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

Breaking footage! Women’s Only Vehicle Tunnel Opens…

After the mess the women made of the Women’s Only Car Park, engineers, psychologists and other experts from around the world convened to learn from that event. They isolated themselves in an underground base and worked tirelessly for a solution. A solution that enabled wimmin’s rights groups to have resources allocated purely for them, while denying the same for the men as that would be inequaliteeee.

Eventually, the worlds brightest female minds (takes one to know one right) developed the Women’s Only Traffic Tunnel. Leading from the Mall to their women’s only community (in a straight line because we all know women don’t understand angles), this tunnel would prevent evil men from being responsible for all the failures of women.

They even filmed it!

Enjoy the efficiency of women’s driving.

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’

Must… fight… global… warming… (even if it doesn’t exist)

Somebody explain this to me.

Source: BBC

The UK’s Royal Society is to investigate whether ambitious engineering schemes could reduce the impact of global warming.

Several “geo-engineering” schemes have been proposed including putting mirrors into space and iron filings in oceans.

The society says these must be properly assessed – however fantastical.

But environmental groups warn that technological solutions should not divert attention away from reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.

No, everything must be done, even if it involves the extraction of trillions of pounds of wealth from us commoners, to fight global warming, as the article states. I mean, after all these years of propaganda, calling it fighting climate change sounds fucking idiotic. Like humans can control the planets’ climate. No, it’s global warming. Maybe someone should send them these articles…

There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Global Cooling? [1998-2005 data shows cooling trend]
Global cooling: the new kid on the block
Sun Spot Cycle Prompts Fears of Global Cooling
Is There Global Cooling?
National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

It took me about one minute to pull all of those links up. One fucking minute. I guess the climate change/ carbon tax industry is too big a cash cow to just let go. I mean, you can’t monopolise the ‘solution’ when people don’t believe there is a ‘problem’ to solve.

Although most don’t believe the official theory (where have I heard that before).

Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.

Man sleeps with 12 year old girl, thought she was 19

Source: Daily Mail

A man who admitted raping a 12-year-old schoolgirl walked free from court after convincing a judge she tricked him into believing she was an adult.

Barman Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website.

She had posted pictures of herself on the site and her web profile said she was a 19-year-old college student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.

The girl was inundated with offers from admiring men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.

They arranged to meet and went to Graham’s flat where they watched television, drunk vodka and beer and smoked skunk cannabis, the court heard Graham and the girl had ‘consensual sex’ four times during the overnight stay, but he admitted four counts of rape because legally a child under 13 cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult.

Well she obviously bloody did consent didn’t she? Not only was she willing, she sought him out, and what does smoking skunk have to do with this? She obviously consented to that too. I guess the author thought they could attack the drug through association while they are at it.

The girl’s parents thought she was staying overnight at a friend’s house and called police when she didn’t return home the next day.

She picked up a morning after pill after leaving the flat at 5pm and by the time she got home her parents had found her incriminating website on the family computer and she admitted the truth.

After hearing the full background the judge took a sympathetic view towards Graham and gave him a 12-month conditional discharge.

Judge Jennifer Kershaw, QC, said there was a ‘striking’ contrast between how the girl looked in school uniform while giving video evidence to police and the image she used of herself on her personal website.

Explaining the sentence to the court, she said:’I accept the defendant did not know how old this girl was. I accept he did not know she was under the age of 16, still less did he know she was in fact 12.

Once upon a time a man could reasonably guess a female’s age. Now, with the proliferation of make-up, provocative clothes, young people being used sexually as models etc, the lines have blurred.

‘It seems to me that this defendant was deceived. He was deceived in a number of material respects, both beforehand and during their encounter. Continue reading

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.. Continue reading

Exhibit of lifetime pill consumption – British Museum

Yesterday I visited the British Museum. Amongst the many great exhibits was ‘Cradle to Grave by Pharmacopoeia’, in the Living and Dying section of the building. This is a static visual exhibit showing the average number of pills a human takes over their lifetime.

From the exhibit description;

Cradle to Grave explores our approach to health in Britain today. The piece incorporates a lifetime supply of prescribed drugs knitted into two lengths of fabric, illustrating the medical stories of one woman and one man.

Each length contains over 14,000 drugs, the estimated average prescribed to every person in Britain in their lifetime. This does not include pills we might buy over the counter, which would require about 40,000 pills each.

