Albert, the man in the first image of GQ’s hit piece on the men’s rights conference, and who many suspected (including myself) of being a plant, gives his account of what happened that day. I’d like to add that we are very happy to have a man as brave as Albert, and a true MRA, as a loyal and esteemed reader here.
This comment, apparently from a social worker with responsibility for disabled children, appeared on the excellent blog of Anna Raccoon, the debunker of the false claims and hysteria surrounding Jimmy Savile. The commentator alludes to this weeks decision by the British government to make it a criminal offence for care professionals (including social workers, the police, and teachers) to ‘ignore’ suspicions of child abuse.
For me the appaling squandering of funds on pandering to the whim of the professional survivor group is tragic. As someone who works on the front line with disabled children, I was saddened to hear from a colleague that 30 youth workers have had their jobs axed in a money saving exercise in the neighbouring Borough. There is not a person I know of who works with these children and young people who is not attuned to signs of potential abuse, nor would they hesitate to report any suspicions. It is what we do. We have always operated Mandatory Reporting as part of our general duty and responsibility to our charges. We now have the fear of prosecution and many, myself included will leave this occupation because the risk of working with children and young people is just becoming too much to bear.
As we all know here, David Futrelle once wrote an article defending the distribution in a gay sex shop of a paedophile made ‘classic’ child torture movie, that featured real and naked 14 year old boys ‘acting’ in a film in which they are made to eat excrement, anally raped, tortured and murdered. He has steadfastly refused to apologise for this and continues to justify the film’s sale in a gay porn store on the grounds that, obscenely, the sick movie can be viewed on Netflix and YouTube. This is a man who has gone on record to claim that a picture of a 17 year old girl in jeans is clearly ‘child porn’ in the context of a ‘jailbait’ subreddit or forum and that those who view such legal pictures are ‘paedophiles’.
Of course, many so-called MHRAs share Futrelle’s feminist views on the definition of child porn, as well as the feminist age of consent, or at least publicly claim to do so, whatever their disturbing motivations are. Laws which in the UK and elsewhere are currently leading to witch hunts against men and the undermining of any semblance of justice. However, even more disturbingly, many of them appear to share Futrelle’s views on the distribution in a gay sex shop of a movie that graphically depicts nothing else but the torture, rape, and murder of naked children. A movie directed by a man who turned to filmmaking after losing his job as a teacher due to molesting the children, and who was infamous for handpicking beautiful young 14 and 15 year old boys to star in his movies and immediately embarking upon sexual affairs with them.
Last night I had yet another MHRA leave a comment on this site denouncing us as ‘pedobears’ for admitting what every man knows – that teenage girls can be sexy – and for attacking the logic of the feminist age of consent laws that are leading to a clear sexual holocaust against men, things that any real supporter of men’s rights should do. The same MHRA, like several others, made a point of defending SALO and, by implication, Futrelle’s support for the movie’s sale in a gay sex shop. Unfortunately, this MHRA was too cowardly to leave his regular handle, but several others have not been so shy and have openly supported a gay child torture porn movie both here and elsewhere in the MRM. I thought it would be useful to start compiling a list of MHRA child torture porn apologists here. This will be a sticky page, and I’ll update it regularly as these staunch defenders of the rights of boys continue to support the idea of gay men fapping off to naked 14 year boys being anally raped and being made to eat their abuser’s shit before being tortured slowly to death.
I must make it clear that not all MHRAs support Futrelle over the ‘right’ of gay men to rent videos of naked underage boys being raped and murdered in gay porn shops. In fact, a small minority have actually spoken out and attacked Futrelle over the matter. Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) obviously stands out, to her eternal credit. And Paul Elam and Dean Esmay themselves, have also condemned Futrelle a couple of times, as they should (in fact, they should be a little louder).
Let’s start with our old friend ‘Kloo2Yoo’.
Kloo2Yoo (former moderator of r/mensrights). The clueless subhuman paedocrite Kloo2Yoo once reported a men’s rights redditor to the FBI for uploading a famous photograph that has appeared on Hallmarks cards to the men’s rights subreddit. Consisting of the image of a little girl lifting up her skirt to a bewitched little boy, with a caption that said something along the lines of ‘with this I will have power over you always’. It was clearly a relevant men’s rights image and any sane rational person without something disturbing to hide would see it as such. But not Kloo2Yoo, who immediately denounced it as child porn and claimed to have reported to the FBI the MRA who posted the link to the picture.
