A Phoenix of Liberty Rises

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.

Advertisements

The husband beating wives…

In case you didn’t know, the reality is that domestic violence is committed equally by both sexes. The feminist organisations and government would have you think otherwise, but that is because they have their own agenda (money and power).

The first time I struck my husband was during an argument over money. He’d decided to pay off a loan without telling me and we ‘ d gone overdrawn. I was worried and tried to discuss it with him, at which point he left the room.

I felt we hadn’t talked it through properly and followed him. The next minute, I was hitting him around the head.

I remember losing control and my limbs lashing out.

Afterwards he was upset and I cried – I felt scared and ashamed of what I’d done.

I apologised and thought it was a one-off, but in fact it was a pattern that carried on for the next ten years.

I met my husband through mutual friends at Durham University. I was 19 and he was five years older, more worldly and mature. He was less serious, too, and made me laugh.

We married five years later. He had a job in IT by then and I started work as a divorce lawyer. The early days of our marriage were steady, but as the stress of my job and responsibilities grew, I took it out on him.

After that first time, it happened again about 18 months later. I felt a surge of rage I couldn’t control. My anger would escalate during arguments over household chores or my husband coming to bed late. I remember feeling I was out of my body, watching myself and telling myself to stop, but I couldn’t. I would hit him hard; hitting to hurt.

One time, I picked up a table and crashed it down so hard on the ground that it broke. I left bite marks in his arm a couple of times – it was similar to the way siblings fight, yet he never once struck back. He’d hold up his hands to shield himself, which made me feel even worse.

Yes, this happens a lot more that people realise and it is good that it is getting attention. Women aren’t angels. They’re just people.

Male defendants to be granted anonymity in rape cases

Wow, equal treatment for both parties in a rape allegation until a verdict is given.

Defendants in rape cases will now be granted anonymity under new rules set out in today’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition document.

The move will turn the clock back to the 1970s when the Sexual Offences Act introduced anonymity for those accused of rape, something later repealed.

Officials said details of the change were yet to be decided but it is likely the ban will be lifted once a suspect is convicted.

But it stands in the face of a report by Lady Stern that recommended independent research should first be done into the scale and nature of false rape allegations.

Which I think we all know, is a huge issue and getting larger all the time. Bog standard femskank fumes:

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the decision was an ‘insult’ and a backlash against the rising number of rape reports.

She said: ‘More attention needs to be paid to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false.

‘If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying.

Can you believe it? Why should someone who has only been accused of a crime be identified? How is that a special right? It is a common occurance that women falsely accuse men of rape (just search on this blog for starters), it is also common that these falsely accused men have their lives ruined, even when acquitted. They get battered, bricks thrown through their windows, they lose their jobs, their friends etc.

Just because some spiteful bitch feels guilty about getting drunk and opening her legs to him? Or maybe trying to cover her own arse because she was actually cheating on her boyfriend at the time.

You know it happens.

‘False rape allegations are extremely rare, but receive disproportionate publicity.

‘Of course, being wrongly accused is a terrible ordeal but the same can be said of being wrongly accused of murder, theft, fraud or any other serious offence.

So?

‘We are against a special case where men accused of rape are singled out for special protection.’

Rape law campaigner Jill Saward said she is ‘horrified’ by the news and accused politicians of turning their backs on victims of sexual violence.

Ms Saward, who has spoken out on tackling rape since being attacked at her Ealing vicarage home in 1986, said she completely opposes anonymity for defendants.

She said the changes may discourage genuine victims from coming forward and ‘send a damaging message’.

Right, to anything to encourage more women to accuse more men of rape. Why, so these bitches can claim there is ‘such a problem’ ‘men are all rapists’ and then go running to the government for more funding?

Go fuck yourselves. I’m not holding my breath, but it would be good if this actually goes through.

‘Women’s group’ loses state funding

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

An organisation which represents women’s groups in Wales says it will close after being refused funding from the assembly government.

Excuse me while I sip this water (I’m hungover).

Ahhh.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Seriously, enough of this bloody funding for these special interest groups. I say shut them all down. Every single organisation pushing for womens/ gay/ black/ muslim/ green/ transgender/ psychic/ whatever/ rights should be shut down. I don’t want to pay for any of them. Nobody is special, get over yourselves.

Guess those women will have to go and get REAL JOBS, how’s that for equality.

Now that’s Change You Can Believe In. 🙂

Youngest female false rape accuser?

