phoenix3

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 cumchange agents” to believe that human life is not as valuable as flora and fauna, that cultural morés and morals are “outdated and outmoded” and therefore should be discarded in favor of new “liberated” thinking of secular humanism, which espouses the belief that there is no concrete “right and wrong” therefore anything is justifiable with enough rationalization.

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

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

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

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

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

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

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

EU Dictatorship Vs Ireland: Round 2

I will declare Carbon Dioxide a pollutant: Obama

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Just like that. Not quite turning water to wine, but the Messiah of the NWO is getting there, eh. Click his fingers and turn a natural gas that has been around for billions of years (and which plants ingest) into a pollutant that can suddenly be regulated and taxed. Oh yes, you evil serfs poisoning the planet with your breathing! You smelly poor, stupid humans, how dare you! Gaia belongs to the fascist, socialist, one world government elitists like Obama, McCain etc.

It of course would give Obama the ability to control the USA’s industry, energy production and almost everything else, as Carbon dioxide production/ release is a critical side-effect of developed society, so to control it means controlling the things that produce it (enjoy your last free breaths). Pay no attention to the fact that the total CO2 in the atmosphere comes to a staggering 0.038%, whereas water vapour contributes 95% to the greenhouse effect.  This is the actual point of the AGW scam. To centralise control and power. Why not ban H20 use by humans (except the rich socialists of course, not that they’re human). Fuck it, while we’re at it, ban the Sun! That motherfucking thing forces climate change on the WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM! I would suggest taxing it profusely, but it’s over a million times bigger than the Earth and it would be a bitch to enforce. We could ask God to help but that fella is caught up in a lawsuit at the moment.

CO2 a pollutant. Seriously? It’s no less a pollutant that Oxygen or Carbon, you know, that stuff life on Earth is based on. Oh wait a minute… Carbon… Dioxide… Tax and regulation on life, anyone? I swear, this crazy son-of-a-bitch is just one step away from declaring the human race as a pollutant.

Now what fascist Magog worshipping eugenicist One World Government Dictatorship dreaming elite-cockjockey dipshit socialist could say no to that… Yes We Can, it is then!

Modern environmentalism (Club of Rome) is merely another front for one world government using bog standard Hegelian Dialetic, only this time, the human race are the ‘terrorists’, not Tim Osman and his band of merry men.

What the fuck next… State-controlled thermostats or banning the incandescent lightbulb?

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

Source: Daily Mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another false rape claim, results in ‘modest’ sentence.

A filthy piece of shit lies about rape (again).

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

A binge-drinking mother has been jailed after falsely accusing an innocent taxi driver of raping her.

Joanne Rye, who kept up the lie for 20 months, was told by a judge her behaviour was despicable and was handed an eight-month prison sentence.

The mother-of-one caused great shame and disgrace to devout Muslim Sherekhan Kali and his family after claiming that he dragged her down an alleyway and assaulted her.

The part-time cabbie was arrested at his home and taken to the police station where intimate samples, DNA and fingerprints were taken.

Because of a lie.

Miss Swift revealed a check of the satellite navigation system in Mr Kali’s cab showed he had been nowhere near the area where Rye said she was attacked.

CCTV footage of her drunken behaviour on the night she said she had been raped also proved it could not have happened in the way described.

Remember, she kept this lie up for 20 months. Keep that in mind when you read the sentence she gets.

The prosecutor said the only motivation for the false allegation was the incident a week earlier when the fare was disputed.

Makes sense for selfish little uncivilised scum like her. ‘I can’t get what I want, so I’ll cry rape’. It’s like a behaviour of a spoilt brat, can’t get what they want so they scream and stamp their feet. Only in this case, stamping feet destroys a man’s life. Now read the sob story;

‘The prospect of a custodial sentence is frightening for her,’ said Miss Morris. Continue reading

Married teaching assistant who groomed student walks free from court.

One guess what sex this ‘teaching assistant’ was…

Source: Daily Mail

A married teaching assistant who fell in love with a teenage pupil escaped jail yesterday because their affair stopped short of sex.

Lindsey Jane Collett, 26, had sent the 16-year-old boy saucy text messages and a photograph of herself wearing a bra featuring children’s TV character SpongeBob SquarePants.

