Thursday, July 07, 2016

 

Andrea Leadsom SURELY over Theresa Bloody May

Andrea Leadsom was the star of the Vote Leave campaign – by far the best candidate on the BBC's 3x3 stadium debate a couple of days before Brexit day. She's a communicator; actually human, talks good sense, and actually knows a thing or ten about economics, the EU and trade. None of the toff bluster of Boris or the geeky oddness of Gove. She wiped the floor with the 'Remain' side's bizarre team of a jumped-up shop steward, an Asian mayor and a Lesbian Scot. OK, it can't have been that difficult, but Boris wasn't that great on the night.

     Theresa May hid for the entire campaign – declaring for the 'Remain' side she'd assume would win, but then cowardly hedging her bets – just as she's been hiding for her five useless years as Home Secretary, doing absolutely nothing about the high levels of non-EU migration, and personally cutting the boats patrolling our shores down to …. three. She's stayed in post only because everyone has long come to the conclusion that the Gnome Orifice is a basket case as unreformable as the EU, so they've given up getting in such a huff about it.

     Another school ma'am patronising, pompous bore, May has no people skills, never mind charisma, and looks like a tired hag. She has few if any discernible strengths, having risen through conscientiousness. That's all there is to her.

     Andrea Leadsom, by contrast, is highly personable, speaks English instead of Klingon, and actually believes in the EU departure she is going to have to negotiate. AND she's had the more relevant actual 'real life' experience negotiating and dealing with economics.

     All Theresa May can point to is years in government. Well, so could Gordon Brown. She's more or less just played dead to avoid targeted incoming.

     It's a no-brainer.

     UKIP wouldn't mind Leadsom defecting to 'em, and from an electoral point of view will be praying for Theresa May, of course.


Tuesday, June 14, 2016

 

FCUK EeuU: all the ECONOMIC arguments are firmly on the ‘Out’/’Leave’ side, not just those re immigration and democracy

The EU is one great out-dated 'tragedy of the commons' exercise by elites, that survives on the life-support of kicking the can down the road and digging an ever deeper hole. The exponential cost of the never-ending long unaffordable bail-outs is going to land on the UK doormat sooner or later, never mind whatever supposedly was promised.

France is now forecast to go bankrupt in under five years – and you don't have to look far to see the signs. It's like going back to the UK in the 1970s, but with an endemic refusal to look at any solution. The rest of the EU Med nations already are effectively bankrupt.

The EU administration itself is as bankrupt as it is corrupt: its own books have not been signed off by auditors for the best part of two decades.

The UK needs to be as far away as possible when the EU rustbucket sinks if we're to avoid being sucked under with the contagion.

This alone is sufficient reason to say FCUK EeuU.

     The EU's inexorable economic and cultural decline amidst an otherwise growing world is compounded by the intractable problem of the two dozen plus countries making up the EU forever unable to get their act together to sign a trade deal with even one of the new big economies across the world, to which UK exports should have grown massively to dwarf our current falling levels to Europe.

As one country, we can quickly make simultaneous trade arrangements with India, etc, and – what is more – draw them up in our own interests, not those of Germany and France.

And that alone is another sufficient reason to 'vote leave'.

     As for the supposed virtues of the 'single market': this is a myth as Norman Lamont points out. Nations outside the EU are far more successful in importing into it than nations within the EU are at exporting to each other. Tariffs are very low at 3%, which is less than half what we pay in the effective tariff of our EU membership fee.

And there alone is another sufficient reason for 'out'.

     Then there's the huge costs of EU regulation falling on the more than four in five UK firms who don't export to the EU at all.

As for the supposed great majority of economists … blah blah: there's no mention of the 90%+ who never replied to the invitation to support the 'Remain' side.

The multi-national fat cats – yes, the ones who dodge paying their corporate taxes – of course are in league with the 'PC'-fascist political elites, who have nothing but contempt for their citizens in a blame game to excuse themselves for believing in bullshit bastardised Marxism..

     Of course, the democracy and immigration arguments seal it; but getting out of the EU really is a no-brainer.


Friday, April 29, 2016

 

The Labour Party and the Left hates not just all Jews: it hates us all -- 'the workers' as men, 'whites', heterosexuals.

It's not just Ken Livingstone et al who has lost it. The Labour Party's hatred towards not just Israel but Jews generically as a group they deem 'non-oppressed' and, thereby, 'the oppressor', is just the start of an opening of a can of worms the like of which has never been seen in politics. The Left long ago adopted the cartoon representation of the world into a binary split of 'the oppressed' and 'the oppressor' in the wake of the complete failure of Marxist political philosophy to produce a revolution in the West. The Left's support hitherto of 'the workers' not only ended, but flipped completely to cast 'the workers' as 'the oppressor' even more than the 'boss' class. The new 'oppressed' then became by default -- but on no rational basis whatsoever -- women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals. It was and remains the greatest fraud in all political history, and it will prove terminal for the Left once everyone wakes up to more than the realisation that Liebore and the Left hates us all, to discover just why and how Liebore and the Left hate us all.