Girl, eight, says 10-year-old boys ‘did not rape her’

An eight-year-old girl alleged to have been sexually assaulted by two 10-year-olds has told the Old Bailey that the boys did not rape her.

She said neither had raped her and that she had lied to her mother because she had been “naughty” and was worried she would not get any sweets.

The girl was allegedly attacked in a field in west London in October 2009.

The boys, now aged 10 and 11, each deny two charges of rape and two charges of attempted rape of a child under 13.

The two boys cannot be identified for legal reasons.

The trial continues.

No comment.

Third of children never see dad after a divorce

More than one in three children never see their father again after their parents split up, research into family breakdown shows. And nearly one in ten is so traumatised by the separation that they have considered suicide.

Children are often used as ‘emotional footballs’ and left feeling ‘used, isolated and alone’, with many turning to drink, drugs and truanting. Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, which carried out the survey of more than 4,000 people, said: ‘This research highlights that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs.

Notice how this article opens with fathers not seeing children, implying it is their choice (and thus are ‘deadbeat dads’), but when it comes to children being used as emotional weapons, they generalise. I mean, if so many children are kept by the mother, and the father has NO CONTACT, you must assume that the majority of emotional abuse would come from the mother. But you cannot criticise mothers, the all-perfect little things.

‘They can be seen as tangible objects. There has to be change to give our children a voice that’s meaningful. ‘The process now encourages an adversarial approach, but it needs to be about communication between the parents.

How about equal rights to the children, which is actually enforceable?

‘Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.’ For 38 per cent of children, separation meant they never saw their father again.

Although 70 per cent of parents said their children’s welfare was the most important factor in a divorce, a quarter of children said they had been forced by one parent to lie to the other.

I wonder which sex did that the most. Still, this will keep being promoted for two reasons. Men are the enemy of tyrants and women are the majority voting base.

Saudi Arabia – 47 year old man’s marriage to 8 year old girl legal

Isn’t Islam wonderful… for paedophiles.

JihadWatch

To do otherwise would be to cast aspersions on Muhammad’s example — a "beautiful pattern of conduct," per Qur’an 33:21 — in marrying Aisha when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine. Meanwhile, the girl can petition the court for a divorce… when she reaches puberty!

An update on this story. "Saudi judge upholds man’s marriage to 8-year-old," by Mohammed Jamjoon for CNN, April 12:

(CNN) — A Saudi mother is expected to appeal a judge’s ruling after he once again refused to let her 8-year-old daughter divorce a 47-year-old man, a relative said.

Sheikh Habib Al-Habib made the ruling Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza. Late last year, he rejected a petition to annul the marriage.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when Al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. His dismissal of the mother’s petition sparked outrage and made headlines around the world.

The judge said the mother, who is separated from the girl’s father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter, the mother’s lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said at the time.

The girl’s husband pledged not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili, who added that the girl’s father arranged the marriage to settle his debts with the man, who is considered "a close friend."

In March, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib’s verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.

Under the Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing.

The relative, who said the girl’s mother will continue to pursue a divorce, told CNN the judge "stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty."

The appeals court in Riyadh will take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.

Child marriages have made news in Saudi Arabia in the past year.

In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge’s decision went against children’s "basic rights."

Marrying children makes them "lose their sense of security and safety," the group said. "Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

But Muhammad did it, and therein lies the obstacle to reform.

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run group, told CNN that his organization was fighting child marriages.

"Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed," al-Harithi said.

Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.

There’s no mention from CNN of why child marriage is so persistent.

"We’ve been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke told CNN.

Rise of the female bankrupt

Mail Online

The number of women declared bankrupt has risen nearly fourfold in just six years.

They now make up almost four out of ten cases, with women under the age of 35 most likely to suffer financial collapse

This means that six years ago women made up 30 per cent of bankrupts, but by last year that had risen to 38 per cent.

Moving towards ‘equality’ eh.

Women are now going bankrupt at the rate of 60 a day. The rapid rise of female financial failure is likely to be linked both to overspending when credit was easy and the vulnerability of growing numbers of women who do not have the backing of marriage and family.

By marriage I think they mean husbands. By family I think they mean fathers.

‘More women are racking up unmanageable debts as they now feel more under pressure to maintain lavish lifestyles,’ a spokesman for price comparison website MoneyExpert.com said.

Under pressure from who?

‘They want to spend it like the Beckhams but don’t have the income to sustain their debts.