The pregnant mother of two had become friendly with the pupil when she was helping him to catch up on coursework, Bridlington magistrates were told.

They began communicating through the social networking website Facebook and met up in a park for a ‘kiss and cuddle’, the court heard.

One text she sent the teenager read: ‘Every time you touch me you turn me on. When I see you I feel light-headed.’ Another told him that she loved him.

Yesterday, Collett sobbed hysterically as she admitted a charge of abusing a position of trust between October and February.

She is still with her husband, who has stood by her throughout.

Passing sentence, magistrate Robin Sunley said the court took into account her guilty plea. Her position at the school would ‘usually make the offence more serious’, he added.

‘However, having listened to the evidence, we consider the physical contact to be minimal.’

The boy, who is now 16, was not in court and cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Magistrates also ruled that the school, in East Yorkshire, should not be named. The court was told that the teenager and the teaching assistant had an inappropriate relationship lasting about four months. Continue reading

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

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!

Police State Britain – Guilty Till Proven Innocent

Source: Daily Mail

Barred from a school job, the mother wrongly branded a criminal

When Amanda Hodgson applied for a job looking after pupils at her local primary school she thought the childcare checks would be a formality.

Her three children all attended the school and teachers had asked her a couple of times to consider helping out.

But a Home Office agency set up to vet those working with children claimed that Mrs Hodgson was a drug-dealing alcoholic with convictions for assaulting three police officers.

And instead of admitting a case of mistaken identity, the Criminal Records Bureau told Mrs Hodgson, 36, she would have to face a police interview and have her fingerprints taken which will then be checked against every unsolved crime in the country.

Yesterday Mrs Hodgson said she was horrified that she would have to prove her innocence.

She said: ‘The process is not fair. In a court of law the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but I am guilty until proven innocent.

The four-page CRB disclosure said that Amanda Jane Hodgson was convicted of assaulting three police officers in November 1989. In 1998 she appeared before magistrates charged with battery where she was given a conditional discharge.

In November last year, she accepted a police caution after being arrested for common assault.

Mrs Hodgson told the CRB they had sent the criminal record of a woman with the same name and date of birth. She also told them she took the surname of Hodgson only after she married in 1993, four years after the first offences.

However officials said it would be her responsibility to prove her innocence.

What next, being questioned for putting your hand in your pocket?

In totalitarianism, the rights of the state are elevated above the rights of the People. In fact, in a police state you have no rights, only privileges which can be removed if the dictatorship wishes. You can see such technicalities in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 29, (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

And the European Union Charter of Human Rights;

Article 52; (3) Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

As such databases (DNA, CRB, Biometric) ballon in size, the probability of error increases. Such ‘errors’ can result in the ruination of people’s lives and reputations, something the State is not liable for. Neither will it deem itself liable for the fact that millions of civil servants, working under the swelling belly of the Socialist/ Communist State could have access to such information, or when such data is ‘lost’. The centralisation of vast amounts of personal data (such as the ID Card) does nothing to secure peoples’ personal data. It only presents a gold mine for criminals. The State however, views everything in the country as belonging to them, you, your children, your data, your rights, everything, and they are going to keep grabbing as much as they can until we have outright Fascism or the People exercise their Power against Tyranny and reinstall Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the Highest Law of the Land.

Family Being Replaced with Feral Gangs In Socialist Britain

This could not be more obvious.

Relaxing the divorce rules to cater to feminists, claiming marriage was oppressive, along with the ridiculous guarantee of the woman asset-stripping the man contributed to the huge explosion in divorces. On top of that, the Socialists/ Feminists in Government have created a tax system that actually rewards single mothers more than married families.

Now everyone knows that broken families lead to unsocialised children with much greater chance of being involved in drug abuse, crime, gangs, violence and whatnot. The majority of criminals are from single parent (mother) families. The government is literally bribing these women to become single mothers, while at the same time punishing couples for staying married.

