Ramble 10/9

Women killing their own children and drugging their boys while fighting with men and so on could be said to be a "war."  But there is no war on Western women.  Politicians ineptly trying to say that they shouldn't kill their babies or the "infant"ry that an equally trendy Right wants to send to war later?? 

That's not a war.  It's a political game.   

A war, is war. 

Seriously.  The only equality there seems to be in a mirage made in hell or a nation based on divorce, is the fact that men and women are tending toward equally murderous attitudes with respect to the least of these. (Whether around the world or in their own womb.)   But they frame it as something heroic, whether it's incorporating abortion in "civil rights" or supposedly bringing freedumb (aka a proxy government of nation destroyers) to weaker nations in the world by bombing their infrastructure.  If the Right is not full of heroes saving the world by bringing it "freedom and democracy," then what is it full of?  If the Left is actually not engaged in a grand struggle for "civil rights" to help the poor, then what is it usually actually engaged in? 

Call me a cynic.  But it seems like the Right is full of mercenaries serving an oligarchy (evolving into the military wing of a global government of international interests and Oligarchs Inc.)that does not even pay them very well.  Supposedly they cannot even get enough ponzi from bankers to keep their open air war memorials open.  After all, "You didn't build that."  And, most likely: "You didn't die for that."  But bankers, globalists and foreigners need to be bailed out or you need to go to war for them.  Etc.etc.  More rambling. 

Meanwhile, much of the Leftist or "sex in the city" vote that Obama Inc. marketed the "war on women" to with help from trendies in the media amounts to someone that killed their own child in the hopes of profiting economically or socially for themselves.  And they probably didn't even get what they thought they would get out of it.  A college education that makes all that student loan debt/money worthwhile?  Even if they supposedly "get ahead" in life by killing their own babies, they probably just signed a mortgage based on fractional reserve lending and usury that loots their wealth and keeps them behind anyway.  Then there are all the other aspects of banksterism and the currency by which their supposed socioeconomic success after they got an abortion in order to complete college is denominated.  So did they really need to kill their own child in order to maintain their career path or whatever else?  Not enough ponzi to care?  Is that really it, given that in a culture trending against men, women can choose to kill or force them to pay?  Do they have "enough" now... after killing some of their children? 

Is there ever enough or do you have to authentically care about other people...  and then there's enough?  There are happy people with children, living in huts.  There are unhappy people about to kill themselves, driving nice cares and living in Mc Mansions.  Why is that?     

And so on.  Only one thing seems certain, nothing is as it seems when people are engaged in "perceptions management."*  More entertainment. Call me names or call me a cynic for not accepting things at face value...  it seems to me that I'm merely trying to observe what's actually happening based on healthy skepticism and facts, logic  and evidence.   Although I'm beginning to wonder if trying to seek the truth based on actual evidence is generally the equivalent of cynicism.  So in that way, perhaps you can call me cynical.    

*Perceptions management... where War Inc. marketed to men turns into Captain America type stuff until they get their limbs blown off fighting for the interests of oligarchies, in reality.  And the abortion industry marketed to women turns into a grand struggle for civil rights unless they realize that they just had their own baby torn limb from limb.  Little wonder that so many are so fervent about contributing to Planned Parenthood or joining movements led by secular versions of "revolutionary" Talmudism (Friedan/Steinen/Goldstein/Guttmacher*, etc.) and any politician willing to play pretend that abortion is all about a grand struggle for civil rights based on identity politics and tribalism.  (When the male tribe is being set against the female tribe, then you've gone too far with all that.  Or with sitting back and allowing Jewish/tribal media to be created so that you see your own culture in that way because you're to scared to say the word:  "Jew." ) 

*A sample:

....they [the female tribe] could change society from the bottom up by radicalizing (engaging with basic truth [Seen from her perspective.]) the [tribal] consciousness of women; by going into the streets on such [tribal] women’s issues as abortion, free childcare centers, and a final break with the 19th century definition of women as sex objects whose main function is to service men and their children. Google: NYMag, Steinem

  Really.  And was the supposed tribal "consciousness" of women being raised by Jews like Friedman/Steinem and whoever based on the viciously tribal mentalities typical to their identity politics meant to apply to the goyim... or everyone?  Because if the usual rabbinic "radical" believed in their revolutions in a universal way then the Jewish Bolsheviks would have focused on banksterism instead of having their ethnic compatriots finance their revolution.  I.e. they wouldn't have used "capitalism" as an excuse for yet another tribal, revolutionary movement emerging from the bowels of the body politic.  And Steinem would focus on those buses in Israel where women have to sit at the back instead of trying to police the goyim. Etc.  Maybe she did at some point, I don't know.  But they usually do not remove the log before going for the speck in the eye of the goyim.  (Of course, the speck is actually there.  But it's not worth having your eyes gouged out by standing back and letting someone with huge logs in their own eyes try to remove it)    

Not sure why this is the cultural lens or "media" that Americans see themselves through.  Apathy.  Too scared. 

Rambling.  But years ago you were threatening to call the ADL on each other or something like that.  (An organization that amounts to a tribal spy agency.  They recently got in trouble with the Ukraine "false flag" situation.  Oops.  Not that it matters to the willfully clueless and scared.)

In retrospect, that's amusing.  Call them up again.  I have a few questions for them.  If you're not on the ADL/DHS Soviet type lists as a possible threat to their Party/Tribe yet, then you're probably useless.