Multiple false rape accuser finally jailed.

Elizabeth Jones, 22, admitted she lied about the latest rape allegation because she “did not like” the man she accused of attacking her, Southampton Crown Court was told.

Her latest victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was arrested and questioned for nine hours before being released without charge.

After a judge jailed her for 16 months, it emerged today that she made her first complaint in 2004 aged just 13 before alleging other men had attacked her over the next nine years.

Another disgusting bitch acting without impunity, mollycoddled by the misandric state who always views the female as the ‘victim’ regardless of the circumstances. And why not? Men are all evil right?

Even after all of those nasty lies, she only gets jailed for 16 months. In a comfy community centre prison. She’ll do half that. 

Do you know what the going rate is for a rape conviction for a man? Well, the sentencing guidelines suggest you begin from at least five years. (It’s on page 23).

I guess we’re not equal after all. What’s that? You’re expecting feminists to come out of the woodwork demanding equal sentencing?

LOL

One for the wenches…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, a question;

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

Oh sorry I’m objectifying.

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x

A Phoenix of Liberty Rises

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

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

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

Thanks for reading.

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

Attack on nuclear family leads to chaos

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

Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global one world dictatorship – Financial Times

Families in meltdown, judge says

The Labour government’s anti-family tax system

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Family Being Replaced with Feral Gangs In Socialist Britain

1,300 women have had at least FIVE abortions

Girls + Alcohol + Feminism = Record number of Abortions

Children don’t need fathers, they need lesbians

David Cameron in the feminists pocket

Man jailed for trying to protect his family

Why Feminism is a Fraud…

Half of single mothers ‘do not want to work’

The Effect of Eugenics Propaganda: Decline of Civilization

Infowars

Carolyn Harris
Infowars
December 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brothel’s booming in London

Horray! Now if London females weren’t stuck up, selfish, self-righteous tramps maybe there wouldn’t be such a booming market for this service. So view this article as an indicator to the quality of women in London, which, like the air quality, is atrocious!

Source: BBC

(Extract)

London’s brothel industry has spread to “every corner” of the city, according to a charity’s report.

Brothels in the city offer sex for as little as £15, and some are charging £10 extra for unprotected intercourse, the Poppy Project in Southwark found.

Free market capitalism at its finest. Big fat LOL. See, all those feminist ball-breaker bitches aren’t very attractive. Easier to just have sex with a whore and be done with all the nagging and girl-power bullshit.

Its report said 85% of brothels in the city operated in residential areas and researchers posing as sex buyers found brothels in all 33 London boroughs.

Westminster had the highest number with 71, compared with eight in Southwark.

The study was compiled by the Poppy Project, which provides education about prostitution and helps victims of sex trafficking.

Westminster, where all the politicians work and next to the City. Who would have thought.

Together the brothels generated between £50m and £130m a year, the researchers estimated.

Now check this out. Obviously, beeing the BBC, they have to start trying to paint women as victims in this. The next paragraph is headed ‘Underage girls’ although there is no proof of it.

The average age of the women was 21. Several places offered “very, very young girls” but did not admit to having underage girls available.

Women makes false rape claim – Jailed for ONE YEAR

Women’s right to choose extends to destroying men’s lives then.

Source: Daily Mail

A woman who cried rape was jailed yesterday after her false claim resulted in an innocent man being arrested and undergoing a ‘humiliating’ ordeal.

In a childish attempt to make her family feel guilty following an argument, Kerry Saunders claimed she had been sexually assaulted after a night out.

She was overheard making the allegation by a passing police community support officer.

Within hours, student Oladepo Otesile was picked up by police near the scene of the alleged attack and held in a cell for 22 hours, where he was interviewed under caution and given an intimate forensic examination.

Samples of his DNA, mugshots and fingerprints were also taken.

Only after Mr Otesile was bailed to return for an identity parade did the alleged ‘victim’ contact police to admit the allegations were false.

Sentencing 26-year-old Saunders to a year imprisonment, the judge said ‘it was something she brought on herself’ and branded her actions ‘ghastly’.

As well as depriving Mr Otesile of his liberty, her false claims cost police £4,500 in wasted time, Basildon Crown Court in Essex heard.

Judge Michael Brooke QC, said the victim had been put through an unnecessary ordeal.

