You're welcome.       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING -- Even if One Must Scream Fire, Anti-Semitism or Rape

Anthropologists tell us that for 195,000 years both males and females have been, not only promiscuous, but hypersexual. Given this, "sex in the workplace" isn't going anywhere in the near future. And this is especially true to the degree most of society's executive positions are dominated by males.

Given this sad, but predictable, state of affairs maybe it's time for the sexes to negotiate a new deal. First some background.

Women across the planet spend $380 billion a year on make-up and beauty products to attract men. Given the male's propensity to be promiscuous and hypersexual, does this not amount to a predatory behavior. Tight pants, black dresses and bleached blond hair all add to the effect. And if a woman's objective is marriage (a long-term financial arrangement) or employment (a medium-term financial arrangement) or prostitution (a short-term financial arrangement) is this predatory behavior not verging on a sort of "soft-rape?" After all is the man really able to "consent" when two billion years of evolution have designed him to "submit?"

But to hell with the anthropologists and the nature of homo sapiens, today's society knows better. The female can do whatever she wants. Slap, hit, kick, shoot or !@#$ any man she wants to. The Hollywood movies make it so. Anything is okay if a woman does it. Hollywood and its spawn of women's libbers promote anything that could be considered the "soft-rape" of men. All manner of seductive images, promises and sexual restimulation are kosher.
But if a man should respond to a half-naked woman with a pound of make up -- or lose control as in the case of a Harvey Weinstein -- it's considered harassment, inappropriate behavior or rape.

As improper as rape is, it could be argued that rape was the norm for 195,000 years of homo sapien's evolution. The Latin word "raptus" has only existed since the 14th Century, so the concept of rape is relatively new. Women were expected to have sex with men whenever they wanted it. No consent from the woman needed. And the woman didn't resist because she knew that sex was necessary to populate the tribe, if not the world. In fact, if a woman didn't consent to sex, the tribe judged her morally deficit. Also for 195,000 years of men and women's existence, sex was used as much for bonding as for reproduction. This is why they rarely had wars. So it's easy to see how the concept of "rape" -- sex without consent of the female -- made no sense to both men and women for 195,000 years.

Now today, on the drop of a dime, males are expected to undo almost two hundred thousand years of DNA-imposed conditioning. Not only does a male need consent from a woman before having sex, the woman can send the man to jail if he doesn't get consent.

So what we are really talking about in this shift from a non consent-based society to a consent-based society is a power change. Sex can only happen when there is "consent." In a world with 7 billion people rather than 3 million people, sex is not a necessity, it's a limited duty and a luxury.

It's limited duty in that we all are responsible for at least maintaining the population, but beyond that sex is just a luxury, a type of recreation. Sex is thus no different than a game of tennis. If a male or a female wants to play, they have to get consent with the other party. You can bat the ball into the opposite court all you want, but if no one serves it back, there is no game. Same with sex, a man can ask a woman for sex, overtly or covertly, and she either says yes or no. The problem occurs when she says maybe. Maybe opens up a negotiation. Maybe is a contingency. Maybe is a potential political weapon and maybe opens the door to rape.

What's interesting in today's society is how the concept of rape has been broadened. In today's radical feminist society, "rape" has been re-interpreted to mean, not only "forced sexual intercourse," but "sexual assault," "coercion," "abuse of authority," "lack of consent," "inability to give consent," "sexual slavery," trafficking," "child abuse," "harassment," "stalking" and even "genocide." In short if a woman yells "rape" it means much more than "fire." It means "maybe" is in position to be converted into a political weapon.
Like the word "anti-Semitic," a woman yelling "maybe" -- and then yelling "rape" when she didn't get what she wants -- is in a powerful position to discredit or destroy a male in power. She's in a strong position because most of the board members of the company have similar crimes and are thus motivated to quickly dispose of any controversial male so THEY will look good. Given the expanded definition of the word rape, a woman can thus invoke all manner of suppressive or career-implementing charges against any male victim. She can wrap a terrified board of directors around her little pinky until they chop the head off and eat any of their own.

Feminists who thus can't break the "glass ceiling" with hard work, merit or $380 billion worth of make up -- can break it with the accusation of "rape" and all the word connotes.

This tactic has long been used by the Hollywood Jews to dominate the top positions of the MPAA studio/distributors. Any competition or critic who is deemed anti-Semitic is immediately discredited and neutralized. Any male execs that can be discredited by the accusation of "rape" or "sexual abuser" surely open positions at the top. Look at all the males that are now gone from the #metoo movement.

The "control group" that has been running Hollywood for over a century uses these techniques to obtain and maintain power. Women are learning fast. Ironically it's the control group that sponsors radical women's lib and its spawn, a social engineering technology from the Frankfurt School known as "cultural Marxism" and the substudy of "androgyny." These are the masters of what can be called the "anti-Semitic sword" and "political rape."

That said, please differentiate: this author is NOT accusing all Jews or all women of being opportunistic or disingenuous. The vast number of Jews and women are decent people, just trying to get along and live their lives in an ethical and productive manner. YOU are not the target of this article.

The target of this article is women who use "political rape" to further a selfish cause or the cause of cultural Marxism. These are women who scream "maybe" then "rape" after practicing "soft-rape" on their competitors. Women who doll themselves up and then aggressively go after men in power, fully knowing that they are attempting to sexually restimulate and thus garner some sort of lucrative advantage.

Some may think this is an unreasonable assault on women. Well answer this question: why is it that no woman who has ever become a movie star has ever admitted that she slept with a producer in order to get or facilitate the position?

It's only women who never became stars that scream rape. This shows that it's not a moral issue, it's a business decision. And stars that DO scream rape after becoming stars only scream rape because they are afraid they will be found out for being sexual opportunists, or at the very least, hypocrites.

What this boils down to is the moral values of both men and women are on trial. And thus a new deal is necessary.

The moral values are on trial especially when one considers the false reality society, the state and the church have been perpetuating: that men and women are not only promiscuous, they are hypersexual.

This means any female actress will most likely sleep with any male producer to get a significant part, especially if they feel they can hide it from society. Sex to men and women is trivial but abundant. Superstardom is precious but rare. Given this, all manner of complex politics are played out against the moral canvas of society and strategically played events of "maybe."

Ultimately the drama we now see playing out between men and women is caused by the collusion of the church and the state in order to maintain power over their subjects. By vilifying the human propensities and desires for sex, the church and the state can use the most powerful impulses of homo sapiens to control and govern them. By creating or promoting an entire vocabulary that vilifies human desire while glorifying war and mystery, the church and the state encourage men and women to play by their "rules" and pay their taxes.

And the rules are designed for one thing, to perpetuate the collective of the church and state and compromise the freedoms and experiences of the individual. In this case it's individual men and woman who are in conflict with each other, yet they know not why.

If men and women acknowledged their real natures, and stopped vilifying nature's most natural drug, there would be no rape or harassment and conflict would whither away. But then what would be the need for a church and a state? So don't count on it any day soon.

Originated: 28 May 2018
5/28/2018, 6:38 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
greendocnowciv Profile
Live feed
Miscellaneous info

Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING -- Even if One Must Scream Fire, Anti-Semitism or Rape

To paraphrase Harlan Ellison:

"I have no Privilege Score, but I must scream."
6/7/2018, 8:09 am Link to this post PM greendocnowciv Blog

Add a reply

You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top