Tuesday, January 20, 2015


'Page three' exploited MEN, not women; and the 'campaign' was a risible femascist own-goal

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ….. and then discovering the horse to be a mule. 'Page three' is irrelevant against the tsunami of free internet porn vids. Getting rid of 'page three' ends an exploitation of men, not of women. Men were charged for a newspaper for which their main interest was a single still of a woman's boobs. Nowadays there's an infinite array of actually moving images of a lot more than just boobs and it's ALL FOR FREE. The complainants today about the Sun's apparent move are hardly male consumers …. they're the 'page three' models themselves. They deeply resent feminist authoritarians telling them that they can't freely choose to flaunt their bodies to make a living by exploiting men. What is feminism for, they point out, if not to give women wider choices? How can feminism be about narrowing women's choices? They may well ask.
     Of course, actually the Sun's move has nothing whatsoever to do with feminists' lame, frankly comic – frankly risible -- campaigning. On the very contrary, the femascists were great publicity for the Sun. Like the suffragettes, their upper-middle/upper-class numptie counterparts a century before them, they were key to keeping going the very thing they were campaigning against! They did everything bar marching working-class blokes into the newsagents to show their solidarity by even more assiduously buying the rag. Self-evidently, Rupert Murdoch has long realised that an image on newsprint paper is very low-quality, and no match for the high-res images on-line – an orgy of boobs and more will continue there in the online edition of The Sun, just as before. 'Page three' was a rather embarrassing anachronism in the new internet digital world, rendering the Sun very 'yesterday' in context. It wasn't an embarrassing anachronism as femascists see it.
     The femascists can't even get Germaine Greer on-side on this one (as re many of their airhead campaigns). On C4 News she insisted she'd never called for banning 'page three'. She was never in any position to, having famously plastered herself in 'wide-open-beaver' shot on the front cover of a magazine in the 1970s! Harriet Harpy-twat was hilariously ambushed on the programme between Germaine and a young model.
     And so is starkly illuminated the hapless idiocy of contemporary feminism with its split on every issue. In the pithy words of a popular Youtube vid: 'Feminism .…. Make your fucking mind up'.

Sunday, January 11, 2015


'Radical Islam' is a revolutionary Left ideology as much as or more than it is Islamic

'Radical Islam' -- as espoused by the Parisian terrorists this week -- is not, or is only partly an extremism that comes from Islam itself; albeit that the very old sect of Wahhabism certainly is extremist. As the philosopher John Gray outlines in his book, 'Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia', the founder of 'radical Islam', the Egyptian intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, got his ideas from Bolshevism (of Lenin's).
     A notably Western revolutionary basis of 'radical Islam' is ignored – covered up -- by the political-Left elite, now the establishment across the board. It's the same wilful blindness as when they continue as ever unconvincingly to vehemently deny that 'National Socialism' was anything to do with them, despite it being clearly a pragmatic version of Marxism in rejecting internationalism (as Mussolini, the editor of the newspaper of the party of the Italian socialists had done) as a motivation for 'the proletariat' when it is impractical – it does not accord with human nature regarding in-grouping – and counter-productive in time of war.
All revolutionary politics stems from the French Revolution and the notion of 'the terror' as the means of supposed irreversible change. It's the antithesis of conservatism, so it cannot be of the political-Right. Religions are notably conservative; they are not revolutionary in nature.
     The truth is that just as we have the extremist bastardisation of the political-left in 'identity politics' and its enforcement in 'PC' to attack the masses for not being revolutionary; so we have a revolutionary movement from within migrant enclaves that also attacks us.
     Yet even the self-evident fact that we have a 'fifth column' of revolutionary Islamists was denied in the usual closed ranks of the political class and media when Nigel Farage pointed it out (and one of the miscreants was the perennially useless Teresa May). That it's a small minority – as Farage himself explicitly qualified – does not detract from the fact that we indeed do have a 'fifth column' of 'Islamacists'; here in the UK as in France, as in the Netherlands, etc.
     Debate hasn't got any more honest, has it? It is wholly dishonest, and will remain so as long as the major parties and media continue to play at being 'useful idiots' to the hegemonic extreme ideology of 'identity politics' and 'PC' they thereby assist in entrenching, instead of seeing 'identity politics' and 'PC' for the total nonsense, gross deception and actually ant-egalitarian nastiness it is.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014


Immigration total fiasco, abuse of legal process re domestic violence, and daft working of the 'Malicious Communications Act': how come Tersa May keeps her job?

