Clown World’s “cow demons and snake spirits”

A while back, I was reading up on the Chinese Cultural Revolution a bit.  To say the least, these were difficult times for anyone on the government’s shit list.  As a side note to all this, they did have some creative words for these specific categories.  If you look past the grim details, the terminology is a real hoot.

The original Five Black Categories

Communist NPCs
This is why you don’t want pinkos running the country

One grab-bag term for the bad guys (according to their opinion) was the “Five Black Categories”, quite an evocative phrase.  These included:

  • Landlords:  This occupation pretty much got turned into a dirty word
  • Rich farmers:  This is equivalent to “kulaks” in Soviet terminology
  • Counterrevolutionaries:  People like me, basically
  • Bad influencers:  Also meaning “bad elements”, or evildoers
  • Rightists:  Presumably this is anyone more conservative than Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein

The meaning of item 4 isn’t clarified in detail.  The Chinese wiki page redirects to their word for “rogue”, and in English, the definition would be something like:

Rogue usually refers to those who frequently cause trouble, are unreasonable, and rely on intimidation and other means to obtain benefits.  In ancient times, it refers to street sleepers who did not work, and then specifically refers to those who do not engage in legitimate businesses and do things that are harmful to society.

So in Russian, these would be called “hooligans”.  In German, that would be a grab-bag term for Berufsverbrecher, asozial, and arbeitsscheu.  Come to think of it, San Francisco has quite a few aggressive panhandlers who drop loads of dookey all over the city; they certainly qualify as huàifènzǐ (坏分子).

All the above were in contrast to the Maoist “Five Red Categories”, which were the good guys in their view.  That included farmers who aren’t rich (I don’t have the slightest problem with them; rednecks grow our food), workers (I like those guys too), and three categories of ChiCom revolutionaries (I lack enthusiasm for them).

The Nine Black Categories


Later, the “Five Black Categories” got expanded into nine.  The new additions were:

  • Traitors:  Naturally, these are unwelcome in any society
  • Spies:  It’s also sensible that they didn’t care much for these guys
  • Capitalist roaders:  If you have a complete Ludwig von Mises book collection, that’s you
  • Intellectuals:  In my opinion, there are good ones and bad ones

Interestingly, modern history shows that the “capitalist roaders” were right.  China’s low point was the “Great Leap Forward” catastrophe, characterized by kooky agricultural experiments, counterproductive boondoggles, and eventually mass starvation that led to the deaths of tens of millions.  By following the path to industrial development and export trade, the public at last is starting to get something resembling a tolerable standard of living.

This last item in this updated shit list – the intellectuals – had a special name:  the “Stinking Old Ninth”.  Together, the Nine Black Categories tended to get called “cow demons and snake spirits”.  Did I mention that Maoist terminology is a hoot?

Clown World’s Nine Black Categories

Pinochet helicopter tours e75427888286c6ead0a0f57dfd7574a4848df87db2f7098a61aaa9a828670999

So all that got me thinking – how could this be updated for today’s conditions?  The following might be a good start for a modern shit list:

We had our own Cultural Revolution in the west, beginning in the 1960s, and it’s high time to roll back the dysfunction and degeneracy.

Clown World’s “cow demons and snake spirits”

The Stepford Wives, a case study of feminist propaganda

The following recaps the original film, The Stepford Wives.  I haven’t seen this version, but I did see the somewhat more upbeat remake.  I also read the Ira Levin book on which these movies were based.  The Stepford Wives isn’t anything too exceptional from a literary or cinematographic perspective.  Still, it certainly is emblematic of the sneaky agitprop along these lines intended to break down traditional roles.

By the 1970s, this sort of thing was quite heavily promoted to reprogram the minds of millions of women and turn them against their own society.  If that sounds like an exaggeration, then watch the following and consider it again:

I’m a pretty old hand at propaganda analysis, so I have to admire the skill of the video’s creator that went into deciphering the movie.  He caught lots of nuances that are pretty subtle.  Actually, they would be subliminal unless you know what to look for and are on guard for those things.  I have to wonder how many of the viewers realized during these scenes that they were being propagandized and psychologically manipulated.

