Saturday, October 25, 2008

The Tide is Turning

Every morning I take the train into London and join a dense river of people walking into the commercial district. This population of office workers is a great resource for marketeers, and on a daily basis I am handed everything from free newspapers to product samples, and promotional leaflets offering every conceivable service. This week I was handed this leaflet for a dating agency.

I don't need it, but I thought I would pass it on. The thing that struck me about it is the caption. The unique selling point is that the women are 'unspoiled by feminism'. My regular readers will already know my views on dating Western women. More and more men are waking up to the fact that they don't have to put up with this crap any more, and it seems that commercial service providers are now beginning to recognise this.

I think this is yet more evidence that the tide is beginning to turn. The idea that someone would hand out leaflets like that would have been almost unthinkable ten years ago.

Some of my male friends have just abandoned relationships altogether, and are resigned to remaining single. These are decent guys with good jobs and money to spend. They would make ideal husbands, but they have just given up, put off by the behaviour of their female peers, verbally abusive, selfish and grasping, endlessly difficult and demanding. I find that sad. I, however, was never cut out for a life of celibacy. I am recommending all the guys I know to date foreign girls, and find out what women should be like.

This dating agency specialises in introducing British men to women from the Czech Republic. It is further evidence that my prediction will come true. Globalisation will be the death of feminism. As I have already highlighted, feminists are waking up to this as well, and are already trying to implement the kind of protectionism that any 1970s trade union would be proud of. Between IMBRA in the US, and endless lies about people-trafficking in non-existent sex-slaves, feminists are trying hard to stop Western men from meeting foreign women by rigging the market. However, the market cannot be rigged forever.

Western women have only themselves to blame if they find themselves growing old alone. Feminism has led Western women to utterly abandon their responsibilities towards men and the family. Feminists then try to blame the collapse of the family on deadbeat dads and feckless fathers (not that they approve of stereotyping, or anything). Western women now expect to have relationships entirely on their own terms. In Western culture, a man's responsibilities are still towards his wife and children - that hasn't changed. However, a woman's responsibilities are now only towards herself and other women. The feminist movement has manipulated them into thinking that if they do not treat men like slaves, then they are selling out politically, demeaning themselves and betraying the sisterhood.

So be it. My body, my choice. The personal is political. I hope your sisters will support you in your old age, but frankly I doubt it.

It is not even as if this bizarre world-view makes them happy. Precisely the opposite. When is the last time you met a happy feminist? They are deeply miserable creatures. Why would you think to date one of them? Not only are they wretched company, endlessly abusive and complaining, chronically aggrieved, interested only in themselves, but they are about as much fun in bed as a wet Sunday afternoon in Wolverhampton.

In fact that was probably the issue. Feminists know full well that they have nothing much to offer as partners, and are full of resentment. If men don’t find me attractive, that cannot possibly be my fault, it must be their fault for being stupid and narrow-minded. Or it could be because of the social construction of the beauty myth. We must forcibly re-engineer the popular understanding of beauty so that they do find me attractive (Good luck with that). In the mean-time we must break up as many other happy relationships as we can (what Valerie Solanas called ‘couple-busting’, a most female form of revenge).

It is interesting to note that marriage has actually never gone out of fashion among the upper-class and many ethnic minority communities. It is only in the indigenous British underclass that we see family breakdown, the work of left-wing activists with social work degrees, who believe that marriage and the family are oppressive to women. It is ironic that the Left has long claimed to be the champion of the working-class, and yet has, in the last forty years, done its best to utterly destroy it, by taking away the two things that it needed most: the family, and education.

Have you noticed also that getting married is perfectly acceptable as long as you are gay? Since the introduction of civil partnerships a few years ago, gay people have been flocking to get married. It is only heterosexuals who must not do it. Perhaps it was the politics of resentment yet again; if I can’t get married, then you shouldn’t be allowed to either.

Human nature will always reassert itself. Heterosexuality and the family are not about to go away. Day-by-day, the creepers gradually encroach upon the ruins of the Nazi settlement in the Amazon jungle. Those twentieth-century totalitarian programs were nothing but misguided folly. Mother Nature cannot be contradicted, and as a wise woman once said, Mother Nature is not a feminist.

Czech Female Child-Torturers Escape With Lenient Sentences

A cannibal cult mother who tortured her son in a locked cellar while relatives skinned him and forced him to eat his own flesh has been jailed for nine years.

