I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
Over at The Guardian a lady writes about the phenomenon of ‘LADS’, as she puts it. Her complaints are regarding an online magazine where guys take the piss and call members of the opposite sex various names, like slut, wench, bitch etc. Now apart from the fact she name drops literally all of the magazines’ accounts (publicity cough) she (gently) berates these guys for being so disrespectful and laments that the site / community as she states in her byline:
sends a message to young girls that their role is clearly delineated – you’re worthless.
The irony of talking about feminism (she writes for a femrag called Vagenda) while assuming that guys are responsible for the esteem of these girls is typically insular, but the double standard of women claiming to be ‘independent / just as good as / better than‘ men when it suits them, only to expertly feign innocence, rocking one of their feet on its toe while playing with their hair when they don’t like the consequences of something is ancient man-knowledge, just like it is ancient woman-knowledge that it’ll most probably work on men. And they’re right. Grr. This takes a much darker turn when women lie about rape, but let’s keep this on a lighter note. She continues;
Those little feminist-baiting scamps are well-known for their lax grasp of the term sexual consent, not to mention their constant assertions that all women are “wenches” and “slags”.
Saying they have a lax grasp of the term implies they’re rapists, surely? I’m sure they know what sexual consent is. I would go so far to say, if they actually caught a guy raping a girl, they would probably beat the shit out of him. They’re just lads, not grooming-gang rapists, for that you’ll have to look to our imported Muslims (which funnily enough, feminists don’t seem to touch).
Also, many women are slags. Vacuous, fame worshipping talentless meat sacks. You just have to look at the billions of photos they take of themselves and their SELF imposed objectification, with their cleavage shots, gallons of makeup and bum-in-the-mirror shots. (Not that I’m complaining about that last one). This includes so-called celebrity women who are climbing over each other to act sluttier than the next publicity whore. Who are they pandering to? They’re already rich and famous. Oh right, they’re competing with EACH OTHER. Women responsible for the issues of women? Well I never!
Back to feminism. Women want to be treated equally to men do they not? If they are going to roll in men’s circles and peek into men’s communities they better toughen up and learn to give as good as they get. Not just roll over and cry, because you just encourage them as they smell blood (but not in a nasty vicious way like girls do to each other when bullying in the playground). So just take the jest like a
man woman! The writer should listen to how (male) best mates talk to each other, about each other. Shit, she has no idea…
Now I would post an example but a: men already know and b: women don’t need to know. (Plus not telling them winds them up even more).
Any guy with a few notches under his belt knows that a woman is unlikely to be impressed with his ability to draw a giant knob in the sand using a supercar, let alone appreciate being called a “student slut” who he’d “do up the arse” to a chorus of “LAD!” from his mates.
Well if the guy has a supercar she will put up with it because that’s what wenches do, she’ll probably even take it up the arse if he’s rich enough. These guys are just saying what guys can think. Don’t fret, I’ve heard what women say about men and believe me they don’t slouch there!
She goes on to ask if this misogyny is just a phase. First, a definition;
Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.
And now, a question;
Would you create / join / contribute to a website dedicated to talking about / looking at pictures of / having sex with something you hate or dislike? That isn’t logical. But then she is female (feminist), even if she is a bit of a babe. I’d probably do her…
Oh sorry I’m objectifying.
She goes on to attempt to categorise this male behaviour (as if women don’t objectify men), not realising that this is a male thing full stop. It doesn’t belong to ‘middle class males’ or ‘maybe some working class’. Not all men talk about women like that but we do communicate about them in encrypted ways…
… Ever seen some hot wench in your office bending over and you catch a glance and then look around, only to see another guy look and then make eye contact at you? Then you both smile /snigger, do the man-nod and walk on?
Of course you have. If a bunch of guys outside a pub all watch some stunner strut by and afterwards you all just nod quietly to each other and sip your pint?
It’s normal. It’s in our DNA. What she doesn’t realise it that those ‘lads’ on that site are simply fascinated by women. So much so that they created an entire website about it. If any of these women actually tried to code a website they would begin to appreciate how much affection that actually entails. (Not the coding, which is mildly creative but mostly boring, I mean the motivation to do it).
Now, just because they aren’t fitting her and her ilks’ definition of how men should talk is utterly irrelevant. They don’t give a shit what women think, and they should they? They’re speaking with each other, they set the rules. That’s what happens when MGOTW. In a way this website is evidence of my interest in them. I do actually find women interesting, not in a study-breakthrough-in-science type of way, but in a ‘WTF how does that even make sense?’ way.
