The Marxist world

Posted on by
Reply

I noticed one curious thing in the political arena: the only politicians who consistently say things that actually make sense and have any connection to the real world and the real people who live in it are placed on the “extreme right”. You know whom I mean: Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, Donald Trump (and Ruža Tomašić locally in Croatia). The rest say all the politically correct, acceptable things and are mutually indistinguishable, and when you hear what they have to say you have an impression you’re listening to some computer-generated thing, because they don’t actually have opinions, they are like cult members who spew generic ideology.

I was wondering why that was, and I came up with several interesting ideas. First of all, I don’t think those politicians are actually any kind of “far right”, any more than I am. They are simply not indoctrinated by some kind of extreme-left crypto-Marxism which infiltrated itself into the universities and journalism, and therefore dictates the rules for political discourse and public debate of any kind. Essentially, it’s not so much that the rational politicians are on the far right, but that the distribution of the publicly permissible political opinions had been skewed to the left by several standard deviations, and common sense and good application of reason, which should usually be placed dead-center under the Gaussian curve, are still there, but the center of the main-stream political scene is between -1 and -2 sigma.

political_distribution

The real question is, what kind of virulent ultra-communism you would need to advocate today in order to be perceived as the “extreme left”, in the scene where people wear t-shirts with Che Guevara (a sadistic murderer and psychopath of the worst kind) and say that all white men and capitalists need to be killed, and it’s perceived as “cute”, “urban chic” and “main stream funny”.

The second thing I came up with is the reason why that is so, and the answer immediately suggested itself. You see, if you’re a Marxist intellectual, you can’t really be an entrepreneur or take part in some “bourgeois” activity, because Marxism doesn’t work in the real world. What you can do is either teach political philosophy at some university, be a journalist and thus preach your beliefs to the audience, or be a politician. If you don’t want to be part of the “main stream” because you’re too much of a rebel, you’ll take part in some NGO and you’ll be careful to say just the right things that will get you financed by George Soros and his soul mates.

So, we end up with a situation where Marxist ideologues teach future politicians, journalists, activists and university professors and that’s how you get a political scene where everything is skewed to the left so much it completely loses any touch with the common sense, and it’s continually pushed further to the leftist extremes by the NGO lobbyists who pose as the public opinion, while the real public opinion is continuously shamed as primitive, reactionary and leaning toward the extreme right, of course by the media, the politicians and the NGOs.

This is why it’s so difficult to elect a normal politician, and why it is so difficult if not outright impossible for a normal politician to actually implement a sensible policy, because the entire system, on the international as well as national political scene, has been taken over by the extremist communist lunatics, and they immediately react in total solidarity if someone starts to make dissonant noises, and that’s how you get the situation where someone like Nigel Farage says something that is pure common sense and logically follows from evidence, and he’s condescendingly smiled at by the pigs in the Orwellian animal farm.

To creationists and atheists

Posted on by
Reply

I often encounter the “creationist Christian vs. atheist” debates everywhere and I must admit that I find them quite disturbing, in a way one would find it disturbing to hear zombies and vampires arguing at night in front of his house about whether to drink his blood or eat his brains.

Essentially, what it’s all about is that the creationists use arguments like “this or that tiny little thing in science isn’t right, therefore Adam and Eve”, and the atheists use arguments like “there is no spirituality outside of matter, and we should get rid of religions and other historical relics and go forth into the bold future of science and space exploration”.

The problem is, they both argue for the approaches to civilization that have already been tried before. The creationist religion produced the darkest period of the dark ages, when scripture was given priority over any other form of evidence, and atheism already tried to get rid of the primitive past. It’s historically known as “enlightenment”, and produced the bloody reign of the guillotine during the French revolution, where all the “reactionary elements” were purged in a very literal sense. But that was only the modest beginning. When the ideas really took hold, in the age of modernism, the concept of the “new age” for mankind, whose time has come to claim its destiny from the hands of darkness and ignorance, resulted in the terrible genocides of Communism and Nazism in the 20th century. So, when the atheists say that the world would be much better if we sent all the priests to Mars, know that it’s been tried before, only Mars was out of reach so they used ordinary graveyards. So, when the creationists argue for God they in fact argue for the dark ages, and when the atheists argue for science they in fact argue for Stalin. Atheists often invoke the argument of horrible crimes committed in the name of religion, but what is actually true is that the crimes, committed in the name of “modernity” and “enlightenment” in the centuries where science showed itself on the map, were so brutal and massive, it’s almost without a historical precedent. In fact, only Islam showed to be the equal of atheism in sheer cruelty, and it’s probably because they both think that being on the “right side” justifies them in everything they do.

