would describe the United States and the war against England as a Satanic rebellion because it was an driven by an ideology of humanism and human rights against an opponent, the King of England, who was supposedly appointed by God.

I would, also, describe the abolitionist movement in the U.S. as a Satanic movement because, again, it went against the Biblical doctrines that allow some men to believe they had the right to enslave other people.

Christians of the 19th century and before believed that if a person was born in a low position in life or a high one, this was as God wanted it. To be poor, or to be a raped and beaten wife, or to be a slave and complain about it was an affront to God. It was described by some Christian writers of the time as “Satanic.”

Feminists were regarded as Satanic (and are still regarded as Satanic by Christians, which you will find at Christian websites if you search for “Feminism and Satanism”) as was feminist literature. The critics of the time actually called the author, Charlotte Bronte, “Satanic” because her character, Jane Eyre, fought to better herself and complained of being mistreated for being female and destitute.

Much of modern philosophical Satanism comes from literature, such as numerous pieces by Lord Byron, particularly the play, “Cain,” which really epitomizes modern Satanic thought. God is demonstrated to be a patriarch with a thirst for blood.

In philosophical Satanism, the Satanic rebellion is against slavery and ignorance, which is represented by God and patriarchal religion.

Similar to Satanism, is Luciferianism, which is another philosophy altogether, however, it is related. Many Satanists are, also, Luciferians. Luciferianism is a quest for knowledge, usually occult knowledge. The term was used by Madam Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society of the 19th century, to describe her organization and its mission.  Luciferianism is the quest for enlightenment and it dares to plunder the “mysteries,” to uncover knowledge that is forbidden by the patriarchal religions and, by extension, the patriarchal medical and scientific establishment. It may, also, be seen as a quest for the Promethean fire, where the fire is symbolic of both enlightenment and a high level of spiritual attainment.

Before there was such a thing as philosophical Satanism, there was simply witchcraft, practiced by women. Women as witches, as practitioners of forbidden arts, knowledge and skills, is a theme that may be found worldwide. Male fear of women and women’s abilities, which are far beyond theirs, because even our metaphysical bodies are more powerful and energetic than their own, is a running theme from China, throughout the Indian nations of the North American continent, and on to Europe.

Women are natural rebels against the patriarchal God, who is the destroyer, the deceiver, the blood-thirsty slave master, upon whom men projected their own nature. We are constantly in a state of enmity with men and God. (This God’s first lie is that he is the Creator – but, as we all know, men are not a source of life, they cannot create life and are far more often the cause of death.) This epic male hatred is not only found in all the books upon which religions are founded, but in the books written by men to describe their hatred and loathing of women and their desire to enslave or kill us, such as the notorious Malleus Maleficarum. And, we don’t even need their books to tell us this because we have our own experiences with rape, threats, violence and humiliation at their hands. We know how much they hate us.

Satanism Acknowledges No Authority

As I said, there is no real Satanic organization. Organizations and hierarchies are loved and cherished by men because they seek power over others.

Much like radical feminism, Satanism is something that we simply recognize in ourselves. We don’t have to try to adhere to any rules or conform to any pre-established ideas. We are already these things because our experiences and our logical thought processes as a result of those experiences have brought us to this place.

Like radical feminism, Satanism is not so much an ideology. We are Satanists because we can be nothing else. We are Satanists because we have an enemy and if that enemy ceased to exist, there would be no need for Satanism. Satanism is reactionary. It is a reaction to tyranny.

Satanism is a disregard for authority, particularly in cases where such authority is detrimental to humanity. Obviously, some rules exist for our benefit. But, many rules, laws, social norms, etc., exist to trap us, to keep us from exercising our freedom, even from telling the truth when the truth most needs to be told.

Things Satanist Tend to Have in Common

Satanists, I should point out, are not really nice people, but we are almost always interesting people. When you are a Satanist you can easily recognize other Satanists by certain characteristics.

While there are no rules and no dogma associated with Satanism (we are simply atheists who are, also, witches and occultists), we have certain tendencies, certain things that we gravitate toward, for whatever reason. Like feminism, it is less an ideology, than it is simply what we are.

One of the things that Satanists share in common is a voracious appetite for knowledge, the more obscure it is the better. Many of us speak more than one or two languages, often this is related to our occult studies.

We despise hypocrisy – absolutely hate it.

We do not believe in “turning the other cheek.” This is one of the doctrines of Christianity that I most despise. I think it is the main reason we have criminals everywhere. Remember God forgives, the blood of Jesus washes away sins, but it is Satan who renders justice – and it is justice that is most needed!

We deal very harshly with our enemies. We certainly never help them. We don’t, for instance, offer to escort Muslims to the grocery store for their safety like the hoaxers of the Satanic Temple do. We do practice witchcraft for the purpose of harming our enemies. It is common for Satanists to be demonologists and to use – never worship, but use – such forces to accomplish their ends.

We don’t do charity, as a rule. You won’t find many Satanists either doing charity work or accepting charity. Now, of course, this does not mean that we don’t help our friends, our family members or our neighbors when they really need it. But, most of us see through Christian charity and the ruse of non-profits. We don’t like people who don’t pull their own weight, generally. Most Satanists are very hard-working people.