As for the film’s main message, though, it has as much subtlety as Miley Cyrus wearing a strap-on dildo resembling a giant carrot.  The overall subtext, of course, is pretty obvious – men literally turning women into robots.  As a statement, it might go something like this:  “Being a mother or a traditional housewife is worse than slavery.  If you’re happy about being one, then The Patriarchy already turned you into a mindless automaton!”  That’s a pretty nasty accusation about men, of course, and one that was calculated to promote dissatisfaction.  Rather ironically, this message was proclaimed by the precursor to the leftist political establishment that blew a fuse over the NPC meme.

Why did Ira Levin write that book – and why did the Hollyweird filmmakers put it on the big screen?  Were they male feminist useful idiots, or were they cultural Marxists trying to degrade society by driving a wedge between the sexes?  Now that’s a good question.  Deliberately spreading discontentment and social discord is a go-to tactic of cultural Marxism, a point similar to one that the video reviewer also made.

One more item from the movie that I’ll point out and add to the discussion is the following depiction:

  • New York City:  the old happy place, full of culture and opportunity
  • Stepford:  dystopian Bourgeois Hell where you literally get turned into a robot

Let me reiterate:

  • NYC during the 1970s = GOOD!
  • Clean, crime-free suburbia = BAD!

Point of fact, before Mayor Giuliani went a long way to clean it up, NYC was an urban hellscape.  The film Taxi Driver depicts things a lot more realistically.  Who are these people trying to fool?  Or was the point about insulting people who weren’t living in the big Mouse Utopia?

Deconstructing feminist agitprop

Here’s an excerpt from Deplorable Diatribes, my recent magnum opus:

The Feminine Mystique was promoted for mass appeal, and indeed it became a hit. The message that women should be captains of industry instead of nurturing children did strike a chord. (It was clever propaganda, conveniently ignoring the facts that work is usually pretty tedious, most employees never rise to high places or even get exciting jobs, and especially that the next generation doesn’t come from a cabbage patch.) The Redstockings Manifesto, on the other hand, is little known outside of feminist circles, women’s studies professors, and of course their students. This snotty screed with Marxist-flavored rhetoric describes what radical feminism really believes; for one item, very explicitly declaring all men to be oppressors.

Later it describes Betty Friedan in greater detail:

Her book The Feminine Mystique persuaded millions of women to define their success the way men do, leaving their homes in droves for the awesome adventure of cube farms. If only they’d asked some men, we could’ve warned them that work sucks. Chapter 1 begins like this:

The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban housewife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night, she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—“Is this all?”

You know how that kind of rhetoric goes. The kitchen is a torture chamber. Light housework is slavery. Raising the next generation of precious young children is a total waste of time. All that’s beneath us, but our husbands are having a blast working on an assembly line eight hours a day to keep roofs over our heads. Blah blah blah…

OK, cool, so now we’re in a more enlightened age, thanks in no small part to Betty Friedan. These days, tens of millions of women spend their days in cube farms. Many are childless and will endure their final years all alone, thanks to all those abortions. As for now, at the end of the day, they ask themselves: “Is this all?”

So in that regard, The Stepford Wives was much like The Feminine Mystique, except presenting the message in a sneaky and more weaponized manner.  Again, it’s basically this – “If you’re a mother and a housewife, that’s unacceptable.  Your only salvation is to join Second Wave feminism and help us rip apart society.”  Sweet!

What about the Redstockings Manifesto then?  That one is a brief document that tells you what radical feminism really believes, without all the pretty rhetoric or subliminal messages.  It came out in 1969, by a Marxist-influenced group that was nearly a “who’s who” list of the NYC feminist scene of that time.  Moreover, they were trendsetters in what contemporary feminism became.

