By Philip Jones 7/26/08
Recap : Last week, The `Associated Press` proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, a survey found that girls are now as `tough` as boys in the field of Mathematics. and that this, the supposed last bastion of male dominance in education had been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests". The relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. It really doesn't take too much research and investigation in order to identify the whole movement as being one part of a cynically orchestrated `Psychological Operation` against all things male specifically, and humanity generally. This `Psy Op` although once highly covert has now become overtly obvious in it's aims, at least to those of us who have been able to see through it's facade of `righting wrongs.'
So what are the goals of 21st Century Feminism in the arena of education ? It would be easier to state what it's goals are not. Equality in it's true sense is most certainly not a desired aim. If it were so, then the `ideologues` would be as concerned with the opportunities of boys as they claim to be with those of girls. Creating a stable environment for learning is clearly not a part of their agenda either, nor is the nurturing of young people, or the encouragement of any natural balance between young males and females during their formative years. As for facilitating the increased possibilities of girls opting for careers in Engineering, Science etc. enabled by any betterment of Mathematics standards, does anyone really `swallow` that one.
I would suggest that the continued propagation of gender chaos is the primary reason that this `study` was commissioned, in the same way as all the others before it were. To `hit home` another nail in the coffin of masculinity, and further demoralise the human male psyche. Just as the `Feminazi's` have misled, manoeuvred and manipulated young women into believing that a career in the Military was a positive and viable option, now they are similarly luring girls into a career choice in the Science and Engineering fields for which not only are they mostly unsuited, but which few would even consider as being something they would naturally want to do.
This relentless campaign is not about advancing the cause of women, nor some Utopian ideal of equality. It is about destroying the `masculine` by the use of vicious anti male propaganda and vitriol, designed to deconstruct the masculine consciousness, especially in the fragile young , engendering feelings of confusion, inadequacy, failure and thereby emasculating boys entering their prime years. This in turn causes resentment and levels of implied misogyny, via pornography and other forms of disrespect towards the female, unknown, until very recently. For their part, young girls become confused as to what is expected of them. Their instinct and natures are constantly suppressed by feminist teachers agitating on behalf of a sinister ideology born (not conceived) half a century ago on the back of `Big Money` funding hateful and deranged `women` like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinham.
This latest `victory` in the seemingly ceaseless and overwhelmingly one sided `war of the sexes` is almost certainly not the last which will be publicly heralded as yet another vindication of Feminist theory. So now, we are told, girls cannot only `Kick Ass` as good as if not better than the boys. They can `add up` too. Does anyone else sense the condescension here ?
Having discounted above what the `She Devils` agenda is not, let's identify what it is. Well, there can be no doubt that these `banshees` will stop at nothing short of total victory coupled with unconditional surrender. We are looking down the barrel of a `Fem Dom` artillery piece here. All around is chaos, and as the Freemasonic Motto goes, out of chaos comes order. Their order not ours. The goals of Feminism are the goals of the New World Order. Feminism is their `Fat Boy` and Education is the `Enola Gay` they have used to carry it.
They say you can tell a tree by it's fruits. For goodness sake people, apply that little piece of wisdom to your lives and wake up. The enemies of good knew that in order to deconstruct western society, they would need to `steal our children` and fashion them in their image not ours. Now, the Feminist `Tree` is dropping it's fruit all around us., Apples of distrust, resentment and animosity. Acorns of divorce and fatherless children. Berries of resentment, hostility, animosity, misogyny, and Pears of depopulation and a decaying civilisation. These are the fruits of Feminism, and they are bitter indeed.Divide and Conquer has been a proven technique of control down the ages. The Feminist Agenda is the `sharpest blade` in the Illuminati's Arsenal, they have divided man from his mate, and can anyone truly deny that `we the people` have been conquered.`
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Mathmatics: The Final Frontier In The Feminists War Against Boys Part 1
By Philip Jones 26th July 2008.
Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests".
This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame" ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely.
As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.
For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.
Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.
The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.
The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.
Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.
It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.
The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.
During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.
Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.
In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.
Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.
But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.
Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.
Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.
Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.
It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.
Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.
Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.
This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.
In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Friedens, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.
Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips
Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests".
This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame" ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely.
As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.
For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.
Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.
The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.
The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.
Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.
It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.
The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.
During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.
Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.
In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.
Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.
But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.
Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.
Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.
Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.
It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.
Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.
Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.
This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.
In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Friedens, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.
Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips
In Defense of Danish Manhood?
By Philip Jones
I remember as a small boy being completely enthralled by the Hollywood Movie, `The Vikings` starring Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and the beautiful Janet Leigh. I must have been around seven years old at the time I first viewed this epic, and in many ways, it stimulated in me a life long interest in history generally and that of Northern Europe particularly. Many books have been written about the `terrible` and fierce men of the north; The `Norsemen` or more famously, `The Vikings.` Such books are generally filled with descriptions of immensely tall, strong and brutal warriors with names like `Harald Bluetooth, Sveyn Forkbeard, Canute the Great, and Brodir.` I think it fair to say that these men were not projecting their masculinity due to any deeply felt feelings of insecurity about their manhood.
By the time I moved to Denmark back in 1995, I had been thoroughly immersed in and fascinated by Viking History, myths and legends for the greater part of thirty years. It is fair to say that I was looking forward to seeing the homeland of my childhood heroes for myself, and actually meeting the descendants of the Vikings. Real men, the sons of warriors.
Now before I continue, I must make it clear that what comes next is not intended as a degradation of Danish men at all . Quite the contrary. But it must also be said that what I found upon arriving in Denmark was not quite what I had expected. Within a short space of time, I was asking the question; “Where were the sons of Odin, the Berserker's, the Wolves of the North Sea?”
With some exceptions, it is true to say that many of the Danish men I have come into contact with these past thirteen or so years, have borne very little resemblance to those warriors described in the `tales of old.` It's not that Danish men appear physically weak or in any way lesser men than anywhere else. In fact, Danish and other Scandinavian men, are generally taller, and more muscular than say Slavs, Scots, Welsh and Irish men for example. No, the difference was in their demeanour. My impression was then and still is that Danish men have been deliberately cowed down, and emasculated by a State apparatus seeking absolute authority over every minute detail of a Danes life. There can be no arguing that here in Denmark, as it would seem with the rest of Scandinavia, the socially strategic `High ground` has been well and truly captured by the `Feminists` with the complicity of successive sitting governments.
Only a few days ago, I was speaking with a young Tunisian woman studying here as an exchange student, and she remarked to me that it appeared to her that it was the women, who `ruled the roost` in Denmark, and she motioned with her hands depicting how one leads a Bull by the Nose. Exactly the same observations were made by another young woman staying here who comes from Moldavia. She is lodging with a Danish family locally and has been astounded at how dominant the wife is, and how compliant the husband is. It should be noted that the husband in question is physically very strong, intelligent and articulate, so why the subservience at home? Danish men have had their self confidence very badly bruised by incessant `pro femi` propaganda, which attacks them on all fronts simultaneously.
Having lived here for many years now, I must say that I can only concur with the comments made by the two young women mentioned above, and furthermore, this `Feminist` dominance, at least on the surface, is across the board and throughout all the public institutions. It seems to me that in order to actually get to deal with another man these days, one has to set one's sets very high up the Corporate or Municipal ladder.