Can anyone explain how the appalling Teresa May remains Home Secretary?
     Just emerged are several absolutely damning reports from the official thorn in her side, John Vine, the outgoing Chief Inspector of Borders. To the Wicked Witch's shame, she's been sitting on them for several months, still further exposing the non-existence of the UK's immigration system. Vine actually went into the Department and asked point-blank if it was official policy to deliberately fail to administer the whole immigration system. One report concerned the complete failure to deal with the massive problem of illegal overstayers. Of the small minority of overstayers the Home Office had actually identified – some 300,000 – in the great majority of instances they had lost all track of where they were. Most of the files had been left to rot – some at the bottom of a disused lift shaft. Attempts to remove in many cases were simply a text message pointing out overstay! As so many times before, this is just another ginormous backlog the Home Office tried to hide. Another report revealed that granting citizenship has doubled, yet no checks were carried out, not just re character but even criminality, tax avoidance and benefit fraud. Even when applicants volunteered serious adverse information, no action was take – even in cases of clear deception to obtain citizenship.
     It's now a decade since I 'blew the whistle' on the complete non-system re immigration for the UK (back in Spring 2004), and ever more clearly, nothing has changed. With May's Government actually having cut 2,000 immigration posts, it has long been apparent that nothing was ever intended do do anything serious about it.
     On top of the gross mismanagement re immigration, the stupid harridan introduced a truly risible and absurd extension of an 'it's anything anyone says it is' law into partner abuse. Domestic violence – sorry, abuse, as it's long been watered down – now is anything anyone says it is: just like, post-Macpherson, 'racism' literally is anything anyone says it is. Completely unworkable law wide open to any extreme of abuse. To make matters even worse, men do not conceive of women's spousal violence towards them as criminal, whereas women are famously prone to exaggerate restraint of their own domestic violence to twist round the direction of perpetration, and many women readily make up allegations instrumentally in divorce or custody disputes.
     The Wicked Witch also presides over – nay, fully encourages – a hideous abuse of the Malicious Communications Act whereby the police are inclined to arrest anyone for tweeting mere bad taste. So it was for the Sunderland teenager who dissed Glasgow and Glaswegians by quipping that a dustcart actually picked up some proper rubbish when it moved down some pedestrians that day. Wasn't he just lampooning the now customary mass outpouring of overblown grief for others not personally known to the faux grievers? On what possible basis do they claim to be seriously offended? Never mind 'serious', how can they claim to take any sort of offence such that it should invoke legal redress? Haven't they heard of – and do they not care for the notion of – 'free speech'? Who remotely cares what these idiots may or may not pretend to feel? Are the police intending to try to make out it's a 'racial' 'hate' crime? If so, the they should be mauled in court for trying to make out that fellow Caucasians are somehow of a different 'race'.
     Astonishingly, this bossy but ineffectual ugly sister has serious aspirations to lead the Tawdry Party. What does that say about the quality of the Tawdry front bench and those waiting in the wings? What does it say about the contempt the political class has for the ability or ordinary people to think they way out of a paper bag?


Ignore spam from some numptie hacker below

Wednesday, December 17, 2014


The self-proclaimed cleric fro

Tôi nh? l?i ng??i ?ã b?o tôi. Anh b??c ??i nghi?t ngã. Ng??i Vi?t nào c?ng nhói tim ?au. Gu?c khua vang ?ã giáp vòng nhân gian. \"ZCWOBL8301AJOLJC6236\"


Monis applied for political as

Monis applied for political asylum to obtain refugee status in Australia, Gen Moghaddam said, describing the incident as \"a play\". \"ZCWOBL8301AJOLJC6236\"