I think we need a different approach to those things, because we can’t leave things of such importance to those idiots.

On the religious side of things, I think we need to understand that the issue is much deeper and more intellectual than the American Christians make it sound. Their main problem is the idolatry of the Bible, and very poor understanding of what they are actually talking about. I am going to use the arguments of St. Augustine, who had a much wiser approach, and I am going to modernize his points in order to make them more comprehensible to the audience. You see, what he would say is that God didn’t create the Bible. It’s not the word of God. It’s history of the Jewish nation’s understanding of its relationship with the transcendental. Since they were inherently sinful and therefore unable to receive God’s point of view in the purity and fullness of its truth, their understandings remained flawed and limited until the appearance of Jesus, who revealed God for what he truly is, which is not God of the Jews, but God of certain principles: reality, truth, love, kindness, forgiveness. Furthermore, St. Augustine is not a deist, he is a theist. It’s an important distinction, because a deist sees God as the distant creator of the Universe who involves himself with the matters of men only to reveal the Law and to judge men at the end of their earthly lives. A theist, however, doesn’t see God as distant, but sees God as pervading the world with His being, as eternity beyond space and time that nevertheless pervades space throughout time and guides the beings from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge and from selfishness to love. A theist sees God as a presence in his life, a presence that guides him and tries to reveal itself to him, a presence that left breadcrumbs of truth and reality for him to find in the world and, if willing, to accept guidance and be lead out of the confines of this world, and into the infinity for which there are no mortal words. For St. Augustine, God’s word isn’t limited to the Bible. In fact, God never ceases to speak to us, his word is not limited to the people of the past who wrote some of that down, for other people to include into the biblical canon. It is good to know how other people perceived God, and that is what Bible is for, but for each of us individually God has guidance and a destiny and a plan, and He is the silent yet very vocal presence in each person’s mind, and in each person’s life. The crucial part is that we are free to choose what we are going to do about it. We are free to refuse or to accept. We are free to ignore and to ridicule. Each of those choices puts us in a certain relationship with the truth and the light, and each of those choices determines our fate in eternity, beyond space and time. So, instead of adopting idolatry of the Bible, you should rather adopt the attitude that Bible didn’t do mankind much good in the dark ages, and that this literal approach did not serve to reveal the depths of the reality of God to mankind. It was a failed attempt. However, you should also understand that science revealed much more about the nature and functioning of the world than religion, and it is quite likely that science is actually a better way of understanding the ways and intents of God than worshiping ancient scripture. Science has the attitude of actually listening to what the world has to say about itself, instead of trying to find some simplistic explanation that would fit the world into some nice intellectual drawer. So, how about trying that with God? How about trying to listen what God has to say about himself, instead of trying to jam him into some narrow intellectual drawer? How about listening to what the difference in the spiritual taste between gentle kindness and indifferent cruelty has to say about God? That, too, is a way of listening what the reality has to say.

As for the atheists and their faith in the way science “disproved” God, just let me remind you that science today is actually closer to disproving materialism and atheism. It suffices to invoke Occam’s razor, which the atheists routinely use to reject God as a superfluous supposition, and remember that the choice of scientific cosmology today is to either assume that the Universe was deliberately fine-tuned to an incredible degree in order to allow for our existence, or to invent the concept of Multiverse, an infinity of Universes with an endless number of variations in basic constants, for which there is no evidence whatsoever and is a mere figment of imagination.

So, basically, it’s a choice between saying that the Universe was created in a deliberate act by a conscious entity which you cannot directly prove, or that there is an endless number of Universes with endless number of variations in basic constants, which you also cannot directly prove. So essentially, since you can’t prove any of it, just shut the fuck up about science disproving God, because you simply chose to believe in one interpretation you couldn’t prove, while the others chose to believe in another, equally valid interpretation which they, too, cannot prove.

