Heretical Sex

Recommended Book

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:24:00 +0000

'The Gulag Of The Family Courts' by Jack Frost
"The book exposes a secret UK judicial system that is not even known to Parliament, is not accountable to its Minister in Parliament and about which the press are forbidden to report, under pain of immediate imprisonment. The scandal concerns a huge number of false allegations made against innocent and vulnerable parents in 'secret', so that their children can be forcibly taken from them and traded, often into an industry of 'connections', in a nether world that excludes the press and is completely opaque, unsrcrutinised and unaccountable."

Child Stealing by the British State

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:58:00 +0000

Must watch. It is 2 hours long, but if you only watch one thing this year, watch this.

Register-Her.Com

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:41:00 +0000

I came across this excellent website, Register-Her.Com. In the past a British judge has called for a false accusers' register, to mirror the sex offenders' register. There is no chance of this happening, so some enterprising MRAs have started their own.

"While the serious problem of false rape allegations is now plaguing the criminal justice system, the family courts are suffering an even worse epidemic. The U.S. D.O.J. estimates that somewhere between two and three million restraining orders are issued annually. Many legal scholars recognize that the majority of these orders are issued on fabrications in order to get the upper hand in a divorce.

These accusations ruin lives, resulting in false imprisonment, destroyed reputations, financial devastation, loss of employment and even suicide. The unfortunate fact is the these destructive lies are almost never prosecuted, and even when they are rarely result in meaningful punishment.

Register-her.com was established to bring attention to this problem, and to help ensure the safety of our community by creating a clearinghouse of information on known false accusers, most of which have committed their crimes with impunity. It also provides a place for the victims of false allegations to list the criminals who have acted against them so that their information is available to the general public.

Studies of crime statistics from across the western world point to the fact that women are becoming more violent, both physically and sexually; with children and with other adults. Women now constitute the majority of those who kill and intentionally cause physical harm to children in the home. They are also responsible for the lions share of elderly abuse and now even match men, blow for blow, in the realm of intimate partner violence.

Unfortunately, our society has reacted to this by failing to adequately address this criminal conduct in the justice system. Quite the contrary, some countries seem to be enabling criminality in women as a matter of policy. In the United States, the sentencing disparity for female criminals, compared to men, is greater than that between whites and other ethnic minorities. In the U.K., the government has issued advisories to magistrates instructing them to give women lighter sentences than men. The Ministry of Justice is also considering a proposal to abolish women's prisons altogether.

In Australia, it is now common for media sources to avoid printing the names of female pedophiles, even after their conviction for molesting children.

All this creates an environment of undue tolerance for female criminality that puts the general public, including our children, at increased risk.

Register-her.com is a needed first step to begin the amelioration of this problem."

Feminist Hypocrisy over Knox Acquittal

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:43:00 +0000

Amanda Knox acquittal: It isn’t the Catholic Church that is unhealthily obsessed with mythical Satanic sex – it is radical feminists and social workers

A subtle rewriting of history is taking place on the back of the Amanda Knox acquittal. Reading feminist commentary on the case, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Catholic Church and its weird obsession with Satanic cults are ultimately to blame for Knox’s sorrows. Apparently, the Church, being stuck in the fifteenth century, is still obsessed with devils, especially she-devils, and somehow its poisonous beliefs invaded the courtroom in Perugia and helped to turn everyone against Knox.

This idea that the modern-day obsession with Satanism and crazy sexual degradation springs from somewhere within the Vatican is completely mad. It wasn’t Catholic officials or men of the cloth who in recent years rehabilitated the Middle Ages view that there are evil people out there who worship the devil and have sex while they’re doing it – no, it was radical feminists and social workers, in fact some of the same kind of people currently shedding tears over the witch-hunting of Knox. Across Western Europe and America in the 1980s and 90s, it was implacably atheistic, supposedly “Left-wing” activists who spread the idea that Satanism was making a comeback and that children were being raped and killed as a result. It was writers like Beatrix Campbell, a feminist and contributor to the Guardian, who argued in 1990 in Marxism Today, the then bible of the chattering Left, that Satanists were “organising rituals to penetrate any available orifice in troops of little children; to cut open rabbits or cats or people and drink their blood; to shit on silver trays and make the children eat it”. It was feministic social workers who, with the help of police, kidnapped working-class children from their families on the bizarre basis that they were being ritualistically abused. It was people like Oprah Winfrey, echoing academic feminists, who hosted TV shows claiming that some families in America were involved in "human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism" – watch the clip here.

Even in Italy, that alleged hotbed of backward religious beliefs and woman-hating insanity, the Satanic scares of the past 10 to 20 years have been pushed by radical activists rather than Church officials. In fact, the Church has on many occasions told these Satan-obsessed secularists to get a grip and to stop torturing innocent families. So when in 2007, three schoolteachers, two of whom were grandmothers, were arrested in a school near Rome on suspicion of having had Satanic sex with 15 toddlers in a nearby forest, it fell to Church spokesmen to point out that the women were victims of “malicious tongues”. Priests pleaded for people to recognise that the women were good, honest teachers and that it was bizarre to arrest them simply because some of their pupils had drawn pictures of a person wearing a black hood. There have been many Satanic scares in Italy in recent years and pretty much all of them have echoed those that rocked Britain and America in the 1980s: that is, they have been fuelled as much by warped modern-day “liberal” beliefs as by old-fashioned Catholic ones.

