One for the wenches…

WenchOver at The Guardian a lady writes about the phenomenon of ‘LADS’, as she puts it. Her complaints are regarding an online magazine where guys take the piss and call members of the opposite sex various names, like slut, wench, bitch etc. Now apart from the fact she name drops literally all of the magazines’ accounts (publicity cough) she (gently) berates these guys for being so disrespectful and laments that the site / community as she states in her byline:

sends a message to young girls that their role is clearly delineated – you’re worthless.

The irony of talking about feminism (she writes for a femrag called Vagenda) while assuming that guys are responsible for the esteem of these girls is typically insular, but the double standard of women claiming to be ‘independent / just as good as / better than‘ men when it suits them, only to expertly feign innocence, rocking one of their feet on its toe while playing with their hair when they don’t like the consequences of something is ancient man-knowledge, just like it is ancient woman-knowledge that it’ll most probably work on men. And they’re right. Grr. This takes a much darker turn when women lie about rape, but let’s keep this on a lighter note. She continues;

Those little feminist-baiting scamps are well-known for their lax grasp of the term sexual consent, not to mention their constant assertions that all women are “wenches” and “slags”.

Saying they have a lax grasp of the term implies they’re rapists, surely? I’m sure they know what sexual consent is. I would go so far to say, if they actually caught a guy raping a girl, they would probably beat the shit out of him. They’re just lads, not grooming-gang rapists, for that you’ll have to look to our imported Muslims (which funnily enough, feminists don’t seem to touch).

Also, many women are slags. Vacuous, fame worshipping talentless meat sacks. You just have to look at the billions of photos they take of themselves and their SELF imposed objectification, with their cleavage shots, gallons of makeup and bum-in-the-mirror shots. (Not that I’m complaining about that last one). This includes so-called celebrity women who are climbing over each other to act sluttier than the next publicity whore. Who are they pandering to? They’re already rich and famous. Oh right, they’re competing with EACH OTHER. Women responsible for the issues of women? Well I never!

Back to feminism. Women want to be treated equally to men do they not? If they are going to roll in men’s circles and peek into men’s communities they better toughen up and learn to give as good as they get. Not just roll over and cry, because you just encourage them as they smell blood (but not in a nasty vicious way like girls do to each other when bullying in the playground). So just take the jest like a man woman! The writer should listen to how (male) best mates talk to each other, about each other. Shit, she has no idea…

Now I would post an example but a: men already know and b: women don’t need to know. (Plus not telling them winds them up even more).

Any guy with a few notches under his belt knows that a woman is unlikely to be impressed with his ability to draw a giant knob in the sand using a supercar, let alone appreciate being called a “student slut” who he’d “do up the arse” to a chorus of “LAD!” from his mates.

Well if the guy has a supercar she will put up with it because that’s what wenches do, she’ll probably even take it up the arse if he’s rich enough. These guys are just saying what guys can think. Don’t fret, I’ve heard what women say about men and believe me they don’t slouch there!

She goes on to ask if this misogyny is just a phase. First, a definition;

Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.

And now, a question;

Would you create / join / contribute to a website dedicated to talking about / looking at pictures of / having sex with something you hate or dislike? That isn’t logical. But then she is female (feminist), even if she is a bit of a babe. I’d probably do her…

Oh sorry I’m objectifying.

She goes on to attempt to categorise this male behaviour (as if women don’t objectify men), not realising that this is a male thing full stop. It doesn’t belong to ‘middle class males’ or ‘maybe some working class’. Not all men talk about women like that but we do communicate about them in encrypted ways…

… Ever seen some hot wench in your office bending over and you catch a glance and then look around, only to see another guy look and then make eye contact at you? Then you both smile /snigger, do the man-nod and walk on?

Of course you have. If a bunch of guys outside a pub all watch some stunner strut by and afterwards you all just nod quietly to each other and sip your pint?

Indeed.

It’s normal. It’s in our DNA. What she doesn’t realise it that those ‘lads’ on that site are simply fascinated by women. So much so that they created an entire website about it. If any of these women actually tried to code a website they would begin to appreciate how much affection that actually entails. (Not the coding, which is mildly creative but mostly boring, I mean the motivation to do it).

Now, just because they aren’t fitting her and her ilks’ definition of how men should talk is utterly irrelevant. They don’t give a shit what women think, and they should they? They’re speaking with each other, they set the rules. That’s what happens when MGOTW. In a way this website is evidence of my interest in them. I do actually find women interesting, not in a study-breakthrough-in-science type of way, but in a ‘WTF how does that even make sense?’ way.

