A Phoenix of Liberty Rises

I’m back. It’s been a few years. I’ve been here and there, compiled even more research and have much to put on here for you. Conclusions I have reached that I have to share. I will be going to places I maybe shouldn’t be going to, but I’ll keep pushing it until you tell me to stop.

It’s going to be a little while until I hit my stride, I have lots of comments to approve, spam to clear, templates to reset, links to gather, I need to organise.

I’ll give you more personal thoughts in coming posts.

Thanks for reading.

And as far as the system is concerned? THIS IS WAR.

Advertisements

Attack on nuclear family leads to chaos

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

Daily Mail

From almost the first moment of recorded history, one set of relationships has been at the heart of the human experience and the basis of civilisation itself: a mother and father who depend on each other; the children who rely on them both; a supportive network of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Without the loyalties and obligations of the committed family, our ancestors would certainly have struggled to survive in a dangerous and frightening world.

How else but with the help of kin could they have coped with the critical moments in life: birth, sickness, old age, the need to educate and train their young? Without such help from the very beginning, it may be asked whether humankind would ever have developed the capacity to build an advanced civilisation.

That is because it probably wouldn’t have. Matriarchal societies move males to the periphery. They are at the bottom of the social ladder and are therefore not motivated to take the risks to advance the society with technology, as is evidenced by Daniel Amneus in his book, The Garbage Generation. A must read.

This week a report from Unicef, the UN’s child welfare agency, warned that working mothers take a massive risk when they put their offspring into low quality childcare.

This is in regards to the state deciding to force women into work once their child is one years old. No doubt to not only pay for the disgusting debt these socialists have put Britain in with the bankers, but also to control the next generation.

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

Until very recently, in fact, the importance of the family was taken for granted, not only as the basis of society, but as the foundation of our human identity.

Today? In western societies  –  and especially in the English-speaking world  –  we think we know better. Forget the wisdom of the ages. Forget our deep-rooted instincts.

Forget precepts that have governed every society in every era of history.

The importance of the ‘traditional’ family is being challenged as never before.

The idea has taken root that human families can be constructed in any way people want. The message is that biology counts for nothing.

Biological mothers don’t matter to their children. Biological fathers don’t matter either.

All that matters is what adults want  –  and children must adapt to it, whether they like it or not.

The sheer speed of what is happening is quite astonishing. In less than 50 years, the old values have been stood on their head.

Today, legislators don’t hesitate to plunge into ‘reforms’ that tear up the rights, duties and obligations that have underpinned the family for millennia.

They rush into new ‘ postmodernist’ concepts of family, partnering and parenthood. Indeed, they are even attempting to banish the word ‘marriage’ from the statute books.

Everywhere in the West, the liberal consensus is on the march. In Britain, for example, a Labour Government has discouraged the use of the ‘m’ word in official documents, while in the U.S., the American Law Institute recommends that marriage should be ‘ deprivileged’ and not be given a status above any other relationship.

Yet on any rational analysis, this reckless embrace of a brave new world is simply perverse, since there is no doubt whatever that the traditional family, underpinned by marriage, is the best way of bringing up secure, happy children and maintaining social stability.

Which is precisely why the liberal-fascists/ socialists/ feminists are so keen on destroying it. This is not news, this is historical fact.

“[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” – Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

Feminism plays a very important role in destroying the family (softening up society for enslavement). The socialist state can not tolerate competition to its control over the population. It is an ideology of social engineering. The nuclear family represents a unit stronger than the bond between individual and state. It also gives men and women much to lose, which makes all the more difficult to enslave. This is no accident.

You don’t have to be a religious believer or a Victorian moralist to take this view. The evidence speaks for itself (despite the strenuous efforts of the liberal establishment to ignore it).

Fact: one in two unmarried couples splits up before their first child is five years old. The figure for married couples is just one in 12.

Fact: children from broken homes are 75 per cent more likely than their classmates to fail at school, 70 per cent more likely to be involved with drugs and 50 per cent more likely to have alcohol problems.

They are also more likely to run away from home, find themselves in the care system and end up in jail.

At the very least, those bleak statistics should give us pause. The truth is that some of the most intractable problems facing Britain today  –  from our tragically high rate of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases to petty crime, gang membership and welfare dependency  –  have their roots in family breakdown.

Harriet Harman MP, the socialist/ feminist fasicst is recorded as saying:

marriage was ‘irrelevant’ to public policy and described high rates of separation as a ‘positive development’, as it reflected ‘greater choice’ for couples  –  never mind the children.

