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.

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 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.

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

Oh yes, the fascist scum in Brussels have set their Eye of Sauron on Ireland again.

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

Gordon Brown’s Downfall

Thanks to Damo Mackerel for these two videos. These videos are closer to the truth than you me think.

This is the prequel to the original Gordon Brown Downfall. This one focuses on the events that took place at the Glasgow East By-Election on polling day.

Hitler-Brown reacts to the latest By-Election results in Glasgow East.

A ‘feminist’ email from YouTube

Hi all, I recently received an email from an irate fan, attacking me for the usual anti-feminist stance. After I stopped laughing, I thought I’d post it with my response here. Enjoy 🙂

It is as follows;

femaleempowerment18

YOU ARE PATHETIC

PERSONAL SACRIFICES??? WHAT DO U THINK WOMEN DO WHEN THEY HAVE CHILDREN AND SUBJECT THEIR BODIES TO ALL OF THAT SHIT??? WE DONT HAVE TO DO IT BUT WE DO CUZ WE DONT NEED MEN WE HAVE ENOUGH SPERM BANKS TO KEEP THE WORLD GOING FOR A VERY LONG TIME…

A WOMAN CAN BE UPSET …AND IF SHE IS IT’S BECAUSE SHE’S ON HER RAG

SHE CANT EXPLORE HER SEXUALLITY WITHOUT BEING CALLED A WHORE

WOMEN TO THIS DAY ONLY GET PAID 70 CENTS TO EVERY DOLLAR A MAN MAKES AND MY ECON TEACHER SAID WE’VE COME A LONG WAY AND YA WE HAVE BUT THIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE AND EQUAL BUT I GUESS THAT ONLY APPLIES TO PEOPLE WITH DICKS…

WE SUPPOSEDLY CANT PLAY SPORTS CUZ WE CANT BENCH PRESS 300 LBS

WERE STILL TODAY SUPPOSED TO WAIT ON MEN HAND AND FOOT…IN ALL OF THE LAUNDRY AND DISH SOAP COMMERCIALS YOU NEVER SEE A MAN DOING THE FUCKING LAUNDRY OR DISHES IN THE COMMERCIALS

YA ITS TRADITION OR WHATEVER BUT ONLY BECAUSE WOMEN WERE CENSORED FOR THEIR STRENGTHS….

WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A MORE DOMINANT GENDER IT[S BULLSHIT DONT SAY IT’S JUST THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE THATS A BULLSHIT ANSWER FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESNT HAVE AN ANSWER

YOU MUST BE GAY BECAUSE NO WOMAN IN HER RIGHT MIND WOULD RAISE SOMEONE LIKE YOU HAVE FUN GETTING AND RECIEVING POOPY DICK….

And my response..

Two great articles and a video

First up is a great post by No Ma’am regarding the fraud of modern marriage.

Marriage is Fraud

Second up is an article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail.

Jackboot Jacqui’s a Nazi piece of work

And finally some humour. (Well I found it funny).

Darth Vader & Earl Voice Over Fun

The Stasi is formed in Britain, August 27th 2008

The Stasi is formed in Britain, August 27th 2008

FreeBritain.

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

Source: The People’s Voice

(Extract)

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

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.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

► The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
► CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
► Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
► The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
► The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
► “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
► Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
► The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
► It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
► Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
► In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Former Abortionist Bernard Nathanson Exposes Lies of American Pro-Abortion Movement

Population control groups, liberals and socialists lying in order to push their Holier-Than-Thou agenda? Say it ain’t so!

Source: LifeSiteNews

(Extract)

By Tim Waggoner

TORONTO, ON, July 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On July 9, 2008, CFRB talk show host, Spider Jones, interviewed former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson about his past involvement in the abortion movement and his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint.

At one time Nathanson was deeply entrenched in the American pro-abortion movement, having co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic. During the CFRB program Nathanson recalled the deceitful and dishonest tactics that he and NARAL relied upon to push for the legalization and acceptance of abortion.

“We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions,” he said. “The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception.”