See my long paper on this: THE ORIGIN OF 'IDENTITY POLITICS' & 'POLITICAL CORRECTNESS': Not Consideration for Minorities but Hatred for the Mass of Ordinary People; Specifically 'the Workers' -- Tracing the Roots of Why and How it Arose and Developed Reveals the Greatest Political Fraud in History. http://www.stevemoxon.co.uk/identitypoliticsandpc.php


Friday, April 08, 2016

 

[Re-post] BBC Archers travesty of the researched reality of domestic violence, which is of MALE not female victims in the main

[Re-post because of imposter posting despite password changes]

The BBC across all its broadcasting continues relentless extreme totalitarian gross misrepresentation of the nature of domestic violence. The now very well evidenced conclusion that most domestic violence – and particularly that most extreme domestic violence is FEMALE-perpetrated – the BBC tries to hide in the Archers storyline by the woman being provoked by 'controlling' behaviour, when in reality the partner most likely to be 'controlling' is the female; this being the basis of domestic violence being predominantly BY women & girls.

This is because pair-bonding, we now know, evolved in the female, not the male interest. Women and girls try to exert control on their male partners to prevent them defecting, because female mate-value – fertility and how this is variously signalled – declines rapidly with age, and the female requires the male to repel any socio-sexual interest by lower-quality males (so as to facilitate access by males of still higher quality than the partner).

* See my several papers reprinted at stevemoxon.co.uk

Eg; Moxon SP (2014) Partner violence as female-specific in aetiology. New Male Studies 3(3) 69-92. http://www.newmalestudies.com/...

ABSTRACT
Male-specific self-inhibition of violence towards women, corresponding to an evolutionarily highly-conserved male-specific dedicated neural pathway, and a female-specific actual preference in a couple context for physically violent e_xpression of aggression, prompted by oxytocin (the very hormone underpinning pair-bonding): these findings together indicate that a new theory of partner violence [PV] is required, with a female-specific aetiology. This anyway is apparent from the great disparity between the actual and predicted sex-differential in PV injury rates; the only plausible inference from which is overwhelming female compared to male perpetration. It is conceivable that what male-perpetrated PV there may be is by aberrant (psycho-pathological) individuals, with the remainder of male-on-female violence rather than being PV per se – directed as such, with intent to cause harm – is better understood as by displacement from male intra-sexual aggression.
The basis of a female-specific PV aetiology is that pair-bonding is now known to have evolved in the female interest to maximise female fertility, and therefore at root women have a stronger interest in preventing partner defection – manifesting in 'controlling' b_ehaviour which may become violent -- whereas at root men would have little to lose if not something to gain.
Reviews and studies for decades have shown that PV is perpetrated at least as much by women; but now evident in data is that this is predominantly so – in many and the most important respects by multiples. This new understanding of PV is a reversion to what in former times would have been the intuitive, popular view of the phenomenon, before the imposition of an extreme ideological conception of a supposed 'patriarchal' [sic] 'terrorism' [sic] of exclusively or predominantly male perpetration.
Though now comprehensively discredited, this persists, as it was created, through a need within the political-Left mindset to salve cognitive-dissonance regarding the failure of Marxist theory. In blaming 'the workers', envisaged as being all-male; they were replaced, as the supposed new 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed' in need of 'liberation', by the generic category of all women. Consequently, it became imperative both to deny the extent and even the existence of PV that is female-on-male, whilst inflating levels of male-on-female PV and falsely ascribing to it a special perniciousness. Being in line with deep-seated pro-female and anti-male prejudice rooted in the biological imperative to control male access to sex, what would otherwise be seen as arcane political posturing, instead has appeared plausible.







Thursday, April 07, 2016

 

BBC Archers travesty of the researched reality of domestic violence, which is of MALE not female victims in the main

The BBC across all its broadcasting continues relentless extreme totalitarian gross misrepresentation of the nature of domestic violence. The now very well evidenced conclusion that most domestic violence – and particularly that most extreme domestic violence is FEMALE-perpetrated – the BBC tries to hide in the Archers storyline by the woman being provoked by 'controlling' behaviour, when in reality the partner most likely to be 'controlling' is the female; this being the basis of domestic violence being predominantly BY women & girls.

This is because pair-bonding, we now know, evolved in the female, not the male interest. Women and girls try to exert control on their male partners to prevent them defecting, because female mate-value – fertility and how this is variously signalled – declines rapidly with age, and the female requires the male to repel any socio-sexual interest by lower-quality males (so as to facilitate access by males of still higher quality than the partner).

* See my several papers reprinted at stevemoxon.co.uk

Eg; Moxon SP (2014) Partner violence as female-specific in aetiology. New Male Studies 3(3) 69-92. http://www.newmalestudies.com/...

