Marijuana Bad For Male Fertility

 I guess that's why it's being heavily promoted lately, including in "alternative right" circles:

CANNABIS could reduce the size of a man's testicles and impact sperm quality, a study claims.

THC — the psychoactive chemical in the drug — hits male fertility but changes can be reversed when users stop taking it, scientists found...

Dr Jason Hedges, of the ONPRC, said: “We understand that for teens and young adults, family planning might not be top of mind. 

And that's exactly the target audience. 

“However, THC even in moderate doses could impact their fertility outcomes, so this is a serious concern for us as healthcare providers.

“The more we can understand and define this issue, the better information we can provide to patients to be able to optimise their reproductive health.”

Read the whole article over here. 

 

Stonetoss Seldom Misses

 There is something satanic about all of this.

Woke brigade never sleeps

 Agatha Christie is next:

The sensitivity readers are said to have edited down dialogue from Christie's character Mrs. Allerton from the 1937 Poirot novel Death on the Nile. In the text, she criticized a group of annoying children, saying, "their eyes are simply disgusting, and so are their noses." The new version reportedly removes this description.

“The Nubian boatman” is now just “the boatman” in the same novel.

The 1964 Miss Marple novel A Caribbean Mystery had a few revisions as well, with the new edition missing the description of a West Indian hotel worker as having “such lovely white teeth.” A reference to a female character having “a torso of black marble such as a sculptor would have enjoyed” was also done away with. A racial slur used against individuals with black or brown skin was further removed from the book.

In her 1920 debut novel The Mysterious Affair at Styles, the Poirot's comment about another character being “a Jew, of course” has additionally been cut. In the same book, all references to gypsies have been deleted.

As for her book Miss Marple’s Final Cases and Two Other Stories, the new edition changes the description of an angry character from “his Indian temper” to just "his temper."

"Natives" has also reportedly been replaced with the word "local." 

I should add that the new, "improved" Bible version being currently promoted over here, does away with the word "whoredom" substituting it with "unchaste behaviour" or something similarly gay.I guess as not to hurt the feelings of whores and whoremongers. 1984 was a prophecy....

Taliban Vs Hillary Clinton?

Personally I tend to think it is a parody account

Former senator and failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was on the wrong side of a social media exchange with an unlikely adversary this week – the  “Taliban Public Relations Department.”

“Girls in Afghanistan should be going back to school tomorrow, but the Taliban is only allowing boys to be educated,” Clinton tweeted on Wedensday, adding the hashtag “#LetAfghanGirlsLearn.”...

...In response, the Taliban account responded with a vicious roast that invoked Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump, as wells as her husband Bill’s infamous extramarital affairs.

“You spent $700m in our country trying to teach women and girls that there are 140 different genders,” the Taliban tweeted. “No wonder you lost to the orange gangster. You left a huge mess behind in Afghanistan, just like your husband did with that dress.”

they are very good at trolling though

Is Cooking Oppression?

 Let's find out!

Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet

There was a discussion on a Telegram channel I read recently, which perfectly well illustrates the difference.

There are both Muslims and right-wing Christians on that channel and they were discussing the trend of sl8tty e-girls. One Muslim guy said that instead of wh8ring around in public, the girls should go home and cook dinner for their family. Immediately, a Christian guy told him that it was degrading for women to even suggest that their place is at home doing housework.

Another Muslim guy responded that just as men have the duty to provide women have the duty to cook and clean and take care of their family. Doing one's duty could never be degrading, in his opinion.

So here you have it, the fundamental difference between the East and the West. Meninists online will rant about how horrible Western women are nowadays, but the truth is that most Western men are simps, even conservative Christians and would white knight even for a theoretical woman. Women in the West aren't supposed to have any duties at all, only rights.

 They can stay home and cook and clean for their husbands and/or kids, but only if they choose to. They can even submit to their husbands, but again, it's their choice and even the most conservative preacher will never suggest that the husband can or should in any way enforce this submission, totally disregarding such Bible verses as Gen18:19

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (I guess ''household" included his wife as well)

and 1Timothy:4-5

⁴ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

⁵ (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

On the other hand, the men who rightly criticise the situation with the Western women often are just as vague on the duties of both s8xes. That is, they will mention that a man should work and earn an income, but not that it's his duty to be the breadwinner just as his wife's duty is to be a homemaker. In fact, many are fine with her bringing home a paycheck of her own and will gladly cook the dinner themselves just as long as she isn't some raging b88ch. 

Actually, most would tell you the same story, that it's up to a couple to decide the way they live. Their opposition to feminism is basically opposition to women being b8tchy and complaints about not getting enough s88.

The word "duty" appears to totally have left the modern Western lexicon. Herein lies the problem...

Alpha F** Beta Bux???

 Found on Twitter:

Feminists Angry Again

 Baking is the new face of "white supremacy"

Then a trend on TikTok began emerging that gained traction very quickly. It was women simply posting their daily lives as traditional housewives. They cooked, they cleaned, they looked nice for their breadwinning husband, and they took care of the children during the day.

It’s a trend being called “tradwife.”...

 But for feminists, this trend is dangerous because it invites a return to the sexism and racism of old. As Fox News reported, various mainstream publications have now jumped on the trend, attempting to discredit and excoriate it as evil:

 

“The new trend for submissive women has a dark heart and history,” reads one headline from The Guardian.

An article from Hypebae slapped the videos as “disturbing,” writing “[they] typically feature a cis straight white women, longing for the ’50s – an era where some women could opt out of participate in the corporate working world and be stay-at-home mothers instead.”

And a third from Grazia magazine accused the trend of “romanticizing an era where sexism and racism ruled.”

 

 As usual, feminists are lying through their teeth. First, the whole world is not the USA with its racial problems. Most Euro countries used to be like 99% white in the past and guess what? Most married women stayed home. Was it because of racism? Towards whom? It's a common lie that "most women always worked". Most unmarried women had to work, most married women stayed home as far back as the Roman times and beyond. Serfs had to go into the fields, both male and female. They were like 1/3 of the population, hardly the majority. Also, serfdom in Western Europe has been abolished somewhere around 13th century.

Second, now do "brown women" in countries like India and Pakistan. What do most married women do in those countries? Do they have careers much? I guess anything is racism now. May be, if you don't like the European countries, get the H**l out?

