November 5, 2019

Feminazi Blitzkrieg

If poisonous ideologies infest the collective consciousness, it becomes a public service to eradicate them.

In the modern-day and age, there often comes a time when venturing onto the Internet will lead you into a skirmish with a fully-fledged "femineus foedus-fuscus", or feminazi for short.

The definition originates from the Latin words femineus (meaning female or cowardly), foedus (meaning abominable, grievous, monstrous or vile) and fuscus (meaning dark, hoarse or husky).

Here is a visual sample of a femineus foedus-fuscus in its artificially natural habitat -- a concrete jungle.
Feminazi erects into favoured "destructo-derbitus" attack stance as a prelude to full "berserk mode".

Feminazis are a relatively new breed of creature. They are grossly misled females that will fight tooth and nail to depose truth in favour of violent inclusion, impose false paradigms upon others, employ group-think-backed coercion and advocate for complete relativity in all things. They hold the worldview which purports that the only constant is change and that truth is subjective to the observer.

If attempting to engage them in any form of dialogue, debate or discussion, expect to be met with fierce denials of truth, extreme delusion and moral relativism of the highest order. Such specimens will routinely deploy slippery tactics that seek to discredit, disrupt, delay, deny, degrade and deter all rationality and common sense.

Prologue: Into battle

Upon browsing the popular social media platform LinkedIn, I stumbled upon a suspected femineus foedus-fuscus in operational mode by the name of Charlotte Ludt, an international interloper currently plying her trade at UNWomen, a globalist entity "dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women", but in reality, advocating for moral relativism and the imposition of de-facto slavery on an international scale.

Upon engaging this feminazi, I soon discovered that although she claims to be working towards "ending violence against women", she is willing to advocate for violence against men and children to fulfil her pledge.

Other examples of feminazi beliefs include advocating for people to be charged with hate crimes, fined and imprisoned if they use inappropriate gender pronouns and for children to be stripped away from their parents if they are home-schooled or unvaccinated.

UNWomen openly states: "UN Women supports United Nations Member States as they set global standards for achieving gender equality, and works with governments and civil society to design laws, policies, programmes and services needed to ensure that the standards are effectively implemented and truly benefit women and girls worldwide."

That's the facade. Below the surface, however, the organisation supports full-blown legalisation of abortion, promoting vaccination and sterilisation in developing countries, conducting "sustainable development" that serves as a trojan horse, sex-reassignment for confused children, and assisting social engineering programmes for the United Nations (UN).

Readers will be happy to know that after an extensive firefight, the femineus foedus-fuscus in question and her cohort of conscripts were shot down, neutered and obliterated in front of an online audience.

Here is the full transcript of what transpired with the focal point on this particular occasion being the definition of sex and gender identity -- one of the feminazis' most favoured battlegrounds.

Act 1

Ms Ludt posts a mock letter addressed to "the Media" voicing her consternation that a journalist referred to a Nobel Prize-winning couple as Professor Abhijit Banerjee "and wife" instead of using the woman's actual name, Esther Duflo (who is also a professor). The woman should be getting as much recognition as the man, in the eyes of the disgruntled Ms Ludt.

Clearly, this 'faux pas' carried out by the journalist caused angst and a sense of injustice within the femineus foedus-fuscus, and consequently, leads to an immediate manning of battle stations and shrieks of alarm on social media. 
This is done to rally other like-minded feminazis to her cause of trying to convince the world that women are being treated unfairly, and therefore, to justify draconian counterproductive legislation and to destroy traditional gender roles.

Upon seeing this trivial nonsense (but also seeing an excellent opportunity to joust with Ms Ludt), I fixed this beastling into my crosshairs and pinged a tracer round across her bow to test the water:
The feminazi immediately took my bait, given her visceral emotional arousal and the strong need to engage a white male that has stumbled upon her senseless chuntering. 

In the mind of a feminazi, my challenge represents an excellent opportunity to make her point, raise awareness of her agenda and to change minds. Not here you don't missey.

She also reveals the full extent of what she considers would be "in everyone's interest" and tries to imply that everyone should accept her worldview:

Not only does she want to eliminate conscious discrimination in public, but she also wants to eliminate unconscious discrimination in private. 

In other words, if a girl is attracted to a white male instead of a black male -- that's clearly racial discrimination because black males are being ostracised and marginalised. Such girls clearly need to be penalised and re-educated to ensure this unconscious bias is removed. It's unfair on black people and the girl must be a racist that's committing racial discrimination.