Take the shabby way successive governments have treated marriage in this country, even though they know perfectly well that it is one of the great foundations of society.

It was a Tory Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, who dismissed the married couples’ tax allowance as ‘an anomaly’. And it was former Home Secretary Jack Straw who proclaimed: ‘This Government will not preach about marriage.’

The result? In Britain today it just doesn’t pay to get married. Our tax and benefits system is so arranged that if lower-income couples who are living together get married, they will significantly increase their tax payments and lower their benefits.

Perhaps it’s no wonder that this country has a higher percentage of lone-parent families than any other country in Europe, apart from Sweden.

The system is designed to create family instability. And the costs, both social and financial, are huge.

How to explain this bizarre discouragement of an institution so important to the happiness, stability and financial health of the country?

Politicians are terrified of being thought ‘judgmental’ about the way citizens live. And they obviously take the defeatist view that nothing can be done to improve matters anyway.

Nonsense, they are only in power because they subscribe to the Marxist school of thought, whether that be socialism or its logical extension, communism. Both are collectivist totalitarian regimes that place the State as the all important construct and reduce the individual citizens to the position of slaves to its function creep and ever growing power. Reminds me of how the matriarchal society treats men. No wonder women subscribe to it.

The same aversion to moralising applies increasingly to the laws on marriage and divorce.

Not only are we witnessing ever easier divorce  –  whatever the children may need or want  –  and same-sex marriages, but there is also growing pressure to remove the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ from birth certificates and replace them by ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ (as is already happening in Spain).

Whatever the motivation behind such trends, the ‘ traditional’ family structure is being badly eroded.

All this reminds me of the grim ideas floated in ancient Athens 2,500 years ago. In the vision sketched out in Plato’s Republic  –  a philosophical treatise on the most fundamental principles of the conduct of human society  –  mating would be random.

Children would be raised by the state. Neither mothers nor fathers could claim their biological offspring as their own. Nor could they raise their children.

And yet the family in its traditional form is crucial to us all  –  not simply because it underpins social stability or because it connects us to the past and the future, but because it’s also a bulwark of freedom itself.

Why? Because the invisible bonds it creates between its members generate loyalties and affections capable of resisting any tyranny.

Exactly. Why would these agents of the elite do this? Maybe it is because their plan for the global socialist dictatorship depends on it. They must destroy the institutions that make a strong society so it can then be taken over with ease, using lots of small changes over time, changing the structure of society to one which will be more susceptible to the type of tyranny they wish for us all. This is Fabian Socialism and it is happening to Britain NOW.

“To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification.” – Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization.

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II

“Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a world government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system.” – Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, 1994

“The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.” – Jean Monnet, founder of the European Economic Community, 1948

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987

“Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” – A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116

Global one world dictatorship – Financial Times

Families in meltdown, judge says

The Labour government’s anti-family tax system

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Family Being Replaced with Feral Gangs In Socialist Britain

1,300 women have had at least FIVE abortions

Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record number of Abortions

Children don’t need fathers, they need lesbians

David Cameron in the feminists pocket

Man jailed for trying to protect his family

Why Feminism is a Fraud…

Half of single mothers ‘do not want to work’

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Infowars

Carolyn Harris
Infowars
December 12, 2008

According to a study led by David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois, Britons lead the western world in casual sex. The number of ‘one-night stands’ by both men and women are up and they are “the most promiscuous in the world.” While some praise this behavior as being “sexually free” it does have devastating consequences for human civilization. Consider the recent headline, “Drunken one-night stands over New Year will bring a record number of abortions” among teenagers.

While many “liberated” women say that they can separate sex and emotional attachment like men can and that casual sex is no big deal, testimonials do not bear this out. Besides the physical consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the emotional toll is not something that is casual – it may be consciously ignored, but it is deep and long-lasting The elite know that the more sexual partners one has, the less able they are to maintain a long-term monogamous relationship like marriage. This is an insidious way to undermine the natural bonds that form marriages and create children.

And the ubiquitous sexual messages we encounter are no accident. Contained in television, movies, music, general advertisements and even now in virtual worlds, to which the public is retreating from this increasingly upsetting real-life world, these ever-present reminders of the cult of youth, beauty and sex are targeted at the young.

And the youth are absorbing those messages and putting them into practice as the results of this study show:

“Twenty-one percent of girls and 18% of boys said they have posted nude or partially nude pictures of themselves online. Forty-nine percent of teens and young adults have sent sexually suggestive text messages or e-mails of themselves. Fifteen percent of teens who sent sexually suggestive content said they have done so with someone they only know online.”