Saturday, November 15, 2014


The witch-hunting of all men in the nonsense over Ched Evans

The daft authoritarian calls for the hapless Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, to express remorse whilst he is going through a legal process of trying to overturn his conviction is a classic catch-22. The extreme-feminist stance now dominant is not going to relent no matter what Ched Evans does, and he is right to challenge his conviction in the light of cctv evidence contradicting the court's finding that the alleged victim was seriously inebriated – not to mention the inexplicable outcome that others involved were acquitted whereas he wasn't.
     Aside from the questions as to the safety of the conviction, and ignoring any complicity by the supposed victim (who had not been plied with drink by Ched or any of the defendants, and likewise got to the hotel of her own volition), the idea that this was some heinous crime is self-evidently absurd. Evans' punishment has already been far in excess of any that was warranted. There is no basis to presume (and no evidence to support) that there has been any sort of significant negative impact on the supposed victim. If she was, as the court accepted, inebriated beyond sense, then there could have been no negative impact at the time. We know that there was nothing more than at most some degree of regret afterwards, because any impact was not just tempered but completely overturned by her apparent joy at contemplating the many thousands of pounds she expects to receive in criminal injuries compensation (as revealed in her tweets). So how does this justify a five year jail sentence?! Taking into account the alleged victim's complicity, then it is hard to see how any imprisonment was justifiable.
     The general tenor of the debate over the incident is the stuff of the Dark Ages, predicated on the impact of rape in times past. Pregnancy. This is no longer an issue at all. There is no possibility of any even mild inconvenience from conceiving an unwanted child, give the technology of the 'morning-after' pill, and, failing that, infallible non-intrusive early abortion.
     There isn't even mild embarrassment in terms of social standing: going to a hotel for the purpose of having sex with prominent footballers is not something a girl has to live down, if indeed she might not publicise and celebrate. Of course, it may cause problems if she has a boyfriend, but that's an extraneous matter – which is brought in to create many a bogus 'acquaintance rape' scenario, when but for this there would be no retrospective withdrawal of consent
     This ridiculous debacle – generically, and Ched Evans' own case – stems from the 'show trial' nature of rape in the contemporary highly politicised climate. Sex in effect has been declared by default illegal for males, who are liable in respect of any instance to be summoned before a court and required to prove they had ensured that consent had been obtained. The legal process has been inverted from what it should be: that it is up to the Crown to prove, and to prove beyond reasonable doubt, criminal wrongdoing. Most rape cases are simply one person's word against another's, with the man's word then presumed, on no basis that is warranted, not to be believable; despite there being often an all too obvious basis for false allegation, and research revealing that this is routinely for the most trivial reasons. Such cases should never get as far as the CPS, let alone court. In Ched Evans' case there was some evidence that the alleged victim may have been too drunk to consent, but this was not clear-cut, and now appears to be undermined by evidence which should have been put before the court.
     This abandonment of any semblance of due legal process succeeds – as was the intent – to make the most fundamental activity in life impossibly fraught for boys and men, whilst providing carte blanch for girls and women to retrospectively withdraw consent in the event of the slightest feeling of embarrassment; this at a time when sex has never been less likely to compromise female social standing.
     On the fulcrum of 'acquaintance rape', the madness of 'third wave' feminism, and the 'identity politics' of which it is core, surely is set to implode from the weight of its own absurdity; albeit that things might well get yet more absurd in the meantime. Eventually the collective penny will drop that the femascist twitterati at the very least are sixpence short of a shilling.

Wednesday, November 05, 2014


Absurd bid to criminalise those exploited for money in prostitution is defeated

The nasty if comical piece of extreme-feminist man-hating obscenity that is Fiona MacTaggart, MP for Slough, last night was defeated in her absurd amendment to the 'Modern Slavery' bill in the House of Commons to criminalise men paying for sex but not the women selling it. She was strongly attacked from both sides of the House for going against all of the academic evidence and all of the groups representing prostitutes, that criminalising does nothing whatsoever to reduce the scale of prostitution, and merely pushed it underground. Moreover, it is the surest way to bring criminal elements into prostitution – just as did prohibition of alcohol … and drugs – and thereby to make prostitution less safe for both parties. In any case, the consequent driving underground would make it far more difficult for prostitute and client to pre-assess each other, thus likewise increasing the potential danger for both parties – as the many groups representing prostitutes have unanimously most vociferously repeatedly indicated.
     MacTaggart indeed is a wholly evidence-free zone. She has no interest whatsoever in any evidence because her position is about nothing but out-dated mindless ideology. The only evidence she has is that asking men in Sweden if they have recently had sex with a prostitute – which recently has been made illegal in Sweden – reveals … surprise, surprise ... that men are more likely to answer 'no' than previously. You don't say! Even rice-pudding-for-brains MacTaggart should be able to spot the glaring confound in the data here!
     The overwhelming evidence against is not even the principal reason why her proposal was insane. Prostitution is the exploitation not of women but of men: women extract money from men by exploiting the universal male desire for variety of sexual partner. In no other scenario where money is exchanged for a service is the payer regarded as the one exploited!
     Furthermore, to criminalise one party to sex freely engaged in on both sides – never mind to criminalise the exploited rather than the exploiting party – simply on the grounds of their sex, would be the most obvious and unbelievable infringement of any sort of notion of equality. It is flagrant sex discrimination. Total sex discrimination about … having sex … now that would really be something for libertarians to sink their teeth into. It would be a cause celebre of a sort not seen since the 1960s.
     The extreme-feminist position is that all sex is exploitative of women – indeed, that all male-female interaction of any kind is oppressive to the female -- and that somehow this is particularly the case when the woman is actually paid! This is how the idiotic entirely false presumption is arrived at that no woman can freely choose to engage in prostitution.
     The likes of MacTaggart try to back this up through a radical misrepresentation of the typical prostitute. The notion that prostitution is a woman pimped on the street is grotesque: a minuscule proportion of prostitution is of this form. Not only are even most street prostitutes not pimped, but the whole street 'scene' has long been superseded by its indoor counterpart. The abundance of such provision is evidenced by the prices in 'parlours' (brothels) rivalling those on the street. Given that a 'parlour' is under police scrutiny to not employ drug-users and under-age girls – the sort of girls who would pose a threat to personal safety or legal sanction to men, and who are not infrequently found on the street – then it is less than pointless for men to bother with the 'street' scene at all; even before considering the risk of criminal sanction as a 'kerb-crawler'.
     In any case, MacTaggart's focus on the street undermines her case in a profound additional way: the principal victim of violence in this scenario is the client [I actually made this point to her when I confronted her on BBC Newsnight several years ago in the wake of the Ipswich murders. – I had previously lived in a 'red light' area for two decades, and with the advent of drug use becoming the hallmark of the street prostitute (because uncontrolled drug use precludes being able to work in a brothel or to have the organisation to become an independent), then this violence was quire visible.] Violence is a much rarer feature of indoor prostitution, for the obvious reason that in a brothel there are other people around, and escorts and their clients are traceable through their phones.
     The police, self-evidently, are completely opposed to adding to their burden the impossible task of pursuing one party to consensual sex to arrest and process them for court action; especially now that they haven't got the resources to tackle even the high priority crime of domestic burglary. It would render them literally a laughing stock.
     It is a pity, actually that the risible amendment was not passed, because it would have been immensely to the entertainment of the nation to see the legal actions to overturn it.
     Actually, the attempt to retreat to a position of a backstop amendment simply to promise to consider the evidence for future legislation backfired: it too was thrown out. Most MPs well know that there is no balance of evidence worthy of consideration: MacTaggart's position is unsupported by anything other than a data proof determination to proceed, to go down in history as a prize fatuous femascist freak.
     Yet she is sure to try it again.
     Bring it on, I say.

