I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
Over 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?
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…
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.
This contains additional information and quotes added by yours truly to give the article wider context.
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
December 12, 2008
According to a study led by David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois, Britons lead the western world in casual sex. The number of ‘one-night stands’ by both men and women are up and they are “the most promiscuous in the world.” While some praise this behavior as being “sexually free” it does have devastating consequences for human civilization. Consider the recent headline, “Drunken one-night stands over New Year will bring a record number of abortions” among teenagers.
While many “liberated” women say that they can separate sex and emotional attachment like men can and that casual sex is no big deal, testimonials do not bear this out. Besides the physical consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the emotional toll is not something that is casual – it may be consciously ignored, but it is deep and long-lasting The elite know that the more sexual partners one has, the less able they are to maintain a long-term monogamous relationship like marriage. This is an insidious way to undermine the natural bonds that form marriages and create children.
And the ubiquitous sexual messages we encounter are no accident. Contained in television, movies, music, general advertisements and even now in virtual worlds, to which the public is retreating from this increasingly upsetting real-life world, these ever-present reminders of the cult of youth, beauty and sex are targeted at the young.
And the youth are absorbing those messages and putting them into practice as the results of this study show:
“Twenty-one percent of girls and 18% of boys said they have posted nude or partially nude pictures of themselves online. Forty-nine percent of teens and young adults have sent sexually suggestive text messages or e-mails of themselves. Fifteen percent of teens who sent sexually suggestive content said they have done so with someone they only know online.”
With more and more children being raised online, and coupled with the intensive mandatory sex education at public schools, they are subjected to more degrading influences and less direct family input than ever before. The deleterious effects of utilizing their unprecedented freedom online, participating in virtual worlds where anything is acceptable with no consequences, these children are literally becoming unable to form and maintain even simple friendships with actual peers they encounter in their real lives.
All of these contribute to the planned decline of civilization and the institution of . The social engineers have cleverly devised a top-down approach to tearing apart the nuclear family due to its threat to their plans for their New World Order. It is imperative to achieving their plans that the youth and young adults are inculcated with the ideas that procreating is selfish, greedy and inconvenient. They are taught from a very young age by teachers cum “change agents” to believe that human life is not as valuable as flora and fauna, that cultural morés and morals are “outdated and outmoded” and therefore should be discarded in favor of new “liberated” thinking of secular humanism, which espouses the belief that there is no concrete “right and wrong” therefore anything is justifiable with enough rationalization.
Marie Stopes, friend of fellow eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, created the first birth control clinic in Britain and advocated “’sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.’ And in The Control of Parenthood, (1920)… wrote that were she in charge, she would ‘legislate compulsory sterilization of the insane, feebleminded… revolutionaries… half castes.’ She opposed the marriage of her own son merely because his bride-to-be wore glasses. And upon her death a large portion of her fortune was bequeathed to the Eugenics Society.” Marie Stopes International carries out one out of every three abortions in the UK, and promotes “voluntary sterilization.”
Most people instinctively recoil at the prospect of either voluntary or state-imposed sterilization, but sadly there are many who have been so brainwashed that they have aborted their pregnancies because having children is not “eco-friendly” and many others who have been voluntarily sterilized because of outright selfishness (”it would hamper my lifestyle and I wouldn’t be able to do the things I want to do”), others being “repulsed by… the idea of being pregnant and having a child” or just total lack of any maternal instinct.
This is a source of joy to the eugenicists and population control/reduction proponents because their mildly coercive population control via “education” and constant propaganda is working so well in the western world. The rampant promiscuity and resultant high divorce rate, astronomically increased infanticide, children’s lack of ability to form even the most basic relationship – friendship, legions of children being raised less by parents and more by teachers (e.g., the State) all accomplish the population reduction plan quite nicely without having to resort to bloodshed, except of course for the infants that are aborted.
But, as Bertrand Russell stated, “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
We who value Freedom must resist the New World Order by educating ourselves and others, and refusing to participate in eugenics and voluntary population control.
