Translate

Monday, 30 June 2014

Why did Nadine Dorries withdraw her "No Sex We Are Still Schoolgirls" bill?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadine_Dorries#Abstinence_advocacy_for_girls_in_sex_education

Abstinence advocacy for girls in sex education
On 4 May 2011, Dorries proposed a bill to require that sex education in schools should include content promoting abstinence to girls aged 13 to 16 which was presented as teaching them "how to say no".[83] While sex education already mentions the option of abstinence, the bill would have required active promotion of abstinence to girls, with no such requirement in the education provided to boys. Owing to Dorries' claims about practices used in teaching about sex, Sarah Ditum in The Guardian accused Dorries of making Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) "sound like a terrifying exercise in depravity".[84]

The bill drew criticism from health care and sex education professionals, questioning claims made during the bill's reading,[85] and the bill was opposed in the House by Labour MP Chris Bryant who described it as "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen".[86] Dorries accused her opponents of behaving as though she was advocating "the compulsory wearing of chastity belts for all teenage girls".[87]

On 16 May 2011, Dorries appeared to suggest that a lack of awareness around abstinence among young girls is linked to rates of child sexual abuse. Dorries stated: "If a stronger 'just say no' message was given to children in school, there might be an impact on sex abuse, because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place don't realise until later that was a wrong thing to do... I don't think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in school, we would probably have less sex abuse."[88]

The sexual abstinence bill was set for second reading on 20 January 2012 (Bill 185).[89] after she was granted leave to introduce the Bill on a vote of 67 to 61 on 4 May 2011.[90] The Bill, placed eighth on the order paper, was withdrawn shortly before its second reading, possibly by Dorries herself.[91]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/20/nadine-dorries-sex-education-abstinence-bill-withdrawn_n_1218486.html


From saying "just say no" to being a fan of the morning after pill with no explanation at all, fancy that!

Is this the ultimate expression of the unreliability and the capriciousness of women?

Why did no journalist even ask her why she withdraw her bill?

Was she threatened by her party?

Or did all the filthy feminist journalists of Britain collectively threaten to burn her house down with her in it or something? Talk about a U turn, eh?



Sluts, SSMs and the ostriches burying their heads in the sand




Let's face it: most Western women are sluts. This makes most Western men morally-compromised slut-fuckers who do not want to marry the sluts they have fucked.

Should the state stop women from making themselves unattractive and unmarriageable and stop men from becoming effeminate and morally-corrupted misogynists?

Sluts are always bailed out in a society which values the indiscriminate expression of compassion than cold reason, especially when women are half the voters and elections are every five years.

What the West suffers from is the collective fear of offending sluts and the inability to think beyond 5 years. It is a fatal combination, and the matriarchal pornocracy is a cancer that spreads from one major organ of state to yet another.

These days even the judiciary will suffer to have a slut single mother like Constance Briscoe as one of their number while being too stupid and cowardly to protest.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/shock-horror-arrested-female-judge-also.html

Because most Western men are addicted to the idea that it is their right to enjoy extramarital sex, politicians who want to win the next election have no choice but to pander to the vices of their voters. Most voters in the West are sluts, single mothers, bastards and morally-compromised slut fuckers who go on to become paedophiles.  No good will come of this.

Remember:

Tolerating SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts means tolerating bastards, and tolerating bastards means you tolerate the increase in numbers of an inferior race within your race.

Tolerating SSMs and bastards means tolerating degeneracy and accepting the decline and fall of your civilisation.

Tolerating sluts and bastards means you are afraid of them.

Tolerating sluts and bastards means you see the good but choose the evil.

Since practically everyone is a bastard or a slut or a Morally-Compromised Slut-Fucker, no politician in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage will dare to criticise SSMs and their running dogs.  

This means things will only get worse while politicians and voters bury their heads deeper and deeper in the sand.  

There is no solution to this until someone else other than me dares discuss this problem, but they are all too AFRAID, even the organisations that say they are campaigning for marriage to be respected are too frightened to discuss sluttery and bastardy.

