Friday, December 24, 2010

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance

Wise thoughts from the great philosopher, Karl Popper.

"Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he realized that even a tolerant person cannot always accept another's intolerance.

For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

The utterence of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion."

However, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal".

Saturday, December 18, 2010

A small victory for families against the SS

Couple who fled UK after social workers took their child are declared fit parents by Spanish officials and reunited with baby No2

A baby boy who was snatched from his parents on the authority of social workers has been returned after tests showed the couple are perfectly capable of caring for him.

Ten-month-old Daniel was back home with his parents last night after spending most of his young life in an orphanage.

The couple had fled to Spain, where Daniel was born in February, after their other child, Poppy, now two, was seized by Suffolk social services and put up for adoption.

They had deemed the couple ‘unfit’ parents who might emotionally harm their daughter in the future.

This decision was roundly criticised in the Commons by local MP Tim Yeo as ‘tantamount to child kidnap’.

Daniel was still being breast-fed by Carissa in hospital when Spanish social workers, acting on a tip-off from Suffolk, took him and placed him in an orphanage in Valencia.

Now, in a snub to their UK counterparts, Spanish social workers say Jim and Carissa are no danger to Daniel.

Jim, a 42-year-old legal adviser, and Carissa, 32, plan to sue Suffolk social services for breaking up their family.

The return of Daniel is a breakthrough for scores of families who have fled overseas to escape the clutches of British social workers.

In a separate move, Jim and Carissa, along with 35 families, have launched unprecedented legal action against UK family courts which have taken 50 of their children for forced adoption. All were deemed at risk of ‘future emotional harm’ from their parents, a condition unproven in science and often used as the premise to remove children from families by social workers.

One of the comments is “Often the CPS have orders for children to fill, a lot of PC gay couples want children, anyone's children, at any cost. In their rush to get their hands on these children the CPS will use any pretext. After all if an accused parent tries to bring in witnesses the closed courts say " shut your mouth and if you send so much as a birthday card to this child you are going to jail".

I'm not sure if the CPS is the body responsible - I suspect it has a lot more to do with radical feminists, radical gays and hard-Left sympathisers working within the SS itself - but the basic analysis is spot on.

Perhaps the tide is slowly turning at last.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Lib Dem campaigner for battered women 'beat up her Tory husband suspecting he was having an affair'

"A Liberal Democrat councillor who campaigns for battered women beat up her Conservative husband when their own coalition turned sour, a court heard.

Christine James, 51, suspected husband Ian was having an affair with former mayoress Alison Cocks.

After having a row with him, grandmother James followed her husband to Miss Cocks' home where she let herself in and started 'screaming like banshee'.

The mother-of-five called Mr James a 'b*****d' and rained down several blows on him before storming out.

Mr James, who owns a cafe, was left with red marks around the chin and throat from the attack.

The couple are both councillors for Weymouth and Portland Borough Council in Dorset.
Despite representing different parties, they had been happily married for 19 years until this summer when Mr James suddenly left the marital home in Weymouth.

James, who has previously campaigned to keep open a refuge for battered women, suspected her husband was seeing Miss Cocks, the ex-partner of former mayor Tim Munro.

Elizabeth Valera, prosecuting, told magistrates in Weymouth: 'This is a matter of domestic violence."

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Some Common Sense at Last?

Top judge says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.

The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.

He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.

The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.

Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.

Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’

He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

State-Sponsored Child Kidnap Legal in UK

I urge you to read this astonishing, terrifying story. I can't believe that this has happened in Britain. Even in Stalin's USSR, it would seem excessive.

"Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers

In 43 years of medical practice, said the family’s GP, he had “never encountered a case of such appalling injustice”. To their neighbours, it was so shocking that up to 100 of them were ready to stage a public protest, until being banned from doing so by social workers and the police".

Saturday, October 23, 2010

How the Mighty are Laid Low

"Her reputation as one of the country’s greatest female authors may rest on her elegant writing style.

But Jane Austen could not spell or correctly use punctuation, and wrote in a ‘regional accent’, according to a study of her handwritten work.

Professor Kathryn Sutherland, an Oxford University academic, said that manuscripts showed that her finished work was corrected by an editor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly for fans, that editor was believed to have been a man".

Oh my God! What tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth there will be in Wimin's Studies departments all over the world! The greatest female writer in English literary history couldn't even spell, and had to have her work corrected by a man! Imagine the shame! The rage! The angst! The cognitive dissonance ("We feminists never rated her that much anyway, our opponents just made that up to discredit us")!

Even before this latest revelation, she was hardly a female Shakespeare anyway. Even Fay Weldon apparently described her as "more Mills and Boon than War and Peace".

I'm not attacking Austen's work; it simply was what it was, and it was no doubt historically significant in some sense. I am poking fun at the ridiculous feminist canonisation of Austen as some kind of literary genius, when she was plainly no such thing. What fun to see that particular balloon popped! As Jane might have put it herself, "Recieved veiws are not always to be relied on".

This blow to the feminist intellectual establishment comes only a few years after we learned that the great gothic novel 'Frankenstein' was not in fact written by Mary Shelley at all, but by her husband, the great poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.

In a review of 'The Man who wrote Frankenstein', Camille Paglia comments: "Lauritsen assembles an overwhelming case that Mary Shelley, as a badly educated teenager, could not possibly have written the soaring prose of "Frankenstein" (which has her husband's intensity of tone and headlong cadences all over it) and that the so-called manuscript in her hand is simply one example of the clerical work she did for many writers as a copyist...."

There are two interesting things to be said. Firstly, the idea that European women in the 18th and 19th centuries had no opportunity to produce art is utterly untrue. Upper class women in particular had almost nothing else to do. They did not lift a finger to support themselves. They had servants to look after their every need, with the costs being met either by the men of their family or by the labour of workers on their estates. They did not do a hand's turn in their entire lives. Instead, they were encouraged to cultivate 'accomplishments', and these were typically artistic. Playing musical instruments, painting and writing were their principal activities. Not only were women able to pursue the arts if they wished; they had every opportunity presented to them on a golden platter. Their environment could not have been more conducive to the pursuit of the arts.

The second thing to notice is that they produced practically nothing. Despite all of this leisure, privilege, time and encouragement, there is not one single female Mozart, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. Not one. I'm not saying merely that it is not a 50-50 split. It is much worse than that. There is not even a single, solitary one.


Sunday, October 17, 2010


This old Vinnie Jones commercial is a good metaphor for the idea that men's traditional functions within the family are being, in effect, industrialised, taken over by a mixture of the government and corporate sectors.

So Much for Equality in the Party of the Working Man

Take a look at the diagram in this article. The entire Labour shadow cabinet seems to consist of current and former lovers, flat-mates or old university buddies. That level of nepotism is the sort of thing you might expect to find in the Albanian Communist Party circa 1970, but this is Her Majesty's Opposition, YOUR shadow cabinet.

I thought Labour was bad enough in the old days, when secret deals were done behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, between sallow Northern politicians in flat caps, and sallow Northern trade union leaders in flat caps. At least in those days it still maintained some pretence about representing working-class interests.

It seems that to get ahead in the Labour Party these days, you have to be a metropolitan Londoner, with a degree in PPE from OxBridge (that's Philosophy, Politics and Economics to you, you oik), and come from the well-to-do upper-middle-class. Preferably, you should be the offspring of wealthy East European emigres, or from a well-heeled family of Left-wing intellectuals. Failing that, you could be the niece of Lord Longford with a father who is a Harley Street doctor.

So much for 'the Party of the Working Man'. There is something galling about watching these champagne-soaked Hooray Henries and Henriettas on a mission to save the world. There is something infuriating about the way they deny the existence of objective moral knowledge, while at the same time wagging their fingers at us and lecturing us on appropriate behaviour, thoughts and speech. Something deeply maddening about the way they endlessly drone on about rights and freedom, while passing a mess of ill-thought-out, draconian laws designed to control every aspect of our lives. The way they denigrate the British nation, and yet expand the State to unprecedented levels. The way they squander our money hand over fist, and then laugh in our faces.

It makes an odd kind of sense to find out that they were all sleeping with each other at university, or living in each other's pockets. A very cosy, closed little clique, appointing each other to jobs, in the same way that paedophiles do. If that level of nepotism happened in a Surrey golf-club committee, or in a corporate board-room, these are the very people who would be up in arms about it.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Sugar and Spice and All Things Nice (Again)

If you still harbour romantic ideas about the essential compassion and innocence of women, meet Jennifer Petkov of Trenton Michigan, who has devoted the last few months of her life to taunting a terminally ill 7-year-old girl. Charming.