Story here

Klara Mauerova, 31 - a member of a sinister religious cult and her sister Katerina led the sickening torture of her eight-year-old son Ondrej and his ten year-old brother Jakub.

A court in Brno in Czech Republic heard how relatives partially skinned Ondrej and forced him to eat his own flesh.

The judge also jailed Katerina, 35, for ten years for her role in the sickening abuse.

The two boys had told judges how their mother and relatives had stubbed cigarettes out on their bare skin, whipped them with belts, and tried to drown them. They were also sexually abused and forced to cut themselves with knives.

The terrified youngsters said they were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables and made to stand in their own urine for days.
The sick abuse was discovered when a neighbour installed a TV baby monitor to keep watch on his new daughter.

But it picked up the signal from an identical monitor next door showing one of the victims beaten, naked and chained in a cellar.

Mauerova had installed it so she could gloat over her victims' suffering from the comfort of her kitchen.

Nine years? Is that a joke? No. It's called the pussy discount.

It is interesting to compare this case with that of the Austrian Josef Fritzl. It is unthinkable that Fritzl will ever be released from prison. Yet the Mauerova sisters' crimes were arguably worse. The abuse did not continue for as long, but it seems to have been vastly more violent and sadistic. Fritzl did not skin his own children alive and force them to eat their own flesh. Crimes do not really come any worse than that. But look at the sentence. Nine years.

The other interesting thing to notice is that women like this operate in small groups, egging each other on, covering each other's stories. Men like Fritzl tend to work alone.

The most interesting thing of all to notice is the difference in the level of press coverage given to the cases. Where is the Guardian'coverage? Where is the BBC's? I haven't been able to find any. There is something to be said for the tabloids. They do not subject themselves to ideological censorship in this way. Ironically, these politically-corrected news sources regard themselves as 'liberal'. In fact, they are the least liberal news sources we have.

I suppose we should be grateful that these women are in prison at all. If certain British feminists had their way, there would not be any women's prisons at all.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Counting the Days

The current Labour government is easily the most authoritarian, ideologically-driven government that this country has had since World War 2.

I voted for Blair in 1997, and was delighted when he won. My first doubts began to creep in when he introduced tuition fees for students. I came from a poor background, and I was only able to go to university because it was free. My parents could never have afforded to pay for my tuition. I was amazed and disgusted that the Labour Party, of all parties, had struck such a serious blow to social mobility in this country.

The second major disappointment was Jack Straw’s decision to allow Disgusto Pinochet to escape justice on the grounds that the poor old soul was feeling ill.

Then came the coup de grace. In 2003, Blair scampered after the Bush junta into two illegal invasions of sovereign countries in the middle-east, supposedly in response to the highly dubious events of 9/11, even though none of the supposed hijackers came from those countries. You do not have to be a supporter of the thug Saddam, or a crazy conspiracy theorist, to feel that this whole episode and its precursor events - the 2000 US election (remember hanging chads?), the death of Dr David Kelly - stink very badly indeed. To most European noses, it is probably the worst stink since Hitler. New Labour however, was prepared to lie to the British people in order to cosy up to the US neo-con fanatics, whom Bush Snr once labeled ‘crazies’. Then came a shop of horrors that we would never have expected to see coming from America of all places: extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, out-sourced torture.

The main consequence for us was that the country became a target for terrorists. London was attacked on 7/7/2005. The result was a progressive increase in draconian legislation designed to limit civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Detention without trial. Comprehensive surveillance of individuals (Hello GCHQ officers)

These policies have not even been pursued competently. Having gathered all this information about us, the government cannot even keep it safe. On successive occasions it has ‘lost’ disks or laptops containing huge amounts of sensitive information. New Labour seems to become ever more authoritarian in response to its own stupidity. Let’s not forget the accidental police shooting of an innocent Brazilian electrician.

The British Left’s response to all of this was to make common cause with Islamo-fascists. George Galloway’s Respect Party was an unholy alliance of hard-left socialists and Islamic fundamentalists.

At the same time that the government has been dabbling oafishly with Fascism Lite, a parallel attack on men and the family has been relentlessly pursued. Removing any mention of marriage from government forms. Rigging the tax and benefit system to encourage couples to separate. Allowing employers to discriminate against white men.