 P.S. Here is a post with statistics on how many women worked in the USA in 1890 vs now:

More detailed information on family indicators starts to become available in 1890; for instance 2.2% of white (native white, both parents native) married women worked in 1890; also in 1890 10.3% of all white women 25 to 54 years old worked (37.3% of black women and 14.9% of all women worked in this age range).

 Traditional labour division has nothing to do with the 1950s, the year which feminists have a weird obsession about:)

Why Conservatives Keep Losing

 because of the likes of this guy:

 For as long as parents have shared the blessings of liberty with their children, there has been opposition from regressive, fearful conservatives. From the ancient near eastern parents who had the courage to let their children pass through the fire as an offering to Moloch in good faith, to the Jonestown parents who had their children drink kool-aid in good faith, to parents who had their kids' prepubescent ovaries removed in good faith, hateful naysayers have never been in short supply. Why? I'm not sure, but I know it can't be a good-faith instinct to protect children. More than likely, it's a cold, calculated grasp for power perpetuated by Christian Supremacists.

Yeah, I know it's satire, but it sums up his writing pretty nicely, and that goes for many establishment "Conservatives":

Do I want Boston Children's Hospital to dedicate the new David French Blessings Of Liberty Gender Surgery wing to me? Maybe. Do I want doctors to call their double-mastectomy procedure on young girls the "David French Special," with the coupon code "DISPATCH" entitling them to a half-off surgery? Maybe. Do I want to keep writing my columns, earning acceptance from a godless culture that hates me, my peers, and my God? Yes. Yes, I do.

The Face Of Female Entitlement

 Delusion is strong with this one:

 

42 years old. Makes a long list of demands. Not a word of what she herself brings to the table. It's a wonder she's still single:))) 

H/t Ramzpaul

Breaking The Glass Ceiling

 

Big if true (found on Twitter)

Reasons For Divorce

 People like these online debates but they are really going nowhere since all divorce nowadays per definition is a no-fault divorce. They (divorced people) can cite any reason to you or no reason at all or something vague about "being incompatible" and you will never know the truth.

In the times past the official reasons for divorce were sometimes called "the 4 "A"s" as it was adultery, abandonment, abuse and addiction. However, the wife couldn't just go to the judge and claim her husband abused her and a man couldn't simply accuse his wife of adultery, you needed to prove it in court, sometimes with witnesses. 

The only way to prevent the majority of divorces happening nowadays is to change the law and go back to the old system. Then as the new laws are being written we could debate what really constitutes abuse and is grounds for divorce or does the husband refusing to work constitute abandonment or some such thing. Until that, it's all just empty words.

In a dating situation, every man and every woman will have to decide for themselves whether this divorced person they like so much had Biblical grounds for divorce or should they take a safe road and dump him or her.

Despite what libertarians tell you (and many Boomers unfortunately fell for these lies) the law does indeed influence and modify human behaviour. It's not the only factor as the culture is a big one, too which, of course, includes the mass media. However, the MSM and the culture, too, are subject to the influence of the laws of the country. In the much-demonised 1950s, for instance, the laws and codes in the USA forbade showing divorce in a positive light in entertainment, which influenced the way people thought about it.

You can notice it in non-Western cultures, too. The countries which prohibit the Islamic practice of using Talak 3 times as a way to divorce one's wife like Turkey and India have much less divorce than say, Iraq where it is allowed and where, from what I read in the recent years it became quite common for the men to divorce their wives for any small reason (because, unlike what meninists online will tell you, men aren't immune to sinful behaviours).

Turkey also prohibits polygamy and there is a strong expectation that the man will be the breadwinner and the wife a homemaker. However, they also have a law which states that a married woman can't be legally employed unless her husband allows it, in writing. 

So they have a law supporting traditional family + a strong cultural expectation that the man will be the sole breadwinner which more or less counteracts their media (Their TV shows are pretty liberal and nowadays even feature strong female warriors and stuff).

That's why all this finger-pointing about who is to blame for the present mess, men or women simply makes no sense. I'd say both are to blame, but when the MSM is an absolute poison AND the law attacks the traditional family, you can't expect any other result. 

If someone else is to blame, it's absolutely the Church collectively as they mostly refuse to speak truth to power, unlike the martyrs of the past times. I mean imagine John the Baptist would be so cowardly?

All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to positively influence the culture around us, or that it's impossible to live like a good Christian or even have a traditional family, but in the current climate it's getting increasingly difficult and many struggle. Society as a whole won't change for better though unless and until the laws  change, and no revival will help. Christians should have no libertarian illusions about that. 

An encouraging thought is that we still have pockets of resistance and are free to practise our religion and live the way we like. You can still choose to marry instead of living together, not to get divorced, have traditional "gender" roles and raise your kids the same way. Just don't expect that everybody or even most people around you will approve, and that, unfortunately, sometimes will include your own family and even other Christians. But why should you care if you know you are doing right?

As someone said so well, it's doesn't really matter what other people say and do. It's only what the Bible says what matters...

Crazy

  

"Going off the rails on a crazy train" is a perfect description of what's happening with the West. Someone should use this song and make a compilation of everything that has been going on in the last 5+ years. Gilets jaunes, corona protests, farmer's revolt, the return of cold war and the nuclear threat etc etc.

Thoughts On Women In Health Care

I think many people would agree that one branch of economy where female labour appears indispensable, is health care, and especially the care of female patients. So how could this issue be resolved in a traditional society? 

When we look to the past, most hospitals here in Europe were run by religious organisations, especially the Catholic Church (but not only). Nurses and sometimes doctors were nuns, the same is true about elderly care. In Lutheran cultures, as far as I know, there were also religious women who would perform this kind of job, the difference being that after some time they could quit and get married, unlike nuns (I read somewhere they had to serve for 5 years or something).

Further on, in some traditional cultures all the women got basic medical training, including midwifery. Birth only became highly medicalised in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Here in the Netherlands, many women still have the child at home with a trained midwife, and I heard it's not unusual in UK, too. 

In fact, I once read a story on a British site which happened during the initial stage of corona, when a woman who was about to give birth phoned the doctor's office and they told her they couldn't sent anyone due to the pandemic but would give her instructions on the phone ( that was her 2nd child so luckily she had some experience). 

I have a Dutch 1st aid book at home which has a chapter on what to do in the case some woman goes into labour and there is no medical help available, so even lay midwives don't sound so far-fetched. 

In other countries, I heard, due to the shortage of medical personnel they ask family to come and spend nights in the hospital nursing their family. Here they just kick you out as soon as possible, and though we have a system of home care, they do ask nowadays if the relatives can perform such tasks as giving injections or wound cleaning (happened with my mother-in-law).