"Little Kathleen is in the final stages of Huntington’s disease – the same wasting illness that her mother, Laura, died from last year at the age of 24

In another incredibly cruel taunt, Mrs Petkov also put a picture of the girl’s dead mother in the arms of the Grim Reaper online.

After Laura Edwards died last year, the Petkovs also allegedly drove their truck – which bears the message ‘Death Machine’ and has a coffin attached to it – down the street and honked the horn.

Kathleen’s grandmother had a birthday party, and Jennifer sent a message asking if her kids could come over to play,' she said.

But the grandmother, Rebecca Rose, did not respond to the text quickly enough, she said. 'That's where it all started.'

Asked why she escalated the ugly feud, Jennifer Petkov said it was for 'personal satisfaction' and 'because it burns Rebecca Rose's a** raw.'"

As a result of this, someone set up a Facebook page branding her 'the devil of Detroit Street' with 100,000 signatories, her husband was suspended from his job facing possible dismissal and her kids got into playground fights.

Apparently she has now apologised. It seems that she has only apologised because there were negative consequences for her. She was perfectly content to watch other people suffering, as long as she could get away with it. She probably has a psychopathic personality disorder of some description. I pity the poor fool who is married to her.

All you White Knights out there, riding to rescue those Damsels in Distress, take note.

Saturday, October 09, 2010

Death of a Femi-Nazi

So let's all say goodbye and good riddance to Jill Johnston (1929-2010), 'whose book 'Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution' (1973), has been described as a "founding document" of lesbian feminist separatism'.

'In her book, Jill Johnston declared that it would take a radical "lesbian nation" to undermine the "Patriarchy" – the male-dominated system that oppressed all women. All women are born lesbians, she maintained, and those who slept with men were collaborating with the enemy'.

Why do I say 'femi-nazi'? Two reasons:

Firstly, the notion of separateness. A large proportion of human beings in the world are not considered good enough to live amongst, and need to be removed by one means or another. Instead of ethnic cleansing, this is sexual cleansing, or what Mary Daly calls 'gendercide'.

Secondly, her authoritarian approach even within her own chosen community; Jill Johnston believed that she had the right to tell other women what to do. It's not enough just for her to claim that she has the right to be gay herself. She has to try to compel everyone else to do it as well: 'all women are lesbians except those that don't know it yet'. Really? The message still doesn't seem to be getting out after 40 years. Heterosexuality seems still to be alive and well, despite the best efforts of people like Johnston.

It's a bizarre, irrational view of human nature and history. The back-story seems to be that human society is divided into two groups, the Good People and the Bad People. The Good People are superior, but they are living under the oppressive rule of the inferior Bad People. Strangely reminiscent of the Morlock and the Eloi from H G Wells' novel 'The Time Machine'. We can immediately ask how it is that the inferior came to dominate the superior, and given that we, the 'Good People', are living in an inferior position, what does it really mean to say that we are superior anyway? However, I suspect that stories of this type go back to ancient times.

The modernist twist on Johnston's version is the Freudian notion of the sub-conscious. This is the idea that one may have motivations that one is unaware of, such as in this case, the desire to be a lesbian. The notion that all women are 'essentially' lesbians does not sit well with social constructionism, aka 'the standard social science model', the view that everything in one's character is determined by one's social environment, not by anything genetic, or otherwise internal. Ever since the 1960s this view has been absolute dogmatic orthodoxy on the political Left, even though it has been comprehensively debunked. Evolutionary psychology is where it is at now. However, statements like Johnston's 'all women are lesbians except those that don't know it yet' demonstrate that the Left's committment to social constructionism was never more than opportunistic anyway, and this is doubly true of feminists. They will just say whatever happens to suit them from one minute to the next.

We can also ask how human society emerged in the first place. If all women are naturally lesbians, how did this situation come about? Why are they? What evolutionary advantage does it confer? How did human ancestors reproduce? At what point did the Evil Men rise up and hold women in sexual slavery? The whole story is nonsense from start to finish. As Richard Dawkins commented, 'Philosophy and Social Sciences are still taught as if Darwin had never lived'.

'Jill Johnston was briefly married and had a son and a daughter, but subsequently suffered mental breakdowns which she attributed to her struggles over her identity'.

It's interesting that so many seminal feminist thinkers had mental health problems, and that so many of them harboured genocidal fantasies. We can also consider Valerie Solanas, another delightful flower child from the summer of love, famous for founding the Society for Cutting Up Men, and attempting to murder Andy Warhol, leaving him with a gun-shot wound which Lou Reed still maintains led to Warhol's premature death.

The fact that this generation of psychotic middle-class revolutionaries is starting to die off now can only be a good thing. Maybe when the acid-scarred hippie-generation are finally in their graves, we will get some peace from their endless self-indulgence and their malign, socially-destabilizing influence.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Sex Trafficking Witch Hunt Continues

As golf fans count down to the first ever Welsh-hosted Ryder Cup, teeing off this Friday, Wales has been told to brace itself for an influx of sex-trafficking victims.

A recent Welsh Assembly report concluded that it is ‘highly likely’ that the Ryder Cup will result in a surge in sex trafficking to Wales. As evidence, it pointed to how Greece licensed new brothels ahead of the 2004 Athens Olympics to meet demand and said that ‘mega-brothels’ were built to satisfy sex-seeking football players and fans during Germany’s 2006 World Cup.

The media has repeated the assembly’s claims without question, predicting that the Ryder Cup will ‘fuel a boom in women and children forced here from abroad to work in the Welsh sex industry’.

But there is one problem with all this: the claims around the Athens Games and the World Cup in Germany in 2006 are based on myths that refuse to die.

Story Here

Thursday, September 30, 2010

How women invest in men - an analogy

Thanks to PetePatriarch for pointing this out.

Here's a new bit of terminology that I thought up. Investors can "long" (bet on) and "short" (bet against) a stock. Women "long" and "short" men. Women are currency, men are stocks, babies are bonds, divorce is selling a stock, marriage is buying a stock and dividends refer to money spent on the woman.

They "short" men by having sex quickly, partying with them, bleeding them for money early in the relationship and showing their terrible attitude. Great fun for them in the short term.

The guys that are "shorted" are the type that don't appreciate with time. They lower their value with a criminal record, drinking, drug abuse, gambling, violence, abuse and cheating. Emotionally dysfunctional women "long" these men and end up in a terrible relationship. Why do they stay? Because they bought a stock at 50 and it dropped to 40. They are hoping the stock will go back up. Irrational women are just like irrational investors, they throw good money after bad.

Smart women realize that "nice guys" (as in investment) are like a profitable company. At 30, their value is low, while the man's value is high and rising. What does an investor do? They go long on the investment. They demand chivalry, act like a "good girl", act perfect to bait the man and then get the payoff (expensive ring, wedding, house, retirement plan, baby...).

Of course when a stock has stagnant earnings and doesn't appreciate in value (probably because of the insanely high dividend payments the investor requires such as a woman's request to shop, not work and live above her means) a smart investor dumps that stock and cashes out (divorce). It doesn't matter that the high dividend payments kept the company from re-investing the money to earn more. Plus the investor still gets dividends even though they aren't even invested in the company anymore (alimony). Imagine if a stockholder demanded more than they invested when selling the stock and then demanded dividends after selling?

It also explains single moms. A child is like a convertible bond (a bond that can become stock). The set payments are just like owning a bond. If she can use the child to guilt the man into marriage, she just converted her investment to a stock due to the fact that she is now a 50% equity holder in the man's wealth. Also, just like a bond, when (child support) payments are not made (probably because it was an unreliable man/company that she should have "shorted"), as a creditor the woman looks to recover. Just like a distressed company, the creditor takes value (wage garnishment). The company is also forced to sell assets at a lower price due to distress, thus reducing the company's value. This happens when the child support systems brands people as "deadbeat dads", revokes professional licenses, suspends driver licenses, destroys credit ratings and throws the man in jail. Still, when a company goes under, the bond holders may not receive full payment (some guys just don't have the money for these outrageous child support payments). The company is weighed by the debt just like the man's ability to earn is hurt if he gets behind on child support payments. Unlike regular bonds, if the guy finds out that the wrong company name is on the bond (paternity fraud), it doesn't matter.

So dating is an investment game to women. If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock. Their chance to go "long" on a man has passed. If they go "long" early with a man, they have to wait for the young man to earn and produce dividends. Unlike with stocks, patience and waiting for an investment to grow is not advisable. Buying into an established man/company is the way to go.