Thursday, October 16, 2014


The latest 'identity politics' / 'PC' insanity over disability and rape

The extreme ridiculousness of the culture of 'identity politics' and 'political correctness' foisted on us from on high, is revealed in the two prominent news stories here in the UK re disability and rape.
     It is self-evident that many of those with mental and/or physical disabilities are unemployable or not employable sufficient to be market-clearing at even the minimum wage. Therefore, to promote the employment of such individuals in the private sector, then similar to the apprenticeship scheme for young workers, there needs to be a scheme to relax the applicability of the minimum wage. This would in no way impact on the income of any disabled individuals taking up new opportunities, because income from work would be topped up with income from the State -- just as is the case for many millions of other workers. The upshot would be a real connection with the world for many individuals who, in effect, were almost entirely isolated from it; and some prospect of building on this to go some way towards rehabilitation and at least a semblance of normal life.
     It is complete nonsense to claim "offence" here. The only offence is the insult to the rest of us that "offence" can be so cynically manufactured. It is absurd to pretend that everyone is of equal worth in the marketplace. Everybody has different relative worth, disabled or not.
It is just as self-evident that the mantra 'rape is rape' is utter nonsense. Sex with someone several years post-puberty but arbitrarily deemed 'under-age' is statutory rape. This is a technicality. It is nothing to do with consent per se. It is simply held that 'informed' consent is questionable through youthful age. Sex between people who are drunk is also problematic with respect to informed consent. Of course, both women and men seek to become disinhibited through alcohol specifically to facilitate sex, and there is no dividing line between mere disinhibition and losing control. The parties likely won't remember what was said or done to establish consent. So it is that having sex with someone who is drunk is technically rape. It is not akin to waylaying someone and forcing them to have sex. This very clearly is rape, whereas other forms are almost always of a very different nature. Most 'acquaintance rape' is retrospective withdrawal of consent and/or crossed-wires, and some is outright false allegation to cover some mild indiscretion. 'Rape is rape' is a political mantra of those who simply hate ordinary people and specifically men, and wish to perpetrate their irrational revenge on society ('the workers' of old for not buying the ideological bullshit) by destroying it through 'identity politics'.
Common-sense is always thrown out of the window whenever the culture of 'identity politics' and 'political correctness' becomes salient.
     It will get ever worse, with growing numbers of people harassed, charged and punished for an ever wider definition of what is deemed to be 'hate speech', until the whole obscenity of 'identity politics' and 'PC' is either finally laughed out of town or there are guns and bullets in the streets. The longer the insanity continues to grow, the more likely it is that the only way left will be to shoot all the ideologues.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?