After the low IQ Kloo2Yoo finally realised he was out of his depth running the fast growing men’s rights subreddit, and handed over moderation rights to slightly more competent paedocrites, he seemed to disappear for a number of years. I assumed that the obvious hardcore paedocrite had been locked up, but no, he turned up out of the blue just at the moment we had David Futrelle on the rack over his defence of SALO, and proceeded to leave a rant in the comments section here defending it as a ‘classic’ art film. This is a man who reported an MRA to the FBI for linking to a Hallmark image with obvious men’s rights relevance. This is a man who banned anyone from the men’s rights reddit for questioning feminist child porn laws that jail men for looking at pictures of ‘young looking’ fairies and elves. This is a man who supported Futrelle in claiming that legal images of fully clothed teens can constitute ‘child porn’ if they are viewed in a ‘sexual context’, and yet, like Futrelle, he sees no problem in the distribution of a movie in a gay sex shop featuring nothing but naked children being raped, tortured, made to eat human faeces, disembowelled, and murdered.
Perhaps ‘pedobears’ isn’t quite the right word for these MHRA child torture porn apologist freaks. Perhaps not even ‘paedocrites’. Maybe ‘pedowolves’, or ‘pedopsychos’, ”pedosnakes’, ‘pedofreaks’, or simply ‘real sadistic paedophile sickos’?
I’ve updated my glossary page with urls you can copy and paste to link to the definition of each word/meme. Please drop these memes into the comments sections at manosphere blogs as well as MSM sites and forums as often as possible.
Paedocrite – http://theantifeminist.com/glossary/#paedocrite
A further nonsense ‘report’ about Jimmy Savile is published just as the process which led to this witch-hunt travesty is being rehearsed all over again with Cliff Richard by the ever useless South Yorkshire Police and the BBC, stung into further wild flailing fantasy by the lambasting they received this week.
When will anyone learn that if you carry out a police-media trawl of any and every celebrity, then inevitably a line of variously motivated complainants comes forward? This is just as would be expected no matter how clearly innocent is the target. And they don’t come much more obviously innocent than Cliff Richard.
It’s not as though this phenomenon is unknown or non-researched. It’s taboo, of course: Professor Keith Soothill’s findings about the amazingly trivial varied motivations of women making false rape allegations is never even mentioned in the media. And that’s before you consider the research on the hopelessness of human memory even for events which have just happened, never mind putative occurrences of 30 or 40 years ago, for which ‘false memories’ are readily constructed. The media spotlight and financial recompense enter the fray with high-profile police-media trawling; as does the issue of the sheer volume of individuals – the entire population – from which there are significant numbers of psychologically disturbed women seeking a peg on which to hang their aberrant life histories, supposed PTSD, etc. When you have literally thousands of sexual encounters in your past, then it’s a fair bet that a lot of now ageing females are going to redefine consensual and, indeed their initiated advances, as now somehow non-consensual.
The report on Savile is merely yet further cataloguing of mere allegation, on the spurious grounds that parallel allegation must be mutually corroborating. It’s profoundly false to rely on the very phenomenon your investigative methods in themselves were bound to produce as justification for your investigation and its mode. It’s a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ almost certain to result in miscarriage of justice.
It’s not that all there is here is invention, of course; it’s not least the exaggeration of behaviour which appears to be nothing out of the ordinary for a very high-profile youth-cult celebrity. At worst, Savile was described as a “sex pest”. No doubt he had a presumptive attitude that a kiss or cuddle from him usually would be welcome. That’s because usually obviously they were. But it is madness to extrapolate the likely high volume of sex he had with young women and older girls in his trailer by the TOTP studio to try to make out that somehow this was with unwilling partners, and that he transferred this behaviour to a hospital setting. Someone at the time in Savile’s position would have had an endless stream of girls throwing themselves at him. It would require saintly behaviour never to have misread signals and never to have unwittingly had sex with an under-age girl (when girls by the thousand lied about their ages to get into the TOTP studio). The normal behaviour of such males at times might now, in our crazy era, pass for misdemeanour as ‘sexual harassment’, but hardly so at the time; and if it would have been thus considered it would be regarded as mild. It’s not ‘rape’ or serious sexual assault. And still less was it ‘paedophilia’, even on the non-scientific current absurdly loose definition of the term – ‘paedophilia is an exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubertal individuals, and Savile had a non-exclusive sexual interest in post-pubertal girls (he had sex with fully mature women).
History, and very recent history included, is littered with appalling witch-hunts of male sexual behaviour. It is not long ago that we had the utterly risible ‘satanic sexual abuse’ hysteria. This was found, eventually, to be 100% bogus. It was a wholly non-existent phenomenon. Now we have a recapitulation of that ridiculous hysteria to try to convict any male ageing celebrity through inviting bogus allegation or to goad anyone who has any sort of social or willing sexual encounter to redefine it as assault. So it is that Rolf Harris – Rolf Harris of all people – is in prison on the basis of nothing substantive. Ditto several others, not to mention the many cases too absurdly flimsy that even in the current climate the sex-fascists at the CPS couldn’t persuade some hapless jury to convict.
I need to add, it should go without saying it (though in our numptie-coddling era it’s necessary), that it may be that Savile indeed was the serious predator he’s being made out to be, but there is in place of evidence only allegation. Therefore, no such conclusion can be made. But more than this, the likelihood is that surely he was ‘a bit of a lad’ but worse than that he was not.