“I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher standards, or at least higher objectives,” he explained.

Nathanson’s conversion to the pro-life movement was sparked by the advent of the ultrasound machine in the early 1970s.  He related how his heart was moved to realize that a fetus is in fact a human being after he watched an unborn baby recoil from a vacuum abortion device before being sucked from its mother’s womb.

Save the males! A new book says society is biased AGAINST men.

We could have told you this years ago, but nevermind.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

Amanda Platell

Every once in a while, a book not so much lands on your desk as lobs itself like a hand grenade, exploding preconceived wisdoms and shattering the bones of the status quo. Save The Males is such a book.

It is the fiercest and most fearless defence of men, fatherhood and ultimately the family I have read in many years.

American author Kathleen Parker’s courageous thesis is that initially, through extreme feminism, then via its craven implementation into society, women have demonised men and trivialised their contribution, especially to family life.

I say courageous because, in the eyes of many women and of the liberal establishment, suggesting men have had a rough deal is nothing short of heresy.

Parker should be burnt at the stake, they cry. But isn’t it ironic that only a woman could make such a plea for men?

She argues: ‘As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favour and approval they seek, as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour, as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.’

It’s enough to set a feminist’s hair on end. Parker argues that in trying to make the world fairer for women, an adjustment most agree was vital, we have made it unfair for men. In our attempt to honour women, we have dishonoured men.

By bending over backwards to make single mothers feel good about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women as the superior parents, we have gone a considerable way to destroying one of the basic tenets of a successful society – family life.

Apart from the effects of this seismic social shift on society, it is also grossly unfair. Can you imagine a world where men demanded women be more like them – dress like them, act like them, even look like them. Because that is effectively what our post-feminist society has done, but with the genders switched.

The traditional male values, what Parker almost poetically calls ‘masculinity tied to honour’, are now seen as nothing more than a direct assault on women.

Unless men are like us, the thinking goes, they insult us and threaten our existence: hence the feminisation of men, or as we so disingenuously describe it, getting in touch with your feminine side.

Thus Hybrid Man was born. An acceptable male model now is more likely to be of the David Beckham variety, wearing more make-up than the missus, hairless, perfumed, varnished, emasculated by his bossy wife and perhaps fond of wearing her undies.

Good dads, loving husbands, supportive male role models, they’re few and far between even in the fictional world of TV.

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

Oh dear. The house of carbon cards continues to fall…

Source: Prisonplanet

The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position.

Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.

“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”

“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.

Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases – “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” – which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.

“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.

Read the rest of the article at Prisonplanet.

Added to the Global Warming? page.

Maternity leave and equality laws are ‘sabotaging’ women’s careers

Source: Daily Mail

Generous maternity leave and flexible working practices are in danger of sabotaging women’s careers, the head of the new equality watchdog has warned.

With women now entitled to a year off for each child, Dr Nicola Brewer, the chief executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said employers were thinking twice about offering them jobs or promotion.

The current set of benefits, which strongly favour the mother, has also entrenched the idea that women bring up children, instead of both parents taking an equal responsibility for childcare.

‘The thing I worry about is that the current legislation and regulations have had the unintended consequence of making women a less attractive prospect to employers.’ British fathers are allowed two weeks of paternity leave compared to 52 weeks for their partners.

As usual, the only thing that matters is the effect on women that choose to have children. What about the businesses and all of the other workers?

She said: ‘The way it is framed means it is up to the women to transfer the leave to the man. It is not his right.’

In a speech today, she is expected to call for an extension of fathers’ rights, suggesting men be entitled to 12 weeks of leave on 90 per cent of their earnings following the birth of a child.

Wow, 12 whole weeks! Women = 52 weeks. Men = 12 weeks. (That’s when they even know their girlfriend/ wife is pregnant.)

Aware that her proposals will face criticism from the business lobby, she said: ‘Of course, there is a business case for these changes and many companies are going further. But this is a social argument as well as an economic one.

‘There may well be a cost [to business], but as a society we are already thinking in terms of wellbeing as well as take home pay.’