With the femineus foedus-fuscus clearly unaware at the gaping inconsistencies in her remarks, I loaded my musket and fired a supplementary salvo at her bruised ego:
Upon reading my comments, the flustered Ms Ludt dives for cover in the form of an appeal to "human rights" while deploying countermeasures in the form of a gest towards my factual accuracy. She also makes the sordid mistake of inferring that all human rights are derived from "declarations" and "resolutions" i.e. that they are man-made. Yikes.
Undeterred, and in the full knowledge that she is collared by her own rope, I press the issue further and put her in a corner (the last place battle-ready feminazis want to be).

I also swat away her feigned wishes for a "nice weekend", clearly deployed to slow down the cascade of anxiety jolting through her. The wounded feminazi is now in a dazed state and is hoping for the sound of the bell so she can take a breather and regroup.
Minutes after my smarmy rebuttal, the floundering Ms Ludt receives a reprieve in the form of a third-party. A none the wiser creative writer by the name of Kyle, who wanders into the skirmish and deflects attention away from Ms Ludt by asking a nonsensical question:
Under the impression that "discrimination is an issue", Kyle wants to reduce it to improve livelihoods (but not realising that enforcing anti-discrimination policies is exactly what ruins livelihoods in the form of inconsistent application of laws and subjective interpretation of what discrimination even entails).

Fighting against discrimination would do more harm than good and is the equivalent of a war on drugs or a war on terrorism or a war on impunctuality -- it's pointless and can never be won. There is a far more elegant and simpler solution: draw the line in the sand at physical harm and encourage people to grow a thicker skin.

Creative he may be, but logical he ain't.

I immediately put the naivete-prone Kyle in his place with a sharp riposte:
The exchange provides Ms Ludt sufficient time to cobble together a response, falling over herself to apologise as a means of being respectful while spewing a dog's dinner of a definition for the word "intersex" -- a word that was invented in the early 1900s by social engineers to instil a gender-agenda upon the world's population. In the mind of Ms Ludt, it's sufficient proof that sex is non-binary and exists on a spectrum.
A brother in arms arrives to make a good point...
Ms Ludt evades by making the point relative (again) and attempts to defend her vacuous position by directing attention at the nominal figure of so-called intersex people.
Again failing to think critically, Ms Ludt doesn't realise that by making ~9 billion people accept the notion of a 3rd sex despite only ~77 million suffering from gender dysphoria is rather silly and counterproductive. That's the equivalent of forcing every business and building manager to install wheelchair access ramps even though less than 1% of people use a wheelchair. Or, blocking out the Sun because less than 1% suffers from an allergy to sunlight.

Another example of such nonsensical reasoning is various countries legislating that all bicycle riders must wear crash helmets despite only 1% falling off to damage their temples when riding their bikes.

Using the plight of a minority to augment the actions of the majority is rather foolish, but Ms Ludt would disrespectfully disagree.

As I would soon learn, she doesn't even consider "intersex" to be a disorder or an abnormality. To her, it's simply nature taking her course through evolution and change. The fact that the rate of gender dysphoria is growing exponentially is of no concern. What is of concern is that more people aren't accepting this genetic and psychological dysfunction as being normal and perfectly natural.

I quickly move to strike at the feminazi's inner sanctum while she blathers away and swings at shadows:
With the feminazi felled and immobilised, another specimen arrives on the scene, ready to pick up the baton dropped by her vanquished sister-in-ignorance...

Act 2

A programme manager from Bangladesh dubbed Ms Sifat Yusuf, with a stunning ability to embody her given name, jumps into the frame and is "ready to fight":
Without knowing just how battle-ready this particular femineus foedus-fuscus is and what kind of ammunition it may be packing, I decided to fire a standard armour-piercing round with a burden-of-proof evidence request attached as a depth charge:
The direct hit leaves Ms Yusuf's armour in tatters and her capacity to determine which way is up severely compromised. The newly-arrived femineus foedus-fuscus can only muster an appeal to consensus and authority as a means of recovering her decimated philosophical argument:
As we all know, logical fallacies are to be avoided at all costs in a debate, although Ms Yusuf is clearly too dim-witted to understand her system error and the fact that she's just fallen on her own sword.
I move quickly to finish off the poor cow:
Like the living dead, Ms Yusuf continues to bloviate in support of her hole-ridden argument, only this time, she appeals to personal experience -- apparently obtained during 6 years of work in some sort of "health system" position in Bangladesh. She could have been a nurse or a surgeon (or something in between), but my money is more towards the former side of the scale. 
Under the false impression that someone must be a health system worker for 6 years to know the difference between sex/gender and whether they are binary, the babbling Ms Yusuf has dug herself a deeper hole filled with more logical fallacies and ad hominems.