Why? With them knowing that the nuclear family has always been the fundamental building block to a strong, independent society, these Socialists/ Feminists realised that such a unit presents an obstacle to them achieving their Marxist goals. Or do people still think everything just randomly, accidentally, incompetently just happens to fall towards Marxism? Let’s see;

Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…

Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…

Whoops a daisy! Another decision that attacks the family! I’m sure they didn’t mean it! Silly government policies, let’s just leave them to it, I’m sure they’re realise they made a boo boo…

No, I don’t think so.

This has no end in sight either. 45 per cent of new marriages are doomed to end in divorce, and Married parents ‘in the minority by 2031’. Also see Single mother gets £100 more in tax credits a week than working couples.

With this comes the inevitable breakdown of society and without even including the cultural warfare of Islam, massive third world immigration and the destruction of Britain’s wealth and productivity by the EU. Such reverse colonisation is additionally promoted by the government via the tax system; Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits.

The issue of broken families is beginning to come to the fore, only, as usual, when the issue becomes impossible to ignore or make excuses for. In this case, it is because kids are now getting murdered on a regular basis. By other kids.

Labour’s tax system punishes couples for being married, so this would logically lead to Families in meltdown, which would lead to Gangs replacing family life for ‘very angry feral youth’.

An obvious point is that when you prevent the People to bear arms to defend themselves, the only groups who will still have arms are criminals. This essentially is giving criminals free reign. Something else the government will not rush to stop, for two reasons;

1. The rise in weapon related crime (from feral brats, as a consequences of the States’ own policies) initially gave the government the excuse to step up their disarmament of the British Public (against our Bill of Rights.) Tyranny must always try to disarm the public. An armed People are much harder to take control of.

2. A destabilised nation is much easier to break apart and destroy, such is the goal of the Socialsts/ Feminists in power.

It should be noted, that removing the People’s Right to Bear Arms does nothing except put them at the mercy of criminals and tyrants, who have an annoying habit of not following the law (or changing the law to suit their agenda.) It is also an intrusion on the Right of an individual human being to defend themselves from threats.

The governments’ Socialist Human Rights Act, along with the self-perpetuating child abuse industry have essentially put the standing and authority of children above that of parents and other adults. Instead of treating children as children, they decided that they are actually ‘little adults’. With such social engineering comes policy such as; Government Permission Needed For Adults To Be With Children, and Adults being charged for assault when stopping youth crime.

Why Feminism is a Fraud… and Feminism labeled a ’society killer’ should go some way to explaining this.

I hope you can see that this is a blatant attempt to break the bond between parents and children and replace the family with the State, something else which is to be expected with Socialism/ Communism. The resulting social chaos can conveniently be used by the State as an excuse to expand power and control over the People.

And so Tyranny grows…

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.

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.

It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men

So says the Minister for Equality, Harriet (Feminist/ Communist Scum) Harman.

White men could be legally blocked from getting jobs under new anti-discrimination laws being considered by Labour.

Employers would be able to give jobs to women or ethnic minority candidates in preference to other applicants, under the plans unveiled by equalities minister Harriet Harman.

If two candidates were equally qualified for a position, employers would be able to reject the white person or the man in favour of a black person or a woman.

When they say black person, they actually mean non-white, as this fucking scum of a government, in its never ending quest for division and conflict, keeps trying to separate the people into groups, which they can then set into opposition.

Miss Harman – known as Harriet Harperson for her politically correct views – wants to look at how to bring U.S.-style “positive action” to Britain, saying it is vital to ensure the workforce more accurately reflects the demographic make-up of the population.

She says too many women and people from ethnic minorities are being held back because they cannot break through the “glass ceiling”.

Who let this stupid bitch into Westminster? Oh yeah, Gordon Brown. These commie-femcunts are obsessed with attacking the main demographic of western countries. Disenfranchise them, and the country is yours… Continue reading

Women and their entitlement attitude.

I was sidelined by Oxford University football team just because I’m a mother

A leading academic has launched a sex discrimination case against Oxford University – because she was dropped from a football team.

Dr Cecile Deer, 40, says she should have been a star striker with the university’s ladies staff team.

Only a woman would have this self-centered attitude.

But the mother of three, an economics research fellow, found herself relegated to substitute while less able players took the field.

Eventually, she says, she was told by the women who ran the team that she could not be a reliable player because she had young children.

Oh women ‘discriminating’ against women? Say it isn’t so! Continue reading