ABSTRACT
Male-specific self-inhibition of violence towards women, corresponding to an evolutionarily highly-conserved male-specific dedicated neural pathway, and a female-specific actual preference in a couple context for physically violent expression of aggression, prompted by oxytocin (the very hormone underpinning pair-bonding): these findings together indicate that a new theory of partner violence [PV] is required, with a female-specific aetiology. This anyway is apparent from the great disparity between the actual and predicted sex-differential in PV injury rates; the only plausible inference from which is overwhelming female compared to male perpetration. It is conceivable that what male-perpetrated PV there may be is by aberrant (psycho-pathological) individuals, with the remainder of male-on-female violence rather than being PV per se – directed as such, with intent to cause harm – is better understood as by displacement from male intra-sexual aggression.
The basis of a female-specific PV aetiology is that pair-bonding is now known to have evolved in the female interest to maximise female fertility, and therefore at root women have a stronger interest in preventing partner defection – manifesting in 'controlling' behaviour which may become violent -- whereas at root men would have little to lose if not something to gain.
Reviews and studies for decades have shown that PV is perpetrated at least as much by women; but now evident in data is that this is predominantly so – in many and the most important respects by multiples. This new understanding of PV is a reversion to what in former times would have been the intuitive, popular view of the phenomenon, before the imposition of an extreme ideological conception of a supposed 'patriarchal' [sic] 'terrorism' [sic] of exclusively or predominantly male perpetration.
Though now comprehensively discredited, this persists, as it was created, through a need within the political-Left mindset to salve cognitive-dissonance regarding the failure of Marxist theory. In blaming 'the workers', envisaged as being all-male; they were replaced, as the supposed new 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed' in need of 'liberation', by the generic category of all women. Consequently, it became imperative both to deny the extent and even the existence of PV that is female-on-male, whilst inflating levels of male-on-female PV and falsely ascribing to it a special perniciousness. Being in line with deep-seated pro-female and anti-male prejudice rooted in the biological imperative to control male access to sex, what would otherwise be seen as arcane political posturing, instead has appeared plausible.





 

[Re-post] Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson's sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged

[Re-post because of an imposter posting despite password changes]

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any 'age of consent'. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to 'slut' status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was 'damaging' to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage -- and clearly there was damage to her -- was from the peer group she'd been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal 'age of consent' has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the 'age of consent' 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world








 

Download | Easy Surfing Fitness

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. Best Product Ever All Rights Reserved Egyimport.com

Download | Easy Surfing Fitness


 

Concealed Carry | Gun Safety Courses Made For Civilians

Concealed Carry and Tactical Gun Safety Courses Made Specifically For Civilians By U.S. Veterans. 60-Day Money Back Guarantee. Best Product Ever All Rights Reserved Egyimport.com

Concealed Carry | Gun Safety Courses Made For Civilians 


 

Deep Practice for Tennis power - MTI

MTI Method Video Tennis lessons always have an answer for any technical problems you may have in tennis... Best Product Ever All Rights Reserved Egyimport.com

Deep Practice for Tennis power - MTI


Wednesday, April 06, 2016

 

[Re-post] Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson's sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged

[Re-post because of an imposter posting despite password changes]

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any 'age of consent'. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to 'slut' status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was 'damaging' to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage -- and clearly there was damage to her -- was from the peer group she'd been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal 'age of consent' has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the 'age of consent' 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world






 

7015 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((768x 1280)) Dimensions

7015 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((768x 1280)) Dimensions, Best Of The Best …
7015 HD Wallpaper.. Great for creating Wallpaper Sites or to your desktop or designing job Pure High Definition HD Quality desktop wallpapers for your HD & Widescreen monitor resolutions!

all pictures are legal to use on any website ..
images collected from (many websites that allow using their wallpapers to any purpose) AND (many free source on the internet)
you will not find a single picture had a Copyright or Water mark on it …
so you can use it on your website …
Download Links .. Archive.org: 7015 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((768x 1280)) Dimensions

Total Size :  1.1 GB

 

 

 

 

Source: 7015 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((768x 1280)) Dimensions, Best Of The Best


Tuesday, April 05, 2016

 

[Re-post] Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson's sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged

[Re-post because of imposter postings despite password changes]

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any 'age of consent'. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to 'slut' status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was 'damaging' to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage -- and clearly there was damage to her -- was from the peer group she'd been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal 'age of consent' has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the 'age of consent' 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world




 

37621 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((640x 960)) Dimensions

37621 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((640x 960)) Dimensions, Best Of The Best … 37621 HD Wallpaper.. Great for creating Wallpaper Sites or to your desktop or designing job Pure High Definition HD Quality desktop wallpapers for your HD & Widescreen monitor resolutions!

all pictures are legal to use on any website .. images collected from (many websites that allow using their wallpapers to any purpose) AND (many free source on the internet) you will not find a single picture had a Copyright or Water mark on it … so you can use it on your website … Download Links .. Archive.org: 37621 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((640x 960)) Dimensions Total Size :  6.5 GB

 

 

 

 

Source: 37621 HD Stock Wallpapers. ((640x 960)) Dimensions


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