One of the concepts that this foundational manifesto introduced eventually became known as “The Patriarchy”.  Myself, I think the idea that all men are out to oppress all women is pretty half-baked.  As I wrote about the Redstockings:

Again, none of this patriarchy stuff is explained or backed up by facts. If they’re putting forth a conspiracy theory, where’s the damn theory? I’ll give them one—the patriarchs must have a secret tree fort where they decide how they’re going to be a bunch of dicks.

Note well, The Stepford Wives doesn’t actually have a secret tree fort.  However, it does in fact depict a secret “Men’s Club” where evil plots are hatched and wives are turned into fembots.  I can’t think of a plainer cinematic metaphor for this amorphous “Patriarchy” the feminists have been scarum-shouting about for the last several decades.  The idea was pretty new back then, so this shtick in the film was a great way to introduce the concept.  These days, there’s less need to state it so plainly, now that feminists have poisoned the well so much.

What’s the real deal about “The Patriarchy”?  The truth is that, on the whole, straight guys usually fall all over ourselves to please women, not that it gets us much appreciation lately.  Look at it another way.  Men are bigger and stronger.  Therefore, if the pearl-clutching feminists were right about us conspiring to subjugate all women, then what’s taking us so long?  If that’s truly what we wanted (not that I’m recommending it), then we could revert relations between the sexes back to the Bronze Age.  If we acted in unison, it would take less than an hour.  (If women didn’t like the new status quo, what would they do – call a policeman?)  Since that easy power grab hasn’t happened, it’s fair to call bullshit on this “Patriarchy” nonsense.

More seriously, as a critic of feminism, what is my evil intention?  I want goodwill and harmony among the sexes again.  That’s how healthy societies work.

Lana Lokteff sets it straight

So now that I’ve described all that propaganda, here’s a brief deprogramming course:

The Stepford Wives, a case study of feminist propaganda

Former Muslim draws Muhammad cartoons

I was looking around for irreverent art, and I came across by someone with the evocative name Mohammed Ibrahim.  Quite likely it’s a pen name, since I’m sure he doesn’t want to get his head cut off on TV.  One of his specialties is drawing the Prophet Muhammad.  That’s s a serious no-no in that religion, not that he believes in it any more.  I understand; I’m almost as jaded about mine and its founder.

Obviously a lot of people will get their noses bent out of shape about it.  Still, his stated intention is not offense for its own sake, but rather to be witty.  It’s fairly similar to my own Space Vixen Trek Episode 13:  The Final Falafel, in which I poke fun at lots of religions, though in an entertaining way.  Some of the cartoons have more impact than others.  (Islamic jurisprudence can be a dry topic sometimes.)  Still, he does have his moments.  One of his classics is “Prophet Muhammad gets drunk“, in which there’s quite a confession.

Another is “Hijab in the West vs. hijab in the Muslim World“.  This shows two fairly glam Muslimas in a mall, at the minimum standards of compliance, contrasted with a couple of ladies in burqas, adhering to the customs at maximum scrupulosity.  That does strike a chord with me, since it grinds my gears to hear Western feminists telling us how ninja suits are “liberating”.  (Heck, when are feminists NOT completely wrong?)  This shows that their anti-Western agenda is more important than their ostensive goal of women’s liberation – but I digress.

Other than that, the artist draws on some generic atheist themes, some of them pretty funny.  Aside from that, he does political themes too.  He’s liberal, but I won’t hold it against him.  All told, I came across his site and figured that I’d signal boost it.

Former Muslim draws Muhammad cartoons

Is this Clown World, or is this a world of shit?

I’m not in the best of moods right now.  It’s time for some black humor.  However, the topic here is pretty gross.  If you’d like to skip it, no problem.  I’m here to talk shit, literally.

