When Jacqui ‘Pig’ Smith criminalized the viewing of bestiality last year, I didn’t seriously expect the boys in blue to actually start forcing their way into people’s homes over it. The Met Police have a limited budget that is being drastically cut. It costs an estimated £1,000+ to send off just one seized computer to be checked by forensics. Surely there are enough sick people watching 5 year olds being raped to worry about men who, for whatever bizarre (probably non-sexual) reason, occasionally choose to look at a St Bernard getting lucky with a porn actress?
But breaking down such people’s doors at 4 in the morning, is exactly what they appear to be doing.
This law, and its application, tells us a lot about the rationale and deciet behind feminist sex laws. Incredibly, laws against bestiality porn are justified on the basis that they are ‘abuse against animals’. Now, if we lived in a vegetarian society, in which all forms of animal abuse were criminalized, this might be slightly sane, rational, or plausible. Given that we slaughter countless millions of animals each year, often after suffering barbaric conditions, simply for a few minutes olfactory pleasure, this justification is so clearly a lie that I shouldn’t need to labour the point. If a pig filmed squealing in delight as it pounds some hot model’s pussy is animal abuse, I guess torturing it in a factory farm its entire life and then butchering it to be served at McDonalds with french fries is a far greater form of abuse.
The real reason, of course, is restricting and controlling human sexuality.
I argue here repeatedly, that the major objection feminists have to porn lies in its voyeuristic quality and the consequent fact that it provides men with an alternative sexual outlet to a real relationship. However, in the case of bestiality, the fetish is so tiny as to be relatively insignificant, in terms of posing a threat to female sexuality and power over men for that reason.
The real reason is something that was pointed out in a comment left by a reader to one of my other posts on pornography. Porn reveals women to be sluts (and I don’t use the term slut pejoratively) who are just as capable as men are of divorcing the physical pleasure of sex from any form of love or moral context. Porn is a great big 2+2=4 in the face of the feminist/religious lie of women’s virignity or sex being something sacred, something so intimate to a woman’s very being that men can never understand it, and something that if given away too easily will result in unspeakable, horrendous trauma for her.
And, of course, no porn does this to such an extreme extent as videos of women happily letting themselves be fucked by dogs or horses in order to earn a few dollars.
In fact, thousands of women don’t even need to be paid to enjoy bestiality and to show the entire world their love for it. Until recently, amateur tube sites were full of home-made movies featuring women fucking their pet dogs, videos these women were only too happy to upload to be viewed by millions. (one more reason I have long since stopped surfing for porn and suggest to all my readers that they do likewise..at least if you live in the UK).
The campaign against animal pornography, just like every other feminist campaign against porn, has nothing to do with concern over the welfare of the alleged exploited victims (in this case animals), but rather everything to do with preserving female sexual power over men.
Manwomanmyth, creator of a superb series of men’s rights videos on YouTube, has become the latest MRA to voice concern over Reddit/r/mensrights– a place supposedly for supporters to post and discuss links relating to the cause, yet instead dominated by feminists who spend most of their time telling others what is and isn’t an issue for men (and never mention men’s needs when posting in other reddits that are of importance to themselves – i.e anything and only anything pertaining to sex and relationships).
It is the Internet equivalent to a false-flag operation against the men’s movement….
The genuine issues affecting men and viewpoints voiced by men are, with regularity, roundly dismissed and disparaged in an orchestrated fashion by what seems like a clique of individuals – bothmen and women, I believe – with strongly Feminist viewpoints. The intent seems to be about constructing a “pretend” or faux men’s rights forum, a kind of hoax or dummy site whose purpose seems to be to draw attention away from legitimate and fair examination of men’s issues.
Now, no single person or group, no particular political persuasion or allegiance, has the right to define what men’s rights is and ought to be – although one or two individuals with out of control self-aggrandizing egos might think otherwise. The problem with Reddit mens rights is that it is feminists who are defining what our agenda should be, feminists who clearly have no real interest in men’s rights or for speaking up for men elsewhere on the internet. This is a danger because reddit is likely to reach no.1 on Google for ‘men’s rights’ and will therefore become our unofficial ‘home page’. Yet it will not have been able to achieve this feat through the usual and valid route of being linked to, and thus given authority, by dozens of genuine men’s rights blogs. It enjoys its high position on Google simply because it is piggy-backing on the massive page ranking of Reddit.com itself.