Of course, the other argument is that if women don’t like such sites, just don’t visit them. But although they won’t admit it, women are also fascinated by men, even feminists. We can’t get enough of each other.
I very much doubt those guys actually speak like that to women. You can just imagine them all cracking jokes about women to each other but as soon as a real woman talks to them they’d be on their best behaviour and she’ll probably have the dude around her little finger before he knows what hit him. But that’s what separates the LAD from the MAN.
As always, the problem with feminists is that they want women to have respect without having to earn it, but in this environment created by feminism, this new age of equaliteeeeee, men have simply put women in the same group that men put other men in and being men, the rules are simple and effective.
Earn my attention. Earn my respect. Earn my loyalty and then, and only then, will we have your back. And as long as you keep it up, we’ll have your back forever.
But seeing as you happen to be a hot chick, a few more pictures of DAT ASS wouldn’t go amiss…
I’m back. It’s been a few years. I’ve been here and there, compiled even more research and have much to put on here for you. Conclusions I have reached that I have to share. I will be going to places I maybe shouldn’t be going to, but I’ll keep pushing it until you tell me to stop.
It’s going to be a little while until I hit my stride, I have lots of comments to approve, spam to clear, templates to reset, links to gather, I need to organise.
I’ll give you more personal thoughts in coming posts.
Thanks for reading.
And as far as the system is concerned? THIS IS WAR.
This contains additional information and quotes added by yours truly to give the article wider context.
From almost the first moment of recorded history, one set of relationships has been at the heart of the human experience and the basis of civilisation itself: a mother and father who depend on each other; the children who rely on them both; a supportive network of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.
Without the loyalties and obligations of the committed family, our ancestors would certainly have struggled to survive in a dangerous and frightening world.
How else but with the help of kin could they have coped with the critical moments in life: birth, sickness, old age, the need to educate and train their young? Without such help from the very beginning, it may be asked whether humankind would ever have developed the capacity to build an advanced civilisation.
That is because it probably wouldn’t have. Matriarchal societies move males to the periphery. They are at the bottom of the social ladder and are therefore not motivated to take the risks to advance the society with technology, as is evidenced by Daniel Amneus in his book, The Garbage Generation. A must read.
This week a report from Unicef, the UN’s child welfare agency, warned that working mothers take a massive risk when they put their offspring into low quality childcare.
This is in regards to the state deciding to force women into work once their child is one years old. No doubt to not only pay for the disgusting debt these socialists have put Britain in with the bankers, but also to control the next generation.
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
Until very recently, in fact, the importance of the family was taken for granted, not only as the basis of society, but as the foundation of our human identity.
Today? In western societies - and especially in the English-speaking world - we think we know better. Forget the wisdom of the ages. Forget our deep-rooted instincts.
Forget precepts that have governed every society in every era of history.
The importance of the ‘traditional’ family is being challenged as never before.
The idea has taken root that human families can be constructed in any way people want. The message is that biology counts for nothing.
Biological mothers don’t matter to their children. Biological fathers don’t matter either.
All that matters is what adults want - and children must adapt to it, whether they like it or not.
The sheer speed of what is happening is quite astonishing. In less than 50 years, the old values have been stood on their head.
Today, legislators don’t hesitate to plunge into ‘reforms’ that tear up the rights, duties and obligations that have underpinned the family for millennia.
They rush into new ‘ postmodernist’ concepts of family, partnering and parenthood. Indeed, they are even attempting to banish the word ‘marriage’ from the statute books.
Everywhere in the West, the liberal consensus is on the march. In Britain, for example, a Labour Government has discouraged the use of the ‘m’ word in official documents, while in the U.S., the American Law Institute recommends that marriage should be ‘ deprivileged’ and not be given a status above any other relationship.
Yet on any rational analysis, this reckless embrace of a brave new world is simply perverse, since there is no doubt whatever that the traditional family, underpinned by marriage, is the best way of bringing up secure, happy children and maintaining social stability.
Which is precisely why the liberal-fascists/ socialists/ feminists are so keen on destroying it. This is not news, this is historical fact.
“[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” – Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
Feminism plays a very important role in destroying the family (softening up society for enslavement). The socialist state can not tolerate competition to its control over the population. It is an ideology of social engineering. The nuclear family represents a unit stronger than the bond between individual and state. It also gives men and women much to lose, which makes all the more difficult to enslave. This is no accident.