So their ideal strategy is to "short" men until they find the best possible one to go "long" on. Luckily, they can borrow against that stock and "short" other men (by cheating). If they lose money by "shorting" men (getting caught), then a sale (divorce) will follow and the woman still gets her dividends.
Once the investor has gone "long" and then sold, their options open up. They can "short" different men, live off the proceeds from the sale and the dividends. They can also "long" another man by getting married again.

Since going "long" is the smart long-term strategy (just like with stocks), women press for marriage. Their "long" investment is likely to appreciate and pay dividends. Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.

Like most investors, women understand the nuisances about how the market works. The are like the investors looking for the next Southwest or Starbucks. They try to time the market and when they do it wrong, they end up as spinsters. Also, like a smart investor, they fear foreign capital. If foreign woman are allowed on the market, demand for stock will rise sharply. Foreign currency (just like in real life), has higher value and the American currency will have little purchasing power. So the AW is left with "penny stocks" (undesirable guys), "junk bonds" (a thug's bastard children) and men that should be "shorted" because that is all she can afford. She will demonize foreign investors and companies who accept foreign currency in an attempt to monopolize the market.

For men, the advice is simple. Don't seek outside sources of funding/validation. Build equity, "short" all the women around you (short the US currency) and don't issue any bonds.

I hope this analogy wasn't too complicated. I like thinking of marriage as a woman "going long" on a man. I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

What Men Know that Women Don't

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The World Cup Abuse Nightmare

"Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office".

Excellent article by Christina Hoff Sommers

Saturday, September 18, 2010

More on the ATA Story

I don't know if you remember I wrote a blog piece a while back about the ATA, a UK civilian organisation that delivered planes from the factory to the air bases during WW2. It contained a number of women, and Gordon Brown gave them all a medal, no doubt at Hatter Harman's behest. He made an oily speech in the Commons about the female Spitfire pilots that saved Britain from Nazism. An utter fabrication, really a gross misrepresentation of the facts, as they were all non-combatants, mostly men, and flew many different types of aircraft.

I am pleased but not surprised to find that the female veterans themselves were equally unimpressed.

"Were you surprised at how much interest the press showed in the female members of the ATA?

Of course. I always feel that this doesn't mention the men. They were the ones who started the thing, and we joined about six months later. There were 640 men and we try terribly hard to get them involved but nobody wants to know.

And some of them were heavily disabled. There were two who had one eye and one arm and flew, and there were one or two with one leg. But we never talked about this in the ATA. It's something that happened and that was the end of it.

We got this special badge from Downing Street, and it was only the women who were going to get it. I happened to know Giles Whittell, who wrote the Spitfire book. So I said, "You can't do this, where are all the men?" There had to be the men as well. And all the ground staff.

It's just like the services - if you get given a medal, everybody has it because they've all contributed in some way or another. Anyway, that went through fortunately, so everybody got one
". Reference

It turns out that :

  • Labour was only going to give the campaign medal to the women!
  • The men only got it because the female veterans insisted!

It's funny how women didn't seem to think they were oppressed until about 1970...

The reason this has come to my attention again is because the People's Commissariat for Propaganda (aka the BBC), has decided to screen a program called Spitfire Women, about the ATA as part of its Battle of Britain season. Even though Labour is out of power, the ghost of Hattie Harman still stalks the Studios of Shepherd's Bush. 'Spitfire Women' indeed. That and the other 129 types of aircraft they flew, and the three men for every woman.

Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against the ATA. I just object to the fact that it has been hi-jacked by the Left and turned into a 'wimin's issue'; some bitter female under-achievers are attempting to bask in the reflected glory of the WW2 generation, a generation who would have profoundly disagreed with their politics. But this has nothing to do with history or the war. It's all about politics today.

As George Orwell said in 1984, 'He who controls the past, controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future'.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

So Much for Sex Trafficking

The Wayne Rooney case has highlighted yet again the nonsense of the feminist case on prostitution. The girl in question here is not some slave being held against her will:

"With a father who is an oil company executive, and a mother who drives a Porsche, the young Jennifer Thompson wanted for nothing.

Brought up in the Gulf state of Qatar, she led a sheltered existence protected by her parents and three brothers.

When the family returned to Britain, the churchgoing teenager was sent to a private school with high expectations for her future career.

Yet now, at the age of 21, she advertises herself as 'Juicy Jeni', the £1,200-a-time hooker whose charms Wayne Rooney apparently found so irresistible."

Why don't feminists tell the truth about prostitution?

Saturday, September 04, 2010

The Myth of the Backlash

Despite the propaganda disseminated by people like Susan Faludi, claiming that there has been a concerted backlash against feminism, the opposite is the case. Feminism has progressed steadily for four decades and more with hardly a squeak of opposition from anyone. Not only has there never been anything like a ‘backlash’, indeed any resistance to speak of, organised or not, but on the contrary, male judges and politicians have acceded time and time again to the most outrageous feminist demands. The vicious anti-male legislation we see being enacted across the English-speaking world has largely been enacted by men. Feminist causes receive billions of dollars of taxpayer's money. Far from facing a backlash, feminism has enjoyed the unmitigated support of political elites for decades.

Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of Socialism. During the 1980s when the Thatcher-Reagan axis was waging the Cold War both at home and abroad, Feminism was ignored by these powerful anti-Communist forces, and in fact prospered. At the end of the Cold War when Communism collapsed and seemed to be politically discredited once and for all, Feminism survived with its reputation intact. Why? The irony is that feminism has been left alone largely because of sexism!

It is easy to identify several cultural and political factors which discourage dissent against feminism. There are two separate issues here. Firstly, the general lack of popular opposition to feminism, which is a remarkable phenomenon in itself. Secondly, an enquiry into why the political elite in particular has never acted against feminism, given feminism’s self-professed radicalism and Marxist roots. I will examine each of these in turn.

The Absence of Popular Dissent
There is a long-standing popular myth that women are essentially good, noble and pure, or at least, incapable of doing harm. If women are good, noble and pure, then anything that women say must also be good, noble and pure simply because women are saying it. This collocates with the belief that women are not acceptable targets for attack, and so therefore the women’s movement is not an acceptable target either. The myth of innocence places women above suspicion and allows them to pass unchallenged. Any demands women make for social reform must be good, or at least harmless, simply because women are making them; any movement of women must be good, or at least harmless. Thus, there is simply no reason to attack feminism, because it is harmless. Feminists actively promote these outdated sexist beliefs for the simple reason that they benefit from them.

Why have men as a group not stood up and defended themselves against the onslaught of feminism? For the same reasons ‘the patriarchy’ could never have got started in early history. Males have to compete with each other for sexual access to females, and this tends to militate against the kind of cooperation that would be required to form a mass men’s movement to take any effective stand. Many women, particularly among the middle-classes, will tend to select against those men who speak out against feminism, and this may include severe immediate personal consequences such as social exclusion, damage to career and reputation, false accusations, even a beating from some naïve man who thinks he might improve his own sexual chances by administering it.

Men don’t want to be seen to feel threatened by women, or to enter into open conflict with them. This is perfectly rational given the circumstances. It is to a significant extent, a no-win situation for a man. If he wins, he is seen as a sexist bully who picks on people weaker than himself, and if he loses, he is seen as a weak, pathetic loser who can’t defend himself against someone obviously weaker than himself. If a man enters into conflict with a woman, it is very likely that most of the community will automatically rush to the woman’s assistance, assuming her to be the wronged party, regardless of the actual circumstances. This is a sexist situation which feminists actively encourage. This identifies a form of political power which women have always possessed, but which feminists have never acknowledged the existence of.

Feminism has convinced us of its moral justness – who in their right mind could possibly oppose the cause of women’s rights?

The lack of Political Suppression by the Elite.
Why has the ruling elite never attacked feminism? It is important to remember that the men and women of the elite are no more immune to prevailing cultural attitudes than the rest of us, so everything I said above also applies to them. Both male and female members of the elite will be psychologically disinclined to attack feminism for the same reasons as lesser mortals. However, in addition, they can be characterised as seeking to maintain their elite powerful position. Why, then, have they not identified feminism as a threat to the established political order, and attacked it?

Even though they can hardly be described as oppressed or underprivileged, the women of the elite are also attracted by feminism. It brings them many of the same psychological benefits that it brings to less privileged women. In addition, though, feminism allows privileged women to let themselves off the hook. It enables them to persuade themselves that they are not in fact privileged at all. It allows them to regard themselves as victims. It allows them, if they so choose, to blame their male relatives for accruing all the wealth and power, while they themselves enjoy its benefits and excuse themselves of any complicity. Thus, they will be unwilling to challenge feminism, and, as it gives them the same kind of psychological leverage over their male peers as it gives to their less privileged sisters, they will discourage these male peers from challenging it either.

