Archive for September, 2010
I was referred to these developments by my loyal readers Nico and Highwayman.
The sexual trade union appears to have won two further victories lately, but suffered one encouraging set back in Canada.
Politicians and feminist lobby groups in Spain – headed by that country’s biggest mangina (Mr.Bean look-a-like prime minister Zapatero) - have effectively forced newspapers to stop running advertisements for the sex trade.
A week after Spain’s prime minister angered many of the country\’s newspaper publishers by calling for a ban on lucrative prostitution ads
Sex ads stop carrying advertisements for prostitution Spanish media told
The Spanish journalists’ federation FAPE on Wednesday backed a call by parliament for the media to stop carrying advertisements for prostitution.
Parliament on Tuesday adopted a proposal urging Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s government to take action against the practice within four months.
Further bad news was then relayed to me by Highwayman – Switzerland, proudly independent for hundreds of years, has now become just another sexual colonialist outpost of the EU femi-nazi superstate. It has raised the legal age of prostitution from 16 to 18.
Sex with prostitutes under 18 to be illegal
The government has approved a parliamentary proposal to raise the legal age of prostitution from 16 to 18 in Switzerland.
This aligns Swiss law with the Council of Europe convention on protecting children under 18 from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Better news from Canada though, where an Ontario court struck down a Canadian law that effectively criminilized prostitution. The challenge to the law was made by a sex trade worker, clearly suffering from false consicousness of her own terrible abuse and exploitation…lol.
TORONTO – A sex-trade worker who challenged Canada’s prostitution laws hailed Tuesday as “emancipation day” after provisions that effectively criminalize prostitution were struck down as unconstitutional by an Ontario court.
Laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade “are not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice,” the Ontario Superior Court ruled.
They put sex-trade workers in danger, the court said.
Of course any such ‘pro-sex’ victory these days can only be made by pointing out the obvious - that such feminist/religious laws are not about actually protecting the supposed female or child ‘victims’, but rather they are clearly endangering them. However, we’re still a few hundred years from living in a society which can recognise that a law can be evil and injust simply because it criminalizes a man and restricts his freedom to have a happy sex life (unless it can be demonstrably proven that a victim is harmed).
It is important to briefly state why fighting against the feminist war on both prostitution and pornography is so important. During the next couple of decades virtual sex will become not only a reality, but likely the preferred option of most men. Already, for example, there are pornography companies developing virtual sex toys that will allow you to have sex with their webcam peformers. In fact, theoretically, one webcam performer could have virtual sex with dozens, or even thousands, of men simultaneously. Developments in pornography and sex toy technology are very soon going to have an effect on the free sexual market that will likely be many times greater than the social upheavels wrought by the introduction of the contraceptive pill. In five years time millions of people will enjoy super fast broadband and will be connected to the web via ultra high definition 3D Google TVs with built-in HD 3D webcams – quite possibly of the autostereoscopic variety (not requiring glasses). In ten years time, the first holograms will be appearing in homes (and bedrooms). In fact holography as part of the adult entertainment business is already a reality (http://www.ereleases.com/pr/digital-illusions-unveils-americas-holographic-nightclub-38146).
It is inevitable that feminists will try to incorporate High-definition 3D webcam performers, holograms and sexbots, and the whole promise of virtual sex, into current and future anti-prostitution laws. Somehow, we have to stop them.
It’s always heartening when another MRA calls for an initiative to turn words into political action. It’s even more heartening when it’s the great Bernard Chapin :
Why Feminists Really Hate Pornography. Thanks to loyal reader EvilWhiteMale for pointing me to this:
TheAntiFeminist.com is growing again.
After having to re-install my site several months ago (and losing most of the archives in the process), traffic took a dive. We seem to be on the rise again now, as you can see from the stats table above. Thanks to all my loyal readers for sticking around! This site is now also behind only Wikipedia in Google search results for both ‘anti-feminism’ and ‘anti-feminist’. Thanks to all the websites that link here. If you run a blog in anyway connected to anti-feminist issues and would like to exchange links then please e-mail me at schopenbecq (at) yahoo (dot) co (dot) uk
Empirical proof that the Pope is a paedophile :
I haven’t convinced you yet?
Didn’t you know that ‘Pope Benedict‘ is an anagram of ‘Epic Bent Pedo‘??
Who would argue against such objective scientific evidence?
Certainly not the secular rationalists at Reddit/r/atheism. In fact both posts earned record numbers of upvotes.