You don’t have to be a religious believer or a Victorian moralist to take this view. The evidence speaks for itself (despite the strenuous efforts of the liberal establishment to ignore it).
Fact: one in two unmarried couples splits up before their first child is five years old. The figure for married couples is just one in 12.
Fact: children from broken homes are 75 per cent more likely than their classmates to fail at school, 70 per cent more likely to be involved with drugs and 50 per cent more likely to have alcohol problems.
They are also more likely to run away from home, find themselves in the care system and end up in jail.
At the very least, those bleak statistics should give us pause. The truth is that some of the most intractable problems facing Britain today - from our tragically high rate of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases to petty crime, gang membership and welfare dependency - have their roots in family breakdown.
Harriet Harman MP, the socialist/ feminist fasicst is recorded as saying:
marriage was ‘irrelevant’ to public policy and described high rates of separation as a ‘positive development’, as it reflected ‘greater choice’ for couples - never mind the children.
Take the shabby way successive governments have treated marriage in this country, even though they know perfectly well that it is one of the great foundations of society.
It was a Tory Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, who dismissed the married couples’ tax allowance as ‘an anomaly’. And it was former Home Secretary Jack Straw who proclaimed: ‘This Government will not preach about marriage.’
The result? In Britain today it just doesn’t pay to get married. Our tax and benefits system is so arranged that if lower-income couples who are living together get married, they will significantly increase their tax payments and lower their benefits.
Perhaps it’s no wonder that this country has a higher percentage of lone-parent families than any other country in Europe, apart from Sweden.
The system is designed to create family instability. And the costs, both social and financial, are huge.
How to explain this bizarre discouragement of an institution so important to the happiness, stability and financial health of the country?
Politicians are terrified of being thought ‘judgmental’ about the way citizens live. And they obviously take the defeatist view that nothing can be done to improve matters anyway.
Nonsense, they are only in power because they subscribe to the Marxist school of thought, whether that be socialism or its logical extension, communism. Both are collectivist totalitarian regimes that place the State as the all important construct and reduce the individual citizens to the position of slaves to its function creep and ever growing power. Reminds me of how the matriarchal society treats men. No wonder women subscribe to it.
The same aversion to moralising applies increasingly to the laws on marriage and divorce.
Not only are we witnessing ever easier divorce - whatever the children may need or want - and same-sex marriages, but there is also growing pressure to remove the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ from birth certificates and replace them by ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ (as is already happening in Spain).
Whatever the motivation behind such trends, the ‘ traditional’ family structure is being badly eroded.
All this reminds me of the grim ideas floated in ancient Athens 2,500 years ago. In the vision sketched out in Plato’s Republic - a philosophical treatise on the most fundamental principles of the conduct of human society - mating would be random.
Children would be raised by the state. Neither mothers nor fathers could claim their biological offspring as their own. Nor could they raise their children.
And yet the family in its traditional form is crucial to us all - not simply because it underpins social stability or because it connects us to the past and the future, but because it’s also a bulwark of freedom itself.
Why? Because the invisible bonds it creates between its members generate loyalties and affections capable of resisting any tyranny.
Exactly. Why would these agents of the elite do this? Maybe it is because their plan for the global socialist dictatorship depends on it. They must destroy the institutions that make a strong society so it can then be taken over with ease, using lots of small changes over time, changing the structure of society to one which will be more susceptible to the type of tyranny they wish for us all. This is Fabian Socialism and it is happening to Britain NOW.
“To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification.” – Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II
“Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a world government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system.” – Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, 1994
“The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.” – Jean Monnet, founder of the European Economic Community, 1948
“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987
“Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” – A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
December 12, 2008
According to a study led by David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois, Britons lead the western world in casual sex. The number of ‘one-night stands’ by both men and women are up and they are “the most promiscuous in the world.” While some praise this behavior as being “sexually free” it does have devastating consequences for human civilization. Consider the recent headline, “Drunken one-night stands over New Year will bring a record number of abortions” among teenagers.
While many “liberated” women say that they can separate sex and emotional attachment like men can and that casual sex is no big deal, testimonials do not bear this out. Besides the physical consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the emotional toll is not something that is casual – it may be consciously ignored, but it is deep and long-lasting The elite know that the more sexual partners one has, the less able they are to maintain a long-term monogamous relationship like marriage. This is an insidious way to undermine the natural bonds that form marriages and create children.
