Of Pets and Children – the story of Lola

I could almost present this without comment – after all I’m fairly sure by now you know some of what I’m going to say about it, but I felt it was helpful to quote from the article because it’s just SO outrageous!


I recommend you go and watch the brief video of this woman being interviewed on the Daily Mail’s website here: Link

I’m going to quote from there [my emphasis added]:

Britain’s most pampered pooch is celebrating Christmas in the lap of luxury with 68 individually wrapped presents costing in excess of a £1,000. […]

Helena admits that Lola, who has her very own bank account and £100 monthly allowance from her husband Mark, will be getting more presents than her six-year-old son Harry because she ‘loves Lola more’.

‘This year, she’s definitely getting more gifts than Harry,’ she admitted. ‘I tried to hide that from Harry last year, but this time it’s so obvious because there’s so many.’

She added: ‘I do love my Lola more than Harry. You know, Lola never moans about homework, and she never complains about what’s for dinner.

‘She had her first snow yesterday, and I came in and realised I hadn’t taken any pictures of Harry – but had absolutely loads of Lola, and that’s what always happens.’ […]

‘I took a week off from work when Lola had her spaying operation, when Harry has a cold I’m just like, “Off you go then!”‘

Helena said: ‘My husband’s view is happy wife, happy life – he knows where he comes in the pecking order – it goes Lola, Harry, him! […]

Helena explained how she took Harry out of school to go to a special dog photographer so that they could have a family photo with Lola. 

‘I would rather that Harry wasn’t able to spell “table” when he’s 20, than have a gap in the family photo,’ Helena reasoned.

Now it would be easy to say that this woman is some kind of freak – let’s be honest this is not the behaviour of someone who is very rational. A rational person doesn’t turn their dog into an idol, and I have never, personally, known anyone who treats their dog as being more important than a human member of the family. However, it would also be easy to say that of a person who claims (with no evidence beyond their own thoughts and feelings) that they are “otherkin” or of another gender. Yet now the state is demanding (with menaces) that we accept that this person is “natural” and that they are what they say they are no matter the fact that their chromosomes mean they are NOT a different sex (nor species!) than they were born.

Why make this comparison?

Because both the irrational transgenders and this woman are being pampered. Our culture is being parasitised by a media which promotes this kind of irrational and societally damaging behaviour. This woman should be absolutely ashamed of her thoughts regarding loving her dog more than her son. The very idea of uttering such a sentiment should be considered abhorrent in ANY decent and civilised society. Yet here she is being interviewed and written about in a national newspaper as some kind of benign oddity. Where are child protective services? I’ve heard of children being taken away from LOVING parents for a lot less than this child is enduring. Not only has his mother turned an unclean animal into some kind of idol, she has also abased the natural role of his own father to beneath himself!

To say that the father is lower on the pecking order than the son, who is lower than the dog, means that boundaries – boundaries designed by God to ensure that boys grow up to be men – have been destroyed, and with them, for this little boy, his sense of self, and how to relate to people. His teenage rebellion will probably be something to behold. Poor kid. She even admits he’ll probably need therapy when he’s older due to how she has treated the family dog.

Sadly this is what happens when women rule the home. Her husband should take a stand, leave and take the son away. She’ll, no-doubt, be upset for a while, but as long as she has her £100 a month for the dog, and the dog itself, perhaps she’ll quickly forget about her child.

This is a tragic case which reinforces the questions I’ve already raised about having unclean animals in the home. This dog is more than a tool to protect the home, she has become the centre of everything. Women, I will note, will often use a pet to rule the home. Making the plans they have (their “needs”) all about the pet is a good cover to completely undermine their husband’s role. Most men these days are very soft about pets – after all it is said that a man’s best friend is his dog. This ruse is an easy one to pull on a husband – “Oh honey I don’t think we should go out tonight, the dog always looks so miserable when we leave”, or “Oh honey, don’t bother me for sex tonight, poochie’s just got comfie on the bed.”

