The planes used as weapons in the 9/11 attack

I was trying to find out more about the actual weapons used in 9/11.

Do we know how many passengers were on each plane? Well, yes. I was unaware of how many people must have been killed in the planes when they crashed. It seems 232 passengers and crew? died. All the planes were really empty on those flights.It could have been far, far worse. I wonder if all the passengers were eventually identified?

This article is worth archiving here on my alien planet blog

The planes of 9/11

Flying weapons.

The first of the four planes [P4] to depart was American ­Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.

United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between ­Logan and LAX. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 out of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.

American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off that day, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., ­flying 530 mph.

The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its ­scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 ­passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.

The two models—the 767 and the 757—were introduced within a year of one another in the early eighties, when Boeing was fighting lackluster sales, dwindling cash reserves, and a surging European rival, Airbus. The company marketed the planes to airlines as cost-savers, emphasizing their fuel efficiency and their modified cockpits, which allowed two pilots to do the work of three. Crews testing both aircraft gave them high marks for precise handling.


9/11 Conspiracy is still with us

My first impulse when I watched the Twin Towers fall, was that something was amiss. Contrived. Alien. Evil. A False Flag to use conspracy terms.

For me this was confirmed by strange occurences such as seeing Building 7 implode on the BBC news before it happened.

There are a lot of unanswered questions for me. I am a conspiracy theory follower.

Here is a four hour plus original movie on YouTube – THE NEW PEARL HARBOUR

So I’m archiving these for future reference – I think they might be muddled so I give myself permission to ALTER THIS POST at a later date when I’ve unmuddled myself. I like these short section videos from the full length movie. But they are not in sequence.

Feminist Bile Collection re-blog

This is from the blog  Women against Feminists, UK

It’s worth archiving – an amazing collection of anti-male bile!

What feminists think about lesbianism? 


