Heretical Sex

Young Libertarian Feminists on the Sex Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:12:00 +0000

I will let them speak for themselves:

The Ugliest Newspaper in Britain

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 18 May 2014 10:34:00 +0000

Europe - The theft of democracy - Pat Condell

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 18 May 2014 09:31:00 +0000

If you only watch one thing about the forthcoming EU election, watch this.

Blurred Lines: The Same Old Battle Of The Sexes (in which only one side turns up)

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:00 +0000

Germaine Greer has claimed that women are worse off than ever because of the proliferation of online pornography and the torrent of abuse they have to endure on social media such as Twitter.

The Australian academic delivers her damning verdict in a BBC TV documentary - Blurred Lines: The New Battle Of The Sexes - which looks at the threats of rape and violence directed towards women online as well as the ‘objectification’ of women in violent computer games and sexually explicit pop videos.

Greer, 75, tells presenter Kirsty Wark: ‘Things have got a lot worse for women since I wrote The Female Eunuch.’ Reference

So far from being a radical new discourse on sexual politics as the name suggests, this latest effort from the same old cabal of BBC feminists promises to be a re-hashing of the same old issues and the same old whinging. Of course, the fact that I feel this way makes me a misogynist, no doubt.

It would be better entitled "What old-school feminists dislike about the internet", as it is a talking-head show in which geriatric feminists sit around moaning about the fact that people use the internet to post things they disapprove of.

It is difficult to know where to start in answering Greer's charges, as they are wrong on so many levels, and so many ideas occur at once.

Firstly, her claim that women are worse off now than ever before is ludicrous. Women - let's face it, we're talking about Western, middle-class women here - have never had it so good. They are the most privileged creatures ever to walk the face of the earth. They have record life-expectancy, their health is better than ever and they live longer than men. They are better educated than before, with more women than men graduating from college. They live in a time of political and military stability, and suffer a very low risk of violence. They have more life opportunities than anyone else in history. They can choose whether to have children or not, how many to have, and when to have them; they can choose the degree of the father's involvement with the children, while milking the father and the government for money; they can choose whether or not to work outside the home, part-time, full-time or not at all, all the while living off the government and a succession of men. Men do not enjoy those opportunities. For men, the only option in life is to work or face complete social exclusion.

The thing which really springs to mind is the lack of coverage of men's issues on a show which calls itself 'The New Battle of the Sexes'. Since the golden age of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s, the men's movement has been doing all the running in terms of analysis and cultural criticism. Fresh perspectives on feminism and sexual politics have been offered by everyone from pioneers like Neil Lyndon and Warren Farrell in the early days, by numerous dissident feminists such as Erin Pizzey, Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai, up to the present-day, highly active blogosphere featuring such notables as Angry Harry, and the on-off protest movements of people like F4J. None of these developments appear to have entered into the thinking of the BBC feminists.

There is nothing about the forcible separation of men from their children following their involuntary divorce from an unfaithful woman, and the ensuing years of financial slavery and penury. There is nothing about domestic violence and child abuse committed by women. There is nothing about false accusations of rape landing innocent men in prison. There is nothing about false accusations of child abuse and domestic violence being used as weapons in the divorce courts in order to secure a better settlement for a vindictive woman, as the behest of bent lawyers and officials. Once Greer and Wark start to cover some of these issues I will take them a lot more seriously.

I am also interested to note that Greer appears to be railing against pornography, when she herself appeared in a pornographic magazine in her youth, and for a time was editor of the sex magazine 'Suck'. Pornography seems to be all right as long as Germaine Greer is doing it.

As for online insults, I have had to suffer these myself on this blog, especially from feminists, but no-one has offered me a TV show to whinge about it. Such abusive behaviour is largely a product of the general coarsening of British society which has taken place since 1945, mostly as a result of the political Left, and its catastrophic anti-education, anti-family, anti-patriotic policies of Welfare dependency, denial of responsibility and militant selfishness. In other words, Greer's generation of 1968 cool kids, with its contempt for established social values, is largely responsible for the very problem that Greer is now complaining about.

The thing which Greer and friends may not realise is that the internet is just another public place, but with the added quality that people can remain anonymous or hide behind false identities. This gives people the opportunity to be rude if they wish to. But here is an even more important point to grasp. The government cannot protect you against bad social interactions, and nor should it try. You have to manage your own social interactions. I wonder if Greer and friends will be advocating government censorship of the internet as a solution to the problem. It would be consistent with the rest of her Communist-era political outlook.

So in short, far from being a New Battle of the Sexes, the latest BBC effort promises to be the same old tired left-wing rubbish, re-heated for a gullible new audience.