Not sure if their spiritual leader, Richard Dawkins would approve. It’s no longer possible to be sure about that though…
Note at around the 1:10 mark, Peter Tatchell hiding from the camera as Dawkins uses the rather homophobic phrase ‘buggering boys’. Tatchell is a homosexual activist who has long campaigned (bravely) to have the age of consent lowered to 14. In fact Dawkins himself makes a lengthy (brave) attack on paedohysteria in his book ‘The God Delusion’. But I guess when you can use it as a stick to beat the Catholic church with, objective evidence and rationalist principles go straight out of the window.
One irony free atheist redditor put it best with the following chilling words :
“It’s like a mob…only a rational one!”
Not that I have any love or respect for either the Catholic church or any other form of religion. Those forms of human delusion that consist largely of reifying simian evolutionary reproductive strategies that are meaningless in a high-tech society which has access to free contraception and paternity testing - and then justifying their ancient tribal sexual prohibitions on the grounds that ‘humans are not animals’.
In fact, as the philosopher John Gray has brilliantly argued, the idea that humans are distinct from other animals doesn’t just lack any truth according to evolutionary theory - the very notion of ‘human’ itself is an abstract concept, artificially imposed upon the reality that all life on Earth is mere shifting patterns of gene assemblages that always result from pressures of sexual selection. ‘Humans’ can no more overcome evolution than a microbe can. To believe otherwise is as irrational and unscientific as believing that each of us has a distinctly human ‘soul’.
Gray claims that most of the the ’rationalist’ and humanist tenants that guide our hi-tech Western societies are, in fact, largely secular inheritances from Christian theology. Above all the ‘myth of progress’ and the belief in a human nature that possesses free will with which it can choose individual and collective fate.
Recently, having discovered the brave new world of the Singularity, I’ve become a little more positive about the future of things. Despite the fact that the Singularity itself appears to be transparently a rationalist myth neatly carved from the ruins of Christian beliefs regarding apocalyptic deliverances for a flawed humanity.
Nevertheless, if feminism is indeed the history of unattractive women attempting to close the free sexual market as technology continues to widen it, then perhaps there is a kind of Sex War Singularity looming. My remaining hope for the future is that feminism will not survive it, or at least be rendered meaningless by it.
But for any optimism that had been stirring inside of me that secularism, rationalism, or even smart pills and augmented minds, might themselves save us from the primal sexual forces driving the unloved femi-beasts…well I think these examples of smug irrational atheism have shown me that it would take an artificial mind thousands of times more powerful than a human brain to do that. At least if it shares the same sexually selected lineage that led from the microbe to Richard Dawkins.
Interesting links :
How the new atheists are abusing the truth (Brendan O’Neil – Spiked).
John Gray on the atheist delusion (Guardian)
They’re afraid of men masturbating (antifeministtech.info)
Has a Russian scientist really cured aging? (singularityhub.com)
Quantum computing just five years away (FinancialTimes)
3D Games enter a new generation (Guardian)
3D Porn Action (WARNING : EXTREMELY NOT SAFE FOR WORK. Link posted for research purposes only)
Earlier this year an American company announced the creation of the world’s first sexbot. Roxxxy TrueCompanion attracted the attention of the world’s media but seemed a rather primitive, if historic, first step on the road to fully fledged robots you’d actually want to have sex with. Now, however, the creators of Roxxxy have announced a new and improved version. The groundbreaking sexbot has been given a prettier face, improved A.I capabilities, as well as a degree of movement, as the following video amply demonstrates :
SALT LAKE CITY — The pornography industry has grown to a $97-billion business worldwide but the adverse affects of pornography are incalculable.
Thousands of families are crumbling under its destructive power. A couple we spoke to says it almost cost them everything.
“It was taking over my life and my life completely became unmanageable,” says a Utah man who wishes to remain anonymous.“I think women feel like they’re living life right and they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They’re raising their children and they’re doing the best they can and then their husband goes and does something like this and it totally devastates their life.” -Anonymous Utah woman
He says pornography consumed him but his wife paid the greater price after she discovered her husband’s multiple affairs and life-long battle with pornography.
“I had a nervous breakdown and I tried to commit suicide,” says the wife. “I think women feel like they’re living life right and they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing. They’re raising their children and they’re doing the best they can and then their husband goes and does something like this and it totally devastates their life.”
I’m not going to make any attempt at re-butting ‘porn is harmful’ arguments here. It’s enough to state here that husbands are not the sexual slaves of their wives. Isn’t is odd, as countries such as France and Mexico introduce laws criminilizing men who ‘control’ their wives, that the alleged fact that porn might lead to a husband spending less time with his wife is a reason to declare her a ‘victim’ and to call for porn to be restricted on that basis?
