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

Attack on nuclear family leads to chaos

This contains additional information and quotes added by yours truly to give the article wider context.

Daily Mail

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

Global one world dictatorship – Financial Times

Families in meltdown, judge says

The Labour government’s anti-family tax system

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Family Being Replaced with Feral Gangs In Socialist Britain

1,300 women have had at least FIVE abortions

Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record number of Abortions

Children don’t need fathers, they need lesbians

David Cameron in the feminists pocket

Man jailed for trying to protect his family

Why Feminism is a Fraud…

Half of single mothers ‘do not want to work’

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Infowars

Carolyn Harris
Infowars
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 cumchange 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.

Married teaching assistant who groomed student walks free from court.

One guess what sex this ‘teaching assistant’ was…

Source: Daily Mail

A married teaching assistant who fell in love with a teenage pupil escaped jail yesterday because their affair stopped short of sex.

Lindsey Jane Collett, 26, had sent the 16-year-old boy saucy text messages and a photograph of herself wearing a bra featuring children’s TV character SpongeBob SquarePants.

The pregnant mother of two had become friendly with the pupil when she was helping him to catch up on coursework, Bridlington magistrates were told.

They began communicating through the social networking website Facebook and met up in a park for a ‘kiss and cuddle’, the court heard.

One text she sent the teenager read: ‘Every time you touch me you turn me on. When I see you I feel light-headed.’ Another told him that she loved him.

Yesterday, Collett sobbed hysterically as she admitted a charge of abusing a position of trust between October and February.

She is still with her husband, who has stood by her throughout.

Passing sentence, magistrate Robin Sunley said the court took into account her guilty plea. Her position at the school would ‘usually make the offence more serious’, he added.

‘However, having listened to the evidence, we consider the physical contact to be minimal.’

The boy, who is now 16, was not in court and cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Magistrates also ruled that the school, in East Yorkshire, should not be named. The court was told that the teenager and the teaching assistant had an inappropriate relationship lasting about four months. Continue reading

Wives to be let off for murdering their husbands in cold blood

Hot on the heels of my earlier scribblings regarding what actually constitutes ‘abuse’ for the self interested feminists and abuse industry.

Source: Daily Mail

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.

Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.

Women’s groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

As long as they’re women, hitting men.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel ‘seriously wronged’ by ‘words and conduct’ took experts completely by surprise.

They must establish only that they were responding to a ‘slow burn’ of abuse.

The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a ‘sudden’ loss of control.

In cases where a husband kills, the existing ‘partial defence’ of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether.

The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women.

In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation.

They include those ‘seriously wronged’ by an insult.

Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.

Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction.

Note that this is the complete opposite to equality. This is just giving women who are so inclined, a government mandate to kill their husbands, as long as they can cook up a good textbook story about abuse, which as we know can be almost anything women say it is.

Essentially, this means that if a woman ‘feels’ wronged, she can kill you, if you ‘feel’ wronged, you cannot kill her. The ‘crime of passion’ motive has been strengthened for women and taken away from men. This represents laws for certain groups. This is illegal. Continue reading

She wore her first set of false eyelashes at eight, and her beauty treatments cost £300 a month. A sick abuse of an 11-year-old?

Feminists don’t seem to understand their own sex very well. I was considering making this part of the Matriarchal Self Worship Series, but it is more of a woman’s projection of her superficiality and narcissism onto her daughter. Like that never happens! Sexualization of girls or women being blamed for girls’ image problems for example.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extracts)

At 11, Sasha Bennington is too young to remember the days when Jordan was just a country and being branded ‘fake’ was something to be ashamed of.

But maybe the youngster’s biggest tragedy is that her mother, Jayne, 31, is in no hurry to paint a picture of how it used to be.

Jayne is talking breezily about how Sasha had her first set of false nails glued on at eight, and now enjoys the sort of rigorous beauty regime  –  hair extensions, fake tans, pedicures  –  that was once the preserve of porn stars and Dolly Parton, not school children from Burnley in Lancashire.

Still, times have changed. ‘All the kids are at it now,’ insists Jayne. ‘We spend about £300 a month on beauty treatments for her.

‘Sasha’s friends are the same. All girls their age are. Of course they are! Why else would you be able to buy make-up for pre-teens at Boots?

