UN to cause 3 billion deaths as result of Codex Alimentarius

Source: YouTube

Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries.

Codex Alimentarius will go into global implementation by December 31, 2009, unless We, the People, avert it.

Codex Alimentarius Summarized in 7 Points

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

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

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

Amanda Platell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through the Eyes of a Woman

Quickly scouting through my daily list of news (lol) sites, I saw this article. I clicked on it because of the apparent contradiction between the article title and the picture.

Lineker in love: Gary and Danielle can’t hide their love as they cuddle in the street

First, I read the title, then looked at the picture, which is the below:

I thought, ‘that looks like a woman grabbing onto a rich, famous guy’. But I’m a cynical bastard.

I then read the first sentence of the article.

Gary Lineker can’t hide his love for model girlfriend Danielle Bux as the couple cuddled each other tightly in a London street.

Then I looked at the picture again. Now I’m no expert on body language, but that sentence and that picture do not mesh in my feeble little Man-mind. I thought to myself ‘this must have been written by a woman’, and obviously I was right.

It continues;

The couple clearly couldn’t wait until they got home to show their affection, as they wrapped their arms tightly around each other while strolling on London’s Kings Road.

Reminds me how women live on another planet. Although a planet of hugs and romance is infinitely better than the sick NWO world feminists desire, where males are enslaved and culled, etc.

This obviously isn’t a serious article, I’ll do that later when I get back from the pub (priorities.) However, as a man, I must say I laughed when I saw the look on the man’s face while he is out shopping with his chickadee.

How many men know that look LOL.

By the way, has anyone seen that ‘TV programme’ called Sweet 16? I saw an episode the other day. F*ck me, I didn’t know girls that age could be such arseholes. Why do the fathers let their daughters get away with that shit?

Free Ambient Music Album Download

Off topic for this site, but you may like it.

My friend has put an album of his online for free (as in free to download, copy, share.) It’s nice and chilled out, something people will probably need while reading the depressing stuff on this site lol.

It is under a Creative Commons license.

You can download it at the following link: http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/27667

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

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

Source: Prisonplanet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of the article at Prisonplanet.

Added to the Global Warming? page.

Cervical cancer vaccine punted to 300,000 more teenage girls

Source: Telegraph

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.

Bullsh*t.

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!

From European Public Assessment Report, Product Information PDF;

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
• headache
• aching muscles, muscle tenderness or weakness (not caused by exercise)
• tiredness
Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of
vaccine):
• 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)
• dizziness
• 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?

MONEY.

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.

Gardasil vaccine deaths in UK
HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed
HPV Vaccine Gardasil 2
HPV Vaccine Gardasil
FDA and HPV — when did they know the truth?

British Women Arrested In Blowjob Competition

Seriously, they did. They were on holiday…

Source: Reuters

Nine British women were facing prostitution charges after being arrested at the weekend for taking part in an oral sex competition in the Greek holiday island of Zakynthos, police said on Monday.

Six British and six Greek men, including two bar owners, were also charged in the incident, which took place at Laganas beach in the south of the Ionian island, which lies off the west coast of mainland Greece, police said.

The women, who came to the popular resort on holiday, had been paid to take part in the competition, which was video recorded and was to be posted on the Internet, police said.

The men were charged with encouraging obscene behaviour.

Naturally they assumed it was the men’s idea, and What The F*ck, it was going to be put online and they still did it? Maybe they were the mothers of these girls, hoping for a bit of fame and all that. I wonder if they were all doing it, what the competition was? Which one could get a strangers’ sperm in their mouth the fastest?

The prostitution charge makes sense though. They were getting paid for sex. Now I wonder how many other women could be charged with that in this day and age…

The Girls Who ‘Aspire’ To Be Glamour Models?

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

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

Source: Daily Mail

(Extracts)

Yes, they are both 13 years old.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Television: Opiate of the Masses

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

Source: Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woman Kills Own Baby, Walks Free

Source: Daily Mail

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

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

Are they trying to blame her actions on the baby?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, so now this woman is a victim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he is right.

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

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

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

Source: Daily Mail

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

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

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

Girl power. Feminists must be proud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FULL ABORTIONS SHOWN ON SPANISH TELEVISION – FIRST IN HISTORY

Right to choose

Vaccine Nation – Directors Cut

The full length documentary by Gary Null PhD regarding health issues of vaccines, corruptions by courts, and the promotion of untested and unproven vaccines by Big Pharma in order to keep the multi-billion dollar industry ticking over. This includes Gardasil.