So how were the progeny of `The Vikings` so reduced in stature? Scandinavia is the home of Social Democracy, which in reality is nothing more than `Cultural Marxism.` The whole social ethos of these Northern lands is Marxist to the bone. But there is more to this than first meets the eye. In fact, Danish society can appear to be something of a paradox, with it's flourishing consumerism (somewhat curtailed of late by the world economic downturn) and unashamed materialism on the one hand, neatly wed to a deeply embedded Marxist Socialist spirit on the other. Yet in reality, there is no paradox. What do you get when a Socialist State gets in bed with Monopoly Capitalistism? You get as Mussolini is once quoted as describing, `Corporatism` or rather `Fascism."
That's right, I'm saying that Denmark is a Fascist State. A place whereby even the most minute details of a persons life are regulated and micromanaged by a vast State Bureaucracy. A Totalitarian Regime, elected by an deliberately uninformed and indoctrinated populace.
Back in the 1960's, `equality of the sexes` was adopted as policy by the Social Democrats and placed on the school curriculum. At an early age, conventional ideas of male and female roles were broken down. Boys were taught to sew, girls to do woodwork. So called equality was taken to it's logical conclusion. There was no longer any reason why a father could not stay at home and care for the children whilst the mother went out to work. One of the purposes in predisposing women to work was clearly economic, but I suggest that this is only one `cog in the wheel.
`Men don't like being told what to do. Women are far easier to coerce and manipulate. The greatest obstruction to Totalitarianism is Masculinity. The Danish State like all the other Dictatorships masquerading as democracies, hand in hand with Feminist ideologues, has conspired to emasculate the Danish male to the point where any prospect of some long lost `Viking` mentality rearing it's head in defiance of the suffocating levels of control exercised by the State here would be unthinkable. Instead, as is the case in many other western lands, Danish men console themselves with Sports, DIY and other non idealogical, apolitical diversions, leaving such things very often to what arguably passes for the female here. These `hobbies` are the only outlet left for men to express their masculinity, and the Danes do so with gusto. The Danish National Football (Soccer for North American readers) consistently outperforms sides from much larger countries, and Danish Boxers, although not truly World Class, are to be found around and about every weight division of the various Boxing Authorities. It is similarly the case with other sports.
Gender Role confusion is rampant, particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own Step Son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me that they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational, show no respect for the masculine at all. He says that he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever finding one.
Danish girls play football, chew gum, shout and behave badly in public, dress slovenly, have bad attitudes and are generally not a good advertisement for the feminine at all. I myself, as a former `Guest Lecturer` have been dumbfounded at the open bias towards girls and young women in the schools and universities here. If anyone reading this doubts my accuracy, please check out the website of any Danish School or University. The preponderance of young women featured in the photographs on these web pages defies any such argument to the contrary. When a young male student is depicted, it is usually some unfortunately effeminate `girlie boy,` with his girlie hair and girlie clothes complete with those hideous girlie shoulder bags.
The whole system is set up to belittle and ridicule the masculine. How many nauseating times have I heard this phrase, “ Macho men are really frightened little boys.” How I hate that one, and challenge any `woman` to say that to my face.
Anyone who has read my previous articles will be aware that my opinion of Danish womanhood is not very positive. There are many pretty young girls to be found here, albeit of the invariably `Jeans and T Shirt` variety. But by the time they reach thirty, they will have almost certainly `morphed` into what I can only term a `non male.` Neither visually male or female. This condition worsens with age and becomes chronic by the time they reach fifty. Once again, if anyone doubts what I am writing, please visit any `Supermarket` in Denmark for confirmation. What I miss is seeing a `classy` well dressed, well groomed mature woman`. Excepting my dear wife, it would appear such a thing does not exist amongst the `Non Royals` here, and if it does, seems unable to survive for very long.
In conclusion, what has been done to Danish men is in many ways what is being done to men all across the world, only here, the condition is extreme. Nothing about the masculine is celebrated. Everything about the `Feminist` (note, I said feminist, not feminine) is automatically taken as being the accepted `Truth` and symbolically carved in stone.
One last point, I was driving back from the local village a month or so ago when I saw some teen aged boys and girls playing football together. Not wishing to appear in any way strange, I parked up some distance away and watched, and saw that almost every time there was a disputed call, the referee (a non male) awarded the decision to the girls. Every time the boys scored, it was disallowed, every time a girl was tackled, she fell to the floor and was awarded a penalty. One could see the heads of the boys dropping, their enthusiasm and will to win being sucked from them, resigned to the hopelessness of their situation. What could they do, everything was against them. Of course, the girls won and jumped around , shouting and screaming, making fun of the opposing team. It was all rather sad, and in many ways, encapsulated what has become of the masculine in Danish Society.
Every now and then though, one gets a glimpse of what once was, when Danish men were the terror of all `Christendom.` Like when recently, the excellent Danish Boxer Mikkail Kessler won the WBA Super Middleweight Belt. In the Danish man, there is a sleeping warrior, waiting for his time to come. The only problem is, that if he waits too much longer, the Aspartame, Fluoride, 21 vaccines per child, Tetra Waves and all the other insidious weapons being used against him and the rest of humanity by the New World Order will have dumbed him down to such a level, that resistance will be impossible.
So, `Sons of Thor` it's now or never. Take back what's yours by right of your ancestors blood and toil, and stop giving in. Turn off the TV, leave the DIY alone and open your eyes to what is being done to you and yours by a government who's only reason for being is to control you, and drip by sodden drip, take away all the fruits of your labour.
I remember as a small boy being completely enthralled by the Hollywood Movie, `The Vikings` starring Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and the beautiful Janet Leigh. I must have been around seven years old at the time I first viewed this epic, and in many ways, it stimulated in me a life long interest in history generally and that of Northern Europe particularly. Many books have been written about the `terrible` and fierce men of the north; The `Norsemen` or more famously, `The Vikings.` Such books are generally filled with descriptions of immensely tall, strong and brutal warriors with names like `Harald Bluetooth, Sveyn Forkbeard, Canute the Great, and Brodir.` I think it fair to say that these men were not projecting their masculinity due to any deeply felt feelings of insecurity about their manhood.
By the time I moved to Denmark back in 1995, I had been thoroughly immersed in and fascinated by Viking History, myths and legends for the greater part of thirty years. It is fair to say that I was looking forward to seeing the homeland of my childhood heroes for myself, and actually meeting the descendants of the Vikings. Real men, the sons of warriors.
Now before I continue, I must make it clear that what comes next is not intended as a degradation of Danish men at all . Quite the contrary. But it must also be said that what I found upon arriving in Denmark was not quite what I had expected. Within a short space of time, I was asking the question; “Where were the sons of Odin, the Berserker's, the Wolves of the North Sea?”
With some exceptions, it is true to say that many of the Danish men I have come into contact with these past thirteen or so years, have borne very little resemblance to those warriors described in the `tales of old.` It's not that Danish men appear physically weak or in any way lesser men than anywhere else. In fact, Danish and other Scandinavian men, are generally taller, and more muscular than say Slavs, Scots, Welsh and Irish men for example. No, the difference was in their demeanour. My impression was then and still is that Danish men have been deliberately cowed down, and emasculated by a State apparatus seeking absolute authority over every minute detail of a Danes life. There can be no arguing that here in Denmark, as it would seem with the rest of Scandinavia, the socially strategic `High ground` has been well and truly captured by the `Feminists` with the complicity of successive sitting governments.
