Thursday, September 14, 2017


So, our Masters in Government have taken the silk gloves off to reveal the knuckle-dusters beneath.  Say anything about same sex marriage that might upset some snowflake or worse some lefty loony that wants to trip on a kerbstone and claim she was run over by a rabid Christian driving full speed into a crowd of peaceful 'yes' voters passing by a Church, and the Police, with guns on hips and tasers at hand will come along with more than an enquiring 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello'.

Ahead of the 'postal vote' that is currently engaging the nation, we have some new, improved, all-singing, all-dancing legislation framed in such a manner as to entrap the unwary and intimidate the wary. You can catch up with it here >>>>
Free speech and vilification in the marriage law postal survey

Being as the Gummunt from Prime Minister down has already declared which side it favours, it is not hard to see which side the law will be aimed at. The offensive, screetching, in ya face lies and calumnies of the pro pervert mob will be seen as a justifiable reaction to those awful folk who clearly must be just pretending to be nice, rational, concerned  Christian parents. 

They are really Fascists !!, innit?

We are all used to various means of intimidation, from the playground tough-kid and sneaky kidette through the company 'manageress' who can have you fired for a 'look', right up to the Uniformed arms of the PTB. In between we have the media who can sometimes be more subtle but often let slip the mask. They 'persuade', selectively reporting and opining. The leftist media can be quite vicious.

Heck, who am I to deride. I am not above a bit of judicious intimidation m'self. If a customer is misbehaving and about to soil my carpets, I take my sword from beneath the counter and place it in clear sight on the bar top. It is a warning!

Being as customers here come with all shades of opinion and background I remind some that I have a motto elsewhere that says, 

"If you meet a feminist on the road, offer kindness, 
but keep your hand on your sword".

That goes, increasingly, for more than just feminists. There are many misguided folk out there, poor sods, who need pity and kindness, and a pint of Good Ale direct from my Supplier, but are nevertheless dangerous.

But our circles of friends and colleagues, widening by the day to include people we communicate with in other nations and are most unlikely to ever meet in the flesh, provide subtle and not - so - subtle pressures to 'conform' too. 

A man is known by the company he keeps.

We are wiseing up though.  We shall not be made timid. Several people joined the conversation in the Tavern with different perspectives. 

