Swiss Defiance

The world’s first public anti-feminist gathering recently took place in Switzerland, and the organization behind it – ‘Interessengemeinshaft Antifeminismus (IGAF)’ – have their own highly professional looking website.  Resistance to feminism in Switzerland has moved beyond blogging and stepped into the real world.  That’s something that should both hearten and shame the rest of us.

Kristian Schroeder
Kristina Schroeder

The homepage features a photo of German Family Minister Kristina Schröder (who recently caused fury in her country by criticising the pronouncements of a Femi-Nazi), with the following words underneath it (translation) :

Oh yes – She too is an anti-feminist – so good looking is an anti-feminist woman!  No wonder the feminists don’t like her!”

The IGAF now has my official seal of approval.  Please all men’s rights bloggers link to their homepage. 

Meanwhile, the anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party has sparked outrage amongst pc heads by displaying posters featuring naked young women bathing in Lake Geneva – contrasting them with images of fat, middle-aged, Muslim women wearing headscarves and bathing in dirtier waters 20 years into the future : http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/Around_the_World/2010-11-17/15244/Partys_Racist_Cheek_

A Swiss political party has sparked outrage over anti-immigration posters showing naked beauties romping in Lake Zurich compared to a snap of middle-aged Muslim women bathing in filthy water.

One snap shows a rear view of four stunning white women hand in hand on the edge of the lake, marked Lake Zurich 2010.

The second picture is supposed to the the same scene in 2030 showing what will happen to the country if immigration is left unchecked.

A group of overweight, headscarf-wearing women bath fully clothed while puffing on cigarettes in black, dirty water.

Leaders of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party have refused to apologise for the stunt or withdraw the poster.

Spokesman Jean-Pierre Gallati said: “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Voters can decide. I think those who criticise it do not know what they are talking about.”

 

Angry Harry on Rape Accused Anonymity U-Turn

I don’t have much that I can add to Angry Harry‘s piece, so I’ll quote it in full :

No Anonymity For Accused Men The Government today abandoned its controversial pledge to give anonymity to men accused of rape after a public backlash.

No, there was no ‘public’ backlash against this proposal.

The ‘backlash’ basically came from foaming women’s groups and lying senior police officers wanting to have the power to threaten and to hurt men.

So, let me put this bluntly.

Amongst others, our politicians and our police officers are quite prepared for the lives of completely innocent men to be messed up quite severely, supposedly so that they can better protect other women; though, quite frankly, how other women are being protected by the publicising of false accusations against innocent men defeats me.

But the important point to understand here is this.

These people are quite prepared to mess up your life, or that of your brother, your father, your son etc etc by, essentially, endorsing the publication of truly wicked lies about them.

As such, you should have absolutely no concern about doing the same to them; in order to attempt to protect yourself and those whom you care about.

In other words, you need to feel no guilt about attacking these people nor, indeed, about spreading lies about them.

These people need to learn that if they promote or implement policies designed to hurt innocent others, then it is even more legitimate to hurt them back in order to protect yourself and those whom you care about.

After all, they are not innocent.

See also the False Rape Society

 

Spiked Online on the Anti-Trafficking Industry

Another terrific anti-trafficking hysteria article from Spiked Online (please make sure you bookmark that site, and make a donation to support it, if you can).

Incidentally, to those who seek to explain feminism, and its silence over Islam, purely in terms of cultural Marxism, rather than as primarily a sexual trade union for Western women, how do you explain the fact that Western feminists are only too happy to interfere in the local affairs of Third World peoples with dark skin, when it comes to stopping prostitution and other sexual activities that are against their own (Western women’s) interests?

How NGO’s are adopting a missionary position in Asia (extract below)

We all know that there is a big sex industry in south-east Asia. In fact, it often seems that sex is the only thing we hear about in reports from this part of the world as the media peddles salacious stories about ‘sex tourism’, ‘ladyboys’, virgins for sale and girls tricked into prostitution. But in recent years another kind of trade has boomed there: the anti-trafficking industry. And local sex worker rights activists tell me that this industry is a far bigger problem for them than punters looking for sex or company.