Only a few days ago, I was speaking with a young Tunisian woman studying here as an exchange student, and she remarked to me that it appeared to her that it was the women, who `ruled the roost` in Denmark, and she motioned with her hands depicting how one leads a Bull by the Nose. Exactly the same observations were made by another young woman staying here who comes from Moldavia. She is lodging with a Danish family locally and has been astounded at how dominant the wife is, and how compliant the husband is. It should be noted that the husband in question is physically very strong, intelligent and articulate, so why the subservience at home? Danish men have had their self confidence very badly bruised by incessant `pro femi` propaganda, which attacks them on all fronts simultaneously.
Having lived here for many years now, I must say that I can only concur with the comments made by the two young women mentioned above, and furthermore, this `Feminist` dominance, at least on the surface, is across the board and throughout all the public institutions. It seems to me that in order to actually get to deal with another man these days, one has to set one's sets very high up the Corporate or Municipal ladder.
So how were the progeny of `The Vikings` so reduced in stature? Scandinavia is the home of Social Democracy, which in reality is nothing more than `Cultural Marxism.` The whole social ethos of these Northern lands is Marxist to the bone. But there is more to this than first meets the eye. In fact, Danish society can appear to be something of a paradox, with it's flourishing consumerism (somewhat curtailed of late by the world economic downturn) and unashamed materialism on the one hand, neatly wed to a deeply embedded Marxist Socialist spirit on the other. Yet in reality, there is no paradox. What do you get when a Socialist State gets in bed with Monopoly Capitalistism? You get as Mussolini is once quoted as describing, `Corporatism` or rather `Fascism."
That's right, I'm saying that Denmark is a Fascist State. A place whereby even the most minute details of a persons life are regulated and micromanaged by a vast State Bureaucracy. A Totalitarian Regime, elected by an deliberately uninformed and indoctrinated populace.
Back in the 1960's, `equality of the sexes` was adopted as policy by the Social Democrats and placed on the school curriculum. At an early age, conventional ideas of male and female roles were broken down. Boys were taught to sew, girls to do woodwork. So called equality was taken to it's logical conclusion. There was no longer any reason why a father could not stay at home and care for the children whilst the mother went out to work. One of the purposes in predisposing women to work was clearly economic, but I suggest that this is only one `cog in the wheel.
`Men don't like being told what to do. Women are far easier to coerce and manipulate. The greatest obstruction to Totalitarianism is Masculinity. The Danish State like all the other Dictatorships masquerading as democracies, hand in hand with Feminist ideologues, has conspired to emasculate the Danish male to the point where any prospect of some long lost `Viking` mentality rearing it's head in defiance of the suffocating levels of control exercised by the State here would be unthinkable. Instead, as is the case in many other western lands, Danish men console themselves with Sports, DIY and other non idealogical, apolitical diversions, leaving such things very often to what arguably passes for the female here. These `hobbies` are the only outlet left for men to express their masculinity, and the Danes do so with gusto. The Danish National Football (Soccer for North American readers) consistently outperforms sides from much larger countries, and Danish Boxers, although not truly World Class, are to be found around and about every weight division of the various Boxing Authorities. It is similarly the case with other sports.
Gender Role confusion is rampant, particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own Step Son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me that they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational, show no respect for the masculine at all. He says that he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever finding one.
Danish girls play football, chew gum, shout and behave badly in public, dress slovenly, have bad attitudes and are generally not a good advertisement for the feminine at all. I myself, as a former `Guest Lecturer` have been dumbfounded at the open bias towards girls and young women in the schools and universities here. If anyone reading this doubts my accuracy, please check out the website of any Danish School or University. The preponderance of young women featured in the photographs on these web pages defies any such argument to the contrary. When a young male student is depicted, it is usually some unfortunately effeminate `girlie boy,` with his girlie hair and girlie clothes complete with those hideous girlie shoulder bags.
The whole system is set up to belittle and ridicule the masculine. How many nauseating times have I heard this phrase, “ Macho men are really frightened little boys.” How I hate that one, and challenge any `woman` to say that to my face.
Anyone who has read my previous articles will be aware that my opinion of Danish womanhood is not very positive. There are many pretty young girls to be found here, albeit of the invariably `Jeans and T Shirt` variety. But by the time they reach thirty, they will have almost certainly `morphed` into what I can only term a `non male.` Neither visually male or female. This condition worsens with age and becomes chronic by the time they reach fifty. Once again, if anyone doubts what I am writing, please visit any `Supermarket` in Denmark for confirmation. What I miss is seeing a `classy` well dressed, well groomed mature woman`. Excepting my dear wife, it would appear such a thing does not exist amongst the `Non Royals` here, and if it does, seems unable to survive for very long.
In conclusion, what has been done to Danish men is in many ways what is being done to men all across the world, only here, the condition is extreme. Nothing about the masculine is celebrated. Everything about the `Feminist` (note, I said feminist, not feminine) is automatically taken as being the accepted `Truth` and symbolically carved in stone.
One last point, I was driving back from the local village a month or so ago when I saw some teen aged boys and girls playing football together. Not wishing to appear in any way strange, I parked up some distance away and watched, and saw that almost every time there was a disputed call, the referee (a non male) awarded the decision to the girls. Every time the boys scored, it was disallowed, every time a girl was tackled, she fell to the floor and was awarded a penalty. One could see the heads of the boys dropping, their enthusiasm and will to win being sucked from them, resigned to the hopelessness of their situation. What could they do, everything was against them. Of course, the girls won and jumped around , shouting and screaming, making fun of the opposing team. It was all rather sad, and in many ways, encapsulated what has become of the masculine in Danish Society.
Every now and then though, one gets a glimpse of what once was, when Danish men were the terror of all `Christendom.` Like when recently, the excellent Danish Boxer Mikkail Kessler won the WBA Super Middleweight Belt. In the Danish man, there is a sleeping warrior, waiting for his time to come. The only problem is, that if he waits too much longer, the Aspartame, Fluoride, 21 vaccines per child, Tetra Waves and all the other insidious weapons being used against him and the rest of humanity by the New World Order will have dumbed him down to such a level, that resistance will be impossible.
So, `Sons of Thor` it's now or never. Take back what's yours by right of your ancestors blood and toil, and stop giving in. Turn off the TV, leave the DIY alone and open your eyes to what is being done to you and yours by a government who's only reason for being is to control you, and drip by sodden drip, take away all the fruits of your labour.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Raping The Scapegoat
By Philip Jones : 19th July 2008.
Although written from a UK perspective, the subject matter of this article is I am sure, equally relevant to recent developments in most western societies. So for those readers who are not British, please `tune out` those aspects and elements which are written with my own country primarily in mind, and apply the necessary equivalents from your own societies. Like I have said, it shouldn't be too hard to do, as what is now occurring in the UK with regard to this subject can be seen to be happening throughout the west.
The American writer Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and official statistics. Perhaps it is time to add to this list a fourth category:
The United Kingdom Home Office Research Study.
According to one such specimen published recently, at least one in every twenty women aged between sixteen and fifty nine years of age in England and Wales have been raped, and one in ten have experienced some form of ’sexual victimisation.’ The majority of these alleged assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates; partners, former partners and casual acquaintances. If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such large numbers of women suffering serious sexual assault would clearly seem to indicate that British women were living in constant fear of an insufferable level of violence at the hands of men. Rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book, and rightly so considering the damage it does to a woman, both physically and psychologically.