Of course, it may or may not be true that porn, or at least ‘porn addiction’, may upset the family unit or mean that Father may spend less time performing his parental duties. Just as any ‘addiction’, such as alcohol addiction, may have the same consequence. But when it is a feminist (or even a female Christian anti-feminist) making the argument that porn leads to men spending less attention on women, or upon real relationships with women, then it’s not an argument against porn. It’s the rape of the male.
Here’s a great video of somebody calling out feminist bullshit arguments on porn:
Great comment made underneath by ‘YoureBuying’ :
Feminism is not about equality so much as it is sexual control.
Women don’t like porn because it gives? men “options”.
They’re not anti sexuality, but rather anti sexuality on anything but THEIR terms, and for THEIR asking price.
Feminists HATE the idea of men being able to get their rocks off without having to grovel and scrape for approval. It drives the price of pussy DOWN, and they HATE that.
Child Porn Hysteria – Spot the Difference :
“Because the websites — with names like “Excited Angels” and “Boys Say Go” — went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nose-dived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Matt Dunn, of the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE), which was the lead law enforcement agency. (WorldWide sting targets child porn)”
“Maalla urged international cooperation to stop the child pornography industry, which she estimated to be worth between $3 billion and $20 billion. She recommended countries share information on sites containing child pornography in order to block them faster. (UN Expert : Child porn increasing)“
Of course, sexual trade union leaders such as Najat M’jid Maalla, need to propagate blantantly grotesque lies about the scale of child pornography in order to shame governments into passing ever more draconian laws that criminilize the majority of the male population. The EU is shortly to introduce another directive on harmonizing child abuse and child pornography laws across the continent, less than 7 years since the previous one. Stand out elements of the new directive include making it a criminal offence in each member state to simply view child pornography without downloading it. Keep in mind that in the EU child porn is defined as any sexual image, real or virtual, of a ‘child’ who even looks under 18. So when this directive is ratified, you will have committed a child porn offence if you are simply performing a google image search for ‘sexy bikini’ and one of thumbnail image results that appear on your screen happens to be of a person judged to merely look under 18. This could be a cartoon picture. You don’t have to even click on the image, let alone ‘download’ it (i.e. save it). Basically, from that point on, you will have to fear the 4 am boots through the door for the rest of your life. You would then face a mandatory minimum 6 months of beatings and ass rape.
Another aspect of the new directive is that the ‘online grooming of a child’ will be made illegal across the EU. ‘Grooming’ originally meant, and is still popularly meant and understood as, 40 year old men posing online as young boys to befriend 12 year old girls in order to meet and assault them offline. However, it appears that the feminist sexual trade union lobby groups posing as child protection groups who are behind the new directive want to actually criminalize the ‘soliciting a minor for sex via the internet’. This could mean similar laws to America, where it is illegal to meet a 17 year old offline after meeting her online, regardless of the age of consent. Just like absurd ‘virtual child pornography’ laws, such new legislation, if vaguely defined, could be used as a back door means by feminists to bring in a uniform age of consent at 18. If I chat up a 17 year old in the street or a nightclub, swap MSN addresses, and we get to know each other largely via online chat before meeting up and evenutally having a sexual relationship, could that count as ‘grooming’? Who knows, as it’s impossible to locate the specifics of this new draft anywhere online.
Also note that it could potentially criminilize talking to a 17 year old online, if you later have sex with her, even if you first have sex with her after she has turned 18.
One thing for sure is that with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon last year, the sexual trade union now has free reign across Europe to finally achieve its 150 year old mission of putting all young females out of bounds for men. In the words of the EU website itself :
Additionally, the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (on 1 December 2009) provides considerable advantages for new legislation to be adopted in the field of Justice and Home affairs from now on. This also justifies the proposal for a new Directive.
Legislation will no longer need to be approved unanimously by the EU Council of Ministers (i.e. national governments). Instead, it will be adopted by a majority of Member States at the Council, together with the European Parliament. A single country will not be able to block a proposal
As technology speeds up, we can expect many more directives. But don’t compare the steady drip drip of legislation leading to a final solution for the ordinary white European male and his sexuality to the tragic fate of the French Romas, forced to return to their EU countries of origin after countless thievings, assaults, and other crimes. However, deportation of Roma can be righteously compared to the Nazi holocaust by those same liberal minded fucked up sexual trade union fascists.
This is an important post concerning a couple of news items on ‘sex trafficking’ this week that relate directly to my article recently on apparent feminist attempts to have a global ban on prositution introduced. I hope it reveals something of the nature of how feminists are routinely lying in order to introduce legislation on an international basis, the details and consequences of which only a handful of politicians will even be aware of by the time they become engraved into the legislative statute books of a multitude of ‘sovereign’ lands.