By identifying political power with the entire male population (or something called ‘the Patriarchy’), feminism misidentifies who the powerful are. This serves to confuse and misdirect the forces of social reform. In this way, feminism actually serves the interests of the powerful, so they are disinclined to attack it.

Feminism has a tendency to split, divide and fragment other dissident movements that it infiltrates, thus undermining them. I know from my own experience that radical feminism divided the 1980s anti-nuclear movement along sexual lines. Feminism turns male and female dissidents against each other. In this way, it actually serves the interests of the powerful, so again, they are disinclined to attack it.

Feminists’ volatile tendency to launch into self-righteous outrage and moral panic at the drop of a hat is useful to the ruling social elite to distract attention away from itself. In this way, feminism actually serves the interests of the powerful, so they are disinclined to attack it.

The powers that be have never lifted a hand against feminism because it is useful to them. Look at our current economic ills. Pensions have become a giant Ponzi scheme with future commitments that they cannot possibly honour. Millions are facing having to work until the age of 70. Why has no-one protested? One reason is that those in power use the popular media to distract our attention onto spurious problems, by shouting things like “Hey, everybody! Look over there! It’s a paedophile!” Feminists can always be relied upon to start the screaming.

Feminists are always on the look-out for a stick to beat men with, and the powers that be are only too willing to hand them one. Their tendency to stir up moral panic plays into the hands of corporate and political vested interests.

Feminism’s Immune System
Feminism has not been slow to defend itself when challenged. Canadian feminists have suggested charging anyone who criticises feminism with hate crime. This is pure Stalinism. Anyone who disagrees with the Party line has to be ruthlessly excoriated, criminalized, medicalized, purged from the ranks of human society. The Canadian feminists are unwittingly showing their Marxist totalitarian roots here. This is the feminist movement in its true colours; tyranny with a pretty face is still tyranny nonetheless.

This is just one example of the viciously repressive measures taken against dissidents, which feminists seem to think are just a part of their entitlement. The main tactic is usually destroying people’s reputations through ad hominen attacks, although feminists have never been above issuing death threats and engaging in small scale acts of terrorism.

Just like any other National Socialist cult, the feminist movement behaves in viciously aggressive ways towards those who disagree with it. This obviously works on some of the people some of the time; those who consider raising objections might be intimidated into silence, at least for a while.

Far from there being a concerted anti-feminist backlash as Faludi claims, the opposite is the case; there has been precisely no backlash. The myth of the backlash is a useful tool for rallying the troops and keeping them faithful. If some feminists are starting to relax and convince themselves that the battle is won, Faludi wants to persuade them that, on the contrary, they must re-double their efforts against the enemy. The myth of the backlash is a device for keeping the movement alive, keeping the social group together; and therefore keeping its leaders in power.

Feminism has been so successful because it has effectively bypassed our psychological immune systems. Even those who feel that there is something not quite right about it find it very difficult to articulate exactly what the problem is, especially in a way that sounds acceptable, and doubly so if they are male. Far from challenging the established political and social order, feminism is, in many ways, a deeply conservative movement which serves the interests of the establishment.

The idea that feminists are doing their best to improve things doesn’t entitle them to the level of immunity from scrutiny or criticism that they demand, and that many are prepared to grant. We know from countless examples elsewhere that lack of scrutiny is a recipe for corruption, and indeed, this is what has happened.

We have plenty of lessons to draw on from Twentieth Century history. You can cling on to power for a generation or two by means of cronyism, youth indoctrination, inspiring popular fear, the relentless purging of dissidents and endless propaganda (known euphemistically as ‘spin‘ or ‘news management’) but sooner or later the truth will out. Berlin Walls have a habit of coming down eventually. Lace curtains are no different.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

WikiLeaks founder falsely accused of rape

The arrest warrant issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on suspicion of rape was sensationally withdrawn tonight.

Swedish prosecutors made the dramatic u-turn less than 24 hours after the document was originally issued, saying it had been based on an unfounded accusation.

Confusion now surrounds the case which has been branded a 'dirty tricks' campaign by Assange and his Wikileaks team.

The whistleblowers were preparing to release a fresh batch of classified U.S. documents from the Afghan war.


This shows yet again that false accusations of sexual offences can be and are routinely used to destroy the lives of innocent men. What more effective way is there of destroying a man? It's a silver bullet.

This is a blatantly sexist aspect of our culture, and a gross sexual injustice. Do you hear feminists complaining about it? No. Quite the reverse. They are largely responsible for promoting this climate of fear and suspicion.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Feminist Moral Bankruptcy

"Many human rights groups have criticised the Iranian authorities for their brutal treatment of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, including Amnesty International and the International Committee Against Stoning. The mother of two has already received 99 lashes for committing adultery and according to her lawyer, who has fled the country after a warrant was issued for his arrest, she has been beaten and tortured in jail. Yet the response of feminists in the West has been strangely muted.

Hillary Clinton lost no opportunity to brandish her feminist credentials during her campaign to become the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee in 2008 and even went so far as to blame her failure to beat Barack Obama on the “glass ceiling”.

Unfortunately, the concrete ceiling of Ashtiani’s jail cell hasn’t inspired any comparable rhetoric. All she has said is that she’s “troubled” by Ashtiani’s case.

At least Hillary Clinton was able to bring herself to mutter this mild rebuke. No other prominent feminist has spoken out about Ashtiani’s case, unless you include Yoko Ono who has signed the petition calling for her to be freed. We’ve heard nothing from Germaine Greer, nothing from Gloria Steinem, nothing from Jane Fonda, nothing from Naomi Wolf, nothing from Clare Short, nothing from Harriet Harmen.

We know why, of course. Almost no one on the left, with the honourable exception of Christopher Hitchens, dares to breath a word against any Islamic country for fear of being branded “Islamophobic”. Thus, a brutal dictatorship is able to torture and murder thousands of innocent women, safe in the knowledge that the self-styled keepers of the West’s conscience will remain silent.

The left has always had a blind spot when it comes to the abuse of human rights in the developing world and no one is more guilty of this myopia than the women’s movement.

...The reaction of some in the West is to accuse them of a colonialist mentality. A British critic...demanded: “Why are we so wonderful? Our society is still just as sexist, albeit in more subtle ways, than the burka-enforcing Taleban. Working on a farm and producing your own food is a far more viable and healthy option that slaving in a sweat or sex shop.”

Could the West’s self-appointed defenders of women’s rights have done anything to prevent the wholesale slaughter of their sisters in the developing world if they’d taken up their cause? Could a feminist outcry today about the plight of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani do anything to prevent her death? We will never know, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their continuing silence reveals the moral bankruptcy of their movement.

Toby Young, Why have Western feminists been so muted in their criticisms of Iran?

Toby Young is quite right to identify the moral bankruptcy of the feminist movement, but if he is surprised then he is clearly expecting too much of it. I learned a long time ago that you cannot expect feminists to stand up consistently on large matters of principle, despite how much they might like to fool themselves to the contrary. Consistently holding a moral principle means that, sometimes, you might have to forego an opportunity to indulge or enrich yourself, and that won’t do at all. Feminism has never been anything other than a call to narcissistic self-aggrandisement, encouraging women to ‘have it all’, and to cover any resultant negative consequences by bleating that ‘men have always had it all, so it’s only fair’. As such, feminism is a doctrine which is fundamentally designed to promote opportunism, selfishness and narcissism, and rather than encouraging high principle, it naturally leads instead to the sacrifice of high principles on the altars of avarice, spite and apathy.

Why does Young even think that feminists in particular should comment on the Ashtiani case anyway? It is of course, because Ashtiani is a woman, and because feminists are ‘the West’s self-appointed defenders of women’s rights’. Feminists are only interested in their own chosen client constituency: women. They are only interested in women because they themselves are women. They believe that the State should do as much as possible to ensure women’s comfort and security. As such, the feminist movement is essentially a National Socialist movement. Cradle-to-grave, State-funded social care, but only if you are an Aryan, sorry, Womyn. If you’re not one of the chosen ones, then you can go hang. That was Hitler’s social program in a nut-shell. The implication here is the same. Human rights abuses are only a bad thing if they are happening to women; as long as they are happening to men, the feminist movement couldn’t give a toss, and is not even expected to. What paragons of moral virtue.