If there really was a propensity to believe in Satanic sects amongst some people in the Knox case, then they are far more likely to have been influenced by this powerful secular obsession with demented and mythical sex abuse, which has exercised a tight grip on various parts of Europe for the best part of two decades, rather than by crazy-eyed priests. They are more likely to have been inspired by very recent Satanic panics in Italy, which the Church actually took a stand against. Perhaps Knox was a victim, not so much of backward Italian beliefs, but rather of the ripples still being made by the deranged Satanic panic set in motion by feminists and their fellow travellers 20 years ago.

Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:42:00 +0000

I just came across this shocking story today:

Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

Four obese children are on the brink of being permanently removed from their family by social workers after their parents failed to bring their weight under control.

In the first case of its kind, their mother and father now face what they call the ‘unbearable’ likelihood of never seeing them again.

Warned that the children must slim or be placed in care, the family spent two years living in a council-funded ‘Big Brother’ house in which they were constantly supervised and the food they ate monitored.

But despite subjecting them to intense scrutiny, social workers did not impose rules on what food the children should eat, and there was apparently little or no improvement.

News of the decision to remove them was broken to the couple, from Dundee, on Tuesday. Critics called it a disgraceful breach of human rights and a chilling example of the power of the State to meddle in family life.

The couple have not committed any crime and are not accused of deliberate cruelty or abuse. Their solicitor, Joe Myles, said there was ‘nothing sinister lurking in the background’ and accused social workers of failing to act in the family’s best interests.

Social workers became aware of the family in early 2008 after one of the sons accused his father of hitting him on the forehead. In truth, he had fallen and hit his head on a radiator – a fact he later admitted. However, the allegation opened the door to the obesity investigation.

The father, aged 56, said: ‘We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough.

‘The pressure of living in the family unit would have broken anyone. We were being treated like children and cut off from the outside world. To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved.’

Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said: ‘This is a disgrace. These parents have clearly attempted to comply. They have, if you like, played Dundee City Council’s game and yet they are still losing their children.’

Some of the comments beneath the story are worth noting, this one from a Justice of the Peace: "Quote the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Sec 1. Then administer the Official Caution to whoever turns up - learn it first. Then employ a lawyer if you don't have one already to take this up under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is one instance where I believe it is useful, and not just something to hide behind. Do It".

As others point out, most child protection Social Workers are overweight themselves. Has this case and others like it got something to do with meeting the adoption targets created by New Labour?

It seems that the SS like to take children away from 'easy-target' families who are compliant and easily intimidated. One reason Baby P died is that the social workers were scared of his mother, and didn't want to confront her. Social workers will involve themselves in your family on the most trivial grounds, and once they have their claws in you, they never let go. They will prey on you long enough to invent some manufactured pretext, then take your children away and give them to other families, in order to meet their adoption targets, and to pursue ideological social engineering objectives of their own, such as eliminating fathers from their children's lives, and increasing the number of gay and lesbian parents.

In theory, Social Services supposedly exists in order to give support to dysfunctional families. In practice, this means that they need to find a constant supply of clients, otherwise they will find themselves out of a job. By breaking families up, they create a whole host of new social problems for themselves to solve, thus generating work for themselves. It is all done in secret, but not to protect children. They have no interest in protecting children. It is all done in secret because if the public actually knew what is going on in child protection services in this country, there would be a revolution.

Is feminism killing the left?

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:20:00 +0000

Hat-tip to Angry Harry for pointing this out.

I've noticed for some time now that left-wing men are starting to turn against feminism. You can see it even in the men's rights movement, where left-wing men continue to support all the old causes but draw the line at feminism which they treat with unyielding hostility.

And I do understand why. After all, why be a left-wing man in the first place? You get treated as being part of an oppressor class and therefore as lacking moral status.

In such a culture what really is the point of being a left-wing man? You lose moral status for being a white, heterosexual oppressor. And the women you consort with are not only at war with their own femininity, and not only convinced that they are oppressed by men, but they might also unpredictably throw out an accusation that you have assaulted or raped or otherwise oppressed them. Reference

This is my experience entirely. The Left offers men nothing. Left-wing women are also generally appalling partners. Why bother with the Left at all? If you are a man, the Left doesn't want you anyway. You can best serve the the interests of the Left in your assigned role as cardboard cut-out pantomime villain.

Elizabeth Valad, Victim of Feminism

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:37:00 +0000

I have written before about the intensive but self-defeating efforts to eliminate prostitution during the New Labour years of Blair and Brown, led by feminist politicians such as Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith. These efforts are not only dishonest, self-serving, politically-motivated and doomed to failure; they also lead directly to the deaths of women. One such was Elizabeth Valad, often known as Lizzie.

Just before we begin our story, we need to know a little about the Red Light districts of London. The most famous one is Soho, where brothels have operated for at least 350 years. Girls work in apartments, or 'flats' as we Brits call them, which are typically above street-level business premises. Customers climb the stairs to the upper-storey, hence these establishments frequently being known as 'walk-ups'. The girls usually have a 'maid' to take care of the place, and often, it would seem, CCTV monitoring of the entrance. The working-girls of Soho are a widely accepted part of the vibrant fabric of the area, which also embraces the gay community, bars, restaurants and theatre. Soho is the night-life capital of London.

Another, different, much more seedy, aspect to the prostitution business in London is in the area around King's Cross station, a major railway and transport hub. Here, it seems, there are no walk-ups. No girls working in premises, no maids. There are only street-walkers hanging around outside the back of the station, in the darkened corners, back-alleys and side-streets, where they conduct their business.