Of course, the other argument is that if women don’t like such sites, just don’t visit them. But although they won’t admit it, women are also fascinated by men, even feminists. We can’t get enough of each other.

I very much doubt those guys actually speak like that to women. You can just imagine them all cracking jokes about women to each other but as soon as a real woman talks to them they’d be on their best behaviour and she’ll probably have the dude around her little finger before he knows what hit him. But that’s what separates the LAD from the MAN.

As always, the problem with feminists is that they want women to have respect without having to earn it, but in this environment created by feminism, this new age of equaliteeeeee, men have simply put women in the same group that men put other men in and being men, the rules are simple and effective.

Earn my attention. Earn my respect. Earn my loyalty and then, and only then, will we have your back. And as long as you keep it up, we’ll have your back forever.

But seeing as you happen to be a hot chick, a few more pictures of DAT ASS wouldn’t go amiss…

x

Advertisements

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 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.

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

A Mothers Love…

Source: Daily Mail

A cannibal cult mother who tortured her son in a locked cellar while relatives skinned him and forced him to eat his own flesh has been jailed for nine years.

Klara Mauerova, 31 – a member of a sinister religious cult and her sister Katerina led the sickening torture of her eight-year-old son Ondrej and his ten year-old brother Jakub.

A court in Brno in Czech Republic heard how relatives partially skinned Ondrej and forced him to eat his own flesh.

The judge also jailed Katerina, 35, for ten years for her role in the sickening abuse.

The two boys had told judges how their mother and relatives had stubbed cigarettes out on their bare skin, whipped them with belts, and tried to drown them. They were also sexually abused and forced to cut themselves with knives.

The terrified youngsters said they were kept in cages or handcuffed to tables and made to stand in their own urine for days.

The sick sisters – both members of weird religious cult the Grail Movement – refused to reveal why they tortured the brothers.

But state prosecutor Zuzana Zamoravcova said: ‘Their aim was to make the boys blindly serve their religious goals.’

Judge Pavel Goth said as he sentenced the women: ‘Their aim was to create a person with a completely broken will. Ondrej and Jakub were repeatedly psychologically and physically tyrannised and held in locked rooms.’

Sounds like amateurs from the MKULTRA program. This is fucking sick beyond belief. Humans are such fucking animals. Scum.

Another defendant, 34-year-old Barbora Skrlova, was also jailed for five years for her part in the torture. Three others who took part in the abuse were also given jail terms.

Hana Basova, 28, and Jan Skrla, 25, were sentenced to seven years each while another man, Jan Turek, was jailed for five years.

Skrlova had posed as an innocent 13-year-old girl when police arrived to free the boys. She later ran away to Norway but was traced earlier this year by Czech police who brought her back to face trial.

Mauerova at first admitted abusing her children but she said she had been manipulated by her sister Katerina and Skrlova.

All three of them had been part of the Grail Movement cult which claims to have hundreds of followers in Britain as well as tens of thousands of others world wide.

The sick abuse was discovered when a neighbour installed a TV baby monitor to keep watch on his new daughter.

But it picked up the signal from an identical monitor next door showing one of the victims beaten, naked and chained in a cellar.

Mauerova had installed it so she could gloat over her victims’ suffering from the comfort of her kitchen.

The defendants are expected to launch an appeal.

Really long sentences, don’t you think?

Ex-wife wins £50,000 maintenance, for her HORSES.

Source: Daily Mail

A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.

They also ruled she should be given a lump sum of £900,000 from her ex-husband, a banker in the City, to allow her to buy a house with enough land for the animals.

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.

Somebody fucking shoot me.

The talented rider’s annual package came to £80,000, including the £50,000 for her three animals which the court heard were almost a child substitute.

Oh fuck off you childish bitch. I guess this female is incapable of providing the upkeep for these horses from her own back. She chooses, he pays. And people wonder why marriage rates are falling through the floor.

The couple, who live in Gloucestershire, had been married for 11 years but had no children after she lost a baby in 2001.

‘During the marriage the horses played a major part in the wife’s life with the consent and encouragement of the husband,’ Britain’s most senior family judge Sir Mark Potter said.

So what’s the message then? Don’t consent to your wife doing anything can she could use against you in divorce? Oh wait, you can’t do that, that would be OPPRESSING the poor, weak, female. Wait, I thought women were equal to men? Guess that’s another flip flop they can do when it suits them.

The animals became even more important after they lost their baby and in 2004, her husband gave her a foal to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary, the court heard.