Quite simply, they are choosing to live beyond their means which funnily enough wouldn’t really be possible in a capitalist society (one dominated by capital, not credit/debt). You cannot spend what you don’t have. This crisis is twofold, not only do they want to live such lifestyles, they also do not want to live within their means because the restrictions they must live under will make them realise how poor they really are, which if we all did, would drive down living costs, improving the quality of life.

‘Increasingly they have to borrow more to get on the property ladder – and if they live alone there’s no one else to share the burden.’

Independent girlies.

He suggested that too many women had used too many credit cards and ‘lived ahead of their income’.

Accountancy firm Wilkins Kennedy said it had dealt with a rise in numbers of female bankrupts and believed bankruptcy among women would match levels among men later this year.

Speculation by Labour ministers that women are especially vulnerable to being laid off in the recession were dismissed last month by the Office for National Statistics.

It said women are losing jobs at half the rate of men, and are protected because more women than men work in the public sector.

Firstly, why the hell are Liebour ‘ministers’ speculating something that doesn’t exist? Secondly, the public sector is f**king teeming with women, like xenomorphs in ‘Aliens’. It is totally disproportionate, but that’s another subject. In relation to this however, in this socialist shithole, as the wealth creating private sector continues to contract, the wealth destroying public sector is continuing to expand, so the divide will continue to grow, and with more money coming out than going in (like the women in this article) you can see where the government is dragging this nation into.

It really is as simple as it looks. As my dad says, ‘don’t spend what you don’t have’. Under capitalism, you literally CAN’T spend what you don’t have so this issue with debt swallowing everybody up (including those who save) is highly improbable, as opposed to the current central banking dominated debt system in which it is not only inevitable, it is designed to collapse.

(2 – 5) + (2 – 5) +… will always result in accumulating debt. Those in debt are slaves to those who issue the credit. What makes it worse is that people choose to go into debt. They choose to become slaves to try and live another life, which ironically, they end up paying for with their life (body + time = life).

The difference here (and in the U.S.) is that the corporatist state is using this as an excuse to loot those with capital, redistributing it to those in debt, which of course goes directly to the creditor, which are usually owned by the same oligarchy that has orchestrated this (imposed the central banks) in the first place.

Wakey wakey people.

"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses, but rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it"  — Architect, Matrix Reloaded

Jacqui Smith, typical feminist

Mail Online

Jacqui Smith astonishingly claimed yesterday that she was the victim of a smear campaign over her expenses because she is a woman with no independent wealth.

The embattled Home Secretary defended her claims for household items, including an 88p bath plug, as ‘fair and reasonable’ in a series of interviews to try to put the expenses controversy behind her.

By designating her sister’s house as her main home, Miss Smith has been free to claim more than £140,000 from the taxpayer-funded Additional Costs Allowance to run her family home.

In what will be interpreted as an attack on wealthy Tory MPs, she said: ‘This is a system put in place so people can be MPs who do not start off with two places to live but need two places to live in order to do the job properly.

‘If we want people to be MPs who do not start off with two places to live there has to be a process. What I claim is what I think are fair and reasonable expenses for the fact that I have to live in two places.’

Pressed on why she did not register as her main home the constituency property where her husband and children live, she said: ‘Effectively we separated my main home from my family home. . . When I became an MP, my husband and I had to make a decision knowing I would spend more time in London.’

But she added: ‘I know people think, "Well, your family live in Redditch so why isn’t that your main home?" I know that people find that  -  particularly for a woman  -  they find that difficult.’

She gets to her position because she is a woman (if definitely isn’t because she’s competent), starts raping the taxpayer like a common purpose/ champagne socialist always does, and when people start demanding she is held to account for her actions, she claims they are only doing that because she is a woman.

In other words, she feels she should be able to do what she wants because she is a woman. That is feminism for you.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……

Old Holborn

It tolls for thee, yeoman of the land of Magna Carta.

Whilst you slumbered last night, and in the many months before, the sinister shape of Directive 2006/24/EC crept into your lives and stole your freedom and your privacy.

Would it have made any difference if this burglar had worn a striped jumper and carried a bag marked ‘swag’ – probably not, for you slept soundly, happily believing that if you voted for a new government – when someone else got round to organising an election, when someone else handed out leaflets, when someone else hired a loud speaker and toured your streets – if you put your cross on a different name, you could go on with your cosy life, untroubled.

You were quite happy to believe that it really wasn’t your concern.