Public defecation on the Left Coast

Exhibit A here is a map of Silicon Valley, showing the location of several giant tech corporations.  Some of them track us nine ways from Sunday.  Others are limousine leftists who believe it’s their purpose to censor the Internet.  The following is a graphic merely of what they did after the Charlottesville setup:

banned over Charolottesville DHbb0HkXsAEUBM6.jpg-large

Cyberspace is an international community and one would expect it to be very ideologically diverse.  Still, some of the munchkins at these tech companies think the Worldwide Web should be run according to the political sensibilities of the Left Coast.  And here they are:


Now look to the top left of this map.  A large number of these corporations are based in San Francisco, the buckle of the Granola Belt.  (This includes WordPress, my webhost here, which has started to get into the “deplatforming” craze.  I have my content backed up, and if I get shut down, I know where I’ll restore it.  Furthermore, I’ll come back with both barrels blazing, no holds barred.)  Now look carefully at what neighborhood of SFO these corporations are in.  Got that?

silicon_valley SFO

Now here’s a handy map of public defecation in San Francisco – and these same corporations are very close to the poop epicenter.  Is this a cause, an effect, or just an evocative coinkydink – the sort of thing that Karl Jung would call synchronicity?  I’m not sure, but it just gives me a warm and squishy feeling.

SFO poop Sep-2-18-KFI-Map

More seriously, DO NOT walk barefoot in San Francisco.  Maybe that worked in the “flowers in your hair” 1960s, but not now.  They have a hypodermic needle problem too.  I haven’t been there in about twenty years, when there already was a major homeless problem, but I’ve heard that things have slid downhill.  As California continues to become more vibrant, thanks to unchecked population replacement immigration that began in the mid-1960s, these trends will likely rise.

illegals imageedit_1751_40621206981-574x323

Even so, it’s not just places like San Francisco and La-La-Land.  Seattle, another epicenter of poz, also has this problem.  A Seattle Times article about it included the following evocative item:

Councilmember Larry Gossett said he didn’t like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.

Oh, really?  Maybe this guilt-ridden nitwit needs to hit the streets, get on his hands and knees, and scrub off his city’s poop with a toothbrush.

Open defecation around the world

This seems to be an international phenomenon.  India, about to be the world’s most populous country, also happens to have the greatest public defecation problem.  According to another chart I’ve seen, there are 150-200 public poopers per square kilometer.  After a while, things are going to get a bit smelly, especially in densely-populated urban areas.  Here’s a world public defecation map.


It’s rather strange – ancient India had the world’s first sewage system; what the heck happened to those guys?  Things sure seem to have slid downhill after 4000 years.  I’ve heard that they brought the custom to the USA after the Hare Krishnas came in and started teaching their customs to the 1970s burnouts they recruited.  According to a story I’ve heard about one of their ashrams, they did their business on a hillside.  Things didn’t seem so bad in winter when snow covered it over, but when spring came, there were lots of little surprises that had to be carefully avoided.

Anyway, I have to wonder if all that dookey in San Francisco is only from homeless guys who don’t bother to find a public bathroom.  What about the H1-B employees that the tech giants are bringing in from India to drive down wages of high-tech workers?  Maybe they’re adding to the steamy mounds?

Anyway, speaking of maps, here’s a world IQ map.  Notice anything?

world IQ map

What an amazing coinkydink!

Is this Clown World, or is this a world of shit?

My experience using Kindle Create

I’ve had the chance to work with Kindle Create and put it through the paces.  For benefit of other authors interested in it, I’ll share my experiences.  For reference, the download and help tutorial is here, and the help overview is here.

Before, I’ve never had a problem uploading Word manuscripts (either to Smashwords or Amazon) that I wasn’t able to figure out.  However, when I uploaded Deplorable Diatribes on August 17, Amazon choked on it.  This isn’t too surprising, since the manuscript is enormous – exactly a thousand pages in Word.  So then I tried getting it saved as an .EPUB file, but the formatting got all chewed up.  What I had to do instead for the time being was export as a .PDF, and that one I was able to upload to Amazon.  The problem is that some of the formatting was lost even though the .PDF looked as it should be.  It does warn you that the results of converting from that format might not be great, and it’s true.  Furthermore, it probably wouldn’t have been reflowable text, which is the preferred standard in a reader.