Some of the treatments are common to both: each starts at birth with an injection of vitamin K and immunizations, and both take antibiotics and painkillers at various times. Other treatments are more specific. The woman takes contraceptive pills, and hormone replacement therapy in middle age. The man has asthma and hay fever when young, but enjoys good health until his fifties. He finally stops smoking after a bad chest infection when he is seventy. He is treated for high blood pressure for the last ten years of his life and has a heart attack and dies of a stroke in his seventies. He takes as many pills in the last ten years of his life as in the first sixty-six.

Cradle to Grave also contains family photographs and other personal objects and documents. The captions, written by the owners, trace typical events in people’s lives. These show that maintaining a sense of well-being is more complex than just treating episodes of illness.

Pharmacopoeia are Susie Freeman, Dr Liz Lee and David Critchley.

Continue reading

Girls of today, post-feminism

I scooped this off of some females’ Myspace. Thought it sums up the current generation of young girls pretty well.

All feminism did (apart from openly attack men and masculinity) is de-evolve women into spoilt selfish little brats. Anything they don’t like doing is oppressive, wanting anything and doing whatever they like to get it is girl power, and when guys say ‘I’m not interested in girls like you.’ What do they say?

That’s right, you’re afraid of ‘strong women’. Hahaha. No, it is just that men usually know a bum deal when they see it. Shacking up with a girl with these attitude problems is like putting your life savings on a blind, three legged horse in the Grand National.

What’s the point? Just keep your appendage in your pants until you bump into one that has a brain. I know too many men that have fallen by the claws of these crazy self-centered, lazy, stupid bitches.

Just thought I’d say that.

Oh boy.

More ‘professional’ women stripping for credibility

Ah feminism. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. There really isn’t anything new to see here. It’s the same old story of women who feel the need to objectify themselves with the intent of giving more ‘credibility’ to their profession. Why do women believe that to gain respect from a group, they must paradoxically objectify themselves? Maybe it’s because posing is easier than hard work. Female logic sure is a strange thing.

Source: Daily Mail

As she reclines in a skimpy camisole, the look is definitely sexy rather than sporty.

But Johanna Head still wants to be known more for her golf shots than her camera shots.

She is a great British hope at the Women’s Open which started yesterday at Sunningdale in Berkshire  –  and is being billed as one of golf ‘s answers to former tennis starlet Anna Kournikova.

Which would explain her modelling at the first opportunity. Anna Kournikova made much more money posing than playing anyway.

Ahead of the tournament, the 35-year- old from Ascot signed up for a glamorous photoshoot with several other female golfers in an attempt to change the face of the ‘dowdy’ sport.

It’s golf, not oil wrestling. What makes them think they can change the face of a sport just by getting pictures taken? How special do girls think they are these days? I’m sure fans of the sport would appreciate it much more if these girls just got down to business and played amazing golf, on the level that the men play it.

Yeah, I laughed too.

Fellow team member Kim Hall said: ‘I would rather be known for my golf, but it’s a bonus when you are considered attractive. Nobody in the group wants to be Kournikova. We’re in the limelight so we’re going to do that playing golf, not standing around looking glamorous.’

Say no more. I won’t add pictures. Visit the Daily Mail if you must have a butchers.

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

The Girls Who ‘Aspire’ To Be Glamour Models?

Don’t look to these empowered females to help us change the world… A culture of children who aspire, not to be adults of intelligence and substance that can add to the knowledge of humanity, the fight for freedom or the richness of art.

They just want to be ‘famous’, whatever that is.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extracts)

Yes, they are both 13 years old.

Most people find it hard to believe that Amy Lewis is 13. At first glance, it’s not hard to see why. The excessively coiffed hair, the spray tan, the false eyelashes, the make-up, the talon-like acrylic nails, all speak of someone far older.

Amy, of course, is rather pleased with this state of affairs. Her idol is glamour model and reality TV star Jordan (real name Katie Price) a pneumatic-chested mother-of-three who, as we shall see, has developed a grip on the minds of the nation’s young teenage girls.

Charity administrator’s daughter Natalie Halls is just 14, but as she says of Jordan: ‘She’s really pretty, she’s got a handsome husband, three kids, loads of houses and money  –  that’s why I want to be like her.