lesbian feminists
Feminists are supporters of the gay/lesbian agenda (as the gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos called it). It is not new. This has been happening since 1960. Feminists have been writing about it in their books and magazines for many years and it is full of left wing ideology. Basically, if you are not a lesbian,  you are not a good feminist.
Check it out:
Atkinson, Ti-Grace (radical feminist, writer, founder of the radical group The Feminists)
“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey, Links Books, 1974, p. 86)
Atkinson referred to married women as “hostages.” (Alice Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975, University of Minnesota Press, 1989, p. 178)
“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” (Chicago Women’s Liberation Union pamphlet, Lesbianism and Feminism, 1971; Stevi Jackson, Sue Scott, Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 282)
“The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide. . . . I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.” (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey, Links Books, 1974, pp. 90, 91)
Brown, Judith (& Jones, Beverly) (radical feminists)
“The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression.” (Beverly Jones and Judith Brown, Toward a Female Liberation Movement, Gainesville, Florida, June 1968, p. 23)
Brownmiller, Susan (radical feminist, writer)
“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” (Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Secker & Warburg, 1975, p. 6)
Cronan, Sheila (writer, member of the radical feminist group The Redstockings)
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)
“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” (National Organization for Women Times, Jan.1988)
“It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects’ women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect’ blacks–that is, that the word `protection’ in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 214)
“Marriage is a form of slavery.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 216)
Daly, Mary (former Professor at Boston College who was forced out of her job because she would not allow men in her classes)
“[Speaking of an alternative future] …that it would be women only; that it would be women generating the energy throughout the universe; that much of the contamination, both physical and mental, has been dealt with.”(from a 2001 interview with What Is Enlightenment magazine [referencing] Mary Daly, Quintessence…Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto, Beacon Press, 1998)
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.” (from a 2001 interview with What Is Enlightenment magazine [referencing] Mary Daly, Quintessence…Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto, Beacon Press, 1998)
DiManno, Rose (radical feminist)
“Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.” (Toronto Star, January 11, 1999, p. 31)
Dixon, Marlene (radical feminist, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago)
“The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women’s rebellion throughout history.” (Marlene Dixon, Why Women’s Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy)
Dunbar, Roxanne (Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Professor of Ethnic Studies, California State University, Hayward, radical feminist, radical Marxist activist, writer, co-founder of an early feminist group, Cell 16, publisher of the early radical feminist journal, No More Fun and Games)
“How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” (Roxanne Dunbar, Female Liberation as a Basis for Social Revolution, New England Free Press, 1974)
Dworkin, Andrea (radical feminist, writer)
“One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“Marriage . . . is a legal license to rape.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“The hurting of women is . . . basic to the sexual pleasure of men.” (From The New York Times, Larry Elder, Smiting Moses, July 10, 1998)
“…[W]omen and men are distinct species or races … men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself … in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to ‘encourage’ women to ‘collaborate’ with men–no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her ‘energy’ which must not be dissipated keeping ‘weaker’ women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears.” (from a panel on “Lesbianism as a Personal Politic” that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone – Take Back The Day – Biological Superiority: The World’s Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 146)
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 214)
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake–it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it.” (Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics – The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door, Harper & Row, 1976)
“As I see it, our revolutionary task is to destroy phallic identity in men and masochistic nonidentity in women–that is, to destroy the polar realities of men and women as we now know them so that this division of human flesh into two camps–one an armed camp and the other a concentration camp–is no longer possible. Phallic identity is real and it must be destroyed. Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed.” (Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics – The Root Cause, Harper & Row, 1976)
“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations – for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right – these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. If they are not, we will be consigned as women to perpetual inferiority and subjugation.” (Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics – The Root Cause, Harper & Row, 1976)
“Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it–only then will we know what it is to be free.” (Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics – The Root Cause, Harper & Row, 1976)
“…the prisons for women are our homes. We live under martial law. We live in places in which a rape culture exists. That is a women’s home, where she lives. Men have to be sent to prison, to live in a culture that is as rapist as the normal home in North America. We live under what amounts to a military curfew. Enforced by rapists. And we say usually that we’re free citizens in a free society. We lie. We lie, we lie everyday about it… We live in a police state where every man is deputized. . . . In the United States, violence against women is a major pastime. It is a sport. It is an amusement. It is a mainstream cultural entertainment. And it is real. It is pervasive. It is epidemic. It saturates the society. It’s very hard to make anyone notice it, because there is so much of it.” (Terror, Torture and Resistance, Keynote Speech at the Canadian Mental Health Association’s “Women and Mental Health Conference – Women in a Violent Society,” Banff, Alberta, May 9, 1991. First published in Canadian Studies/Les Cahiers de la Femme, Vol. 12, No. 1, Fall 1991)