Showgirl and men’s magazine model Raffella Fico, 20, told an Italian magazine: “I can’t wait to see who’s going to pull out the money to have me.”
Don’t hold your breath love, you have enough air in that head already.
Miss Fico, who appeared in the Italian version of Big Brother earlier this year, said she would use the cash to buy a house in Rome and pay for acting classes.
“I don’t know what it’s like to have sex,” she told the magazine, Chi, adding that if the man who bought her virginity was ugly then she would quickly get over it.
So it is guaranteed to be crap then. Maybe she should use the money to get some lessons on sales techniques. I mean seriously, selling a service by saying you’ve never actually done it before? That’ll work!
“If I don’t like him I’ll just have a glass of wine and forget about it,” said the aspiring actress from Naples – hometown of screen siren Sophia Loren.
Her family insisted that despite her good looks and sexy image, she remained a virgin.
“She’s never had a boyfriend. I swear on my mother’s grave. She’s a devout Catholic and prays to Padre Pio every night,” her brother told the magazine.
She is the not the first woman to auction her virginity for a large sum. An 18-year-old US student in San Diego, Natalie Dylan, recently told the Howard Stern show she would have sex for the first time for $1 million to pay her college fees.
How much are college fees? Where is she studying, on the fucking Moon?
In 2005 a Peruvian model, also 18, put herself up for sale to help pay her family’s medical bills but ended up having second thoughts and turning down $1.5 million.
1 million to stick your member in a stupid, useless virgin? I’d rather buy a gold plated Porsche. And crash it.
Horray! Now if London females weren’t stuck up, selfish, self-righteous tramps maybe there wouldn’t be such a booming market for this service. So view this article as an indicator to the quality of women in London, which, like the air quality, is atrocious!
London’s brothel industry has spread to “every corner” of the city, according to a charity’s report.
Brothels in the city offer sex for as little as £15, and some are charging £10 extra for unprotected intercourse, the Poppy Project in Southwark found.
Free market capitalism at its finest. Big fat LOL. See, all those feminist ball-breaker bitches aren’t very attractive. Easier to just have sex with a whore and be done with all the nagging and girl-power bullshit.
Its report said 85% of brothels in the city operated in residential areas and researchers posing as sex buyers found brothels in all 33 London boroughs.
Westminster had the highest number with 71, compared with eight in Southwark.
The study was compiled by the Poppy Project, which provides education about prostitution and helps victims of sex trafficking.
Westminster, where all the politicians work and next to the City. Who would have thought.
Together the brothels generated between £50m and £130m a year, the researchers estimated.
Now check this out. Obviously, beeing the BBC, they have to start trying to paint women as victims in this. The next paragraph is headed ‘Underage girls’ although there is no proof of it.
The average age of the women was 21. Several places offered “very, very young girls” but did not admit to having underage girls available. Continue reading
Source: Daily Mail
Teenage boys should be vaccinated against cervical cancer alongside girls because they contribute to the spread of the disease, an infectious diseases expert said today.
Where have we seen this before…
Dr Paul Yeo said the Government vaccination programme should be widened because they risked leaving a ‘pool of infected individuals’ who could spread the virus to women later in life when the effect of the vaccination has potentially worn off.
The development of 70 per cent of all cervical cancers can be linked to infection by human papillomaviruses.
From September girls aged between 12 and 13 in the UK will be vaccinated against certain strains of HPV with a catch-up campaign for girls aged up to 18 starting in autumn 2009.
Remembers folks, vaccines don’t guarantee anything other than a fat paycheck for whomever sells them. The lifespan of the vaccine is about 5 years, and the average age of developing cervical cancer is 48. Not to forget most instances of HPV are easily dealt with naturally by a healthy immune system and there is no proof HPV causes the cancer anyway.