This is, quietly, the behaviour of a Jezebel. Women who put a pet before a child are unnatural!

Just to be absolutely clear for those reading this who don’t know the natural order, I’m going to actually state it here:

Father (head of the wife)

Wife (helpmeet to the husband – see Proverbs 31 for more details)


That’s it. There isn’t a place on the pecking order for pets.

Until we become obedient – truly submitting ourselves, both MEN and WOMEN to our proper roles we will not be able to raise a generation capable of putting right what the Left has done wrong since WWII. I say men too because the question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg” can also be asked in relation to Jezebel and Ahab. Which came first, her behaviour or his indifference to it? Men do need to stand – a weak man will often leave a woman no choice but to lead.

Sadly, in a Marxist “Utopia” this woman is a good example of someone who is “living her best life” (i.e. she’s displaying narcissistic behaviour).

And that is a sign of Jezebel at work.

God Bless you



Of shrews and Jezebels…

I have some thoughts forming which I’m just going to write and see where they go. I was “impressed” (more like outraged, actually, as you would expect) by this article, written by one of the greatest narcissists in journalism today, Liz Jones of the Daily Mail. Don’t get me wrong here – no hate – but I have read her diary for years (I don’t know why!), and I know how her mind works. I know that everything is someone else’s fault, and that she is nigh-on incapable of being understanding, gentle or selfless (at least in print!). She believes herself to be all those things, but somehow the rest of us can’t see it, and indeed see her as a self-absorbed and somewhat comical figure. I feel immense sadness for her – somehow she has gone though life with narcissism affecting all her relationships and cannot see it. I know other people like that personally, and it has brought them great sorrow.

Back to the article. Liz was interviewing a woman who has written three “self-help” books, which, in my opinion, are based on inculcating narcissism (me me me!) into more women (because men don’t generally read this stuff). This first quote sets the stage (Link for the full article):

When a book with the tantalising title The Life-Changing Magic of Not Giving a F*** landed on my desk last year, I was intrigued. Even more so by the subtitle: How to Stop Spending Time You Don’t Have With People You Don’t Like Doing Things You Don’t Want To Do.

Right. I continued to read, and Liz says:

I spend my life doing things I don’t want to, with people I can’t stand. I always try to please everyone and my unwillingness to challenge authority has made me bankrupt. Reading the introduction, with its no-nonsense, funny approach, made me think differently. I do matter. I deserve a nice life.

She goes on to tell us that the author of the books, Sarah Knight, has changed her life and is sharing the steps she took. Her first two books are million sellers! The second book is called “Get Your S*** Together”. Hmmm.

The article is designed to push Sarah’s third book, called “You Do You”. Oh dear. Please take a moment, if you will, to remind yourself of how we, as believers, view ourselves. The idea of being ourselves (with all the fleshly stuff left alone), and saying that’s OK, is not really the way we want to be. I am the clay, God is the potter – let Him have His way, NOT mine! As someone who has sinned a lot prior to knowing God I can say that doing things “my way” was really bad for me! Anyway, back to the quote, because this is where we see Jezebel really come through: [my emphasis added]

Which brings us to her new book, You Do You: How to be Who You Are And Use What You’ve Got to Get What You Want. ‘I want to guide people towards self-acceptance and confidence,’ says Sarah, ‘even if you possess any of the “flaws” outlined in the book. I’m not trying to change who you are. I want to help you change how you feel and cope with the way others treat you.’ And the anxiety and depression? ‘I know how to nip it in the bud.’

Wow. A self-help guru who is depressive, anxious, imperfect… ‘That’s why they call me the anti-guru,’ she says. ‘If you’re a Negative Nancy, stop thinking of that as negative. You’re a realist. Your pessimism helps protect you from bad outcomes because you prepare. There’s nothing wrong with that. The book’s not called You Improve You – it’s called You Do You for a reason.’