So if the researchers were correct, we would therefore expect to hear of a voluminous level of female distress and rage being verbally vented against these male ‘intimates.’ We would all of us surely know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted. But we are not hearing this. Instead, we are shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is quite simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a nothing less than a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which calls the very credibility of the Home Office Research Department seriously into question.
The `Satan` here is to be found in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim’s consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence. The Home Office researchers have I believe, intentionally and willfully muddied this concept. Instead of using the legal definition of rape as ‘penile penetration,’ the study now defines it merely as one being ‘forced to have sexual intercourse against one's will.’ But the definition of ‘forced against one's will’ is highly subjective. It can very easily translate into ‘if you didn’t want to,’ which can become rendered meaningless. Even though the study claims that the word ‘forced’ implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.
A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, if for example, her lover tells her that unless she does, he will leave here for another woman. Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn’t taken a shower for a week, or she no longer loves him. The crucial point is, that in circumstances such as these, she is still participating in the sexual act, even though she could choose not to do so. No one is forcing her. She cannot therefore be termed a victim of violence. By any just or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included exactly this kind of experience in their definition.
This already highly questionable exercise, then becomes positively surreal. Astoundingly, believe it or not, the women who the researchers allege to have been ‘raped,’ state in the survey, that they themselves don’t classify what has happened to them as rape. In fact, the study actually admits that of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of themselves as victims of a crime.
The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not too busy playing the game of sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous. Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. This makes laughable the insistence by the Home Office that they are about putting the victim first. They therefore dream up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences, which the women involved did not consider to be rape, were indeed rape.
Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong. This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.
The ideological bias that is clearly the driving force behind this research is underlined by a crucial omission. The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But, and this is highly significant; it omits to make any distinction between partners and spouses. It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants. Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.
Instead, this study states that home life not safe. It is here we get to the rotten core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonize men and write them out of the domestic script altogether. It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.
It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally as aggressive as men and again can be seen to be refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.
The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture. As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That’s why the courts are ever more reluctant to convict men accused of rape.
But Whitehall’s feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women. The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.
Once again, the House of Lords has ridden to the rescue of elementary justice, fairness and common-sense. Once again, the government has announced that it is determined to prevent their Lordships from carrying out this service to the nation. Earlier this week, peers voted in an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill that the names of defendants in rape cases should be kept secret. The government promptly announced it would overturn this decision when the bill returned to the Commons.
The Home Office minister Lord Falconer told the Lords the criminal justice system had to remain open and transparent. But women who bring rape charges against men are granted anonymity. So why does Lord Falconer believe the criminal justice system can justifiably suspend its important transparency for women accusers but not for the men they accuse? The reasons given for this discrimination are utterly preposterous. The radical barrister Baroness Kennedy said anonymity for women was essential because otherwise they would not bring their accusations forward on account of the ’stigma’ attached to making such claims.
Now, no-one should minimise the ordeal for a woman in not only having to face her attacker in court and having to give evidence of a highly distasteful kind, but in facing cross-examination which inevitably calls into question her own character and morals. But what about the stigma that attaches to men who are unjustly charged? For the concern that women won’t bring charges if they are identified totally ignores the fact that a steady stream of men who are thus accused are subsequently shown to be innocent. Yet their reputations and careers have nevertheless been ruined.
Last year, for example, the Australian snooker player Quinten Hann was cleared of raping a student. He said he felt that he was the victim after a nine-month investigation and six-day trial in which he consistently claimed that his accuser had been a willing partner. Then there was the case of the rugby player Hywel Jenkins, cleared of rape in just five minutes after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to put him on trial. Afterwards, he said that he had endured ’seven weeks of hell’ after being accused by a 28-year-old woman of raping her during a party.
Giving women the protection of anonymity means it is more likely that women will make such false accusations. But then, the monstrous presumption beneath this bill is that all women are truthful and all men who are accused of rape are guilty. The reason for the bill is that the government believes there are not enough convictions for rape. It thinks too many men are getting acquitted of rape who are actually guilty. It is simply astonishing that people who purport to understand the rule of law and care about the presumption of innocence can say that not enough people are being convicted. On whose say-so? By what criteria?
Do they have any reason for thinking that any of these acquitted men is guilty of rape? Of course not. How can they possibly do so? It is merely their prejudice - a pathological belief in male sexual guilt. It is not even the case that rape convictions are particularly low. Convictions for murder, for example, are running at 40 per cent while convictions for rape at 41 per cent. But no-one suggests that ‘not enough’ people are being convicted for murder.
There may be a variety of reasons for the low number of rape convictions, just as there are for other crimes. The incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service is undoubtedly a factor in not properly assessing the evidence in cases that fail to convince the jury. But one of the most likely reasons why convictions have fallen is that rape claims have become highly ambiguous through the dramatic changes in sexual mores. While the number of rapes by complete strangers has gone down, the frequency of casual sexual encounters has caused a steep rise in claims of ‘date rape’.
This is clearly far less straightforward than a case where a woman claims she has been pounced upon in a dark alley. A sexual encounter freely entered into but where at some point the woman may have changed her mind, or where one or both partners were drunk, poses very tricky problems of judgement for juries. So not surprisingly, they are reluctant to convict - especially for a crime which can result in life imprisonment.
But such an obvious explanation is dismissed out of hand because it assumes that women may not always be victims - indeed, that they may even be partly responsible for what has happened to them but are not prepared to take any responsibility for it. And this contravenes the cardinal tenet of extreme feminism - the assumption that men are intrinsically rapists, wife-beaters, child abusers and generally violent individuals, that women are their prey and that society additionally loads the dice against the female sex.
Lady Kennedy actually said in the Lords: ‘To treat as equal those who are unequal creates further injustice.’ So women are to be given a protection denied to men, despite the proven injustice of innocent men having their reputations ruined by women - because women are supposed to be the victims of society!
To paraphrase George Orwell, all animals have equal rights — but women have more equal rights than others.
No-one should be surprised that the government, unabashed by the eloquent arguments mounted in the Lords against this proposed injustice, is refusing to admit that it was wrong. For it has been captured by an ultra-feminist agenda promoted by pressure groups which have put down deep roots within government - in the Home Office in particular. So determined are ministers to pursue this anti-man vendetta that the new Sexual Offences Bill loads the court dice drastically against male defendants.
Until now, a man accused of rape could use the defence that he honestly believed the woman had given her consent. The bill not only removes that defence, but reverses the burden of proof. Now, the man will have to prove that no reasonable person could have doubted that the woman gave her consent to sex. The inclusion of that objective ‘reasonable’ test, the Lords heard, means that even if the defendant honestly believes the woman had consented, he might still be convicted. In other words, the test he will have to meet to be acquitted is now being set impossibly high.
Civil libertarians like Lady Kennedy, who would die in the last ditch to defend the presumption of innocence, normally pronounce that ten guilty people should go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. They ruthlessly use the Human Rights Act to pursue such principles through the courts. Yet they suddenly put all that into screaming reverse when it comes to fighting the sex war. Rigging the justice system in this way is based on sheer malicious, vicious prejudice against men - mostly driven through, ironically, by male politicians, in thrall to a feminist agenda they are too cowardly to confront.
Although written from a UK perspective, the subject matter of this article is I am sure, equally relevant to recent developments in most western societies. So for those readers who are not British, please `tune out` those aspects and elements which are written with my own country primarily in mind, and apply the necessary equivalents from your own societies. Like I have said, it shouldn't be too hard to do, as what is now occurring in the UK with regard to this subject can be seen to be happening throughout the west.