With more and more children being raised online, and coupled with the intensive mandatory sex education at public schools, they are subjected to more degrading influences and less direct family input than ever before. The deleterious effects of utilizing their unprecedented freedom online, participating in virtual worlds where anything is acceptable with no consequences, these children are literally becoming unable to form and maintain even simple friendships with actual peers they encounter in their real lives.

All of these contribute to the planned decline of civilization and the institution of . The social engineers have cleverly devised a top-down approach to tearing apart the nuclear family due to its threat to their plans for their New World Order. It is imperative to achieving their plans that the youth and young adults are inculcated with the ideas that procreating is selfish, greedy and inconvenient. They are taught from a very young age by teachers cumchange agents” to believe that human life is not as valuable as flora and fauna, that cultural morés and morals are “outdated and outmoded” and therefore should be discarded in favor of new “liberated” thinking of secular humanism, which espouses the belief that there is no concrete “right and wrong” therefore anything is justifiable with enough rationalization.

Marie Stopes, friend of fellow eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, created the first birth control clinic in Britain and advocated “’sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.’ And in The Control of Parenthood, (1920)… wrote that were she in charge, she would ‘legislate compulsory sterilization of the insane, feebleminded… revolutionaries… half castes.’ She opposed the marriage of her own son merely because his bride-to-be wore glasses. And upon her death a large portion of her fortune was bequeathed to the Eugenics Society.” Marie Stopes International carries out one out of every three abortions in the UK, and promotes “voluntary sterilization.”

Most people instinctively recoil at the prospect of either voluntary or state-imposed sterilization, but sadly there are many who have been so brainwashed that they have aborted their pregnancies because having children is not “eco-friendly” and many others who have been voluntarily sterilized because of outright selfishness (”it would hamper my lifestyle and I wouldn’t be able to do the things I want to do”), others being “repulsed by… the idea of being pregnant and having a child” or just total lack of any maternal instinct.

This is a source of joy to the eugenicists and population control/reduction proponents because their mildly coercive population control via “education” and constant propaganda is working so well in the western world. The rampant promiscuity and resultant high divorce rate, astronomically increased infanticide, children’s lack of ability to form even the most basic relationship – friendship, legions of children being raised less by parents and more by teachers (e.g., the State) all accomplish the population reduction plan quite nicely without having to resort to bloodshed, except of course for the infants that are aborted.

But, as Bertrand Russell stated, “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

We who value Freedom must resist the New World Order by educating ourselves and others, and refusing to participate in eugenics and voluntary population control.

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

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

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

39 year old woman sleeps with 14 year old boy, walks free

Apparently it is because he ‘seduced’ her. A 14 year old seduced a 39 year old.

No, I’m not kidding.

Daily Mail

A mother who had sex with a 14-year-old walked free from court today after the judge said the boy seduced her.

Sharon Edwards’ husband, who suspected that she was having an affair, discovered that his love rival was a youngster from their two sons’ school.

The couple’s marriage was on the rocks when he began checking the 39-year-old’s computer for MSN messages and found his identity.

He told the boy’s mother who called in the police, said prosecutor Tina Dempster.

Blonde Edwards said that they had sex for the fourth and final time that night, and on another occasion it happened at her sister’s home when the sister was away.

Miss Dempster told Teesside Crown Court that Edwards’ husband Mark first became suspicious because she was exchanging 50 text messages a day with the boy.

The Edwards’s marriage was rocky by the end of 2007 and they decided to try to make a go of it.

But it became apparent to him by the end of October last year that his wife was having an affair. When he confronted her she denied it.

He spoke to her about the number of text messages she was sending to the boy but she said they were just having a laugh.

Yeah, it’s hilarious when female paedophiles get off scot-free. HAHAHA. Continue reading

Anti-science Greenies keep Africa poor, says boffin

Source: The Register

(Extract)

What’s happened to Sir David King, surface chemist and the former chief scientific advisor to the Government?

Perhaps something fell on his head.

The man dubbed the “King of Climate Porn” achieved notoriety at the turn of the decade as the architect of the Foot and Mouth holocaust – which unnecessarily slaughtered seven million animals, and cost the country billions of pounds. But King astonished observers by saying something sensible last week – and he promises to do so again tonight.

Speaking at the British Association’s* Science Week, King will say that the Greenies’ anti-science superstitions are causing unnecessary suffering in Africa. King blames “anti-poverty” campaigners, aid agencies and environmental activists for keeping modern farming techniques and bio-technology out of Africa.