For most people, vaccinating themselves and their children seems like a good idea. Vaccines are safe, effective and are supposed to protect us against dangerous infectious diseases – Right? Wrong! What you don’t know can harm you or kill you! In this groundbreaking film, you will: * See the truth about the dangers of vaccines and their direct relationship to autoimmune diseases, infections, allergies and a massive increase of developmental learning and behavioral disorders in children, such as Autism. * Discover the truth about the history of vaccines and how they have NEVER been proven to be safe and effective for anyone. * Witness the legacy of governmental deception and cover-ups associated with vaccines. * Learn about the corruption within the scientific community and how vaccine studies are seriously flawed. * You’ll also follow heart-wrenching, real life stories of the parents and children devastated by the effects of vaccines. Join director Gary Null PhD and over 40 of the worlds foremost vaccine experts in this shocking expose’ that will shatter the truth as you know it. DVD copies are available at http://www.garynull.com.

She wore her first set of false eyelashes at eight, and her beauty treatments cost £300 a month. A sick abuse of an 11-year-old?

Feminists don’t seem to understand their own sex very well. I was considering making this part of the Matriarchal Self Worship Series, but it is more of a woman’s projection of her superficiality and narcissism onto her daughter. Like that never happens! Sexualization of girls or women being blamed for girls’ image problems for example.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extracts)

At 11, Sasha Bennington is too young to remember the days when Jordan was just a country and being branded ‘fake’ was something to be ashamed of.

But maybe the youngster’s biggest tragedy is that her mother, Jayne, 31, is in no hurry to paint a picture of how it used to be.

Jayne is talking breezily about how Sasha had her first set of false nails glued on at eight, and now enjoys the sort of rigorous beauty regime  –  hair extensions, fake tans, pedicures  –  that was once the preserve of porn stars and Dolly Parton, not school children from Burnley in Lancashire.

Still, times have changed. ‘All the kids are at it now,’ insists Jayne. ‘We spend about £300 a month on beauty treatments for her.

‘Sasha’s friends are the same. All girls their age are. Of course they are! Why else would you be able to buy make-up for pre-teens at Boots?

Um, because Boots wants to make money? And all girls aren’t the same, it’s their mothers that are the same. Using their daughters to compete with each other. The attitude of this ‘mother’ is alarming to say the least, with lines like;

‘I don’t understand why people get so upset about it. None of it is permanent. Tans wash off. Hair extensions come out. Why all the fuss?’

They kept saying they wanted the girls to look natural. Why? Let them slap it on! What’s the harm?’

What else does one expect? They scurried off to a U.S. beauty pageant with a film crew, where the mother revealed how sacrificial and noble she is;

‘I fell in love with a pink dress that made her look like a princess, but the people advising us told us you should always match the dress to the eyes  –  so we went for green.

‘That was OK, though. I wasn’t there to have the dress I wanted. I was there so that Sasha could win. I was amazed at how much there was to learn, but I knew I was in the hands of the experts.’

Objectification anyone?

It seems that the main lesson learned was that her darling daughter could look like a plastic Barbie, and be rewarded with a sash to prove it.

‘People always said she looked like a Barbie in Miss British Isles, but the girls in Texas truly did,’ enthuses Jayne.

‘It was wonderful. I watched them on the catwalk, with their arms held so precisely, walking slowly and turning just so. They reminded me of little ballerina dolls.’

What sort of mother wants her daughter to look like a doll? The image I have in my head is of Exorcist Barbie, but Jayne sees something else entirely.

The article author cottoned on to the matriarchal projection however.

Her response to the pageant pictures of Sasha  –  looking shocking with deep red lips and heavily smoked eyes  –  probably says more about her than her daughter.

‘The pictures are amazing, and Sasha is such a lucky girl to have them. I’d love to have those sort of pictures, nice pictures, rather than ones you hide away because you can’t bear to look at them.’

It was about the same time she started dabbling in beauty pageants that Jayne declared she wanted her daughter to be the next Jordan. She still does.

For those readers who do not know who ‘Jordan’ is, curse you, you lucky buggers. Just imagine Mister Geppetto with a Barbie Doll instead of a piece of wood. With about the same amount of personality.

‘Of course. Jordan is her idol and I fully support her in that. She’s a great role model, this really down-to-earth woman who has made a big success of her life. She’s a better role model than Britney Spears  –  any day.’