Well, that answers my earlier question. The businesses and other workers just have to pay for it. Nothing like redistribution of wealth to keep Communism alive.

Sir Alan warned in February that equal opportunity laws had made it harder for a woman to get a job.

Employers are not allowed to ask women about having children  –  so they would just not employ them, he said.

And he is right.

It really gets on my nerves, how the State thinks it has a duty to regulate every little aspect of our lives. In fact it sounds much more like totalitarianism than freedom to me. The State autonomously deciding what society should be like? I thought they were supposed to serve the People, and remain bound by our laws?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, why should a business employ someone who has a high probability of leaving, while you still have financial obligations to them? It reminds me of the treatment of women in divorce. They leave, you pay. What would you do, as a business owner? Especially a small business. How is it good business sense to employ someone, have them leave the workforce while you still have to pay them and then employ someone else to do the same bloody job? You can of course, get the other (working) employees to make up for it, but you know that will not help morale. That could encourage your staff to look elsewhere for work. On top of that, you cannot ask women these questions in interviews, so the women cannot even defend themselves! All brought to you by your socialist State who dictates more and more of our lives to us every day!

Police State Britain – Guilty Till Proven Innocent

Source: Daily Mail

Barred from a school job, the mother wrongly branded a criminal

When Amanda Hodgson applied for a job looking after pupils at her local primary school she thought the childcare checks would be a formality.

Her three children all attended the school and teachers had asked her a couple of times to consider helping out.

But a Home Office agency set up to vet those working with children claimed that Mrs Hodgson was a drug-dealing alcoholic with convictions for assaulting three police officers.

And instead of admitting a case of mistaken identity, the Criminal Records Bureau told Mrs Hodgson, 36, she would have to face a police interview and have her fingerprints taken which will then be checked against every unsolved crime in the country.

Yesterday Mrs Hodgson said she was horrified that she would have to prove her innocence.

She said: ‘The process is not fair. In a court of law the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but I am guilty until proven innocent.

The four-page CRB disclosure said that Amanda Jane Hodgson was convicted of assaulting three police officers in November 1989. In 1998 she appeared before magistrates charged with battery where she was given a conditional discharge.

In November last year, she accepted a police caution after being arrested for common assault.

Mrs Hodgson told the CRB they had sent the criminal record of a woman with the same name and date of birth. She also told them she took the surname of Hodgson only after she married in 1993, four years after the first offences.

However officials said it would be her responsibility to prove her innocence.

What next, being questioned for putting your hand in your pocket?

In totalitarianism, the rights of the state are elevated above the rights of the People. In fact, in a police state you have no rights, only privileges which can be removed if the dictatorship wishes. You can see such technicalities in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 29, (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

And the European Union Charter of Human Rights;

Article 52; (3) Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

As such databases (DNA, CRB, Biometric) ballon in size, the probability of error increases. Such ‘errors’ can result in the ruination of people’s lives and reputations, something the State is not liable for. Neither will it deem itself liable for the fact that millions of civil servants, working under the swelling belly of the Socialist/ Communist State could have access to such information, or when such data is ‘lost’. The centralisation of vast amounts of personal data (such as the ID Card) does nothing to secure peoples’ personal data. It only presents a gold mine for criminals. The State however, views everything in the country as belonging to them, you, your children, your data, your rights, everything, and they are going to keep grabbing as much as they can until we have outright Fascism or the People exercise their Power against Tyranny and reinstall Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the Highest Law of the Land.

Schools used for ‘social engineering’, claims headteacher

To be expected with Socialists who wish to re-design society around the worship of the State.

Source: Telegraph

A leading headmaster who is leaving one of the most popular schools in the state system to work in the private sector has accused the Government of turning teachers into “social workers and surrogate parents”.

Rod MacKinnon, the head of Bexley Grammar School, south-east London, said schools were being forced to shun traditional lessons as ministers manipulated the education system for the purposes of “social engineering”.