And the ubiquitous sexual messages we encounter are no accident. Contained in television, movies, music, general advertisements and even now in virtual worlds, to which the public is retreating from this increasingly upsetting real-life world, these ever-present reminders of the cult of youth, beauty and sex are targeted at the young.
And the youth are absorbing those messages and putting them into practice as the results of this study show:
“Twenty-one percent of girls and 18% of boys said they have posted nude or partially nude pictures of themselves online. Forty-nine percent of teens and young adults have sent sexually suggestive text messages or e-mails of themselves. Fifteen percent of teens who sent sexually suggestive content said they have done so with someone they only know online.”
With more and more children being raised online, and coupled with the intensive mandatory sex education at public schools, they are subjected to more degrading influences and less direct family input than ever before. The deleterious effects of utilizing their unprecedented freedom online, participating in virtual worlds where anything is acceptable with no consequences, these children are literally becoming unable to form and maintain even simple friendships with actual peers they encounter in their real lives.
All of these contribute to the planned decline of civilization and the institution of . The social engineers have cleverly devised a top-down approach to tearing apart the nuclear family due to its threat to their plans for their New World Order. It is imperative to achieving their plans that the youth and young adults are inculcated with the ideas that procreating is selfish, greedy and inconvenient. They are taught from a very young age by teachers cum “change agents” to believe that human life is not as valuable as flora and fauna, that cultural morés and morals are “outdated and outmoded” and therefore should be discarded in favor of new “liberated” thinking of secular humanism, which espouses the belief that there is no concrete “right and wrong” therefore anything is justifiable with enough rationalization.
Marie Stopes, friend of fellow eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, created the first birth control clinic in Britain and advocated “’sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.’ And in The Control of Parenthood, (1920)… wrote that were she in charge, she would ‘legislate compulsory sterilization of the insane, feebleminded… revolutionaries… half castes.’ She opposed the marriage of her own son merely because his bride-to-be wore glasses. And upon her death a large portion of her fortune was bequeathed to the Eugenics Society.” Marie Stopes International carries out one out of every three abortions in the UK, and promotes “voluntary sterilization.”
Most people instinctively recoil at the prospect of either voluntary or state-imposed sterilization, but sadly there are many who have been so brainwashed that they have aborted their pregnancies because having children is not “eco-friendly” and many others who have been voluntarily sterilized because of outright selfishness (”it would hamper my lifestyle and I wouldn’t be able to do the things I want to do”), others being “repulsed by… the idea of being pregnant and having a child” or just total lack of any maternal instinct.
This is a source of joy to the eugenicists and population control/reduction proponents because their mildly coercive population control via “education” and constant propaganda is working so well in the western world. The rampant promiscuity and resultant high divorce rate, astronomically increased infanticide, children’s lack of ability to form even the most basic relationship – friendship, legions of children being raised less by parents and more by teachers (e.g., the State) all accomplish the population reduction plan quite nicely without having to resort to bloodshed, except of course for the infants that are aborted.
But, as Bertrand Russell stated, “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
We who value Freedom must resist the New World Order by educating ourselves and others, and refusing to participate in eugenics and voluntary population control.
Oh yes, the fascist scum in Brussels have set their Eye of Sauron on Ireland again.
Source: Daily Mail
A cannibal cult mother who tortured her son in a locked cellar while relatives skinned him and forced him to eat his own flesh has been jailed for nine years.
Klara Mauerova, 31 – a member of a sinister religious cult and her sister Katerina led the sickening torture of her eight-year-old son Ondrej and his ten year-old brother Jakub.
A court in Brno in Czech Republic heard how relatives partially skinned Ondrej and forced him to eat his own flesh.
The judge also jailed Katerina, 35, for ten years for her role in the sickening abuse.
The two boys had told judges how their mother and relatives had stubbed cigarettes out on their bare skin, whipped them with belts, and tried to drown them. They were also sexually abused and forced to cut themselves with knives.
The terrified youngsters said they were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables and made to stand in their own urine for days.
The sick sisters – both members of weird religious cult the Grail Movement – refused to reveal why they tortured the brothers.
But state prosecutor Zuzana Zamoravcova said: ‘Their aim was to make the boys blindly serve their religious goals.’
Judge Pavel Goth said as he sentenced the women: ‘Their aim was to create a person with a completely broken will. Ondrej and Jakub were repeatedly psychologically and physically tyrannised and held in locked rooms.’