Okay, this is her. Content with making her daughter into an object, she then attempts to sell her.

In the forthcoming documentary, Jayne takes Sasha to a major agency, in the hope that she will be signed up.

The model booker says a vehement ‘no’, horrified by her portfolio, and tells Jayne that clients want their child models to look like children, and that for this sort of career success she would have to stop bleaching Sasha’s hair and encouraging her to wear plastic nails. Jayne refuses to comply.

It comes as no surprise that Jayne used to be a model herself, and one who worked in the ‘glamour’ side of the business.

She started at 23  –  which, she explains, was ‘far too late’ for real career success  –  and now believes that earlier is better, in order to maximise profit and notoriety.

One of her own happiest memories is of entering a beauty pageant and winning the coveted sash. ‘I was on top of the world. One day I was an ordinary clerical worker, the next everyone was looking at me. It was wonderful.

Bloody hell. This mother didn’t sell her body as much as she’d hoped in her time, so obviously her daughter is the next best thing.

‘She’s always wanted to be a model, 100per cent. I’m just helping her do what she wants, like any good parent would. It’s not pushing her into anything. I hate it when people say I’m a pushy parent. I’m not. I just want the best for her.’

I’m not a parent, but I don’t think that doing whatever the child wants is a good parent. That’s how you get this. You are supposed to set rules and boundaries for children. Instil morality, good behaviour and constructive attitudes.

But maybe that’s just me. I wonder where the father is?

And what Sasha wants, Sasha clearly gets. Last Christmas, Jayne and her husband, Martin, a builder who works all over the UK and is barely at home, spent £26,000 on Sasha’s presents, which included a swimming pool.

Goes some way to explaining the situation.

What will become of the child, who turns just 12 in two weeks? We might hope for a reverse teenage rebellion  –  one in which she dyes her hair mousey brown and professes a desire to study political science at university  –  but it’s unlikely.

Ask Sasha how she sees herself and she replies: ‘Blonde, pretty, dumb  –  I don’t need brains.’ Her mum laughs her head off at this, proud that the child is so like her.

Indeed. How far Britain has fallen.

The European Story and more

Just a quick note that on FreeBritain, I have compiled a post regarding the corruption and power of the EU, its history, current effects etc. I didn’t write it, but it’s a thorough breakdown of that socialist dictatorship. It is pretty long, but not everything can be a convenient summary.

The European Story

In regards to Islam and the constant capitulation by politically correct (read: culturally impotent) State services, comes this story of Muslims in Britain complaining that the Police Force has put a puppy on a poster. Islam deems puppies ‘dirty’ and so complain about it. Why don’t they say that about us non-Muslims? Seeing as they view us as the dirtiest and most disgusting things of all. This presents just one more in a never ending line of Muslim groups, calling for Islamic Law in Britain through degrees or just outright. Sharia Law is an oppressive regime that is incompatible with our British Laws or the Laws in the US (which are based on ours, not that our respective governments are following them.) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Islamic Law are not compatible, as this following quote states;

Predominantly Islamic countries, like Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

Islam has no place in Free Society, and what we are seeing now is nothing less than reverse colonisation, one of the forms of Islamic Holy War. The State endorses it because it helps disenfranchise British people and therefore our Culture, Heritage and National Identity.

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”- G. Brock Chisholm,  Co-Founder of the World Federation for Mental Health

ANOTHER CASE OF THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

The real enemy of Britain is not the EU, it is our own Government, because it is our Government that is giving the EU the powers to rule over us. Everyday the Government exists in its current form is another day it is committing Traitorous Acts against the British People.

Woman stabs pregnant woman to death, cuts baby from womb

Source: Daily Mail

Amazingly, the newborn infant survived the attack and is being treated in hospital in Spokane, Washington.

A 23-year-old woman has been arrested.

The 27-year-old victim, named in court documents as Araceli Camacho Gomez, had her hands and feet bound with yarn.

She suffered ‘massive trauma to her stomach area’ late on Friday night.

A postmortem showed she died of the chest wounds, but had other wounds ‘consistent with the cutting of the body to remove an unborn child’.

Her body was found early on Saturday in a park in the city of Kennewick.

A woman, Phiengchai Sisouvanh Synhavong, has been arrested in connection with the murder.

What. The. Hell? Is this a case of baby rabies?

She is accused of trying to pass the infant boy off as her own in calls made on Friday night to emergency dispatchers.

She is being held without bail, with another court appearance scheduled Wednesday.