1 in 5 Men ‘Wrongly’ Identified by Mothers as Father

Source: The Guardian

Nearly one in five paternity claims handled by the Child Support Agency end up showing the mother has deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father, figures show.

Since DNA paternity testing figures began to be collected in 1998-99, 4,854 paternity claims have turned out to be false after DNA testing.

Under child support legislation it is a criminal offence to make a false statement or representation, and to provide false documents or information.

However, according to the CSA, there has not been a single prosecution of a woman for making a false claim. The figures showing the number of false paternity claims have been compiled using freedom of information legislation.

That is because women, especially single mothers are protected by fascism, I mean feminism. (Sorry, I tend to get the ‘-isms’ mixed up.) You see, they are one of the politically correct protected groups. It gets better;

The CSA does not have figures for whether any women have named the wrong father on more than one occasion. They also appear to have no information as to why women named the wrong father.

CSA rules state that if the DNA test establishes that the named father is the actual father, then he must pay for the cost of the test. If the DNA establishes he is not the father then the taxpayer pays, so there is no consquence for the mother in making a false claim.

The government has spent £9.37m on paternity tests since 1998. This includes refunds for DNA tests privately funded.

The government hasn’t spent anything. The taxpayer has. Another example of using the victim card to avoid consequences. So, similar to accusations of rape, women can through the weight of the State against a male, for whatever selfish reason and feel safe of no repercussions.

And women still have the nerve to claim that men have it easier. But then they have to, it’s part of the act. As soon as they give up the victim card the game is over.

What attracts (female) Italian model to (male) overweight millionaire? Hmm.

Personality obviously, that’s what all women are interested in.

Source: Daily Mail

Formula One playboy Flavio Briatore has dated a string of models in his time – including Naomi Campbell and Heidi Klum – and his latest companion is no exception.

The 58-year-old lapped up the attention from his new wife, Italian Wonderbra model Elisabetta Gregoraci, during a romantic getaway in Sardinia yesterday.

The multi-millionaire, whose rather rotund physique clearly hasn’t diminished his ability to attract women, hit the beach with the bikini-clad brunette before retiring to his luxury boat for some sun and affection.

Briatore married Gregoraci, who at 28 is 30 years his junior, in Rome last month at a 12th-century basilica near the Vatican.

Life under a feminist mother, by her daughter

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

Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full version can be read here.

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

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

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

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

Rocket MAN flies to 8,200ft

How cool is this?

Swooping and diving above the mountainous town of Bex in western Switzerland, the self-styled “Rocket Man” flew at 8,200ft for more than five minutes thanks to an 8ft jet-powered wing strapped to his back.

It has always been Mr Rossy’s ambition to fly freely, but it has taken four years of working on his jet design for that dream to become reality.

To achieve his bird-like status, the former Swiss fighter pilot was taken up in a light aircraft, just like a normal skydiver.

On jumping from the plane he appeared to plummet towards earth, before his fall turned to a glide and he ignited the four small jet engines attached to the carbon wing. Once under power and using a lever to control the fuel, he had the freedom to soar where he chose.

Clearly enjoying his first public flight, at speeds of up to 186mph, Mr Rossy tipped his wings, flipped onto his back then levelled out again, performing a 360-degree roll.

Unlike Icaraus, the Greek mythological figure who flew too close to the sun and did not live to tell the tale, the 48-year-old landed safely using a parachute.

“This flight was excellent,” he said afterwards. “It’s like a second skin. If I turn to the left, I fly left. If I nudge to the right, I go right.”

Now he is planning an even greater challenge – to fly across the Channel.

I was reading this and wondering why there aren’t more women conceiving and constructing things like this, especially considering all of their women-only tax schemes and business initiatives continually being set up to pander to them.

Well consider this.

First you actually have to find something like this interesting (as opposed to the latest celeb crap gossip). You then have to study engineering and construction so you can understand the limits of what is possible compared to what you want to achieve. You then have to dedicate years of your life to trying to build it.

And there is no guarantee it is going to work. So its all very time consuming and requires much effort that may not result in a gain.

Except that, the desire to build it, and the journey trying to build it is what makes it fun.

This brings me to the point of my little rant. Women and girls love trying to denigrate men and boys, saying they’re useless, clumsy, girl power and all that bollocks.