Feminists don't like the working-girls of Soho. They want to shut them down. The police can arrest street-walkers, but they can't do anything about girls working in the walk-ups, because they are not breaking any laws.

Every so often, the authorities will try to pin trumped-up offences on them, like encouraging drug-dealing. It doesn't always work.

"...district judge Howard Riddle dismissed an application by the Metropolitan Police and Westminster Council to wind up a discreet little sex business in Dean Street. Women had been entertaining clients in two flats at the address for years, but they suddenly found themselves caught up in what many believe is a campaign to clear prostitutes out of their West End heartland.

The police claimed the brothel fostered anti-social behaviour and drug-dealing, but the claim crumbled when exposed to evidence from the community, which included testimony from the local rector, the Rev David Gilmore from St Anne's Church. He lives five doors away from the brothel and said he had never seen any drug dealing outside. Another witness said the brothel was crime-free, not least as it was monitored by CCTV". Reference

A few years ago, the abolitionists hit upon a great idea. They began to use Compulsory Purchase Orders. In the UK, the Compulsory Purchase Order gives the government power to buy private property without the owner's consent, if it is in the national interest. This is often done if the government decides to build a new road or a military base, for example. It is obliged to pay the owner the market value of the property. Westminster Council started to use Compulsory Purchase Orders to buy the walk-up brothels of Soho, so that it could close them down.

In one of those properties, at 61 Dean Street, Soho, a woman called Elizabeth Valad, who was originally born in the United States, worked as a prostitute. The authorities purchased the property, and threw her out. So, what did she do? Did she give up prostitution? Did she see the error of her foolish ways? Did she maybe go and take a degree in Women's Studies? Maybe join a feminist coven, and begin preaching hatred against men, Capitalism and the family? No.

She went to work in the back-streets of King's Cross, because she had nowhere else to work. There, in 2003, she encountered Anthony Hardy, a serial killer known as 'the Camden Ripper'. Hardy murdered Miss Valad, dismembered her body, and dumped it in garbage bags around various sites in north London. Her remains were discovered by a homeless man foraging for food in a garbage bin. Her head and hands have never been found. She was identified from her breast implants.

Well done feminists. Another stunning victory. When are you going to learn?

State child snatchers

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:56:00 +0000

As social workers hand back a child they falsely claim was abused, an investigation exposes one of the great scandals of our age

If things have gone so terribly wrong with our child protection system, why has this happened — and why have we not heard more about it? It is difficult for outsiders to realise just how corrupted it has become until they experience it at first hand — because the entire system has managed to hide itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy.

Supposedly designed to ‘protect the interests of the children’ by ensuring that they cannot be identified, this secrecy had been used by the system to conceal its workings from public view, by threatening parents with prison for talking about their case to outsiders, and even journalists like me for trying to report what goes on.

It is this cloak of secrecy which more than anything has allowed the system to go so far off the rails. Too many social workers are in the grip of a self-righteous, politically correct ideology which drives them to abuse the power the Government has given them over other people’s lives, in the conviction that they are doing good in the world.

The secrecy which surrounds the way they wield that power means they are hardly ever called to account.

Nothing did more to distort the system in this way than Tony Blair’s personal crusade a few years back to drive up the number of adoptions by setting councils targets for the number of children they place with new families.

They were given huge cash incentives to fulfil their quotas thanks to a policy which, though now technically abandoned, has left a terrible legacy in convincing both social workers and the courts that one of their prime duties is to seize children from their parents, even when there is no good reason for it.

It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is, and for the trail of horrors it is perpetrating to be dragged into the light.

RIP Thomas James Ball, father

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:19:00 +0000

On Friday June 15, 2011, the world became aware of a man who after years of being brutalized by the family court system, decided to share his pain and outrage with the world, with the intent of shining a bright light on the ongoing feminist corruption and the systematic destruction of human beings by a corrupt court system.

The man’s name was Thomas James Ball. He doused himself in gasoline then self immolated on the steps of a family courthouse in New Hampshire. Mr. Ball chose to use his own agonizing death to focus public attention on the corruption of the family courts. The mainstream media has no interest in human suffering, when it belongs to a man, and before just now, you have probably never heard of him.

In understanding this story, we must first ask ourselves -- How much personal agony, how many years of pain does a human have to endure before death by self immolation seems like a rational choice?

Read the full text here

Hitchens on Single Parents

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:15:00 +0000

It’s fathers we’re demonising

If I make a reasoned case against state subsidies for fatherless families, I am immediately, and falsely, accused by Tories and other Leftists of ‘demonising single mothers’.

As it happens, I think single mothers make an entirely rational decision, based on the existing benefits system and the divorce laws. So we should change the system, and reform divorce.

If David Cameron makes a weird, puce-faced attack on absent fathers, he is taken seriously by a largely sycophantic media. Read what the Prime Minister says.

It is – and I am being mild here – actually unhinged. It is close to an incitement to violence, and if violence follows it, then I think the victims should make sure that Mr Cameron’s outburst is considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Here goes. These are the actual words of the Queen’s First Minister, and Controller of the Nuclear Button: ‘We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go AWOL.

It’s high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale.’

He wouldn’t dare say any such thing about the many women who deliberately set out to bring up children without fathers, and he was careful to sugar his statement with exaggerated praise for ‘heroic’ single mothers.