The human race will be extinct in 100 years, a top scientist in Australia credited with helping wipe out smallpox believes.
Humans devouring natural resources and population numbers exploding daily have made microbiology professor Frank Fenner a pessimist.
Now I like to keep a sceptical mind on tales of environmental doom as much as the rest of us who belong outside the PC Leftie religion, but it seems to me to be just as much an irrational act of blind faith to suppose that homo-sapians can continue indefinitely to breed, consume, and to strip nature of its dwindling resources. Why should it be assumed that global warming is a left-wing issue and disbelief in it, not only a conservative, but a men’s rights issue? Why does ‘Mens News Daily’ carry THREE different ‘global warming is nonsense” stories on its front page on the very day that it chooses to completely ignore Elena Kagan’s triumphant supreme court decision to allow the indefinite detention of men who break feminist sex laws? It is true that the great Angry Harry talks a lot about global warming, but he at least places the subject in its proper context – an example of how elites are using fear and ropey science to increase their own globalised state power and personal wealth. And, as usual, he has been proven to a large extent right. However, what is the underlying faith of humanism and it’s feminist parasitical off-shoot, if not the incredulous dogma that humans have God like powers to shape the world in their own image – completely ignoring the Darwinian reality that we are just another shifting gene variation, subject to evolutionary laws like every other animal? Surely it is the role of Conservative’s to challenge this delusion in all it’s forms?
On a related topic, I spotted this interesting piece by Ferdinand Bardamu of Inmalafide.com, in which he proposes a novel solution to the ever diminishing birth rates of the white race and consequent possible demise at the hands of breeding like rabbit johnny foreigners. The typical answer of conservatives, and of course, white nationalists, is to propose a return to the ultra-traditional family values that have been devastated by a combination of feminism and sexual liberation. Ferdinand, on the other hand, claims that ‘it’s easier to destroy than create’ and argues that we should concentrate on spreading the poison pill of Western decadence to our foreign rivals :
We begin by mass airdropping “sexual humanitarian aid” packages into third world countries. Porn mags, hand lotion, and condoms for the guys, vibrators and the Pill for the girls. When Achmed from Fallujah getsa look at this month’s Playboy Centerfold, he’ll be too busy cranking his little Muhammad to spare a drop of love juice for his hairy, burqa-clad wife. And if Maria from Santo Domingo doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant, she’ll be free to spend her quinceñera getting her Virgin Mary desecrated by all the hot boys in the barrio. It’ll be like a sweatier, sexier, more sallow-faced Berlin Airlift.
I agree. First of all, the planet could not sustain a Europe and America that rediscovered how to breed like Muslims or Indians.
Secondly, what the hell is the point of abandoning Western liberalism and copying Islamic values, simply in order to maintain Western civilisation? (O.K, it would be valid if you simply want to preserve the ‘white race’, which is what Ferdinand’s post is responding to, but squarely put to the multitude of ultra-conservatives who dominate the anti-feminist movement – just convert to Islam and be done withit. Don’t bother with men’s rights. Just spend your time trying to bring awareness to feminists that their movement is merely a subconscious response to the supposed sexual liberation, and that Islam IS the best lowest common sexual denominator between the mass of beta males and beta females.
Of course, there isn’t any need to drop playboy magazines over Tehran or Islamabad. Per head of internet population, these burka barmy nations have the highest number of google searches for porn in the entire world – despite porn being illegal in those countries. As Michael Houellebecq has pointed out (see below), the technological, economic, and cultural forces forever widening the free sexual market will inevitably rip open Islamic societies too. That might save the west, but it will largely mean that feminists will replace Mullahs in those countries, in vainly trying to close the sexual market, whilst having their (economically independent) cake and eating it.
I don’t believe that sexual liberation is, in itself, the cause of problems in western society. As I constantly argue here, Feminism is a response to sexual liberation, not the cause of it. Single teenage mothers, the hatred and distrust between generations, boys having no male role models in their lives – these things are the cause of societal breakdown in the West, and the primary cause of these things is the feminist response to sexual liberation. Furthermore, as I will argue in another post, the conservative response (particularly the American model) only serves to exacerbate these problems.