Have a read of the boring bland shit they spew out regularly at:

http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/
http://conservativewoman.co.uk/ (The Catholic Woman, more like, the Catholic woman who wishes to wound but fears to strike at the slut cos she is so afraid of being accused of being judgmental or uncompassionate by libtards.  Utterly useless. )

All the male Conservative writers are also frightened.  


The slut is the elephant in the room crapping all over your carpet and eating you out of house and home.

The slut single mother is also a bad mother. That is why England is always CRAP at football. Can you imagine the lazy slut of a mother taking her son to football practice? No, because she would be in bed with her latest shag she picked up the night before.  

Why are educated intelligent men afraid of criticising such women?  

End the Cult of the Slut before it ends your civilisation.

Sunday, 29 June 2014

A one-sided conversation I had with a woman on Twitter who later deleted her tweets to me


It was a shame she became frightened, but perhaps I was being weird and scary (again)? That she deleted her tweets to me intrigued me and I can imagine this exchange becoming even more tantalisingly mysterious the more time passes.

Why did I trouble to preserve this fragment? Probably because she said I blogged like an angry hedgehog, described my behaviour as "reprehensible", and I rather enjoy being told off. For some reason this and her "writerliness" endeared her to me while also confirming yet again the capriciousness and neurosis of most women.

Saturday, 28 June 2014

How marriage civilised society

Imagine you were an attractive female in a pre-marriage society. You would just have sex with all the men you fancied and play them off against each other, wouldn't you? And what you would not do is have sex with any males you don't fancy. Amongst the men you do fancy they might just agree to share you and share the burden of feeding you and the children they think they sired through you. That would be how a matriarchy worked.

What would probably happen is that any of the beta males you refused to have sex with might just rape you if they got half the chance, and you would therefore rely on the men who you do want to have sex with to protect you from being raped by the ones you don't want to have sex with.

When you got too old to be sexually interesting to the men, you would be just cast aside.

Under a patriarchal system of monogamy, you and your husband would just have each other, but you would have children who would look after you in your old age.

Although you would still produce offspring by various men under the matriarchal system, it is less likely that these children would look after you because, once these men stopped fancying you and transferred their attention to a younger and more attractive female, they just wouldn't bother telling their children to look after you.

Under a patriarchy, both parents would exert equal influence over their children, which means their children are more likely to love them and look after them in old age.

Because under the patriarchal system men and women would live longer and be respected and looked after more, more knowledge and wisdom would be passed on than under the matriarchal system.

Under the matriarchal system, life for men would also be brutish and short and would end when they got old and frail, because the children they sired would have no particular loyalty to them either. No man would really be sure which child belonged to them and their emotional investment in a child who may just be their offspring would be low and their children would feel no particular connection to them. There would not be much natural feeling of the affection a parent and child would feel for each other under the patriarchal system.
This was how marriage first worked to improve the quality of human relationships and maintain the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next.

Once we return to the old system of allowing woman to have sex with whoever they pleased, we will go back to the old system of human relationships.

Now, those of you who keep saying that marriage is just a piece of paper, which system do you prefer and which system is to be preferred if you care about preserving the existence and health of your civilisation?

Men's rights activists have got it so wrong



I have finally finished watching the video of the conference. The only alpha male was Carnell Smith who can be found at http://www.carnellsmith.com/ How the matriarchy connives with paternity fraud is truly scandalous and immoral. The simplest way to solve the problem is for the law to only oblige a man to support his legitimate children, but this is probably a bridge too far for the pussywhipped men of the West because this would mean - SHOCK HORROR - respecting marriage!

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/why-do-women-of-mens-rights-movement.html
How the men's rights movement is now controlled by women who have now appointed their beta male appointees: Paul Elam (hates masculism but can't define it and obviously leaves it to the women to define it for him) and Warren Farrell (whiny, boring, ineffectual and only suffered to exist by the matriarchy because he is too much of wuss to ever amount to anything).