Today, there are hundreds of non-governmental organisations in Cambodia alone working to ‘rescue and rehabilitate’ sex workers. Local sex-worker representatives even claim that there are more anti-trafficking activists than there are genuine trafficking victims….

….For Andrew, saying that women are unwitting victims – even if they vehemently deny it – is tantamount to denying ‘the idea that women have agency’. (Ironically, the anti-trafficking industry is to a large extent made up of self-described feminists. But feminists have traditionally fought for women to be regarded as autonomous, free-thinking individuals, not as clueless victims.)

The Future Cometh (and feminists can’t stop it)

Feminists can’t stop the future, and the way that technology will leave the sexual trade union irrelevant.

Your children will live to see men merge with machines

By the 2020s, middle-aged people in rich countries might see farther, run faster and look better than they did as youngsters. But they will still not be as eagle-eyed, swift, and beautiful as the next generation.

Genetic testing already offers parents the option of aborting foetuses predisposed to undesirable shortcomings, and as we get better at switching specific genes on and off, ‘designer babies’ may become an option. Why take a chance on Nature’s lottery when a little tinkering can give you the baby you want?

Because, some say, eugenics – whether driven by racist maniacs such as Hitler or by consumer choice – is wrong. All this talk of transcending biology is merely playing God. To that, Craig Venter (who this year justified his nickname Dr Frankencell by synthesizing JCVI-syn1.0, the world’s first artificial life) reportedly replies: ‘We’re not playing.’

Politicians can ban stem cell research, but outlawing therapeutic cloning, beauty for all (who can pay), and longer life spans does not sound workable. And banning the battlefield applications of tinkering with Nature is even less plausible.

The Electrical Zap that Makes You Better at Maths

Pulsing an electrical current through your brain can boost your ability to do sums for up to six months, scientists have discovered.

Holographic TV Coming in 2017

Previously, the only thing (okay, one of the only things) that was stopping us from sending Princess Leia-type messages across the universe in an R2D2 was the fact that we couldn’t make holograms with refresh rates quick enough to convey movement. Well, that’s changed–a research team at the University of Arizona has developed a system that can render an image in near real-time and update the image every two seconds, which is pretty darn close to real-time (well…considering).

Porn Turning Malaysian Teens into Sex Addicts

Access to pornographic material became a grave concern after reports of teens confessing that they became addicted to sex after watching porn.

“Let’s be realistic, the sex industry is one of the oldest in the world, and the Internet has only made it more accessible,” the Star online quoted Chris Sekar of Gleneagles Intan Medical Centre as telling the Sunday Star.

Combined with the changing values of youth towards sex, it has become vital to teach sex education as early as possible, he said

It’s easy to forget that the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon. Around 15 years old in terms of widespread useage, it’s still impossible to predict what long term social effects it will ultimately produce.

As this blog has argued, the Internet, alongside other forms of globalisation, has been responsible for the backlash that is the astonishing 3rd wave of the sexual trade union – the sudden near domination of both government and social policy by women and/or catering for women’s needs.  The Internet, thus far, has resulted in wildly contradictory effects.  It has produced a kind of anti-sex puritanism, given shape by paedohysteria and panics over sex trafficking, that would have left even the Victorians a little perplexed at the savage irrationality of it all.  At the same time society, and young people in particular, are becoming ever more sexually open and, in a (non-judgemental) word – sluttier.  Every other girl I walked past today was wearing lycra pants.  The material is so thin and revealing that they may as well have not worn anything – simply just painted their legs and bottoms black.

Will this contradiction last?  Will it, can it, get any more extreme?

My schoolfriends were a pretty rebellious lot, and would sometimes steal a softporn jazz mag from a newsagents, but unless your father or older brother had a porn collection casually lying about, there was no way a young teenager could ever form a regular porn habit.  Now, kids as young as 10 have perhaps seen more pussy than the majority of adults, and probably more than 99% of the men who ever walked the earth before them.

Of course, teenagers, both male and female, are indoctrinated with paedohysteria and the other puritanical elements of sexual trade union teaching.  So, as 13 year olds casually watch anal sex videos, or 15 year olds engage in masturbation with each other through their webcams, they will gleefully call for ‘dirty old men’ – any male over the age of 25 – to be tortured to death for showing any sign of sexuality towards anyone under that age.