The deep anti-male, politically correct bias in our culture has grown markedly worse since the Tory Party was captured by Mr Cameron and his rich liberal friends.

Good News Piles Upon Good News

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Mon, 02 May 2011 11:02:00 +0000

What a week it has been. First, we enjoyed the reassertion of British traditions, national identity, Christian values and the married heterosexual family, all of which were embodied in the glorious Royal Wedding. Then today, in the middle of the Arab Spring, we hear that Osama bin Laden is dead. Even the sun is shining in London. How could it get any better?

I commented on another forum today, as I often do. Someone said "I only got turned on to the Monarchy because the Left hates it". I agreed, saying "If the Left hates something, then as far as I am concerned, it must be good". This is generally a good and reliable rule of thumb, I find.

After years of listening to miserable, doom-laden Socialist sneering about how Britain is an evil imperialist power, how we should be ashamed of our history, how the monarchy is oppressive and the nation-state is finished, to witness the Royal Wedding was a shot in the arm. It was a joy to see British people coming together behind the noble and dignified figure of the Queen in a moment of national unity.

In spite of what certain vicious American harpies implied, the Royal Wedding cannot be said to be in any way a racist event. I was in the crowd, and it contained a large proportion of immigrants to the UK, as well as tourists from many nations. Of the sneering Lefties that I know who pooh-poohed the event, they are all white, middle-class, university-educated, Anglo-Celtic natives. Foreigners are the very ones who have embraced the Royal Wedding the most, it seems.

The Royal Wedding thus exposed that most pernicious of Left-wing lies: that we must abolish, kill and bury our British traditions and national identity because foreigners will be offended by them. Why on earth would they be? And even if they were, so what? We cannot accept a legal obligation to protect the whole world's feelings; not even safety, mind you, but feelings. They don't have to come here if they don't like it. I lived for several years as an ex-pat, and the host country did not offer to abolish its cultural identity in order to avoid offending me, nor did I expect it to. I was the guest in their country, not vice versa. I would have been shocked if they had even mentioned doing so. I went there because its culture was different from mine and therefore interesting. Had they offered to kill their own culture to please me I probably would have decided to leave, on the grounds that my presence there was destructive, and/or the country politically unstable. Nor would I have been surprised if I found myself the target of patriotic ire by those who didn't agree with the agenda.

The situation in this country is analogous. It is not foreigners who are complaining, it is white middle-class champagne socialists; foreigners generally seem to love British traditions, and respect this nation.

Elements of the revolutionary Left are cynically using the issue to further their agenda. It is the 'Change Britain Forever' faction of the Labour Party, people like 'Mad' Harriet Harman and her equally dreadful husband Jack Dromey; people like Guardian journalist and millionaire hypocrite Polly Toynbee. It is these people who are using foreigners as an instrument of moral blackmail, telling us that we must open the borders to everyone in the world, we must tear down traditional British life, and abolish the entire evil edifice of British culture. They are stirring up a neo-fascist backlash as a result, and having done so, the Champagne Left will then point at the neo-fascists and scream that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. This is another reason why the BNP are such hopeless idiots; it is the middle-class, white, Left-wing enemy within that we need to worry about the most, not foreigners. The BNP don't realise that they are being duped. The Asian corner-shop owner is not the problem; it is Harriet Harman, Polly Toynbee and their ilk that we need to worry about.

Everyone I know, rich and poor, black and white, enjoyed the Royal Wedding enormously. Everyone except the whining, middle-class, sour-faced Lefties who buy the Guardian. As such, the Royal wedding was a kick in the teeth for the Left, and that is why I enjoyed it so much. I was proud to wave a Union Flag on Friday, because it's about time someone who isn't a neo-Nazi waved it. On Friday, there was me and about a million others, many of whom were foreign, and we all waved the flag. What a glorious day for Britain it was, made even better by the fact that none of the New Labour scum were invited.

Even-Newer-Labour was there is the form of Puppy Miliband, the leader of the opposition, with his 'partner', Justine Thornton, the mother of his children, whom he doesn't want to marry in case he oppresses her. He doesn't want to name himself as his children's father either, in case he oppresses them, but he wants to run the country. The newspaper fashionistas engaged in their usual bitch-fest about the women's clothes, and Mz Thornton did not escape their attentions. Surely her choice of clothes was the least of it. It was miraculous enough in itself that a Socialist-feminist fuck-up case like that could be persuaded to (a) go to a wedding (b) go to a Royal wedding, and (c) put on a skirt at all. I find those people's mere presence vaguely offensive in the same way that I found the presence of Hatter Harman at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day offensive. The Labour leadership would abolish the Monarchy in an instant if they could, and there they are at a Royal Wedding, supping at the trough as if they are friends of the family. They would prefer to see the Queen's head on a spike on London Bridge.

Barely had my hangover gone away when I received this morning's news that Osama Bin Laden is dead. As regimes topple across the Middle East, and militant Islam endures blow after blow, it looks as if the Muslim world may finally be heading towards the kind of Reformation that happened in Europe in the 17th Century. OK, maybe I'm being over-optimistic, but I'm in a good mood. Although these fanatics set themselves against the West, and any form of modernism, they don't seem to mind accepting the kaffir's welfare checks, or using the kaffir's Stinger missiles. Like all such people, they are a bunch of two-faced, self-serving hypocrites. Thankfully, it's beginning to look as if their days are numbered. Bin Laden is in his grave, and still no sign of a restored Caliphate. Oh well. It obviously just isn't God's will.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole saga is the unholy alliance between these two sets of villains. The British Left has, for the last decade at least, got into bed with radical Islam. Look at George Galloway's Respect Party, an improbable union of Hard-Left British Socialists and Islamic Fundamentalists.