You ‘tutted’ over that ‘racist mob’ the BNP. You ‘clucked’ at the alarmist stories in the Daily Mail. You ‘grumbled’ when you found your litter bin installed with a tracker device. Then you went on and re-mortgaged your house, marvelled at your good fortune, ran up your credit card, bought a new car, bought those ridiculous shoes that you couldn’t walk in, and settled down to watch reality TV. You may even have turned on the computer and read some of the blogs, ‘clucked’ again at the comments, and departed, never bothering to leave your point of view.

Never standing up to be counted. It wasn’t really your concern.

Someone else would sort it out for you. Someone else would make a fool of themselves, demanding smaller government, demanding to be left alone to organise their own life, supporting the Libertarian Party, being seen as a ‘conspiracist’.

Today it’s too late.

Today 52% of the population is dependent on retaining a Labour government for the very food in their bellies. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Today the government spend 43% of your wages on supporting, amongst other things, that 52% of the population.

Today the government has hung a debt of £33,000 round the neck of each of your children.

Today, Directive 2006/24/EC means that the government will be monitoring every e-mail you send, every friend you make on the ubiquitous Facebook, every mobile phone call you make, every time you log onto this or any other web page.

You can’t even ‘tut’ and ‘grumble’ amongst yourselves in private any more.

Now who will stand up to be counted?

False rape Conviction

You don’t see that everyday.

Before I quote the article, I want to provide a little background research on sentencing for rape, as to provide some context. The following is taken from www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk, from ‘Rape Advice’, available here as a pdf, unless otherwise indicated.

Firstly, the definition of ‘rapist’ does not seem to apply to women.

Section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sets the definition of rape as follows;

Rape of women and men

For section 1 of the [1956 c. 69.] Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape of a woman) there shall be substituted the following section—

“1 Rape of woman or man

(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.

(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.

(4) Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment.”.

In fact, the rape section of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) is entirely male specific, except in the event of incest where the law is equally applied. In the Rape Advice document, there is advice to further entrench male-only rape;

In   its   consultative   report 1,   the   Home   Office   Sex   Offences   Review recommended that the statutory definition of rape should be extended to include any penetration   by   the   penis   of   the   anus,   mouth   or   genitalia.

So according to the Act, as women don’t have a penis (and they are not male) that must mean they cannot rape, right?

The section on Male Rape makes no mention of female criminality either, one would think it was written by feminists. In regards to average sentence lengths;

As can be seen from the sentencing statistics summarized at Annex A to this paper, the  average  sentence for an adult offender  sentenced  to  immediate  custody  for rape in 2000 was 7 years 4 months (7 years 6 months on a not guilty plea and 6 years 10 months on a guilty plea). The majority of sentences (57%) fell within the range 5-10 years,  but  25%  of  offenders  received  sentences  of  under  5  years,  and  17%  were sentenced   to   more   than   10   years   (including   10%   whose   sentence   was   life imprisonment).

The document highlights the circumstances of a life sentence for repeat offenders.

37.       The Panel also agrees with the Court of Appeal’s description, in  Billam, of the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to consider a life sentence. A defendant who has a previous conviction for rape or another ‘serious offence’ will be subject to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal

So in summary, the average length for rape is 7 years 1 month. Repeat offenders get an automatic life sentence. That is what a man is expecting to get if he is found guilty of rape, something that can happen based on no more evidence than hear-say from a woman. (A consequence of abuse industry campaigning to push up the number of convictions for rape, remove the ancient requirement of burden of proof, or necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.) With proof being no longer needed, and a long list of false rape accusers getting no sentence whatsoever, even being protected by law, the feminists are getting what they want. Now to the article.

Estranged wife jailed for falsely accusing husband of sex attack

A man has told of the pain and humiliation he endured when his estranged wife falsely accused him of rape.

Anthony Scoones, 27, spoke out after Gemma Scoones was jailed for a year for perverting the course of justice.

One year, of which she’ll do less than half. I think they have to use the charge of ‘perjury’ because there is no charge of ‘false rape’.

He described how he was arrested at his home  -  he was watching TV in bed when police arrived  -  and spent 16 hours in a cell.

His clothes were taken for forensic examination and he was left naked so that DNA samples could be taken.

Mr Scoones said: ‘I wasn’t just stripped of my clothes, but of my dignity. I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side, having swabs taken from all over my body.

‘It was humiliating and degrading. I don’t blame the officers for investigating, but it is a heinous crime to be accused of and I’m still having nightmares now.’