The American writer Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and official statistics. Perhaps it is time to add to this list a fourth category:
The United Kingdom Home Office Research Study.
According to one such specimen published recently, at least one in every twenty women aged between sixteen and fifty nine years of age in England and Wales have been raped, and one in ten have experienced some form of ’sexual victimisation.’ The majority of these alleged assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates; partners, former partners and casual acquaintances. If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such large numbers of women suffering serious sexual assault would clearly seem to indicate that British women were living in constant fear of an insufferable level of violence at the hands of men. Rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book, and rightly so considering the damage it does to a woman, both physically and psychologically.
So if the researchers were correct, we would therefore expect to hear of a voluminous level of female distress and rage being verbally vented against these male ‘intimates.’ We would all of us surely know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted. But we are not hearing this. Instead, we are shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is quite simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a nothing less than a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which calls the very credibility of the Home Office Research Department seriously into question.
The `Satan` here is to be found in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim’s consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence. The Home Office researchers have I believe, intentionally and willfully muddied this concept. Instead of using the legal definition of rape as ‘penile penetration,’ the study now defines it merely as one being ‘forced to have sexual intercourse against one's will.’ But the definition of ‘forced against one's will’ is highly subjective. It can very easily translate into ‘if you didn’t want to,’ which can become rendered meaningless. Even though the study claims that the word ‘forced’ implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.
A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, if for example, her lover tells her that unless she does, he will leave here for another woman. Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn’t taken a shower for a week, or she no longer loves him. The crucial point is, that in circumstances such as these, she is still participating in the sexual act, even though she could choose not to do so. No one is forcing her. She cannot therefore be termed a victim of violence. By any just or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included exactly this kind of experience in their definition.
This already highly questionable exercise, then becomes positively surreal. Astoundingly, believe it or not, the women who the researchers allege to have been ‘raped,’ state in the survey, that they themselves don’t classify what has happened to them as rape. In fact, the study actually admits that of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of themselves as victims of a crime.
The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not too busy playing the game of sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous. Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. This makes laughable the insistence by the Home Office that they are about putting the victim first. They therefore dream up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences, which the women involved did not consider to be rape, were indeed rape.
Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong. This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.
The ideological bias that is clearly the driving force behind this research is underlined by a crucial omission. The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But, and this is highly significant; it omits to make any distinction between partners and spouses. It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants. Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.
Instead, this study states that home life not safe. It is here we get to the rotten core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonize men and write them out of the domestic script altogether. It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.
It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally as aggressive as men and again can be seen to be refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.
The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture. As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That’s why the courts are ever more reluctant to convict men accused of rape.
But Whitehall’s feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women. The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.
Once again, the House of Lords has ridden to the rescue of elementary justice, fairness and common-sense. Once again, the government has announced that it is determined to prevent their Lordships from carrying out this service to the nation. Earlier this week, peers voted in an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill that the names of defendants in rape cases should be kept secret. The government promptly announced it would overturn this decision when the bill returned to the Commons.
The Home Office minister Lord Falconer told the Lords the criminal justice system had to remain open and transparent. But women who bring rape charges against men are granted anonymity. So why does Lord Falconer believe the criminal justice system can justifiably suspend its important transparency for women accusers but not for the men they accuse? The reasons given for this discrimination are utterly preposterous. The radical barrister Baroness Kennedy said anonymity for women was essential because otherwise they would not bring their accusations forward on account of the ’stigma’ attached to making such claims.
Now, no-one should minimise the ordeal for a woman in not only having to face her attacker in court and having to give evidence of a highly distasteful kind, but in facing cross-examination which inevitably calls into question her own character and morals. But what about the stigma that attaches to men who are unjustly charged? For the concern that women won’t bring charges if they are identified totally ignores the fact that a steady stream of men who are thus accused are subsequently shown to be innocent. Yet their reputations and careers have nevertheless been ruined.
Last year, for example, the Australian snooker player Quinten Hann was cleared of raping a student. He said he felt that he was the victim after a nine-month investigation and six-day trial in which he consistently claimed that his accuser had been a willing partner. Then there was the case of the rugby player Hywel Jenkins, cleared of rape in just five minutes after the Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to put him on trial. Afterwards, he said that he had endured ’seven weeks of hell’ after being accused by a 28-year-old woman of raping her during a party.
Giving women the protection of anonymity means it is more likely that women will make such false accusations. But then, the monstrous presumption beneath this bill is that all women are truthful and all men who are accused of rape are guilty. The reason for the bill is that the government believes there are not enough convictions for rape. It thinks too many men are getting acquitted of rape who are actually guilty. It is simply astonishing that people who purport to understand the rule of law and care about the presumption of innocence can say that not enough people are being convicted. On whose say-so? By what criteria?
Do they have any reason for thinking that any of these acquitted men is guilty of rape? Of course not. How can they possibly do so? It is merely their prejudice - a pathological belief in male sexual guilt. It is not even the case that rape convictions are particularly low. Convictions for murder, for example, are running at 40 per cent while convictions for rape at 41 per cent. But no-one suggests that ‘not enough’ people are being convicted for murder.
There may be a variety of reasons for the low number of rape convictions, just as there are for other crimes. The incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service is undoubtedly a factor in not properly assessing the evidence in cases that fail to convince the jury. But one of the most likely reasons why convictions have fallen is that rape claims have become highly ambiguous through the dramatic changes in sexual mores. While the number of rapes by complete strangers has gone down, the frequency of casual sexual encounters has caused a steep rise in claims of ‘date rape’.
This is clearly far less straightforward than a case where a woman claims she has been pounced upon in a dark alley. A sexual encounter freely entered into but where at some point the woman may have changed her mind, or where one or both partners were drunk, poses very tricky problems of judgement for juries. So not surprisingly, they are reluctant to convict - especially for a crime which can result in life imprisonment.
But such an obvious explanation is dismissed out of hand because it assumes that women may not always be victims - indeed, that they may even be partly responsible for what has happened to them but are not prepared to take any responsibility for it. And this contravenes the cardinal tenet of extreme feminism - the assumption that men are intrinsically rapists, wife-beaters, child abusers and generally violent individuals, that women are their prey and that society additionally loads the dice against the female sex.
Lady Kennedy actually said in the Lords: ‘To treat as equal those who are unequal creates further injustice.’ So women are to be given a protection denied to men, despite the proven injustice of innocent men having their reputations ruined by women - because women are supposed to be the victims of society!
To paraphrase George Orwell, all animals have equal rights — but women have more equal rights than others.
No-one should be surprised that the government, unabashed by the eloquent arguments mounted in the Lords against this proposed injustice, is refusing to admit that it was wrong. For it has been captured by an ultra-feminist agenda promoted by pressure groups which have put down deep roots within government - in the Home Office in particular. So determined are ministers to pursue this anti-man vendetta that the new Sexual Offences Bill loads the court dice drastically against male defendants.
Until now, a man accused of rape could use the defence that he honestly believed the woman had given her consent. The bill not only removes that defence, but reverses the burden of proof. Now, the man will have to prove that no reasonable person could have doubted that the woman gave her consent to sex. The inclusion of that objective ‘reasonable’ test, the Lords heard, means that even if the defendant honestly believes the woman had consented, he might still be convicted. In other words, the test he will have to meet to be acquitted is now being set impossibly high.