This is as true of teenage boys as it is of girls, perhaps much more so.  But of course, in the former case, it is not just indoctrination and spite, but because paedohysteria has given boys an opportunity to drive away older male rivals.  But what happens when those boys, accustomed to the casual acceptance of sex and porn since puberty, become older males themselves?  It will still be another 10 or 20 years before the first generation who have grown up with the internet start to influence society themselves.  When they have spent their entire lives looking at perfect teenage bodies, it is difficult to imagine that they will so readily accept the puritanical edicts of the sexual trade union as the men of this generation has.  Certainly not when they will be able to enjoy having high-definition holographic teens stripping off in their bedrooms at the age of 40. Will they really allow middle-aged women to stop them?

And perhaps, we can hope, that when 40 year old women can look as good as teenage girls, or else adopt holographic virtual 17 year old selves in order to retain their appeal to those men, they won’t really want to stop them.

Natasha Walter ‘Living Dolls’ – The Banned Review

The following is my Amazon review of ‘Living Dolls’ by Natasha Walter that was removed at the request of one feminist (several weeks ago a comment was left underneath my review from a feminist who stated that it was ‘offensive’ and asked for Amazon to remove it).

In the book, Natasha Walter claims that society (i.e. men)  is sexualising and objectifying girls and young women. Her book has already influenced public policy in the United Kingdom, with the previous government using it to justify teaching 5 year old girls in school the dangers of male sexuality and male objectification. This is the same Natasha Walter who wrote a glowing book review defending Germaine Greer’s ‘Beautiful Boy’ – a book that calls for women to fight for the right to objectify and sexualise boys – or in Greer’s own words : “to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys“.  I haven’t looked at Germaine Greer’s book, but I’ve been told that it is full of naked and erotic photographs of boys who appear to be under 18.  If this is true, it should clearly be categorised as level 1 child pornography according to British (feminist made) law.

You just couldn’t make it up. You see why I’m thinking of quitting?

Feminism is the history of unattractive, aging women, forever trying to play catch up in their attempts at closing the free sexual market as new technology continues to widen it.

Thus the first wave of feminism began as men and women moved from the countryside into the cities, and men suddenly came into contact with more young females than previously they had in a lifetime. Young girls were no longer married off at the height of fertility but were sent to work in the new factories – in itself increasing the ‘availibility’ of young flesh to any tempted husband. Simultaneously, prostitutes flocked to the new metropolises to take advantage of the growing spending power of the working man. The first feminists called not for the vote, but for the raising of the age of consent and for restrictions against prostitutes. Feminism has always been primarily a sexual trade union for women past their peak fertility.

The second wave of feminism began immediately once the contraceptive pill became available, which instead of ‘liberating’ women, simply freed up the sexual market – something that the second wave and the rush into employment and education was a ‘necessary’ response to. In a single generation, 10,000 years of ‘patriarchy’ was undone. Similarly, the internet and globalisation again threatened to leave ordinary women sexually irrelevant. In the space of 10 years, women have gone from having virtually zero representation in high office, to near dominating the political and social agendas of every Western democracy. In their wake, moral hysterias over ‘sex trafficking’ and ‘paedophilia’ have appeared, the likes of which the civilised west has not seen since the witch burnings of the late middle-ages.

Such is the setting for Living Dolls, one feminist’s irrationalist and subconcious realisation that feminism was never about ‘equal rights’ with men, but simply preserving the sexual and reproductive interests of unattractive women. Enjoy as fake intellectual Soma if you’re a similarly sexually threatened unattractive woman. The rest of us, genuine seekers after truth and justice, can try to read it as a historical document of the last desperate gasps of the sexual trade union.

Meanwhile, to anyone genuinely concerned about the welfare of children and the rights of young people, I would suggest you perhaps read something detailing the way that promiscuous and sexually aware young women are treated in Islamic countries, things that are clearly of no interest to western feminists.

If you think that it is unfair of Amazon to remove the above review, you could perhaps show support by re-posting it under your own Amazon account.