Sounds like amateurs from the MKULTRA program. This is fucking sick beyond belief. Humans are such fucking animals. Scum.
Another defendant, 34-year-old Barbora Skrlova, was also jailed for five years for her part in the torture. Three others who took part in the abuse were also given jail terms.
Hana Basova, 28, and Jan Skrla, 25, were sentenced to seven years each while another man, Jan Turek, was jailed for five years.
Skrlova had posed as an innocent 13-year-old girl when police arrived to free the boys. She later ran away to Norway but was traced earlier this year by Czech police who brought her back to face trial.
Mauerova at first admitted abusing her children but she said she had been manipulated by her sister Katerina and Skrlova.
All three of them had been part of the Grail Movement cult which claims to have hundreds of followers in Britain as well as tens of thousands of others world wide.
The sick abuse was discovered when a neighbour installed a TV baby monitor to keep watch on his new daughter.
But it picked up the signal from an identical monitor next door showing one of the victims beaten, naked and chained in a cellar.
Mauerova had installed it so she could gloat over her victims’ suffering from the comfort of her kitchen.
The defendants are expected to launch an appeal.
Really long sentences, don’t you think?
Watch it, discuss it. Analyse your lives in the context of society. Research these systems, question your imposed reality. Free your mind and your body will follow.
You can view the first version of Zeitgeist here.
This could not be more obvious.
Relaxing the divorce rules to cater to feminists, claiming marriage was oppressive, along with the ridiculous guarantee of the woman asset-stripping the man contributed to the huge explosion in divorces. On top of that, the Socialists/ Feminists in Government have created a tax system that actually rewards single mothers more than married families.
Now everyone knows that broken families lead to unsocialised children with much greater chance of being involved in drug abuse, crime, gangs, violence and whatnot. The majority of criminals are from single parent (mother) families. The government is literally bribing these women to become single mothers, while at the same time punishing couples for staying married.
Why? With them knowing that the nuclear family has always been the fundamental building block to a strong, independent society, these Socialists/ Feminists realised that such a unit presents an obstacle to them achieving their Marxist goals. Or do people still think everything just randomly, accidentally, incompetently just happens to fall towards Marxism? Let’s see;
Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…
Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…
Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…
No, I don’t think so.
This has no end in sight either. 45 per cent of new marriages are doomed to end in divorce, and Married parents ‘in the minority by 2031′. Also see Single mother gets £100 more in tax credits a week than working couples.
With this comes the inevitable breakdown of society and without even including the cultural warfare of Islam, massive third world immigration and the destruction of Britain’s wealth and productivity by the EU. Such reverse colonisation is additionally promoted by the government via the tax system; Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits.
The issue of broken families is beginning to come to the fore, only, as usual, when the issue becomes impossible to ignore or make excuses for. In this case, it is because kids are now getting murdered on a regular basis. By other kids.
Labour’s tax system punishes couples for being married, so this would logically lead to Families in meltdown, which would lead to Gangs replacing family life for ‘very angry feral youth’.
An obvious point is that when you prevent the People to bear arms to defend themselves, the only groups who will still have arms are criminals. This essentially is giving criminals free reign. Something else the government will not rush to stop, for two reasons;
1. The rise in weapon related crime (from feral brats, as a consequences of the States’ own policies) initially gave the government the excuse to step up their disarmament of the British Public (against our Bill of Rights.) Tyranny must always try to disarm the public. An armed People are much harder to take control of.
It should be noted, that removing the People’s Right to Bear Arms does nothing except put them at the mercy of criminals and tyrants, who have an annoying habit of not following the law (or changing the law to suit their agenda.) It is also an intrusion on the Right of an individual human being to defend themselves from threats.
The governments’ Socialist Human Rights Act, along with the self-perpetuating child abuse industry have essentially put the standing and authority of children above that of parents and other adults. Instead of treating children as children, they decided that they are actually ‘little adults’. With such social engineering comes policy such as; Government Permission Needed For Adults To Be With Children, and Adults being charged for assault when stopping youth crime.
I hope you can see that this is a blatant attempt to break the bond between parents and children and replace the family with the State, something else which is to be expected with Socialism/ Communism. The resulting social chaos can conveniently be used by the State as an excuse to expand power and control over the People.
And so Tyranny grows…
An article in the Daily Mail appears today, written by a woman (you will see why that is important later) talking about the ‘Rise of the gold-digger’.
Like it’s something new! She tries her best to view this kind of woman in the tiny minority, but men with experience know better. Extracts from the article below;
When did it become acceptable to be a gold-digger?