Of course, some types of medical care are very high-tech and/or need years of study and specialisation and couldn't be outsourced but many simple things certainly could which would further reduce the need for professional female work outside home.

Just a couple of thoughts...

Deep Down The Rabbit Hole

 Corona is mostly gone but the damage it did to the mental health of both liberals and conservatives, is still there. 

With liberals it's more or less obvious, all this triple masking, endless boosters and treating it as the new incarnation of Black Death in general, but what about conservatives?

Most of the internet Right went deep down the rabbit hole of various conspiracy theories. Corona doesn't exist, everybody who took the vaxx will die within 2 years (still waiting for this one), Western governments just want to kill everybody etc are bad enough, but with some people it went much further than that.

Take, e.g. Roosh. Before Covid started, I used to frequent his site and read the discussions quite regularly, but nowadays I seldom even bother. The guy is a trained microbiologist, yet he now entertains the theory that bacteria and viruses don't even exist, that the infectious disease doesn't exist, either, and practices harsh censorship banning every dissenter. 

It naturally attracts similar types. The latest pearl of wisdom I read over there is that brushing your teeth is not necessary and just "eating right" will be enough. I mean WT*? 

He's not the only one, of course. Some Gab personalities went right from "corona doesn't exist" to other major world events don't exist, for instance, what's currently happening in Ukraine is all "deep fake" apparently.  I mean, by this logic, how do I know that America exists? After all, I've never been there. May be you guys are all fake, after all?

Oh yes, and Damar Hamlin has been cloned. VD has been on this one, too, in between talking about getting rid of all the Boomers (some people really hate their parents, I guess). 

Frankly, it makes the Right sound retarded. We should be better than that.

Does Depression Even Exist?

 Depression in general and post-partum depression in particular.

Here are some interesting links:

No evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

Does Depression Exist? (from HuffPost, no less) 

Another article with the same name raises some very interesting questions:

Does depression exist? I don’t mean to imply that those with depression should just “pull themselves together”: of course depression symptoms exist (and are sometimes life-ruining). And of course those symptoms often overlap with each other, which certainly implies that there’s a common cause. But is there a thing we can point to in someone’s brain — or some identifiable part of their psychology — that’s called “depression”?

In my opinion, what we call "depression" is the consequence of stress and chronic stress leads to a long-term depression, which appears to be supported by evidence, as this article on post-partum depression states:

The women were asked in interviews about how much support they received from their families and the child's father and about their symptoms of depression. In addition, blood samples from all participants were analyzed to assess their levels of placental corticotropin-releasing hormone (pCRH), a stress hormone released from the placenta...

... Hahn-Holbrook and her colleagues discovered that pregnant women who reported the greatest support from their families had lower levels of depressive symptoms. They also had the least dramatic increases in pCRH and the lowest absolute levels of pCRH in the third trimester of pregnancy...

...These results are consistent with the idea that social support limits abnormal pCRH increases and that lower pCRH levels, in turn, reduce the risk of postpartum depression.

See also this article:

How Other Cultures Prevent Postpartum Depression 

Finally, this guy argues that suffering from depression and/or anxiety happens because your life generally s8cks and it won't get better until you actively try to improve it.  

Thoughts? Feel free to share your experiences!

 

Who Would Work If All The Women Quit?

 Those who advocate for traditional lifestyle are often asked that question. Now, first of all, there is no country on Earth where some women don't work, with the probable exception of Afghanistan? Not really sure what's going on there.

The question is really a straw-man and a typical example of arguing in bad faith.In every society there are women who aren't suitable to be wives and mothers, the types who used to become nuns and pr8stitutes in Middle Ages. In later period in Protestant countries it was mostly unmarried women who worked, according to the statistics I read, about 50% of single women in the end of the 19th century used to hold a job, and some married women too, though few. 

So it's true that some females always worked, what changed is that now every woman, including wives and even mothers of small children is expected to work as well, at least part-time. We are told that the society will collapse without their input. 

The point is, how much female labour do we really need and who used to do all these jobs before? 10 years ago I hardly ever saw a female paramedic. 20 years ago they were non-existent in my area. Now every single ambulance has a woman in it. Who used to perform this job in 2003? Well, you guessed it, men! Just like there were only men bus chauffeurs, male veterinarians etc etc. 

Since their wives, mothers and girl-friends started working, men in my country significantly reduced their working hours, started retiring early and spend their 20s getting often useless degrees. Anything goes as long as they don't have to exert themselves in the workforce. 

So the answer to the question above is: men. If the majority of women go back home than men will have to take over and start working full time again. One could argue that some professions are uniquely suitable for women, such as daycare workers. In fact, there is already a push in countries like Germany to have actual males work in daycare changing diapers. But really, nobody would even need daycare if mothers stayed home with their kids. 

A society could probably function perfectly well with only about 10% of all women working. And most traditionalists would be fine with that.

Women Not Wanting To Be Wives

 The reason for so many divorces nowadays is often (not always) simply women not wanting to be wives. It basically started with my own generation and I've seen it first hand. Marriages which fell apart before were either caused by the husband being downright abusive/substance abusing to a criminal degree or the husband falling for his secretary; sometimes by female adultery as well. 

If a couple had problems otherwise, it was suggested they stay together for the sake of the children as society disapproved of divorce. Divorced women also had a certain reputation. It was practically impossible for a divorced woman to remarry someone decent. For instance, in one case I know the woman had to settle for a fellow divorced man who was much older and not a great breadwinner.

 Women were supposed to stick with their men through thick and thin. In one of Miss Silver's novels a woman's boyfriend disappears for several years, then returns the night before her wedding and tells her it will happen again in the future, and since he knows she loves him, she'll just have to accept it. She does and cancels her marriage. (Of course, in reality the guy is some sort of a secret agent, but she only suspects it). 

Good women were expected to love sacrificially, unlike harlots and gold-diggers. This all changed somewhere in the 1990s (I think earlier in the USA but Europe has been late with these trends). While I don't like giving examples of real people on this blog, I will say that I see it all around me in the real life. 

Some of my (female) acquaintances just decided to opt out when they encountered some real problems. As someone put it, "why should she conform to a man?" Others complain that they work too much but would never dream of even cutting their work hours though the husband makes a decent money as they value their independence. Yet someone else never bothered with even the minimum of housekeeping (there are servants for that) or would cooperate with the husband's spending plans which led to predictable results.