‘She’s got the perfect life  –  a career in modelling and on TV, plus books and other things. And she’s always in magazines looking pretty.’

So how did it come to this? That an entire generation of intelligent young women, watched happily by their mothers, are modelling themselves on a woman who has made a career out of a pair of inflated breasts, a ruthlessly stagemanaged career in soft porn and a tumultuous and highly sexual relationship with her husband, singer Peter Andre  –  not to mention her forays into the literary world.

Social commentators say that self-made multimillionaire Katie Price, who has successfully marketed herself as a brand, is viewed by many young women as a feminist icon.

No, really? So ‘girl power’ actually leads to women CHOOSING to turn themselves into sex objects for money.

Take, for example, this extract from her novel, Crystal: ‘Crystal didn’t care that he might think she was easy or a slag. She just wanted him and it felt so right.’

Or from her latest novel, Angel Uncovered, which is published today: ‘She kissed him hard, digging her nails into his back. “Go on,” she said, “**** me. Then you’ll have what you want and I can go to sleep.” ‘

These, it is safe to say, are exactly the kinds of book which are going to be devoured by teenagers who have also pored over her two best-selling autobiographies.

Speaking with a candour that fails to mask her naivety, 13-year-old Amy says: ‘I think that to be successful these days you have to make yourself stand out, and having a boob job and wearing lots of make-up and sexy clothes gets you noticed. I quite enjoy school, but I’d like to leave and start modelling as soon as I can.’

It is clear, too, that, bombarded by celebrity images in magazines and on television, young girls are being indoctrinated from a young age.

‘I have been mad about clothes, hair and make-up from the age of eight,’ says Amy, who has had a boyfriend for the past nine months.

‘I read OK! and Heat magazine and I model the way I look on the celebrities in there. I put on lots of make-up, have my hair done by Mum at least once a month and Mum also pays for me to have spray tans. I also have my acrylic nails done every month, and Mum gives me facials.

‘When I am getting ready to go out, I spend loads of time on my face and hair, getting my look just right. I also love to put on false eyelashes, and I know that I turn heads when I walk down the street. Often, people are really amazed that I am only 13.

‘I am desperate to have a boob job like Jordan, and both Mum and I are saving up. I have read all of Jordan’s books, and I love her style.

‘My ultimate aim is to be a glamour model, which is why I want a breast enlargement. I don’t think I am too young to look the way I do.’

The story only gets worse. Why do these mothers allow their daughters to behave in such ways? Simple, they are using their daughters to try and live a different lifestyle through. This ‘career’ choice revolves simply around themselves. Attention, money, attention. Oh, and attention. They want to be in magazines and have other girls bitching about them. They want the paps to follow them around. They look up to the celebrities the media gives them. The Paris Hilton’s and Jordan’s of society are trumpeted by corporate media as the ‘new woman’, the same way that spineless effeminate males are pushed as the ‘new man’. No accident I’m sure. The power of the media to define identity is one of the reasons that these girls aspire to such mediocrity. If the media wasn’t a cancerous pile of crap, desperately trying to keep the population mindlessly consuming and following the party line then maybe these children would aspire to be mathematicians, engineers, philosphers, artists.

I hate television, I hate the corporate media, I hate empty headed people. Like automatons, willing to be programmed by the media when those in power wish for them to behave differently.

Fuck em, I hope they go to the FEMA Camps.

Television: Opiate of the Masses

Father branded a ‘pervert’ – for photographing his own children in public park

Source: Daily Mail

When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

‘This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society-is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.’

Father- of-three Mr Crutchley, a consultant for a rubber manufacturer from Walsall, West Midlands, was with his wife Tracey and their sons when the pleasant Sunday afternoon out turned sour.

He said: ‘The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop.

‘When I asked why, she told me I could not take pictures of other people’s children. I explained I was only interested in taking photos of my own children and pointed out that this was taking place in a public park.

‘I showed her the photos I had taken to prove my point. Then another woman joined in and said her child was also on the slide and did not want me taking pictures of the youngster.

‘I repeated that the only people being being photographed were my own children. She said I could be taking pictures of just any child to put on the internet and called me a pervert. We immediately left the show.’

Mrs Crutchley, 37, a teaching support assistant and qualified nursery nurse, said: ‘I was shocked by the reaction of those women.