To add to his ordeal, even some people he thought of as friends doubted his innocence.

The rape accusation was part of an ‘acrimonious separation’ from his 26-year-old wife.

Durham Crown Court heard that she told police Mr Scoones followed her home from a shop, forced his way into the house and raped her in a downstairs toilet.

She claimed she was hurt but had not been able to call police immediately because he threatened to petrol-bomb her house.

It was only after discrepancies emerged in a police interview with her that Mr Scoones was told he was in the clear and his ex-wife was charged with committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.

Jailing Scoones, who had pleaded guilty, Recorder Neil Davey told her: ‘The course you embarked on was one of sheer wickedness.’

Mr Smith said: ‘She was upset and this built up in her as time went on. She accepts there was a degree of planning and she considered her actions for  several weeks.’

Premeditated. Kudos to the Police for actually investigating it and not just throwing the poor man to the wolves. But this isn’t the first time this has happened. Here are a few more from the Endofmen archives.

Another false rape claim, results in ‘modest’ sentence

A binge-drinking mother has been jailed after falsely accusing an innocent taxi driver of raping her.

Joanne Rye, who kept up the lie for 20 months, was told by a judge her behaviour was despicable and was handed an eight-month prison sentence.

Another man falsely accused of rape – To ‘teach him a lesson’

Women makes false rape claim – Jailed for ONE YEAR

Jailed: The ‘evil’ 21-year-old who seduced soldier and then accused him of rape

Man hangs himself after being falsely accused of raping women and children

Repeat offender, life sentence, remember?

Woman who falsely cried rape FIVE times – Gets SUSPENDED sentence

False rape accuser given 4 months

Another False Allegation of Rape – victim serves almost 7 years.

This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some articles regarding the rise of false rape/ abuse accusations.

False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought

Half of all Rape Charges May Be False

In the UK today you can be accused of abuse on almost no evidence and without any proper witnesses to support the story

An alarming national trend: False Rape Allegations

Woman guilty of false rape accusation, still protected by law

Mail Online

A businessman has been cleared of raping a university student after jurors were shown footage of the sex session taken on a mobile phone.

Gary Taylor, 41, was accused of attacking the 27-year-old woman after turning up at her flat with cocaine and a bottle of red wine.

The woman, who can’t be identified for legal reasons, told jurors that Mr Taylor forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in her living room.

But during cross-examination she was shown footage Mr Taylor had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter on September 26, 2008.

Mr Taylor’s barrister Karen Holt said the footage showed the woman ‘actively’ performing a sex act on him.

Judge Christopher Moss QC closed the public gallery before a graphic clip filmed by the woman was shown to the jury.

The judge warned: ‘You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful. To avoid making it a peep show, I have ordered the public gallery to be cleared.’

After the footage was screened, Miss Holt said to the alleged victim: ‘You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other’s presence.’

The woman said: ‘I don’t think I was happily talking to him.’

She also denied ‘actively’ performing a sex act on Mr Taylor.

The prosecution offered no evidence following advice from the judge.

Mr Taylor, who runs a multimedia company, was cleared of four charges of rape and walked free from court.

The Old Bailey heard police had arrived at the victim’s flat in Wood Green, North London, in the early hours of the morning after reports of a disturbance.

She made a complaint of rape and Mr Taylor was arrested at the scene.

Giving evidence she told the court: ‘He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far.

‘He thought he could be persuasive and it went too far. He kept trying to kiss me that evening and I was saying no.

‘I was quite drunk. He was on top of me at some point with his hand on my mouth.’

Mr Taylor, from Hornsey, North London, denied four counts of rape, including two of rape by oral penetration.

The woman had not seen the film of her having sex with Mr Taylor before it was shown to the court.

No evidence needed to get the man arrested. The lying words of a deceitful female still results in her being protected as a victim by the state, while the innocent man has his name tarnished with a rape allegation (treated as guilty). If that footage wasn’t taken, he would have been serving a long time in prison for something THAT NEVER HAPPENED. And the female would have not cared one jot.

Disgusting, lying, selfish BITCH.

A woman who deceives men into having children

Daily Mail

As a 31-year-old woman, she might be expected to have developed a more mature attitude to pregnancy and childbearing. The reality is anything but. Because Angelica, who claims to be ‘addicted to having babies’, readily admits to tricking three hapless men in succession into fathering half her brood of illegitimate daughters.