“The suffering within [Africa], I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology – attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance,” King told The Times today.

King wonders why recent productivity revolutions in agriculture, which have been such a success in Asia and India, have not been implemented in Africa on the same scale. He concludes that the blame lies not with Africans, but with Western “do-gooders” who prefer Africans to remain picturesque and dirt poor.

An example he cites is the attempts of eco-campaigners Friends of the Earth to keep drought-resistant crops out of Africa.

He has a point. Continue reading

Dictator Sarkozy Tells Ireland That Voting No Is Unacceptable

Find the article on FreeBritain

It is time the people of these nations started demanding a referendum as opposed to quietly capitulating to a bunch of slimey liberal scum who lied their way into power and are much more interested in lining their own pockets and serving their elitist masters than doing what the taxpayer pays them for.

The situation is actively corrupt and will only get more so. People cannot continue to sit on their arses and hope things automagically get better. It isn’t going to happen that way. History tells us that apathy leads to enslavement, not freedom.

(Continued) Rise of the Gold-digger

An article in the Daily Mail appears today, written by a woman (you will see why that is important later) talking about the ‘Rise of the gold-digger’.

Gold-digger

Like it’s something new! She tries her best to view this kind of woman in the tiny minority, but men with experience know better. Extracts from the article below;

When did it become acceptable to be a gold-digger?

Erm, when feminism campaigned to free women from the ‘oppressive regime’ of socially acceptable behaviour.

After all, isn’t a woman who sleeps with a man for money – or at least for extensive use of his credit card – called something else?

But then, ‘prostitute’ doesn’t have quite the same glamorous, diamond-encrusted platinum ring to it, does it?

No it does not, and that is precisely why we must do our best to call these women exactly that. Well to be fair, prostitutes are better than these women. At least with them you know what is going on upfront.

How depressing and how insulting to the millions of women who don’t live their lives according to these mercenary rules.

While we are the majority, the sad fact is, we are all judged as a result of movies like this.

It makes us all look cheap. Priceless cannot be blamed alone.

The message it delivers is one that has been subtly gaining currency in recent times and not just on film.

Well it is the fact that it has become so widespread that it made it into film in the first place, and although it may be insulting to the women who do not behave in that way, it does not stop it existing. Just because it offends a few women, does not mean it should not be publicised.

There is also, of course, the whole WAG phenomenon, predicated almost entirely on a cynical pact between rich, bored, badly behaved men (Ashley Cole comes to mind) and the women who want to live off them.

The gaggle of wannabe WAGs hovering outside any nightclub frequented by Premier League footballers is proof that there is an increasing number of women who believe that far from having their own life and their own job, the notion of being a human leech is to some degree a preferable career.

Well get used to it, it has been happening for decades.

As evidence that bleeding a man dry is on the up, there is now a fashion label called Golddigga and even websites such as www.golddiggers.uk.com, devoted to ways of hooking a rich guy.

Click on www.sugardaddyforme.com and the deal being struck is clear.

A glamorous-looking young woman appears on the screen. ‘Attractive, ambitious, insatiable,’ it reads.

In other words, she’s offering sex on tap. When the picture of the tastefully greying man floats into view, it says: ‘Affluent, caring, generous.’

Yet, we’re not supposed to call these women prostitutes. That would be rude.

Like I said, these predatory females are below prostitutes. I shall explain their psychological make-up at the end of this article.

Of course, it is still only a tiny percentage of women that would dream of behaving like this; it’s just that percentage – which is rising – think what they do is so acceptable. Listen to Sophie Sharp, a dancer from Bromley in Kent, who says: ‘I’ve always been into expensive clothes and accessories and think nothing of paying £400 for a dress.

But on my earnings it was hard to afford everything I wanted.’ Well, um, yes it would be. Still, Sophie’s solution was not to visit Primark but to get herself a sugar daddy instead. ‘My friends told me to go to Chinawhite (the fashionable club in London),’ she reveals.

It may be a small percentage that are so openly gold-diggers, but what of the women who think in a similar way but keep it quiet? Of women who are not so extreme, but are still motivated to date the man with more money rather than less (notice I haven’t mentioned any other factors) and watch the number of women included rise dramatically.

Would 75% be a tiny minority? Moving on;

So she put on her best low-cut black frock and, hey presto, she’d hooked herself a Dubai businessman. ‘I didn’t find him attractive,’ she admits.

Even so, she accepted his offer to take her shopping.

A total of £2,500 later, she says, he flew back to Dubai with nothing more than a chaste peck on the cheek in return, to which it’s tempting to say, is a likely story.