“The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” (Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)
“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it ‘Her.’ Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.” (Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Penguin, 1979)
“This violence is always accompanied by cultural assault — propaganda disguised as principle or knowledge. The purity of the ‘Aryan’ or Caucasian race is a favorite principle. Genetic inferiority is a favorite field of knowledge. Libraries are full of erudite texts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jews, the Irish, Mexicans, blacks, homosexuals, women are slime. These eloquent and resourceful proofs are classified as psychology, theology, economics, philosophy, history, sociology, the so-called science of biology. Sometimes, often, they are made into stories or poems and called art. Degradation is dignified as biological, economic, or historical necessity; or as the logical consequence of the repulsive traits or inherent limitations of the ones degraded. Out on the streets, the propaganda takes a more vulgar form. Signs read ‘Whites Only’ or ‘Jews and Dogs Not Allowed.’ Hisses of kike, nigger, queer, and pussy fill the air. In this propaganda, the victim is marked. In this propaganda, the victim is targeted. This propaganda is the glove that covers the fist in any reign of terror. This propaganda does not only sanction violence against the designated group; it incites it. This propaganda does not only threaten assault; it promises it.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone – Part IV – The New Terrorism, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
“Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone – Feminism: An Agenda (1983), Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 146)
“Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” (Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p. 58)
“The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989, p. 114)
Foster, Jodie (Actress)
“Ninety-five percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive… women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo.” (New York Times Magazine, January 6, 1991, p. 19)
French, Marilyn (radical feminist, writer, advisor to Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign)
“Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
“All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
“In personal and public life, in kitchen, bedroom and halls of parliament, men wage unremitting war against women.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 196)
“The family is the primary site of female subjection, which is achieved largely through sexuality: women are indoctrinated into their supposed ‘natural state’ by male control of their sexuality in the family.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 53)
“Men expect women to perform the most important of all human tasks [child-bearing] with no reward, without much help, and with almost no consideration.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 26)
“All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey; many also learn that the men who supposedly cherish them are the worst offenders. They learn that ‘love’ is about power and they are the powerless…” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 196)
“Male sexual aggression is endemic, if any sex act against a person’s will were considered rape, the majority of men would be rapists.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 193)
“My own informal survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation–incest, molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture or imprisonment.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 195)
“For women, it has been downhill ever since [the stone age]… Women not only did not ‘progress’ but have been increasingly disempowered, degraded, and subjugated. This tendency accelerated over the last four centuries, when men, mainly in the West, exploded in a frenzy of domination, trying to expand and tighten their control of nature and those associated with nature–people of color and women.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, pp. 9-10)
“Humans are the only species in which one sex consistently preys upon the other.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 18)
“Men’s need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 19)
“It cannot be an accident that everywhere on the globe one sex harms the other so massively that one questions the sanity of those waging the campaign: can a species survive when half of it systematically preys on the other?” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 18)
“Some women today believe that men are well on their way to exterminating women from the world through violent behavior and oppressive policies.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 200)
Frye, Marilyn (Professor of Women’s Studies at Michigan State University)
“Without (hetero)sexual abuse, (hetero)sexual harassment and the (hetero)sexualization of every aspect of female bodies and behaviors, there would not be patriarchy, and whatever other forms or materialization of oppression might exist, they would not have the shapes, boundaries and dynamics of the racism, nationalism, and so on that we are now familiar with.” (Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgins: Essays In Feminism, 1976-1992 – Willful Virgins or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist?, Crossing Press, 1992, pp. 130-132)
“A vital part of making generalized male dominance as close to inevitable as a human construction can be is the naturalization of female heterosexuality. Men have been creating ideologies and political practices which naturalize female heterosexuality continuously in every culture since the dawns of the patriarchies.” (Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgins: Essays In Feminism, 1976-1992 – Willful Virgins or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist?, Crossing Press, 1992, pp. 130-132)
“Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices defined and regulated by [patriarchal mores, values, and law].” (Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgins: Essays In Feminism, 1976-1992 – Willful Virgins or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist?, Crossing Press, 1992, pp. 130-132)
Gearhart, Sally Miller (radical feminist, writer)
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” (The Future–If There Is One–Is Female, 1982)
“Why have any men at all?” (The Future–If There Is One–Is Female, 1982)