“There are those who wish to use children and schools as social engineers with a view to creating a different society but we should not even be trying to do such things,” he said. “Children need to be nurtured, educated and cared for, not thrown into the frontline of social reform. Muddled thinking is guaranteeing failure for the noble aspirations we all commonly hold for the education of the young.”

The children are the nations’ next generation. By propagandising and brainwashing them, you can achieve massive social changes in a matter of decades. As long as the State can keep it up long enough for the older generations to die out or leave without a revolution, they could theoretically achieve their Orwellian Dream. Children now growing up believing that they are a cancer of the planet, State surveillance is necessary, (perceived) security is more important than Freedom, and that War is Peace. Can you see it?

Family Being Replaced with Feral Gangs In Socialist Britain

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.

2. A destabilised nation is much easier to break apart and destroy, such is the goal of the Socialsts/ Feminists in power.

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.

Why Feminism is a Fraud… and Feminism labeled a ’society killer’ should go some way to explaining this.

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…

Harriet (femscum) Harman still wants to discriminate against white men

I touched upon this scheme from this liberal Marxo-feminist in an earlier post, It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men. Today on the BBC website is another article about her continued push for this most disgusting proposal.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. It is all discrimination. Remember, this is straight out of Communism, the States’ desire to ‘equalise’ the (Collectivist) groups in employment. White men in Britain must be completely undermined in order to be able to complete the State’s takeover of the country. Notice how there is no similar campaign to discriminate against other groups in the case of white men being the minority. By the way, society is not composed of groups, it is composed of individuals. Using groups is the Collectivist method to ‘divide and conquer’.

BBC

Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to.

In favour of female and ethnic minorities means anyone but white men. There are more women of working age in Britain than men. So technically men are the minority, not that it matters. Who does the State see as the threat eh?

The new Equalities Bill will also force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap.

The plans, which will be adopted first across England then Wales and Scotland, will also ban all age discrimination.

We all know about the Gender Pay Gap^TM LIE. It does however offer a suitable Dialectic for the State to continue to expand its powers into the lives of private businesses.

Ms Harman said she wanted a more “open and diverse” economy with companies not just choosing from “a pool of friends of friends”.

Tackled on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about whether the proposals would lead to discrimination against white men, she said companies would not be forced to use positive discrimination.

What the hell has the ‘make up’ of the economy got to do with a politician? In a free society you employ who you bloody like and make your own decisions. It just goes to show how the State is socially engineering a Communist ideal by enforcing whatever it thinks is ‘fair’.

But she added: “They might think we don’t want an all male team.

“We’ve got a new post coming up, we’ve got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team.

Yeah, until she gets pregnant or something.

“The law at the moment is not clear and we are clarifying and saying if you want to do it, you can, and it makes it much more open.”

Ms Harman will set out the proposals in the Commons later.

Age discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since 2006, but the new legislation will tackle more widespread forms of age-related prejudice.

The Bill aims to close the gender pay gap by forcing firms to “publish their gender pay gap”.

Again, who gets paid what is none of the States’ business.

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today.

“Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It’s not the case. It’s entrenched discrimination. It’s allowed to persist because it’s all swept under the carpet.”

Oh fuck off. If a business ever chose to employ a man over a woman, I’m sure there are very good reasons for doing so, as Sir Alan Sugar explains to us. A business is supposed to employ whomever they think will be best for the job and for the business. The State is essentially saying your business should serve the interests of ‘equality’ and not capitalism.

The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.

Ms Harman said doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.

But she added: “Everybody should be treated as individuals and not just discriminated against across the board because of their age.”

I wonder if the men will still be denied treatment?

Age discrimination will also be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, such as holidays and insurance.

It is likely organisations and companies will be given time to review and, if necessary, change their practices before the new law would be enforced.

Other age distinctions, such as free bus passes and holidays for the over-50s or 18-to-30s, will be exempt.