After that, I put together the printed manuscript.  It was quite an adventure, getting all the technical nuances right (page size, margins, etc.), converting hyperlinks to footnotes (I found a macro which saved me from getting carpal tunnel syndrome), etc.  There are specific page limits, dependent on page size, but I managed to get it to work with 10-point type which I figure is a safe minimum for readability.

Then I returned to the ebook version, hoping to make it prettier.  That’s when I got Kindle Create, figuring it might succeed where simply uploading the Word document had failed.  So I installed it, and waited a while for it to import the Word doc.  (Again, the manuscript is HUGE – longer than The Brothers Karamazov.  Also it contains lots of content pasted in from the original web pages I wrote, and also with graphics and different styles.)  I should mention that Kindle Create presents a choice in the beginning of whether to import a Word doc or a PDF.  The latter produces text that won’t reflow, but also allows embedded content such as audio and video files.  Perhaps future versions will give you the best of both worlds?

In the beginning, it goes through and tries to parse out the chapters, and applies a default style to them.  All my chapters were the same, indicated with the Word “Heading 1” or “Heading 2” styles.  Still, the process wasn’t perfect, and missed some chapter breaks.  Fortunately, you can insert them as needed and put the chapter heading style on it.  One thing that I couldn’t figure out how to do is to modify the default style so it applies globally; it would be a nice feature.  It also has a way of inserting a table of contents.  I couldn’t figure out how to do that, but fortunately I already had one.

As for the text style, you have the choice of three fonts:  the default Bookerly, a sans serif font, and a monospaced font.  That’s not quite a tremendous number of choices, but at least it’s something.  So there’s not much variation here.  My original manuscript was in Times New Roman except for article introductions which were in Arial.  That didn’t carry over after I converted it.  For the introductions, I had to apply the sans serif font, and there was less visual contrast than I would’ve liked.

You can put in bold, italics, etc. manually.  You can change text justification.  You can type inside the document.  Other than that, I couldn’t get the text color to do what I wanted it to do; some of my hyperlinks are blue, others are red (which is an artifact from the original web documents).  It could use a search/replace feature too.  All told, Kindle Create is not too powerful – a little less so than Wordpad – but at least it does its job.  I found out that it wouldn’t let me make any changes inside of bulleted lists.  I’m not sure why, but it is what it is.

All of the graphics did import.  However, a few of them came out somewhat distorted.  I doubt it’s any kind of a transparency problem, since I’d made some of them myself in MS Paint and didn’t do anything too fancy with them.  (It’s not like I was gluing together a birth certificate for Barack Obama in Adobe PDF Creator or something.)  You have four choices for the graphics as they appear – small, medium, large, or full (which usually fills from one side to the other).  So you can’t pick specific sizes, play with the aspect ratio, or crop them on the fly.  You do get the option to add alt text to the pictures, which I did to my wicked heart’s content.  One little problem I found was that if I was putting in alt text and a “save your work” prompt appeared as I was typing, the picture gets deleted.  One time, the “undo” button didn’t work after that – oopsie!  There is a way to insert pictures, but that proved to be a bit difficult to get to work.

All told, it took a day to get everything the way I wanted it, or as close as I could get.  That much isn’t the fault of Kindle Create; rather, I was working with an enormous manuscript that needed lots of tweaks.  Anyway, so when you’re done, you do the “publish” option and it binds it all into a .KPT file that you can upload.  I’m not sure why, but it turned out to be nearly 40% larger than the Word doc, which wasn’t even a compressed .DOCX file.  After that was the moment of proof.  I uploaded it to Amazon, and it took it!  If what the previewer shows me is accurate, it converted pretty well, though the indentation is a little inconsistent.