Yeah yeah nothing new to those in the know.

In Sophie’s world, being a golddigger is par for the course. All Sophie’s friends are doing the same.

Another light into the ‘minds’ of these females here.

Rachel MacLynn is head of global membership for millionaires-only networking service Seventy Thirty.

‘There are gold-diggers everywhere in London and other British cities. I’m constantly approached by young women,’ she says.

‘They are desperate for me to match them with our millionaire members.

They are like lice, and as the complient media (in its quest to undermine society) glamourises the lifestyles of these lying manipulative whores, it just sells this behaviour to other females, who sit there watching, secreting wishing to be able to shop all day and be in magazines (so much for fighting the New World Order eh, ladies?)

Or what about Natalie Parker, 24, who’s studying French and Spanish at university in Southampton? Her parents – a property developer and a housewife – live in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom house with a gym and a pool in Spain.

‘I’ve always dated wealthy men, even though I’ve not really been attracted to them,’ Natalie muses.

So, has she ever had to offer sex with a sugar daddy to secure a lavish gift?

‘Some of these men do want more at the end of the night,’ she concedes, without actually answering the question.

Now for the inevitable attack on the men. Of course they must be blamed for this in some way, men are always at fault;

It is worth saying that the men are not blameless in this unpleasant sex for designer clothes/ jewellery/breast implants transaction. A man who buys a woman is no better than the woman who agrees to sell herself. It all reduces human interaction to the level of a business deal.

Successful men will attract these bitches. That’s life. Don’t blame men for being successful. Blame the women for choosing to pursue the money man. What of the men who do not find such behaviour acceptable? Simple for women, they just pretend they love him and keep up the pretense long enough to fleece the fella.

Still, it is the women’s attitudes that are so shocking. It’s as if feminism never happened. Did it ever occur to Sophie or Heather or all the other young women who now aspire to be golddiggers, that they could work to provide a life for themselves rather than just expect a guy to buy it for them?

No, they are behaving like this precisely because feminism happened. Feminism wanted license for women to behave as they wish, free from the restrictions of acceptable behaviour and free from responsibilities (men can pick up the tab).

Looking further ahead, do these girls know the sort of deal they are doing? They are not only throwing away any moral sense, but also their independence, control of their own lives and self-respect.

They never had any of these things to begin with. Such concepts are imbued in people by society and peer groups. Once upon a time women (like men) had such imprinting, but that resulted in strong relationships, strong families, low crime and high productivity. You can’t have Order from Chaos without Chaos. Hence Marxo-Feminism. The author seems to have some sort of sense though, which explains why she find gold-digger behaviour so strange;

I didn’t take the gold-digger route because I think it is wrong. It is insulting to men and it cheapens women. Every woman who does it polishes an image of womankind that the rest of us then have to try to argue against.

It makes us all look as if we are for sale for the price of a pair of Gucci shoes. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with men where they have said that basically all a woman is interested in is how much money they have and the size of their car.

Maybe not Gucci shoes, but restaurant dinners, rent and paid for holidays? I would say, from my experience and the combined experience of all the guys I know, and the ones I’ve met on my travels, that the majority of women behave, in differing levels, as gold-diggers. But with women perceiving themselves as princesses, what else would they expect but to be treated as such?

When I explain that I have never dated a man for his money, nor have any of my girlfriends, that we have jobs and homes of our own and we wouldn’t dream of expecting a boyfriend to provide either, they look at me with disbelief.

The image of womanhood that the gold-digger propagates is one of a greedily acquisitive airhead. She never reads a book or a newspaper, but knows the ticket price for the latest designer handbag.

She is a parasite, useless to anyone but themselves. Don’t count on her campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty.

Consumption replaces affection.

Not quite. Consumption replacing humanity would be more accurate.

Her diamante sandals may be lovely and sparkly, but she tarnishes all of us.

Right, what motivates a woman to not only behave in such a superficial way, but also promote it proudly? What will society think? Her friends and family?

The truth is, she doesn’t care.

Marx said ‘all truth is relative’. Funny, it seems he figured out how women view the world. To these women, there is no right or wrong, there are only wants and needs. The process of evaluating and committing actions operates backwards with these women.

What they desire is right and the methods to achieve it are acceptable because the end result is them acquiring what they desire. It really is that simple. Whereas men generally view the world (with all its rules) as external concepts which he navigates, these women seem to view the world as an extension of them. (exceptions would be psychopaths like Tony Blair).