“Such a prospect [ovular merging] is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons, no amount of love and care and non-sexist training will save those sons from [a] culture where male violence is institutionalized.” (The Future–If There Is One–Is Female, 1982)
Greer, Germaine (radical feminist, writer)
In an interview, Dr. Greer was asked the question, “You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?” Greer first denied that she had said it, and then replied, “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don’t take place anywhere near an ovum. I don’t know that the ecosphere can tolerate it.” (At a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book, The Change — Women, Aging and the Menopause, Knopf, 1992 — from a news report dated 11/14/91)
“[Men are] freaks of nature… full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals.” (Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999)
“If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, McGraw-Hill, 1971, p. 317)
“…men bash women because they enjoy it; they torture women as they might torture an animal or pull the wings off flies.” (Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman, Knopf, 1999)
“The man regards (woman) as a receptacle into which he has emptied his sperm, a kind of human spitoon.” (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch, Mcgraw-Hill, 1971)
Griffin, Susan (radical feminist, writer)
“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” (Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime, Ramparts 10, September 1971, pp. 26-35)
“And in the spectrum of male behavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate [sic] act. Erotic pleasure cannot be separated from culture, and in our culture male eroticism is wedded to power” (Susan Griffin, Rape: The Politics of Consciousness, Harper & Row, 1979)
Jeffrys, Sheila (radical feminist)
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” (Quote)
Jordan, Barbara (Former Rep. D-Tex.)
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Levine, Judith (radical feminist, writer)
“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.” (Judith Levine, My Enemy, My Love: Women, Masculinity, and the Dilemmas of Gender, Doubleday, 1992)
“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, ‘hate in love,’ for the men women share their lives with–husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers.” (Judith Levine, My Enemy, My Love: Women, Masculinity, and the Dilemmas of Gender, Doubleday, 1992)
“There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundry list of ‘sex acts’…includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder. All sex must stop before male supremacy will be defeated: … We know of no exception to male supremacist sex. … We therefore name intercourse, penetration, and all other sex acts as integral parts of the male gender construction, which is sex; and we criticise them as oppressive to women. We name orgasm as the epistemological mark of the sexual, and we therefore criticise it too as oppressive to women. … If it doesn’t subordinate women, it’s not sex.” (commenting on a document from Women Against Sex: A Southern Women’s Writing Collective – Sex Resistance in Heterosexual Arrangements, 1987)
MacKinnon, Catherine (Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago Law Schools, radical feminist, writer)
“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think that’s too broad. I’m not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that.” (Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses of Life and Law – A Rally Against Rape, Harvard University Press, 1987)
“Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.” (Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses of Life and Law – A Rally Against Rape, Harvard University Press, 1987, p. 81)
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.” (Catherine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses of Life and Law – Sex and Violence: A Perspective, Harvard University Press, 1987)
Morgan, Robin (radical feminist, writer, Ms. Magazine Editor)
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” (Robin Morgan, Going too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist – Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape, Random House, 1974)
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” (Robin Morgan, Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement, Vintage, 1970)
“…rape is the perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture — it is the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession.” (Robin Morgan, Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement, Vintage, 1970)
“I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don’t mean that. Yes, I really do.” (Robin Morgan, Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement, Vintage, 1970)
“And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism–the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group–skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism–the oppressed have no alternative–for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men–but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women–kill your fathers, not your mothers.” (Robin Morgan, Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement, Vintage, 1970)
Solanas, Valerie (radical feminist, mental patient, convicted for the attempted murder of Andy Warhol)
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” (Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto)
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.” (Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto)
“The male is a biological accident: the ‘y’ (male) gene is an incomplete ‘x’ (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.” (Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto)
“The male likes death–it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die… The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to live at someone else’s expense.” (Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto)
“[Males should] “…go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quickly and painlessly gassed to death.” (Author of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto)
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (early suffragist)
“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…” (Marjorie Spruill Wheeler, ed., One Woman One Vote: Rediscovering the Woman Suffrage Movement, NewSage Press, 1995, p. 58)
Sullinger, Helen & Lehmann, Nancy (radical feminists)
“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women…. Male society has sold us the idea of marriage…. Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it…. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.” (Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger, Declaration of Feminism, 1971)