Here I'm talking about my peers, women with university level education, who were capable of earning a decent income which wasn't always the case back then. Hence the push for all women to keep on working while married and going for high-paying college degrees, which leads to even more divorces in younger generations, and among lower classes, men with chronic pain in their backs.

Those who stuck with their husbands through thick and thin and adjusted themselves to their needs, sacrificing their careers for the sake of the family are still married and sometimes doing very well financially while their divorced friends chide them for being oppressed. Well, may be they are, but at least, they are still married and doing fine.

Marriage was absolutely destroyed by feminism and it was done on purpose.

Should Everyone Go To College?

 Apparently not, if we look at the new trends:

College attendance and university degrees have long been defended on the basis of higher earnings prospects. But what was a great deal in the 1950s and 1960s, and still made some degree of sense in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. But for the average college student in the United States, a university degree can no longer be justified on economic grounds...

While average degree-holder wages are still higher, the wage comparisons are meaningless when they fail to take into account a) the cost of college debt and debt service as well as b) the opportunity cost of not working for five years.

Read the whole post at VD 

College degree still functions as a class marker though.

Do Women Have Responsibility?

How Victorians ruined male-female relationships.

Some time ago I watched a Utube video where a guy traveled all the way to Afghanistan to interview Taliban on their attitudes to women. A Taliban official told him without blushing that men and women were "absolutely equal" and women had all the rights that Sharia allowed. You should have read the comments:)

And yet, as I thought his words over, I realised there was a method to this madness. In his country, both men and women had their duties and rights, but they were different because they each occupy their own sphere. Hence, since each s8x had it's own responsibilities and its own rights, in his opinion, there was equality.

The main female responsibility in strictly Muslim countries is the preservation of their honour, aka chastity. That's why they often have the attitudes to things like rape which we as Westerners find totally barbaric, like at least partly, blaming the victim. And yet, even here there is a certain logic. Since the woman's honour is the most important thing then if she places herself in a situation where she could be robbed of it, like going out at night in an unsafe neighbourhood, or getting drunk at a party, she is then seen as partly responsible.

A funny thing is, that before late 19th century, the Christian West was not much different in this respect. A man's honour is courage, a woman's honour is chastity was more or less a universal principle. Men were supposed to prove themselves on the battlefield, while women were the gatekeepers of s8x and morals. No branch of Western Christianity seriously tried to restrict male s8xuality, they concentrated on women. Female adultery was always much more severely punished than the husband, say, visiting pr8stitutes.

This, btw, is perfectly in line with the Scriptures' definition of adultery, as I described in one of my previous posts. Honour killings were not unheard of (again referenced in the same post) and there are literary examples of women threatening suicide to avoid rape as death was shown better than dishonour (Rebecca in Ivanhoe, for instance). One of the books I read (written by a woman!) mentions that there is "a universal law of chastity for women"and that if they break it, they should better die.

This all changed with the onset of Evangelical Christianity in the USA which, probably under the influence of developing feminism, set out to control men and for the first time in history, to subject all of them, and not just those of religious orders, to this law of chastity. 

It coincided with the developments in the Victorian society,  with its poverty, overcrowding, br8thels at every corner of the street and the prevalence of various STD's. 

They started with portraying of all women as victims. Women were on their own pure and chaste, they were Angels in the home and Virgin Mary combined, basically as8xual beings who tolerated beastly male passions for the sake of the joy of motherhood. 

Never before in the history of the West were women seen as lacking in passions, rather vice versa, as old Church Fathers were warning men against them. They were all Eve, tempting men with the forbidden fruit. Married men were supposed to visit their wives quite often, and they all produced lots of kids, including aristocrats. Last autumn we visited a castle, and one of its owners a Marquis this and that in the 17th century produced with his wife 24 kids. 24! 

Childbirth has always being dangerous, even nowadays, but it was only Victorian doctors who started forbidding women to have s8x with their own husbands. A decent man was supposed "to leave his wife alone" after the birth of a couple of kids (one if it were a boy) and many went to visit pr8stitutes as a result.

The next campaign was to rescue "the fallen women". Here Victorians did have a point, as many of these unfortunate creatures were sold into wh8re houses by their own parents at very young ages, such as 9 or 10. France, for instance, didn't even have an official age of consent until very recently. However, the truth also is, that many chose this path voluntarily as it was a much easier way to earn money then for instance, working at a factory. 

Thusly, women were absolved of the only responsibility which  had always laid squarely upon them, namely, keeping their legs shut preserving their honour, while men were still expected to go fight (and were shot for cowardice as late as WWI) and yet also to be chaste and not ever to bother their own wives.

While the modern society is often extremely promiscuous, this late Victorian attitude lives on with 2 groups of people, American feminists and Evangelicals churchians. They both absolve women of all the responsibility for their own actions, portray them as victims and tell men to leave their wives alone (all this scolding and  preaching about men needing "to earn s8x" from their wives by doing household chores etc.)

Some Christians even use the Bible verse of women being the weaker vessel as proof that it's wrong for their husbands to expect s8x because he needs to "dwell with his wife with understanding". At least, Victorians did have a point since in their time there was no reliable contraception and medical care was inferior, but nowadays having regular s8x doesn't have to lead to having 20 children and all the dangers of this, so what harm can come from it for the wife's health? 

I can only presume they still entertain this ridiculous late Victorian theory about women being pure beings soiled by the dirty male passions which is frankly, quite idiotic. 

So do women have responsibility? I should say, that traditionally speaking, women had their own responsibilities which were different from those of men, and that we should probably return to this concept. You can't expect women responsibly perform the duties they were not made for, like fighting in a war, running a state or supporting a family. But they are perfectly capable of being chaste and hence should be held accountable for that. 

What do you think?

 

Fake Meatballs

 This is really a great recipe. 

I forgot to take the picture. I used 250g of champignons from the supermarket, dried parsley and 1 egg instead of 2, because I wrote the recipe down on a piece of paper and the instructions weren't as clear so they were a bit low on protein and I added extra cheese instead. The cheese I used was processed cheddar. The yield was 10 rather decent size meatballs, so I got 2 portions. They do really have great texture so give them a try if you wish to:)

Shakespeare And White Supremacy

 I remember when late Lawrence Auster used to call Britain the dead island and I always thought he exaggerated, but, of course, it was about 12 years ago:

 Several of the UK’s most respected TV shows, movies, and works of literature have been included in a list of works that could potentially encourage far-right sympathies, compiled by the taxpayer-funded and government-led ‘Prevent’ counter-terrorism program.