In other words, reality (with all its rules) changes in relation to their desires. These gold-diggers do not view their actions as wrong because ‘truth is relative’ to them. They want it therefore it is right and it is right because they want it.

No wonder feminism was so successful. It essentially told women that the only thing that is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is not getting what you want.

The Problem With Women Today

British tourists are told to put EU stickers on their passports

Daily Mail

Britons are to be asked to put a sticker proclaiming the rights of European Union “nationals” on the back cover of their passports.

From July 1 next year all new passports issued in the UK and other member countries will quote Article 20 of the EU’s founding treaty.

But in the meantime the European Commission has also told the British Government to produce stickers quoting the article and encourage as many people as possible to put them on their passports.

In case you didn’t know already, this is just another step in a long line of laws and proposals passed down from the unelected and unaccountable EU in order to mine power and influence away from sovereign nations. The goal is to eventually do away with sovereign parliaments and laws, instead governing the entire area from Brussels. The increasing power has continued to grow through the Treaties.

Foreign Office officials last night said the Government was “positive” about the proposals and diplomats were finalising details such as the look of the stickers and how they would be distributed.

Just so you know who the government truly serves.

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said Ministers should tell the EU to mind its own business.

“Once again the EU is desperate to muscle in on passports. Our Government should remind them that British passports are still primarily Britain’s business,” he said.

“The danger is that this is all part of a broader Brussels agenda to extend their control over how people are looked after abroad. Now it’s passports – next could be visas and embassies.”

Indeed, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified (which cannot be allowed to pass) there will not be a need for sovereign visas and embassies. The EU technically could shut them all down and replace them with EU embassies. It even goes further than that;

Britain’s 153 embassies around the world will be closed as the ink from the Queen’s signature dries. (As Tony Blair refused to admit this has been agreed to, Jose Zapatero, the Prime Minister of Spain, confirmed it in a February 2005 radio broadcast.) – Eu Truth

The EU has almost completed its supra-national power grab. Note that the British passport already has ‘European Union’ emblazed on it, above the United Kingdom and Royal Coat of Arms. That is not random. You can imagine over time, the EU wording getting larger and the rest of it shrinking until only the EU is left.

That is what’s happening.

From July 2009, the new wording will appear alongside the official message in the name of the Queen under legislation published in Brussels last week and given the nod by British Ministers. The Article reminds “citizens” they are entitled to assistance from the embassy of any EU member state.

I don’t anything about this legislation from Brussels, I wasn’t given a vote on it. But that’s just the point though, your vote will be meaningless in the completed EU. When the text refers to ‘citizens’ it means European Citizens. The Lisbon Treaty sets up the EU as its own legal entity. This gives us dual citizenship. When the ‘rights’ or laws of the EU conflict with those of the member state, the EU’s laws will overrule.

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

Brussels Journal

Most people don’t know this, but then again, most people don’t know anything of any real importance. That’s the problem. While people are moaning about mass immigration (EU Amsterdam Treaty 1997) and other issues our government no longer has any authority over, these Laws, Treaties and Proposals and constantly being churned out of Brussels with every single one involved in increasing the powers of the EU over its member states.

The issue is so GRAVE that this is probably the gravest in our lifetime. In fact all civil organizations of all EU countries should start uniting  their powers to prevent the ratification of the Treaty.

The content of the Treaty, as well as the circumstances within which it has been forced onto the member states are so alarming that if this Treaty will be ratified, that will be the end of freedom for the nations of Europe. – Marvin Brenik

As far as government and country is concerned, there is nothing more important than stopping the Lisbon Treaty and leaving the EU. It is a DICTATORSHIP.

Face of EU Dictatorship

Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship

After the Lisbon Treaty, there will be no others. There won’t need to be. You see, the Treaty contains a self-amendment clause.

Article 48, Article 308 and others make the treaty self-amending in that they enable the European Council to extend the areas in which the EU can legislate and make major changes to the functioning of the Union by majority vote, without the need for a new treaty and, therefore, without the need for referendums in Ireland or elsewhere. – Libertas.org

At the very worst, the Prime Minister hasn’t read the Treaty. But he’s signed it. You’re not allowed to vote on it, although it affects you. While we’re on the subject, you didn’t vote for the Prime Minister either. In fact, he refused a general election too.  Seems like we are already in a dictatorship.

Let me repeat. This is not a joke. I’ve known this for ages and the more research I do, the more evidence I find in supporting our immediate exit from the Communist Claws of the EU. I’ve chosed to support the UKIP Party primarily for this reason, as voting for any of the other parties while knowing what I know would amount to me being an accessory to Treason (none of the other parties would dare touch upon the subject of leaving the EU).