As Young's quote above demonstrates, feminists apparently feel unable to distinguish why life in the West is any better than life in Iran anyway, without fear of seeming racist. This lack of moral confidence is a problem not just of the feminist movement, but of the Left in general. Since the late 1960s, radical scepticism has been the fashion in Western Left-wing academic circles. The dogma insists that there is no such thing as the truth, there is only opinion; nothing is 'natural' or determined, everything is socially constructed through discourse. If knowledge is impossible, then moral knowledge is also impossible. There is no such thing as right and wrong, good or bad. These terms are too judgemental. It is impossible to say anything about anything. Except that women are good and men are bad. Go figure.

Feminists have generally chosen not to speak out on the Ashtiani case, and it is easy to see why. For one thing, Iran is a very long way away (I would love to read about it, dahhhling (yawn), but I have a lunch appointment).

More importantly, feminists only have two moral positions to choose from:

  • Self-serving, Statist, Manichean partisanship (the morals of National Socialism).
  • Post-modernism (no morals at all).

Which one goes with this burka? Does my ego look big in this?

Friday, July 23, 2010

Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Defence Secretary

"In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr Fox said the dire state of the public finances meant the Armed Forces could no longer be equipped to cover every conceivable danger.

Since the Second World War, the nation has maintained a force that can conduct all-out warfare, counter-insurgencies such as in Afghanistan or medium scale campaigns like the Falklands or Sierra Leone.

But Dr Fox has given the strongest signal yet that it will have to give up one or more of these capabilities, which have been maintained at the same time as contributing to collective security pacts such as Nato. “We don’t have the money as a country to protect ourselves against every potential future threat,” he said. “We just don’t have it.”

So, the Greenham Wimin have got their way in the end. The Toys will be taken from the Boys (and Girls) on the grounds that they are too expensive.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialists will spend other people's money on pursuing their dreams until there is none left". That is what has happened here. New Labour has left the country so bankrupt that it cannot even defend itself.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Book Recommendations

I've been doing a lot of reading during my blogging sabbatical, and I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of books.

I can't believe that I haven't previously mentioned 'Taken Into Custody' by Steven Baskerville. As I have said before, my on-going research demonstrates to me that the political discrimination facing men, fathers and the family are infinitely worse than I had imagined. This book is truly shocking.

Some interesting videos related to the book can be found here.

Another astonishing read was 'The Welfare State We Are In' in which James Bartholomew argues very persuasively that Britain, and especially its poor, would have been better off had the welfare state never happened. Sound surprising? Read the book. Or watch a related video here.

Both highly recommended.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Reckoning

I should apologise to my regular readers for the long absence. Sometimes other commitments just get in the way. It has been a while since I last did any significant blogging, and quite a lot has happened in between.

Firstly, that appalling government is now out of office at last. I am sad to say that I voted for Blair in 1997, but during the last two or three years of New Labour, I found them little short of terrifying. It is undoubtedly the most authoritarian government we've had since World War 2, and probably since Cromwell.

There is too much to say in one short article, but three things really stand out in my mind about the Labour government.

Immigration policy.
As Home Office whistle-blower Steve Moxon exposed in his excellent book 'The Great Immigration Scandal', and Labour apparachik Andrew Neather later admitted, it was Labour's policy to flood the country with uncontrolled mass immigration, specifically in order to alter the composition of British society, and to destroy traditional British national identity. They wanted to 'render the Right's arguments obsolete, and rub their noses in diversity'. They had to keep this secret from their core white working-class voters - the very people the Labour Party was formed to represent - because they knew that the electorate would never accept such a policy. I don't know about you, but to me, secretly planning to destroy the country's national identity sounds a lot like treason.

The Illegal Wars
The New Labour government launched military invasions of two sovereign countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, without any basis in international law. The reasons we were given for these wars were fabricated, and kept changing over time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Alastair Campbell fabricated evidence claiming that he did. The distinguished scientist David Kelly knew this, and died mysteriously, almost certainly murdered. Campbell is a war criminal under any meaningful definition, a propaganda minister who is prepared to disseminate lies in order to manufacture a spurious casus belli, provoking a conflict which caused over 100,000 civilian deaths, with countless others maimed, injured or displaced, a war which has provoked Islamic terrorism at home.

Afghanistan is hardly any better, one of the longest and most intractable military quagmires of recent times. And for what? Because Osama bin Laden is hiding there and they make women wear the burka? Why am I not convinced?

Both of these wars were ultimately about global energy security, and us sucking up to the Americans.

Not only did Labour send our troops to war, but kept them deliberately starved of funds and equipment. How many troops have died in Afghanistan for want of a helicopter or some body armour? I heard tell of troops being sent on patrol with only 10-15 rounds on them, in a rifle which holds 30 rounds. This is the way that Labour fights wars, sending troops out on foot with a half-empty gun, while squandering billions on a failed welfare state, increasing government surveillance, and promoting political correctness.

Some say that Labour has a long-standing distrust of the military ever since the planned coup in the late 1970s. When Wilson resigned in office, there was an internal leadership election. In the event James Callaghan won, but one of the candidates was Tony Benn, an ardent Leftist. There was apparently a plot involving Airey Neave, later killed by the IRA, to mount a coup if Benn came to power. Neave himself was a noted WW2 veteran, and this coup would have involved the military. The story is that Labour has had it in for the military ever since. So, Labour, when it returned to office, made sure that the army was kept very far away, very busy, and very starved of resources. That way it could not be a threat to Labour ever again.

Whether or not this is true, it seems clear that the Left does indeed hold the military in deep suspicion and contempt, because the Left, since it had its own internal coup, and Labour moved from being the Party of the Working-class Man, to being the Party of the Middle-class Working Woman, now regards the military as the symbol of everything it hates about 'The Patriarchy'; "Take the toys away from the boys and give peace a chance", chanted the Greenham Common wimin in the 1980s. This culture will have had real effects during cabinet horse-trading; more Chinooks, or more state-funded child-care? Hmmm. What would Harriet Harman do?

We should never have been in those wars in the first place, but it was infinitely worse to go into them without even supporting the troops properly. No wonder Cameron talked about "a breach of the Military Convenant". It was exactly that.

The Deficit
Labour expected to be wiped out at the polls, so it spent the last six months or so in office pursuing a scorched earth policy, deliberately making spending commitments it knew the next government could never honour. On its way out, it then left a sneering note saying "Sorry, there's no money left". Again, deliberately wrecking the country's finances for years to come sounds to me a lot like treason.

I don't have space here to talk about the economic mismanagement during the good years, the crime on the streets, the catastrophe that is the education system, the bloated benefit-dependent underclass, or the systematic attack on men and the family.

It is easy for us to sneer at politicians, but this is far worse than casual pub cynicism. This was a train-wreck of a government. It is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes.

It is not enough merely to say good riddance. Half of these people should be in prison for the rest of their lives, and what's more, they know it.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Abusegate: It's About Time This Scandal Surfaced.

Abusegate: The Most Important Word in the English Language.
'Abusegate' refers to the systematic distortion of the truth about partner aggression by representatives of the domestic violence industry. Reference

"The story of Abusegate is as much about the attempt by feminists to obscure their real intentions as it is about feminist attempts to conceal the reality of partner abuse, in order to claim the issue as their own, and possibly the only issue available at the time to keep this essentially destructive philosophy alive. Reference

[In the 1970s and 1980s] except for the halls of academia, which began to offer “women’s studies” courses, and a few academicians pushing “feminist law,” and “feminist psychology,” the general public had little interest in a movement that was so clearly designed to create antipathy between not only the sexes, but between career women and those choosing more-traditional paths for themselves.

It was about the same time that the issue of partner abuse began to emerge as an issue on the public radar. In 1971, Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for abused women in the UK. There were also a few shelters for women developing independently in various places in the US.

This did not escape the attention of the zealots of the feminist faith and other opportunistic women. Surely there was profit and power to be gained in promoting this cause.

A theory regarding abuse was formulated, relying almost entirely on feminist supposition and the input from self-identified abused women. There has never been any kind of formal research or investigation of the feminist theory of abuse; it has simply been presented as a fait accompli and seldom, if ever, questioned. A look through the “Herstory,” (on the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse website, funded by your tax dollars) reveals a stunning lack of mention of research of any kind behind the feminist concept of domestic violence.

This is probably the most astonishing fact of Abusegate: While Climategate has at least some basis in research and scientific theory, there is none whatsoever behind the myriad programs and laws established since the 1970s by the so-called, “Battered Women’s Movement.” Even the term itself was created for its impact by feminists whose goals had very little to do with providing aid for women."

