Egyptian tomb (YouTube screenshot)

Raiders of the Lost Ark – Egyptian style

Think Indiana Jones or Laura Croft have raided all the tombs? Think again.

A modern-day archeological expedition, led by Secretary General Mostafa Waziri of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, has unearthed an untouched grave south of Cairo.

The ancient crypt, discovered at the Saqqara dig site, dates to the Fifth Dynasty. That’s the reign of the pharaohs over 4,400 years ago.

“The tomb belonged to a royal purification priest known as “Wahtye,” (Khaled) al-Anani (Antiquities Minister Khaled al-Anani ) told CNN. Inscriptions suggested the priest had served during the reign of King Nefer-Ir-Ka-Re and was the king’s supervisor and inspector of the holy boat.

Whoever this individual was in life, he warranted a fantastic send-off, Egyptian style.

The site has barely been plumbed but has already yielded historically significant murals, statuary and a wealth of colorful relief sculpture. Like a step back in time, the vaults are revealing their secrets. Even the pigments chosen by ancient artists is fresh and vital, despite the passage of epochs, adding vivid insight into the life and times of a culture long gone but hardy forgotten.

“Various drawings depict “the manufacturing of pottery and wine, making religious offering, musical performances, boats sailing, the manufacturing of the funerary furniture, and hunting,” according to Egypt Today

Check out the video below that takes you inside:

Did you catch that? Five new sealed shafts? That means there’s plenty more to find. Like Wahtye’s sarcophagus!

Victoria's Secret model (YouTube screenshot)

Victoria’s Secret – meh

Victoria may think she has a secret, but who cares? Truth is, “Sales are sagging and the company’s stock is down 41 percent this year,” according to the New York Times.

But the Times banner stating “The lingerie company has clung to the idea that women should look sexy for men” is off the mark.

Face it, there’s no secret. Men have been interested in what women had to offer long before the angel wings and stiletto heels. The reverse was true ages before romance-novel covers featuring lion-maned Fabio plastered the 80s with shirtless abandon.

Victoria’s Secret’s rise sprang from keying on what everyday women often want: to feel attractive, alluring, secretly special and ultra-feminine. That’s why they bought overprized underwear. Not because they felt they “should” be dressed like a netted ham. And the models used to be in it for the money. (Methinks they still are.)

Check out how it used to be done in the video below:

Pure fantasy. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing, in proper context.

But what’s proper? What’s context? What’s female?

With men eager to get in the ring – or on the runway – glam isn’t the thing anymore. Virtue signaling is. One reason why Victoria Secret Chief Marketing Officer Ed Razek scrambled to say, “We absolutely would cast a transgender model for the show” to cover for a previous faux pas with Vogue where he stated, “No, I don’t think we should.” Reasons cited were the fantasy aspect of the Victoria’s Secret show.


It’s fantasy.


“In a September 2017 consumer study conducted by Wells Fargo, 68 percent of respondents said they liked Victoria’s Secret less than they used to and 60 percent said they think the brand feels ‘forced’ or ‘fake.'”

Don’t make me laugh. Forced or fake is Victoria’s Secret. It always has been. And feelings change with marketing.

No secret, ladies.

Scene from "The Handmaid's Tale"

Scene from “The Handmaid’s Tale”

“The Handmaid’s Tale” hijacked for a short-sighted, not-so-secret agenda

It was first published in 1985. But does that matter? “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, a dystopian fiction that explored the what-if of an infertile society, is hot stuff. The female slavery saga is a series on Hulu.

But is that because “The Handmaid’s Tale” is that good? Um, no. It’s because the narrative of hopped-up victimhood is ripe for twisting. And women are twisting into knots, feeling far fancier than exotic underwear. (So special that they’re willing to advocate women hating women. Abortion victims are statistically 50 percent females – unless we’re talking sex-selective abortion which targets females.)

But having a uterus and the ability to reproduce is lurid!

Disgusting. A master design of the patriarchy to exploit women!

Oh, woe is me. The sky is blue. Grass is green. And women have wombs – gasp!

Yes, I realize that’s transphobic to say. But currently women have wombs. Men don’t. But that could change. “Trans boys and men and non-binary people may have periods” according to Brighton & Hove City Council education guidelines reported at the Telegraph. “Menstruation must be inclusive of all genders.” I’m curious as to how this will happen – unless having a period becomes a state of mind.

But it’s that twisted mental state that has women across the globe adopting the red cape and white bonnet costume designed by Ann Crabtree, who created the look for the Hulu “Handmaid” series to promote baby murder.

“Abortion activists latched onto the novel-turned-TV series,” according to Life News, “which takes place in a future totalitarian regime where the fertile women left on the planet are forced to become slaves and bear children for the upper class. Pro-abortion advocates claim the fictional world has similarities to the current politics in America.”

Instead of being put off by the coopting of her design, Crabtree “feels humbled that her design is now being used by abortion activists across the world.” Could be that’s because the notoriety will rocket her career in this cesspit of liberal non-think. The more forward thinking – those who actually engage in the activity – might contemplate the grander design.

Women need men. Men need women. (Maybe I should get on writing “The Handy-Man’s Tale”: An epic of misandry run amok where men are used for only one thing … unless a pipe breaks and you only have a crawl space. If that idea appeals, check out “The Wicker Man.”)

But even Atwood is titillated that her characters have “broken out” of the book. What Atwood describes as “brilliant” reinterpretation of her novel is actually sad. Take a look at the glee in the video below:

Atwood seems to miss that it’s not only men who want children. It’s not only the wealthy. It’s often those contracepting, abortion-advocating female careerists who, when they choose to have a child, can’t. These women have treated their own fertility like a curse. Suppressing it, mutilating it, ignoring it, and devaluing it until they can’t get what they want – a child.

Then what? Exploitation!! Buy those eggs from the young college co-ed. Pay that “surrogate” mom – typically from the poorer classes – to give her child up because you want one so desperately. Where’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” about that reality? Women using women.

And, let’s be honest, women are the ones at the infertility clinics, ladies … although men with imaginary uteruses may sue for the right to demand imaginary Midol to manage that inconvenient water weight gain.

Time to look at who the real wolf is in this red riding hood tale of stupid.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.