Even people I talk to in town and at work have brainwashed, unsubstantiated opinons of the greatness of the EU and that being against the EU is ‘racist’. When I say I’m voting UKIP people have commented, saying ‘aren’t they like the BNP?’

No they fucking aren’t you ignorant serfs.

If we don’t leave the infernal supranational regime, nothing else is going to matter.

We’re on the express elevator to hell – going down! – Private Hudson, Aliens

The only difference between the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty is that in the Lisbon Treaty the Constitution is obfuscated better.

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

EU Map deletes England, replaces it with Regions

The Lisbon Treaty which was signed by Europe’s leaders on December 13th 2007 seeks to establish the European Union on an entirely new legal basis.  In effect, its amendments to the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) create a de facto constitution, comprising more than 90% of the substance of the EU Constitutional Treaty rejected by the people of the Netherlands and France in 2005. – Libertas.org

So it is entirely relevant to speak of the Constitution on these matters. Realise that the re-writing of the Lisbon Treaty was primarily done to get the Constitution passed in member states without giving the people a say in the matter.

You were denied a vote you were promised. If you don’t support the UK Independence Party your vote will probably never matter again. I found the party after I’d done my research, and I actually read their manifesto and realised it makes perfect sense.

If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the following things could happen (more are listed on the source site, please visit it to learn more);

The EU takes ownership and command of our Police, Army, Royal Navy, RAF, nuclear weapons, currency reserves, North Sea Oil. (See the EU Constitution below)

Serving officers in our police, army, navy and air force already know they will have to take an oath to the EU instead of to the Queen. If they don’t many have been told they will be dismissed. The EU will have complete military control of the UK.

The UK Independence Party will be banned under the 1999 ruling of the European court of Justice case c274/99, where it was held that it is illegal to criticise the EU.

The Conservative, Labour and Lib-dem parties will be abolished (only pan EU parties like the EPP or PES are allowed -see clause I.46.4 of the EU Constitution). It will then be blindingly obvious to even the dumbest politician there is no reason to keep Westmister open, and that the EU has the legal right to close it.

We will all be criminalised by the 107,000 regulations. Its impossible to know or understand 107,000 regulations, and the poor can’t possibly afford to comply. We will all be subject to frequent fines and arrest as a result. Here are just 4 examples:

Under EU regulations it is now illegal for you to repair your plumbing, electrics or your car (from 1st January 2006). If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after the EU Recreational Craft Directive of 1999, and don’t pay the EU £4,000 to “measure” the boat, you get 6 months imprisonment. We will live under permanent threat of arrest and fear of the knock at the door that takes us away.

There will be no redress through local democracy because there won’t be any. The nine UK regional governments, which replace our 48 counties and councillors, will be unelected (see the European Regionisation plan). Our only vote is to the powerless EU parliament. We will be ruled by the 25 unelected Commisssioners, and have have no redress at any level; we will be as poor but have less freedom than Soviet Citizens.

If we demonstrate or protest we can be be seized and relocated to another region. The EU Arrest Warrant and Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with 20 other oppressive Acts the Queen has signed between 1972 and 2005, give the government absolute power over us. They can shoot us if they wish with no legal comeback – the shootings of innocents Philip Prout and Jean de Menezes were entirely legal under EU law.

EU Truth

Annual Cost of the EU £295bn or 25% of GDP

7 deadly Lisbon clauses

The end of freedom

Expansion of the EU

Common Purpose

Please, just try and tell other people about this, and wake them up. Decades of TV junket and brainwashing have turned people away from politics when they need to be paying attention the most. People voted Conservative because they don’t like Labour. THAT ISN’T HOW YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO VOTE. You’re suppsed to do research, read manifestos, keep an open mind and question everything.

You no longer have any choices. Time is running out. You know what you must do.

Thanks for reading.

A Life Blighted By Feminism

A great letter, written by a gentleman called Philip Jones to Henry Makow. Found via Rense.

I’m sure many men can relate this his experiences. He has been there, done that and got the T-Shirt, this is how he feels.

Dear Henry,

Feminism has been a blight on my life. *It has obstructed, even prevented me from realizing my absolute potential as a man and creature of nature. It has corrupted every relationship, perverted how others have perceived me, how I have perceived others, and endeared a rotten and reluctant misogyny within my breast for that deranged part of the female of our breed which kneels at the alter of the feminist lie.