Today’s adventures in Craigslist: A California man called the cops when the woman he hired from the site to perform a “sexy dance” showed up and, surprisingly, didn’t live up to the promises of her ad’s photo. The man gave her $200 upfront, then reconsidered and told her to take $20 for cab fare and be on her way. She left with all the money instead, prompting the call to police
And why shouldn’t he? Women excel in obtaining what they want from men through false sexual signals – whether they are deceitful whores of the official or unofficial sort. Yet there are actually feminist creatures such as Denise Romano attempting to have Pick-up-artists arrested for rape – when such people are doing nothing other than using skill and their high iqs to send false sexual signals to beautiful women in order to lay them (i.e. that they are alpha male dominant apes when in fact they are beta male ‘geeks’).
Here is a suggestion. There are now nearly a million sex offenders in the USA. An ever increasing majority of those will have become sex offenders through breaking laws that were created by feminists that just so happen to increase the sexual power of those feminists (in a free sexual market). Why not attempt to have the evil women behind those laws brought to court for ‘attempted rape’? Now that you can be locked away indefinitely, it’s not as if u have anything to lose except your chains (and your daily ass rape in the shower). At least it might bring to the public arena the clear selfish sexual motivations of most of these evil harridans.
A secondary school has banned girls from wearing skirts, regardless of length, to prevent them from attracting unwanted attention.
Another step closer to the burka…for teenage girls only..
A common objection to my thesis of feminism being primarily a sexual trade union is to point out that feminists no longer seem overly concerned, or at least active, at attempting a complete ban on pornography. The reason is actually quite simple. Feminists have largely retired their attempts at obtaining an outright ban, because the hysteria over child porn and subsequent laws have enabled them to achieve something far greater than an outright prohibition would. It has enabled them to spread the worldwide meme that all under 18’s (‘minors’) are non-sexual children who are stictly, and equally, out of bounds for men. That the innate maleattraction to fertile teenage girls is ‘paedophilia’ is something that no culture in human history has ever taken seriously before (and any such culture would likely have been outbred and wiped out by rivals in a few generations if it had). And it would never have been able to propagate itself outside of America and the dusty vaginas of middle-aged feminists and train-spotting ultra conservatives, if porn had been universally illegal.
In effect, feminists have used ‘child porn’, a concept that would have little meaning if ALL porn was illegal. to introduce a world-wide age of consent of 18, something which has been a driving motivation of feminists since the social purity movements and the early suffragettes, and something which they have singularly failed to achieve (outside of a few states in America). As recently as a decade ago, feminist lobby groups were still trying to force the United Nations to impose a global age of consent setat 18. They failed, but successfully switched tactics to effectively obtain the same end by pressurising the UN to universally define a child as anybody under the age of 18. So now, so much as look at a 17 year old girl anywhere in the world and you face being spat at as a paedophile if you’re over 21, despite the fact that the age of consent is 18 in less than 2% of the nations of the Earth (you could also face ‘child porn’ charges in Europe if you sexted your 17 year old girlfriend thanking her for the ‘great sex’ after legally fucking her).
On the issue which has been the historical driving force behind feminism, the unattractive, middle-aged woman has finally won, and it is a victory that would likely never have been possible if second wave feminists had succeeded in making porn illegal.
*Also, the existance of virtual child pornography laws, as well as the infamous 2257 law, are largely responsible for the entire ‘MILF’ fetish. Pornography webmasters are now so afraid to fall foul of these laws that ‘Barely Legal 18 y.o. teen sites are becoming much rarer. Pornographers are choosing to play safe and promote MILF/Mature sites, which now proliferate in the pornosphere.
This is a bit of an antifeminist.com exclusive, as the announcement of Houellebecq’s forthcoming new novel hasn’t appeared yet in any english google news links. Michel Houellebecq is an important writer (and massively read everywhere outside of the anglosphere) because he picks apart the delusions of the Feminist ‘liberal’ equality faith, most commonly in the primal sexual setting which acts as both their embarrasing origin and their inevitable demise. A Houellebecq novel is a pornographic version of what might be produced by throwing into a fucked up literary grinder the collected works of Marx, Schopenhauer, Camus.. and the Carry On Film scripts.