Once we've jailed those responsible for AbuseGate, we need to turn our attention to RapeGate, PaedophiliaGate and PayGapGate. Feminists are people who quite literally lie for a living. They have got to be stopped.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Another Dangerous False Accuser on the Loose

“A woman drove a man to suicide by crying rape and forced a second innocent man to consider taking his life after falsely accusing him of a similar sex attack.

Despite being exposed in court as a serial liar, legal restrictions mean the 21-year-old woman can never be identified.“

Consider this woman’s actions. She has maliciously accused at least two men of raping her. She must be aware of the fact that one of them committed suicide. Yet she shows no sign of ever stopping. It seems likely that this woman has the potential to become a serial life destroyer if left unchecked; she will spend the rest of her life getting as many men as possible falsely imprisoned. Like a kind of serial killer by proxy, driving as many men to suicide as possible. This is someone who is probably a clinical sociopath. She is demonstrably a danger to the public. Yet it seems that no action has been taken against her, and she remains protected by legal anonymity.

How can this situation be explained? The problem is that false accusations are only ever seen as a crime against the State, not as a crime against the person.

All victims of crime have a right of redress. In a democracy, we relinquish our personal right to revenge, and instead transfer it to the State, which acts on our behalf.

Ms Jones alleges that Mr Smith has raped her. She seeks help from the State. In the ensuing trial of the Crown vs Mr Smith, it transpires that Ms Jones has been lying all along. However, her motivations for having done so are rarely examined. Her action is seen only as an offence against the Crown; wasting taxpayer's money, or wasting the judicial system's time and resources. It is not seen as a crime against Mr Smith.

As I mentioned above, whenever a crime is committed, the victim has the right to seek redress. In such cases as this, the Crown usually chooses to forego its right. If the false accuser is charged with anything at all, she will only be charged with crimes again the Crown; wasting police time, or perverting the course of justice. In many cases, the accuser could be charged with the more serious crime of perjury, but this almost never happens. The State wishes to appear magnanimous and merciful, and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office have been comprehensively penetrated by feminists who do not believe that women should ever be charged with criminal offences, certainly not with offences against men. Thus accusers are almost never held to account for their actions.

However, even when they are, look what happens. A false accusation, if it is even seen as a crime at all, is seen only as a crime against the State; it is not seen as a crime against the wrongly accused. She may be charged with wasting police time; she will not be charge with crimes against Mr Smith. Yet she has made a concerted attempt to destroy his life.

Men, it seems, simply have no right of redress against women, due to an ideological assumption that it is impossible for women to commit offences against men. Ms Jones has not committed an offence against Mr Smith by accusing him of rape. She has only committed relatively minor offences against the State, by wasting its time, and these can usually be overlooked.

However, this is profoundly wrong and unjust.

In lobbying for false accusers to be dealt with by the courts in order to discourage others, many people have been asking for the wrong things. Some have been asking only that the state does not forego its right of redress, and that false accusers are charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice as a matter of course. Perhaps they should.

However, we should always be making the far more radical demand that false accusations are recognised as a serious crime against the person. The accused man must be given a right of redress also. The crime against him is far more serious than the crimes against the State which have been committed, and he is far less able than the State to treat the offence with equanimity.

In a rape trial, the law regards the accuser as the victim, until such time as it becomes clear that she is lying. After that, the law regards itself as the victim. At no time does the law ever recognise the interests of the accused man. This is what needs to change.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Quote of the Day

‘Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban... At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals ... If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’

George Orwell

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Titanic Day Petition

You can sign this petition here.

"We hereby proclaim the 15th of April to be Titanic Day. It is a day of reflection and contemplation for men who reject the tenets of chivalry, feminism and all other forms of male indentured servitude.

We seek on this day to remind ourselves, our sons and each other of our intrinsic, inalienable worth as human beings. We collectively reject that any ideology or social code that would reduce us to mere utility or regard our state as disposable."

I'm not sure that I do 'reject the tenets of chivalry'. I think chivalry has a plausible evolutionary basis. I just think that women should stop, through the offices of the feminist movement, biting the hand that feeds them. The fact is women benefit from chivalry, and yet they manage to make out that it is somehow an evil conspiracy against them. I still want to hear a feminist explaining why is was that back in the bad old days of the Patriarchy, before feminists saved the world, it was women and children first in the lifeboats. Why was it not men first in the life-boats?

There is an interesting article here: Titanic Sized Hatred by Feminists Predates Second Wave

Apparently feminists were whining even at the time, diminishing men's contribution.

"Mis [sic] Sylvia Pankhurst, sister of Cristabel, was asked how the remarkable proportion of women saved accorded with the suffragette theory that chivalry was dead. She said she did not want to minimize in any way the gallantry displayed, but it must be born in mind that it was the universal rule in the cases of shipwreck that women and children should be saved first and that the instance of the Titanic was not the only one in which that was carried out. It was merely a matter of rule. There was no special chivalry attached to it."

She did not bother to reflect on the fact that any such 'universal rule' in fact constitutes a female privilege, which must be offset against any apparent under-privilege. She assumes that a seat in the lifeboat is simply a part of her entitlement.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

More Sex Trafficking Lies

Stop this illicit trade in bullshit stories

"David Beckham might not be going to the World Cup in South Africa this year, but 40,000 hookers will be. That is literally what a headline on the NBC sports website claims: ‘40,000 hookers making their way to South Africa for World Cup.’ Other media outlets have been a bit more PC: ‘40,000 prostitutes to enter South Africa’, says the UK Daily Telegraph; ‘40,000 prostitutes bound for South Africa’, says the New York Daily News. Apparently many of these hookers will be trafficked into South Africa against their will, forced into a life of grimy prostitution for the satisfaction of drunken football fans.

It sounds scary. And also eerily familiar. Where have we heard that figure of ‘40,000 hookers/prostitutes/trafficked women’ before? That’s right, during the last World Cup, in Germany in 2006. In May 2006, a month before the World Cup kicked off, the UK Independent warned of ‘40,000 women being imported [to Germany] for the “use” of visiting fans’. It said the ‘combination of sport, booze and sex is a huge problem, encouraging degrading attitudes and sometimes actual violence towards women’. One British columnist said in May 2006 that ‘anything up to 40,000 extra sex workers are likely to be smuggled into [Germany] in the coming weeks’. We were told that inebriated footie fans would have sex with these ‘slave women’ in specially built ‘wooden performance boxes resembling toilets’.

There was only one problem with the alarming claims made in 2006: They were codswallop. Utterly unfounded. A big bag of nonsense. A study carried out by the Council of the European Union (CEU) and published in 2007 found: ‘There was no sign whatsoever of the alleged 40,000 prostitutes/forced prostitues – a figure repeatedly reported – who were to be brought to Germany for the 2006 World Cup.’ Far from 40,000 enslaved women trussed up in ‘sex sheds’, the CEU report said the German authorities, having spent millions of Euros and thousands of hours of police time on the lookout for trafficked women, found only five cases of ‘human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation’ in relation to the 2006 World Cup.

Yet now, four years later and on the other side of the world, we have the exact same headline-grabbing figure being spouted in relation to South Africa. During the 2006 World Cup, the figure of 40,000 seems to have orginiated with the American feminist group, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), though it’s unclear how they arrived at their – let’s be generous here – ‘estimation’. The figure of 40,000 trafficked women for this year’s World Cup seems to have originated, bizarrely, with South Africa’s Central Drug Authority (CDA), though again it’s unclear how they arrived at this super-neat, familiar number. Maybe they were browsing old editions of European newspapers from 2006, including Britain’s Independent and Guardian, and thought: ‘40,000 enslaved whores? If it can happen in Europe, it could definitely happen in Africa.’

I have a new theory about how these mad, bad and hysterical scare-numbers are arrived at. In recent years, every time there has been a major international sporting event, a motley crew of government officials, campaigning feminists, pliant journalists and NGOs have claimed that the movement of thousands of men to strange foreign countries where there will be lots of alcohol and horniness will result in the enslavement of women for the purposes of sexual pleasure. Obviously. And every time they have simply doubled the made-up scare figures from the last international sporting event, to make it look like this problem of sport/sex/slavery gets worse year on year.