Reading Shakespeare will turn you extremist, possibly a new Hitler:

As The Daily Mail reports, works by some of the world’s greatest writers were included as examples of warning signs of potential extremism, including Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Tennyson, Orwell, Huxley, Kipling and Edmund Burke. 

Of course, many will be inclined to just shrug it off as one more example of government stupidity, but the things are much more serious than you think:

Prevent is a key part of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy as a means to safeguard against "vulnerable people being drawn into criminal behavior".

In practical terms, it places public bodies, including schools and the police, under a legal duty to identify people who may turn to extremism, and intervene in their lives before it is too late.

Tolkien, by the way, was also included:

The taxpayer-funded document included references to The Lord Of The Rings by JRR Tolkien...

Will the possession of LOTR put you on a terrorist watch list? In the country where they arrest folks for thoughts in their heads, who can tell? 

Fat And Ugly

 When George Orwell wrote his famous novel 1984, he meant it as a warning and not an instruction  manual:

 Roald Dahl’s children’s books are being rewritten to remove language deemed offensive by the publisher Puffin.

Among words deemed offensive are "ugly" and "fat" (why am I not surprised?), but also "female" and "men"

Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is now described as “enormous”. In The Twits, Mrs Twit is no longer “ugly and beastly” but just “beastly”...

 References to “female” characters have disappeared. Miss Trunchbull in Matilda, once a “most formidable female”, is now a “most formidable woman”.

Gender-neutral terms have been added in places – where Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Oompa Loompas were “small men”, they are now “small people”. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach have become Cloud-People.

I'm glad UK has obviously no other problems to deal with, like I don't know, the growing cost of living etc. I keep reading that they soon will turn into another India or Pakistan and at this point I'm like why should I even care? At least, these countries still know the difference between male and female and it's OK to be a man there. The British do it to themselves, too.

Don't Be That Woman

Happy Valentine's Day!

 

 And Happy Anniversary to my husband and me!!!

A Real Life Wonder Woman

 Johanna Quaas:

 

In the meanwhile she turned 97 and still going strong. Here is a Wiki article about her.

For those too lazy to bother, here is the summary. Johanna was born in 1925 in Saxony, which later became DDR. She did sports from her youth and later became a gymnastics coach. She married rather late (at about 37), and went on to have 3 daughters.She quit doing professional sports and spent the next 20 odd years raising a family and started competing again at the age of 56. She survived her husband despite him being younger. Johanna has children, grandchildren and  great-grandchildren and is very much involved in their life. She wants to inspire other seniors to lead an active lifestyle.

The Balloon Saga

 What's happening with all these balloons out there? Is it even a real story at this point? What do you think?

Matt Walsh And No Fault Divorce

My thoughts on the issue (and the comments below):

No fault divorce should be abolished. Adultery should be punished. USA has some crazy laws...

The West Is So Doomed

 Here is the tweet complaining about a recent Satanic performance and most answers are like, "Satan doesn't exist," and, "Relax, it's just entertainment."

Should We Blame Boomers For Everything?

Sometimes I do wonder why I keep visiting Gab. It's the home of all negativity in the right wing sphere and some folks are downright hateful, while others come across more as retarded. (Not everything is about Covid, the vaxx, or what rhymes with shoes). 

A favourite pastime for many is boomer-bashing. Now we have had this discussion on this blog before and while some concerns of the younger generations are valid, it's quite simplistic to single out Boomers as the sum of all evil. 

Boomers, at least, in my country lived in unique circumstances when there was high upward mobility, booming post-war economy, cheap credit and an opportunity to make a career without any significant credentials. They didn't create this situation but they did profit from it. That period was quite short, btw, it lasted like about a decade and then it gradually started changing.

Imo, it was hardly their fault but a lucky coincidence. The norm during most of the Western history was downward mobility, not otherwise. Society was very class conscious so that it was very difficult to get a decent job for someone from lower classes even when they had an education. When you read old books and watch old shows you learn that most people didn't own their house. Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, e.g. are renting in the first several seasons. 

Somehow I'm especially irritated by the complaints of those who state that previous generations had an easy comfortable life on one income while now the wife has to work. It's true that most married women didn't work but their life was very far from luxurious. No 2nd car (for many families here in Europe not even one car), no expensive vacations. There are discussions online about life in Britain in the 1950s and those families ate meat like once a week because it was expensive and the only milk their kids drank was from a school program.

My husband's grandparents raised 6 kids in a house which is now sold as one "for beginners", supposedly 1 or 2 people. They had to rent a washing machine to do their laundry. His other set of grandparents had a 2 bedroom house and their only 2 living kids (the others died from childhood diseases as there were no vaccines) shared one bedroom though they were a boy and a girl, all the way till they became adults and got married.

Nowadays folks buy a house with 7 bedrooms for a family of 4, go abroad to luxury hotels 3-4 times a year and then have the cheek to complain that the wife has to work. No sh8t, Sherlock! Oh yes, and their wives didn't have any study debts because they usually had no education and started working at 16. Middle class girls wouldn't work before marriage at all (class difference!) but usually married right after high school, too.

If Boomers are guilty of something then it is raising a generation of greedy entitled brats who value material wealth above all things. They did have MSM and government help with it though, so I'm not sure we could squarely blame them even for that. Thoughts?

 

Based Lady?

 

Found on Gab 

Faith without works is dead comes to mind, something which many Protestants quite conveniently forget...

Obesity Will Make You Brain Dead

 Put that fork down and go outside:

Being overweight in midlife has been linked to greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, and a new study shows that brain changes in obese people mirror some of those with Alzheimer’s.

Scientists at McGill University in Montreal analyzed brain scans of more than 1,300 people in the first research to directly compare the patterns of brain shrinkage in obese people and in Alzheimer’s patients.

The scans revealed similar brain thinning in regions involved in learning, memory and judgment in both groups, according to the report published Tuesday in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease...

The McGill researchers suspect that obese people, and possibly those who are overweight — a BMI of 25 to 25.9 — might be able to slow cognitive decline if they can get closer to a healthy weight.

It goes for both men and women, btw, though some men online try to present it as a uniquely female problem. While there are more women than men with severe obesity, there are more overweight men than women in the USA:

• The percentage of men who are overweight (34.1%) is higher than the percentage of women who are overweight (27.5%).
• The percentage of women who have severe obesity (11.5%) is higher than the percentage of men who have severe obesity (6.9%).
  