For all you know, this entire Universe could be a virtual reality that runs on some graphics card that’s only a few years ahead of our current technology*, and this interpretation could completely encompass everything science showed us so far, and could actually be proved if at least some people could temporarily wake up from the simulation and return to bear witness, and various spiritual experiences of the yogis and saints, as well as the near-death testimonies, are actually proving this hypothesis quite nicely, while the official materialistic science has no explanation for them other than pretending that they are not what they obviously are.

So, both the religious people and the atheists have quite an abundance of reasons to shut the fuck up and learn some humility for a change.

* For those who don’t believe that computers could render convincing universes, this can, as of today, be rendered on a $200 graphics card, and the real-time render is actually much better than the video:

https://youtu.be/8R5DOUXvBo0

Freedom of speech on the Internet

Posted on by
Reply

I have a serious problem with significant, massive Internet services being owned and controlled from a central point, be it government or a corporation.

Just take a look at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Paypal and, first and foremost, Google.

In order to figure out why that is a problem, let’s see what Internet is and how it works. On the bottom layer of the Internet you have the networking hardware. Then you have the central infrastructure of ICANN which defines top-level namespaces and the DNS system. Then you have servers that run services, and clients who connect to those services.

Now, in the good old days of the Internet, the services were standard: HTTP, NNTP, IRC, SMTP, POP3/IMAP, FTP and similar. Essentially, if you wanted to host a website, you needed to run a HTTP service on your web server and put files into the designated directory on the server, and everyone on the Internet could access it. If you wanted to write a blog, you put a blogging CMS into the webserver directory, install and configure the database, connect the blogging CMS to the database and you could write your blog. If you wanted to host a mail server, the process was similar – you installed a SMTP service which received mail on your domain, and a POP3/IMAP server which enabled users to access their mailbox on your domain. Those services were standard, worked the same everywhere, were accessible using standard clients.

Then came the services that offered to make things easier. You got things like Blogspot which made it easy for someone to write a blog – you just registered, chose a visual template and off you went. If you wanted to have a website, there were options that made it very easy, and ultimately most people decided all they need is a Facebook account. If you wanted a chat, you had ICQ and Skype and what not. If you wanted to host video clips, you had Vimeo and Youtube. Basically, the standard generic services that ran on any number of Internet servers were replaced by huge corporations that offered to do it all for you.

Now, what’s the problem with that? Why would we not have it easier if we can? Why would someone configure mysql database and apache webserver and wordpress blogging CMS in order to write a blog, if he can go to the Blogger service owned by Google and create a similarly-looking blog in seconds with zero effort? I’ll tell you why. Because if you host your content on some company’s web-based service, you are in a position where that company can essentially close the tap at any time. If you start writing something they don’t like, or something that will make some socially evil entity with lots of influence pissed off, they can complain to that company’s helpdesk and you’ll find your account suspended, and you’re basically silenced with a single click. On the other hand, if you host your content on a server you personally maintain, one would need to have something very serious, like a court order, in order to force the hosting center to suspend your service. You still can’t do anything criminal, but today you don’t need to do anything criminal in order to be silenced on the Internet. It suffices to have some social justice warrior complaining about you and you’re fucked. It won’t do them any good in a court of law, but they can suspend your Twitter or Blogger or Facebook account, because those accounts are hosted by companies that are publicly traded and their revenue is generated exclusively from advertising, and advertising revenue depends hugely on good public relations, which basically means yielding to pressure from lobbying groups and professional complainers.

What I find extremely worrisome is that huge parts of everybody’s online functionality are based around services provided by huge, centralized corporations that are hugely sensitive to pressure for more censorship, and we will unfortunately see more and more of this every day, because people will continue using what is easier and gives them good results with a minimum of effort, which will result in producing single-point control over their online functionality, forcing everyone to basically censor themselves and reduce variety in the mental space in which we all operate. Because, if you unconsciously censor yourself in order not to have your account suspended, and the rules for account suspension are generated at a non-democratic single-point (corporate management and public relations departments in Facebook and Google, for instance) which is vulnerable to pressure from minority focus-groups (the professional complainers and whiners), the logical result will be either people reducing their thoughts to an increasingly narrow space of political correctness, or doing what I did: taking things into their own hands and doing it the hard way, by hosting everything on their own server (which is very inexpensive to do these days) in order to be able to write whatever they want, and if someone doesn’t like it, he needs to actually take you to court in order to take your content down. And in order to take your content down by a court order, it isn’t enough that they don’t like it or that their feelings are hurt. It needs to be something that is actually illegal, like piracy or child porn or giving advice to terrorists on how to make bombs. It can’t be mere opinions you disagree with. The point of the freedom of speech is that the option to speak offensive opinions needs to be protected by all means. Freedom of saying only inoffensive things isn’t worth having; they had that in Stalinist Russia.