A sickening power grab by the Police State over fundamental freedoms, as always, under the guise of protecting one ‘group’ from another ‘group’. The real enemy of the State are two ‘groups’. White men and the middle class. Why the middle class? Well generally they tend to run the means of production, like farmers and tend to know their rights and have the financial ability to fight for them. Release a few weaponised diseases and pile on the EU regulations and disenfranchise them. The government can centralise production using taxpayer money in response (preferably with corporate partnership, as is the case with Corporate Fascism.) It is plainly obvious what is going on.

“Feminism is just Communism with tits” – FM Watkins

Harriet Harman should be thrown off a cliff.

Why Ireland should vote No to the Lisbon Treaty

I am going to keep this simple.

Firstly, as I am sure people following the progress of the Lisbon Treaty will know, Ireland is the only country in the European Union who’s Constitution requires the ratification of the Treaty to be put to a public vote. Good. The re-wording of the original European Constitution to a Treaty in reality changes nothing of its content as the orignal Constitution is for all intents and purposes, intact in the Lisbon Treaty, albeit hidden. Disagree?

How about from the mouths of those whom one would expect to know, starting with the architect of the original Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who states, in the Telegraph, 27 June 2007;

“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.”

He also appears in the Telegraph again where it is stated;

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.

He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.

“Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed,” he added.

Here some more quotes, from an earlier article of mine;

Germany
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

Spain
“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
(Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, speech, 27 June 2007)

Ireland
“90 per cent of it is still there… these changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
(Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)

The European Commission
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
(Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

And so on… So yes, it is all still there, just a different lick of paint and buried in other documents you have probably never read either.

But what is there exactly? What does the Lisbon Treaty mean for Brussels, and for its member states (who apart from Ireland, were all refused a say on the Treaty because the People were overwhelmingly against it).

In a nutshell;

An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan

Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:

1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union’s new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union’s citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.

The complete article (which should definitely be read) is revealingly named ‘These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You‘ and is located here.

So, what to do? Your government is telling you to vote Yes (although they would much rather just refused you a vote altogether), many unions and groups are campaigning against the Treaty, not sure what you are going to do? Firstly, I strongly suggest you use your vote. This Treaty will give the EU superior powers over all of your Laws (including your Constitution). This is a FACT. The European Union is just dying to expand the EU into North Africa and accelerate its expansion. Also a FACT. The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is currently threatening Ireland at the prospect of you guys and gals kicking the elitists in Brussels where it hurts. Apparently;

Mr Kouchner said that a “No” vote would be met by “gigantic incomprehension” in the rest of Europe.

That is a lie. It is also a blanket statement made by one politician who claims to speak for Europe which is strange considering the Lisbon Treaty was crafted specifically to stop the People having a say on it. He is just trying to use the spectre of Europe as a battering ram to frighten you into capitulating to the demands of Brussels. In truth however;

75% of people in the EU want a referendum on any new treaty which gives more powers to the EU. In the UK, 83% would want a vote to be held. A majority in all 27 countries would want a referendum.

Which brings me to my final points. The first is, what is so democratic and freedom-loving about threatening countries who may disagree with the EU? The little dictator-in-training continued;

“It would be very, very, very troubling…that we could not count on the Irish, who themselves have counted a lot on Europe’s money,”

So the EU was just pretending to be helpful, when in reality it was trying to set Ireland up to leverage power from them in the future. Sounds like the antics of a loan shark doesn’t it? This brings me to my final point.

Whether you currently think Yes or No, there is a 99.9% change that you do not really know what is in the Treaty. I don’t mean you couldn’t understand it, I just mean that you haven’t read it. This is not surprising considering the EU is refusing to allow member governments to publish readable versions of the Treaty until it is completely ratified!

So when you go to vote, just imagine you are in a bank to sign a contract on a home you already own. The suit across the table is trying to convince you to sign it. The document you have is literally unreadable. You are not sure what is in it, but you do know that at the very least it will result in massive changes in the way you can govern your own home. You don’t know how though. You don’t know how much it will cost in the future or what direction it will take either. But you do know that signing this contract means the rules you used to live by will now become secondary to the rules of that Bank. But you don’t know what the Bank’s rules are. You do know that the Banks accounts have not been signed off for at least the past 14 years because of rampant corruption and misuse of funds. You do know that a very large number of people are against the EU’s legal framework and the Lisbon Treaty. You do know that the contract contains a self amendment clause (Article 48) which will enable them to;

give the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an intergovernmental conference or a new Treaty. It is also unclear whether this ‘simplified revision procedure’ would be subject to a referendum.