So during the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000, really the first time that a sporting event was almost ruined by hysterical official and radical scaremongering about a new ‘sex slave trade’, it was said there were 10,000 sex slaves. ‘During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, an estimated 10,000 women were imported [to Australia]’, says one study of the ‘new global sex trade’. In fact, while there is evidence that a few more, generally poor Australian women made a living as prostitutes during the 2000 Games, there is no hard evidence of any women having been ‘imported’ to Australia for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

And yet, when it came to the Athens Olympic Games in 2004, what did the scaremongers do? They simply doubled the figures, from 10,000 to 20,000. ‘As many as 20,000 people [will] be trafficked into Athens to work as prostitutes’, reports claimed. There will be an ‘anticipated increase of 20,000 forced prostitues’, warned feminist campaigners. In reality, the Greek authorities discovered only 181 instances of people having been trafficked into Greece for the whole of 2004, and not a single one of these instances was ‘trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation’ – the majority were foreign children being used as beggars or as labour in Greece, which means they were defined as having been trafficked. Twenty-thousand ‘forced prostitutes’? The Greek authorities found none.

And yet, what did the trafficking obsessives do when the German World Cup came round two years later? They doubled the figures again, from 20,000 to 40,000 (where in the real world the figures for trafficked prostitutes were zero for Greece and five for Germany). I guess we should be grateful that they have shown enormous restraint in relation to this year’s World Cup and have stuck with the 40,000 figure instead of doubling it to 80,000. Given how wrong they were during Sydney, Athens and Germany, why should we believe a single word they say about South Africa? Of course, South Africa is not Germany, and as a result of poverty and underdevelopment many African women and young people are forced to do jobs they would rather not do. But the idea that they are ‘enslaved’ is mad, and the idea that their misfortunes are caused by the arrival of apparently leering footie fans from the West is politically and historically illiterate and a distraction from any serious debate about development.

The sport-sex-slavery scare springs from officials’ and campaigners’ warped minds rather than from anything remotely resembling evidence. As an in-depth study by a Canadian research group discovered recently, ‘the commonly held notion of a link between mega sports events [and] tafficking in persons is an unsubstantiated assumption’. Profoundly this scare speaks to an elite fear of unpredictable movements across borders, of working-class male behaviour, and of Third World women being easily tricked into a life of sexual bondage. Already, for the London 2012 Olympics, the UK government is scaremongering about ‘international criminal gangs… tricking and abducting women from abroad and selling them for sex in London’, to use Harriet Harman’s hysterical words. How many forced hookers will they claim are arriving in London for 2012? Forty-thousand again? Or maybe they’ll double it to 80,000? Any advances on 80,000? Who’d like to take a bet on this perverted new sport?"

Saturday, April 03, 2010

On Stalking

A reader who chooses to remain anonymous sent me a link to this story in the Guardian regarding ‘stalking’.

I am slightly perplexed as to why they should have done this, or what relevance they think it has to my blog.

The most likely explanation is that they have been taken in by (or subscribe to) the Guardian’s dishonest misrepresentation of the issue.

A quick look at the final paragraph gives us a clue: “Do you have any personal experience of being stalked? Do you have strong opinions about the current laws regarding this crime? The Women's page invites your comments for possible publication. Just email”

The Guardian is trying to present stalking as a “wimin’s issue”; stalking is one of the bad things that evil, dirty, boorish men do to good, noble and pure women. It’s disgraceful, and it must stop now! Women of the world unite! Our strength lies in sisterhood! United we stand! Divided we fall! To arms, comrades! Revolution!

The truth, however, is somewhat different. I’m not an expert on this, but even a quick internet search reveals articles such as this:

These Boots Are Made for Stalking: Characteristics of Female Stalkers, by Sara G. West, MD, and Susan Hatters Friedman, MD, August 2008.

“Meloy and Boyd[19] collected data on 82 adult women who had engaged in stalking assesses one of the large groups of female stalkers found in the literature.

Typically, the perpetrators were Caucasian, heterosexual, single women with a mean age of 35 (ranging from 18–58 years old). Often, these women did not have children. They appeared to be educated, with a large majority having graduated from high school and a solid minority having achieved a college or graduate degree. Their intelligence may have allowed them to be more successful in pursuing their victims.

Reports of substance abuse were not common, but about one-third of women used substances while stalking. Available data suggested the presence of Axis I and II disorders...Same gender stalking was more frequent among women than men. Women and men appeared to stalk their victims for a similar duration of time“.

Despite the Guardian's headline assertion that "Stalkers are criminals – not 'incompetent suitors'", it seems that a proportion of them are in fact incompetent suitors.

West and Friedman categorise stalkers into several types including "The incompetent stalker. These stalkers (n=22) lacked appropriate social skills and knowledge of courtship rituals but hoped that, regardless of these deficits, their behavior would lead to intimacy".

Another quick search on celebrity stalker cases reveals a high proportion of female offenders and male victims.

An interesting case mentioned is that of Colin Farrell, who was stalked by a woman called Dessarae Bradford: “Bradford sought two apparently fabricated suits against the Irish actor in the past two years - courts dismissed both cases. In May, she also sued Farrell in federal court for libel, assault and slander, seeking $10,000 in damages. Farrell received a restraining order on July 22 from Bradford.” Bradford is making herself out to be the victim in this case, and get this – she has a restraining order against him.

It is that much easier for Bradford to attack Farrell legally, it is that much more difficult for Farrell to defend himself, because of the false expectations about stalking that the feminist movement is busy creating.

The kind of ideologically-motivated distortion of the facts perpetrated by Left-wing, feminist publications like the Guardian helps to protect and assist female stalkers, and to make life more difficult for male victims. By promoting a false impression that stalking is something that men do to women, we are seeing the standard line of feminist cant. We have seen this before with regard to domestic violence, child abuse, any issue, in fact, that the feminist movement can get its hand on. Feminists have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the truth.

The truth is that people who engage in stalking behaviour are suffering from mental illness. Of course they should be treated, and of course their victims should be protected, but that is not what the feminist movement is concerned about. It is concerned about getting more power and money for itself, and it is happy to exploit the issue of stalking, just as it has exploited many other issues in the past. How else am I supposed to understand their involvement? Do they think that if all the women get together and shout loud enough, stalking will just go away?

I thank my correspondent for bringing the issue to the attention of the men’s movement.

Do you have any personal experience of being stalked? Do you have strong opinions about the current laws regarding this crime? Heretical Sex invites your comments for possible publication. Just email

Sunday, March 28, 2010

The joke’s on you if you’re male and Right-wing

From Peter Hitchens' blog

"I don't much like UKIP or its ex-leader Nigel Farage. I’ve called UKIP a ‘Dad’s Army’ party for years. So I was quite flattered to see that ‘Interviewer of the Year’ Camilla Long used my phrase in her extraordinary interview with Mr Farage.

But I was then puzzled to see that she spent a great deal of energy on the fact that Mr Farage once suffered from cancer and had a testicle removed as a result.

She even rang him up afterwards to ask which one it was. He took this in good part.

But should we?

Can you imagine what would happen to a male journalist who interviewed a liberal female politician who had lost a breast to cancer, made that the jokey theme of the resulting article, and rang her up afterwards to ask which breast it was?

Can you picture the outrage of the cancer charities, the wild storm of fury on Twitter, the pink-ribboned crowds gathering outside the newspaper’s office? But because Mr Farage is male and his cause is ‘Right-wing’, you can do what you like".

Sunday, March 21, 2010

I-VAWA: Why it would open Pandora’s box

This article presents an analysis of the proposed US law, the International Violence Against Women Act.

General Critique:

The proposed International Violence Against Women Act represents a naked power grab to impose a radical gender perspective on U.S. foreign policy, export an anti-family agenda, and satisfy a favored political constituency – at a $1 billion expense to U.S. taxpayers.

Research shows persons who are in a stable, married relationship are at far lower risk of experiencing domestic violence. But I-VAWA provides a $1 billion blueprint to destabilize the family, the most important social and economic institution to women, men, and children around the world. This is particularly true in low-income countries that have weak social service programs, no retirement system, and no state-funded unemployment insurance.

I-VAWA would promote social disintegration by defining “violence” in the broadest possible terms, advancing the shibboleth that only men are abusive in partner relationships, providing incentives to women to make accusations of abuse, breaking up the family, and eventually forcing persons to become dependent on the welfare state.

In addition, I-VAWA would serve to trample on internationally-recognized civil liberties, including those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by undermining due process for the accused, discriminating against male victims, and providing a pretext for heavy-handed state intervention into family matters.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Makes the breath-taking assumption that violence against men is unworthy of concern. (According to the World Health Organization, 1.1 million men and 500,000 women die of violence-related causes each year. )

2. Stereotypes and vilifies men as abusers. (Research shows men and women are equally likely to engage in partner violence, and at least half of all partner violence is mutual. )

3. Ignores the fact that female-initiated violence (e.g, a slap or punch) has been found to be the leading cause of female domestic violence injury.