How Philosophical Satanism is Beneficial to Feminism

Feminism, and especially liberal feminism, could benefit from a big dose of Satanic rebellion. Far too many liberal feminist women bow down to the Holy Penis, especially if he is gay, black, Muslim, or wearing lipstick and a wig. They engage in phallus worship by promoting pornography and the prostitution of women and girls in hopes of appeasing the patriarchal god and his perverted priesthood of johns, pimps and fappers.

Even those of us who see through all of this have difficulty finding our voice when it comes to telling the truth about certain categories of men. Some of this may have to do with a fear of losing an audience because there are certain things you can say that trigger a cult-like, stop-think response in those socially conditioned to the mass cult that is the patriarchal left. If they hear certain key terms, they are conditioned to name-call you, then dismiss anything else you have to say.

Fortunately, we are now in an age when things that once were hidden can more easily come to the light of day. It is much more difficult for evil people to hide their evil deeds. The old lies, the old name-calling techniques, the old routines used by the controllers aren’t working as well right now. Even the highly successful race card is tattered, worn and almost completely played out.

In fact, a whole mess of lies and cover-ups are coming undone – and not just the most recent events in W. Europe surrounding the organized, mass rape Jihad by negroes, Arabs and Muslims against white women. There are other scandals, which are bursting at the seams, surrounding high level sex abusers, white slavery, and pedophilia in the churches, in the military, among celebrities, and in government, both here in the U.S. and in W. Europe. Also, the mass media cover-up of the huge number of violent crimes committed by black males and sometimes black females against primarily white women is coming out – it is flowing out like a burst dam.

We have a chorus of survivors behind us right now. People are ready to hear the truth – they have no choice but to face it, now. It cannot be hidden any longer.

The right to rebel against patriarchal tyranny, against any authority that seeks to enslave our minds and restrain our words or actions, is not just a birthright – it is who we are!

Feminism Unbound

It is time for all of us to speak frankly and without restraint on our words regarding what is happening, and what has happened to us personally. In order to speak without self-monitoring, it is necessary to adapt a Satanic attitude. We must not acknowledge any authority over us because, in fact, there is none and what is in our heads that stops us from speaking the absolute pure, undiluted truth, is as imaginary as their patriarchal “God.” It does not exist except as a shadow. It is a paper tiger.

When someone tells you, “White feminist, shut the fuck up!” you know this is your cue to start singing like a canary. There is no good motive for certain women wanting to shut up certain other women. You can bet that whatever is behind such a command is nefarious and necessarily patriarchal.

Just as we see in Germany and Sweden, the liberals in the government are keeping quiet and covering up instances of mass sex abuses by certain protected classes of men against women in order to promote a nefarious political agenda and to avoid fueling the political agenda of their opponents. “White feminists, shut the fuck up!” about the men who are groping, stalking, threatening, raping, severely injuring and sometimes murdering you.

Also, there is silencing of radical feminists. There has been a very deafening silencing of German feminists who are working to re-criminalize pimps and johns. I wouldn’t know they existed if not for the complaints of men, who do not want to have their “right” to rape women and commodify women’s bodies taken away from them. There is a silencing of radical feminist who try to report on the upsurge in male violence since the increasing intake of black, Arab and Muslim males.

Many countries in W. Europe have moved or are moving to criminalize speech, however much truth it contains, that is negative in any way toward the black (and black-ish) invaders.  Yet, some women continue to speak, although they are faced with lawsuits, and threatened with arrest, fines and imprisonment for doing so.

This is a symptom of the enemy’s panic. Their fear is tangible – you can almost smell it!

Their old tactics will not work in this new age – in this Information Age – in this Age of Aquarius! Time is on our side.

This is why I say, we must speak now without restraint – especially, those of us living in countries where there are no “hate speech” laws. We are in less danger and when we speak for ourselves, we are speaking for the victims and survivors of male crimes in Europe and elsewhere.

When we speak, we should strive to do so without apology and without prefacing our statements with things like, “I’m not a Nazi, but…” (“Ich bin kein Nazi, aber…” is something commonly seen when German victims of black male crimes describe what has happened to them.) or “I’m not a racist, but…” There is no need to make a denial. The accusing authority figure is only a shadow – a shadow of a bully, but it is not real and it has absolutely no authority and no power over you. When you speak out the truth, loud and clear, directly, accusingly, placing the blame squarely where it belongs, with self-righteous indignation, without apology, in your own words that come natural to you, unbound, without restraint, you bring down the wall of silence and shame that the enemy has built around you – and around all of us!

The patriarchal authority, which channels itself through accusations of racism, or Nazi-ism, or TERF-ism, or misandry, or trans-misogyny, is only a pathetic illusion. It’s just a stage magician’s trick – nothing more.

So, when you speak out, do it with Satanic liberty. Say what you really feel! To do otherwise is to remain a slave to the man-God in your head – because there is nothing else that is really stopping you.