These are some other things you do know, from the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre via Wise Up Journal (each point in explained in detail in the source article);

1. Lisbon makes the EU Constitution superior to the Irish Constitution in all areas of EU law.
2. Lisbon gives the EU the constitutional form of a supranational European Federal State and turns Ireland and the other Member States into regions or provinces of this Federation.
3. Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland.
4. Lisbon removes Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner.
5. Lisbon deprives the Irish Government of its right to decide who Ireland’s Commissioner would be when it comes to our turn to be on the Commission.
6. Lisbon gives the European Union the power to make laws in 32 new areas that are removed from the Dail and other National Parliaments.
7. Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to harmonising Ireland’s company taxes.
8. Lisbon gives the EU the power to decide our human and civil rights.
9. Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it.
10. Lisbon militarizes the EU further.

Finally, if you think you can just opt out of it afterwards, think again;

David Cameron yesterday said it would be “almost impossible” to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it was already law in the UK and the rest of the EU.

So, would you still sign that contract or refuse to do so until you can appreciate the number of changes it may make and what the effects of those changes could be on your life and that of your community?

Go Ireland!

* * UPDATES * *

Today’s male role models are Pathetic

Ever since feminism took its banker-funded place in the middle of society, women (and the media, pandering to them) have been busy trying to redefine men and masculinity.

That old chestnut ‘a real man would…’ tends to be used by a woman or metrosexual twit when they want to control your behaviour or thoughts. It is usually followed closely by them recommending an action that benefits them, and not you.

This article is preceded by the one about female role models, which are obviously worse. Judging by my research these ‘men’s mags’ aren’t far behind.

I was mainly prompted to write this article from a comment by Reality Seeker, and this article in the Daily Mail.

The return of real men: Ladies, get ready to meet Mr Retrosexual

Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn’t spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . .

So now men need books to be told how to be men apparently. Nice way of making money I guess, and going by the extracts of this book from the article, it is obviously meant to be taken as a comedy. Obviously.

If most men are like the ‘real man’ described below, we are truly fucked.

Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can’t help but admire. For example:

1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner’s hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.

Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.

2. You can make decisions on your own. You don’t need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.

3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.

Maybe this is marketed towards women (like almost everything else). Important things in life are sex, beer, football. Acquiring knowledge, fighting tyranny and working to make the world a better place are obviously soooo-twentieth century. Nowadays we should all just be consumers, oh and live our lives around pleasing modern women! (Point 4 and 5).

Hmm, being a man, you also have no idea how to treat women. The following points can be condensed by yours truly. Treat her as her deserves to be treated. Let’s see what a ‘real man’ is supposed to do.

1. When on a date, you pay – even if she offers. Don’t stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash – retrosexuals don’t use credit cards.

2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you’re proud of it.

3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast – and you do, obviously – you carve with manly precision and flair.

4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don’t try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There’s no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.

5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying ‘I love you’ or ‘I’m sorry, that’s never happened before’.

6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as ‘wedding’, ‘children’, or ‘meet my parents’, make your excuses and leave.

7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.

8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City – The Movie.

Sorry for wasting the few minutes of your time that it took to read points 1 to 7 (I agree with 8.) But this is what we are dealing with. Feel free to visit the article to read the rest. It doesn’t get any better. Firstly, this article comes across as nothing more than a silly little marketing ploy in order to sell books that are written to appeal to women who then buy them as presents for the males in their life, just like businesses market to children in order to get parents to part with their money. Secondly, the many attempts at redefining men over the decades all have something in common:

They all involve a move towards consumerism and materialism. Making men more feminine makes it easier to control them, instil fear and make money from them (including selling debt).