She had bought the other two herself with £20,000 from a personal inheritance and loved eventing them.

However, when the couple split up, her husband argued the horses were an unnecessary luxury and that she should keep one and put it into livery.

The appeal judges disagreed and upheld the original award made by District Judge Michael Segal in the county court last May.

Of course they did. Reading this article, one gets the feeling of a spoilt child arguing for the man to continue to pay for her little treats, as if he is obligated to her after divorce. For how long? Until she says so? What does she have to do in return? That’s right, FUCK ALL.

He held that the wife’s talent and obvious love for her horses had been prominent throughout their lives together.

She had given up her part-time job in a financial company after they married while her husband carried on working in the City.

A woman working part-time in the City? Well I never. I know this story well. A part timer bitch who shacks up with a banker, immediately quits her job (probably the bloody reason she went for a job in ‘finance’ anyway) and does the ‘i love you’ scam for the required length of time. Beats having to earn a living eh…

Judge Segal said: ‘In any event, the wife does not want a 9-to-5 job, because this would not give her enough time with her horses. I am not qualified to say whether or not it is because she has no children that she is so devoted to her horses.’

I don’t believe this. The Judge is making excuses for this entitlement bitch. She doesn’t want to do a full time job because of her horses? What the FUCK does that have to do with the husband, who was probably pulling 50 hour weeks in the City to fund her self-indulgent lifestyle. It’s HER choice, her action, so she should be responsible for that. Anything the ex-husband gave her should be appreciated for what it was. Which is now over.

The wife had said: ‘Horses are my family. I see them every day. You form a very close bond with horses.’

Mr Justice Potter agreed she should not be expected to work full-time at the cost of her horses and eventing because the hobby had been such a big part of their lives.

Barbara Simpson, head of family law at Boodle Hatfield and a deputy district judge in the family courts, warned the ruling would have far-reaching consequences

<!– function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&&sectionName=BusinessLaw’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=1000,height=711′); } //–>

‘One could easily envisage a scenario where, for example, the wife had a particular interest in breeding spaniels and entered them in local dog shows,’ she told The Times.

‘If there was enough money in the divorce pot, it is not inconceivable that she would be awarded money in order to buy a property with kennels or maintenance to cover the costs of the vet’s bills or doggy treats.’

That’s another 50,000 men saying no to marriage, then.

Sienna Miller in desperate bid to win back billionaire oil heir lover

I guess she doesn’t realise her sh*t stinks after all. This behaviour reminds of the twisted self-interested morality of such women. What is right or wrong is not defined by social rules and expectations (external things), but by what she does and does not want (internal).

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

Looks like Miller Time is over lol

Looks like Miller Time is over lol

Sienna Miller is said to be ‘devastated’ after her married lover ran home to his wife and four children.

Sienna, 26, has been furiously calling and texting oil fortune heir Balthazar Getty after learning he had returned to Los Angeles to attempt a reconciliation with his wife, Rosetta.

A source said: ‘Sienna and Balthazar were in New York for a few days together and then he told her he was going to LA to work and see his kids. But the reality is he is desperately trying to get back with his wife.

‘He realises he’s made a terrible mistake. He is trying to keep Sienna at arm’s length and hasn’t told her it is over yet so she is going frantic.

‘She has been calling and texting him constantly and is planning to go to LA herself as she believes she can win him back if they have a face-to-face meeting.

‘She’s devastated that he has distanced himself from her both emotionally and geographically.’

Obviously this Sienna Miller has absolutely no regard nor respect for the family of this man. That doesn’t matter. It is about what she wants. That wife and children? Mere obstacles in the pursuit of a billionaire.

According to a producer friend of 33-year-old Getty – a former drug addict and alcoholic who is receiving counselling – he has definitely dropped Sienna.

The producer said: ‘Balthazar and Sienna seemed infatuated with each other when they were in New York last week but I heard the reason the whole Sienna fling happened was because he fell off the wagon.

Very rich man, fallen back onto drugs, so possibly vunerable. Sounds like MILLER TIME!

‘As soon as Balthy arrived back in LA on Monday he started pleading with his wife to take him back. He told me he’d gone to their house but she wouldn’t let him in. He stood outside crying.’

The producer said: ‘He came back to a hotel and was on the phone to Rosetta on and off for two hours, crying and constantly calling and she finally agreed to let him back in the house.