Hardly a week goes by without another insane-sounding proposal designed to undermine men and families, and to distort the justice system to such an extent that it can no longer be described as being anything to do with justice.

Closing down all women’s prisons.

Altering the laws on murder to allow women to murder their husbands and get away with it, but not vice versa.

Allowing female staff to know how much their male colleagues are earning, but not vice versa.

Some of these things have come to pass, and some are proposals which will never make it into law.

At the same time Labour has presided over significant levels of corruption. Apart from the cash-for-honours scandal, there has also been attempted election-rigging.

Labour attempted to fix the election at Blanau-Gwent, Labour’s safest Welsh seat, by forcing an all-woman short-list on to the constituency, effectively sacking the sitting MP, Peter Law, for no reason other than that he is a white man. The good people of Wales however, are made of sterner stuff than that. Law stood as an independent, and the voters returned him to office. Labour lost its safest seat in Wales. That was a slap in the face for Harriet Harperson, but not nearly a hard enough one.

Law enforcement – such as it is - is being directed towards salving the ideologically-driven neuroses of Labour women and their radical feminist patrons. The ridiculous police raids designed to rescue non-existent sex-slaves. The on-going witch-hunt against the imaginary paedophiles lurking outside every school and in every internet chat-room is another good excuse to clamp down on civil liberties and to monitor private internet use. Meanwhile, behaviors that used to be regarded as crime go unpunished.

What has come to pass is comprehensive social breakdown. After a decade and more of relentless meddling in the family, the police service and the education system, gang violence has become a routine feature of British life. Teenagers, mainly black, have been dying on British streets on a weekly basis. The black community, one of the Left’s favourite causes, blames the decline of the family and the decline of religion; two of the Left’s favourite targets. In other words, it is the feminist-dominated middle-class Left who have done this.

New Labour is possessed of a classic totalitarian mindset. The Polenta Politburo of Islington differs from the Soviet politburo only in its PR skills. We saw the same approach before in the Communist nations during the twentieth century. The Holy Book of Marx dictates that we must perform action X in order to improve society. Action X is performed, and the consequences are disastrous. Rather than questioning the ideological Holy Writ, the ill effects are blamed on counter-revolutionary wreckers and spies, and the witch-hunt begins. In our case, the scapegoats are white heterosexual men, paedophiles, terrorists, racists, sexists and homophobes, and the ‘forces of conservatism’, whatever they are.

The British Left is dying on its knees. The only thing we need to do is to ensure that it does not drag the whole country down with it. I am counting the days until Harman, Smith and the rest of them are kicked out of office.

Cameron has pledged to reinstate tax breaks for married couples, on the entirely sane grounds that all the empirical evidence shows that children do better with two parents, and that married parents are more likely to stay together. The Conservatives seem to recognize that the family is the building block of all human societies. Labour are clinging on to their pathetic and discredited neo-Marxist nonsense that the family is a sinister conspiracy designed to oppress women.

Cameron has stated that he intends to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer. Let’s hope he can deliver on that. Personally, I’m prepared to give him a chance. God knows, Britain certainly needs it.

New Book recommendation: The Woman Racket.

I'm reading an excellent new book called 'The Woman Racket' by Steve Moxon.

From the jacket: "Notwithstanding its provocative title, The Woman Racket is a serious scientific investigation into one of the key myths of our age - that women are oppressed by the 'Patriarchal' traditions of Western societies. Drawing on the latest developments in evolutionary psychology, Moxon finds that the opposite is true - men, or at least the majority of low-status males - have always been the victims of deep-rooted prejudice."

"Even so, you won't find me suggesting adding men to the ever-expanding list of 'victims'. As it stands there's but a minority of people who aren't already on this list... Instead the real story of men and women is the key to tearing up the entire list and throwing it away" (p2).

"The whole edifice rests on a vague imagining of an overarching description of masculinity, both within and without individual men, whereby somehow women are victimised. This is the ghost in the machine of society that somehow gave rise to 'Patriarchy'. No mechanismn for this has ever been tendered, let alone tested empirically, for the reason that researchers know that nothing of the kind does or could exist" (p18).

Moxon attempts to draw out the economic and philosophical origins of the current mess in chapter 1, after which he goes on to tell the real story of men and women, based upon scientific evidence. In some ways, this is the book that I have wanted to write for years. I highly recommend it.

The Accidental Heroine

I have become something of a fan of the British TV historian Bettany Hughes.