Suggested food possibilities for the Western World

Now, there are some times when logic should be used. Here is a link to a fascinating article to add to my alien planet archive. It’s a ‘keep’!

Should meat eaters in the West, eat insects instead?

Modern farming methods of animals in the West are absolutely terrible – torture for sentient animals. Mass torture in fact. Factory farming. A crime against animals.

Eating insects has become quite fashionable instead – healthy, natural, insects freshly harvested direct from forests and fields.

The logical thought is that several species of insects will become rapidly extinct if we do that of course – and will have to be factory farmed as well as cows, pigs and chickens too.

But what if insects are sentient as well?


Free speech on an alien planet

I have never liked Richard Dawkins disdain of spirituality/religion. Though both are not the same thing of course. Richard Dawkins has neither.

He has been offensive to millions of believers of all kinds. He has bred a sort of insane ‘Atheism’ that is arrid, anal and produces cold, hard people that this planet could well do without. In that way, Dawkins has promoted Scientism rather than science.

He’s charming. But not.

He is logical. But not.

Science is his rod and staff. And he has lived in the ‘old world’ like me. In the ‘old world’, there were certain rules.

The right to hold your own ideas.
Listening to others with opinions not your own.
The right to stand on your soap box if yoy want.
Challenging those with whom you disagree.
Grammar, education and cultural knowledge.
Family, marraige, morals, virtue.

Those were only some.

But does he realise as I do, that we are living on an alien planet now?

The new planet is ruled by Neoliberalism – the philosophy of marketing/money/greed being the God that we should follow. And the accolites need the creed –  me, me, me ME! to give offerings to the Gods of Greed. The new generations have been infected too by Postmodernism.

 Neoliberals advocate de-regulation in economic life while postmodernists advocate de-regulation in the cultural sphere. The new relativism of postmodernism matches with the laissez-faire attitude of neoliberals. Both currents of thought place the isolated individual in the centre of attention. Everybody has his/her own culture. The ‘I’ is liberated from the ‘we’. Both deny the possibility of steering or planning social developments, but proclaim the ability of individuals to re-create themselves.  Link

So now, the rules are different – young people have ‘rights’. The right –

To material possesions
To university education.
To protection from pain and hard work.
To protection from challenge.
To protection from unsettling ideas.
To protection from grammar, old cultural influences of european westernism.
To protection from constraining morals, family, marraige, virtue.
To protection from the discomfort of frugality.
To protection from MEN.

In fact – the Snowflake generation is that which inhabits university campases mainly.

Richard Dawkins is obviously too challenging for them. And that IS a pity.

Reducing disabilities

Scientists are testing artificial wombs.

I think that’s a good thing that might reduce the enormous amount of babies set to exist rather than live a proper life. On this alien planet there are more and more humans, not living, but just surviving.

Scientists Create Artificial Womb That Could Help Prematurely Born Babies

A normal pregnancy lasts about 40 weeks. A human device would be designed for those born 23 or 24 weeks into pregnancy.

Only about half of such babies survive and, of those that do, about 90 percent suffer severe complications, such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, seizures, paralysis, blindness and deafness, Flake says.

About 30,000 babies are born earlier than 26 weeks into pregnancy each year in the United States, according to the researchers.

But, it’s not that simple.

Davis worries that the device is not necessarily a good solution for human fetuses.

“If it’s a difference between a baby dying rather peacefully and a baby dying under conditions of great stress and discomfort then, no, I don’t think it’s better,” Davis says.

“If it’s a question of a baby dying versus a baby being born who then needs to live its entire life in an institution, then I don’t think that’s better. Some parents might think that’s better, but many would not,” she says.

And even if it works, Davis also worries about whether this could blur the line between a fetus and a baby.

“Up to now, we’ve been either born or not born. This would be halfway born, or something like that. Think about that in terms of our abortion politics,” she says.

And, it could get worse!

There’s also a danger such devices might be used coercively. States could theoretically require women getting abortions to put their fetuses into artificial wombs, says Scott Gelfand, a bioethicist at Oklahoma State University. 

Employers could also require female employees to use artificial wombs to avoid maternity leave, he says. Insurers could require use of the device to avoid costly complicated pregnancies and deliveries.

“The ethical implications are just so far-reaching,” Gelfand says.

In the UK, we have torn each other apart with the Charlie Gard case.  Charlie Gard would not have been helped by gestating full term in an artificial womb, but he would be condemned to just ‘being’ rather than living. 

For mitochondria mis-spellings in families there is a technique that could assist the Gard’s to have a healthy little brother/sister for Charlie. 

First ‘three person baby’ born using new method

So medical technology is both wonderful and terrible. Reducing disability, not simply extending ‘existing’ would improve this place that we call our home. 

LBGTQ, gender and sex – and animal rights

There is something strange afoot on this planet.  And we are getting caught in the currents of a new insanity. It’s new, because, in the course of history, there has never been any question about some established facts of nature.

Baby things are usually either male or female. When they mature, they make further male or female babies. It’s called reproduction. Sometimes, as in certain fishes, and snails  males can change to female or self fertilise. Like plants. That doesn’t work in complex animals.