 And among white people, there are also more men than women who are obese:

 

 Men will say that while they are turned off by fat women, women don't really care as long as a man is "alpha" but let me tell you that most women like fit men just like most men prefer fit women. Also an alpha man wouldn't get obese, lol:) Now if she is a gold-digger and he is loaded...that's a different story!

Good News For Pro-Life Movement

 Mark Houck acquitted: 

A jury has reportedly acquitted Pennsylvania pro-life activist who was accused of allegedly pushing a Planned Parenthood escort during a clash outside an abortion clinic, Life News reported.

Mark Houck, 48, faced charges that he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal crime to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate and interfere with anyone because that person produces reproductive health care. He pleaded not guilty. 

 

The Point Of No Return

 The question is have we as a society reached it?

Is Narcissism Caused By Feminism?

 A serious question:

Maternal overvaluation was particularly correlated with grandiose narcissism. Paternal overvaluation, on the other hand, was associated with grandiose narcissism only when participants reported less caring, more lenient fathers. Greater caring from fathers accompanied by firmer limits appears to protect against the grandiosity-promoting influence of overvaluation from fathers.

Whereas paternal leniency was partially associated with grandiose narcissism, maternal leniency was associated with vulnerable narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism was also associated with maternal abuse and neglect.

Paternal abuse and neglect did not play a large role in this sample, beyond the protective effect of caring fathering in limiting grandiosity...

 

Another Denomination Bites The Dist?

 LCMS getting subverted:

 God has not given us a flowchart determining how we each should live. And so, every age of Christians will also have to use the wisdom God has given them to discern how best to follow His Word. Those who do this well will apply Scripture and sound doctrine to their lives and their culture. Those who do this poorly will instead apply their own lives and culture to Scripture and sound doctrine, baptizing that which should be under judgment.

Life Begins At 93?

The former US astronaut Buzz Aldrin has got married for the fourth time on his 93rd birthday.

Mr Aldrin was one of the pilots on the legendary Apollo 11 spaceflight in 1969, becoming one of the first two people to walk on the moon after the mission's commander, Neil Armstrong.

The former pilot said that he and new wife Anca Faur were as "excited as eloping teenagers"...

 "On my 93rd birthday and the day I will be honoured by Living Legends of Aviation I am pleased to announce that my long-time love Dr Anca Faur and I have tied the knot," he tweeted.

Dr Faur, 63, who has a PhD in chemical engineering, is the executive vice president of Mr Aldrin's company, Buzz Aldrin Ventures.

 I should say they both look younger than their age:

 It will be really funny if they announce she is expecting soon:)

The real question is though did he actually walk on the moon? As in did they land on the moon at all?

Sl*t Shaming Still Exists

 even in Europe:

 >Swiss OnlyFans star Melba Monti says that her choice of career makes it hard to live in a small town.

Melba, who lives in the southern Swiss town of Locarno, complains that everywhere she goes in her neighbourhood, people shout “Hey,OnlyFans!”

In some cases, she says, she is faced with “aggressive outbursts” as a result of her career choice. Melba says she rarely leaves her apartment because of the harassment she gets in the street.

Died Suddenly Trend

 I'm not sure in which degree recent Covid vaccines contribute to it (if at all), but here is a 2019 article about an increase in heart attacks among young adults:

 ...these events are steadily rising in very young adults. New data not only validate this trend but also reveal that more heart attacks are striking those under age 40...

The study, which is the first to compare young (41-50 years old) to very young (40 or younger) heart attack survivors, found that among patients who suffer a heart attack at a young age overall, 1 in 5 is 40 or younger. Moreover, during the 16-year study period (2000 to 2016), the proportion of very young people having a heart attack has been increasing, rising by 2 percent each year for the last 10 years.

"It used to be incredibly rare to see anyone under age 40 come in with a heart attack—and some of these people are now in their 20s and early 30s," said Ron Blankstein, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital, associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the study's senior author.  

Besides "traditional" risk factors such as diabetes and high cholesterol, younger patients also reported drug abuse:

However, the youngest patients were more likely to report substance abuse, including marijuana and cocaine (17.9 percent vs. 9.3 percent, respectively), but had less alcohol use.

So here you have it: smoking dope is not only degenerate, it will also give you a heart attack at the age of 25. While moderate alcohol use, on the other hand, does appear to be somewhat protective. Reject modernity, embrace tradition:) 

Why Conservatives Keep Losing

 It's easy to understand if you have followed a couple of internet/twitter discussions on  modern issues plaguing society.

Like today there was a discussion of Only Fans. People who claim to be conservative Catholics and freely admit that it damages society and promotes degeneracy, turn around a second later and state that it shouldn't be forbidden because muh government is bad stuff. Conservatism is the philosophy of failure at this point. Not only they haven't conserved anything, whenever they get some power, they refuse to use it.

A lot of what passes as conservatism nowadays has a libertarian background. They keep talking about free market as a solution to all of the society's problems. It doesn't work this way because market is not about morality, it's about trade. Morals of a society depend on laws, not on the market. When the laws guarding marriage became abolished or changed, the institution got considerably weakened. It's the same with other things as well.

Someone once said that conservatives love  Lord Of The Rings because it perfectly illustrates their own point of view that wielding power is immoral. Hence the good guys turn down the Ring of Power which in itself is pure evil. 

I tend to agree with that person. Christians should reject libertarian morality (do as thou will shall be the whole of the law) and whenever possible, strive for laws based on the Scriptures which would absolutely include prohibition/criminalisation of certain things the way it used to be in the past.

Punishment For Adultery

One of the things that Europeans and Westerners consider the most shocking about Muslim countries is the fact that they often punish adultery quite harshly, including death penalty. Somehow we are taught to think that it's misogyny and oppression of women even though men are punished, too. 

Few of modern Christians appear to be aware of the fact that the Scriptures agree with Islam on this matter:

Lev20:10

 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Notice how adultery is defined. Adultery is not a married man visiting prostitutes (that would be fornication), it's specifically a married woman lying with another man. 

Every culture on Earth used to have punishments for adultery including heathens like Greeks and Romans. At the very least it was divorce, in some cases the law allowed the husband/father to kill the lovers. 

