Locked in a war with my neighbours next door, an ongoing war which has been going on for a long time and is now hopefully being resolved on Tuesday, I’ve just been woken up yet again by loud noise, have got up, dressed and gone out, only to find it is not next door this time but the flat further along, with whom I had issues a year ago.
That’s just an example of unreasonable behaviour by people now, blown out of proportion they’d say, by me needing my 6-7 hours sleep possibly more than most people and preferring it between midnight and 6 a.m., rather than 4 a.m. until late morning, as they do. Being on benefits, they don’t work regular hours.
Let’s call our type Category 1 for the purpose of this post, i.e. we work a 9-5 day as a rule, sleep from midnight to 6 a.m. as a rule. And let’s call the others who think any time of night and day is reasonable – let’s call them Category 2.
The people who want the more orthodox timeframe for sleep, Category 1, are almost all working people, people who get up as a rule early morning.
What is my luck is there being not just one but two flats with unreasonable, Category 2 neighbours with totally different timeframes.
Downstairs are reasonable Category 1ers, the one further along the other way up here is also reasonable – it’s just these two near me in the whole house who are the problem. I plan to deal with it summarily on Tuesday with the landlord, no more good neighbour policy.
At this stage, let me bring in Dr. Phil McGraw’s lifelaws, the one which says that we teach people how to treat us, often unwittingly. That is, if we’re soft on people acting unreasonably, it never, ever works as they then continue it, unchecked.
Why do we do that? So as not to cause a fuss? Fear of those unreasonable people?
So there is another lifelaw now, in Latin:
Which raises that issue my leftist Christian friends go on about – turn the other cheek. For a start, this behaviour of theirs [the neighbours] is not on, quite apart from it being illegal. It turns the residents of three flats into nervous wrecks.
Turn the other cheek in this situation? I’m not questioning what the Good Lord said those two millennia ago, only the interpretation of it by those who say it means we must put up with anything laid on us. I do not believe that’s what it means.
We have an enormous problem with it, enormous and those on the left insisting open slather is good, big tent, might care to look at this Guardian article sent by Chuckles [I don’t read the rag as a rule]:
Rogue landlords who are themselves immigrants, now people traffickers in our country. First question is – why should I care? Why should you?
If that needs explaining, spelling out, then we’re not even on the same page. And there are many out there not on the same page as Category 1ers. Let’s expand the definition of Category 2 as those who think that anti-social behaviour is quite OK, as long as it is not white male.
There is a constant campaign of belittlement of Category 1s by Category 2s, using words with -ist and -phobe which they fling at the first sign of opposition, that then being defamation of Category 1s who are lawabiding people on the whole.
Trouble is, with mass, unfettered immigration come the Category 2 behaviours as well. Need not even be severe, jihadi stuff, mass rapes and so on, need not even be the attempt to put this nation under Shariah law. It is alien behaviours which are anti-social I’m referring to.
These people in the two flats are not from those ethnicities, they are of our stock, so race and social system is not the issue there. However, those next door are Millennials, around 20 years of age.
There is a girl named Laura who used to write to me here and she strongly resented my having a go at Millennials. Yet so many pundits and journos now do, particularly in the insidious form of SJWs and the worst of these are girls.
This complicates it something awful, as we then get gender coming into it – addressed further down.
Sticking with the Millennials just now [Gen Y], what we hve is the first generation almost entirely bereft of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, our heritage, mixed in with enlightenment values, a nice mix with manifests itself in love thy neighbour and live and let live, along with classical liberalism which always concludes – until it demonstrably harms someone else.
What the SJWs, the younger arm of the Category 2 leftists of a certain age – the Greers, Steinems etc. – are now doing is adopting the construct some truly evil people came up with – possibly the UN, possibly Common Purpose, possibly Demos, who knows precisely which one – that of professional offence taking.
Hence the white boy wearing dreadlocks apparently culturally appropriating blacks and therefore to be physically accosted by that black girl. [Notice the way the female is increasingly coming into all this? The female is addressed in a moment.]
Yes, violence is part and parcel of all this – see Soros paid protests at Trump’s rallies.
Several sub-categories of females have changed in the last 30 years, even the last 20 and it is that they’ve become troublemakers, anti-social, unreasonable.
There are the obvious flagship cases such as Daryl Hannah and Michelle Fields, now Amber Heard but they are symptomatic of a deeper malaise and an invidious one when it combines the Millennial with the female herself.
For what it does is take the dumbed-downedness – see Chloe St Moritz or whatever her name is, from Game of Thrones – the lack of education, the betrayal by teachers and teacher appointers of our youth – and combines it with the new, modern, godless and graceless demi-man female.
I mentioned that I went out an hour ago to deal with a loud noise. Yep, it was a female of maybe 22, on her own, unchaperoned, with no social sense at all, just a sense of her own needs, and she was belting on the door two flats down.
Now, in our house, the walls are thin and everything reverberates through the woodwork. So everything is heightened, compared to a brick or stone house.
To be fair, she did listen [strangely, I do get along with women in RL] but at the same time, said she hadn’t realized she was waking everyone from four flats. She couldn’t get into her boyfriend’s flat, he’d locked it from inside after he’d come home from the pub earlier, he being old enough to be her father, but let’s not start that.
So she thought it quite OK to belt on the door for about ten minutes. Perfectly reasonable. She heard my words but they simply didn’t register, not unlike certain people of the left who used to visit this site. Just did not compute. Seemed to her that I was just being an irascible old curmudgeon, from a generation now surplus to requirements.