Surely you need to have a big ego to think that way? ‘Ha ha, you noticed! Why is saying someone has a big ego never a compliment? Are people afraid of confidence? This is who I am. I went to Harvard. I was the first female president of the 152-year-old college theatre group. I had a great career. I’ve written two bestselling books. These are facts and I don’t see why I wouldn’t acknowledge them. My brand is about candour.’

Yikes! Wow! Um… I have no words for that! This is the last “food” that modern women need! This is worse than mere feminism, this is narcissism!

Which takes me onto a second set of thoughts. You see Sarah is just a nice looking girl – perfectly presentable with a big smile. She looks perfectly normal, yet underneath she is someone who believes that she should be putting herself first. Self-sacrifice is a trait of femininity. When that goes, you are left with shrewish narcissistic behaviour which is just plain harmful to husbands and families.

So my second set of thoughts relates to men. My man friend has been divorced twice. He has suffered at the hands of the mothers of his children. He knows the pain of “modernity” and feminism. Today is International Men’s Day. I want to share some thoughts which might be hard for men to accept. You see my man friend thinks I am beautiful. To him I am, and that is a wonderful thing! But what lies beneath beauty is what men need to take a much closer look at. So far so good, I am pleasing to him – I hope that continues! But men are visual creatures. They are attracted by the way a woman looks. Can any man tell the difference between a shrew and a proper woman (wife material)? Sarah’s husband is happy – they’ve been together 18 years and married for ten. He is clearly content. I hope so!

But so many men are making fundamental errors in choosing a woman by her appearance and not the content of her character, and somehow that has to change. In days gone by when make-up was seen as “whorish”, and little but powder and rouge were applied, a girl was a girl. You could see she was young, and you could see she was healthy. Now women online will often not only paint their faces, they will filter their photographs so that men have no idea what they are getting.

before and after a
Before and after make up

It’s not just the acne scars – it’s that often a man doesn’t know a woman before he sets his heart on her. He goes by what he sees, and he is dazzled by her make up! In fact how much do both sexes project on each other based on looks? Based on presentation?! I have been guilty of this in the past, and I understand the error first hand. One former friend told me that he always believed that beautiful girls were nice girls – that he projected on them that they were nice, kind, gentle etc., because of how they looked. This is such a massive error!

Courting a girl, and really getting to know her, is vital for a man to decide if she is going to be in alignment with his plans for their life together! No sex! Just getting to know each other. Being on the same page is so important. It saves so much grief!

My final comment is one of pure realism: no matter how pretty the girl is now, if you are really blessed and she doesn’t break your heart, you will end up with her looking little like she does now when you are old together.  Yes, a man needs to see attractive qualities in his woman, but he also shouldn’t place her beauty above her inner qualities. After all the beautiful Brigitte Bardot went from this:

brigitte bardot

to this:

brigitte bardot today

As all old ladies do!

I think she looks pretty amazing actually, for her age.

So can you spot a shrew? Are you making decisions made on looks instead of the content of someone’s character? If you see any of Sarah Knight’s books on your girlfriend’s bookshelf, it might be time to leave!

God Bless you


The Jezebel spirit – another root of unhappiness

Feminism has a lot to answer for. The constant portrayal of men, in the media, in advertisements, as inept, unreliable and incompetent is designed to damage a woman’s view of the world. It gives women the impression that they are better at managing families – that the father of their children is a mere apendage. And if he gets too annoying, he can be easily removed (and financially emptied) by a lawyer.

So women really do run families – and of course this is very stressful, and prone to them making terrible mistakes, too! A woman’s judgement is not like a man’s. Two heads are better than one, we used to say. Not in the modern marriage. Women wear the trousers. This is the spirit of Jezebel.

One recent example of this is the plaintive story of one Shona Sibary. A woman who has written about her chaotic family life before. This time, she excelled herself. She decided, after a successful family holiday, to move her whole brood (husband and four children) to Devon. For those unfamiliar with Devon, it is very beautiful, and picturesque. It makes a great holiday destination.