Dr Yeo, who specialises in virology and infectious diseases, said: ‘I would question why boys are not included in this vaccination programme as it is, after all, a sexually-transmitted disease which can lead to the cancer. Continue reading
Source: New York Times
Two vaccines against cervical cancer are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude.
Both vaccines target the human papillomavirus, a common sexually transmitted virus that usually causes no symptoms and is cleared by the immune system, but which can in very rare cases become chronic and cause cervical cancer.
The two vaccines, Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline, target two strains of the virus that together cause an estimated 70 percent of cervical cancers. Gardasil also prevents infection with two other strains that cause some proportion of genital warts. Both vaccines have become quick best sellers since they were licensed two years ago in the United States and Europe, given to tens of millions of girls and women.
More info regarding HPV here.
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.
Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it’s kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, ” Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests”.
This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking “What is the `Femi` Brigade’s` Endgame” ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?
Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let’s examine this business with maths and education more closely. As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.
In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.
For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject.
They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.
Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.
The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and – increasingly – degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.
Boys tend to like ‘sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds. Continue reading
An additional 300,000 girls aged 17 and 18 are to be offered a controversial vaccine to protect them against the sexually-transmitted infection that can lead to cervical cancer, the Government has announced.
The girls, who will be offered the Cervarix vaccine from this September, would not have been eligible for it before the announcement.
Miss Primarolo said the £10 million one-off programme would save up to 400 lives.
How does she know? None of these vaccines have guarantees.
Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, said: “Our policy to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer is one of the biggest public health campaigns in recent history. It will mean that up to 400 girls’ lives will be saved each year.
“By choosing the right vaccine we have been able to make savings which means we can extend the programme to 17 and 18 year olds. This could save an additional 400 lives.”
They are not saving money. They are spending less of our money. But they are still giving our money to these corporations.
But medics and health campaigners have accused such commentators of wilfully ignoring that teenage sex happens. They have said denying girls an HPV vaccine is morally wrong.
Vaccinating against HPV in order to prevent cervical cancer? They obviously haven’t seen this report, from The Great Vaccine Hoax Exposed;
For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.
NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.
The Department of Health has refused to reveal the cost of the vaccine. Miss Power said GSK must have given a “considerable reduction” to win the deal. – End of source.
Unbelievable. It’s none of our business what they spend our money on apparently.
So, not only 12 and 13 year old’s, but by ‘saving money’ they will also try and inject 17 and 18 year old’s then the additional ‘top up’ for 14 and 18 year old’s in 2009. That’s three rounds of injections against a virus that most probably does not cause cervical cancer.
Glaxo’s balance sheet must be looking pretty healthy. They are still trying to get the vaccine approved in the U.S. as I write this, as Reuters reports;
Glaxo said it had responded to outstanding questions about Cervarix raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but had decided to augment its application with results from a further Phase III study, called HPV-008.
Data from this trial are expected to be submitted to the U.S. regulator in the first half of 2009 and an FDA decision on the application is anticipated up to six months later.
Analysts, however, say the FDA is extremely cautious about approving new adjuvants because of the theoretical risk of side effects, increasing the regulatory hurdle for Glaxo’s vaccine.
Side effects? Nah, get out of here!
Side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Cervarix were as follows:
♦ Very common (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine):
• pain or discomfort at the injection site
• redness or swelling at the injection site
• aching muscles, muscle tenderness or weakness (not caused by exercise)
♦ Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of
• gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain
• itching, red skin rash, hives (urticaria)
• joint pain
• fever (≥38°C)
♦ Uncommon (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000
doses of vaccine):
• upper respiratory tract infection (infection of the nose, throat or trachea)
• other injection site reactions such as hard lump, tingling or numbness.
A look at Cervarix ingredients, from the same document;
The active substances are:
Human Papillomavirus1 type 16 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms
Human Papillomavirus1 type 18 L1 protein2,3,4 20 micrograms
adjuvanted by AS04 containing: 3-O-desacyl-4’- monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL)3 50 micrograms
adsorbed on aluminium hydroxide, hydrated (Al(OH)3) 0.5 milligrams Al3+ in total
L1 protein in the form of non-infectious virus-like particles (VLPs) produced by recombinant
DNA technology using a Baculovirus expression system which uses Hi-5 Rix4446 cells derived
from the insect Trichoplusia ni.