Early Christian Church allowed civil punishments for adultery, as witnessed by early English law, for instance:

Clause 31, for example, reads "if a freeman lies with [another] free-man's wife, he shall pay [the husband] his wergeld and procure a second wife with his own money, and bring her to the other man's home".^[3]: 206 The ninth-century Laws of Alfred of Wessex include similar provisions, including an explicit statement that it was legal for one man to attack another "if he finds another with his wedded wife, behind closed doors or under the same blanket; or [if he finds another man] with his legitimate daughter (or with his legitimate married sister); or with his mother, if she has been legally married to his father".^[3]: 208

 ^{It also included the mutilation of adulterous women:}

^{...the code specified fines in the case of an adulterous husband, or religious penance in cases viewed as minor (adultery with a slave), but also prescribed corporal mutilation for female adulterers—cutting off their nose and ears—as well as the forfeiture of all the woman's property to her husband.}

^{Later, however, it changed as the prosecution for adultery shifted from secular authorities to the Church and common law which was established around 12th century didn't see adultery as a crime. And here, I believe something very important happened in Christian West. Adultery, a crime so heinous that the Bible calls for death penalty for it, essentially became legalised. Men, in some cases, still could kill the guy who seduced the wife, but women were simply let off.} 

^{Predictably, that led to the lower morals overall, and it was, I believe, one of the reasons for Reformation. Here is What J. Calvin wrote on the matter:}

^{11. Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery...}

^{Yet the Popish theology is, that in this passage Christ has brought to us the Law of grace, by which adulterers are freed from punishment. And though they endeavor, by every method, to efface from the minds of men the grace of God, such grace as is every where declared to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, yet in this passage alone they preach aloud the Law of grace... But let us remember that, while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order, or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws.} 

^{I should add that Catholic Church strictly forbade divorce and annulment was practically impossible to get in that period so that the cuckolded husband had to basically s**k it up and accept any bastard into the family. Eastern Orthodox churches, on the other hand, always allowed divorce as a punishment for adultery and guilty party was prohibited from remarriage. That became the case in Protestant countries though harsher punishments sometimes were used:}

Adultery was outlawed in secular statute law briefly under the Commonwealth of England in the 1650s. Following a long series of attempts to legislate against adultery in Parliament which failed to win the vote, the Rump Parliament passed the Commonwealth (Adultery) Act in May 1650, inter alia imposing the death penalty for adultery, that was defined as sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Both partners would be liable for death sentence in such case. If a man (married or unmarried) had sex with an unmarried woman (including widow), that would be fornication, punishable only by three months for first offenders (applicable to both partners).

 Funny enough, after Restoration the 1st thing which happened was the legalisation of adultery yet again. Somehow, European aristocracy really enjoyed sharing each other's wives:

  However, like all legislation passed by the Commonwealth, the act was repealed following the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660.^{[6][5]: 205 [3]}: 225

 Yet, the legacy of that period was such that it became possible to sue adulterers in a civil court:

A more lasting change during the early modern period was that it became possible to prosecute for adultery in English common law due to developments in the common-law concept of loss of consortium, which made it possible for a cuckold to bring a civil case against an adulterer under tort law.^{[3]: 216–21} 'Consortium' in this context means "(the right of) association and fellowship between two married people";^[7] 'loss of consortium' was an act that deprived one spouse (initially only the husband) of the services which the other spouse was expected to provide. In the 1619 case Guy v. Livesey, it is clear that precedent had been established by that time that exclusive access to sexual services was considered to fall within the concept of 'consortium', and that an adulterer might therefore be prosecuted for depriving a cuckold of exclusive access to the sexual services of his wife.

Law did expect married women to put out at that time. Predictably, it was finally abolished in 1970 when feminism won a decisive victory. 

In the USA, originally, adultery was a crime but the laws started changing in modern times. Even when those laws still exist they aren't used. In some situations in the past, the husband was basically allowed to kill an unfaithful wife and her lover caught in the act with little or no punishment and here I should add that it did often happen in predominantly Catholic countries so even though the Church was rather lenient the society wasn't:

Killing of wives due to adultery has been traditionally treated very leniently in Brazil, in court cases where husbands claimed the "legitimate defense of their honor" (legitima defesa da honra) as justification for the killing. Although this defense was not explicitly stipulated in the 20th-century Criminal Code, it has been successfully pleaded by lawyers throughout the 20th century, in particular in the countryside, though less so in the coastal big cities. In 1991 Brazil's Supreme Court explicitly rejected the "honor defense" as having no basis in Brazilian law.^[31][32][33]

^{And France:}

^{Prior to 1975, the French Penal Code of 1810 stated at article 324 that "in the case of adultery, provide for by article 336, murder committed upon the wife as well as upon her accomplice, at the moment when the husband shall have caught them in the fact, in the house where the husband and wife dwell, is excusable [meaning a punishment of 1 to 5 years, according to article 326].[37] In practice, however, many domestic violence crimes resulted in acquittal by the juries...}

 ^{In my opinion, there should be a punishment for adultery, though not necessarily by death. If you read the Wiki link above, you'll notice how feminist organisations specifically decry any law which seeks to restrict (female) sexual activity as "misogynist".}

^{Actually, I'll go further and say that the fact that the civil authorities in the late medieval period refused to prosecute adultery and were supported in it by the Catholic Church (probably under pressure from the elites of these times) has contributed to the widespread acceptance of feminist doctrine in the West.}

  

Are 30 Year Old Women Attractive?

 Or rather, are they attractive enough for some man out there to marry? 

It is an undeniable fact of life that men like younger women. Whether a man is 25 or 75, he'll like a girl of 18. 18 to 21 is physical prime for women just like 30 to 35 is the prime for men. There could be exceptions, but it's just (biological) reality. 

It's also true that feminists actively try to deny it and encourage younger women to pursue education, careers and traveling well into their mid30s and even later. On the other hand, there are male internet gurus who correctly criticise this trend as based on a lie but then turn around and promote another pretty lie, namely that older men have a chance with young girls. 

In reality, young women prefer young men. Realistically speaking, an average guy of 50 has zero chance with a girl of 18 or 20, unless he is wealthy, very high status etc. There are exceptions to this rule, but still. Heck, when I was 18 even guys at 30 seemed like old men to me. They were adults, I was still a teenager. 

This holds true even for countries with arranged marriages:

 Muslims have the widest spousal age gap (6.6 years between men and their wives or partners), followed by Hindus (5.6 years), Christians (3.8), Buddhists (2.9), the religiously unaffiliated (2.3) and Jews (2.1).

 Notice that this "widest gap" is 6.6 years, not 30. 