Erm, when feminism campaigned to free women from the ‘oppressive regime’ of socially acceptable behaviour.
After all, isn’t a woman who sleeps with a man for money – or at least for extensive use of his credit card – called something else?
But then, ‘prostitute’ doesn’t have quite the same glamorous, diamond-encrusted platinum ring to it, does it?
No it does not, and that is precisely why we must do our best to call these women exactly that. Well to be fair, prostitutes are better than these women. At least with them you know what is going on upfront.
How depressing and how insulting to the millions of women who don’t live their lives according to these mercenary rules.
While we are the majority, the sad fact is, we are all judged as a result of movies like this.
It makes us all look cheap. Priceless cannot be blamed alone.
The message it delivers is one that has been subtly gaining currency in recent times and not just on film.
Well it is the fact that it has become so widespread that it made it into film in the first place, and although it may be insulting to the women who do not behave in that way, it does not stop it existing. Just because it offends a few women, does not mean it should not be publicised.
There is also, of course, the whole WAG phenomenon, predicated almost entirely on a cynical pact between rich, bored, badly behaved men (Ashley Cole comes to mind) and the women who want to live off them.
The gaggle of wannabe WAGs hovering outside any nightclub frequented by Premier League footballers is proof that there is an increasing number of women who believe that far from having their own life and their own job, the notion of being a human leech is to some degree a preferable career.
Well get used to it, it has been happening for decades.
As evidence that bleeding a man dry is on the up, there is now a fashion label called Golddigga and even websites such as www.golddiggers.uk.com, devoted to ways of hooking a rich guy.
Click on www.sugardaddyforme.com and the deal being struck is clear.
A glamorous-looking young woman appears on the screen. ‘Attractive, ambitious, insatiable,’ it reads.
In other words, she’s offering sex on tap. When the picture of the tastefully greying man floats into view, it says: ‘Affluent, caring, generous.’
Yet, we’re not supposed to call these women prostitutes. That would be rude.
Like I said, these predatory females are below prostitutes. I shall explain their psychological make-up at the end of this article.
Of course, it is still only a tiny percentage of women that would dream of behaving like this; it’s just that percentage – which is rising – think what they do is so acceptable. Listen to Sophie Sharp, a dancer from Bromley in Kent, who says: ‘I’ve always been into expensive clothes and accessories and think nothing of paying £400 for a dress.
But on my earnings it was hard to afford everything I wanted.’ Well, um, yes it would be. Still, Sophie’s solution was not to visit Primark but to get herself a sugar daddy instead. ‘My friends told me to go to Chinawhite (the fashionable club in London),’ she reveals.
It may be a small percentage that are so openly gold-diggers, but what of the women who think in a similar way but keep it quiet? Of women who are not so extreme, but are still motivated to date the man with more money rather than less (notice I haven’t mentioned any other factors) and watch the number of women included rise dramatically.
Would 75% be a tiny minority? Moving on;
So she put on her best low-cut black frock and, hey presto, she’d hooked herself a Dubai businessman. ‘I didn’t find him attractive,’ she admits.
Even so, she accepted his offer to take her shopping.
A total of £2,500 later, she says, he flew back to Dubai with nothing more than a chaste peck on the cheek in return, to which it’s tempting to say, is a likely story.
Yeah yeah nothing new to those in the know.
In Sophie’s world, being a golddigger is par for the course. All Sophie’s friends are doing the same.
Another light into the ‘minds’ of these females here.
Rachel MacLynn is head of global membership for millionaires-only networking service Seventy Thirty.
‘There are gold-diggers everywhere in London and other British cities. I’m constantly approached by young women,’ she says.
‘They are desperate for me to match them with our millionaire members.
They are like lice, and as the complient media (in its quest to undermine society) glamourises the lifestyles of these lying manipulative whores, it just sells this behaviour to other females, who sit there watching, secreting wishing to be able to shop all day and be in magazines (so much for fighting the New World Order eh, ladies?)
Or what about Natalie Parker, 24, who’s studying French and Spanish at university in Southampton? Her parents – a property developer and a housewife – live in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom house with a gym and a pool in Spain.
‘I’ve always dated wealthy men, even though I’ve not really been attracted to them,’ Natalie muses.
So, has she ever had to offer sex with a sugar daddy to secure a lavish gift?
‘Some of these men do want more at the end of the night,’ she concedes, without actually answering the question.