The number one website for Men’s Lifestyle is FHM.com

Funnily enough, I couldn’t find anything about tyranny, the Lisbon Treaty, our Bill of Rights, the nature of Fiat Currency, Cheap Credit = Expensive Debt, Marxism, Collectivism, The Dialectic etc on its many colourful pages. I guess these things just aren’t important eh. These lads mags are consumer bibles. Like little boys, obsessed with girls bodies (which I guess is better than their brains these days).

Of course, a few generations of broken homes where the boys are raised by single mothers has helped, as young men look about for a male role model to fill the vacuum left by feminism and find corporations and big government!

We are seeing an almost textbook example of the application of various psychopolitical mechanisms on our society.

The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about,through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree – The Soviet Art of Brain Washing

Our of sight, out of mind… Make Man feel like his species is animalistic, collectivist and devoid of hope and who will stop our enemies from conquering us? Not people like this.

Of course, part of the speaking out against such psychological warface (such as with this blog) must be dealt with accordingly, from the above document;

The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

The lack of good, strong male and female role models is part of the plan to undermine the resistance of a people. It also makes lots of money. It perpetuates bad behaviour and reliance on media. This enhances the effectiveness of the psychopolitical campaign. Further degraded and mentally shattered, the sheep consume in the hopes of it improving their lives, the reality of which is getting worse due to the tyranny and Treason of our government. This makes even MORE money. Money that can pumped into creating better adverts and subverting more leading figures to corporate fascism. And so on and so forth…

Co-habiting couples must split assets

… As if they were married, a court rules today.

Socialist Labours attack on male-female relationships just went up a gear.

Daily Mail

A man was yesterday ordered to sell his home and give his ex-partner half the proceeds – even though they aren’t married.

Carl Barron lived with Lynne Fowler for 17 years in the home where they raised their two children. But despite the fact that he paid for the mortgage, the Court of Appeal decided she is entitled to half of the £150,000 property.

Granted, both names were on the register for the home. He paid the deposit, the mortgage and the bills. She paid for family holidays, food and looking after the children.’

Still, was there some attempt to quantify her financial contributions to his?

When the couple split in 2005 Mr Barron was declared the ‘beneficial’ owner in a county court ruling.

Yesterday, however, Lady Justice Arden, and two other Appeal Court judges, overturned that decision.

The judge said the joint name registry was a deliberate choice and it must be legally presumed that ownership was equal.

Well I guess he shouldn’t have put her name on it, although I have a feeling the ex-wife could have still fought for and won a share of the assets anyway. It isn’t like pre-nups are worth anything in the UK, I have no reason to think this would be any different.

Here comes the double-standard.

A previous ruling at The House of Lords, however, came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In April last year five Law Lords ruled that a father of four was not entitled to half of the family home he had shared with his girlfriend of 20 years because she had contributed more money to buy it.

Hmm, this reveals that this father of four actually paid into the mortgage as opposed to this more recent case where the woman paid nothing at all. It seems the theoretical ’50/50′ only applies when women stand to gain. Sounds like standard feminist methodology to me.

If you are wondering how long you would have to be with the ‘live-in’ girlfriend before this comes into effect, you don’t have to wait twenty years.

A live-in partner would also be liable for compensation once the couple had lived together for more than two years.

The reforms are currently on hold while ministers investigate how much it will cost in legal aid.

Ah, additional (illegal) burdens on the taxpayer.

One in six couples living together are unmarried, 67 per cent more than ten years ago. This is expected to rise to one in four by 2031.

Makes it much easier for communism to flourish.

1) Turn churches into ideology-driven political clubs.

2) Replace genuine education with a dumbed down and politically correct curriculum.

3) Fashion the mass media into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesman.

4) Ridicule morality, decency, and age old virtues without respite.

5) Present the youth, not with heroic examples, but with aggressively degenerate behavioral models.

6) Attack the very building blocks of a moral society: attack marriage and family in order to subvert the social order

– Antonio Gramsci