To begin with, this week in the House of Commons the infamous Harriet Harman berated British Prime-Minster David Cameron over his governments refusual to sign up to an EU directive on human trafficking. Note that since the Treaty of Lisbon, only the UK has the ability to opt-out of EU directives.
Now, I’ve spent some time searching for this directive online, to no avail. Amongst the few details I’ve been able to gather about it are that, disturbingly, it seeks to ‘widen’ the definition of ‘the exploitation of the prostitution of others‘, a phrase already included in a UN protocol on trafficking and which, as I highlighted recently, has tremendous scope to be interpreted in a way that could effectively criminilize even independent prostitution.
But back to Harriet’s rant. A key element of her shaming language tirade against Cameron was her claim that a sex trafficking gang had been jailed in the UK only last week for ‘bringing women and girls into this country as young as 13 to be sold for sex’.
Now obviously the acting leader of the opposition can’t blatantly lie to the British PrimeMinister in the House of Commons in order to shame him into signing up to a treaty that will effect 700 million people and lead to thousands of men being criminilized and placed on sex offenders registers. Especially not when her former government has a clear track record of exaggerating sex trafficking in order to introduce such laws.
Unfortunately, yes, as just a quick survey of news reports on the ‘sex trafficking’ gang will show.
First of all, the gang ring leader, Mahrookh Jamali (who happens to be a WOMAN) was jailed for only 2 years. A low sentance, even granted her pussy pass, for trafficking 13 year old girls into the UK for sex. The reason is that no 13 year old girl was trafficked into the UK to be sold for sex. Even the Guardinista makes clear that the gang only offered a client ‘two 13 year olds’ to dance in front of him.
The BBC report is clearer still :
Sentencing, Judge Alan Greenwood said: “In this case it involved a money-making operation based on the exploitation and corruption of vulnerable young women.
“Some of them were very young. I accept that the youngest of them were going to do no more than dance.
“But even one as young as 17 or 18 was to be involved in prostitution and all of them were put at risk by you.
And the Daily Express reports :
Mr McGivern said the girls were asked to travel to London to dance for clients, but were then offered the chance to sell their bodies too.
“This was a case where there clearly was corruption, but no coercion or threats,” he added.
So instead of Harriet Harman’s ruthless gang of (implied) male sex traffickers forcing 13 year old girls into the country to work as prostitutes, we have :
- A gang whose ringleader was a woman.
- Possibly one girl of 17 who was going to have sex with a client.
- No indication that any 13 year old was imported into the country.
- No force, threats, or co-ercion used at all.
And only the anti-feminist.com to highlight the transparent fact that the leader of the opposition blatantly lies and exaggerates before parliament and to the PrimeMinister in order to harm men (and women) in a way that just so happens to improve her own personal sexual interests (and that of her voter base).
The fact is, men would sooner call each other ‘paedophile’ than band together and fight for their right not to have their sexuality defined and limited by the selfish sexual interests of feminists.
Women are now officially redundant. Useless. Or at least until the sexbots arrive.
Snark put it best in a comment I spotted at the Spearhead :
SHALL we see the same kind of articles that appeared when artificial sperm cells were created – you know, the ones calling for a male Holocaust, arguing that men are worth keeping around but only as dumb animals, etc.? Will we now see these about women?
That would be MEAN.
Also spotted at the Spearhead was an interesting post in the forum by somebody called ‘Zebert’, who asked the following :
When historians write about our era, what will the say about feminism? I think:
Feminism was a social movement of the 1900s where women banded together to charge men a much higher price for access to female sexuality.
Oh yes indeed.
In response to the ‘feminism is cultural marxism’ brigade ignoring his claim, he goes on to say..
Throughout history feminism has gone by many names.
In all cases, women raise the price for male access to female sexuality, in exchange for more power.
A couple of members then deny that that the price of sex has risen with feminism (and it hasn’t, in itself). Zebert replies :
Yes, any one man is getting more sex but the price is huge for all men. Women have been given:
- access to the workplace
- the vote
- no responsibility to defend the country
- a pro-female legal system
- 1000s of other items
So you see, the cost of sexual access has been huge.
In all cases, if men were to take these away (and be clear, men can and will) feminists would quickly counsel other women to revert back to the source of power that had served them well — trading sexual access for marriage — and the hypocrisy of feminism would finally become evident for all.
To which I’ve added :
Zebert is 100% right.
Feminism has always been about preserving the average (unattractive/aging) woman’s sexual asking price.