Now for the inevitable attack on the men. Of course they must be blamed for this in some way, men are always at fault;
It is worth saying that the men are not blameless in this unpleasant sex for designer clothes/ jewellery/breast implants transaction. A man who buys a woman is no better than the woman who agrees to sell herself. It all reduces human interaction to the level of a business deal.
Successful men will attract these bitches. That’s life. Don’t blame men for being successful. Blame the women for choosing to pursue the money man. What of the men who do not find such behaviour acceptable? Simple for women, they just pretend they love him and keep up the pretense long enough to fleece the fella.
Still, it is the women’s attitudes that are so shocking. It’s as if feminism never happened. Did it ever occur to Sophie or Heather or all the other young women who now aspire to be golddiggers, that they could work to provide a life for themselves rather than just expect a guy to buy it for them?
No, they are behaving like this precisely because feminism happened. Feminism wanted license for women to behave as they wish, free from the restrictions of acceptable behaviour and free from responsibilities (men can pick up the tab).
Looking further ahead, do these girls know the sort of deal they are doing? They are not only throwing away any moral sense, but also their independence, control of their own lives and self-respect.
They never had any of these things to begin with. Such concepts are imbued in people by society and peer groups. Once upon a time women (like men) had such imprinting, but that resulted in strong relationships, strong families, low crime and high productivity. You can’t have Order from Chaos without Chaos. Hence Marxo-Feminism. The author seems to have some sort of sense though, which explains why she find gold-digger behaviour so strange;
I didn’t take the gold-digger route because I think it is wrong. It is insulting to men and it cheapens women. Every woman who does it polishes an image of womankind that the rest of us then have to try to argue against.
It makes us all look as if we are for sale for the price of a pair of Gucci shoes. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with men where they have said that basically all a woman is interested in is how much money they have and the size of their car.
Maybe not Gucci shoes, but restaurant dinners, rent and paid for holidays? I would say, from my experience and the combined experience of all the guys I know, and the ones I’ve met on my travels, that the majority of women behave, in differing levels, as gold-diggers. But with women perceiving themselves as princesses, what else would they expect but to be treated as such?
When I explain that I have never dated a man for his money, nor have any of my girlfriends, that we have jobs and homes of our own and we wouldn’t dream of expecting a boyfriend to provide either, they look at me with disbelief.
The image of womanhood that the gold-digger propagates is one of a greedily acquisitive airhead. She never reads a book or a newspaper, but knows the ticket price for the latest designer handbag.
She is a parasite, useless to anyone but themselves. Don’t count on her campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty.
Consumption replaces affection.
Not quite. Consumption replacing humanity would be more accurate.
Her diamante sandals may be lovely and sparkly, but she tarnishes all of us.
The truth is, she doesn’t care.
Marx said ‘all truth is relative’. Funny, it seems he figured out how women view the world. To these women, there is no right or wrong, there are only wants and needs. The process of evaluating and committing actions operates backwards with these women.
What they desire is right and the methods to achieve it are acceptable because the end result is them acquiring what they desire. It really is that simple. Whereas men generally view the world (with all its rules) as external concepts which he navigates, these women seem to view the world as an extension of them. (exceptions would be psychopaths like Tony Blair).
In other words, reality (with all its rules) changes in relation to their desires. These gold-diggers do not view their actions as wrong because ‘truth is relative’ to them. They want it therefore it is right and it is right because they want it.
No wonder feminism was so successful. It essentially told women that the only thing that is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is not getting what you want.
When I grow up, I want to be a whore! Parading my boundless ignorance in front of the public like the town idiot in the hopes of acquiring material possessions and a rich guy who I can then trade sex for more money and attention with!
Feminism just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it?
There was a show called The Weakest Link on the other day. It was a special for charity. The ‘contestants’ were all WAGS. These are the females the media throws on the front page at every opportunity, and the females that other females choose to idolise and look up to. Here they are:
Lined up were Alex Best, ex-wife of a deceased football drunk; Charley Uchea, a Big Brother contestant, whose cousin is a footballer; Danielle Lloyd, Teddy Sheringham’s ex; Linsey Dawn McKenzie, who married footballer Mark Williams; Amii Grove, who dates footballer Jermaine Pennant; and Michelle Marsh, Lucy Pinder, Cassie Sumner and Lauren Pope - who are still looking for their princely footballer and kissing a lot of frogs on the way.