Of course, the nature of this misogyny is borne out of resentment for experiences lost and is vengeful and bitter in it’s reluctance, as as much as I loathe them, I delight in the true feminine. Continue reading

International Woman’s Propaganda Day

A.K.A. International Feminist’s Propaganda Day

Amazing. A day where women all over the world try and do their best to make men feel guilty for existing. It is also a day where feminists recycle the same old crap about women being paid less, domestic violence, rape, how great abortion is, women’s health problems, equal opportunities and other statistics regarding how hard women have it in our society.

As usual, the feminists wrap their lies up in emotions and ally themselves to proper causes like oppression under Islamic regimes, dictatorships, attacks on free speech and the like in order to try and give their lies more credibility by association.

It’s a bad thing in my opinion, this International Woman’s Day. Why? Because it is a day with no relative day for men, and puts forth the idea that women’s issues deserve an international day, whereas men’s issues do not (that is, women are more important than men). Continue reading

Feminist at the End of Her Rope

Two articles by Henry Makow for your attention.

Feminist at the End of Her Rope

What better example of stupid, self-defeating behavior than the latest advice of  a veteran feminist?

In an article entitled “Marry Him” (Atlantic Monthly, March 2008)  Lori Gottlieb advises her sisters to “settle”–marry anything  in sight…and fast.  This kind of abject surrender, while satisfying in an “I told you so” way, is also sad.

Millions of women who outsourced their common sense and trusted the media, their teachers, their leaders and their society are now high-and-dry. They were told they could have it all but most can’t.

There are three times as many single women in their 30’s now than there were in the 1970’s. By the time these women have established their careers, many are too hard bitten and used, and the good men are all gone.

They are the victims of the most evil, most successful, social engineering program in history. It was  designed to turn out exactly as it has: give them career instead of family. But until feminists acknowledge that they are victims of a cruel hoax, they won’t be able to salvage whatever is left.

I’ll elaborate on this theme later but first Ill give you a taste of the wisdom of a woman who defines “pathetic.”

Now for the second article. Continue reading

The Lies of Fluoridation and who Benefits

Flouride. You get it in toothpaste, some get it in their drinking water from the tap. There are two types of flouride. Naturally occuring and artificial flouride, or sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid,

These compounds originate as side products from the processing (“defluorination”) of phosphate ores to prepare fertilizers, food additives, etc. Fluorides such as sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium monofluorophosphate (“SMFP” or “MFP”, Na2FPO3), tin(II) fluoride (“Stannous fluoride”, SnF2), and amine fluorides are common ingredients in toothpaste. Source.

Another take here:

Hydrofluosilic acid (H 2 SiF 6 ) and other fluorosilicates are not naturally occurring. They are waste products derived from the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides, fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.

Professor Kaj Roholm , former Chief of the Toxicology Committee for the National Research Council the author of the first and most comprehensive monograph on fluorosilicates classifies hydrofluorosilic acid and hexafluorosilic acid as “extremely toxic.” One chemical company selling fluoride to water suppliers describes it as “a colourless to straw yellow, transparent, fuming, corrosive liquid with a pungent odour and irritating action on the skin.” Source.

The government claims it is ‘good for your teeth’ and ‘the benefits are proven’ (quite similar to the way they talk about Gardasil. Neither of these claims are true, but the MSM has recently begun a push to inject the image of mass fluoridation as a positive as “Health Secretary Alan Johnson is going to give the go-ahead for it to be added to water.” Continue reading

Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK

It was only a matter of time.

HPV Vaccine Gardasil

HPV Vaccine Gardasil 2

Cervical cancer vaccine punted to 300,000 more teenage girls

HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination.

A jab that could be given to hundreds of thousands of schoolgirls this autumn was at the centre at a safety scare last night following the deaths of two young women.

European regulators are investigating the “sudden and unexpected” deaths of the women who received Gardasil, one of two jabs to protect against cervical cancer licensed for use in the UK.

The vaccine has been hailed as a breakthrough by the Department of Health, which is backing an annual programme of vaccination for girls aged 11 to 13 years starting in September.

The jab is already available privately and a thirteen-year-old girl from London became the first in the country to receive the cervical cancer vaccine in 2006. Hollie Anderson’s mother, Lisa, paid £450 for her to have the jab after seeing her own mother battle against cancer.

I have been saying it’s dangerous for ages, and so have countless others. The government gave millions of pounds of taxpayers money to Merck, the shit-kicking Big Pharma firm to buy an untested vaccine, that had a history of deaths and bad reactions from those who received the cocktail of crap. Continue reading