Considering that bantering with this wretch wouldn't last long, I deliver the 'coup de grâce' while shifting the debate onto a new parallel:
To her credit, despite losing a lot of blood, some limbs, her jaw, her beauty and most of her dignity, the determined femineus foedus-fuscus continues to press buttons on her keyboard in the vain hope of defeating the truth -- with yet more appeals to authority and the assumption that one must hold a PhD to make a solid argument or to understand something. The PhD-less programme manager with 6yrs experience in Bangladesh understands it all OK though. No sweat.
Repeating the same balderdash over and over, the floundering Ms Yusuf had now become a flailing gimmick. To exemplify how feminazis must be dealt with, I decided to make mincemeat from her porky carcass:
From her next bit of jibber-jabber Ms Yusuf indicates she is the type of lunatic to indulge mentally ill people who firmly believe they hail from the canine family, by encouraging their mental illness and barking with them to help them feel included and acknowledged:
Seeing this hilarious turn of events and considering that my question was a sarcastic jest, I decided to put the nail in this zombie's coffin once and for all. After all, ad hominems and slanderous aspersions should only be allowed to go so far. 

This femineus foedus-fuscus needed to be bagged and tagged with examples of how people are being fined and imprisoned for "misgendering" on social media. A cheeky poke at her provincial location and a reference to her nation's gruesome colonial past would also pierce her battle-hardened armour:
Instead of accepting that her nonexistent argument was completely decimated and her ability to stand by her vacuous appeals to authority was unwise, the audacious feminazi makes one last stand, like a corpse rising from the grave. 

Only this time, she can only manage an insult regarding my choice of reference material and some feeble references to "civil rights", "struggling" and "needing allies":
As I had suspected, the immorally-inclined Ms Yusuf doesn't consider people being imprisoned for gender-pronoun "misuse" to be chaotic. "Hardly chaos", she says while focusing on only one reference point (the Daily Mail). The fact that other sources were cited goes amiss as the greasy Ms Yusuf again cherry-picks what she considers to be true and tries to discredit the messenger rather than the message.

As a final twist, guess who makes an appearance after the Bangladeshi banger was disposed of? 

None other than Ms Ludt, clearly recuperated from her injuries and now desperate to shut this feminazi massacre down to minimise damage to torn up reputations and self-esteem (not to mention their utterly dismantled points of view):
The least I could do to finally end this feminazi blitz was to deliver a curtain call, of sorts. A final message to the eviscerated feminazis with egos more bruised than a boxer after 12 rounds and self-confidence that had shrunk to the size of a salt grain.
Thinking this was the last of my 'tête-à-tête' with the gruesome twosome, the porky Ms Yusuf attempted yet another resurrection barely a day later.

In this particular instance, Ms Yusuf blathers, accuses me of "mansplaining" and my refusal to accept information akin to an anti-vaxxer. Again, preferring to ignore what I'm saying and only focusing on how I'm saying it.
Clearly, this conformist mare has no idea about the toxicity of artificial chemicals, especially when injected into newborn babies.

However, going down that particular alley would open an entirely new can of worms and would likely attract multiple popinjays as reinforcements, so I decided to steer her away from the persistent subject hopping.
The hurling of multiple truth bombs clearly hit a nerve, as evidenced by Ms Yusuf's dismissive recoiling back into her shell:
By this point, the discombobulated and emotionally-aroused Ms Yusuf had only one strategy left: to hurl personal insults and pretend she didn't care about what I think -- even though she had written over a dozen posts up until now in a vain attempt to make her point and convince me that sex is not binary. 

Thinking this was the end of this last gasp skirmish, I switched off my PC and caught a few winks.

Only to wake up to see a fresh conscript drafted in as reinforcement:
A brooding "community associate" by the name of Julia Anna Dobron -- yet another femineus foedus-fuscus with a rare attractive streak, to be sure. However, by coming to the aid of the flailing Ms Yusuf, Ms Dobron committed the equivalent of philosophical suicide by (wait for it) denying the existence of immutable laws of nature and Natural Law.

In the mind of this scatty mare, nature always changes and so do her Laws. In her view, objective truth and immutable concepts are non-existent with everything being relative. The sheer stupidity of such a statement was clearly unbeknown to her.