Certainly, if all you want to do online is post pictures of your cat and talk about coffee, then by all means use Facebook and Youtube. That is, until some focus group starts complaining that cats and coffee trigger their psychotic episodes and hurt their feelings about something, that white cats and black coffee are racist and your offensive content needs to be taken down in order to protect their right to be fucking idiots.

About labeling and common sense

Posted on by
Reply

I noticed a recurring pattern of totalitarian systems: they label the dissident thinkers with broad, poorly defined terms that have strong consequences. For instances, if the Nazis labeled you a degenerate, communist, Jewish or similar, you ended up dead or in a concentration camp. If the communists labeled you reactionary, counter-revolutionary, clerofascist or any of dozens of ideologically charged terms, you ended up in a political prison or dead; even the slightest hint of such designation would ruin one’s career. The ability of the ruling ideology to label someone with something that’s essentially vague, tenuous, serves the purpose of banning any form of thinking outside of the ideological boundaries of the ruling ideology, and has career-ending or life-ending consequences, is one of the main defining characteristics of a totalitarian regime.

It is usually said that our society enjoys freedom of speech, but this freedom is so narrow, it essentially adds up to freedom to say things everybody believes are true, things that are not offensive to anyone, things that will not incite any meaningful action to change things in the society in a way that is not approved by the people in power, and it’s getting worse by the day, because we are being routinely and systematically spied upon by the governments and the corporations; even on the Internet, censorship is rampant and widespread. People are being policed by the government, by the “internet thought police corporations” who ban the use of certain “incorrect” words, and they are policing themselves.

This last part is the worst aspect of living in a non-free society, because most people are so scared of being labeled, they are constantly policing themselves and are tiptoeing around the increasingly large minefield of ideological lunacy, while the “social justice warriors” are going crazy and are constantly inventing new terms for labeling the dissidents from their ideology, and the worst thing is, this gets passed as law.

Well, guess what. I’m inventing a new term. I’m a don’tgivefucktarian. I officially don’t give a fuck. I don’t care if I offend anyone, I don’t care if you like me or not, I don’t care how you label me. You can call me racist, Nazi, islamophobic, geriatrojuvenile, protozoic, or you can call me to tell me it’s raining. I don’t give a fuck about either you, or your opinions of me. I care whether your arguments are good and I will test them by assuming the opposite and arguing against them until they are either disproved or I run out of objections. If I want to see if the Nazis were right or wrong about something, I will explore this line of thought freely and argue for either or both sides until truth is established. If I want to see if the human races exist or not, whether they are equal or different, whether differences have practical consequences in some sphere or not, whether some consequence is genetic or social, I will research the facts and I will make up my own mind, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it by calling me a racist bigot. You can call me a penguin, for all I care. If you have a problem with that, you can go fuck yourself, you totalitarian piece of shit.

I usually have complex ideas that are not easily labeled or arranged into neat political drawers. For instance, I strongly dislike the feminists because I think they have all their basic facts wrong, and are trying to shout and scream and bully their opposition into silence and submission, and furthermore I think they are harming both men and women with their bullshit. They are making men self-destructive and they are making women weak, unhappy and locked into a perpetual state of victimhood. I can’t say that I object to that because I love women or men in general. I know enough of both to know that the majority are assholes I wouldn’t want to associate myself with, but I also have a very passionate dislike for evil ideologies that turn people into even worse assholes and lunatics than they normally are. For instance, if you want to turn an asshole into a super-asshole, convert him to Islam. Islam is one such ideology that turns everything it touches into shit, and in an ideal world it would not exist at all, and in this world it exists and every normal person should fight it. If you want to turn a woman into a weak, hysterical psychopath, make her a feminist. Let her blame circumstances or men or patriarchy or unicorns and barbies for her condition, instead of figuring out what is it that she wants and then doing what it takes to achieve that. Let her believe that being strong is to bitch and shout and play victim every time she doesn’t get her way. You teach someone to adopt such attitudes and voila, you turned her into a weak loser and a whiny passive-aggressive.