– The other ingredients are sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium dihydrogen phosphate dihydrate
(NaH2PO4.2 H2O) and water for injections.
Some samples from the Scientific Discussion PDF that stand out to me (as a layman, obviously);
No pharmacodynamic drug interaction studies were performed according to the Note for Guidance on Preclinical Pharmacological and Toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/465/95) and Guideline on Adjuvants in Vaccines for Human Use (EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004).
Studies to demonstrate absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of the active ingredients in Cervarix have not been performed for any of the component viruses. This is in line with Note for guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95).
Single-dose toxicity of the HPV-16/18 L1 VLP AS04 vaccine was assessed as part of the repeat-dose toxicity study in rabbits. The treatment was well tolerated and no treatment-related systemic effect was noticed on haematology, body-weight, clinical signs, mortality and clinical chemistry over a 14-day observation period.
According to the Note for Guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95) and the Guideline on adjuvants in vaccines for human use
(EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004) genotoxicity studies are not required for this vaccine.
According to the Note for Guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/465/95) and the Guideline on adjuvants in vaccines for human use
(EMEA/CHMP/VEG/134716/2004) carcinogenicity studies are not required for this vaccine.
It’s 56 pages long, so I’m not going to go through it all here. I have provided the link above anyway if anyone is interested. Before I finish this however, I have one more query.
From the Discussion (to find these notes in the PDF, try copying and pasting one of the sentences into the PDF program search engine, that should take you right to it);
Based on their genomic differences within the oncogenes E6 and E7 and the capsid protein L1 over 100 genotypes are described to date. Thereof approximately 40 different genotypes lead to infections of the anogenital tract and about 16 are highly oncogenic with HPV types 16 and 18, being the most frequent found in cervical cancer. HPV-16 is detected in about 54% of cervical cancer cases, and the second type is HPV-18, detected in about 17% of cases.
The time from occurrence of HPV infection to cancer development usually exceeds 20 years.
However, persistent HPV infection is a necessary but not a sufficient factor for the development of cervical carcinoma. (what?) Other factors such as smoking, long-term use of oral contraceptives or high parity are suggested to play a role in the process that lead to cancer.
This next part is good;
The majority of genital HPV infections (>90%) however are transient sub-clinical infections that will be cleared or suppressed below the limits of detection by host cell defences within one to two years. In addition, any cervical lesion may spontaneously regress to normal without treatment with a probability of about 57% for CIN1, 43% for CIN2 and 32% for CIN3. The determinants leading to regression are not well understood.
Even according to this document, HPV isn’t looking much of a threat to me. Still they say this:
It is confirmed that persistent cervical infection by high risk HPV types is a precursor event to cervical cancer.
There was no evidence of protection from disease caused by the HPV types for which subjects were HPV DNA positive at study entry. However, individuals already infected with one of the vaccine-related HPV types prior to vaccination were protected from clinical disease caused by the remaining HPV type.
From the Product Information Report (again);
The duration of protection after vaccination is currently unknown. In clinical trials, sustained
protection has been observed in females aged 15 to 25 years for at least 5.5 years after the first dose. The need for booster dose(s) has not been investigated.
I hope you know, the average age of cervical cancer patients is 48. They want to give this vaccine to 12 year olds, although it lasts only 5.5 years? Why?
I feel stupid, I have a feeling I’m missing something here.
According to these documents, this vaccine ‘protects’ against two strains of HPV, of which there are over 100. They say that in patients that have been diagnosed with cervical cancer, HPV can be present (that is not evidence of causation.) Even then HPV 16 turns up 56% of the time, and HPV 18, 17%. It then says that other things can cause cervical cancer anyway. It doesn’t protect you if you already have HPV! Not that HPV causes the cancer. The body successfully deals with over 90% of HPV viruses anyway.