Friday, 27 June 2014

Richard Ingrams on dictators, antisemitism, feminism, homosexuality, child abuse and Auberon Waugh

http://quartetbooks.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/richard-ingrams/

Dictators
Mary and I had dinner with Mosley once and I was most impressed. His political charisma was clearly defined. At a certain point the conversation stopped and he began to speak about what was going on in the country and what ought to be done. Then he started to wave his arms and it all became slightly hypnotic and quite frightening.

Antisemitism
People such as Balfour, who were responsible for the State of Israel coming into being, were quite anti-Semitic and believed that creating a Jewish state would be a good way to get the Jews out of their own countries. It’s always seemed to me that the Gentiles most keen on Israel are anti-Semitic.
 The Jews are saying to the Palestinians, we don’t want you people; this is our country; we must keep our race pure. But because there are so many powerful Jewish lobbies, particularly in the United States, you’re made to feel guilty, or you’re attacked for anti-Semitism, if you mention the fact of racism in Israel.

Margaret Thatcher and Feminism 
I used to admire Mrs Thatcher quite a lot and I think she has done many good things. As a journalist, one is aware of how the printing unions have been crushed by her, and they undoubtedly were a restriction on the press. For example, you could never have started a paper like the Independent in the old days. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that she has been in power too long and has grown to be power mad. It happens to all those people. In my experience, women (this is a sexist remark) are unable to cope with power, not only in politics, but also in publishing, journalism, or whatever. Women in positions of authority can’t do it as a rule, or else they manage for a time, but after a while they crack up.

People say there should be more women in politics, but one of the good things about women is that on the whole they don’t want to go into that world. They are not in general ambitious, they don’t want power; or if they do want it they want to exercise it over individual men, not over men and women generally. The reason why there aren’t more women MPs is not because men are prejudice against them but because there are so few women who actually want to do it. Men and women have totally different urges, most men being ruled by women within marriages, for instance. Dr Johnson was absolutely correct in saying that law has wisely given women little power because Nature has given them so much.

I wouldn’t wish to attack individual feminists, but I do feel it’s dangerous for women to think they are better off without men or vice versa. It seems to me that we both need each other, yet the whole women’s movement is geared to the idea that women should dispense with these dirty, nasty men. It’s the same the other way round: men can’t get by without women. It’s natural for women to want to have children, and encouraging them to think that somehow they’re better off pursuing a career seems to me a wicked thing to do. It asks women to turn their backs on their natural instincts and produces much unhappiness.

I feel sure that feminism is in part responsible for our huge number of divorces, because women are encouraged to think that, if they are unhappy in their marriages, they have no reason to stay enslaved to a man; that if they don’t like it they should just give up. That’s wrong, and it is just as wrong for a man to make the same assumption. Women have a natural urge to kick over the traces, as I’ve constantly found with those I’ve employed on Private Eye. Every so often they think, sod this, I’m off to do something else. If you apply that urge to a marriage, then it can’t be a good thing.

Homosexuals
My antipathy to homosexuals is directed against homosexual campaigners rather than individual homosexuals. If I’m sitting side by side with a homosexual at lunch, I’m not going to get up and spit in his face since I don’t feel that individual repugnance. I don’t feel repelled by homosexuals if I meet them. I do object, on the other hand, to the politicizing of homosexuality and the propaganda and promotion of the idea, because I don’t believe in the notion being peddled that people are born that way and there is nothing to be done about it. It may well be true of some homosexuals, but the vast majority of those I know seem to me to be quite capable of heterosexual activity and to have a choice. Promoting the idea that they ought to make a choice in favour of the homosexual way of life therefore seems to me a great mistake.

Child abuse
Child abuse, for example, has become a major issue on television, and a kind of hysteria has been worked up because it is something on which everyone can agree. No one, except possibly Bron, will get up and speak for the child abuser, but all will agree he is terrible. In the same way, it is very easy for a vicar to make awful statements about South Africa in a sermon since no one will contradict him. All the time people try to get on these bandwagons of consensus issues.

My tweets that will fail to persuade Prospect Magazine and its readers of my genius