Elizabeth Ames kicked it off, and she was joined by an old friend whose face I had not seen around for a while: KellyMac. Lizzy pointed out that even some on the left are getting tired of all the thuggery they are called upon to provide, while Kelly gave an object lesson in the swinging, floating loony leftists whose mind is up for grabs.
Liberals sick of the alt-left are taking 'the red pill'
The mainstream media failed to see the rise of Donald Trump in 2016. Now it’s overlooking another grassroots movement that may soon be of equal significance— the growing number of liberals “taking the red pill.”   
People of all ages and ethnicities are posting YouTube videos describing “red pill moments”—personal awakenings that have caused them to reject leftist narratives imbibed since childhood from friends, teachers, and the news and entertainment media.
You might say that those who take the red pill have been “triggered.” But instead of seeking out “safe spaces,” they’re doing the opposite, posting monologues throwing off the shackles of political correctness.
Their videos can feature the kind of subversiveness that was once a hallmark of the left—before the movement lost its sense of humor.
Candace Owens, a charismatic young African American, posts commentaries on her YouTube channel whose titles seem expressly designed to make PC heads explode.  
A sample: “I Don't Care About Charlottesville, the KKK, or White Supremacy.” The commentary calls out liberal fearmongering over white supremacists. “I mean there are, what, 6,000 Klansmen left in our nation. You want me to actually process that as a legitimate fear every day when I wake up?” 
Not insignificantly, her video got nearly 500,000 views and overwhelmingly enthusiastic comments. (“you rock, girl!” “this woman is awesome.”)
A later episode about Black Lives Matter got nearly 700,000 views and had the distinction of being briefly taken down by YouTube. Unapologetic, Owens responded with a follow-up commentary — “What YouTube and Facebook REALLY Think of Black People.”
She declared, “There was only one version of a black person that these platforms are willing to help propel towards fame and notoriety—and that is an angry black victim.”  Owens calls her channel “Red Pill Black.” It invites viewers: 
“Sick of the alt-left. Welcome, I prescribe red pills.”
The term “taking the red pill” derives from the movie "The Matrix," the trippy sci-fi classic. Morpheus, the resistance leader played by Laurence Fishburne offers Neo, the movie’s hero played by Keanu Reeves, a choice: He can take the blue pill and remain in the repressive artificial world known as the Matrix where “you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.” Or he can take the red pill and tumble down the “rabbit hole” where he will come to realize that everything about his life was a lie.
The left’s intensifying war on free speech has produced a surge of red pill videos. Some take Owens’ in-your-face approach. Others are meandering, hipster confessionals delivered with the wordy earnestness of characters in a Duplass brothers movie.
In his YouTube Channel, Dissent Report, a young, one-time “Bernie Sanders supporting progressive Democrat” admits from behind large sunglasses that he’s made “a pretty hard turn to the right.”
He took the red pill after seeing friends “moving …towards an authoritarian sort of Progressivism.”  He explains, 
They were just standing up for a divisive brand of politics that would tolerate no dissent whatsoever.”
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media has largely dismissed the red pill phenomenon. Coverage has mainly stressed the connection to men’s rights activists —the Red Pill forum on Reddit and the documentary, “The Red Pill,” are both about men’s rights. This narrow focus, however, misses the larger story.
Those who have been “red pilled” may start out questioning feminism. But that’s often just the beginning.
A red pill blogger who calls himself “Pat Riarchy” (“also known as the patriarchy”) recalls that his journey down the rabbit hole began when a Facebook friend derisively called him a “cis male.” He came to recognize that, “it's been one narrative pretty much.”  He concluded, “I have my own objective view…I didn't want a bigger government. I realized I didn't like the universal healthcare plan…I realized I didn't really have an issue with guns.” Several books and discussions later, he emerged as a libertarian.
Red pill bloggers are increasingly characterizing PC culture as a first step on a slippery slope towards authoritarian socialism.
One who articulates this best is Dave Rubin, a married gay man and former left liberal whose show, The Rubin Report, has explored the red pill phenomenon.
In his commentary, “The left is no longer liberal”, he explained his own disillusionment with the “regressive left,” whose “backward ideology” of identity politics “puts the collective ahead of the individual. It loves all of its minority groups to behave as a monolith.
In Oz, the Left was once 'liberal' but now the Liberals are more left than right. 
So if you're a true individual—meaning you don't subscribe to the ideas that the groupthink has attributed to you based on those immutable characteristics—you must be cast out.”  Rubin calls this mindset “the biggest threat to freedom and Western civilization that exists today.”
One of his recent guests was Cassie Jaye, producer of the The Red Pill” documentary, which chronicled her personal journey away from feminism.
Jaye had intended to make a feminist film about the men’s rights movement. But her perspective began to change upon interviewing activists, who were anything but the angry women-bashers so often portrayed by the mainstream media. Instead they were men—and also women—concerned about issues such as unfair child custody laws, pregnancy fraud, and even domestic violence.  It turned out that men are also victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by women with surprising frequency.
Jaye’s film met with immediate resistance from radical feminists, who trolled her online while she was fundraising for the film. Her documentary has been largely ignored by most of the mainstream media. But it has had widespread impact on the Internet.
Laci Green, one of YouTube’s best known personalities whose left-leaning videos about sex and gender have an immense following, posted “Taking The Red Pill?”
Green’s relatively tame confession of discomfort with feminists who shut down opposing views, as well as the revelation that she was dating an anti-SJW YouTuber, enraged her fans. They waged an online campaign against her and reportedly “doxxed” her — published her personal information on the internet.
Many who proclaim themselves “red pilled” express a yearning for traditional values. “Pat Riarchy” wants to see a return to an era where comedians can “attack everyone,” not just Trump. 
“PC culture is going down,” 
he says. “A lot of people want this to stop.” Kirsten Lauryn, a 20-something hipster sitting amidst empty church pews, worries that,  “A lot of our society has drawn away from religion as an important way of instilling values.” She observes, “The pendulum is swinging back to a more traditional lifestyle. I see this with my generation Generation Z.”
The media has very likely ignored red pilling for the same reason it underestimated support for Donald Trump: An entrenched establishment always resists disrupters, especially those who reject its worldview.
That said, red pill bloggers are not necessarily Trump supporters—in many cases, quite the reverse. What they do share, however, is their questioning of mainstream media tropes.  
Not all their videos would pass muster with Reagan conservatives or even libertarians. But, taken together, they give hope to those worried about the future of capitalism and free speech in America.
It is easy to dismiss 'echo chambers', especially in the 'social media'. They reinforce attitudes, without a doubt, but going from one to another can cause problems too. Taking a Red Pill still needs people around who can pick you up when you slide. And that cuts both ways.