‘In his mind he has definitely dropped Sienna but he’s in a very confused state at the moment. His biggest fear is losing his kids.’ Continue reading

Mother killed 5 year old son to spite ex

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

An evil mother driven by rage and jealousy killed her five-year-old son to spite his father, a horrified coroner heard yesterday.

Emma Hart, 27, force-fed Lewis Dangerfield a lethal cocktail of painkillers and antidepressants at their home, then fled to her mother’s flat nearby and ended her own life by slashing her wrists.

In a note to Lewis’s father, Shaun Dangerfield, which she left by the boy’s body, she wrote: ‘I told you I would make you pay, enjoy your life now, nothing is stopping you, ha ha ha. Just remember it’s all your fault.’

Coroner Robin Balmain described the case as the most distressing he had ever dealt with in 25 years of inquests. ‘I can’t imagine something quite so evil as a mother who is prepared to do that.

‘Her actions were simply spite  –  she was prepared to kill her son to spite Mr Dangerfield. I find it difficult to believe how anybody could do that.’

He added that he had heard no evidence to justify any criticism of Mr Dangerfield  –  not even from Hart’s family.

‘He has done everything he possibly could to fulfil his obligations to his little boy.

‘She couldn’t get her way and maybe she was driven by jealousy. She was prepared not only to kill herself but to do something that quite frankly, beggars belief.

He said: ‘Emma Hart left a note which was severely critical of Mr Dangerfield. I have heard no evidence to justify that view.

The coroner added that Hart was driven by ‘rage and hatred if she did not get her own way’ and was prepared to lie about her medical condition to Mr Dangerfield  –  as well as friends and her own family  –  ‘to get control’ over him.

Relatives of Hart, including her mother, father, two brothers and two sisters, were all present at the inquest and frequently broke into tears.

Her mother told the inquest: ‘She is not a horrible person, she was a loving mum.’

Only another women could be so fucking stupid and try defending this evil selfish spiteful piece of shit.

Wife poisons husband THREE times, poor woman.

Seems like stories of women poisoning their boyfriends/ husbands pops up every week.

Source: Daily Mail

A businesswoman tried to poison her husband on three occasions in an attempt to make him confess to having an affair.

Linda Lees, 45, twice put poison in his takeaway after their 23-year marriage collapsed.

Detectives say Mrs Lees suspected the 43-year-old Navy avionics lecturer of being unfaithful, and administered a toxin to try to coax him into admitting his infidelity.

She is said to have made the repeated attempts, despite having a long-term affair with a neighbour herself.

Police, who said Mr Lees had been having an affair, are still waiting to find out what drugs she used in the last attack.

How do they know?

But they believe they may have been those prescribed for her own depression. They are investigating if she may also have used the date rape drug GHB.

At Truro Crown Court, Lees – the manager of a car rental company – admitted administering a noxious substance with intent to injure her husband, who is based in
Portsmouth, on three occasions.

The first was at her home in Cornwall when he visited for a weekend in March.

The second was at a restaurant in Exeter, where they met to try to save their marriage the next month.

On that occasion Mrs Lees went to the toilet and stopped a waiter to ask if she could put a ring into her husband’s food as a surprise. But she then slipped poison into it and calmly watched as he ate his meal. Finally, she poisoned him again ten days ago after Mr Lees travelled to their marital home in Helston.

They had been due to spend a last weekend together walking the Cornish coast.

The pair ordered a Chinese takeaway and again Lees put drugs into it. She then took him for a drive.

By the time they returned, he was severely drowsy. He drank from a bottle of water in the car – but his wife had placed another strong dose of drugs in it. Mr Lees managed to escape the car and let himself into the house.

Lees left him there semi-conscious and went to her lover to confess to the poisoning before returning to the garage, where she tried to take her own life. 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

Sienna Miller discovers that her sh*t stinks

Terrible, a selfish little woman experiencing accountability. She did it for the lulz?

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

I prefer other womens men myself...

I prefer other women's men myself...

Just a fortnight ago, she was pictured frolicking topless on a yacht with her new multi-millionaire actor boyfriend, but Sienna Miller has spent the past week in hiding after being snubbed by friends on both sides of the Atlantic.

For those who don’t know, she dumped former boyfriend Rhys Ifans, slept about and eventually ran off with married multi-millionaire family man, Balthazar Getty, causing untold grief and upset to his family, although he isn’t exactly innocent either.

The 26-year-old actress, who has been nicknamed ‘Sluttyienna’ and ‘Serial Miller’ because of her increasingly long list of lovers, has fled to New York – where her father, banker Ed Miller, lives – to escape the backlash over her affair with Balthazar Getty, 33, I can report.