‘It is very sad when every man with a camera enjoying a Sunday afternoon out in the park with his children is automatically assumed to be a pervert.’

The slide was run by Tracey Dukes, 35, whose father Malcolm Gwinnett has an inflatables hire company.

Mr Gwinnett, 58, a LibDem councillor in Wolverhampton, said: ‘Our policy is to ask people taking photos whether they have children on the slide. If they do, then that is fine.

‘But on this occasion another customer took exception to what the man was doing and an argument developed between those two people that continued without any further involvement from staff on the slide.’

This just proves to me how easy it is to manipulate women (via the media), especially when it involves attacking men, something way too many of them are only too happy to do at the slightest excuse. Put a group of women together and the hate multiplies exponentially. This hate campaign against men has gotten to the point where they are afraid to help a child in need, even if their life is in danger, lest they be attacked by seething hordes of media-obsessed sheep women.

Also take note of the social engineering here, turn women against men, sow seeds of mistrust, everyone is out to get you! Give the government your freedoms and it will protect you from the bogeyman! Bloody sheep.

Woman has had SEVEN abortions – Still blames everyone else.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

Among the throng of women who gather outside the school gates each day, Angela Simmons is every inch the archetypal middle-class mother, fussing over her seven-year-old son Ben and ferrying him between after-school clubs and play dates.

Certainly nobody would guess that the 39-year-old former estate agent is one of around 50 women each year in the UK to have notched up her seventh abortion.

Government statistics released this week show that record numbers of women are having two or more abortions  –  and those who do so are not, as might be expected, young teenagers who don’t know any better.

‘Looking back, there was a definitive reason why I had each termination and a valid reason why I felt at the time I could not even have begun to contemplate continuing with each of the pregnancies,’ says Angela.

Bullsh*t. Valid reasons seven times? Yeah, me me me me me me me.

Perhaps the most astonishing revelation of all is Angela’s insistence: ‘I do not really regret any of my abortions.’

Or the admission that she also came close to aborting her son Ben and changed her mind only when her then partner, Patrick, begged her not to go through with it.

Certainly, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that her relationship with Ben’s father broke up six years ago amid bitter recrimination over the two abortions she had against Patrick’s wishes either side of their son’s birth.

As we all know, men have no choice when it comes to reproduction. Whatever the woman says, goes.

And yet sadly, Angela’s grim story is not unique. This week’s figures released by Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo reveal how many modern women are using abortion, not as a last resort, but almost as a form of contraception.

Statistics show that last year 1,300 women had at least their fifth abortion.

So this is what those serial killer women meant by ‘choice’, and I’m sure every single one of them has everyone else to blame.

There are fears too about the emotional toll that multiple abortions may be taking on such women.

This week the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that women may be at risk of mental breakdowns if they have abortions  –  something which, as we shall see, is borne out by Angela’s story  –  and should not be allowed one unless they are properly counselled about this potential risk.

Poor women. What about the morality of all of these abortions? Or does ‘choice’ trump ‘life’ when it comes to women these days? Here come the excuses.

Angela, a single mother from Bristol, insists she never used abortion as a form of contraception and was merely ‘unlucky’. But seven times unlucky is perhaps stretching the bounds of credibility.

‘I have always used contraception properly,’ she insists.

Sorry, just gotten a bit thirsty, just going to have a swig of my drink… That’s better, shall we continue?

‘The reason why I had so many abortions is that I didn’t want to bring a child into the world unless my situation was perfect  –  but it never was.

And she must have known her situation wasn’t perfect before jumping on a man’s penis? And so proceeds a bunch of paragraphs charting her bad choices in men and her excuses for having an abortion (on top of the ‘it was an accident’ one). Where she begins by saying she got the babies killed because ‘the man didn’t want it’ . She then meets a guy who does want the child, and guess what? She aborts it anyway, for another reason. You get the idea. You should read the original article to see just how bad it is. I’m going to skip to the end.

that neither her man nor her situation was ‘perfect’.

‘For a long time I thought I had managed to put that episode of my life behind me,’ she says.

‘Now I believe that is the reason why I have never been able to commit to a relationship and why, when I got pregnant, I didn’t think I deserved a baby.

‘I didn’t want to bring a baby into the world unless my situation was perfect. I never had a mother figure and, because we weren’t close, no guidance.’