For all those women out there who have struggled to conceive children, Angelica’s story makes for bitter reading. But Angelica is proud of her achievements. She plans to tell her children the truth about their conceptions, seemingly with little understanding of the effects such knowledge could have on them.

This is because it isn’t about the kids, it’s about her.

Defiantly, she says: ‘I’ll tell them I wanted a baby, but that I didn’t tell their fathers I was trying to get pregnant. When they realise that I was prepared to lie to conceive them, they’ll know they were really wanted and much-loved babies.’

Or how manipulative and selfish their mother is.

It’s a very odd version of what love and parenting is all about. And the more Angelica talks, the clearer it becomes that she is creating baby after baby to fulfil her own deep-seated and alarming need for love and attention.

Which is about as narcissistic as you can get. Similar to when a woman deliberately indoctrinates the children against the father to hurt him (with no concern whatsoever with the damage she does to them by attacking their father constantly).

Further along…

Then, surprise, surprise, Angelica decided to use her partner as an unwitting sperm donor. She says: ‘I thought he was nice-looking and would make a good dad, so I stopped taking the Pill. I just thought: “It’s my body and I want a baby, so I’ll have one.”

Why don’t they say this when it comes to child support payments.

‘I didn’t feel bad. I knew if I asked him whether he wanted a baby, he’d probably panic and say no, because he was too young. So I decided to go ahead and make the decision myself.

‘I thought Oliver would eventually be delighted he was going to be a father. It took me a couple of months to conceive and I proudly presented him with the positive pregnancy test.

‘He looked stunned and said: “How did that happen?” I shrugged and said: “The Pill can fail, you know.” I didn’t dare tell him I had deliberately become pregnant.

You would be surprised how often this happens. It would seem in this situation, the biggest mistake a man can make is trusting the woman.

The full article is here.

Feminist says one thing – reality says another

From everybodys favourite Marxist scumbag.

Another Fabian trying to turn men and women against each other

Another Fabian trying to turn men and women against each other

Daily Mail

Harriet Harman was caught up in a row today over whether women will suffer most in the recession.

The Equality Minister claimed in the Commons yesterday that women were worrying more than men about the economic crisis.

As usual from a feminist, she makes a claim about women’s ‘feelings’ and states it like an actual fact. The ONS begs to differ however;

But her views were undermined today by figures from the Office for National Statistics and a Cambridge University study.

The ONS claimed the economic downturn ‘impacted less’ on working women than on men. It stressed that estimates showed fewer women than men had lost their job.

The redundancy rate for women was 6.6 in 1,000 employees in the three months to December, compared with 13.6 for men.

Who needs ‘feelings’ when you have facts.

Ms Harman vowed in the debate in Parliament that women would not be allowed to become the ‘victims of the recession’.

We are all affected by a recession (unless you work in the public sector). This sexist totalitarian pig needs to stop trying to destroy the nations’ males (a vital part of destroying any country) and do the honourable thing.

Throw herself off of a bloody cliff.

‘Will you open fire on UK citizens’ Army personnel being asked

Similar to the plans afoot in the United States, to turn the Army on its people and impose totalitarianism.

Please read this, from PJC Journal.

In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to ‘open fire’ on UK citizens during civil disturbances.

I found this long and extracted conversation to be both bizarre and frightening. I will state at this point that he is someone that I have known for years, and trust implicitly. The fact that service personnel are actually being asked in special briefing sessions whether they would fire on their own nationals indicates that the rumours about the Army being put on standby are indeed very true.

Read the full article here.

Promotion of selfish, immoral and destructive lifestyles via the print media

Daily Mail

How does the boast ‘I breastfeed my puppy’ strike you? Or ‘I had sex with my car’? As some kind of sick joke, I would suspect. Unless, perhaps, you are an avid reader of Closer magazine, in which case you would know they are the real-life confessions of everyday folk, who might include that nice girl next door with the new dog or the chap down the road who spends a lot of time polishing his motor.

For 30 years I lived, breathed – and defended – women’s magazines. For 13 of those years, I worked on Cosmopolitan, and for the last five of those years, from the mid-Eighties, I was that magazine’s editor.

So it could be that the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind when I say that I am shocked, bewildered and disgusted by what has happened to women’s magazines since the days when the weeklies were the cosy end of the market, all about knitting patterns and 50 ways with leftovers.

You could accuse me of hypocrisy. You might tell me I am out of touch with the interests, needs and desires of younger women. You could tell me that I’m one of the architects of the problem. But you can’t take away the fact that as I browsed the magazines at WH Smith at Waterloo station this week, I felt an overwhelming wave of nausea.