One of the most important things in life is to understand that you don’t have rights. You don’t even have the right to be alive. Being alive is merely a desirable consequence of your actions and favorable circumstances. If you think the state guarantees your right to life, think again. What the state does is guarantee that it will punish the one who kills you if they catch him. That doesn’t make you any less dead.

So basically the state doesn’t automatically make you theft-proof or rape-proof or murder-proof by the virtue of the fact that it will try to punish the one who mugs you, rapes you or kills you. It’s like those idiotic life-insurance ads on the billboards where they picture a child and say “some things need to be protected”, as if, you get life insurance for your child and it’s suddenly death-proof. No, you dumbass, your child doesn’t become death-proof, you simply get some amount of money if your child dies, or, if you insured yourself with your child as a beneficiary, it gets some money if you die.

Believing in the concept of human rights, and believing that the state is there to protect your rights, doesn’t make you safe or powerful or protected. It makes you a whiny loser and a victim.

Let me cite a real example of a woman I knew who came to me whining about some terrible thing that happened to her. She went out of town on a trip with a few guys who were planning to go out a hundred or so miles to the sea and than cross to a nearby island on a rubber dinghy. On the way there, they were drinking and smoking weed and were soon stoned out of their minds, and when they reached the sea shore the weather was seriously bad, and despite that they tried to get across to the island, and they almost sunk and died, it was a very close call; they were bailing out water all the way there. But wait, that’s not all, they did it again on the way back, and survived only by the closest of margins. And so she complained to me about her ordeal and probably expected sympathy. What I told her is to count at least five things she could have done to either avoid the danger altogether or to mitigate it, and if she fails to do that I don’t want to hear from her ever again because she’s so stupid we don’t have anything to talk about ever again.

And yes, she suddenly remembered that she could have told them to go fuck themselves the first time they pulled over to drink and get stoned, because it’s incredibly dangerous to tie your fate together with drunk stoned people. Failing to do that, she could have refused to get into that dinghy in bad weather and instead got into a bus and returned home safely. And so on, and so on.

Do you understand what I’m trying to say here? Ignoring dangers and trusting someone else, be it stoned losers or the state, to make you safe and well, doesn’t make you a strong independent person. It makes you a whiny loser and a retard. A strong independent woman won’t try to go home through a dangerous neighborhood at night, or through some corn field, and then whine and cry that she was raped, expecting everyone’s sympathy because if you tell her that she did something wrong, you’re a rape apologist. No, I’m not a rape apologist, I’m a don’tgiveafucktarian and a common sense apologist. If you go through a place where there is potential danger, you need to assess your ability to defend yourself against this danger, and if your abilities are insufficient, then either take someone with you in order to give you more power, or buy a gun and keep it in your purse, or both. Then, if someone tries to rape you, shoot him. That’s what a strong, independent woman would do. What a weak, whining dependent victim would do is not think, delude herself, go straight into the jaws of danger without any defense other than her bullshit beliefs, and when someone fucks her against her will she will whine and ask for sympathy.

The point where you deserve sympathy is when you did everything to avoid danger, you did what a reasonable, rational person would do, and you still got harmed. For instance, you were driving home and some idiot failed to yield to you in the intersection and rammed your car. That’s something you had no control over and you were just out of luck, and everybody should feel sympathy for you. But if you chose to go on a trip with a bunch of stoned retards and almost drowned because they thought it was a good idea to cross stormy sea in a rubber dinghy, and you went along, you’re a fucking retard and you deserve what you got. People who are that stupid deserve nothing better than to be victims. If they manage to survive, they shouldn’t whine, they should see what they did wrong and change their behavior. That’s called “being proactive”. You see what you can do in order not to become a victim.

I am a very strong independent man, and if I knew I have to go into a dangerous neighborhood during the night, I would probably try to avoid it altogether, and if that’s not possible, I’d try to bring friends along, preferably armed. I also drive a 4WD car with winter tires. That’s called “taking appropriate precautions” and “being a rational person”, not “victim blaming” or being a “snowstorm apologist”. If you live in the bottom of a mountain like I do, where there’s deep snow every winter, you either get a car that’s good for such circumstances, or you don’t drive in winter. You don’t say “I have a human right not to be wrapped into a pretzel around a tree” and go out in a rear-wheel drive car with summer tires on a road with snow and ice on it. If you didn’t take appropriate precautions and you get wrecked, you fucking deserve it, and if you whine about it all you will get is me laughing at you because you’re a weak whiny fucktard. You can label me all you want, but I just don’t give a fuck, because people who need to resort to this kind of passive-aggressive debate tactics usually don’t have arguments that are worth a damn, and if you use that on me I’ll just smell blood in the water and proceed to tear you apart.