This debacle will be looked back on by future generations as an object lesson in how crazy a society can become..
John the Other celebrates the fact that recent new UK guidelines requiring men to ‘prove consent’ will help to ‘break the addiction to pussy’. Unfortunately, deterring men from having sex with young women is exactly why feminism exists. A simple and mind blowingly obvious point, but something I often find hard to convince readers of at this site, let alone in the wider MRM. Perhaps avoiding sex with women is a prudent and rational lifestyle choice for British men as this time, however, this isn’t anything to celebrate. Rather, it’s an admission of defeat.
Well there we have it. In plain record, the CPS is completely undermining its very legal basis of innocence until proven guilt.
It has been very clear for a decade now that the rape law is a total inversion of the founding principle of law; ever since the Sex Offences Act of 2003, in which there is actually set out a list – though not an exhaustive one! – of the steps males supposedly should take to establish consent! [No mention, of course, of needing a degree in female psychology to work out when ‘no’ means ‘yes’ – this ‘no’ meaning ‘yes’ being the usual and often only form of consent females provide in the course of standard courtship behaviour.]
The previous Director of Public Prosecutions, the idiot Kier Starmer, made it clear; and it’s now even clearer with the statements from his replacement, the extreme-feminist, Alison Saunders. She was talking this week about ‘date rape’ but misleadingly elided it with ‘stranger rape’ when she cited the standard response by women in ‘stranger rape’ of ‘freezing’, as if this would be a usual or even a rare response in instances where the parties are so comfortable with each other as to be on a date, and where usually the worst of the matter is the sort of communication cross-wires that are the hallmark of interaction between the sexes. Saunders initially raised the context of drink – but anyway widened it to the extent that pretty well any sexual encounter would be encompassed – as if alcohol would not impair judgement by both parties and not just the woman. A man and woman drinking together are in effect a mutual conspiracy to bring about the prospect of sex by loosening courtship interaction, and this could be considered effectively entrapment of the man by the woman as much as if not more than the other way round. She cannot claim to offload all responsibility on to the male, so that only he can be deemed to be reckless and not her.
Let’s spell out what SHOULD and previously always was the case: that men ‘must’ in NO way establish that a woman consents to sex in order to avoid being found guilty of rape. It is entirely for the CROWN to PROVE, and to prove BEYOND DOUBT that consent was NOT given. That is a high bar, as it should be, in congruence with all other UK law – except that other arena where a woman is (supposedly, but – the research comprehensively reveals – actually in a minority of instances) a putative ‘victim': domestic violence. Note that Saunders explicitly linked here.
There is no debate on this issue. Either the founding principle of British law applies or it does not.
The CPS has capitulated wholesale to ‘identity politics’ ideological hatred towards males, and it is now open to legal challenge.
This should get interesting.
Even the media is starting to wake up. They have taken their time, but better late than never. The Telegraph led with the front page main headline: ‘Men must prove a woman said yes’. The awakening media here surprisingly includes the dreaded Boob. A BBC Today presenter put to Saunders that she was in breach of the foundation of law. She pretended she was not, of course; but so thinly she didn’t convince even her extreme-feminist woman interviewer.
That Nutsville USA really has become Nutsbridge UK in the sex arena could not be better illustrated just this week, when a Sheffield man was given a four-year prison sentence for … outraging public decency! Four years?! So what was he doing: ejaculating on to seven-year-olds, or worse? Er, no. He was accused … and note, NOT found guilty … but merely accused of having sex. So who was it in front of? Well, actually nobody. Only in privacy?! Yes, indeed. What got the goat, as it were, of the (apparently insane) jury and the utterly witless judge was that the sexual partner – er, the ALLEGED sexual partner – was ….. a horse. The case was one of alleged bestiality. There was no evidence of any kind of harm to any horse: only to the apparent goat that got the jury and judge. The man in the dock was not inappropriately named Andrew Barnfield. [I am NOT making this up: check the news reports and the records of the Sheffield Crown Court.]
Something is happening here, and we don’t know … actually, we do know, very well … what it is. The times they are … well, soon will be … a changin’. Nutsville and Nutsbridge can last only so long.
Some readers have complained that the gruesome images contained in the previous Femihag of the Year poll have left them permanently traumatized. So as a form of therapeutic brain bleach, here are the official results of the Most Beautiful Female in the World (informal) poll we had in the comments section a few days ago. Our panel of experts have decided!
The Most Beautiful Female in the World for 2014 is…Sabrina Vaz!
The lovely Sabrina is an 18 year old talented singer and song writer from Canada.
A very close second was the lovely 17 year old Russian figure skater, Yulia Liptnitskaya.
In third place, was Yulia’s fellow Russian skater, the 16 year old Elena Radionova.
And Yulia and Elena together!