Male and female animals are stuck with what their chromosomes gave them.’Feelings’ didn’t used to change their sex.

But now, its all different. Feelings are facts and facts are not facts.Sex is not gender and gender can be chosen if you feel like it. 

How alien can this place be? There is no observable reality anymore. You can be anything you want to be by ‘feeling’ it and legally too. And others must conform with your perception of you.


Today researchers and activists in London released a ‘transfesto’, calling for greater awareness of issues faced by transgender, non-binary and gender nonconforming people after they die.The manifesto calls on the funeral industry to develop more trans-friendly practices and for official death-related paperwork to be more trans-inclusive. It also outlines plans to make trans-specific legal information more easily accessible. >>>“Trans people must constantly self-advocate in life — for those of us with the privilege to plan for our futures instead of just our immediate survival, there is always a worry for us that our corpses will not be respected in death,” says Morgan Potts, a member of the Dysphoria Collective, who participated in the research. Concerns include ensuring that their chosen gender, pronoun and name is used both on official documents and in memorial ceremonies regardless of the body’s appearance.


Not only do such concerns about death feel strange on the planet I inherited/remembered, but animals have become so clever they can sue you!  Taking a selfie is pretty cute – but suing you for the copyright to it, is mind-bogglingly intelligent.

What HAS happenned to animals? Do you think threy are just ‘feeling’ like humans?

Image result for monkey selfie

Is Neoliberalism – the alien part of my planet?

I think everyone has a sort of bullshit periscope in their brains. When bullshit enters their ears, the periscope looks about to see where it’s coming from. 

My bullshit periscope oscillates all the time trying to fathom out what is wrong with the planet as I find it now. There is something seriously wrong with society. It’s insane. It’s daft.

I cannot put my finger on it.

My bullshit periscope reads a lot. It watches videos. It computes, weighs up, sums up and descerns. At night it drops down into its storage department in my head, refreshing for the next day.

Everyone has such descernment. It’s not just me that thinks society has gone to hell in a handcart. On this blog, I’m going to complain. But I want to complain intelligently. ‘Neoliberalism’ is a new word for me..

Here is George Monbiot, whose writing I enjoy – but not always agree with, on Neoliberalism in an article from the Guardian  last year –

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.


Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.

This whole article is well worth reading – do it first – because TODAY he has published another interesting article called The Missing Link  which dovetails nicely.

It’s the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean’s new book Democracy in Chains: the deep history of the radical right’s stealth plan for America is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor’s work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year, whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She writes that the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch.
Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.
Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued, in the first half of the 19th century, that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property – including your slaves – however you may wish. Any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses.
James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he called “public choice theory”. He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes are forms of “differential or discriminatory legislation” against the owners of capital.
Any clash between what he called “freedom” (allowing the rich to do as they wished) and democracy should be resolved in favour of freedom. In his book The Limits of Liberty, he noted that “despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe.” Despotism in defence of freedom.

Do read the whole article – it’s illuminating!

Roger Scruton: Moral Relativism Will Be the Death Knell of Western Civil…


I discovered Roger Scruton – well Sir Roger Scruton – SIR.

Never heard of him before.

He looks like he just got out of bed. He’d look like that, I’m sure, in a suit or pyjamas.

I love the way he talks – like Alan Watts. Relaxed, off the cuff sort of thing.

And I enjoy what he says. I LIKE it. Now that means that somewhere inside of me, I have found ideas that I feel are right.

He’s been a naughty boy in the eyes of the world by taking money for writing articles in praise of smoking.

He smokes? Or smoked? That makes me immediately warm to him. He’s MY age. He says things I can understand, and that feel right and wise to me.

He’s a Conservative. Very.

I don’t know what I am. I’m 72. I don’t like this strange planet I find myself on. It is so changed that I don’t feel at home on it anymore. Maybe I’m a Conservative?

I listened to this video. I’m archiving it here. I might want to watch it again to retrieve the thoughts I had today. It made me feel that my Alien Planet, might, in good time, become HOME again.