ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Bastards, Drag Queens and the original Trans-genders

Updated on November 13, 2014
Demi Moore, American actress
Demi Moore, American actress | Source

It is in the nature of tyranny

to keep the revolution at bay by idiotising the working cass (which includes the managers) so they have not enough of a commonly shared sense to band together and revolt. Divided they are conquered and controlled.

And idiotisation (in Greek sense of the word) to be supremely effective has to start early: at birth. You need a working class population that sires bastards, which means that the women of the working class have to toil the "fields" like their slave husbands and their children must enter "day care" where they can be properly conditioned by the State apparatus.

Hence, the "wife" must don the working clothes of her husband and become male. In doing so she loses her moral authority in the household and her standing as a homemaker in society, which is an extension of the home, as every member of a male parliament qualifies for membership by being a household owner.

In this classical sense,

a working woman who loses her status as mother also loses her "citizenship" and gets reduced to one level above prostitute—a job for slaves who were war booty from rival societies. If a working woman lost her husband (to war) and her family was no longer alive either, she was in very deep straights. With her safety nets burned she would be forced into prostitution.

That is, if she was young enough to be a prostitute. If she wasn't, she effectively became a de facto "outlaw" a very vulnerable position for a woman to be in. Male outlaws—who had been banished and had their properties confiscated—could band together and survive by maurauding, but not women.

Orphan girl at the cemetary, Oil on canvas by De La Croix, 1824 Louvre
Orphan girl at the cemetary, Oil on canvas by De La Croix, 1824 Louvre | Source

A destitute woman

was very vulnerable indeed; one level above an animal. It was women such as these who were labelled witches and put to the torch in medieval times. It had nothing to do with political correctness and feminism—none of that existed, and none of these revisionist theories apply to the world as it was then.

However, in certain medieval societies, there was one way out from the dangers of "witchhood" : a woman had to become a "man." She had to don the garb of a man, the mannerisms of men and partake of their society as a man. Which also meant that she behaved like a man — not a homosexual man — and was considered by the men of her society to be one them. Hence, it precluded sexual relations.

Deep change comes

by necessity at the horizon of the known and the unknown. Everything else is modification. For this reason, modern feminism revises history with less legitimacy than history condemns us to carry on with the same mistakes but with new (feminist et al.) blinders.

By destroying the family and impoverishing youth, modern tyranny has created for itself a pool of ready-to-be-conditioned genetically modified soldier-policemen trained to occupy both foreign states as well as our very own.

In our society gender is irrelevant. And the extraordinary hatred that an ecclesiatic elite held for "classless" women in medieval times, will now be revisited upon "homeless" men in our times by "neutered" and "liberated" women who cannot return the favour and accept celibate "drag queens" into their ranks, because everyone now is a bastard.

Comments

Submit a Comment

No comments yet.