Shona says:[Link]

“We were enjoying one last, blissful picnic on the beach. The kids were frolicking in the surf as the sun sank over the Saunton Sands horizon. I took a sip of rosé and thought wistfully: ‘I could live here.’

By the same time the next day, our car had joined the M5 heading north. But that thought had developed from an embryonic notion — which, let’s face it, we all have on the last night of a successful holiday — to a full-blown monster of a plan.

I presented the news to my husband, Keith, as we sat in a bottleneck, limping past Stonehenge. ‘We should move to Devon,’ I announced.

By the time we had arrived back at our house in Surrey, I had an entire West Country future mapped out. I could practically smell the sea air as I sank into bed, envisaging a simpler life enhanced by cream teas and crabbing.

What the hell, I ask you now, was I thinking? If anyone reading this feels even the tiniest inkling of recognition, then let what I am about to tell you act as the biggest cautionary tale ever to be winged your way.”

Are you getting the picture. My emphasis is on her decision. Where was her husband’s input? Hmmm. She goes on:
“Because moving to Devon did nothing short of tear my family apart. Today, I am back in the Home Counties — only without two of my four children. For so thoroughly did I despise country living that I felt I had no choice but to return to civilisation — even though it meant leaving my oldest daughters behind.”
She laments that her two eldest have made lives for themselves in Devon, and didn’t return with her when she fled from the “the mud and the rain — endless, relentless rain. And the wind.”

She goes on to tell us that there was no Waitrose (posh supermarket chain), no John Lewis (their parent company, which sells clothes, homewares etc.). She says the only place with big shops was an hour away.

“What’s so ironic today is that all the factors that drove our relocation to Devon became, when I didn’t have them any more, the very things I missed the most.”
I-I-I! Where was her husband in this? No, it’s all about Shona, and how Shona feels, and how awful this was… for Shona!
She goes on:
“It pains me to say it, but the Devon I adored on holiday wore me down when I lived there day to day. I wanted to love it — I really did. But I grew even to hate the sight of the sea, which, apart from about two days a year in the middle of August, was grey, uninviting and far too cold to enjoy. […]
But in the end, it just came down to an overwhelming sense of feeling exiled from the real world.

At first, I buried my feelings of anguish — after all, we had invested so much emotionally. We had bought a house. Keith and I planned to retire there.

But it got to the stage where I was so miserable that I didn’t even want to look out of the window and be reminded of our monumental mistake.

Then, while on a trip back to Surrey to see friends, it hit me that I felt happy for the first time in ages.

I called Keith, and suddenly found myself unable to stop weeping. Kind and supportive, he simply said: ‘Shona, let’s get the hell out of here. It’s not worth putting us through this.'”

Our monumental mistake. Note that. Of course, I-I-I while it’s being planned, but “our” when it goes wrong. So, with Keith’s support, her experiment came to an end. But wait. And this, for me, is the kicker. When Shona, who’s plan this had all been, told her kids they were moving back:
“The four of them looked at me in horror. Because while they had moaned endlessly when we first arrived, they had come out the other side. Unlike us, they had made a life in Devon.”
But Shona, being Shona, left anyway. Can you imagine doing that to a 16 year old who hasn’t even done their exams yet? Can you imagine, for one moment not putting that child and their future first, and waiting? I mean, after four years, what would another six months matter, or even a year! She continues:
“I recognise that leaving the girls behind in Devon is probably the most selfish thing I’ve ever done as a parent. But, hand on heart, I really felt I had no other choice.

And so here I am, back where we started with Monty and Dolly (who still isn’t speaking to me because she misses ‘home’).

Still, I’m heartbroken because we’ll never all live together as a family again.