Civil libertarians like Lady Kennedy, who would die in the last ditch to defend the presumption of innocence, normally pronounce that ten guilty people should go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. They ruthlessly use the Human Rights Act to pursue such principles through the courts. Yet they suddenly put all that into screaming reverse when it comes to fighting the sex war. Rigging the justice system in this way is based on sheer malicious, vicious prejudice against men - mostly driven through, ironically, by male politicians, in thrall to a feminist agenda they are too cowardly to confront.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Equality and the Death of Love
When I heard that 50% of marriages ended in divorce, over 20 years ago, even then I sensed something was wrong. And it has only gotten worse. The concept of equality is the basis of feminism and the knife the Illuminati uses to rip and shred the very fabric of society, the family. Men and women can never be equal. It is against nature.
Men clear the way, build and give. Women sweep up the rubble, make homes and receive. Men want to give their hopes, dreams and desires, and women want to receive, nurture and encourage this. Men do battle and need someplace to rest. Women do not care for battles themselves, but wish only to make a safe haven for their warriors to love, sleep and go out and do it again. And men in their turn protect and cherish them. Men want their lineage to continue. Women receive this desire and the resultant children are protected and raised to follow their own dreams and continue the traditions of a society that is strong and secure, creating nations that can withstand any onslaught of evil that may try to destroy them.
Men and women balance each other. Without women, men become frustrated, destructive and brutal. Women, with their refined and exquisite being, raise men from the dust to the sublime. But without men, women become bitter, unfulfilled and without direction.
This is the equality that Betty Friedan and her ilk wish for all mankind. The concept of men oppressing women with their love, protection and wishes for home and family is the single most destructive weapon in their arsenal. Convincing women that they can be equal and independent of men has created a hybrid race of (women? I think not) females that distain all past traditions in their lesbian attempts to become pretend men.
And that's the crux of the matter; men see this and also become disdainful of their own traditional roles and we have before us now the resultant societies that cannot hold together. We spin out of control and the Satanistic powers that have us in their grip must be well pleased.
I have stood firm against it, but what good does it do?? I cannot fight this alone. And frankly, am getting tired of this pitched and endless war. I am not made for battle. I don't know what I'm made for at this point, and really don't care anymore.
For further reading: Philip Jones - www.denmarkonline.dk
and Henry Makow - www.henrymakow.com
Men clear the way, build and give. Women sweep up the rubble, make homes and receive. Men want to give their hopes, dreams and desires, and women want to receive, nurture and encourage this. Men do battle and need someplace to rest. Women do not care for battles themselves, but wish only to make a safe haven for their warriors to love, sleep and go out and do it again. And men in their turn protect and cherish them. Men want their lineage to continue. Women receive this desire and the resultant children are protected and raised to follow their own dreams and continue the traditions of a society that is strong and secure, creating nations that can withstand any onslaught of evil that may try to destroy them.
Men and women balance each other. Without women, men become frustrated, destructive and brutal. Women, with their refined and exquisite being, raise men from the dust to the sublime. But without men, women become bitter, unfulfilled and without direction.
This is the equality that Betty Friedan and her ilk wish for all mankind. The concept of men oppressing women with their love, protection and wishes for home and family is the single most destructive weapon in their arsenal. Convincing women that they can be equal and independent of men has created a hybrid race of (women? I think not) females that distain all past traditions in their lesbian attempts to become pretend men.
And that's the crux of the matter; men see this and also become disdainful of their own traditional roles and we have before us now the resultant societies that cannot hold together. We spin out of control and the Satanistic powers that have us in their grip must be well pleased.
I have stood firm against it, but what good does it do?? I cannot fight this alone. And frankly, am getting tired of this pitched and endless war. I am not made for battle. I don't know what I'm made for at this point, and really don't care anymore.
For further reading: Philip Jones - www.denmarkonline.dk
and Henry Makow - www.henrymakow.com
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Feminism and the Death of Beauty Part 3
by Jean Bush
Lillian Gilbreth, mother to 12 children, who was immortalized in the 1950 movie "Cheaper by the Dozen," and who ran an active household with her devoted husband Frank, was seemingly a model of nostalgic Victorian virtues.However, from 1910 to 1921, the Gilbreths conducted some of the very first time and motion studies as industrial plant consultants. Crossing that thin, fine barrier between public domain and very private lives, they used their own home to study the "scientific management and the elimination of wasted motions." This mentality needed only a few more decades and ever increasing technology to completely destroy Victorian domestic virtues and tranquility.
Using a stop watch and experimenting on their own children, the Gilbreths clocked and dissected every household task, from washing dishes, bed making, to buttoning a vest. 3 seconds were saved if one started at the bottom instead of the top. Lillian wrote in 1927, "So many prejudices of an older generation are passing away; and anyone who has been through modern laundries, bakeries and preserving plants, will find herself looking with suspicion on the unstandardized procedures of many a home."
The third wrecker of Victorian ideals and family life was Christine Frederick. Writing in 1929 the book, "Selling Mrs. Consumer," she advocated households should "run like a clock." While editor of Ladies' Home Journal, she continuously gnawed away at the the domestic vision promoted by generations of happy and devoted women. A sworn enemy of what Edith Wharton called "the art of civilized living," Frederick insisted women trade quality for quantity by standardizing each household task "so you can do it every day in an identical manner without much mental attention." Applying this approach to all salable goods, she even pushed the appetizing look of a loaf of bread, not its nutritional value that so concerned Victorian cooks. She portrayed wearing apparel as "smart" not durable. In fact, durability be damned! Since then, durability and style have become a vice instead of a virtue.
We now, unfortunately, take this planned obsolescence for granted. The frugal domestic ways of former generations was no longer a point of accomplishment or a character-forming lesson for children, but a "petty and ridiculous" practice.
Saving time became the bottom line in the home and the hand worked and treasured keepsakes that told of timeless continuity, security and certainty against rampant consumerism, fell by the wayside, to be swept away in a rising tide of commercial acquisitions and desires. And worse, women were told, and allowed themselves to be convinced, that they "had better things to do" then making a home, raising children to be responsible and caring citizens, and insuring their husbands the sanctity of a home without outside disturbances and distractions. Love ruled roost and happy and contented women beautified all that was good in society.
In such promotion, we can see how the current mindlessness regarding homemaking and family raising, has ended up with the State and its attendant social agencies, having all but taken over the home and are turning out new generations of obedient, consuming slaves. In our current ugly and "equal" societies, because of feminism, women are forever bitter and discontent, men are frustrated and have relinquished their ageless roles of head of the household, providers, loving partners to their wives and virtuous examples of character to their children and communities.
To become beautiful again, women need to be loved, protected and fulfilled, and must once more take charge of home, hearth and heart.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ball is in your court.
(All quotes and general references taken from Simple Social Graces, by Linda S. Lichter.)
by Jean Bush
Lillian Gilbreth, mother to 12 children, who was immortalized in the 1950 movie "Cheaper by the Dozen," and who ran an active household with her devoted husband Frank, was seemingly a model of nostalgic Victorian virtues.However, from 1910 to 1921, the Gilbreths conducted some of the very first time and motion studies as industrial plant consultants. Crossing that thin, fine barrier between public domain and very private lives, they used their own home to study the "scientific management and the elimination of wasted motions." This mentality needed only a few more decades and ever increasing technology to completely destroy Victorian domestic virtues and tranquility.