Well there you have it. It was her absent mum’s fault. Or it was the fault of the men. Or it was the fault of the clinic. Or the fault of the contraception.

These women want rewards without any responsibilities. They are pathetic. I’m no stranger to giving screwed up women a hard time, and I know this article makes a lot of good women sick to their stomach. She should have been sterilised or something.

So much for ‘human rights’…

One billion abortions since 1920 – Feminists, slaughtering the human race one foetus at a time.

Record numbers of women are having two or more abortions – UK
Abortion; Legal if women want it = Illegal if men want it
Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record number of Abortions
FULL ABORTIONS SHOWN ON SPANISH TELEVISION – FIRST IN HISTORY

Woman Kills Own Baby, Walks Free

Source: Daily Mail

A mum who killed her six-month-old baby by shaking him and throwing him to the ground causing devastating brain injuries has walked free from court.

Martina McHattie, 26, described as a perfect mum, lost her temper with horrific consequences after baby Reece wouldn’t stop crying because he was teething.

Are they trying to blame her actions on the baby?

A court heard the stress caused her to shake the infant and throw him against a hard object, fracturing his skull.

Reece died from his injuries four days later in October 2004.

The ‘perfect mother’ then lied to cover it up;

Police investigated the incident after doctors suspected Reece was not the victim of an accidental fall as McHattie had claimed. However there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

The harrowing incident at her home in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, only came to the fore two years later when she admitted that she had caused Reece’s death because she was unable to cope.

But McHattie, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter, was handed just a 12-month suspended prison sentence after a judge was told she had tried to commit suicide and had self-harmed in the years since the death.

Right, so now this woman is a victim?

Defending, Michael Harrison QC said: ‘On a daily basis, this mum was taking superlative care of her baby.

‘It is therefore astonishing to find that in one catastrophic moment she gave way to the stresses that had built up in the days and hours before.

‘In the last two weeks he was teething and she was getting flustered because she couldn’t soothe him.

‘What went on in her mind was a feeling of inadequacy and so in that moment she brought everything crashing down around her and ended her baby’s life.

The baby is dead. She not only killed him but lied afterwards, but because she was feeling inadequate and took a few pills she gets a suspended sentence.

Just another case of the Pussy Pass. Throw it on the pile!

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!

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

Is Earth Overpopulated?

There are too many people in the world.

This is a common statement I see on forums and comment pages, hear in conversions and pseudo-debates in bars and with friends. When I actually ask them to explain their position their logic reveals itself to be circular. That is, ‘it’s just obvious, isn’t it?’

Now I happen to know the majority of people do not actually think. They react to stimuli, like lab rats. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the majority of the position’s the unwashed masses have are actually imprinted by the State and Corporate Media, and at no point actually reflect conclusions brought by their own investigation and research.

Again, excuses spill forth. ‘I don’t have time for that’, ‘I’ve got better things to do’, ‘I’m not interested’.

(And people wonder why I am a misanthropist.)

So, in this little article I want to touch briefly on the subject of ‘overpopulation’. I’ve seen this come up on articles talking about the biofuels scam contributing to mass starvation in developing countries, and increasing wealth stripping from developed ones. But no matter, reducing C02 (that pesky gas responsible for enabling photosynthesis, and which constitutes about 35 parts in 100,000 of the atmosphere) is more important than millions of lives. Why? Because that box in your living room said so.

‘Yeah well there are too many people in the world anyway’.

The conversations I’ve experienced regarding population are generally based on emotions and imprinted statements, not logic, research and critical thinking. But television use destroys critical thinking, so I expect nothing less.

Why do people subscribe to the overpopulation position so easily? Apart from the issue of imprinting, there is the issue of location. Increasingly, more and more people are living in urban centres, which by definition are built up, densely populated areas.

These people look out of their windows and see nothing but flats, houses and more people. So they assume they are too many people. Because right in front of them, are a lot of people. Just look at this map of London.

Again, it shows lack of thinking. If they lived here, their initial opinion may be a bit different.

The final issue is based on the television again, and the images of poverty stricken third world nations. No food, no clean water, abject desolation. Somehow people assume that it is because of population. Third world birthrates are the highest in the world, but there is a reason for that I’ll get to later (and Neo-Malthusians ignore.)

Anyway, let’s look at the statement ‘the world is overpopulated’. First we need to get some numbers. Continue reading

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?