Somehow I don’t see the huge cost justified by these reports (of which I have barely skimmed.) These politicians are probably getting kick backs, it wouldn’t be the first time.
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
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.
When I grow up, I want to be a whore! Parading my boundless ignorance in front of the public like the town idiot in the hopes of acquiring material possessions and a rich guy who I can then trade sex for more money and attention with!
Feminism just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it?
There was a show called The Weakest Link on the other day. It was a special for charity. The ‘contestants’ were all WAGS. These are the females the media throws on the front page at every opportunity, and the females that other females choose to idolise and look up to. Here they are:
Lined up were Alex Best, ex-wife of a deceased football drunk; Charley Uchea, a Big Brother contestant, whose cousin is a footballer; Danielle Lloyd, Teddy Sheringham’s ex; Linsey Dawn McKenzie, who married footballer Mark Williams; Amii Grove, who dates footballer Jermaine Pennant; and Michelle Marsh, Lucy Pinder, Cassie Sumner and Lauren Pope – who are still looking for their princely footballer and kissing a lot of frogs on the way.
Let’s get the first part out of the way. These girls are thick. For me, (and countless girls it seems) these women represent the far end of the majority of post-feminist females. It is easier to tart yourself up and try and bag a rich guy than earn it yourself. Essentially exchanging their sex for money. How empowering. Sound familiar?
The nine women were as pink and transparent as a set of highly buffed acrylic false nails.
Sweet girls, but with ‘desperate to hook rich footballer’ stamped all over their decolletage and, no doubt, their St Tropez tans.
Such is the desire to be a celebrity that even girls so intellectually challenged they think ‘hello’ is spelled with an exclamation mark are prepared to put themselves forward on a national TV quiz show to be humiliated.
This society, thoroughly undermined by Marxism has now collapsed into rampant fame seeking and materialism. From a disciplinarian, moral and intellectual point of view, British culture and life is rapidly collapsing in a way never before seen. These women seem to be proud that they know nothing. Proud that they are prostitutes. Doing anything to get attention. Thinking only of themselves and the narrow world they occupy.
I am only partly disgusted by them. People like them are a logical consequence of the social engineering inflicted on this society by collectivist liberal globalists.
My issues are twofold. Firstly, the media rewards their terrible ineptitude at everything of importance with full page spreads. Women read about them in girl mags and bitch about them in their nice little air-conditioned offices (while secretly wishing it was them on the magazines with the rich boyfriend). These idiots can make a good living (probably better than you) by objectifying themselves. Turn yourself into a sex object. Get paid, just like this other idiot!
Secondly, girls look up to them. Why? Don’t they have the personal integrity to realise that their entire lives will amount to nothing? Or do these girls not care about learning about the world, protecting their nation’s sovereignty and fighting tyranny?
LOL. Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
Maybe this is partly psychopolitics. The media are helping to erode a nations identity of itself by focusing on people of particular stupidity. The way they focus on knife stabbings. In a nation of about 60 million people one would think the media could report of things a little more positive. Maybe focusing on the Lisbon Treaty and its attack on Britain’s sovereignty. Maybe the media is just reflecting the reversal of societies ‘progress’ back on itself. Maybe the increasing crime, feral kids, breakdown of families, single motherhood, rampant consumerism, narcissism, state dependence and complete apathy and lack of desire to fight and protect one another is another symptom of society moving towards a Matriarchy, where female ‘qualities’ drive society.
Makes sense. There are more women of voting age than men. Therefore you could say women may actually control the vote. Women overwhelming vote for bigger government, ‘feeling safe’ and more benefits at the small cost of the destruction of the country and a higher burden on men.
Fuck the matriarchy. People need to start lighting the fires again! We need a revolution and we need one soon, before speaking out against tyranny becomes illegal.