Using a stop watch and experimenting on their own children, the Gilbreths clocked and dissected every household task, from washing dishes, bed making, to buttoning a vest. 3 seconds were saved if one started at the bottom instead of the top. Lillian wrote in 1927, "So many prejudices of an older generation are passing away; and anyone who has been through modern laundries, bakeries and preserving plants, will find herself looking with suspicion on the unstandardized procedures of many a home."
The third wrecker of Victorian ideals and family life was Christine Frederick. Writing in 1929 the book, "Selling Mrs. Consumer," she advocated households should "run like a clock." While editor of Ladies' Home Journal, she continuously gnawed away at the the domestic vision promoted by generations of happy and devoted women. A sworn enemy of what Edith Wharton called "the art of civilized living," Frederick insisted women trade quality for quantity by standardizing each household task "so you can do it every day in an identical manner without much mental attention." Applying this approach to all salable goods, she even pushed the appetizing look of a loaf of bread, not its nutritional value that so concerned Victorian cooks. She portrayed wearing apparel as "smart" not durable. In fact, durability be damned! Since then, durability and style have become a vice instead of a virtue.
We now, unfortunately, take this planned obsolescence for granted. The frugal domestic ways of former generations was no longer a point of accomplishment or a character-forming lesson for children, but a "petty and ridiculous" practice.
Saving time became the bottom line in the home and the hand worked and treasured keepsakes that told of timeless continuity, security and certainty against rampant consumerism, fell by the wayside, to be swept away in a rising tide of commercial acquisitions and desires. And worse, women were told, and allowed themselves to be convinced, that they "had better things to do" then making a home, raising children to be responsible and caring citizens, and insuring their husbands the sanctity of a home without outside disturbances and distractions. Love ruled roost and happy and contented women beautified all that was good in society.
In such promotion, we can see how the current mindlessness regarding homemaking and family raising, has ended up with the State and its attendant social agencies, having all but taken over the home and are turning out new generations of obedient, consuming slaves. In our current ugly and "equal" societies, because of feminism, women are forever bitter and discontent, men are frustrated and have relinquished their ageless roles of head of the household, providers, loving partners to their wives and virtuous examples of character to their children and communities.
To become beautiful again, women need to be loved, protected and fulfilled, and must once more take charge of home, hearth and heart.
Ladies and gentlemen, the ball is in your court.
(All quotes and general references taken from Simple Social Graces, by Linda S. Lichter.)
Monday, July 6, 2009
Feminism and the Death of Beauty - Part 1
Letter to Philip Jones at Denmarkonline.dk
From Jean Bush
True beauty: that radiant spirit that comes from the perfect love of God and the secure and tender love of men, which transforms even the most dowdy of women into that most glorious of creatures - a happy woman.
But the feminist has divested herself of the one thing that make-up, chemicals, and even good heath cannot replace as beauty treatments: the companionship of a good man.
Companion: Middle English - compainoun, from Anglo-French cumpaing, cumpaigunun, from Late Latin - companion, companio, and from the Latin - com + panis - bread or food. To break bread in the company of...
No one asked me, Philip, if I wished to be strong and independant, equal and free. No one asked me if I wanted an endless array of "choices" and and the "freedom" to pick and choose as if I were in a supermarket.
I don't want to choose all the time. I want to be chosen!
Now they have caused men to turn away from us because feminists insisted we were being oppressed by being loved and protected and cared for. So now the few of us that see through the tawdry magician's trick, have been left alone on stage, listening to endless rows of silence, while the dimming lights make it ever harder to see the way out.
We women must take back our power we have so willingly given up, and armed with knowledge, we can beat back the encroaching darkness the Illuminati wishes to blind us with and, side by side with our loving men, take control once again of our lives and watch as this evil slithers away into the ugly swamp from which it came.
Jean in Hollywood.
From Jean Bush
Daily Entry:
I received this email from an American woman this morning, In my writing, I have been trying to expose feminism for what it truly is: A `Change Agent` sponsored and promoted by the global elite in order to break down families, alienate women from men and create fracture, isolation and desperation. Not fogetting it's destructive and much intended effect on the population.
It has to be said they have done their job well. But there is a backlash coming, and it has already begun in America, and as with all things, will make its way here in due course.
Beware all you `Red Stocking` types, your days are numbered.
Dear Philip,
Feminism - the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes. Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
When women decided, thanks to the Illuminati, that they needed to be equal to men as opposed to being loved and protected by them, they lost the very thing that actually set them apart from men and made them cherished: their beauty.
I received this email from an American woman this morning, In my writing, I have been trying to expose feminism for what it truly is: A `Change Agent` sponsored and promoted by the global elite in order to break down families, alienate women from men and create fracture, isolation and desperation. Not fogetting it's destructive and much intended effect on the population.
It has to be said they have done their job well. But there is a backlash coming, and it has already begun in America, and as with all things, will make its way here in due course.
Beware all you `Red Stocking` types, your days are numbered.
Dear Philip,
Feminism - the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes. Organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
When women decided, thanks to the Illuminati, that they needed to be equal to men as opposed to being loved and protected by them, they lost the very thing that actually set them apart from men and made them cherished: their beauty.
True beauty: that radiant spirit that comes from the perfect love of God and the secure and tender love of men, which transforms even the most dowdy of women into that most glorious of creatures - a happy woman.
But the feminist has divested herself of the one thing that make-up, chemicals, and even good heath cannot replace as beauty treatments: the companionship of a good man.
Companion: Middle English - compainoun, from Anglo-French cumpaing, cumpaigunun, from Late Latin - companion, companio, and from the Latin - com + panis - bread or food. To break bread in the company of...
No one asked me, Philip, if I wished to be strong and independant, equal and free. No one asked me if I wanted an endless array of "choices" and and the "freedom" to pick and choose as if I were in a supermarket.
I don't want to choose all the time. I want to be chosen!
Now they have caused men to turn away from us because feminists insisted we were being oppressed by being loved and protected and cared for. So now the few of us that see through the tawdry magician's trick, have been left alone on stage, listening to endless rows of silence, while the dimming lights make it ever harder to see the way out.
We women must take back our power we have so willingly given up, and armed with knowledge, we can beat back the encroaching darkness the Illuminati wishes to blind us with and, side by side with our loving men, take control once again of our lives and watch as this evil slithers away into the ugly swamp from which it came.
Jean in Hollywood.
Feminism and the Death of Beauty - Part 2
by Jean Bush
Feminism, as we currently know it, actually began circa 1895 with three women, Lillian Gilbreth,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Christine Frederick.
Gilbreth, at the age of 6, saw her father abandon his family, forcing her mother to move them 18 times in only 14 years, as they struggled to stay one step ahead of the poverty that dogged Gilbreth through all of her formative years. She apparently never got over her hatred and anger at her lack of domestic security. It drove her to force a wedge between women and their natural desire for home and family, where they instilled therein the moral and social values which not only stabilize a nation, home by home, but that have also withstood the test of time.
Lillian Gilbreth's hatred of domestic bliss was precisely captured by historian Glenna Mathews, who wrote: her "loathing for the home limited her ability to envision how domesticity and justice for women could be compatible."