So Kindle Creator is a pretty good tool if you’re struggling to get a manuscript that Amazon’s server likes.  The learning curve wasn’t too bad on it.  There are a few bugs, as well as some features that it could use.  Still, it’s pretty handy if you need something like that.  Future versions may be better yet.

My experience using Kindle Create

Book announcement – Complete Collection of Deplorable Diatribes, Traditionalist Tirades, and Reactionary Rants of an Egregious Extremist

I’ve just completed my ninth book, the second nonfiction title.  This one is huge.  Moby Dick – a whale of a novel indeed – was 206K words.  The ebook version of Deplorable Diatribes, released on August 17, is 384K words – even longer than The Brothers Karamazov.  Although I put months of work into it, I’m selling it for the price of a large cheeseburger combo.  How about that!  The print edition is more; I’m keeping the profit margin pretty low, but still, it’s 756 pages long.

What you’ll find in Deplorable Diatribes

Deplorable Diatribes - cover 4

This is a compilation of all my Return of Kings posts.  I was thinking of making several smaller books, but no, here you’ll get the whole shootin’ match.  Most are expanded versions of the articles, and contain introductory commentary.  Also, they’re sorted into topics, and the chapter notes contain much additional background concerning the subjects.  This is one of the longest compilations available of politically incorrect truth, depicting the absurdity of Clown World and how things got that way.

Why did society become so dysfunctional and degenerate, an abnormal mess that some call “progress”?  No country ever was perfect, but several bad ideas made the world much worse.  These were popularized by different groups with varying agendas, and work together to drag down society.

Over the decades, the political left went from being sensible and constructive to something resembling a bizarre cult.  Just as strangely, the mainstream right doesn’t dare dispute the dogma too much on matters of substance.  Here you’ll discover the following:

  • How academia became a breeding ground for destructive ideologies
  • Why liberals are as silly as a barrel of monkeys
  • How feminism became a henhouse of loony birds
  • What political correctness is really about
  • How leftists conduct censorship because their ideas can’t withstand a free debate
  • The bad, good, and ugly points of ideologies
  • What’s up with the brain-eating #MeToo zombies
  • Why population replacement immigration is bad
  • How the economy is manipulated for benefit of wealthiest of the wealthy
  • Why “woke” CEOs and champagne Socialists are such airheads
  • What America used to look like back when it was still pretty normal
  • How to move your social life into the fast lane, as well as be the best person you can be

But wait!  There’s more!

  • The most Red-baiting since the good old days when Joseph McCarthy was purging the pinkos
  • A mountain of dirt about notable leftist “heroes”
  • Globalist schemers unmasked as not being exactly as wonderful as they think they are
  • Details on why the gay agenda isn’t as faaaabulous as it appears
  • A close look at some of Clown World’s clowns
  • The media lies, film at 11
  • The wreckage of the social landscape after feminist bunny boilers poisoned the well
  • Most importantly, what we can do about all this

Come on, how can you possibly go another day without this treasure trove of deplorability?
Ebook edition:
Print edition:

Book announcement – Complete Collection of Deplorable Diatribes, Traditionalist Tirades, and Reactionary Rants of an Egregious Extremist

Miley Cyrus says virginity doesn’t exist, and UK MSM paper agrees

A fresh, steaming pile of journalism came hot off the presses at The Independent, with the title “Miley Cyrus is right – there is no such thing as virginity“.

It features a rather cringe-worthy social media post from the former Mouseketeer, declaring that “virginity is a social construct”.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  The whole “social construct” catchphrase is an argument to say – without any further explanation needed – that something is unimportant, or essentially doesn’t even exist.  It’s a pretty dumb argument, but a surprising number of people are taken in by that rhetoric.

Some highlights of the article include the following:

But these critiques are missing Cyrus’ point. Virginity isn’t some innate, observable mode of being. Society created it, gendered it, and assigned it moral value, but outside of a patriarchal belief system, it’s meaningless.