The British Left has a long and inglorious tradition of siding with Britain's enemies; I wrote elsewhere about how they opposed Britain's war effort against Hitler. Since 9/11, the Left has sided with the Islamo-fascists. I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, so if you have to stone a few women to death in order to build the Glorious Socialist Future, then so be it.

I hope that the sun continues to shine, and that the Queen's enemies continue to topple like nine-pins. The fact is that this is one of the best countries in the world to live in, and our former colonies - legacy of our evil, oppressive ways - are too. The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and others, all products of the British Empire, all among the most successful and desirable places on Earth. What a contrast to either the Communist countries or the Islamic ones. Not content with flogging one dead horse, George Galloway has decided to flog two.

There is still much work to be done however. The principal unfought battle is still that against Cultural Marxism. The charming and affluent professionals sitting around sneering at the Royal Wedding are but the tip of the iceberg. There is a whole class of poisonous harridans running social services, militant Left-wingers running the teaching unions, and more besides.

I am looking forward to Mr Gove taking on the militant teaching unions this summer, and to the opening of Free Schools in the Autumn. I suspect the teachers will have to go the same way as the miners. We will never get a solution until we see the complete privatisation of all schools. Just like the miners, this may involve the use of riot police along the way. If it does, then so be it.

Cheers and Rule Brittania.

You can’t have a laugh with a Lefty

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:53:00 +0000

I want to cross-post this outstanding article by the ever-excellent Simon Heffer.

"It has been noted before how Dave can be careless with facts in a way that prime ministers ought not to be. It suggests a casual approach to his job and a lack of what East End gangsters call "respect" for the electorate that he serves. He was at it again on Wednesday, when he accused a nonentity former Labour MP of having been defeated at the last election when, in fact, he stood down.

What followed, however, was of great interest both politically and culturally. A harridan Labour MP pointed out Dave's mistake. Had Dave been a gent he would have apologised, and that would have been the end of it. But Dave doesn't do humble. He does, though, think he does jokes, and quoted a lapidary line of the celebrated self-publicist Michael Winner by way of trying to sidestep his error. He told Angela Eagle, the harridan, to "calm down, dear".

There followed an outbreak of the demented self-righteousness that the Left has cornered the market in during the era of militant political correctness. Miss Eagle seemed little short of requiring medical attention. Ed Balls said if he addressed his wife in those terms she would "clock" him. (I wish to know no details of the Balls marriage, but why should Mrs Balls wait for such an excuse? Few others would.)

I suspect even Dave has the manners not to address a woman with whom he is not well acquainted as "dear" except in jest. His mistake, however, was to think that these people are easy-going types who like a laugh. He has, at least, now admitted he realises that the Left doesn't have a sense of humour.

In that, Dave and I are in rare agreement. Lefties, with one or two notable exceptions, are a sour, boot-faced lot. They are inevitably so because they are motivated by grievance and envy, neither of which is a sentiment guaranteed to put joy in one's heart. They seek offence where none is intended; they strive to suppress individuality of expression; they like to control others. Humour, whose main purpose throughout existence has been to deflate such priggish, pompous and sour attitudes, is therefore the enemy of militant Lefties, who wish to standardise attitudes and behaviour, and whose political project is to enforce and inflict as much control as possible over others.

One reason why any "comedy" programme on Radio 4 is unlistenable is that the "comedians" on it, restricted to a narrow range of targets, are about as funny as putting one's head in a mincer. For generations our humour was based on the quirks of foreigners, something the Left regards as making us racists. Funny, then, that a nation almost entirely without humour – Germany – was responsible for the most notorious genocide in history, while we, the supposedly racist jesters, were the people who fought against it.

Comedians who are not Leftists have more or less been driven out of business. Bernard Manning was martyred in this cause. Jim Davidson is in the process of following him, not because he isn't funny, but because he was a strong supporter of Mrs Thatcher. Long after she left office, the spiteful little creeps who form the "comedy" establishment of this country would get laughs from their bovine audiences simply by mentioning her name. When they became too young to remember her, the words "George Bush" were used to the same effect. That is what Dave is up against.

He should apologise for his slight on Dr Stoate, the undefeated MP; but he should continue to tell Miss Eagle and her sort to get lost, dear. Things in this country are bad enough without having our jokes nationalised too".

Mr Heffer didn't really pick up on Comrade Balls' casual admission that his wife engages in domestic violence. Domestic violence (because let's face it, that's what it is) is one of the feminist movement's most precious shibboleths; second-only perhaps to rape as the most sacred of sacred cows. As I have shown elsewhere, most DV is committed by women. The feminist movement has been systematically misrepresenting the issue for decades in order to increase its own power and funding.

It does nothing at all about the double standards in operation. Can you imagine the reaction if a female MP admitted that her husband 'clocked' her for expressing the wrong view? To make it worse, Balls' wife is the politician Yvette Cooper, who is evidently the latest incarnation of Labour's 'big clunking fist'. Can you imagine a male politician who is a known wife-beater being allowed to stay in office?

Mr Heffer is wrong: Lefties do like a laugh. Domestic violence is funny when women do it to men.