Harriet Harman Advocated Legalising Paedophilia in 1970s.

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:19:00 +0000

Jimmy Savile: Labour faces embarrassment over former child sex claims

Harriet Harman, the Opposition deputy leader, said the allegations that the late TV and radio presenter abused dozens of young boys and girls had “cast a stain” on the BBC and other trusted institutions.

But at the time Savile was at the height of his fame, Miss Harman was calling for the relaxation of the law on child pornography.

She was a leading light in the pressure group now known as Liberty, which advocated the lowering of the age of consent to 14.

The organisation, then run by the Health Secretary under Tony Blair, Patricia Hewitt, even counted among its affiliates a number of extreme pro-paedophilia groups whose leaders were later jailed.

It means that any independent public inquiry into the culture that allowed Savile to abuse children for so long with impunity, could end up looking into the radical left-wing demands for the liberalisation of child sex laws that were made in the 1970s.

Tim Loughton, the former children’s minister, said “It is rather eyebrow-raising to see Harriet Harman’s newfound zeal for clamping down on sexual exploitation of children, given that she was decidedly dodgy on the subject when she was part of an organisation calling for the relaxation of these laws.

“What we are seeing now is the result of a culture of complacency which has allowed celebrities and others to cover up their crimes, and Harriet Harman must share some of the blame for not taking these matters much more seriously.”

As The Daily Telegraph first disclosed in 2009, in the 1970s the extreme end of the sexual liberation movement included groups who openly campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent. The Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation affiliated themselves to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty.

See also:

How Hattie’s friends defended paedophilia

Harriet Harman is calling for an independent inquiry into the Jimmy Savile scandal. A key question, she says, is why so many alleged victims felt “they couldn’t complain”.

Well, one answer is that attitudes towards paedophilia in the 1970s were bizarrely relaxed – and not just in Catholic presbyteries or BBC dressing rooms. This was the era when activists on the radical Left lobbied long and hard for changes in the law to reflect a more “enlightened” attitude towards sex between adults and minors.

In 1977, months before the future deputy leader of the Labour Party took up her post, the NCCL was quoted in the Evening Standard on the subject of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange, the “information” in question being disgusting pictures of children involved in sex acts which members would pass to each other in plain envelopes. “NCCL has no policy on [the Paedophile Information Exchange’s] aims – other than the evidence that children are harmed if, after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, press and court,” said a spokesman.

In April 1978, the NCCL published a briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill that was before Parliament. The author – one Harriet Harman – was worried that the draft Bill placed the onus on adults caught with film or photographs of nude children to show that they were possessed with a view to “scientific or learned study”. “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,” she wrote.

Ms Harman maintains that she always opposed child pornography, and is not on record defending belief in “harmless” paedophilia, though it was held by her employers while she worked there. But no such excuse can be made for Patricia Hewitt, who was general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983 – i.e., during the period when it issued the notorious 1976 submission.

As if that was not weird enough, let's put it into context. In her IPCC report 'The Family Way (1990) Harman stated '"it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion". In May 2008 an interview she gave to think tank Civitas Harman stated that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children' Reference

So, to sum up Harman's thinking, then: children's natural fathers are a harmful and malign influence, but paedophiles are a harmless and benign one.

Just in case you've forgotten, this person is the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

Naomi Wolf on Assange

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:58:00 +0000

Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the “Case” Against Assange by Naomi Wolf

Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.

Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:

Enlightening article by Naomi Wolf.

Doctor, 73, 'kicked out of bookstore for being alone in children's section'

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:03:00 +0000

Barnes & Noble has apologised to a 73-year-old man who was kicked out of one of its stores for browsing the children's section on his own.

Dr. Omar Amin, from Scottsdale, Arizona, said he was asked to leave after a female shopper told a worker she felt uneasy about his presence.

But the man, who is a world-renowned researcher of infectious diseases, said he was buying books for his two grandchildren.

'This is an insult to all men not just to me,' Amin told Azfamily.com.

'I left the store. I was upset like hell because I've been so insulted and humiliated in public for the charge of being a man.'

Read more

‘Captain Coward’: Behold our brave new sexually emancipated world

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:32:00 +0000

Story here

The disaster has the fingerprints of our poisoned and dying western culture all over it.

What kind of man sneaks away under cover of darkness from his own sinking ship, leaving nearly 4200 passengers and crew to fend for themselves? What kind of men knock aside old ladies, little girls and young mothers to get to lifeboats first? Why, modern men, sexually emancipated men who have been raised on the tenets of feminism and our “contemporary” mores.

What can an expression like “women and children first” mean to modern men who have been taught all their lives that women are nothing more precious than sexual playthings, and children nothing more than a disposable burden?

