Social Colonisation?. . .

1920s Prohibition art works..

I was sitting on the long lounge in the television room watching a lesbian reporter interviewing a male homosexual minister of government, talking about the implications of the “Giggle vs Tickle” case where a transgender “woman” challenged a social media chat place for women only, on the grounds that He was now a “SHE”…and it suddenly dawned on me…

“Hey” I spoke to my wife “How come we are here listening on our national broadcaster to two homosexuals talking about a transgender person talking about “their rights”…I mean..ok..they can talk about the case…anyone can talk about the case…but on the national broadcaster there ought to be someone involved talking about the rights of the great majority dominant social demographic position..ie; the heterosexuals…I mean..this IS our society, isn’t it?”

My wife is a very logical person..she thinks before she answers any query..

“This interview is a minority group discussing their opinion..as is their right.”

“Ok…I get that..everyone’s got a right..but THIS is the national broadcaster..shouldn’t there be some sort of an independent adjudicator on the panel putting across the status of our side of the outcome?..after all these two characters only represent around 2 or 3 percent of the population.”

“Why?” she shrugged “They’re just a couple of people talking about the outcome of the court case and how it will affect the gender legalities in the law”.

“Yeah..so why am I getting it from a muff-muncher talking to a wind-jammer and not from some normal member of the great majority?”…I am getting pissed off about being fobbed off by the national broadcaster.

“Don’t be so vulgar!” I was admonished.

What!?” I gazed around me in a theatrical manner “in my own lounge room?”

“Yes..you men are always saying rude and vulgar things about other people…can’t you just be polite?”

It was about then it dawned on me…the road to Damascus moment…of course..”You men”..that ubiquitous ; “You men” moment…”You nen” are vulgar, rude, obnoxious when we sit (manspread?), obnoxious when we talk to women (harass?), violent, criminal behaviour, you mention it, “We” do it!….have been doing it since time immemorial…”You men” need training..and it has happened..

WE’VE BEEN COLONISED!!

The heterosexual males of the western world have been colonised..

What’s the first action of a colonising power upon the local natives?..First you kill their language..and with that comes the second action : Then you kill their culture.

The slang language of men has been “disallowed”..the rude and vulgar jokes of men are “discouraged”..the bar-room talk and impolite whispers of the male collective yarning has been frowned upon until there exists a cringing self-censorship of espirit de corps when men gather..those halting, over-cautious “mentions” of delicate subjects that see some men, who would once give a good, healthy belly-laugh at a non-sensical slight, be it racist, sexist or just plain mock vulgarity, do a body-language of ducking and weaving to get out of a tricky situation…it’s pathetic and it gives me the shits!

So now our culture is in the process of being mangled until there is little or no recognisable individual identity of the gene-pool left to corroboree with…Once were seen as courageous instigators…now we are being investigated for BEING instigators!…right to our back teeth..but coming from the wrong end!

THAT, is the primary implementation of colonisation…THEN you apply ; “Divide and Rule”…and by playing the gender division game; men against women against the heterosexuals, you divide society….the next question that must be asked is the age old response..:

Qui bono?

Q : Who benefits from such a divided majority in a society?…

A : The minorities.

You can see the result in governance…minority groups are rising in the number of “un-associated” independent members in government..where so many minor parties hold themselves up as representatives of this or that minority agenda and the parliament will in many cases stand divided until ALL are satisfied…a most unsatisfactory outcome in many instances and which history tells us that will in the end come to a dissolution of the very structures we, as a society rely upon the hold stable our civilisation.

Let us read and cogitate on the Discourses of Titus Livius as translated by Nicoli Machiavelli…:

CHAPTER LVII.—That the People are strong collectively, but individually weak.

“After the ruin brought on their country by the invasion of the Gauls, many of the Romans went to dwell in Veii, in opposition to the edicts and commands of the senate, who, to correct this mischief, publicly ordained that within a time fixed, and under penalties stated, all should return to live in Rome. The persons against whom these proclamations were directed at first derided them; but, when the time came for them to be obeyed, all obeyed them. And Titus Livius observes that, “although bold enough collectively, each separately, fearing to be punished, made his submission.” And indeed the temper of the multitude in such cases, cannot be better described than in this passage. For often a people will be open-mouthed in condemning the decrees of their prince, but afterwards, when they have to look punishment in the face, putting no trust in one another, they hasten to comply. Wherefore, if you be in a position to keep the people well-disposed towards you when they already are so, or to prevent them injuring you in case they be ill-disposed, it is clearly of little moment whether the feelings with which they profess to regard you, be favourable or no. This applies to all unfriendliness on the part of a people, whencesoever it proceed, excepting only the resentment felt by them on being deprived either of liberty, or of a prince whom they love and who still survives. For the hostile temper produced by these two causes is more to be feared than any beside, and demands measures of extreme severity to correct it. The other untoward humours of the multitude, should there be no powerful chief to foster them, are easily dealt with; because, while on the one hand there is nothing more terrible than an uncontrolled and headless mob, on the other, there is nothing feebler. For though it be furnished with arms it is easily subdued, if you have some place of strength wherein to shelter from its first onset. For when its first fury has somewhat abated, and each man sees that he has to return to his own house, all begin to lose heart and to take thought how to insure their personal safety, whether by flight or by submission. For which reason a multitude stirred in this way, if it would avoid dangers such as I speak of, must at once appoint a head from among its own numbers, who may control it, keep it united, and provide for its defence; as did the commons of Rome when, after the death of Virginia, they quitted the city, and for their protection created twenty tribunes from among themselves. Unless this be done, what Titus Livius has observed in the passage cited, will always prove true, namely, that a multitude is strong while it holds together, but so soon as each of those who compose it begins to think of his own private danger, it becomes weak and contemptible. “

This colonisation I talk about does not only affect the behaviour of heterosexual men, but also of the same for heterosexual women..for has it not become a fact that so many women now disdain the role of mother and wife to rather embrace this manufactured ideal of “career and barren woman” (or IVF impregnated substitute) to sustain a lifestyle of individual plenty.. Surely, for both genders, a sad, un-natural and lonely expanse of aging?

Until we now come the full circle of having to sit through a conversation between a lesbian and a male homosexual, discussing the flow-on effect for “our” society of a transgender male winning a case against a only for “real” women chat group.

“What a f**king liberty!”