Does the Left Never get Sick of its Own Bullshit?

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:04:00 +0000

'Where are the black people?' asks Sherri Shepherd as The View hosts discuss Royal Wedding

"Never mind who wore what, the View's Sherri Shepherd had another burning question about the Royal Wedding today.

'Where are the black people?' the outspoken actress, 44, asked as the panellists as they critiqued Prince William and Kate Middleton's ceremony.

Audrey Jones our producer was looking for the black people in the wedding and we found our Rosa Parks moment, because we were like 'where are the black people'?' she said.

'It was like where's Waldo, where are the black people?' she added".

Still Don't Believe Me?

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:52:00 +0000

If you still think that women have a worse time in society than men, compare and contrast these two stories:

Wrongfully convicted rapist is freed after 17 years.. and hit with a $110,000 bill for backdated child maintenance
An innocent man jailed for 17 years after being wrongfully convicted of rape will not get any compensation for the time he spent behind bars - but he has been given a $111,000 bill for backdated child maintenance payments.

Alan Northrop and co-defendant Larry Davis were arrested following the January 1993 rape of a woman near Vancouver, Washington State. In July of that year, the pair were given jail terms of more than 23 years after being convicted of first-degree rape, kidnapping and burglary.

But in a dramatic turnaround last year, Washington State prosecutors were forced to withdraw the charges in light of fresh DNA evidence, and the men were released having served 17 years in jail.

DNA testing showed that skin cells found underneath the fingernails of the victim belonged to two other, unknown men.

But Northrop's relief at finally being exonerated was short-lived. Under Washington's law, exonerated inmates can try to sue for damages, but such cases rarely succeed because they need to prove intentional misconduct by law enforcement officials.

Instead, Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child maintenance payments. About half of that sum was owed to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated.

Toddler found charred in front of gas fire had been dead three days after social services missed 17 chances to save him
Baby Alex Sutherland, 13 months, was found strapped into his buggy in front of a roaring gas fire in 2009.

He had been dead for at least three days and his tiny body was charred and burnt.

He had suffered severe nappy rash and had bruising on his head and body.

His mother, Tracey Sutherland, 39, a former pharmacist, who was found nearby by police walking in the rain in her pyjamas and smelling of alcohol.

She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.

What do you reckon?

Woman of the Year 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:07:00 +0000

Heretic's Woman of the Year 2010 award goes to Katherine Birbalsingh.

This is her ground-breaking speech at the 2010 Conservative Party conference. The standing ovation was richly deserved. We must repair the damage done to the education system and the family if Britain is not to become a third-world country.

My sincere congratulations and thanks to Ms Birbalsingh.

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:09:00 +0000

Wise thoughts from the great philosopher, Karl Popper.

"Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he realized that even a tolerant person cannot always accept another's intolerance.

For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

The utterence of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion."

However, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal".

A small victory for families against the SS

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:58:00 +0000

Couple who fled UK after social workers took their child are declared fit parents by Spanish officials and reunited with baby No2

A baby boy who was snatched from his parents on the authority of social workers has been returned after tests showed the couple are perfectly capable of caring for him.

Ten-month-old Daniel was back home with his parents last night after spending most of his young life in an orphanage.

The couple had fled to Spain, where Daniel was born in February, after their other child, Poppy, now two, was seized by Suffolk social services and put up for adoption.

They had deemed the couple ‘unfit’ parents who might emotionally harm their daughter in the future.

This decision was roundly criticised in the Commons by local MP Tim Yeo as ‘tantamount to child kidnap’.

Daniel was still being breast-fed by Carissa in hospital when Spanish social workers, acting on a tip-off from Suffolk, took him and placed him in an orphanage in Valencia.

Now, in a snub to their UK counterparts, Spanish social workers say Jim and Carissa are no danger to Daniel.

Jim, a 42-year-old legal adviser, and Carissa, 32, plan to sue Suffolk social services for breaking up their family.

The return of Daniel is a breakthrough for scores of families who have fled overseas to escape the clutches of British social workers.

In a separate move, Jim and Carissa, along with 35 families, have launched unprecedented legal action against UK family courts which have taken 50 of their children for forced adoption. All were deemed at risk of ‘future emotional harm’ from their parents, a condition unproven in science and often used as the premise to remove children from families by social workers.

One of the comments is “Often the CPS have orders for children to fill, a lot of PC gay couples want children, anyone's children, at any cost. In their rush to get their hands on these children the CPS will use any pretext. After all if an accused parent tries to bring in witnesses the closed courts say " shut your mouth and if you send so much as a birthday card to this child you are going to jail".

I'm not sure if the CPS is the body responsible - I suspect it has a lot more to do with radical feminists, radical gays and hard-Left sympathisers working within the SS itself - but the basic analysis is spot on.

Perhaps the tide is slowly turning at last.

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:02:00 +0000

Lib Dem campaigner for battered women 'beat up her Tory husband suspecting he was having an affair'

"A Liberal Democrat councillor who campaigns for battered women beat up her Conservative husband when their own coalition turned sour, a court heard.

Christine James, 51, suspected husband Ian was having an affair with former mayoress Alison Cocks.

After having a row with him, grandmother James followed her husband to Miss Cocks' home where she let herself in and started 'screaming like banshee'.

The mother-of-five called Mr James a 'b*****d' and rained down several blows on him before storming out.

Mr James, who owns a cafe, was left with red marks around the chin and throat from the attack.