And in that is the mindset of Yoof, as it always has been for hundreds, thousands of years. Yoof always thinks such things on the whole but the difference today is that so many of an older age, who should know better, don’t. They are just as unreasonable themselves.
Hence they follow Corbyn or Hellary and the result is a great mass of Category 2s who are going to vote Remain or Hellary.
And into this unreasonable category also now go Them, in the form of Cameron or Juncker, people who think it’s quite OK to rip a country apart for their own ideological reasons.
Coming back to the female variety, there are now other things happening:
1. Becoming masculinized and acting as ersatz men, but not doing it very well [see Marissa Mayer, Elizabeth Holmes, Elizabeth Warren];
2. Taking the worst aspects of womanhood and cranking those up, whilst suppressing or letting rot away all the noble features of womanhood, becoming useless in other words.
The result is a demi-monster and how many of these new creatures are out there? Amfortas mentioned 90%, with 10% reasonable, the older-style lady. I simply don’t know and couldn’t hazard a guess how many.
And I don’t mean older lady, I mean older-style lady, i.e. likes men, likes chivalry, acts ethically.
Compare that to this Amber Heard. It may be that she is completely right about Johnny Depp and he’s the monster. Yet there does seem a case, mentioned in various news sources, that she is the monster herself, a psychopathic, value-less person.
They mentioned a photo taken shortly after the alleged assault and before she cried assault, which showed a different picture [that’s her far left and far right]:
Traumatized woman? Needing $35m divorce settlement to allay her hurt? In fact, I’m not even looking at her but at the one in the middle of the three. You might just see three pretty young women, I see something different in those eyes.
I see someone in that middle one who’d take you to the cleaners if she knew you had anything worth having.
That, of course, seems a jaundiced and seemingly indefensible view from a bitter old man. I’d counter that by arguing that at the point I returned to the west in 2008, I had a healthy love for the female as a species, borne of my experiences to that point, i.e. experiences of the western female pre-1996 and the continental and south-east Asian female after that.
In other words, I was pretty well pro-female, as those ladies who knew me at that time would attest. But that soured over the next 8 years, to the point I can write these posts, nay, feel I must write these posts.
And if that Amber Heard did lie through her perfect teeth and pretty features and was not injured by Depp – the cheek you see is the one which caught the mobile phone apparently, then compare that to Stacey Giggs.
Pics made it to the papers of a distraught Stacey who saw her world collapsing around her, when she’d tried to keep it together. Does this Amber Heard seem traumatized to you? Remember Nigella?
For if she’s not, then she is a calculating b****, as on the strength of his supposed violence, she asked the court not only for an order to keep him away but also asked for a further order which was not granted. Now comes the money part.
And the obvious question is:
Why is the male domestically violent?
You can’t have it both ways – either he was always violent or he became so.
If he always was, then why on earth did she get together with him? Bad boy syndrome? Thought she could change him with her powerful presence?
If he became bad, then why did he? Why did a man who was a respecter of her – otherwise she’d never have gone with him – why did he turn sour, turn savage? Just a miracle? Or something evil in men as a species?
Is the game worth the candle these days?
Extending this to all of her demographic, the obvious question to any male today is – just how dangerous is it to become entangled with the type?
It should be a cautionary tale for any would be sugar-daddy.
So, the result is that young men become more and more feckless, within the parameters of their Millennial upbringing , taking it wherever they want, with no responsibility, which is also the new way for the Millennial female and the disease has also spread into older western women and by definition – men.
The effect on commitment has to be near incalculable. The effect on society destructive. Older men such as I are irrelevant in this but anyone still a player, if he adopts my attitude of the moment, is going to have a deeply jaundiced view of the modern female and will become highly sensitized to this sub-species.
What I mean is that in 2008, I’d have been inclined to take Amber Heard at face value until proven otherwise but now, the first thing I do, my instant reaction, is not to believe her until she’s proven to be honest beyond doubt and not the trailer trash she has been investigated as being.
What I’m trying to say here is that certain groups are unreasonable, e.g. most of the new immigrants we’re on about. When “unreasonable” comes to also describe a basic division of our own stock – the modern female, then there is deep trouble for that society.
Chivalry was always a game and men of a certain upbringing still can’t throw it off entirely, so unreasonable women still get the white knight to ride in and defend them, cynically and dishonestly, as they’re not remotely interested in playing their part in it.
They use the court system for example, now mixed in with rabid feminism. And this in turn affects their attitudes, their own mindsets they bring to dealing with anyone, let alone the male. It’s a world without ethics or integrity, based on no noble code of conduct.
It is worse than the couldn’t care less attitude of the young male because it plays on that chivalry aspect – cynically and exploitatively. It uses looks which have always reeled in the man, uses them now against him.
It first rings alarm bells and puts up flags all over the place and second – wrecks it for the good women left out there.
But it also wrecks people like me. No one will count it a tragedy that a man who was once so pro-women now won’t have a bar of the modern type – in the scheme of things, there are far worse tragedies but that’s what these women have brought erstwhile reasonable men to – being just as unreasonable as they are, polarizing and hyper-sensitizing the male.
And the issue is always – how can you tell the good from the bad? If the male is not the most emotionally intuitive species, then how is he going to know who’s good and who’s bad?
So he’ll shy away and take his pleasure fecklessly.
If you interpret this as misogyny on my part, then I suggest the problem is yours. It’s a cry for our nation to become ours again, for men to become men again, for women to become women, for small furry animals from Alpha Centauri … etc.
We can’t do much about the new demi-woman/man but we sure can about immigration, so let’s start there, following Brexit.