For guys who may benefit from a bit of a boost from the constant onslaught of anti-male attitudes and propaganda… Who’s flying in the jet suit like a Centurion? Who designed the machinery that enables that light bulb to shine when you flick the switch…

It’s amazing, the level of delusional grandeur women will wallow in. Like this silly bitch.

I tried not to laugh. MMs (Macho Men) can be unintentionally hilarious. The way to deal with a modern MM, I realise, is to channel his energies into things you need him to do, like fix the car, and ignore the rest, or at least don’t let him see you smirking. It might hurt his ego, poor lamb.

The reality is that the mechanics of civilisation are invented, built and maintained by men, contrary to media-fed femmie-pandering propaganda. Remember to think about what IS, not was IS SAID.

Don’t forget that.

Another man falsely accused of rape – To ‘teach him a lesson’.

Another false rape claim. The case was thrown out after less than three hours’ deliberation.

The jury had heard that Mr Gillett’s accuser, the daughter of a well-known personality, had twice left the room on the night of the incident, but returned.

Two students in a nearby room testified that they had not heard her calling for help, even though their door and Mr Gillett’s were left ajar throughout the alleged ordeal.

Another student revealed he had shared a bed with the slightly-built blonde on two occasions, weeks before the alleged sexual assault.

She later told a friend the man had sexually assaulted her but she never made a formal complaint – even when interviewed about her allegations involving Mr Gillett.

Remember, this actually went all the way to the Crown Prosecution Service, who is supposed to decide whether a case has sufficient evidence to justify a court case. It would seem the mere words of a woman, even if they contradict reality, would suffice. Anything to prop up the falling rape conviction statistics…

Woman who falsely cried rape FIVE times – Gets SUSPENDED sentence.

A binge-drinking woman who acused five innocent men of rape walked free from court.

Tracy Brooks, 26, wasted massive amounts of police time when she made two false allegations against two friends within the space of a month last summer.

Crime number one. Wasting police time.

The men were arrested, questioned, held for hours in custody and faced the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence if her claims were believed.

Crime number two. False claims of rape.

But weeks later she came clean and told detectives the allegations were false.

Several years ago Brooks, a self-confessed binge-drinker, falsely accused three other men of rape in separate incidents, Newcastle Crown Court was told.

In 2001 and 2002, she made complaints against two former boyfriends and in 2004 she told police she had been raped by a friend’s boyfriend.

But the judge said he could not take these incidents into account in passing sentence because she had never been formally cautioned or charged in relation to them.

Instead, Brooks, of North Shields, North Tyneside, was given a 32-week suspended prison sentence and a three-month night-time curfew. She had admitted two charges of perverting the course of justice.

Crime number three. Perjury.

Sperm donor wins child support battle

Good news men! Well, potentially at least. Hopefully this sets a legal precedent.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

For those who don’t know, it is normal for a man who donated his sperm with the understanding he would not be liable to provide for the child, to then be sued for child support and be forced to pay regardless. Like what happened to this idiot.

“Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother’s reproductive prerogatives,” Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Cost of coitus: Male monkeys pay for sex

I’m not surprised but…

PARIS (AFP) — Selling sex is said to be humankind’s oldest profession but it may have deep evolutionary roots, according to a study into our primate cousins which found that male macaques pay for intercourse by using grooming as a currency.

Michael Gumert of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore made the discovery in a 20-month investigation into 50 long-tailed macaques in Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia, New Scientist reports on Saturday.

On average, females had sex 1.5 times per hour.

But this rate jumped to 3.5 times per hour immediately after the female had been groomed by a male — and her partner of choice was likely to be the hunky monkey that did the grooming.

Market forces also acted on the value of the transaction.

The attack on men continues…

With a series of reforms being pushed through that include ‘being given written instructions to “dispel myths” about victims‘ and allowing video ‘testimony’ and hearsay ‘evidence’ in court. And in case you have any doubts about what the aim of this is, the next quote from the Daily Mail article states it, clear as day.

The advice will be handed out as part of a series of reforms designed to increase the number of men convicted of rape.

This is disgusting. That line does not say ‘increase the ability of a court to prove or disprove a man’s innocence.’ It says, ‘convict more men of rape.’ That is why they are allowing hearsay as evidence. The violation of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ is obvious.

The plans were attacked by legal experts, who warned that allowing hearsay evidence to be used in trials would “offer the opportunity for fabrication and evidence creation”.

As already happens. This will just make it easier for a woman to destroy your life with false claims.