First to assault my eyes was Closer, with the coverline: ‘Incest Mum Shock: Sex with my son sets me on fire.’ This is the magazine that also proudly claims on its cover: The UK’s No 1 Celeb and Real Life Mag.

Taking a look at Bella, I was horrified by what appeared to be career advice: ‘Why I want my daughter to be a hooker like me!’

Next up to offend was That’s Life! with a picture of something large and disturbing protruding from a man’s bottom, with the coverline: ‘What was sticking out of his bum?’

For a fraction of a second I was tempted to look inside and find out what exactly was sticking out of this man’s backside, but I stopped myself. It’s revolting. Why would I care?

Indeed. From what I know of Fabianism, third way thinking and the desire from the Left to destroy western society, this just looks like feedback loop.

The media promotes disgusting, ridiculous, amoral and immoral, narcissistic, superficial, consumer lifestyles in order to influence the idiots who devour such nonsense. It is a form of peer pressure-induced control also, as (especially women) are inclined to subscribe to it, in order to not risk being ‘left out’ of  the depravity.

Are people  so fucking vapid that they find these things more interesting than understanding the global power structure, the nature of money and what freedom is?

The tax on civilisation coming…

NY Times

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.

Carbon dioxide ‘as pollutant’, the agenda the globalists have been pushing for decades to help consolidate global power in the hands of their international organisations (global government) for a gas that exists in trace amounts in the atmosphere;

Composition

78.08% Nitrogen (N2)
20.95% Oxygen (O2)
0.93% Argon
0.038% Carbon dioxide
About 1% water vapor (varies with climate)

…which is a vital component of photosynthesis;

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is crucially important for life on Earth, since as well as it maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.

… who’s increase in the atmosphere, could explain the blooming biomass;

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”

… but does not correspond to the fact the planet doesn’t seem to be warming;

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

… and the global warming scientists’ own predictions are wrong

I have written a number of times about the “global warming accelerating” meme.  The evidence is nearly irrefutable that over the last 10 years, for whatever reason, the pace of global warming has decelerated (click below to enlarge)

This is simply a fact, though of course it does not necessarily “prove” that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.  Current results continue to be fairly consistent with my personal theory, that man-made CO2 may add 0.5-1C to global temperatures over the next century (below alarmist estimates), but that this warming may be swamped at times by natural climactic fluctuations that alarmists tend to under-estimate.

… and so on.

In fact, the science is so far from settled that it cannot be anything other than another motive for these Bilderberg/ global government puppets to push for carbon (life) taxation. Which would be the same as taxing any other completely natural gas. Like oxygen, but I guess that wouldn’t sell so well, to the unthinking masses. Even with predictions of global cooling for the next three decades;

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward.  In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over.  The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming- it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

… and the UN IPCC reports have been proven to be wrong, even deliberately distorted;

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

.. and yes, even the IPCC admit it themselves;

Ground-breaking admission by member of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change: major contributing factor to the balance of the climate not taken into account.

It would appear that, as many of us right-thinking people have known for some time, global warming caused by CO2 output is, at best, sensationalist fantasy.

We have top rocket scientists saying no evidence CO2 causes warming, even the United States military says it: Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change, other scientists have released studies completely contradicting the UN reports;

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.

.. and we have large numbers of scientists openly disagreeing with the official THEORY;

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

… and the Manhattan Declaration;

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.  Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

… the media has been reporting sensationalist climate nonsense for a century, and still have no idea what they are talking about. The science is not settled, and pushing policies based on dodgy theories with holes so big you could push Al Gores’ electricity bills through, should be illuminating for people. Why are they doing this? Why are they pushing this environmental agenda?

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” [Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5.]

No Ma’am has new posts!

The excellent blooger Rob Fedders has some new posts up on his blog, No Ma’am.

If you haven’t visited it before, now would be a good time to start. It’s a great place to learn about Marxism, the dialectical principle (Hegel) and the truth about feminism, among other things.

ENJOY!

British govt outlaws free speech

Daily Mail

A bitter diplomatic row erupted today after Britain banned a controversial Right-wing Dutch politician from the UK.

Geert Wilders had been invited by the Ukip peer Lord Pearson to show his anti-Islam film ‘Fitna’ and hold a Q&A session in Parliament tomorrow.

The 17-minute documentary features verses from the Koran – which it brands a ‘fascist book’ – alongside images of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks.