4. Presents a series of Findings that are one-sided, unverifiable, false, or flatly Orwellian.

5. Presents a Statement of Policy using vague language that is easily susceptible to ideological interpretation, e.g., “female empowerment” and “gender integration”

6. Expansively defines domestic violence to include “psychological harm,” which in practice encompasses any marital tiff or lover’s quarrel.

7. Defines violence to encompass “violence perpetrated or condoned by the government” – a phrase that opens the door to require governments to fund abortion on demand (feminists often claim that lack of access to abortion services represents “violence against women”).

8. Provides sweeping powers to the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, powers that are likely to be used to usurp normal foreign policy-making procedures.

9. Advocates that programs “shall consider the safety of women and girls as a primary concern in deciding how to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate programs.” (Section 112). In practice, this serves as a pretext to diminish due process protections for persons falsely accused.

10. Promotes law enforcement approaches such as restraining orders, which are known to be ineffective in stopping violence and routinely violate the civil liberties of the accused.

11. Funds training efforts to change “social norms” and “community attitudes.” Experience proves such programs are highly biased in their content and ideological in their purpose.


World Health Organization. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: 2001. Table A.2.

Straus MA. Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Presented May 23, 2006 at New York University. Table 3.

Los Misandry, USA

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Is there a sinister Labour plot to stop British troops voting in the election?

Click here for full story

Many of those in the Armed Forces (including those risking their lives on the frontline in Afghanistan) face the prospect of being unable to vote at the forthcoming General Election.

This is a direct result of the Government’s cack-handed and thoughtless system which governs their voting rights.

Under the Representation of the People Act 2000, armed forces personnel have a choice of putting their names on the electoral roll through the Services or as civilians.

But if they take the former route, they must re-register every year rather than being able to register once for the whole of their military career.

As a result of the requirement to sign annually, the number of service personnel registering fell from 139,000 to 21,000.

Indeed, critics of the system have pointed out the bitter irony that while troops have been fighting to help give democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, they themselves have been unable to exercise similar rights.

In order to try to highlight this scandal, the Conservative frontbench spokesman (and former SAS soldier) Andrew Robathan conducted a straw poll of British troops in Iraq in 2005 and found that not only were eight out of ten not registered to vote but they also did not have any idea of the rules.

In fact, only a relatively small perwascentage of the Armed Forces voted in the 2005 General Election.

Now, with a General Election barely seven weeks away, the same thing seems likely to happen again.

Disgracefully, Labour ministers were warned that the law discriminated against servicemen and women. Douglas Young, of the British Armed Forces Federation, published a brilliant document called Silence In The Ranks, which revealed the scale of the problem.

Then, in November 2005, the Tory MP Andrew Tyrie proposed that every member of Armed Forces should be given the automatic right to vote. However, the idea
rejected by the Labour government, which made one concession: the law would be altered so servicemen would only have to register once every five years. This change was an improvement but failed to deal properly with the problem.

To be fair to the Government, Justice Minister Michael Wills set up a ‘working party’ to examine the problem in January.

But this was much too late — for with just two weeks before the election is due to be called, the group has yet to report its findings.

The truth is that if Gordon Brown’s government had shown any real interest in making sure the rights of British troops were upheld, it would never have set up a working party so late in the day.

Instead, right and proper voting entitlements and facilities would have been a priority many years earlier — just like in the American and Canadian armed forces.
Instead, it now looks certain that, for the second General Election in a row, many of our fighting men and women will be denied the chance to vote.

Most worryingly, this raises the very troubling question of whether Gordon Brown’s government’s failure to allow democratic representation to our Armed Forces is merely down to incompetence.

Or is there some other more sinister reason?
Could it be that New Labour’s electoral strategists cynically calculated that the majority of servicemen are more likely to be Tory voters — and have deliberately deprived them of the vote?

It is impossible to say for sure.

However, what can be stated with certainty is that as well as starving the Armed Forces of funds and sending men and women into battle with inadequate equipment, it has also denied many of them one of the most fundamental rights of citizenship.
At the forthcoming election, a number of our bravest fighting men — many of them risking their lives to bring democracy to Afghanistan — will themselves be Disenfranchised.

And for a nation such as Britain, with a glorious military history, that is a most terrible betrayal.

French Female MP calls for Reopening Brothels

Right-wing MP claims reopening brothels in France after 60 years 'will help to protect sex workers'

"Brothels should be reopened in France to protect prostitutes from exploitation and criminal gangs, an MP from Nicolas Sarkozy’s rightwing party has said.

Chantal Brunel, a member of the ruling UMP, wants to legalise women selling sex on licensed premises and say they should be taxed on earnings.

The proposals, which would see workers serving clients within a protected framework, are being studied ‘very carefully’ by French interior minister Brice Hortefeux.

Brothels – or bordellos – have been banned in France for more than 60 years.

Her demand comes as a survey revealed six out of 10 people supported the move.

Ms Brunel said: ‘Women selling sex should be allowed to do so legally on special licensed premises.

‘This would free thousands of women from the exploitation they suffer at the hands of pimps and criminal gangs and offer them much more security they currently have on the streets.

‘It would give them a legal taxable income and they would not be handing over large sums of their earning to a pimp.’

France had 1,400 legal brothels before they were all shut down under a new law banning prostitution in 1946.

Brothels are still legal in Germany, Holland and Switzerland, and tolerated in Spain."

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

A Word of Advice

Are you a feminist?

Do you subscribe to the principle "My body, my choice?"

If you answered 'Yes' to both of these questions, then here is a word of advice:

On the subject of male circumcision: Shut Your Fucking Mouth.

Quote of the Day

An excellent quote from the blog In Mala Fide:

"The sexual double standard arises from the reality that getting sex is easy for women but hard for men. The reason studs are respected and sluts are derided is because being a stud requires skill, talent, and practice, while being a slut merely requires a pulse and a lack of impulse control. The unsung flip side of the double standard, however, is that female virgins are cherished whereas male virgins are ridiculed. A man who can’t get laid signals to the world that he is a loser, while a woman who resists spreading her legs for every scumbag who winks at her shows herself to be a sober, selective person. Because a female’s primary goal is getting the highest-quality man available to commit to her, women who cannot or will not stay in a relationship are poor sources of information on men. The male virgin and the female slut are mirror images of each other in terms of attractiveness to and knowledge of the opposite sex."

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The Great Immigration Scandal

The true scope of the Labour project has now become clear.

“The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 — in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.”


The evidence for this claim seems to be mounting. Steve Moxon made the same claim in his book ‘The Great Immigration Scandal’.

Moxon was employed by the Home Office as an Entry Clearance Officer, and he wrote the book to expose corruption and malpractice in the service, forcing the resignation of the then immigration minister, Beverley Hughes.

He also claimed in his book that it was Labour’s clear intention to use mass immigration as an instrument to destroy, quite deliberately, the traditional character of British national identity.

Some naïve voters still think that the Labour Party is ‘the party of the working man’. It is not. It probably has not been that since the 1950s. The party traditionally represented the interests of the working-class, particularly males employed in heavy industries, like coal, steel and ship-building. This was the working-class that I was lucky enough to see the final years of. This industrial ‘labour’ force no longer exists. Those industries finally disappeared during the Thatcher years, and in many places, were not replaced with anything.

The disappearance of traditional industries resulted in the disappearance of the working-class. Where is ‘the working-class’ today? Once a Left-wing Shibboleth, it is an expression you almost never hear any more. Now we have an ‘under-class’ instead.

It was inevitable that Labour was going to have to re-invent itself. But who was it going to represent?

They know from their market research who votes for them. Public-sector employees. Benefit recipients. Ethnic minorities. It should come as no surprise to find that they went out of their way to maximise the population of all three groups, in order to build their new voter base.

The number of people on benefits has massively increased under Labour. We now have the largest public sector workforce since World War 2. Around three million immigrants have arrived in the UK since Labour came to office. This seems to be part of a cynical master-plan to keep themselves in power.

What they have done, in fact, is to open the door to neo-fascism. We are seeing, for the first time since the 1930s, a racist party gaining significant support, on an anti-immigration platform. This, as well as the rest of the economic and social chaos we see around us, is the result of Labour's grand strategy.

I am not alone in feeling that Labour’s plan is verging on treason. What a great legacy they will leave behind. Borderline treason. International war crimes. Economic and social ruin. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth, have only ever delivered hell".