The makeup of a lady

Posted on by
1

In the previous article I vented my anger at the situation in which women behave like sluts and whores instead of acting like ladies. Although the difference between the two is intuitively clear to me and I could cite clear examples of both, it is quite difficult to define them unequivocally and I struggled a bit trying to put my thoughts on this matter in order.

The first thing that probably comes to one’s mind when trying to think of ladies is that they don’t enjoy sex, because they are somehow above that, or at least they pretend to be. I find this quite awkward, because I never, ever had sex with a woman who didn’t have an orgasm like the perfect lady; an orgasm is the most ladylike point in a woman’s life. Sluttiness is the reason why I don’t watch porn, because I find it to be the exact opposite of what I associate sex with. Sex, the real thing, is the most sincere, honest and beautiful thing, and the irony is, whores and sluts don’t have orgasms. They whine and moan and pant and scream while they fake it, but in order for a woman to have an orgasm, she needs to check all the bullshit at the door, she needs to discard all pretense and “come home”, into the truth of her being, and this truth of a woman’s being is the main reason why I, as a man, have sex with women, because this moment of a woman’s truth, surrender and utmost vulnerability is incredibly beautiful.

As an example, I will link to an art project in which a woman sits at the table and reads from a random book, in a decent, formal setting, fully dressed, while being sexually stimulated with a vibrator. The result are women at the most ladylike behavior I can think of – trying to retain composure and focus while fighting a losing battle with the unbearable, raw urge to have a violent orgasm on camera. None of them are trying to be sexy, or seductive; they try to remain calm and composed and you can see how they gradually lose it, for moments at first, but their focus is drawn inwards until the impulse is too strong for them to resist and they surrender, in the moment of raw, pure, undiluted truth, which shows orgasm more as a spiritual experience than something we can perceive as “sexy”. That’s why I think whores and sluts cannot orgasm. If they want to, they need to stop being sluts and whores and surrender all that bullshit and posture and commerce, and they need to become true ladies at least for a moment, where they come home, into their truth, naked and completely vulnerable, in total surrender. Those videos are the exact opposite of pornography – in pornography, you see everything in sex that is meaningless and trivial, everything that is fake. You see every bit of a woman’s breasts and genitals and yet you see nothing of the woman. Here, you see the woman fully clad yet fully revealed, in the rawest moment of her sexuality, the true, full orgasm as she desperately fights for control and loses. This is what makes a perfect lady – sincerity, honesty, composure, self-possession and truth, because a lady doesn’t try to appear sexual, she doesn’t try to experience an orgasm. She tries not to, often quite desperately, and fails in complete surrender.

And that is why we, the heterosexual men, love the ladies and despise the sluts; because the ladies are truly like us. They fight for control against the powerful force of their sexuality, just like us, and they are in touch with their truth, which is that they cannot win; they can only desperately try to control the moment when they lose.

The ladies are like a bottle of champagne; all that pressure under very tight control and contained. You can feel the pressure only by the very subtle signs that indicate slight lapses of control, and in this we, men, recognize them as kindred souls, because we, too, always present a very controlled, polite front with hardly ever a lapse, and it excites us to see women doing the same, because nothing shows the sexual excitement more than the force of control one needs to apply in order to keep it buttoned up.

The sluts and whores, they are like a can of cheap beer. Lots of hiss and foam, but no pop. Cheap, but unexciting. A paradox is that overtly sexualized, slutty women are as unexciting to men as rapists and overtly drooling men are to women. It’s just a huge “yukk!”, like a glass of warm, stale beer with a dead fly floating on top. A lady, however, with her thousands of PSI of sexual pressure carefully bottled up and caged, a lady who guards herself, careful, invokes a gentleman’s deep empathy, and a desire to be the one she chooses to relinquish her immaculate control with. After all, champagne is something that is reserved for special occasions, and it’s a very profound experience to be the one in whose arms a perfect lady will completely lose it.