I decided to parry this feeble attempt at furthering the debate by providing some rudimentary information relating to how and why sex is binary, as well as, the impact upon wider society if people accepted the contrary:
Undeterred, the relativism-prone feminazi continued banging on about a "bigot prysm" and posted her basis for why sex is a spectrum. I was going to educate the girl on the correct spelling of prism but then I realised it would go unappreciated, so I didn't.
Knowing that the chances of Ms Dobron actually reading her own reference material were rather low (and that she was simply interested in coming to the aid of a feminazi in need), I decided to get to the point:
With Ms Dobron suitably dispatched, I was pleasantly surprised to see the vanquished Ms Yusuf come back for another backhander. Blimey, this rotund wonder had more lives than a cat.
In this particular salvo (and again thanking me with feigned joyful etiquette) Ms Yusuf reveals the whole kit and caboodle of her intentions, namely: "the acceptance of people's choices". That's what this entire debate is about for her, and yet, the topic was clearly whether sex is binary, or not. 

Ms Yusuf doesn't really care whether sex is binary. She simply wants everyone to be happy, content, feel included and have the ability to designate whatever they like as their natural sex. 

Could men simply change sex and be accepted into women's prisons or women's sports events? Could men use women-only facilities including toilets and changing rooms? If sex and gender were simply a box-tick away from being switched that would terraform society as we know it, but the entire kaleidoscope of ramifications was clearly unconsidered by the aloof Ms Yusuf.

Presumably, if someone chose to identify as a dog and lick her arse upon greeting her, she would stand there with gritted teeth and smile away to ensure nobody's feelings were hurt and that the wannabe canine wouldn't feel marginalised.

Occupying the higher ground in this so-called "debate", I replied by reaffirming my earlier points:
Failing to address any of the points (again), Ms Yusuf resorts to personal insults (again), although on this occasion, she offers up a nugget of irrelevant information by mentioning the existence of a hormone called 'progesterone' and other steroid hormones. 

I was on the verge of considering thanking Ms Yusuf for these factoids that had no relation to the conversation, but in the end, I didn't.
To my utter surprise, a medical biologist who believes health is a subjective concept showed up to dispute mutations being deformities:
Having touched upon a highly important issue and venturing into philosophy, I had to give Mr Schoeman some credit. His segway into the pivotal issue of  'what's the difference between normal and abnormal' was welcome. I duly provided my take on the matter, knowing full-well that this topic remains highly divisive in philosophy circles: 
Perfectly on cue, like an atomic clock, the philosophically defunct and physically dishevelled Ms Ludt reappears with a 2nd attempt at damage limitation and to censor dialogue. Feelings were being torn asunder in the pursuit of truth and Ms Ludt wanted none of it:
Throwing insults and classifying my entire set of points as "hateful", "derogatory", "sexist" and "patronizing", she was clearly upset and unhappy. I had to be careful though because femineus foedus-fusci are at their most dangerous when wounded.

I responded by giving her the proverbial two barrels to ensure this particular specimen would have a nightmare or two: 
The End...

That was the end of the feminazi blitzkrieg with all femineus foedus-fusci scattered or destroyed. Although, you never know when the feminazi graveyard will be putting out again.

Epilogue: Body count

As you can see ladies and gentlemen, blitzing feminazis can (and should) be done for the betterment of humanity and to expose their heinous ideology. It's not easy work I tell ya, but well worth the effort not to mention the amusement such activity brings.

On a serious note, however, do remember that militant feminists have no interest in seeking truth and are only concerned about trodding on everyone for the betterment of women -- even if this means the poisoning, coercion and imprisonment of millions of people (including women).

Such creatures will moan and whine about people being derogatory, intolerant and bigoted, while they, frog march people to their graves with counterproductive legislation propped up by illusions instead of facts. And they don't tolerate disagreement of any kind while they're at it. The hypocrisy displayed by these creatures is rather mind-boggling.

If left unchallenged and undeterred, femineus foedus-fusci will be coming to a town hall near you. 

Be wary of such creatures and never let them masquerade their relativity as objectivity. Their only weapons are forming consensus groups and resorting to herd behaviour based on an immoral understanding of reality and implicit coercion tactics -- which is why critical thinking and having the will to stand out from the crowd is so important.

The Aftermath

Soon after the publication of this transcript -- the skirmish was reignited following the introduction of a beta-cuck brigade, a flurry of like-button click-merchants and a femineus foedus-fuscus platoon.

Click here or paste the following link into your favourite web browser for a real-time view of the battlefield: