Translate

Showing posts with label paedophiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paedophiles. Show all posts

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

LGBTs have a hissy fit at me because of a misunderstanding

https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/587747044124712960

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/protesting-parents-ask-wynne-to-scrap-new-sex-ed-curriculum/article23961650

Under the changes, Grade 3 students [children from 8 to 9]  will learn about same-sex relationships, kids in Grades 4 [children from 9 to 10] and up will learn more about the dangers of online bullying, while the dangers of sexting will come in Grade 7 [children from 12 to 13].
Lessons about puberty will move from Grade 5 [children from 10 to 11] to Grade 4, while masturbation and “gender expression” are mentioned in the Grade 6 curriculum.

Come on. isn't the Caliphate better than our pornocracy of  a government literally fucking with our children's minds? Who do you think will be teaching our children Sex Ed? Slut female or sex predator male teachers who will think nothing of seducing your adolescent son or daughter, probably.

In the UK anyone who wants to teach at a state school has to undergo a full year of teacher training indoctrination about how it is OK to be gay if you're a man and super to be a slut if you are female.

Haven't you had enough?
Muslims don't put up with this shittification of standards of sexual morality, so why should we?
http://www.afa.net/action-alerts/if-your-childs-school-allows-day-of-silence-keep-your-child-at-home-april-17/ has  more gay shit at schools. 
TYPO: "old" = "told"


http://www.churchmilitant.tv/scripts/vort-2015-04-13.pdf

HOMO HEGEMONY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EVERYWHERE ELSE, AIDED AND ABETTED BY FEMINAZIS IN KEY OR PIVOTAL POSITIONS

Michael Voris:

" ... much of the Catholic clergy is homosexual.

And the reason so much of the clergy is gay is because the seminaries and vocation directors and chanceries are busting at the seams with homosexuals.

They are the ones who surround bishops, for example, and “counsel” them—the bishops who aren’t gay themselves, that is. They run various key departments in the chancery,
and they see to it that their own get appointed in key or pivotal positions."


Who is Chief Feminazi in the UK?

The Directrix of Public Prosecutions in the UK Alison Saunders. Men haven't got a chance.

John Humphrys points out the campaigning statement of feminazi Alison Saunders who wants to raise the numbers of convictions of men accused of rape

THINGS TO BEAR IN MIND ABOUT LIVING IN A MATRIARCHY


  1. In a matriarchy, all men are lower than Slut Single Mothers. Keith Joseph's career was destroyed in 1974 when he criticised Slut Single Mothers. That was the beginning of the end. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron 
  2. In a matriarchy homosexual men are above heterosexual men because only they dare to say things heterosexual men are too afraid to say about women eg David Starkey, Stephen Fry. They dare to criticise women because they are not bothered if women withhold sex from them. 
  3. In a matriarchy even the Prime Minister is afraid of sluts because they all have the vote and have used it to devastating effect when they voted New Labour in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8555358.stm Women considered Tony Blair sexier than John Major, obviously. Guess who will be the new leader of the Labour Party after Ed Miliband loses the 2015 General Election? Guess who middle class female Labour members find sexiest and whose **** they most want to suck? As Janusz Korwin-Mikke said at “Women usually vote for the more handsome man" Pity the beta male who cannot even choose his own leader without omega females - who are very libtard - influencing the vote. We know who voted New Labour and the Democrats in, don't we? Stupid irresponsible parasitical women with no jobs or public sector non-jobs. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html
  4. Alpha males (eg US President, UK Prime Minister) are more preoccupied with appeasing the omega female SSM voter and keeping her voting than looking after the interests of the beta male who do all the work. That is the democratic process for you in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage.
  5. Will any politician be proposing to disenfranchise non-taxpayers? What do you think, dear reader, knowing of the pussy-whipped cowardice, corruption and competence of the average Western politician? 
  6. Beta males will not accept the authority of another beta male and that was why John Major's Cabinet were always rebelling against him.  
  7. Beta males would rather choose a female they find attractive to be their leader than another beta male. 
  8. Attractive people are more often than not vain, shallow, lazy and unprincipled.
  9. Women will always conspire to lower standards of sexual morality if ever given the opportunity. This is probably because they are incapable of abstract thought because they are just not interested in the longevity and strength of their civilisation or the long term national interest, or just selfish, stupid and evil. Lowering standards of sexual morality would let them off the hook while raising standards would result in most women being shamed as sluts. 
  10. 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this say about feminism?
  11. You have to be pretty stupid ugly smelly and nasty as a woman for a man to say no if you are offering them no-strings sex. Men are of course the weaker sex when it comes to saying no to no-strings sex.
  12. Saying it is OK for women to be sluts - as a matriarchy would - invariably lowers standards of everything else, eg education, morality. 
  13. A matriarchy or pornocracy is a society in which most women are sluts whose power base is built on the desire men have for sex with sluts. Women use sex to control men and sluts are the main suppliers of sex to men in a matriarchy. In a patriarchy most of the sex that would take place is married sex and sex with prostitutes. This explains why evil feminazi sluts want to undermine marriage and criminalise men for buying sex from prostitutes (so as to keep them continuing to get sex from sluts) while encouraging primary schoolchildren with their Sex Ed to fuck whoever whenever wherever as long as it feels good to keep that whole shitty shebang of their stinking pornocracy banging and chuntering on. 
  14. Shaming sluts would discourage women who don't want to be shamed as sluts into withholding sex forcing men to up their game thereby raising standards. 
  15. The shittier women are to men the more of them will go gay or paedo.
  16. Deep down men are afraid of women because they know they are not supposed to hit or rape women but understandably don't want to be bullied and mocked by women.
  17. Are you beginning to get why Muslims don't want to integrate into this kind of shit and have their daughters become SSMs, their sons gaily married or if married to a woman divorced for no good reason and lose access to their grandchildren because their vengeful ex-daughter-in-law wants to punish them? Do you now understand why so many of them would rather die fighting for ISIS than live in a society where all men are lower than Slut Single Mothers because they are afraid to criticise them? Did you know that the US President himself - supposedly the most powerful man on earth - is afraid of SSMs because they all have the vote?
  18. When  most men in the West become gay, or unemployed losers because their jobs have been taken by women or contemptible pussy-whipped MCSFs or paedophiles, ISIS will come and take us over. 

You would have thought that all right-thinking people would agree that what I am saying is quite important and ought to be more widely discussed.

Why isn't it?

MPs would be too afraid of antagonising their slut, SSM, MCSF and SPOSSM voters. This is of course the corrupt and craven nature of our much-vaunted democratic process.

What is an SSM?

What is an MCSF and a SPOSSM?

Why isn't the media discussing it?

Have you noticed that almost every other BBC producer is female and possibly a feminazi protected by pro-feminist legislation?  

Self-censorship is much  more insidious than overt censorship. If there is overt censorship people would just try to get round the rules. If it is self-censorship people won't even touch the subject for fear of someone (eg a female they fancy) taking a dislike to them. 

Why isn't UKIP discussing it?

Because UKIP are just as terrified as the LibLabCon of antagonising voters who regard extramarital sex as a God-given right.

What do you think is going to happen if the slut problem continues to be ignored?

What do you think will happen to you if you suspect you have cancer but refuse to go to the doctor?
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Why do so many men insist on calling Feminism "Cultural Marxism"?

Because they are afraid of offending women, who are overwhelmingly feminists.

Feminism was the thin end of the wedge, and the thin end of the wedge began with the Equal Pay Act 1970.

Which group do you think would object most vociferously and is the largest and most electorally powerful group? Feminists, of course, ie the female vote. Most women these days are feminists, and feminists refuse to contemplate the repeal of the Equality Act 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

The primary purpose of the Act is to codify the complicated and numerous array of Acts and Regulations, which formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. This was, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age. It requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

Women use their victimhood to make men feel guilty, and intersectionality is the measurement and acquisition of VICTIMHOOD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Intersectionality_theory_and_feminist_thought

The disabled black lesbian is the best demonstration of the use of this concept, whose purpose is to PRIVILEGE members of these minorities at the expense of the heterosexual white male of mature years, traditionally identified as sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, builders of an empire, incorrigibly racist and therefore evil and fully deserving of their punishment that will be inflicted on them during the paedo witch-hunts that even now rages against men who used to have some status in society, eg paedophile priests and entertainers.

But it all started with feminism. Feminism served as the foot in the door of the salesmen that sold you all these unwanted and pernicious ideas that everyone has now absorbed, like mother's milk, since the 1970s.

What are the consequences of offending women, who are overwhelmingly feminists, who are overwhelmingly sluts? (Sluts are women who will have sex with men not their husbands.)

These men will get no sex from sluts and feminists. The only other option is to take a wife (who has the right to divorce her husband for no particular reason under no-fault divorce and then take half his stuff and deprive him of his children) or hire a prostitute.

Is it any surprise that most men in Britain are gutless wimps who only live for the next cheap to free sexual encounter with a slut before the police come knocking on their door to examine their computer for kiddyporn?

I trust I have demonstrated the helplessness of the politically incorrect and hopelessly marginalised white male of mature years. Once you are old enough to look ugly, you will look like the very model of a modern British paedophile.

Why do you think Will Self was questioned by the police who had him down as a potential paedophile when he was with his son hiking? Because he is as ugly as sin.

Will Self 

The matriarchy has no respect for the old, certainly not for old ugly men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396222/Branded-paedophile-hiking-son-WILL-SELF-reveals-nightmare.html

The revolution devour its children. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 10 May 2014

In the interests of justice Rolf Harris should be found not guilty even if he was

Even if he was guilty, I want him to get off because it sickens and disgusts me that such stale accusations that cannot be independently corroborated can even make it to court.


Against the persecution of men by the matriarchy
Should men like Rolf Harris be given the benefit of the doubt by the law, or should women who accuse men like Rolf Harris?
Please give reasons for your answer.
Like ·  · 




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624114/Rolf-Harris-trial-hears-confession-letter-alleged-victims-father.html

In the days before PC Libtardism and Feminism had complete matriarchal hegemony, if the Prosecution didn't think the evidence would stand up in trial, they wouldn't pursue it. They would never allow uncorroborated testimony to go to trial. Now of course they are obliged to take any stale accusation by any slag seriously, so it is only one person's word against another.

Who will the jury favour?

They will favour whoever they like most, of course.

How many unschooled plebs will allow themselves to think Harris probably did it after reading http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/rolf-harris-groped-eight-year-old-at-portsmouth-community-centre-1-6050507#.U24wTQ1_I8M.twitter? People like that don't care about principle, do they? People like that love sticking the knife into anyone who has had more success in life than they have, just cos they can.

An arrogant shit like Max Clifford never stood a chance.

Obviously, quite a few people are happy with a legal system in which only the popular get justice, but then people do get the government they deserve, don't they?

Most people are dumb plebs and don't get how being OK about this sort of accusation makes them vulnerable to accusations like this too.

A lot of it is just envy and the schandenfreude that lowly men get out of seeing the rich and famous brought low.

I would even go so far as to say that even if Rolf Harris and Max Clifford were in fact guilty I want them both to get off, because if they were found guilty on with this kind of evidence, innocent people will also in future be easily convicted on this kind of "evidence" too. One of these days these innocent people will be people known to us who are family, neighbours and friends or even - SHOCK HORROR - ourselves.


"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.


Obviously, these people who gloat and say "no smoke without fire" think it will never happen to them, particularly if they are female. But you could be female and still be the victim of this sort of thing if your father were accused and had to pay compo to these false accusers out of what you would have inherited, like Louise Clifford, or if you are the wife of a man falsely accused.

I certainly don't want some alcoholic slag who fucked up her life to ruin my childhood memory of Rolf Harris because she couldn't bring herself to say no, or her mother never thought to tell her to say no, or if her liberal parents were just too dumb and negligent to issue all the proper warnings an adolescent female would need to be issued with to see that she is not sexually exploited and abused by any passing sex predator.

I know even saying this sort of thing leaves you vulnerable to accusations of being a "paedo supporter", but at least I am not the kind of paedo supporter that Harriet Harman is.

It is time British parents were taught how to properly parent and for sex and relationship education to be properly taught since most of them these days are dumb degenerate liberal parents who no longer know how to parent their adolescent daughters.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/sex-and-relationship-education.html

I know of an Asian parent who refuses to let her daughter go on any sleep-overs unless she has spoken to her parents. Interestingly, she has not expressed the slightest interest in learning any English.  She probably knows about the English to be aware that the average British mother has a 50/50 chance of being an SSM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html who probably has some paedo shacked up with her or a queue of unsuitable men waiting outside her bedroom door hoping to bang her or her daughter, or her daughter's friends, preferably all at the same time.

"If paedophiles are mosquitoes, then SSMs are stagnant pools of water."  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299400/Fathers-sleazy-mothers-lazy-What-au-pair-REALLY-thinks-you.html

The worst example of a British parent not taking responsibility can be found in the infamous and embarrassing story of Fiona McKeown.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/minister-says-dead-girls-mother-was-irresponsible-794456.html At least, I was embarrassed enough to suggest that the police charge her with aiding and abetting the commission of a sexual offence against her own daughter by allowing the holiday guide to have sex with her under-aged daughter, but I already know that the average liberal parent feels no shame and takes no responsibility, and will be very angry with me indeed for pointing this out.

I welcome their hatred.

Remember, gentlemen, that the modus operandi of the matriarchy is to tempt men into having sex with sluts and then use this against them later. The solution for men is to admit that they need protection from sluts and admit that they are the weaker sex as far as saying no to no-strings sex is concerned.  To give men sex is as easy as giving someone who is permanently hungry a free meal.  To get a woman to give you sex is like getting a woman to cook you a meal, and nothing feminists can think of will gainsay this fact of life and human nature.

Who will be next if Rolf Harris falls?  Walt Disney?



How many elderly and dead white males will these DISGUSTING feminists and slags out for a bit of compo have in their sights?  

I may not be white and I may not be male, but I want it on record that someone - even if it was only me - protested at this evil and insanity while the degenerate beta males living in a matriarchy joined in the denunciation of paedos, gloated as the formerly alpha males they envied for their success fell into disgrace, or cowered or pretended not to notice. You all know who you are.  

Solution: NO MORE FUCKING SLEEP-OVERS.  Most of us already know - like that Asian parent who refuses to learn English obviously does - that that is when most teens in the West get together to watch porn, have under-aged sex, get knocked up, take drugs and get drunk, don't we?    

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

I suppose in view of the above there is a reason why 2:282 seems to suggest that that one man's testimony is to be treated as equivalent to two women's.  http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php  The Koran also warns men about their wives at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=64&verse=14


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rolf-Harris-is-NOT-guilty-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt/581502161968627?fref=ts
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 22 February 2014

Should Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman be made to defend their pro-paedophile views?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565352/Apologists-paedophilia-As-Mail-exposes-links-senior-Labour-figures-vile-paedophile-group-one-man-abused-child-asks-wont-admit-wrong.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Margaret Hodge aplogises.

"PIE called for incest to be legalised, in what one MP described as a ‘Lolita’s charter’. What’s more, in 1975, NCCL lawyers attempted to muzzle hostile Press coverage of PIE and helped its members under investigation by the police."

Margaret Hodge - putting her hands up

Jack Dromey served on the NCCL’s ruling executive from 1970 to 79. PIE's crowning achievement was to secure formal ‘affiliate’ status, from 1975 until the mid-Eighties, with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) — now the respected lobby group Liberty.  SHOULD HE APOLOGISE?


Patricia Hewitt described the paedophile lobby organisation in glowing terms as a ‘campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.  Hewitt was General Secretary from 1974 to 83.  SHOULD SHE APOLOGISE?

In 1978, Harriet Harman wrote an NCCL submission to MPs attempting to water down child pornography laws.  In 1978-82 she was its legal officer. SHOULD SHE APOLOGISE?

"Counselling good for adults attracted to children", eh?  Reminds me of the term "genetic attraction", the liberal euphemism for incest.

I suggest we keep it simple with the following rules:
Saudi court upholds child rapist crucifixion ruling
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

What is the difference between someone saying "Homosexuals should be executed" and "Paedophiles should be executed"?

Or even restoring the death penalty?

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/sign-petition-restore-capital-punishment

None, I would suggest, since they are only proposing a change in the law.

Since they are expressing a political opinion, someone (such as a homosexual or a paedophile or a murderer of children or police officers) who holds the opposite view is bound to be offended.

So, while I profoundly disagree with the female student who declared that it would be right to execute homosexuals, I would defend her right to say it.


The Middle Eastern studies undergraduate who secretly filmed the discussion asked a member of the society whether, “in the Islamic society in which you strive for,” they would “feel comfortable, personally and morally, to kill a gay man".

The female student replied: "Absolutely," and described homosexuality as an "atrocity, because it goes against what God says".

The student was also asked if she, in her "ideal" Islamic state, would feel confident to kill a man if he "did something as com­pletely innocent as kiss another man outside the Students’ Union," to which she replied: "Yeah, abso­lutely ... "

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/25/manchester-student-society-kill-homosexuals-shuts_n_2764273.html

I would also point out to her that the Koran does not in any case says homosexuals should be executed, it only says punish them.  They could be fined, or be lashed 100 times just like those who are guilty of fornication or adultery, or God could ordain another way.

All the Abrahamic faiths are "homophobic" in any case.

Koran:

4:15.
If any of your women
Are guilty of lewdness,
Take the evidence of four
(Reliable) witnesses from amongst you
Against them; and if they testify,
Confine them to houses until
Death do claim them,
Or God ordain for them
Some (other) way. 


4:16.
If two men among you
Are guilty of lewdness,
Punish them both.
If they repent and amend,
Leave them alone; for God
Is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Old Testament:


Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)


New Testament:


Romans 1
“ 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:26-27 NIV)



"Phobia" means an irrational hatred and fear of something.

Is it ever irrational to hate and fear those who promote homosexuality?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Protect our children from paedos by protecting them from feminism


The writer and former England rugby international Brian Moore says he isn’t at all surprised the DJ’s victims didn’t speak up earlier. As long as victims live in fear of not being listened to, they won’t talk.





Every child deserves to have a responsible adult parent who is not an abuser that it can go to should something like this happen.

The standard of parenting of the average child has gone down, while the opportunities for abuse has increased.

That is because the British are now DEGENERATE.

Degeneracy means being inferior to your parents in intellect, education, morals and physical attributes.

The British are now degenerate because they tolerate female promiscuity which  is an essential pillar of feminism.

The working mum became the norm, then the divorced mum and then the Slut Single Mum.

Feminism turns your women into sluts, and then SSMs.  When most of your people are sluts and bastards then your civilisation will DIE, after being exploited by the rest of the world,  of course.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Frightened British men dig their own graves while the matriarchy consolidates its power over the Savile affair



The blogger Steve Moxon was very interesting about how most heterosexual men would find adolescent girls under the age of consent sexually attractive.

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jimmy-savile-stupid-hysteria-over.html#links

"If you showed photos of average girls ages fifteen or fourteen to the average man and did not label them with the girls' ages, then all normal men would find them attractive and would react sexually. [This can be measured physiologically, so there is no need to rely on possibly dishonest verbal responses.]"

The point is that men are programmed to find females at the height of their fertility attractive.

The point is that men cannot say NO to no-strings sex.

The modus operandi of the matriarchy is to seduce men into accepting sex, and then punish them for accepting.

The only way to control this rather one-sided fight in favour of women is for men to say that it is not OK to be a Slut Single Mum.

In case you men still don't get it, what is happening now over the Savile affair is a witch hunt. This is the matriarchy consolidating its power.

Dead and retired old male celebs are being done over.

Once that happens the younger male celebs will start getting done over too.

Too bad there are so many young men prepared to collude with it to vent their outrage at these accused men because they are perceived to be so evil the moment they are accused that they do not deserve a fair trial.

Anyone who asserts this principle on behalf of all who are accused of paedophilia is automatically accused of being a supporter of paedophiles, as I have found at
https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForJimmySavileAndTheBbc?fref=ts

The lower classes like venting about paedos because they already know they are lower than immigrants, and want someone lower than themselves to kick around.

Who is a paedo? Anyone who has had sex with anyone under 16.

And we know what sluts these fatherless schoolgirls brought up by their SSMs are these days, don't we?

When young men start getting old they will join the category of becoming a potential paedo too.

When that happens no one will care what happens to them any more.

Their mothers will be dead, their wives will have divorced them, and they will have lost touch with their children.

This the future, guys.

No alpha male is going to be seen to be defending paedos by standing up for their right to be treated as innocent TILL PROVEN GUILTY, after a fair trial.

Nobody has noticed that what Savile is being subjected to is trial by media in the Kangaroo Court of Public Opinion. That is not a fair trial, by the way, and Public Opinion is a strong but gullible monster.

If they cannot give Jimmy Savile a fair trial when he was alive, then he will be given an unfair trial when he is dead.   That is what the matriarchy has done to this long-established principle of British justice, while even senior male lawyers fear to point this out.

And when he is convicted, the BBC must pay.

Who funds the BBC?  Anyone in Britain who owns a TV.

These imbecilic male licence fee payers are busily piling up their own funeral pyre.

Don't expect any man in any political party to defend the beta male.

Not Cameron, not Clegg, not Miliband.

Not Farage, not Griffin nor anyone else in the even smaller and even more useless parties.

The closest the beta male has to someone that behaves like an alpha male and is prepared to defend him is ME.

But you all think I am mad, don't you?

Mad or the wrong race or the wrong sex.

And so, almost without exception, you think you should join the hysterical denunciation of Savile and others associated with him, so that you are not seen to be siding with the paedos.

But you are just digging your own graves and setting yourselves up to be even more emasculated, even more despised and even more likely to be accused of being a paedo the next time you say or do anything a woman or a child might find offensive and irritating.

Pity the men of Matriarchal Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.  If they think they are already oppressed, they ain't seen nothing yet.
at 7 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 22 January 2010

What should be done to the Doncaster Demon Boys and both their parents?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/03/doncaster-torture-case-brothers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7036546/Doncaster-attack-brothers-subjected-two-young-boys-to-vicious-prolonged-attack.html

Their necks should be broken, of course.

And then their parents'.

Publicly, if I had my way.

That would the most effective way for decent, right-minded members of society to show their disapproval of such behaviour and a way of distancing themselves from the idea that Britain is really a Nation of Paedophiles, Murderously Sadistic Children, NEETs, Slags, Sluts, Slappers and Single Mums breeding the next generation of all of the above at taxpayers' expense.

That should send a strong message to children who are thinking of following in their depraved footsteps, and to women who enjoy copulating with depraved men but are too stupid to use contraceptives.

Liberals will no doubt howl with horror at my commonsensical suggestion that is so quick, effective and cheap to send a message to such people and their depraved offspring, but be unable to furnish any intellectually coherent reasons for not doing so, apart from the predictable arguments about being "barbaric" and this sort of thing being against the Demon Brothers' human rights.

At the time of writing this, David Cameron has not yet made his speech about Broken Britain. Since he is too cowardly to unambiguously condemn single mummery or uncompromisingly support those who take the trouble to get married before they have children, then it will be the usual empty earnestness and plastic prating that he is so good at.


http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php?poster=41519

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php?poster=41323

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php?poster=30927

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php?poster=30425
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, 29 November 2009

The failure of Catholicism: time to look at another religion that does not require celibate priests?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/26/ireland-church-sex-abuse

When I was a naughty, disobedient, rude little girl living in a different country, I was told I should watch myself or else I would be sent to a home.

If I was ungrateful to my parents I would soon learn the fate of those who had no parents to be ungrateful to.

Of course, I did not know until now what exactly was meant by this.

I am not therefore very surprised that sadists and paedophiles would go to where the pickings and victims would be most plentiful and vulnerable - in care homes and orphanages. That is what I would do too, if I were a sadist and paedophile.

The Irish may now wish to examine a different religion other than one that demands celibacy from a corrupt priesthood.

Islam is a religion that does not give a special status to those who claim they have given up sex. It is a practical, worldly religion that enjoins its adherents to go forth and multiply within wedlock, amongst other things.

At such a low point of Christianity, it surely behoves a government to examine the uses of religion and what it might do for the state in terms of assisting citizens to be better people. If something tried and tested, such as Catholicism, is now broken in reputation and beyond repair, then it is time to look at a different religion.

(Of course, I do not expect the cowardly, hypocritical and demented UK political establishment to be doing anything of the sort. They will see it as their bounden duty not to discuss anything controversial to avoid the deadly sin of offending anyone at all. There is a general election coming up and their strategy will be not to do anything other than make promises to us that they are incapable of keeping.)

Islam, it has been said, is the middle way between capitalism and socialism, between feminism and female oppression.

It would certainly help if more people would read the Koran, but most will not, out of militant atheistical pride, sloth and simple swine-like unquestioning contentment with their lot.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, 2 November 2009

Labour figures' bizarre link to paedophile groups

Is this stale news about Harriet Harman and her involvement with a former paedophile organsation? If so, is it worth reviving?

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press041.html

Immediate 22.00hrs Wednesday 20th June 2007

Their involvement with an organisation to which two groups campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia were affiliated has come back to challenge three leading Labour Party figures.

Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham.

NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of the People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.

Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on.

The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974. The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate. In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O'Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to 'deplore' the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.

Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a 'straight', in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for 'relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.' The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. 'An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,' the motion went on. It was duly passed.

Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented: 'It is timely that the ghosts of the 1970's past should come back to haunt these three leading Labour Party politicians. Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt were in their mid- or late-twenties at the time, but that cannot really excuse the way NCCL came to regard paedophiles as an oppressed minority whose civil liberties needed to be fought for.

'All three of them really need to explain why they were so friendly toward so many out campaigning homosexual paedophiles in their youth. Why did they allow the NCCL gay rights sub-committee to be stuffed with them? Why were they happy to work with paedophilia supporters on the NCCL Executive? It cannot have been sympathy with child-molestation, so was it a complete lack of judgment or was it moral cowardice?

'NCCL has now been rebranded as 'Liberty' and is doing great work standing up to the Government to defend the civil liberties of us all. But thirty years ago some rather peculiar things went on, and I think we should be told why.'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 3 October 2009

Polanski was a hebephile, not a paedophile. His victim has forgiven him and that should be the end of the matter.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

I cannot see why people keep interfering in this matter that should be between Polanski and Geimer only. The only person whose opinion we need take into account is that of the victim's and the victim has decided to forgive him.

That should be the end of the matter, but no, we have all these people thinking that punishing Polanski would somehow discourage paedophiles and "send the right message" when we keep having it confirmed again and again that Britain is a nation of paedophiles. There is even a paedophile "tax" of £64 per paedophile for those who want to visit schools and chauffeur children around.

This country is divided between two kinds of people, ie those who are convicted paedophiles, and those who have not yet been caught.

Isn't life in Old Blighty Grandy and Dandy?
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 1 October 2009

Judge asks paedophile to say which infants she abused

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6250989/Nursery-worker-Vanessa-George-judge-asks-her-to-reveal-identities-of-victims.html

This seems even more perverse than wishing to abuse children, in my opinion.

If I had a 12-18 month old that could have been one of the abused, I would rather not know and would rather not be told.

What good would it do except poison my relationship with my child and make me spend my life and its life blaming any failure or difficulty it has on the abuser?

Doubtless this would deprive certain child psychologists of an opportunity of earning some fees, but that is just too bad for them.

Sometimes, repression is the wisest and healthiest course.
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 11 September 2009

One small step for over-regulation, one giant step towards Big Brother

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Volunteer_parents_face_paedophile_check&in_article_id=736326&in_page_id=34

Someone with whom I am on friendly terms stated that he thought that if teachers had to have CRB checks, then school visitors such as writers should be subjected to the same indignity, in order to pursue his twisted idea of equal opportunities government persecution, for he is a very Politically Correct Man indeed.

The most important thing for him is that something must be seen to be done, even if it will do no one any good, for the sake of the kiddywinks.

I have a rather controversial theory that female promiscuity that is the result of feminism is in fact responsible for paedophilia, but women, because they are malicious as well as stupid, blame men.

Men, because they have allowed themselves to become as stupid as women, and are reluctant to give up their access to easy sex, take the blame.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/04/louis-theroux-place-for-paedophiles.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/05/feminism-promiscuity-and-paedophilia.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 20 April 2009

Louis Theroux - A Place for Paedophiles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k3ms6

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-weekends-television-louis-theroux-ndash-a-place-for-paedophiles-sun-bbc2-1671224.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IEt3-kuVl5Y

A very frustrating programme to watch, since Theroux did not ask the question I would have asked, viz

1. Why are paedophiles paedophiles?

2. Why do they prefer children?

3. What is so erotic about children?

4. Why would you risk so much shame and punishment, when you could presumably satisfy yourself with more available sex objects, viz women or gay men or prostitutes of both sexes?

5. Is it because they are too unattractive to find sex partners?

6. Is it because they are too poor to be able to pay for prostitutes?

7. Why are most paedophiles male?

8. Why is such an apparently all-male institution run by female clinicians?

9. Why were so many of them apparently nice and normal-seeming and so educated and articulate?

10. Surely it is all right to want to have sex with children, provided they do not have sex with children? (If thoughts were deeds, what villains we'd all be! After all, we all occasionally want to commit murder, adultery, theft, etc, don't we?)

11. Are there more paedophiles now than there were before, in a previous age? Or was it always ever thus?

12. If their numbers have increased, what is the reason?

13. Is paedophilia a male reaction to feminism?

14.  If paedophiles are mosquitoes, are single mothers stagnant pools of water?

It is enough, surely, to be satisfied that these paedophiles do not wish to remain paedophiles. There is no need to in effect make them lie about their state of mind, ie that they no longer wish to have sex with children, in order to get out. The only requirement ought to be for them to explain why they prefer children when women are so easily available, and why they prefer dangerously deviant sex to easily obtainable legal sex.

Could it be because men do not want to have their feelings hurt by a sexually experienced female saying things like "Is that all?" or telling her friends afterwards that he is not as well-endowed as she would have wished? Or that her previous lovers were all much better?

Men are really as insecure as women but are not allowed to admit it. They therefore suffer more from their insecurities because they cannot really let it out, for the more astute of them know that the moment they express emotions and show any weakness as they have been invited to do by their women, their women will lose all respect for them.

It seems the conversation I had with a mother many years ago was much more revealing. I asked her why she thought paedophiles preferred children. Her answer was simple: "Power."

Yes, the power you have when you get there before anyone else.

Perhaps someone else would like to attempt answers to the questions unasked by Louis Theroux.
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...