new

[From "British Judge Says Sex With Wife is a “Fundamental Human Right” and Everyone Loses Their Minds"]

The Jewish media puts sex everywhere to make people think about it constantly, but the Jews also make heterosexual sex much more difficult to achieve by introducing convoluted ideas about “consent” and about what marriage is supposed to be.

One man is taking a stand against that bullshit. This judge is bringing old ideas and common sense back into the discussion about the role of marriage in our society, and he’s doing all of that by… saying that a husband should be able to have sex with his wife.

RT wrote:

A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case.
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.
The wife has learning difficulties and her condition is deteriorating, prompting social services to raise the alarm about the potential for sexual abuse in the relationship as they felt the woman was no longer able to make decisions about whether she consented to sexual relations. Social services ultimately brought the case to the Court of Protection in London.
The husband has pledged to no longer sleep with his wife but prosecuting lawyers are still pushing for a court order barring sexual relations to prevent the woman from being raped.

Let’s get something out of the way first: all women have learning difficulties. It’s just a matter of how severe those difficulties are.

That said, if she can say yes or no to a question such as “do you want some ice cream?” or “do you feel like watching a movie?” then she can absolutely consent to sex.

This whole “consent” thing is a retarded Jewish invention that overcomplicates basic male-female interaction. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex, she resists, if she wants to stop having sex while having sex, she makes it known. If she for some reason decides to pretend to be okay with having sex while not feeling like having sex, then that’s her problem. Literally something that happens in her mind that can’t be measured or proven.

The insanity of this story is augmented by the fact that even though the poor husband pledged to no longer sleep with his wife, prosecutors still push for a court order to officially make him unable to have sex with his wife.

Do you understand how insane that is?

If a man can’t have sex with his wife, why does he have a wife?

[...]

The idea about marriage that most people have in their subconscious was put there by tales of old, by their grandfathers, and by the Jewish social-engineering media machine.

If marriage doesn’t ask anything from women, and gives them half of your stuff or more whenever they please, it not only does nothing to stop relationships from breaking down but it actually provides incentives for relationships to break down.

These whores will destroy your life if you let them.

The moment they feel they’ve secured you, that you have no alternative front-hole, and that you’re socially and legally prohibited from looking for their replacement… that’s the moment they’ll decide to stop having sex with you. Sex will become less and less frequent. She’ll never be “in the mood,” she’ll always be tired or with headache. She’ll never treat you the same. She’ll look at you with disdain. She’ll resent you. She’ll feel trapped by you even though you’re the one that’s really trapped. She’ll feel you’re abusive even though she’s the one being abusive.

She’ll file for divorce and she’ll take as much from you as she possibly can, and then she’ll tell everyone you know about how terrible you are. She’ll go fuck some loser that can’t compare to you but that will have more than you because she’ll share the stuff she took from you with him, and they’ll laugh at you every time you go get your kids on the weekends.

Your kids won’t understand why daddy looks so poor now while mommy and her new boyfriend seem so well off. You’ll want to explain to them… but you won’t be able to. You wouldn’t even know where to start.

As time passes, you’ll see how your own kids prefer mommy’s boyfriend. They’ll tell you how funny he is, how many great things they do together, and how much time they spend together. Every time you send them back to her house… you’ll feel like a shadow. An empty human husk trapping the echoes of the man that you once were and mixing them with the cries of the man that you wanted to be.

All because you thought marriage meant something other than your doom.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy gives us the official version of the enlightenment:

“Reason is man’s central capacity.”
“Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.”
“All men (including, on the view of many, women) are equal in respect of their rationality, and should thus be granted equality before the law and individual liberty.”
“Man is by nature good. (Kant endorsed the Christian view of a “radical evil” in human nature, but held that it is possible to overcome it.)”
“Both an individual and humanity as a whole can progress to perfection.”
“Tolerance is to be extended to other creeds, and ways of life.”
“The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.”

The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does.

All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.
The “progress to perfection.” line is that our nature is entirely the result of environment. Just raise the self esteem of women and blacks, and everything will be lovely. This has been tried, and the outcome is far from lovely, but they just keep trying harder. The grotesquely inflated self esteem of blacks leads to blacks committing acts of violence against whites, and the grotesquely inflated self esteem of women leads to disastrous choices. They divorce the father of their children expecting to marry a six foot six athletic billionaire, or they marry late, or they do not marry at all.

The extension of tolerance is notoriously selective, and necessarily selective, for if tolerance is mandatory, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech is forbidden, which is not very tolerant at all. Tolerance is not extended to the “intolerant” meaning not extended to those who prefer to cooperate with people who are cooperative, and who prefer to refrain from cooperating with those who defect. Hence the financial crisis. Official minorities and single women, and in particular minority single women, and in particular blacks, and in particular black single women, generally do not repay mortgages. Any criterion that leads to banks extending loans to people that are inclined to repay, leads to banks discriminating against minorities, single women, and especially blacks. Which is forbidden. And so the 2007-2008 financial crisis. So the enlightened tolerate Muslims blowing people up and raping infidel women, but do not tolerate whites hanging out with people who are inclined to pay their debts. That is one creed and one way of life that they are not inclined to extend tolerance to. Forbidding an ever increasing range of speech and association is necessarily intolerant. We should stick to suppressing dangerous lies and heresies that aggressively pursue political power (such as The Enlightenment). Any suppression of freedom of speech, association, and assembly that goes beyond this is excessive and damaging. Official tolerance is inherently and necessarily dangerously intolerant.

Civilization is the advance of technical and scientific knowledge, and most importantly, social organization. Most of all it is the capability to maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships in very large groups. You will notice that the enlightenment is a root and branch attack on civilization, and Rousseau explicitly framed it as an attack on civilization and intent to destroy civilization.

The devaluation of local prejudices and customs is the dismantling of Chesterton’s fence, the abandonment of the slowly and painfully accumulated habits, customs, laws and institutions that make civilization possible, the devaluation and abandonment of the roots of Western Civilization. Our Cathedrals are empty and abandoned.