The couple are both councillors for Weymouth and Portland Borough Council in Dorset.
Despite representing different parties, they had been happily married for 19 years until this summer when Mr James suddenly left the marital home in Weymouth.

James, who has previously campaigned to keep open a refuge for battered women, suspected her husband was seeing Miss Cocks, the ex-partner of former mayor Tim Munro.

Elizabeth Valera, prosecuting, told magistrates in Weymouth: 'This is a matter of domestic violence."

Some Common Sense at Last?

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:25:00 +0000

Top judge says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.

The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.

He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.

The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.

Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.

Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’

He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.

State-Sponsored Child Kidnap Legal in UK

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:08:00 +0000

I urge you to read this astonishing, terrifying story. I can't believe that this has happened in Britain. Even in Stalin's USSR, it would seem excessive.

"Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers

In 43 years of medical practice, said the family’s GP, he had “never encountered a case of such appalling injustice”. To their neighbours, it was so shocking that up to 100 of them were ready to stage a public protest, until being banned from doing so by social workers and the police".

How the Mighty are Laid Low

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:51:00 +0000

"Her reputation as one of the country’s greatest female authors may rest on her elegant writing style.

But Jane Austen could not spell or correctly use punctuation, and wrote in a ‘regional accent’, according to a study of her handwritten work.

Professor Kathryn Sutherland, an Oxford University academic, said that manuscripts showed that her finished work was corrected by an editor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly for fans, that editor was believed to have been a man". Reference

Oh my God! What tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth there will be in Wimin's Studies departments all over the world! The greatest female writer in English literary history couldn't even spell, and had to have her work corrected by a man! Imagine the shame! The rage! The angst! The cognitive dissonance ("We feminists never rated her that much anyway, our opponents just made that up to discredit us")!

Even before this latest revelation, she was hardly a female Shakespeare anyway. Even Fay Weldon apparently described her as "more Mills and Boon than War and Peace".

I'm not attacking Austen's work; it simply was what it was, and it was no doubt historically significant in some sense. I am poking fun at the ridiculous feminist canonisation of Austen as some kind of literary genius, when she was plainly no such thing. What fun to see that particular balloon popped! As Jane might have put it herself, "Recieved veiws are not always to be relied on".

This blow to the feminist intellectual establishment comes only a few years after we learned that the great gothic novel 'Frankenstein' was not in fact written by Mary Shelley at all, but by her husband, the great poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.

In a review of 'The Man who wrote Frankenstein', Camille Paglia comments: "Lauritsen assembles an overwhelming case that Mary Shelley, as a badly educated teenager, could not possibly have written the soaring prose of "Frankenstein" (which has her husband's intensity of tone and headlong cadences all over it) and that the so-called manuscript in her hand is simply one example of the clerical work she did for many writers as a copyist...."

There are two interesting things to be said. Firstly, the idea that European women in the 18th and 19th centuries had no opportunity to produce art is utterly untrue. Upper class women in particular had almost nothing else to do. They did not lift a finger to support themselves. They had servants to look after their every need, with the costs being met either by the men of their family or by the labour of workers on their estates. They did not do a hand's turn in their entire lives. Instead, they were encouraged to cultivate 'accomplishments', and these were typically artistic. Playing musical instruments, painting and writing were their principal activities. Not only were women able to pursue the arts if they wished; they had every opportunity presented to them on a golden platter. Their environment could not have been more conducive to the pursuit of the arts.

The second thing to notice is that they produced practically nothing. Despite all of this leisure, privilege, time and encouragement, there is not one single female Mozart, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. Not one. I'm not saying merely that it is not a 50-50 split. It is much worse than that. There is not even a single, solitary one.

Why?

Video

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:42:00 +0000

This old Vinnie Jones commercial is a good metaphor for the idea that men's traditional functions within the family are being, in effect, industrialised, taken over by a mixture of the government and corporate sectors.

So Much for Equality in the Party of the Working Man

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:16:00 +0000

Take a look at the diagram in this article. The entire Labour shadow cabinet seems to consist of current and former lovers, flat-mates or old university buddies. That level of nepotism is the sort of thing you might expect to find in the Albanian Communist Party circa 1970, but this is Her Majesty's Opposition, YOUR shadow cabinet.

I thought Labour was bad enough in the old days, when secret deals were done behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, between sallow Northern politicians in flat caps, and sallow Northern trade union leaders in flat caps. At least in those days it still maintained some pretence about representing working-class interests.

It seems that to get ahead in the Labour Party these days, you have to be a metropolitan Londoner, with a degree in PPE from OxBridge (that's Philosophy, Politics and Economics to you, you oik), and come from the well-to-do upper-middle-class. Preferably, you should be the offspring of wealthy East European emigres, or from a well-heeled family of Left-wing intellectuals. Failing that, you could be the niece of Lord Longford with a father who is a Harley Street doctor.

So much for 'the Party of the Working Man'. There is something galling about watching these champagne-soaked Hooray Henries and Henriettas on a mission to save the world. There is something infuriating about the way they deny the existence of objective moral knowledge, while at the same time wagging their fingers at us and lecturing us on appropriate behaviour, thoughts and speech. Something deeply maddening about the way they endlessly drone on about rights and freedom, while passing a mess of ill-thought-out, draconian laws designed to control every aspect of our lives. The way they denigrate the British nation, and yet expand the State to unprecedented levels. The way they squander our money hand over fist, and then laugh in our faces.