Um, because Boots wants to make money? And all girls aren’t the same, it’s their mothers that are the same. Using their daughters to compete with each other. The attitude of this ‘mother’ is alarming to say the least, with lines like;

‘I don’t understand why people get so upset about it. None of it is permanent. Tans wash off. Hair extensions come out. Why all the fuss?’

They kept saying they wanted the girls to look natural. Why? Let them slap it on! What’s the harm?’

What else does one expect? They scurried off to a U.S. beauty pageant with a film crew, where the mother revealed how sacrificial and noble she is;

‘I fell in love with a pink dress that made her look like a princess, but the people advising us told us you should always match the dress to the eyes  –  so we went for green.

‘That was OK, though. I wasn’t there to have the dress I wanted. I was there so that Sasha could win. I was amazed at how much there was to learn, but I knew I was in the hands of the experts.’

Objectification anyone?

It seems that the main lesson learned was that her darling daughter could look like a plastic Barbie, and be rewarded with a sash to prove it.

‘People always said she looked like a Barbie in Miss British Isles, but the girls in Texas truly did,’ enthuses Jayne.

‘It was wonderful. I watched them on the catwalk, with their arms held so precisely, walking slowly and turning just so. They reminded me of little ballerina dolls.’

What sort of mother wants her daughter to look like a doll? The image I have in my head is of Exorcist Barbie, but Jayne sees something else entirely.

The article author cottoned on to the matriarchal projection however.

Her response to the pageant pictures of Sasha  –  looking shocking with deep red lips and heavily smoked eyes  –  probably says more about her than her daughter.

‘The pictures are amazing, and Sasha is such a lucky girl to have them. I’d love to have those sort of pictures, nice pictures, rather than ones you hide away because you can’t bear to look at them.’

It was about the same time she started dabbling in beauty pageants that Jayne declared she wanted her daughter to be the next Jordan. She still does.

For those readers who do not know who ‘Jordan’ is, curse you, you lucky buggers. Just imagine Mister Geppetto with a Barbie Doll instead of a piece of wood. With about the same amount of personality.

‘Of course. Jordan is her idol and I fully support her in that. She’s a great role model, this really down-to-earth woman who has made a big success of her life. She’s a better role model than Britney Spears  –  any day.’

Okay, this is her. Content with making her daughter into an object, she then attempts to sell her.

In the forthcoming documentary, Jayne takes Sasha to a major agency, in the hope that she will be signed up.

The model booker says a vehement ‘no’, horrified by her portfolio, and tells Jayne that clients want their child models to look like children, and that for this sort of career success she would have to stop bleaching Sasha’s hair and encouraging her to wear plastic nails. Jayne refuses to comply.

It comes as no surprise that Jayne used to be a model herself, and one who worked in the ‘glamour’ side of the business.

She started at 23  –  which, she explains, was ‘far too late’ for real career success  –  and now believes that earlier is better, in order to maximise profit and notoriety.

One of her own happiest memories is of entering a beauty pageant and winning the coveted sash. ‘I was on top of the world. One day I was an ordinary clerical worker, the next everyone was looking at me. It was wonderful.

Bloody hell. This mother didn’t sell her body as much as she’d hoped in her time, so obviously her daughter is the next best thing.

‘She’s always wanted to be a model, 100per cent. I’m just helping her do what she wants, like any good parent would. It’s not pushing her into anything. I hate it when people say I’m a pushy parent. I’m not. I just want the best for her.’

I’m not a parent, but I don’t think that doing whatever the child wants is a good parent. That’s how you get this. You are supposed to set rules and boundaries for children. Instil morality, good behaviour and constructive attitudes.

But maybe that’s just me. I wonder where the father is?

And what Sasha wants, Sasha clearly gets. Last Christmas, Jayne and her husband, Martin, a builder who works all over the UK and is barely at home, spent £26,000 on Sasha’s presents, which included a swimming pool.

Goes some way to explaining the situation.

What will become of the child, who turns just 12 in two weeks? We might hope for a reverse teenage rebellion  –  one in which she dyes her hair mousey brown and professes a desire to study political science at university  –  but it’s unlikely.

Ask Sasha how she sees herself and she replies: ‘Blonde, pretty, dumb  –  I don’t need brains.’ Her mum laughs her head off at this, proud that the child is so like her.