Court documents say gloves soaked in blood, a boxcutter, bloody paper towels, yarn, baby bottle and baby socks were among some of the items found in Sisouvanh Synhavong’s purse.

This evil bitch then tried to pass the baby off as her own!

Court documents allege that Sisouvanh Synhavong called 911 at 11:04 p.m. Friday saying she was by JC Penney, had just given birth and that she thought the baby had died.

The call ended, but the woman called again a few minutes later.

Dispatchers were able to trace the calls, and she was found in a parking lot with the baby, holding what appeared to be an umbilical cord.

Not insane, ‘mentally ill’, crazy or such psychopolitical nonsense. She is plain Evil and Nasty. I hope she gets what she deserves. I won’t post a pic here, if you want to see the human version of Majin Boo visit the Daily Mail.

IRELAND SAYS NO TO LISBON TREATY!!

EUObserver

Across Ireland, voters have strongly voted No to the Lisbon Treaty, which looks all but certainly set for defeat.

Nationwide, based on unofficial tallies of seven out of 43 constituencies declared, the No is leading the Yes side 57.6 percent to 42.4 percent.

Dermot Ahern, the Irish justice minister, speaking on RTE television, said: “We’re in uncharted waters here.”

“The results are quite clear,” he added, “I don’t see how they can be overturned [from where they are at this point].”

Declan Ganley, the millionaire businessman and founder of Libertas, the centre-right anti-Treaty group campaigning around tax harmonisation issues and against European ‘red tape’, said: “It’s a great day for the Irish people and a great day for Irish democracy.”

“The Irish people have shown enormous courage and wisdom. They have given a resounding meassage that comes atop the votes against the constitution in France and the Netherlands.

“We are bringing democracy into the heart of the European Union,” he added, speaking to reporters in the courtyard of Dublin Castle, where the central vote count is being held. “This is democracy in action, and the third time Irish citizens have said ‘No’ to this formula.”

This is precisely why the corrupt governments of the other 26 members of the EU refused to give their respective People a referendum on the EUCCP Lisbon Treaty and the majority have already ratified it (in Britain the ratification is an Act of Treason). For an overview of the Treaty’s clauses and ramifications, please visit my earlier post Why Ireland Should Vote No To the Lisbon Treaty.

Barring vote tampering, it looks like end result will be definitely be NO. The Daily Mail reports the following;

Irish voters appeared to have rejected the Lisbon Treaty this afternoon, throwing the European Union into crisis.

To shock across the continent,  the country’s Justice Minister Dermot Ahern conceded today that the vote appeared to have been won by opponents of the controversial treaty.

‘It looks like this will be a “no” vote,’ Mr Ahern said on live television.

“At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”

The result, if correct, would deal a devastating blow to the controversial treaty and have major ramifications for the rest of Europe.

Ireland is the only EU country to have held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, though 18 of the 27 members states have already ratified it.

We should use this intelligent and wise result from the Irish People to spread the truth about the Lisbon Treaty to those who do not know the facts. Time to step up the dissemination of information about the waste, the corruption, the Communist ideal’s and the dictatorship that is the real Face of the European Dream.

No doubt the EU will try its hardest to accelerate its progress and its plans for abolishing the sovereignty of member nations. The BBC mentions;

The BBC’s Oana Lungescu in Brussels says EU leaders are bracing for defeat but are expected to press on with the treaty, which is meant to streamline decision-making in the now expanded EU.

People have to realise that their respective governments do not act in their best interests or in the interests of their Laws. This has been decades in the planning and implementing and we are now in the final stages of their endgame for the European Superstate;

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who personally saw secret documents in 1992 which outlined a conspiracy to turn the European Union into a Socialist dictatorship;

The Soviet files outlined a plan from the mid-1980’s onwards to hijack the European Union and turn it into what Bukovksy calls the EUSSR, a totalitarian federal superstate with no accountability or direct representation.

There would have been no more Treaties after Lisbon, none would have been necessary as it would have finalised the transfer of all sovereign powers of all nations to Brussels.

That is why Brussels commanded our heads of State to ratify it without a public vote.

That is why Brussels refused to let member States publish the Lisbon Treaty until it is ratified.

That is why Brussels redesigned the Treaty with the specific intention of covering up the original Constitution while keeping all of its changes.

And that is why we, the People must STOP IT. Our governments are firmly in the grip of the EU which is obvious by their actions and inactions. We need to get active and pressure our governments like never before.