Voris mentioned the type of men who are approved by the feminist-controlled media: weak, stupid and ineffectual, who need to be ruled over by strong, hip, intelligent women...the flip side of feminism’s misandry [is] its vilification and demonisation of masculine strength. According to the tenets of the ideology, strong men are violent, evil and terrifying. Instead of heroes protecting women and children, feminism depicts strong men as brutal monsters, wife-beaters and child abusers.

The Costa Concordia disaster brought into the limelight the effects on men of feminism, and her strumpet daughter, the Sexual Revolution. Feminism has killed the cultural priority of men protecting and being responsible for women. In one video, Michael Voris spoke of the “hero’s journey,” the traditional western cultural archetype of the boy who leaves home, faces and overcomes adversity and becomes a man capable of protecting a family. But our feminist-inspired anti-culture, coupled with a soul-deadening consumerist materialism, has tossed these concepts out.

By telling women they don’t need men, by demonizing the value of masculinity, feminism has at the same time told men that they never need to grow up. If feminism has told women they can sleep around “like men,” it must be remembered that this implies that men may do the same right back. Instead of insisting that men grow up, marry a woman and protect and care for their children, it has offered men women as toys while offering women the Pill, abortion and family court as the back-up plan. Feminism defines “equality” as men and women competing equally in the labour market and using each other equally as objects.

Feminism, because it is essentially dishonest, childish and self-serving, will never own up to the logical conclusions of its premises.

“The average Italian man is said to be narcissist, egomaniac, coward, selfish, unable to follow basic procedures and unable to follow the rules. True or not, it’s a stereotype, a stereotype which is strongly proved by the latest, tragic events in Italy.”

While Italians vent their fury on Francesco Schettino for being everything they hate about themselves, it must be remembered that many countries were represented in the crew roster of the Costa Concordia. The disaster has the fingerprints of our poisoned and dying western culture all over it.

Reading the reports of the Costa Concordia, I could not help but recognize the results of our society’s new priorities. Many observers made the comparison with the Titanic disaster. One hundred years ago, 1st class men lifted steerage class women and children into lifeboats in the full knowledge that they were giving their lives. The captain of that ship was last reported seen holding a child in his arms seeking a way to save her. A hundred years later, we have a coast guard officer shouting at “Captain Coward” to “Vada a bordo, cazzo!” … Get on board, damn it!

Behold our brave new sexually emancipated world.

Why has no-one heard of Britain's first serial killer, Mary Ann Cotton?

noreply@blogger.com (Heretic) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:28:00 +0000

Story here

"Two decades before Jack the Ripper would terrorise the streets of Whitechapel in London, Mary Ann Cotton had already become a killing machine, perhaps murdering as many as eight of her own children, seven stepchildren, her mother, three husbands, a lover – and an inconvenient friend.

Even crime aficionados, those familiar with such names as Shipman, Nilsen, Sutcliffe and West, know little or nothing of her. She has been largely erased from history and remains today only a half-remembered local curiosity even in her native North East.

Her choice of poison was arsenic, favoured by murderers down the centuries for largely pragmatic reasons. First, it dissolves in a hot liquid, a cup of tea, for example, so is easy to administer. Second, it was readily available. Although by this stage, the authorities had started regulating the sale of arsenic, a high concentration could still be obtained in a substance known as ‘soft soap’, a household disinfectant.

There was a third reason, too: as Mary Ann well knew, the symptoms of arsenic poisoning were vomiting, diarrhoea and dehydration. A busy and unsuspecting doctor was always more likely to diagnose this cluster of symptoms as gastroenteritis – especially in patients who were poor and undernourished – than to suspect murder.
According to death and burial certificates, all her victims had died of gastric ailments.

It seems she also played the role of the grieving wife and mother to perfection, making it all the more difficult to be precise about the number of people she may have killed.

It is hard not to believe that there was some element of enjoyment at the control she exercised – that she was, in other words, a psychopath. I believe she would have enjoyed holding down Nattrass as he died writhing in agony.

There is no doubt, too, that greed was a powerful motive as, husband by husband, she climbed the social ladder of a newly mobile society (in which, for the first time, ordinary people had life insurance).

Her desperate self-promotion and the terrible manner of her execution ensured a strangely sympathetic hearing in her final months and the immediate aftermath, and this has helped confuse our understanding of a woman who by any standards was a quite relentless killer. Had she not been arrested, I am confident there would have been many more victims.

What little historical analysis she has received has often been quite naive, citing her as an example of the hardships endured by women, or even suggesting that she had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice."

It seems that a woman is always and only a victim, even when she is that thing which society often fears the most - a relentless and prolific serial killer.

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.

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.