It makes an odd kind of sense to find out that they were all sleeping with each other at university, or living in each other's pockets. A very cosy, closed little clique, appointing each other to jobs, in the same way that paedophiles do. If that level of nepotism happened in a Surrey golf-club committee, or in a corporate board-room, these are the very people who would be up in arms about it.

Sugar and Spice and All Things Nice (Again)

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:45:00 +0000

If you still harbour romantic ideas about the essential compassion and innocence of women, meet Jennifer Petkov of Trenton Michigan, who has devoted the last few months of her life to taunting a terminally ill 7-year-old girl. Charming.

"Little Kathleen is in the final stages of Huntington’s disease – the same wasting illness that her mother, Laura, died from last year at the age of 24

In another incredibly cruel taunt, Mrs Petkov also put a picture of the girl’s dead mother in the arms of the Grim Reaper online.

After Laura Edwards died last year, the Petkovs also allegedly drove their truck – which bears the message ‘Death Machine’ and has a coffin attached to it – down the street and honked the horn.

Kathleen’s grandmother had a birthday party, and Jennifer sent a message asking if her kids could come over to play,' she said.

But the grandmother, Rebecca Rose, did not respond to the text quickly enough, she said. 'That's where it all started.'

Asked why she escalated the ugly feud, Jennifer Petkov said it was for 'personal satisfaction' and 'because it burns Rebecca Rose's a** raw.'"

As a result of this, someone set up a Facebook page branding her 'the devil of Detroit Street' with 100,000 signatories, her husband was suspended from his job facing possible dismissal and her kids got into playground fights.

Apparently she has now apologised. It seems that she has only apologised because there were negative consequences for her. She was perfectly content to watch other people suffering, as long as she could get away with it. She probably has a psychopathic personality disorder of some description. I pity the poor fool who is married to her.

All you White Knights out there, riding to rescue those Damsels in Distress, take note.

Death of a Femi-Nazi

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:57:00 +0000

So let's all say goodbye and good riddance to Jill Johnston (1929-2010), 'whose book 'Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution' (1973), has been described as a "founding document" of lesbian feminist separatism'.

'In her book, Jill Johnston declared that it would take a radical "lesbian nation" to undermine the "Patriarchy" – the male-dominated system that oppressed all women. All women are born lesbians, she maintained, and those who slept with men were collaborating with the enemy'.

Why do I say 'femi-nazi'? Two reasons:

Firstly, the notion of separateness. A large proportion of human beings in the world are not considered good enough to live amongst, and need to be removed by one means or another. Instead of ethnic cleansing, this is sexual cleansing, or what Mary Daly calls 'gendercide'.

Secondly, her authoritarian approach even within her own chosen community; Jill Johnston believed that she had the right to tell other women what to do. It's not enough just for her to claim that she has the right to be gay herself. She has to try to compel everyone else to do it as well: 'all women are lesbians except those that don't know it yet'. Really? The message still doesn't seem to be getting out after 40 years. Heterosexuality seems still to be alive and well, despite the best efforts of people like Johnston.

It's a bizarre, irrational view of human nature and history. The back-story seems to be that human society is divided into two groups, the Good People and the Bad People. The Good People are superior, but they are living under the oppressive rule of the inferior Bad People. Strangely reminiscent of the Morlock and the Eloi from H G Wells' novel 'The Time Machine'. We can immediately ask how it is that the inferior came to dominate the superior, and given that we, the 'Good People', are living in an inferior position, what does it really mean to say that we are superior anyway? However, I suspect that stories of this type go back to ancient times.

The modernist twist on Johnston's version is the Freudian notion of the sub-conscious. This is the idea that one may have motivations that one is unaware of, such as in this case, the desire to be a lesbian. The notion that all women are 'essentially' lesbians does not sit well with social constructionism, aka 'the standard social science model', the view that everything in one's character is determined by one's social environment, not by anything genetic, or otherwise internal. Ever since the 1960s this view has been absolute dogmatic orthodoxy on the political Left, even though it has been comprehensively debunked. Evolutionary psychology is where it is at now. However, statements like Johnston's 'all women are lesbians except those that don't know it yet' demonstrate that the Left's committment to social constructionism was never more than opportunistic anyway, and this is doubly true of feminists. They will just say whatever happens to suit them from one minute to the next.

We can also ask how human society emerged in the first place. If all women are naturally lesbians, how did this situation come about? Why are they? What evolutionary advantage does it confer? How did human ancestors reproduce? At what point did the Evil Men rise up and hold women in sexual slavery? The whole story is nonsense from start to finish. As Richard Dawkins commented, 'Philosophy and Social Sciences are still taught as if Darwin had never lived'.

'Jill Johnston was briefly married and had a son and a daughter, but subsequently suffered mental breakdowns which she attributed to her struggles over her identity'.

It's interesting that so many seminal feminist thinkers had mental health problems, and that so many of them harboured genocidal fantasies. We can also consider Valerie Solanas, another delightful flower child from the summer of love, famous for founding the Society for Cutting Up Men, and attempting to murder Andy Warhol, leaving him with a gun-shot wound which Lou Reed still maintains led to Warhol's premature death.

The fact that this generation of psychotic middle-class revolutionaries is starting to die off now can only be a good thing. Maybe when the acid-scarred hippie-generation are finally in their graves, we will get some peace from their endless self-indulgence and their malign, socially-destabilizing influence.