I fail to see how anybody can read anything about the first wave of feminism and not see that. Second wave feminism sprung into existance and near-immediately overthrew thousands of years of ‘patriarchy’ the moment the pill (and the truly free sexual market) came into existance and people are still convinced it was all a marxist plot to wreck the family.
Yes, men are having more sex, or at least sex with more women, than ever before. Feminism has been one long history of failure. All the costs to men and to society that Zebert listed (the vote, pro-female legal system, women in government etc) have failed to prevent the lowering of the sexual asking price of women.
But that’s what it has always been about. Women playing catch-up in their attempts to stop technology forever widening the free sexual market.
And in a few years time, 3d tactile holographics and sexbots will make 95% of women sexually irrelevant. Feminists will have finally lost.
A new site is coming soon…on the History of Feminism. We might have our differences of opinion on what precisely are the evil forces driving feminism, the how and why of the harridan machinations behind their beastly rise to power. But we can surely all agree upon the importance of promoting our own alternative ‘narratives’ - challenges to feminist historical propaganda and dogma regarding ‘patriarchy’ and the ‘fight for gender equality’. The intention will be to get the new site on to the front page of Google for search terms such as ‘history of feminism’ and ‘feminist history’. It is important that feminists, and would be feminists, are made to confront the reality that there is now an alternative history of how things came to be…
If you would like to submit any articles please either copy and paste them as a comment below, or e-mail them to schopenbecq (at) yahoo (dot) co.uk
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
George Orwell – 1984
A Tale of Three Reddit Posts – You can blow them up, but you can’t bugger ‘em :
POST 1 : Women are for children, boys are for pleasure Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 186
A story detailing how 15 year old boys commonly dance for money in front of much older Afghani men, and are often taken to hotels for sex afterwards.
POST 2 : Taliban’s Army of Child Soldiers Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 8
A story detailing how the Taliban forces Afghani boys as young as 5 to plant bombs and to serve as cannon fodder in their Army.
POST 3 : Pakistan’s Boy Soldiers Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 6
A story detailing how 250,000 soldiers (boys) under the age of 18 are thought to be fighting in conflicts around the world.
First of all, this article isn’t about defending 15 year old boys having sex with Afghani men in a context where there is clearly massive scope for co-ercion. Whether or not this is anything but reprehensible is beside the point for the purposes of this piece. The point I wish to make is that it seems to me to be quite perverse that such sexual stories on Reddit routinely get massively more discussed and upvoted than do posts detailing Afghani men forcing children to do things that are clearly more harmful to those children – such as forcing them to risk probable death or injury in adult wars.
In fact the lackluster handful of comments on Reddit to my two posts on boy soldiers almost all contained references to the Afghani dancing boys. The typical response was ‘what do you expect when men are allowed to fuck them?’. In other words, why should I be worried about 5 year old boys being made to fight and die in war when 15 year old boys are earning their supper by dancing for leery, sex starved Muslim men?
I’ve spoken about this subject previously here – the danger of the men’s rights movement becoming nothing more than a mirror to the perverted priorities of feminism. A mirror that serves to reflect and to validate sets of feminist values that have achieved prominence in society only because they serve the aging, selfish sexual needs of those unattractive, middle-aged feminists themselves.
I haven’t got time to write at length on this today. It should be enough to state the following : A world which sees sex as something far more ethically important and dangerous than being maimed and killed in battle is a world which derives its values from the needs of women and not from the needs of men and boys.
Human-Stupidity on the need for a new ‘baby-making’ sexual morality :
Change Sex Laws into “Baby Making Laws”: A new moral code
As a sexually liberated person, I once checked out all sexual morality laws
Morality Sex Law
New Offspring Law
No sex with young girls Don’t make babies with young girls. Though shalt not covet your neigbor’s wife: No sex with your neighbor’s wife Don’t make babies with your neighbor’s wife No sex before marriage Don’t make babies if you are not married
(except if it is planned, you are rich, or have someone to responsibly take care of the baby
Marry a virgin Don’t marry a women if she already imight be pregnant, is (secretly?) pregnant or has a baby and wants to make you responsible for it.
(unless you consciously want to adopt the baby)
Simply changing the word “sex” into “baby making” makes all these moral laws very palatable. When the moral codes, holy books were written, sex and baby making was all the same. Now we have choices. We can separate sex from baby making. It is time to update our moral codes to adapt them to the new reality.
(we might also write “condoms” into the new moral code, to prevent diseases. So a man is unfaithful if he has sex without a condom)
I repeat: all restrictive sex laws made sense in ancient biblical times. A man really wanted to be sure he would devote his life to offspring that was his. And these sex laws were the only way to assure paternity.
Read full article at Human Stupidity : Open Marriage is a solution