Sources close to the GI Joe star say she has been ‘stunned’ by the fallout since her affair with the married father of four was revealed.

What is there to be surprised about? She targeted a married man. She’s been sleeping around with men like she’s on commission. People call her a slut, because she’s acting like a slut. I guess these little princesses aren’t used to being criticised for anything. Stunned. Idiot.

Sienna has told friends she plans to keep a low profile for the rest of this summer.

Run rabbit run. Continue reading

Record numbers of women are having two or more abortions – UK

Source: Daily Mail

Record numbers of women are having two or more abortions, fuelling fears that they are increasingly seen as an alternative to contraception.

One third of terminations are carried out on women who have had at least one before  –  and some have had eight or more.

Some girls are on their fourth abortion before they reach 18, figures from the Department of Health show.

Girl power. Feminists must be proud.

The statistics have emerged as MPs consider relaxing the abortion laws to make the procedure easier to obtain.

Pro-life MPs and campaigners said it was clear that abortion is already available on demand.

In 2007, 64,230 abortions were carried out on women who had at least one before  –  a 12 per cent rise in four years.

Of these, 49,484 were having their second termination, 11,136 were on their third and 2,605 having number four.

Fifty-two notched up abortion number seven last year, and 29 were on at least number eight.

The number of under-18s undergoing repeat abortions is also on the rise, increasing from 1,446 in 2006 to 1,465 last year  –  or almost 30 a week.

Thirteen girls under 18 were among the group of women who were having at least their fourth abortion.

Repeat abortions were most common among women aged 18-24, suggesting the procedure is seen as an easy way out by those who become pregnant at university or while starting their careers.

Hmm, how about Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record Number of Abortions

Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who earlier this year spearheaded a campaign to cut the abortion time limit, said: ‘The figures show very clearly that for some, easy access to abortion has fostered a careless attitude to contraception and has itself become a form of contraception when required.’

Citing research which showed having an abortion raises the risk of mental health problems later in life, she said: ‘Young women have the right to know the consequences of abortion, particularly repeat abortions.’

Abortions are carried out in two ways. Early pregnancies can be ended by taking two miscarriage-triggering drugs over a 48-hour period.

Women also have the choice of a ‘surgical’ abortion, in which the unborn baby is suctioned or scraped out of the womb under anaesthetic.

Both techniques can also be used late in pregnancy  –  but will be preceded with a lethal injection into the baby’s heart.

But Dr Kate Worsley, of Marie Stopes International, which carries out around a third of UK abortions, said it was ‘ ludicrous’ to suggest women viewed abortion as a form of contraception.

‘Whether or not to have an abortion can be one of the most difficult decisions a woman has to make,’ she said. ‘No woman undergoes such a serious procedure lightly.’

Well of course she is going to say that, her company gets paid performing abortions. Ripping out your babies and throwing them in the rubbish bin puts food on their table. I wonder if repeaters get a discount from the taxpayer (who pays, as always.)

The more I have researched abortions, ‘family planning clinics’ and the like, the more I have turned against them. We all know the rules. If you don’t want children, use protection or better yet, don’t have sex. Simple really. But as is usually the case when you remove the consequences of a particular behaviour, incidences of that behaviour will increase if it appeals to a persons instincts. The promotion of abortions is done purely for reducing the worlds population, not because of ‘overpopulation’, a myth I have written about here, but because less people are easier to enslave.

In fact, all of those extra babies would go a long way to balancing our our birth rate, which is currently way below replacement rates, something that always happens with societies that adopt feminism. This conveniently encourages the Government to encourage immigration from other countries, including ones with diametrically opposed cultures and religions. These in turn create ghettos in the host nation, creating social disharmony. But bad news for the People usually means good news for the Police State.

FULL ABORTIONS SHOWN ON SPANISH TELEVISION – FIRST IN HISTORY

Right to choose

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…

Life under a feminist mother, by her daughter

The full version can be found at the source site. I will post a shorter version here.

Daily Mail

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: ‘Mummy, Mummy.’

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother  –  thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late  –  I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother’s feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn’t even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven’t seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son  –  her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world  –  goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it’s time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I’m told they even made me walk down the street to the school.

Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter

When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds  –  my father’s very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother’s avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent  –  a bizarre way of doing things.

Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa  –  offering herself up as a mother figure.

But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities  –  after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

My mother would always do what she wanted  –  for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?

I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me  –  a ‘delightful distraction’, but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio  –  some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

What about the children?