Why has premarital chastity been such a valued trait throughout most societies, with the big exception of our modern social experiment?  It’s all about the mean old patriarchy, right?  I tried to look up “The Patriarchy” in the phone book, but I’m afraid I can’t find it.  I want to have a word with their customer service to see when my male privilege card is going to show up in the mail.  Also, I’d like to find their secret tree fort one of these days, so I can knock back some beer and yell at a TV during a sportsball game.  That really sounds like a lot of fun.

Anyway, according to a study called “Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts“, female promiscuity is correlated with a large number of social ills.  It’s a harsh truth, but nobody ever said that life is fair.  Item 15 is a rather interesting one.  Zero non-marital sexual partners means that a marriage has an 80% chance of surviving five years.  One prior boyfriend brings it down to 53%.  It only gets worse from there – more boyfriends means more risk of divorce – eventually bottoming out around a 20% five year marriage survival rate.  When guys can get taken to the cleaners in a divorce, robbed in court for cash and prizes, this is no trivial matter.  This is why some say, “No cherry, no marry.”

Our great grandparents already knew all this stuff.  After this big social experiment, it’s taking a while for us to catch up and relearn it.  Throwing all the rules out the window is a good way to discover why they existed in the first place.

Anyway, back to the article.

One problem with virginity is that it defines sex as sexual intercourse, not pleasure. This narrative excludes anyone who isn’t heterosexual and minimizes the importance of other sexual behaviours. Most people with vulvas orgasm from clitoral stimulation and yet, the construct of virginity ignores the very thing that makes intercourse pleasurable to begin with, and mainly centres sex that is procreative.

Where do I even begin?  First, this “This narrative excludes” narrative only applies to a definition of virginity that’s much narrower than commonly used.  So let’s say Adam and Eve are virgins, then they “know” each other.  So Eve isn’t a virgin any more, but neither is Adam, even though he never had a cherry to pop.  To say otherwise is to say that it’s impossible for a guy ever NOT to be a virgin, even if he’s Casanova, Wilt Chamberlin, or Peter North.  If Adam banged Steve instead, that would mean he had carnal knowledge of someone else, therefore he likewise no longer would be a virgin.  So when you use the term like most people do, then there’s no need for hand-wringing about “exclud[ing] anyone”, or confusion about whether or not a dude who has hooked up with 500 dudes in a bathhouse can still see unicorns.

Second, are we so politically correct these days that we have to say “people with vulvas” instead of “women”?  Sure, this is the age of politically correct bathrooms and everything, but here we have another reminder that everything must be rearranged to suit the subjective reality of a tiny fraction of mentally ill people.

Third, the clit is a wonderful little rosebud indeed, but why do so many of these feminists deny the existence of the G-spot?  It’s not an either/or thing for that matter.  Whichever location gets the toes curled is all good, including both at once.  Really, the sacred chalice is a garden of delight, and knowing what to do with it is the way to get lots of repeat business.

Fourth, there’s the complaint that the concept of virginity “mainly centres sex that is procreative”.  Well, that’s debatable, but still, what’s the big deal about prioritizing procreative sex?  I don’t have any problem with other fun activities like muff diving and hand jobs, but the primal dance of creation is the main course.  Didn’t anyone ever tell these politically correct people what is its biological purpose?  Do they think the next generation comes from a cabbage patch?

Now we come to the final absurdity.  Here we have an example of a MSM publication featuring bleeding-edge feminist theory, written by some journalist who either got a degree in cultural Marxism or at least knows how to talk the talk.  Well, that’s no big surprise.  But what’s the deal with Miley Cyrus here?  She gets on stage and tongue-twerks like she has tardive dyskinesia.  She does lewd stuff with a foam hand as if that’s supposed to make her sexy.  She’s been photographed wearing a strap-on that looks like a giant carrot or something.  And here The Independent quotes her as an authority about morality.

Welcome to Clown World.  Honk, honk!

Miley Cyrus says virginity doesn’t exist, and UK MSM paper agrees