The last years I’ll ever have with all my children together were ruined by that godforsaken place.”
Riiiiiiight. Yes, she had no other choice but to be selfish – you know, because she was unhappy, and it was indeed, DEVON that split up Shona’s family. Not her selfishness at all.
Jezebel is very busy in these times. I was pleased to see numerous comments on the article berrating the woman for her selfishness, but the sad part is that a lot of women (I’ve known a few) feel they must run the family – organise it, plan it, and make decisions for it. And women are terribly stressed by this. Simply loving and providing for a family isn’t enough. Men are, after all, useless – because like Ahab, they just allow themselves to be dragged along with their woman’s plans. Those of us who know the story of Jezebel know it didn’t end well.
But women have been sold Jezebel. Everywhere the Jezebel spirit is raised up and admired. From the screen ‘sirens’ of the 1940’s onwards – women have been sold an image of a woman as a successful manipulator of men, and men have been sold the idea that a difficult woman is worth the hard work and suffering. The word siren comes from Greek mythology – dangerous creatures who lured sailors to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their land. Hmmm. But I digress. The reality is, however, that men are rarely happy with controling women, and that a woman in charge rarely creates a happy home life, let alone sets a good example for the children. Women are rarely happy like this either – in fact their constant unhappiness and disatisfaction only leads to the kinds of flights of fancy we see here in Shona’s tale.
Men’s judgement is different to a woman’s – he sees things differently. He was designed, by God, to be the head of the family. I note that Shona’s husband, Keith, is now working far away in Dubai! Such a pity that he was not leaned on more – which strengthens a man – so that he could have made the decision, rather than her. Perhaps this is one lesson that Shona is learning.
Women, cherish and love and rely on your men.
(Please forgive the terrible formatting on this post – I don’t know why wordpress does this sometimes – it looked great in ‘edit’!)
God Bless you

The redeemable assholes of Hollywood – why women fall for narcissists

I get very tired of the Hollywood schtick. I watched this movie on YouTube a while back, and in it we are confronted with the usual unpleasant character (these are almost always men (in the films I watch, anyway)), and this guy, played by Michael Douglas,  turns out in the end to be a good guy.

How many times have I seen the very same unpleasant, self-centred characters redeemed by love, by persistence, by calling them out on their bullsh*t, and, oh yeah, more love.

The redeemable asshole is one of Hollywood’s greatest weapons against good, sweet-natured women. Against, in fact, the kindest women.


Because most men who behave like assholes in real life, are actually assholes. They are actually narcissistic pigs. In fact it’s amazing to me that there aren’t any examples I can think of narcissistic female roles in Hollywood where the anti-heroine is won over by a kind-hearted sweet man. The closest I can think of is ‘The Proposal’ because the main female character really is a bitch in that, yet somehow is redeemed by the end.

You will note it is always ‘life’ that has made the Hollywood asshole the way they are, and just a bit more love can sort them out.

Yet people – that is women, men, children of narcissists have to make the decision every day to leave, for good, husbands, wives and parents who have shown themselves not to be redeemable – that more love couldn’t change an evil intentioned husband into an angel.

Narcissism doesn’t resolve with more love. It ‘resolves’ for want of a better term, with ‘no contact’ or ‘low contact’ – yet Hollywood would tell you to expose yourself, your life, your children, to monstrous people because your love can ‘redeem’ them, and turn them into soft-hearted, kind-intentioned people.

Real life isn’t like Hollywood.

God Bless you


Another danger of the transgender push

A mother’s love… and a mother’s narcissistic desire to have a… girl? Instead of a boy? Yes, it could happen – or a gay son, rather than a straight one (that’s an old story, many decades long). Now? Now you can dress little Bobby up in a frock and tell him he’s a girl? Well you could – some children might just do it. To please you.

So what made me write about this? What made me come to the conclusion that a narcissistic parent might, however subtly, coerce or other wise ‘create’ a ‘transgender’ or ‘non-binary’ child. It was this quote from Ian Ogilvy’s new autobiography: (Link)

“With hindsight, I realise what might have prompted the question. My mother, I now strongly suspect, wanted me to be gay and always had. 