Banned Banned Banned

Banned from YouTube (actually ‘Terminated‘!), banned from Reddit (yes, Reddit ‘Men’s Rights’! – for upsetting a diaper fetishist mangina), and banned from Amazon (or at least my review of ‘Living Dolls’ removed at the behest of a feminist).

Banned, Banned, Banned.  Feminists 3 Schopenbecq 0

I’m having one of my ‘should I throw in the towel’ reflections currently.  Even poor old JayHammers has evidently had enough.  One less courageous voice against the sexual trade union.   

Three cheering events this past week might persuade me to hang in for a little while longer.

First International Anti-Feminist Meeting Held in Zurich, Switzerland

Andersson described it as a “very special” and “historic moment”.

“The major goal is not to come to conclusions about anything but mostly to meet like-minded people. As you have seen, there are forces trying to stop us from having this meeting,” Andersson told swissinfo.ch.

News of the meeting was reported in the press and led to a demonstration by 50 feminist activists in Zurich and graffiti was sprayed on a community hall in Uitikon, canton Zurich, where the meeting was planned. Leaflets have also been handed out for a rally to coincide with the event.

You know, I’m not particularly fond of Islam, but when the inevitable happens, and muslims in Europe start demonstrating and heckling feminist gatherings, I promise to convert.

No, I’m just too liberal to do that.  That’s why I despise feminists for being the freedom hating fascists that they are.

A couple of the following points did concern me a little :

In a written statement prepared for Saturday’s meeting, Andersson has drawn up five key beliefs of antifeminists: “opposing the feminist hatred of men, valuing the nuclear family, believing in the child’s rights to both its parents after a divorce or a separation, looking at the individual and not judging people by their gender, and accepting that men and women are different and counting that as assets”.

Is valuing the nuclear family really a core anti-feminist or men’s rights belief?  Well if taken in the sense that children (particularly boys) need a male parent as well as a female, then yes, although being pro-family per se, I don’t think it is.  No group has the right to impose its own particular political viewpoint upon the anti-feminist movement.  Also, the point regarding ‘men and women are different and valuing that as an asset’.  That men and women are different is a truism that only feminist dreamers deny, but ‘valuing it as an asset’ sounds suspiciously like a defence of ‘patriarchy’ and traditional male/female roles, something which not all MRA’s accept (given that patriarchy was a myth and women have always had some form of power, if not always the overt political kind).  I also tend to think that the fundamental differences between men and women are part of the inherent wheel of suffering that is life, not something to celebrate, but admittedly not something you can really make a political stance of opposing, unless through championing a form of trans-humanism.

But all in all, men finally coming together in public to oppose the lies of feminism is something to cheer loudly.

Another good piece of news is that men’s rights is to feature regularly on a British radio station.  Namely, transcripts of the ground breaking Man Woman Myth series of videos.

Thirdly, the great Ferdinand Bardamu spoke out against the pedohysteric witch hunt of an American politician who merely stated the following obvious truth :

The greatest love interest in the history of romance is at least arguably Juliet from Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 13 years old. For some reason females become fertile in their early teens and peak before the age of 18,” Redlich wrote. “You would think those who believe in the theory of evolution would see this as the design of the species.”

Ferdinand also quoted from my coverage of the similarly insane Glee/GQ ‘paedophilia’ scandal.  Perhaps I should hang around for a little while longer.

Convicted Prisoners to Get Vote

A new EU ruling announced today means that convicted prisoners in the UK will get the vote.

Is this good news for anti-feminism?  The vast majority of prisoners are male, increasingly put away by laws (particularly sex laws) created by feminist politicians and lobbied for by non-governmental organizations dominated by women.

Not allowing prisoners the right to vote could potentially allow women to create for themselves a clear electoral majority.  And of course, it should be obvious to any sane person that there is something deeply suspect in not allowing people to vote against a law or a government that has taken away their liberty.

Thousands of convicted UK prisoners are to get the right to vote after the European Court of Human Rights ruled the present ban was unlawful.

The government has exhausted all legal avenues fighting the decision made in 2005 and an announcement is expected later this week, sources told the BBC.

Lawyers have said a failure to comply could cost hundreds of millions of pounds in legal costs and compensation.