Let’s get the first part out of the way. These girls are thick. For me, (and countless girls it seems) these women represent the far end of the majority of post-feminist females. It is easier to tart yourself up and try and bag a rich guy than earn it yourself. Essentially exchanging their sex for money. How empowering. Sound familiar?
The nine women were as pink and transparent as a set of highly buffed acrylic false nails.
Sweet girls, but with ‘desperate to hook rich footballer’ stamped all over their decolletage and, no doubt, their St Tropez tans.
Such is the desire to be a celebrity that even girls so intellectually challenged they think ‘hello’ is spelled with an exclamation mark are prepared to put themselves forward on a national TV quiz show to be humiliated.
This society, thoroughly undermined by Marxism has now collapsed into rampant fame seeking and materialism. From a disciplinarian, moral and intellectual point of view, British culture and life is rapidly collapsing in a way never before seen. These women seem to be proud that they know nothing. Proud that they are prostitutes. Doing anything to get attention. Thinking only of themselves and the narrow world they occupy.
I am only partly disgusted by them. People like them are a logical consequence of the social engineering inflicted on this society by collectivist liberal globalists.
My issues are twofold. Firstly, the media rewards their terrible ineptitude at everything of importance with full page spreads. Women read about them in girl mags and bitch about them in their nice little air-conditioned offices (while secretly wishing it was them on the magazines with the rich boyfriend). These idiots can make a good living (probably better than you) by objectifying themselves. Turn yourself into a sex object. Get paid, just like this other idiot!
Secondly, girls look up to them. Why? Don’t they have the personal integrity to realise that their entire lives will amount to nothing? Or do these girls not care about learning about the world, protecting their nation’s sovereignty and fighting tyranny?
LOL. Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
Maybe this is partly psychopolitics. The media are helping to erode a nations identity of itself by focusing on people of particular stupidity. The way they focus on knife stabbings. In a nation of about 60 million people one would think the media could report of things a little more positive. Maybe focusing on the Lisbon Treaty and its attack on Britain’s sovereignty. Maybe the media is just reflecting the reversal of societies ‘progress’ back on itself. Maybe the increasing crime, feral kids, breakdown of families, single motherhood, rampant consumerism, narcissism, state dependence and complete apathy and lack of desire to fight and protect one another is another symptom of society moving towards a Matriarchy, where female ‘qualities’ drive society.
Makes sense. There are more women of voting age than men. Therefore you could say women may actually control the vote. Women overwhelming vote for bigger government, ‘feeling safe’ and more benefits at the small cost of the destruction of the country and a higher burden on men.
Fuck the matriarchy. People need to start lighting the fires again! We need a revolution and we need one soon, before speaking out against tyranny becomes illegal.
What people like me have been saying for ages.
A senior family court judge has hit out at the government over what he says is an “epidemic” of family failure that will have “catastrophic” effects.
In a speech, Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge for England and Wales, warned the results could be as destructive as global warming.
In a speech in Brighton to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, the judge warned of a “cancerous” increase in broken families and said the government must take “comprehensive action”.
The judge said those who witnessed the goings-on inside family courts would be aware of it being a “never ending carnival of human misery – a ceaseless river of human distress”.
Mr Justice Coleridge said the collapse of family life is at a scale and severity that would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago.
This can be attributed directly to feminism and the socialist/ communist elements of government that adopted that evil ideology, in the quest for ever increasing control over individuals. As is usually the case with these ideologies, their theory doesn’t fit with reality.
Feminism as you should know by now, hates the nuclear family.
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 Continue reading
22 minutes. Added to video library.
A jab that could be given to hundreds of thousands of schoolgirls this autumn was at the centre at a safety scare last night following the deaths of two young women.
European regulators are investigating the “sudden and unexpected” deaths of the women who received Gardasil, one of two jabs to protect against cervical cancer licensed for use in the UK.
The vaccine has been hailed as a breakthrough by the Department of Health, which is backing an annual programme of vaccination for girls aged 11 to 13 years starting in September.
The jab is already available privately and a thirteen-year-old girl from London became the first in the country to receive the cervical cancer vaccine in 2006. Hollie Anderson’s mother, Lisa, paid £450 for her to have the jab after seeing her own mother battle against cancer.
I have been saying it’s dangerous for ages, and so have countless others. The government gave millions of pounds of taxpayers money to Merck, the shit-kicking Big Pharma firm to buy an untested vaccine, that had a history of deaths and bad reactions from those who received the cocktail of crap. Continue reading