The new novel is entitled La carte et le territoire (‘the map and the territory’) and no doubt the small band of English speaking Houellebecq fans will have to wait an extra year for the translation to appear.
And we still pretend that 17 year olds are innocent, sexually unaware little things. This survey is indeed shocking and unpleasant, but it shows that feminists can only for so long force society to move in the opposite direction from that which technology is taking us…
I would like to think so, but the fallacy in the argument linking high IQ with atheism lies in ignoring that ‘atheists’ subscribe (generally) to their own humanist/feminist dogmas that most often are ‘secular’ relics of older Christian beliefs (see John Gray).
Women may struggle with handling the latest technology more often than men — but not when it comes to using it to spy on their husbands, researchers have found.
A study of British middle-aged couples found that 14% of wives spy on their husband’s emails, 13% read their mobile phone text messages and 10% check web browser logs.
This is roughly twice the level of spousal spying that is found among men.
Women are also far better at it than men, the researchers found. It appears that some women develop their IT skills simply to improve their surveillance techniques.
The internet – like most, a male technology, is driving forward the sexual trade union that is feminism by increasing the availability of and access to alternative sexual outlets for men, and thus requiring women to respond to an ever growing threat to their sexual power. Not only that, but women are managing to employ the Internet, a technology that men are far more adept at using, in order to increase the power of their lobby groups and to successfully pursue their more narrowly focused political agendas a THOUSAND times better than men are. AND on a global scale. This is the greatest irony of our age.
A hideously ugly failed British actress named Charlotte Lewis recently accused Polanski of ‘taking advantage of her’ (via the casting couch method) when she was only 16. Now it transpires that the botox injected monstrosity gave an interview to a British rag in 1999, giving a very different version of events – claiming that she was 17 when it happened and that she was fully willing as Polanski had already given her the role. She also told the newspaper (for cash) that she was selling her body to older men from the age of 14. Oddly, this revelation hasn’t received so much media attention as her first accusations. Also note the implications for Polanski (or any other man being pursued by some vindictive washed up old whore) if the age of consent had been 18 in France, as it is in America, Turkey and errmmm….Kyrgyzstan.
In a no-holds-barred interview Charlotte also confessed how she seduced kinky director Roman Polanski when she was a nubile 17-year-old then slipped between the sheets with Warren Beatty. Later she bedded Charlie Sheen and Mickey Rourke and in a drunken brawl kicked Kiefer Sutherland in a very tender place! She also made love to British video producer William Annesley, found Liz Hurley’s pyjamas in his bed and mailed them to Hugh Grant.
Must hurt to know that if any of those alpha males slept with your bloated botox face now, THEY would be the ones GENUINELY traumatised for life….and not just looking for a book deal.
Restoring dignity to secular reasoning, the beautiful YouTube atheist ZOMGitsCriss picks apart arguments for the criminalization of paying for sex. This girl seems on a single-minded mission to convince humanist manginas that it’s not heresy after all to question the tenets of their feminist mother goddess faith.
Dame Joan said the freedom granted by the introduction of the Pill had been corrupted, resulting in the sexualisation of young girls and the prevalence of pornography.
In the 1960s, Dame Joan was a vocal opponent of Mrs Whitehouse, whose moral crusade against sex and violence in broadcasting led her to found the Clean Up Television campaign.
The free sexual market is great when you’re young and attractive and you can choose from whichever number of alpha males to screw. When you’re 50 and frumpy, and can no longer compete with nubile girls, suddenly you realise it all had ‘unintended consequences’.
Here’s a video that would cheer Joan up and remind her that things were once far worse for the older British woman – even as little as a decade ago. This clip, from the 90’s BBC Comedy ‘The Detectives’ was obviously made a couple of years before the men of Merry Old England succumbed overnight to the fantasies of middle-aged American feminists and ultra-conservative trainspotters, becoming only the second people in the history of the human race to believe that admiring the charms of young womanhood was something as perverse as the attraction to toddlers.
I do hope the men’s rights movement isn’t becoming infested with trainspotters…