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn’t take into account the toll on children. That’s all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: ‘I’d like a child. If it happens, it happens.’ I tell them: ‘Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.’ As I know only too well.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them  –  as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters  –  a happy family.

The full version can be read here.

Makes you wonder. Feminists speak of ‘freeing’ women from men but according to feminists, women should only be free to do what the feminists command. Not only does that sound like a form of totalitarianism, but it tends to result in women actually having less options than they had before feminism. The results of feminism are obvious; broken homes, constantly denigrated men (thus forcing men to reject such bitter women), sky rocketing abortion rates, women seeing their own positives as negatives (maternity) and more.

These are not hard to extend into modern society with a little thought. As an example;

Feral girls come from single mother homes (so do most criminals) > lack of education > alcohol abuse > teenage sex with random boys > more pregnancies > more abortions > more depression > more problems with self-image and self-worth > consumerism > denial of instincts/ joining the rat race > find men not really interested in such females > no children > more consumerism > death.

I really can’t see any benefit of feminism at all.

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

Single Women More Likely Than Single Men to Own a House

Albany Times Union

TROY, N.Y. – Three years ago, Cherie Clark bought a home overlooking Troy’s Washington Park. The building was a mess, she says, and the responsibility of owning alone can be daunting. But she doesn’t regret the decision. “I like the idea of owning this house and being able to do what I want.”

Many single women agree.

Uh huh…

So much so that they now account for 27 percent of the nation’s first-time home buyers, according to the National Association of Realtors, and 21 percent of home buyers overall – more than double the rate of 20 years ago.

Single men, meanwhile, account for just 9 percent of home buyers, the same percentage as 20 years ago.

Buying a house in my book means paying cash, in total, for the full value of the house. Otherwise they mean mortgages.

Rising homeownership rates among single women reflect much- discussed societal changes: Americans are more likely to marry later and often divorce when they do. And women are earning more than ever before.

The Greater Capital Association of Realtors Inc., an Albany- based trade group that keeps data on home sales and prices, doesn’t track local home-buyer patterns. But its executive director, James Ader, points out that as recently as the 1970s single women had trouble obtaining a home loan.

“As that’s become more fair and equal, women have bought more,” he said.

A home loan. Long term debt. I’m not sure on the lengths of home loans in the States, but they frequently reach into the decades in the UK. Do these women realise they have to be working for a long time to pay that mortgage off, or are they expecting to meet a guy on a whim, ‘settle down’ and have him pay off the rest while she decides she wants to be a mum all of a sudden? Continue reading

Families in meltdown, judge says

What people like me have been saying for ages.

A senior family court judge has hit out at the government over what he says is an “epidemic” of family failure that will have “catastrophic” effects.

In a speech, Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge for England and Wales, warned the results could be as destructive as global warming.

In a speech in Brighton to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, the judge warned of a “cancerous” increase in broken families and said the government must take “comprehensive action”.

The judge said those who witnessed the goings-on inside family courts would be aware of it being a “never ending carnival of human misery – a ceaseless river of human distress”.

Mr Justice Coleridge said the collapse of family life is at a scale and severity that would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago.

This can be attributed directly to feminism and the socialist/ communist elements of government that adopted that evil ideology, in the quest for ever increasing control over individuals. As is usually the case with these ideologies, their theory doesn’t fit with reality.

Feminism as you should know by now, hates the nuclear family.

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 Continue reading

It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men

So says the Minister for Equality, Harriet (Feminist/ Communist Scum) Harman.

White men could be legally blocked from getting jobs under new anti-discrimination laws being considered by Labour.

Employers would be able to give jobs to women or ethnic minority candidates in preference to other applicants, under the plans unveiled by equalities minister Harriet Harman.

If two candidates were equally qualified for a position, employers would be able to reject the white person or the man in favour of a black person or a woman.

When they say black person, they actually mean non-white, as this fucking scum of a government, in its never ending quest for division and conflict, keeps trying to separate the people into groups, which they can then set into opposition.

Miss Harman – known as Harriet Harperson for her politically correct views – wants to look at how to bring U.S.-style “positive action” to Britain, saying it is vital to ensure the workforce more accurately reflects the demographic make-up of the population.

She says too many women and people from ethnic minorities are being held back because they cannot break through the “glass ceiling”.

Who let this stupid bitch into Westminster? Oh yeah, Gordon Brown. These commie-femcunts are obsessed with attacking the main demographic of western countries. Disenfranchise them, and the country is yours… Continue reading