Sub-Saharan Africa has even bigger age gaps:

Large age gaps are especially common in sub-Saharan Africa, including in Gambia (14.5 years between men and their wives or partners), Guinea (13.5) and Mali (12.9).

Still not 30 or even 20 years though. 

A man in his early 40s will probably find a girl of 19 much more attractive than a woman of 30, but does he realistically have any chance? Attractiveness is relative. Both men and women should ditch unrealistic expectations and get down to earth. Neither s8x should wait too long to settle down. 

(Of course, it will be different for the divorced folks and widowers/widows). 

Oh yes, and a woman at 30 is usually plenty fertile still. There is a reason an average menopause age is 51, not 31.

Thoughts?

The Way We Live Now

 Some time ago I read advice online to serve holiday meals on disposable plates to save time on washing the dishes. Some people even claimed that everyone is doing it nowadays. Personally I have never encountered it outside some big birthday parties, so I thought it an exaggeration but then I watched a YouTube video where somebody served Christmas dinner on disposable plastic plates.

I mean whatever. Is anyone really doing it? I always use my best china for this occasion. What about you? 

Are Vegans Healthy?

 Let's find out!

There has been an interesting study done by the University of Loma Linda which is called Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Adventist Health Study 2

The researchers divided all the participants into 5 categories: omnivores and 4 groups of vegetarians, namely semi-vegetarians, pescatarians, lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans and then followed them up for 5+ years (you can read the details if you click on the link above).

Omnivores were used as a control case with their mortality at 1 and compared with the other 4 groups. An interesting pattern emerged. Among men, vegans appeared to be in the least danger of dying prematurely:

 

All-Cause	Ischemic Heart Disease	Cardiovascular Disease	Cancer	Other

Men (n = 25 105), No. of deathsa	1031	169	390	273	368
Vegetarian
Vegan	0.72 (0.56–0.92)	0.45 (0.21–0.94)	0.58 (0.38–0.89)	0.81 (0.48–1.36)	0.81 (0.53–1.22)
Lacto-ovo	0.86 (0.74–1.01)	0.76 (0.52–1.12)	0.77 (0.59–0.99)	1.01 (0.75–1.37)	0.89 (0.69–1.15)
Pesco	0.73 (0.57–0.93)	0.77 (0.45–1.30)	0.66 (0.44–0.98)	1.10 (0.73–1.67)	0.60 (0.39–0.93)
Semi	0.93 (0.68–1.26)	0.73 (0.33–1.60)	0.75 (0.43–1.32)	1.15 (0.65–2.03)	1.03 (0.62–1.71)
Nonvegetarian	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]

As you can see, vegan mortality is in some cases as low as the half of that of omnivores, and that is especially the case for Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD). Pescatarians are in the 2nd place. That basically corresponds to what the doctors who are proponents of veganism are saying in their YouTube videos (Dr. Esselstyn, anyone?) And also with some testimonies I read online of men who swear by this lifestyle. 

However, when we look at women, the situation is completely different:

 

All-Cause	Ischemic Heart Disease	Cardiovascular Disease	Cancer	Other

Women (n = 48 203), No. of deathsa,c	1529	203	597	433	499
Vegetarian
Vegan	0.97 (0.78–1.20)	1.39 (0.87–2.24)	1.18 (0.88–1.60)	0.99 (0.69–1.44)	0.70 (0.47–1.05)
Lacto-ovo	0.94 (0.83–1.07)	0.85 (0.59–1.22)	0.99 (0.81–1.22)	0.85 (0.67–1.09)	0.93 (0.75–1.17)
Pesco	0.88 (0.72–1.07)	0.51 (0.26–0.99)	0.90 (0.66–1.23)	0.86 (0.61–1.21)	0.81 (0.58–1.15)
Semi	0.92 (0.70–1.22)	1.09 (0.60–1.98)	0.93 (0.64–1.34)	0.85 (0.56–1.30)	0.97 (0.64–1.47)
Nonvegetarian	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]	1 [Reference]

Women not only don't have any advantages from the vegan diet, their heart disease mortality rates (both from IHD and CVD) are in some cases double that of omnivores. How comes?

Here is my theory. As we all probably know, women are protected from heart disease as long as they menstruate (especially if they aren't using hormonal birth control, but that's another topic). There is also research that demonstrates that vegetarian and especially vegan females go into menopause earlier and there are enough ex-vegan women telling all sorts of horror stories about the problems with their cycles which caused them to quit. 

On the other hand, there is also research which says that red meat and refined carbs are associated with earlier menopause while oily fish and legumes delay it. 

(...every additional daily portion of oily fish and legumes was linked to a delay in menopause of roughly three years...)

When we go back to our table above, we see that female pescatarians have the IHD mortality the half of omnivores. So it appears that my theory has some basis behind it. 

So are vegans healthy? It depends on whether they are male or female. Apparently, men and women have different needs. While men benefit from low-fat diets, women need fat to stay fertile (and healthy) longer:

(The study team noted that the high-fiber/low-animal fat content in vegetarian meals has previously been linked to low estrogen levels.)

An ironic thing is that there are many more female than male vegans. Well, you can read these studies yourself and draw your own conclusions:)  

Epiphany/Three Kings

 Time to take your Christmas tree down! You can leave other decorations till Candlemas though, that is what I'm planning to do. 

P.S. I should add that there is some discussion about the proper date as some say you should take the tree down on the Epiphany Eve (that would be yesterday) or the day after (tomorrow). I think I'll stick with today as I can vacuum right after:) Don't really feel like cleaning at the weekend.

What's Going On In US Congress Exactly?

 What's up guys???

A group of nearly 50 conservative heavyweights co-signed a statement Wednesday calling to "change the status quo in Washington," and applauded the 20 members of Congress who Wednesday voted against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, sinking his bid for House speaker after six rounds of votes.

High-Profile Homemakers

 Paris Fury

She has 6 children, too! 

 

Plus, they both married young, she didn't pursue college education, and they stayed chaste until marriage. She also supported her husband through depression and hid her miscarriage from him when he was preparing for an important fight. Pretty traditional for modern times, don't you think so?

New Blog Rules

 I have decided to allow anonymous comments again, as an experiment. However, I will forbid it if things really get out of hand.

Happy New Year Everyone!!!

 We just came home and I'm rather tired. I'll post more tomorrow or so.

Happy New Year to all of my readers! There will be some changes to the blog, I'll announce them later this week. 

Greetings and best wishes everyone!