They have abused their power too much, for too long.

Today however, the score definitely reads;

Ireland 1 – 0 Tyranny.

🙂

(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

Sideline Christianity and promote Islam! says Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary (Labour)

Labour in bed with Islam - endofmen.wordpress.com This is unbelievable. I was reading this very good article regarding the real and present threats to Western Civilisation from Islam and Marxist Liberal Insects called The Execution of Britain from Brussels Journal when I came upon this article in the Telegraph. And what the hell is a Communities Secretary anyway?

It is “common sense” for Christianity to be sidelined at the expense of Islam, a Government minister claimed on Sunday.

Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, defended Labour’s policy on religion after a report backed by the Church of England claimed that Muslims receive a disproportionate amount of attention.

She said it was right that more money and effort was spent on Islam than Christianity because of the threat from extremism and home-grown terrorism.

She really believes promoting Islam and marginalising Christianity will be good for Britain? It has to be said, that Islam and Sharia Law are incompatible with British Law and Christianity. Yes yes I know, Britain is secular now. That isn’t the point, the point is Christianity was like a godfather to Britain, helping it grow and resist subversion from foreign cultures and beliefs, something to be respected even in the eyes of a ‘non-believer’ like me) as opposed to the socialist (Labour party) and communism as described below:

Gary Allan in his multimillion best seller None Dare Call It Conspiracy, states the following about Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

“If you study Marx Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said the proletarian revolution would establish the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished. 1. The elimination of all right to private property. 2. The dissolution of the family unit: and 3. Destruction of what Marx referred to as the ‘opiate of the people,’ ‘Religion.

Back to the socialists in power today.

She added: “We live in a secular democracy. That’s a precious thing. We don’t live in a theocracy, but we’ve always accepted that hundreds of thousands of people are motivated by faith. We live in a secular democracy but we want to recognise the role of faith.”

I see this as slightly strange. One minute stating government secularism and in the same breath advocating for the active promotion of a foreign religion, using taxpayers money that invariably will come from Christians in the country as well as many others who may not particularly want Islam promoted in their community. I guess that makes them ‘racist’ right?

The liberal Leftist Communists deem it appropriate to try and reduce the influence of Christianity, with taxpayers money, and without taxpayer’s permission. Religious communism? Two diametrically opposed religions placed at even keel with each other in the same country. No… that won’t create any problems… Our Marxist theory book says so! And if there are any problems, we can just strengthen the police state and strip you ALL of more rights in response. Religious Collectivism then;

As The Daily Telegraph reported on Saturday, the landmark report commissioned by the Church and written by academics at the Von Hugel Institute accuses ministers of paying only “lip service” to Christianity and marginalising the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, while focusing “intently” on Islam.

Well, if the BBC was anything to go by, this should have been seen coming years ago with that memo in 2006

The admissions of bias were made at a recent “impartiality” summit the BBC held. Most executives admitted the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, YnetNews.com said. The British news agency, the report said, leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

This is not new mind you, it is just that the government is getting so confident in its power over the people that members of it will begin saying openly what they have actually done for years. But even that should come as much of a surprise to those who have studied the Barcelona Declaration, the Euro-Mediterranean Project and the conclusion of Eurabia.

The article continues;

However Malaysia’s Prime Minister warned yesterday that Muslim extremism in Britain will grow unless the Government and society learn to understand Islam.

Abdullah Badawi claimed that the legacy of Britain’s imperial past has hampered its ability to appreciate its Islamic population.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the prime minister urged Gordon Brown to allow the country’s Muslims to live under Islamic law, but also said that they must prove their worth to society.

My emphasis. What else could allowing a foreign people to live under a foreign law system in a sovereign land mean? Somebody please tell me I’m not over-reacting here! The Muslims Against Sharia site correctly states;

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.

It would need to change to match the host country. That is how it usually works. Changing or attempting to change the host county’s culture, heritage or laws can be construed an act of aggression. The government knowingly facilitating such actions must be held to account for Treason. As it should have been done many times already.

P.S. I notice that the methodoloy utilised by the Lefties in power (Muslim = Victims, Britain = Oppressor) is exactly the same as the one used by Feminists (Women = Victim, Men = Oppressor), Socialists/ Communists (Working class – Victim, Middle Class = Oppressor),  Environmentalists (Earth = Victim, Civilisation (minus elite) = Oppressor), and generally any other special interest (usually minority) group that wants to exert power over a majority, and Labour is always there to lend a helping hand.