It equates Islam’s holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove its ‘hate-preaching’ verses.

I thought it was the Religion of Peace ™?

Religion of Peace

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not embedded within historical context (as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence).  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur’an.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  This proclivity toward violence and Muhammad’s own martial tradition have resulted in a trail of blood and bodies across world history.

Back to the Mail;

After being alerted to the private screening, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith barred Mr Wilders on the grounds that his visit was a threat to ‘community harmony and therefore public security’.

Muslim Peace Activists

Muslim Peace Activists

Well let’s see. What community? I am presuming only the Muslim community. Now, the last time I checked, the Muslim population of the UK is approximately 3%. So Jacqui (2 homes) Smith is claiming that is a big enough section of the ‘community’ to warrant the (essential) censorship of a short film (based on the Quran) and the banning of a democratically elected foreign MP.

A defiant Mr Wilders, who claims to have visited the House of Lords in December, called the decision ‘cowardly’ and vowed last night to go ahead with his visit.

‘Let them try to detain me,’ he said. ‘I’ll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs. We are talking here about a European Union country, one of the oldest democracies in the Western world.’

Before the socialists got hold of it, maybe. Remember, this debacle with Fitna is a follow on from previous actions of a certain Lord Ahmed, who threatened Parliament by claiming he would “mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court.”

But a spokesman said: ‘The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

Which doesn’t seem to apply if they happen to be Muslims.

‘We endorse the original condemnation of the film ‘Fitna’ by the Dutch Government, and feel that it serves no constructive purpose.

…other than to show a different (critical) analysis of the book of Islam than the one pushed by the dhimmi media and politicians.

‘Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but one that must be used responsibly and not as a cover for causing offence and division. We fully appreciate the sensitivities around the portrayal of any religious figure or text.’

See this!!! Freedom of speech is an extension of freedom of self. If someone else can take away that right, then it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege, and that is the essence of totalitarianism.

Supporters of free sppech also condemned the move by Britain. Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said: ‘It’s true that Geert Wilders is a controversialist, who takes pleasure in causing offence. I wouldn’t vote for him if I were Dutch.

‘But what I think of him is neither here nor there. Freedom means the freedom to express any opinion, however eccentric, however offensive. The Dutch foreign minister, a political opponent of Mr Wilders, has complained to David Miliband. Good for him.

‘Whether our government is actuated by cowardice or authoritarianism, it’s equally ugly. We are a meaner country than we were this morning.’

It is disgusting behaviour. The actions of tyrants with a god complex. Socialist scum who believe they have a right to control what we do, think, say and see. Fuck this government.

As a result of hs controversial views, he has lived for five years with round-the-clock security because of his fierce criticism of Islam.

What, like what happened to Theo Van Gogh when he produced a film critical of the Religion of Peace?

On November 2, 2004, Theo van Gogh was assassinated in public by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent. A letter, stabbed through and affixed to the body by a dagger, linked the murder to Van Gogh’s film and his views regarding Islam. It was addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and called for a jihad against kafir (kafir is an Arabic word for unbeliever) against America, Europe, the Netherlands, and Hirsi Ali herself.

Religion of intolerance, violence and hatred morelike.

On the same site (Daily Mail) this article exists (posted today);

Saudi judge sentences pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery

A Saudi judge has ordered a woman should be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes after she was gang-raped, it was claimed last night.

The 23-year-old woman, who became pregnant after her ordeal, was reportedly assaulted after accepting a lift from a man.

He took her to a house to the east of the city of Jeddah where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night.

She later discovered she was pregnant and made a desperate attempt to get an abortion at the King Fahd Hospital for Armed Forces.

According to the Saudi Gazette, she eventually ‘confessed’ to having ‘forced intercourse’ with her attackers and was brought before a judge at the District Court in Jeddah.

He ruled she had committed adultery – despite not even being married – and handed down a year’s prison sentence, which she will serve in a prison just outside the city.

She is still pregnant and will be flogged once she has had the child.

The Saudi Arabian legal system practices a strict form of medieval law. Women have very few rights and are not even allowed to drive.

They are also banned from going out in public in the company of men other than male relatives.

That is an Islamic State by the way.

Muslim Peace March

Muslim Peace March

Submission

And yes, there are efforts underway to try and turn Britain into an Islamic Caliphate.

Fitna

Now you can watch them for youself, and make your own minds up (as opposed to your masters doing it for you).