When I was four, she sent me to a fancy dress party all dolled up, not as a pirate or a soldier, but as a little girl in a blonde wig and party frock.

And a few years later, when we acquired an 8mm cine camera, she had me play the part of a winsome girl in a pink dress, skipping round the flowerbed plucking roses — and then shaking my fist at the camera, tearing off my wig and standing there revealed as a horrible, rude boy.”

Thankfully Ian Ogilvy didn’t want to go along with it!

Today however, society is run very much differently to when he was a child. Today it’s all about the self – and it’s narcissitic. I believe that this narcissitic culture is going to ‘breed’ a whole new generation of special snowflakes – and each one, each type, must have their own special set of ‘rights’.

However, we know that God doesn’t make mistakes – transgenderism should be viewed with both compassion but also with truth. You are what your genes say you are, and anything else is false.

God Bless you


The six percent – psychopaths in our midst

There’s a lot of talk about the 1%, dividing people in even middle-class America from the so-called 99% as if the 1% are terribly rich. It’s the 0.1% who are the truly wealthy – like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers – the ones who avoid paying tax in your country, in my country, while their global corporations seek to overthrow governments, seek to create war:

merry christmas to arms manufacturers and investorsIt’s oh-so-very profitable! I bet it is.

Humanity is as pawns to their schemes, and they as banker, warmonger, armaments vendor and propagandist media are there to whip your social engineers (MPs and government) into doing what is their bidding.

They are psychopaths. They lack empathy for anyone or anything. They bring up their children to be the same. When I was young I went to a posh, middle-class, all-girls school and there was talk even there, of whether a girl or their brother had been ‘bloodied’ yet – a term for having the blood of a hunted and torn apart fox smeared on their faces. Yes, really – these rituals can extend all the way down to the middle classes (in England at any rate – a place full of such traditions as fox hunting). What better way to reduce empathy and traumatise a child?


However, psychopathy is not limited to those who experience such ritual abuse from their trusted families and peers. No, it’s the young boy-racer who puts his foot on the gas when he sees your cat crossing the street. It’s the youngster who works for the turkey farm and ends up being filmed throwing the live birds around and abusing them cruelly. It’s this young lady, who wove a web of lies:



Click the top image to read the full article. Then there’s this guy:



These people look pretty normal, don’t they? Do they have any obvious signs you need to watch for? That’s the problem – you and I, well we wouldn’t think to assume our new friend or employee is lying, why would we? But to a functioning psychopath, lying is as easy as anything – they have no conscience at all. They are a continual danger to society – and they rise to powerful positions, because treading on other people’s faces to get where they want to go is completely natural to them. It’s not personal, either – it’s just what they need to do. They are parasites upon all they meet, and they are very good at what they do.

Here’s another one:



These stories pop up a lot, yet people are not aware that six out of every one-hundred people are psychopaths. In addition to that, a further 18% of the population can be trained to behave in psychopathic ways – think of the middle manager who wants to get to the top and goes against his own conscience to do so, because everyone else is. Think of the Milgram experiments of the 1960’s (Link). In obedience to authority, people can and do do terrible things.

I also note that shamed UK MP Simon Danczuk’s ex-wife has now said her piece in the ongoing saga of his lewd behaviour, sexting scandal and affairs.


She says of him:

“‘For me it’s quite saddening to see what has happened to Simon,’ Sonia said. ‘I really hope this is the last time I ever have to speak about him. He’s built his career on portraying himself as a caring and responsible individual. And he’s not. He has no empathy or feelings for anybody except himself. I would go so far as to say he’s a functioning psychopath.”

I don’t know if he is or not, but having read her interview, I believe her that she was bullied by him. I can see her case – but of course I don’t know the other side. It’s just time he resigned from his position as an MP. His conduct is deeply unbecoming.

So what are we to do? Psychopaths are said to be born, not made, but I doubt that. After all, each and every baby is knitted together in it’s mother’s womb by God. However, God has purposes for evil people too. We see in Psalm 106:

40 Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them.