KellyMac had bumped into some strange folk on social media too. She told us: 
I believe feminism accepts no opposing viewpoints, and relies on brainwashing to recruit their soldiers. 

They need as many recruits as possible to “fight the good fight”, or the movement will die out. More and more people are waking up and walking away from the feminist horde. 

I don't know what it will look like, but I hope the movement dies out, or at least is relegated to the paranoid fringe of society. 

I believe it will, but I just hope it will happen in time for me to see it.
For the time being, though, it's frighteningly easy to win people to their (feminism's) “side”. 
They are masters of manipulation. 
They find people who want to be accepted, and then play on those feelings to entice them to the "right side". If you believe, think, and speak correctly, you're in!
Case in point: I came across this essay by one John McDermott, sociologist, staff writer for MEL.
 I Was a Men’s Rights Activist
One man’s journey from misogyny to feminism
 I've never heard of that website, but it appears to be very anti-man. The gist of the article is that Mr. McDermott started out as a feminist and then, while he was working at a local bookstore to try to earn some tuition money, he ran across a copy of Spreading Misandry, by Paul Nathanson and Catherine Young. 
This is when he changed his way of thinking about the world and became MRA:

“I bought it hook, line and sinker. I was studying political science at the time, so I had never thought about social processes like misogyny and sexism. It was revelatory. The book talked about how pop culture demonized straight, white men because they’re the only demographic left that it’s acceptable to make fun of.
“The chapter that stood out the most was about how men are portrayed as these bumbling oafs on television, especially sitcoms. Their wives, meanwhile, are these enlightened women who have to endure their idiot husbands. Pop culture conveyed men as court jesters, the fools. The women were the empowered ones, the voices of reason. Home Improvement, with Tim Allen speaking in grunts, was the primary example.”
He started bringing up some the points the book was making to his co-workers in the bookstore, and in class. 
In response, he was met with “stern silence”
He talks about how confused he was in that period of his life. He was getting all these mixed messages and didn't know where he stood on any of it. He talks about how he “was especially susceptible to something like men's rights”. 
He goes into a lot more detail about the process of “taking the blinders off”, so to speak, but this kind of summarizes it:
“Men are socialized to be stoic, rational beings. The only emotions we’re allowed are anger and joy, and in a precious few instances, we’re allowed to cry — like if our sports team loses. As an MRA, I always believed it was women and feminism putting men in this box. But these feminist texts (Masculinities and The Men and the Boys by Raewyn Connell )not only validated the crisis of masculinity, they pointed out men are the biggest policers of masculinity. Men beat each other down for being “girly,” for liking sewing or baking, for crying. For being “faggots.” “You gotta man up.” “You can’t be a pussy, right?”
MRAs and feminists were acknowledging the same problems, but the MRAs weren’t locating the right cause. The feminists pointed out, “No, actually this is rooted in the same patriarchal institutions that are harming women.” It was subtle but profound.”
In other words, men are their own worst enemies in the patriarchy. The path back to feminism was subtle, but effective: 
“My transformation didn’t happen overnight, though. There wasn’t really an “Aha!” moment, but more of a progression. I had to deconstruct all the MRA beliefs I had internalized. My classmates shuddered every time I opened my mouth. I would write these pro-men’s rights arguments that I thought made sense, but my instructors would say, “This is a tautology.””
I had to look up tautology. Here is the definition from 
1. needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman”.
2. An instance of such repetition.
3. Logic.
1. A compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A”.
2. an instance of such a form, at “This candidate will win or will not win.”
I'm not sure exactly what they meant, but my interpretation is that MRA arguments are repetitive, and feminists are tired of hearing them. After all, feminism is about men's rights. Just toe the line, McDermott.
Slowly, slowly, his eyes were opened and he was rescued from that whiny, entitled, MRA stuff by feminism. 
Whew! That was a close one! 
He's now a sociology PH.D candidate at the University of Victoria, or, at least he was as of April 2016. 
To get back to the “Home Improvement” analogy:
“Looking back, I realize Home Improvement was actually reproducing 1950s gender dynamics. It was about a ridiculously successful man who had his own TV show, was his own boss and took over the entire garage so he could spend all his free time fixing up old cars. His wife, however, was relegated to the domestic sphere, and even though she had a job, it was always incidental to her role as a mother and wife.”
It's the poor wife who holds everything together. After all, that was her job. We couldn't expect a MAN to do it, could we? He was too busy running the patriarchy and keeping women oppressed. She could have a job and reach for her dreams or whatever, but all of those things came behind her primary purpose – to provide a clean house and a home-cooked meal for her family. 