I first came across her in a Channel 4 series called The Spartans. At one point in the series she described Spartan women’s role in the construction of Spartan militarism. Women had a powerful role in encouraging men to fight, and in publicly shaming those who did not show sufficient courage or ability. Among several examples, Hughes tells of a Spartan mother berating her son for cowardice. Standing in the middle of a crowded street, she screams at him, “What’s wrong? Do you want to crawl back inside my belly?” This caught my attention for reasons I will discuss below.

Hughes has also made another excellent series called ‘The seven ages of Britain’. In one episode about Britain in the medieval period, she was discussing the influence of the church on peasant life. She visited a medieval church, whose walls are covered with murals intended to illustrate moral lessons to the illiterate population. Of all the murals in the church, she decided to focus on the one which taught the female populace not to gossip.

Her interpretation of this was an orthodox modern feminist view. With a haughty look she told us, “The church did not want women to use their visits to church as an excuse to gather together to exchange ideas, or – worst of all – to exchange gossip about their men”.

Why would men object to women gossiping about them? Because they know that it will harm them. It is intended to harm them. How dare we object to women harming us? They should have a God-given right to do that if they so wish.

I wonder how Ms Hughes would like it. If she discovered that her husband sat in the pub with his friends and discussed her shortcomings, her sexual preferences, her physical flaws, I wonder if she would feel angry about that. She would not be normal if she did not feel that her trust and privacy had been violated, and that her husband had betrayed her and harmed her socially. She would probably end the relationship, but, in a small community, her ability to form new ones might be severely damaged by his actions.

Ms Hughes thinks that women should have the right to harm men’s reputations and privacy any time they like, but not vice versa. This right of women’s, furthermore, should be utterly unassailable.

In fact, the church was aware that gossip had a corrosive effect on society generally; it was not just men who were likely to be damaged by it - this is just Hughes' modern interpretation. In reality, the church spoke out against anti-social behaviour of all kinds. Hughes mentioned in passing the church’s condemnation of young men drinking and gambling too much, but she didn’t question it. No doubt she thinks the church was right in this regard, and that male viewers everywhere should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. On the question of female anti-social behaviour on the other hand, the church should keep its mouth shut.

In another episode in the same series, she explained that in the early modern period, the criminal law in England did not apply to women. They simply could not be arrested for crimes. This was a revelation to me. It is something that feminists don’t seem to want to talk about very much. She recounts the tale of how a mob of seamen’s wives in Essex stormed aboard a foreign ship in port and overpowered its crew, safe in the knowledge that the crew was unlikely to attack them, and that the law could do nothing. She seemed to be very pleased with this exercise of girl power, but again, my ears pricked up.

Hughes seems to be a very capable historian. Looking at her website, she only really seems to be interested in writing about women. She comes across at times as a haughty feminist who is attempting to make her male audience feel ashamed, and to imbue her female viewers with a sense of gloating moral superiority. The history documentary as revolution.

Why do I describe myself as a fan? Well, her work is undeniably interesting, but more curious than that, if she is a feminist, then she seems deeply naive; she obviously hasn’t thought through the ideological significance of what she says. The kind of evidence that she is presenting openly contradicts much of orthodox feminist dogma, and she doesn’t seem to have realized that.

The standard feminist line on war, for example, is that war is one of the bad things that men do to women. Women are the principal victims of war. Wars only happen because men like fighting. War is an essentially male institution, which women want nothing to do with, have no part in, but merely suffer from. Here is Hughes presenting evidence that from ancient times, women were up to their necks in the incitement of organized male violence. In fact, women’s role in the incitement of male violence should not come as a surprise to anyone; it just seems surprising because feminists have been denying it for the last forty years. Indeed, it has never ceased, and continued right through both world wars, most notably with the Order of the White Feather in World War I.

Similarly, the standard feminist account of women’s position under the law is that they were systematically disadvantaged, and only disadvantaged. Yet Hughes reveals that English women were completely exempt from criminal responsibility. As a feminist, how can she explain this?

Hughes seems to have inadvertently let the mask slip in a cheap attempt to emotionally manipulate her audience. I however, do not sit on my sofa cringing in shame; instead I recognize her as a useful source in the (actually pathetically easy) attempt to debunk feminist mythology.

The world simply is not the way that feminists say it is, and what is more, it just never has been. Hughes’ documentaries provide valuable evidence which backs up this contention.