42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand.

43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.

44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry:

45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. [emphasis added]

Link to read the whole psalm, which is very interesting: Link

I’m not excusing evil here, I’m saying that even satan has a purpose in bringing the disobedient to grief. I believe that many of these psychopathic individuals are made, not born that way. They may have suffered abuse, or they may have been showered with unsuitable amounts of praise by their parents. They may believe they could do no wrong, or they may have other reasons for their behaviour – whatever it is, it has opened a door for demons to take over and create a psychopathic personality. However, their victims are usually innocent, and they usually lose money, time, emotional health and often relationships, like the lady in the first story. There is no cure for this behaviour – in fact I did hear once that in native tribes, if they found someone growing up with those tendencies, they would simply have a ‘hunting accident’ and get rid of them – I can’t verify that, nor do I think it’s right, just interesting.

Can you protect yourself from the six percent? No, I don’t think so – society is riddled with liars and thieves. I know a dear lady who’s charity was infiltrated by a plausible guy who caused them to almost lose their charity altogether – she spent a year trying to put right what he’d done. It was a disaster for her – so much stress.

I have dated at least one guy like that, possibly two – again, very charming, and if you are sensitive and caring it can and will be used against you. If they aren’t full psychopaths, they can often be simply narcissistic (Link and Link).

But now I have God – and I love and trust in Him to protect me at the personal level. I pray that we all will have the discernment to see if we are being harmed by someone, and to not keep up our defences with everyone new, but to recognise the good from the bad company by their fruits and not continue with those who are bad once we recognise their behaviour.

I also pray that we will have the fortitude to speak against evil, and stand against evil in the coming days. We will need to be strong to resist the evil that is coming.

I pray we do.

God Bless you


The glass generation – when self-care amounts to narcissism

I posted a powerful image in my last post – a homeless man, with the caption:

“I’m just checking my white cis hetero male privilege.”

I tagged it ‘Glass generation’ and now I want to write about what that means.

I feel that youngsters today have become a glass generation – the black kids are eaten up by this idea of white privilege (which isn’t real), and women are eaten up by the idea of ‘rape culture’ which I cannot say is any more believable. Youngsters are swapping tales of the ‘micro-aggressions’ they experience, and all of this is allowing them to fall into the hands of the NWO. They are so worried about whether they are gay/straight or even male/female, that they are not paying attention to what really matters!

This kind of self-absorption, that would allow those who join the military to carry a red card in their pocket which they can whip out anytime they feel they are being pushed too hard, or vicitmised, or if they break a fingernail (I made the last one up, really), is the perfect seed bed for narcissism, which is really what it is.


We might say this generation is soft, but I think it’s worse – they are brittle. They are so afraid of failure that they won’t attempt  a driving exam. They feel so vulnerable that they won’t even try things which might result in a moment of being less than perfect. Social media may be partly to blame for this – when the crowd get to judge every status you post, failure takes on a whole different hue – real friends are much kinder to our feelings than people are on the internet.

I came across this brittleness with a new student who is such a capable young man, but because he had failed at age 14 at reading in public, he completely failed to even try to read out the prepared text I had for him, even though it was just the two of us (and I have known him for years).

But what was also interesting was his inability to exclude from the session his expression through body language of just how irritating he found this and me. He was clearly unsettled, but he was also annoyed, bored – kept tapping things, getting up and so on. Very little attention span even when I was reciting the work to try to encourage him.

My other half has observed that young people don’t seem to converse – they don’t reply to each other, they speak and then they stop speaking and someone else speaks – they aren’t really listening to each other. Is this narcissistic? Yes. But is it caused by narcissism, or by simple lack of being taught the social skills to listen effectively.

So kids are lacking social skills, and are easten up with fears of any boogey man that the state wants to put before them (through the media).

They are becoming hyper-sensitive, and their self-care now amounts to narcissism.

What is going to become of us if this continues?

God Bless you