Redirection

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Physical Fitness Tests are Sexisss

 Holding women up to any kind of standards is discrimination:

A police force has come under fire after scrapping compulsory fitness tests on the grounds they are unfair on women.

British Transport Police said female officers were suffering 'indirect discrimination' from doing a so-called bleep test – in which they have to run up and down a 15-metre track for three minutes 35 seconds – because they were far more likely to fail than men.

Now only new recruits and specialists, including dog handlers and armed officers, are required to pass a fitness test.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

There Is Nothing Glamorous About Divorce

Here is an interesting video about women regretting their divorces:


 

 Here are a couple of things to consider. First, WARNING: language. Not PG friendly:) 

Second, I've know guys who did exactly the thing he says never happens, like leaving his wife for another woman, but his general point stands. 

Third, the lady with 4 kids is a real basket case and the ex-husband is much too nice, which is why she probably left him in the first place. 

And finally, the last case. I've written on my blog about a similar story, but it ended much worse. The woman hanged herself in front of her minor kids. 

Women in the past were taught how to attract men, to make them marry you and, the most important thing, how to keep them. Appears to be a lost art nowadays...

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Is It "Their" Fault?

 If you are on Gab you know that the front page more often than not consists of memes and slogans, with a couple thought-provoking posts thrown in between. One of the memes spread around today went along the lines that the society is collapsing because "they" made the art ugly (among other things). Now I've seen the variations of this theme going around for ages. 

Who are "they" you will ask. Well, it could be anyone. "Deep State", "Special people", "Liberals," "Communists", "Demonrats", "Bankers" and sometimes, "elites" in general. 

Here is something I have been thinking about recently. The idea behind this type of posts is always that the elites are doing it on purpose, for some nefarious reasons, which is, possibly, at least, partly true. There is, however, an aspect of the problem which nobody seems to consider. Any society, how progressive and liberal it is in theory, has social classes. In traditional Western class system we have  upper class, middle class and lower class. Upper class are ruling elites, middle class are free property owners and craftsmen, while lower class is rather heterogenic. 

Traditionally it would consist out of the descendants of medieval serfs, landless peasants (and in general people too poor to own any kind of property), various vagabonds and antisocial/criminal elements.

European class system has never been very rigid, and there was both upward and downward mobility, however, the upper class still largely consists of those who are called "old blood/money". I read about some Swiss/Italian families which are 1000 years old and all this time have been in top 10% of the income bracket. In UK and Germany there are families who own property such as historical castles for more than a thousand years. Well, you get my point.

Upper class people, whether good or evil, generally have a higher IQ which, together with clannishness and ambition/lust for power is one of the factors which allows them to keep their dominant position in society. It is those people who throughout the centuries have had time to create high culture, works of art, music and literature. Their youngest sons became clergymen and studied theology. They have shaped European culture for more than a thousand years.

It was European nobility who first converted to Christianity, made it the official religion, and sometimes forced it on the peasants, who had kept their old pagan folks-beliefs well into Late Middle Ages. It was upper and upper middle class in Great Britain who created Victorian culture we admire so much.

Lower classes? Well, they did enjoy stuff like gladiator fights, public executions, traveling circus, and fairs where cripples were showing their handicaps for money. In the 19th century, there was an enormous effort by the elites to "enlighten" poor folks and to improve their living conditions. It worked! Even factory workers were reading novels like those of Dickens in Victorian England and visiting opera.

And then, what happened then? Somewhere in the mid-19th century Western elites lost their faith. They put their trust in science and "killed God". Some stayed "Christian in name only", others turned openly atheist. Ironically enough, it was lower middle/lower class who kept to their faith the longest, but now in Europe they chiefly lost it, too. In the USA, many people still identify as Christian, but for far too many of them, their religion is more like belonging to a social/entertainment club. My husband calls it "circus churches". 

Once Western elites stopped being Christian they simply lost their ability to create transcendental works of art. The last one of this kind in English language was probably Lord Of The Rings. Recently I read the preface to a Game of Thrones novel which stated that it is more morally complex than LOTR. The very first page I opened had a sentence that ran approximately like this: She f888ed her father. And later "she needs a good f888" Well, that is modern moral complexity on a display right here. I'm fairly certain that Tolkien could not have written it.

Western elites are currently atheistic nihilists (some think they are downright satanic) or (like some American politicians) use religion cynically to appeal to their voters and manipulate them into obeying the government (how many churches have adopted the alphabet agenda?) Elite sons are not choosing careers in the church which is one of the reasons of the theological stagnation and church having lower status in general. 

Art and culture produced by these elites naturally reflect their essence. "They" probably aren't even doing it on purpose, to corrupt the masses. They simply can't behave otherwise. Modern art and culture simply reflects their core values, on the one hand, while on the other hand, it appeals to the lowest common denominator because it sells better. You know, the types who used to enjoy gladiator's fights and public hangings. 

Until "they" become Christian again, there will be no change for the better.

 

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Are Husbands Supposed To Support Their Wives?

 Recently I read a discussion about polygamy. One guy said that Islam only allows polygamy to provide for widows and orphans/divorced women, but as usual, men abused this right by marrying young hot 2nd wives when their 1st wife grows older, which, in his opinion was very wrong. However, he continued, in the case of helping some poor (war) widow it could be a noble thing to do.

A European lady was surprised. She asked if women in his country worked at all and why would they need a man to provide for them and their children. "In my country everybody works," she stated. Now I wonder which country it is and how did it stray so far from the original design, and I find it especially sad that the lady stated she was a Christian, so let's look at what the Scriptures say about it. A funny thing is that OT allowed polygamy and expressly stated that if the man took another wife, he still had the duty to keep his 1st wife in the way she was accustomed to:

Exodus 21:

 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.   8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.   9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.   10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.   11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Here is what Matthew Henry wrote on the issue:

"Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, v. 7-11. Thus did God provide for the comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, 1 Pet 3 7."

So yes, men are supposed to provide for their wives. And then, of course, there is this famous 1Tim 5:8 verse, which is not only about widows, according to John Gill:

 But if any provide not for his own
Not only for his wife and children, but for his parents, when grown old, and cannot help themselves

This, btw, takes us back to the whole Boomer problem. Boomers are accused of not supporting their adult children financially, while here it is stated that it's adult children who have to provide/care for their aged parents. Hmm
 

Sunday, February 18, 2024

You Don't Have To Accept Their Bull888t

 How many parents are conditioned to "accept their children as they are" and never dare to show disapproval of their choices? Well, this one dad had enough:

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Happy Belated Valentine's Day!

 

Well, I am awfully sorry I didn't congratulate you yesterday, but we were too busy celebrating our wedding anniversary:) Hope you all had a great time with your loved ones!