Gilbreth often said that if we could be flies on the walls of Victorian homes, "we would see how miserable everyone is." The feminists of modern times would repeat this sick fantasy endlessly, by declaring that the neatly manicured lawns and white picket fences, hid an epic horror of domestic abuse and chemical addictions. Gilbreth eventually married an attentive and loving man but shortly after, had a nervous breakdown, during which, as she recovered in a sanitarium, she wrote her well known work of fiction, "The Yellow Wallpaper," in which the insane heroine blames men in general, and her husband in particular, for her condition.
Lillian Gilbreth considered Victorian women's duties to home and hearth "primitive" and wives and mothers "domestic vampires" who lived in "prisons" that "impeded social progress." She also feverishly promoted Socialism, in which the State would eventually take over all domestic functions of the family, thus allowing, in her view, women the freedom to work outside the home. We will examine later in this series how the true freedom to be loved, cherished and secure by men, was traded for the corporate time clock drudgery of the marketplace, and the chaining of women to their purses by voracious consumerism.
(All quotes & general references taken from "Simple Social Graces," by Linda S. Lichter.)
Friday, July 3, 2009
Letter from an American Woman: Women and Cancer
From Philip Jones-Righteous Alliance
Daily Entry:
This morning, I received this letter from a Lady in Hollywood, Los Angeles, in response to my `To Kill A Tree. The Conclusion` article.
On this site, I seem to have a number of readers, but few if any who wish to comment. Perhaps it's the language thing, but "Tale Dansk for Pokker," hvis i vil. Jeg kan godt forstaar det.
Anyway, I was so impressed by this brave woman's understanding of what has been done to us, and make no mistake, this isn't something just happening in the US or Britain, it's here in an all pervasive form here in DK and to a degree probably not found elsewhere. It is a world wide agenda and it's advancement is accelerating at a phenomenonal rate now.
I thought it an idea to post the letter in it's original form, and perhaps hopefully encourage others to leave comment also. Here it is then:
Dear Philip,
Women are the exquisite and loving reproductive partners of men and being engaged in the edification of civilization, become the natural targets of any Elitest agenda to destroy same. When love, and its ultimate spiritual sexual expression, the result being children and family, are disengaged from women's normal inclination for such, society crumbles, children become state property and men and women become warring instead of loving. You are correct when you say that women over 50 are more likely to become infected with HPV vis a vis cervical cancer then young girls, as they are more likely to have numerous sex partners. However, in many places in various Western cultures, including Britian and the US, girls as young as 9 are engaging in sexual exploration and have few problems completing the full sex act.
Eva Peron, who married Juan Peron, the president of Argentina, started having sex at the age of 13, as she climbed over the "laps" of dozens of men in her frantic efforts to escape a background of illegitimacy and poverty. She died at 33, at the height of her fame, of cervical cancer. It has been documented by medical authorities that the frequency of sex, starting at a very young age, increases the likelihood of cancer 500 fold. Women who marry at 18+ and remain faithful with one partner, have almost zero chance of this disease. Breast cancer is more likely to strike these women then any cancers of the sexual organs. Therefore, the Illuminati encouragement of sexual experimentation, under the guise of the "sexual freedom of choice" is as likely to kill or disable women as is the poisonous Gardasil, or any other vaccine they will come up with.
As society continues to breakdown, and men and women seek endless "hook-ups" with each other, instead of love and its attendant stabilizers of marriage and family, the Illuminati's agenda of scouring the earth of 75% of its population will be easier and easier to implement, and probably no blood will be shed. We will give ourselves over to them, for their promise of dark satanic salvation will seem ever more enchanting then this execrable loneliness we have self-imposed upon ourselves.
There is no hope for us if we continue to allow their insidious fingers to touch everything that we hold precious and dear, as neccessary for love, family and the building of strong societies and cultures, the only resistance we have to their Luciferian agenda. As they continue to multiply and plant and spread their own evil seed, our Christian values and "clean" seeding of our own people, will blow away like dust, and perhaps even God will turn His face away from us in despair. I think not, however, but I will not live to see it. I can live only long enough to fight it, if I can. It is the young we must reach, but they are busy "iPoding" to a different drummer, that of the Illuminati. While their parents are busy with the Elite controlled media, wondering where their wasted lives went.
I can't blame you for being upset when no one responds to you. Your brilliance and clarity leave no room for doubt, but it is like shouting into the wind.
Sincerely,
Jean Bush
Daily Entry:
This morning, I received this letter from a Lady in Hollywood, Los Angeles, in response to my `To Kill A Tree. The Conclusion` article.
On this site, I seem to have a number of readers, but few if any who wish to comment. Perhaps it's the language thing, but "Tale Dansk for Pokker," hvis i vil. Jeg kan godt forstaar det.
Anyway, I was so impressed by this brave woman's understanding of what has been done to us, and make no mistake, this isn't something just happening in the US or Britain, it's here in an all pervasive form here in DK and to a degree probably not found elsewhere. It is a world wide agenda and it's advancement is accelerating at a phenomenonal rate now.
I thought it an idea to post the letter in it's original form, and perhaps hopefully encourage others to leave comment also. Here it is then:
Dear Philip,
Women are the exquisite and loving reproductive partners of men and being engaged in the edification of civilization, become the natural targets of any Elitest agenda to destroy same. When love, and its ultimate spiritual sexual expression, the result being children and family, are disengaged from women's normal inclination for such, society crumbles, children become state property and men and women become warring instead of loving. You are correct when you say that women over 50 are more likely to become infected with HPV vis a vis cervical cancer then young girls, as they are more likely to have numerous sex partners. However, in many places in various Western cultures, including Britian and the US, girls as young as 9 are engaging in sexual exploration and have few problems completing the full sex act.
Eva Peron, who married Juan Peron, the president of Argentina, started having sex at the age of 13, as she climbed over the "laps" of dozens of men in her frantic efforts to escape a background of illegitimacy and poverty. She died at 33, at the height of her fame, of cervical cancer. It has been documented by medical authorities that the frequency of sex, starting at a very young age, increases the likelihood of cancer 500 fold. Women who marry at 18+ and remain faithful with one partner, have almost zero chance of this disease. Breast cancer is more likely to strike these women then any cancers of the sexual organs. Therefore, the Illuminati encouragement of sexual experimentation, under the guise of the "sexual freedom of choice" is as likely to kill or disable women as is the poisonous Gardasil, or any other vaccine they will come up with.
As society continues to breakdown, and men and women seek endless "hook-ups" with each other, instead of love and its attendant stabilizers of marriage and family, the Illuminati's agenda of scouring the earth of 75% of its population will be easier and easier to implement, and probably no blood will be shed. We will give ourselves over to them, for their promise of dark satanic salvation will seem ever more enchanting then this execrable loneliness we have self-imposed upon ourselves.
There is no hope for us if we continue to allow their insidious fingers to touch everything that we hold precious and dear, as neccessary for love, family and the building of strong societies and cultures, the only resistance we have to their Luciferian agenda. As they continue to multiply and plant and spread their own evil seed, our Christian values and "clean" seeding of our own people, will blow away like dust, and perhaps even God will turn His face away from us in despair. I think not, however, but I will not live to see it. I can live only long enough to fight it, if I can. It is the young we must reach, but they are busy "iPoding" to a different drummer, that of the Illuminati. While their parents are busy with the Elite controlled media, wondering where their wasted lives went.
I can't blame you for being upset when no one responds to you. Your brilliance and clarity leave no room for doubt, but it is like shouting into the wind.
Sincerely,
Jean Bush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