Indeed. How far Britain has fallen.

Josef Fritzl, (the man who locked his daughter in the cellar for 24 years), innundated with love letters

Cellar monster Josef Fritzl has been sent hundreds of love letters from lonely women offering him romance.

Some of the women have said that Fritzl, who locked his daughter Elisabeth in a cellar for 24 years and fathered her children, is ‘good at heart’ and misunderstood.

Fritzl has so far received a mountain of 200 love letters.

Those writing to the 73-year-old former electrician believe that he wanted to keep his daughter out of trouble and so kept her prisoner for most of her life.

Fritzl fathered seven children through his daughter and he is now in Austria’s Sankt Poelten prison where he has also received a mountain of hate mail.

So far he has received a total of 5,000 letters.

Elisabeth, 42, is recovering in a psychiatric clinic. Three of her children were kept prisoner in the dungeon with her.

He is due in court again on Friday – when he will almost certainly be sent back to jail to await trial.

Prosecutor Gerhard Sedlacek has said that Fritzl did not have an accomplice.

From the start, investigators have said there was no sign that Fritzl had help – even though many have been baffled how he managed to keep his daughter and their children hidden for so long.

I’m confused, maybe this case appeals to these women’s sense of ‘being cared for’ or something. Somehow I couldn’t image if this was a woman (doing this to her son), that there would be hundreds of men writing her love letters… Utter madness.

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

A man who lost his job after being falsely accused of a horrific sex crime has been found hanged in a shed.

Ian Adams, 51, was suspended and then sacked from his job at a local IKEA store after his employers received a letter saying he had raped a woman and her two children.

The writer claimed to be a journalist on a local newspaper, but the name and address in the letter were false and the author has never been traced.

Police confirmed that Mr Adams, from Highams Park East, London, had never been arrested or convicted of a sexual offence or had any complaints made against him.

Mr Adams’ life went downhill as he struggled to recover from the accusations. Continue reading

The Post-Christmas Goldrush.

Why divorce lawyers will rub their hands today

Divorce lawyers are bracing themselves for their busiest day of the year today after the long Christmas holiday took its toll on thousands of couples.

Family rows, boredom and a lack of sex are all cited as reasons for a split, along with a fling at the office party, financial worries and disappointing gifts.

The boom in New Year divorce proceedings has led many lawyers to call today DDay, or Divorce Day.

More than 1.8million couples will have contemplated splitting over the holiday period, according to the Family Mediation Helpline.

Derek Bedlow, of the online advice website InsideDivorce.com, said: “Christmas is a nightmare for anyone with a shaky relationship.

“There are so many opportunities for things to go badly – from rowing about which inlaws are coming to dinner, to disappointing presents. It’s a relationship minefield.”

Relate said it had seen a 50 per cent surge in the number of calls since December – mostly from women. Continue reading

Women’s Aid – The definition of DV. Part 1

I visited this website recently for some research into an article I was writing. I was interested to know how these ‘charities’ market themselves to people.

These days I tend to view these organisations more like corporations. Nothing particularly noble about them. They exist, they get money, they need more victims so they can ask for more money, because dwindling victims means less money. Simple really.

Now we should all know by now that domestic violence affects both men and women. That is to say, they can both be perpetrators in equal amounts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Now you would think Women’s Aid would cater to women, fair enough, every bloody organisation in the country caters to the poor victimised little helpless things. It goes one better though, it’s tag line is ‘until women and children are safe’. You see, women and children are seen as one, inseparable unit, men are superfluous. Man is a evil brute lurking in the shadows outside of the house with the poor woman inside trying to protect HER child from HIM.

We all know the standard politically correct myth.

That tag line also, by exclusion, presents a subtle statement regarding men. Men don’t need to be made safe because obviouslythey’re not in danger as they’re the ones committing all the ‘violence’.

Remember men and women are victims in equal amounts. Keep that in mind always. Because this site chooses to represent one half (or less) of the victims. Not only that, but it markets itself in a way which presumes men are very rarely victims.

Lets quickly look at the page titled ‘About Domestic Violence‘.

They call female victims of domestic violence ‘survivors’. They don’t call male victims anything because, well, they’re irrelevant. I could be wrong but Continue reading