He  eventually looked at the men's rights movement as a kind of cult, and he was a prime recruit. 

To let Mr. McDermott tell it:
“Later, I discovered I suffer from clinical depression. There’s lot of literature on how socially extremist groups — such as men’s rights or white supremacy — exploit young men whose lives are in turmoil, their beliefs in conflict. Spreading Misandry was a recruitment piece and I was an easy target.”
His closing paragraphs nicely summarize his conclusions:
”Every time I look back at the men’s rights movement, all I see is negativity, rage, hate, bitterness and fear. But I don’t feel ashamed of my time in it. I don’t even know that I regret it, because without it, I might not have ended up where I am now. It turned me on to the study of men, and eventually to feminism.
I’ve been dating the same woman since 2004, and, oh god, I must’ve gotten on her nerves back then.”
There we have it. He's come full circle and is now safely back in his role of defying the patriarchy, and defending those poor females who are its victims. And he's even apologetic about what he's put his long-suffering, patient girlfriend through. 
Feminism is efficient in its manipulation. 
They are experts at finding the chink in your armor and prying it open, until you see everything through their distorted blinders, even the very arguments that support the legitimacy of the men's rights movement. 
It's subtle, they way they go about it, but that's why it's so successful.
Yep, he nearly escaped but the tentacles of his peers dragged him back into his proper pod. He didn't have the skill or knowledge. He was unable to resist the pressures from his peers.  Still, he was studying sociology, poor sod.

Such folk are easy to intimidate. A glass of Margaret Mead and they are anybody's.

It behoves us to examine the 'isshooos' and weigh the arguements. It is well to look at history and tradition, at cultures and failures of cultures. It is also a very good idea to look at the people who hold particular views.

'Tis often the case that what is on the outside reflects what is on the inside. 

Drink up. Look at the bottom of the tankard.

Get a refil.



  1. The behaviour of the pro-Sodomites is quite believable - look at their Antifa as well - and one can only hope it's counterproductive.

    1. Counterproductive or not, a resounding 'NO' or not, the gummunt is pulling a fast one. There is no legislation shown and plenty of opportunity for chicanery which reduces freedom of expression. Not only are they sliding in a punitive measure before the vote has even begun, but it sets a precedent. It is a downward slope we are on.

  2. This site was... how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I've found something which helped me.

    Appreciate it!


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..