Steve Moxon Dropped by UKIP Over Anders Brevik Comments

Featured

Posted on May 4, 2012 by theantifeminist

Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views. UKIP – an ‘alternative right’ anti-EU party – gained 14% of the vote nationally in yesterday’s vote.

The very reason – the ‘justification’ for – why Breivik behaved in the appalling way in which he did was because of the completely closed-down debate about PC. That is abundantly clear from his ‘manifesto’. To head off the possibility of more Breiviks, this has to change.
The ‘guilt by association’ usual ruse was in full swing to close down debate yet further.
The standard line on Breivik is that he is ‘beyond the pale’, and therefore any analysis of PC is also ‘beyond the pale’.
It most certainly is not.
That someone who acknowledges the researched historical analysis of the origin of PC is a mass murderer in no way makes the research into the origin of PC a doctrine itself of mass murder. It is never the case that if A is in some way coincidental with B, and B is ‘beyond the pale’; that, therefore, A is likewise ‘beyond the pale’. That would be the most elementary non-logic.
Malicious nonsense of ‘guilt by association’ as it is applied to analysis of PC requires combating. If there is no free speech even on the topic of the most deep-seated, entrenched and widespread fascism ever to afflict societies — which PC indeed is — then there is no free speech at all.
Concerns about ‘sensitivity’ are just smokescreens to cover a PC-fascist stance. Evidently, even the deepest irony is opaque to the PC-fascist.
‘You’re not fit to be a journalist, let alone a political editor’, I admonished the hapless Marsden. “I don’t think you’re fit to be a candidate”, he retorted.
But that is my point! A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
That PC is itself the height of immorality — seeking to label the disadvantaged as ‘oppressors’ and the privileged as the ‘oppressed’ – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131

Cameron gets tough on raunchy pop videos

Posted on April 7, 2012 by theantifeminist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9192366/Cameron-gets-tough-on-raunchy-videos.html

Explicit music videos made by stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé and Madonna would be given 18 certificates and subject to greater restrictions to protect children, under plans being looked at by David Cameron.

Underage Models Risk Creating ‘Hyper-Sexualised French Lolitas’

Posted on March 17, 2012 by theantifeminist

The Telegraph prints an article on a subject I was alerted to and posted on recently : the bid by feminists in France to ban beauty pageants, child models, and ‘adult’ clothing for children (children being defined as under 18 or 16).

The French report suggests restricting beauty pageants to girls aged over 16 or 18, banning advertisers from dressing under age models in adult attire or using them as brand figureheads. It also advocates the return of uniforms in primary schools phased out in 1968 and considered a curious British anachronism by many.

Titled ‘Against hyper-sexualisation, a new fight for equality’, the report was triggered by international outrage over a French Vogue magazine cover featuring a heavily made-up 10-year-old model.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9126568/Under-age-models-risk-creating-hyper-sexualised-French-lolitas.html

I’ve added a comment below the article – please add your own :

Whilst concerns over the sexualisation of 8 year olds might have some validity, we all know this is about feminists exploiting such concerns to artificially ‘de-sexualise’ teenage girls.

First you legally define children as anyone under 18 (when throughout history, adulthood began at puberty).

Then, when most people still associate ‘childhood’ with pre-pubescents, you create a hysteria over the ‘sexualisation of childhood’.

Finally, you legally ban 17 year olds from wearing thongs or mini-skirts as part of a legislative package supposedly to protect pre-teens, which no politician chasing the female vote (every politician in a modern democracy), the family values vote, and the muslim vote, dare challenge.

This way, 40 year old feminists (not to mention 40 year old male Islamists) don’t have to be wracked with pain everytime they walk down the street, having to pass girls at the peak of their beauty displaying their flawless skin.

This is how third wave feminism operates, increasingly in conjunction with the Islamisation of society. Feminists can’t honour kill their younger sexual rivals, but they do have the power and spurious moral authority to forcibly victimise 17 year old ‘children’.

In the same newspaper, and on a closely related Islamo-feminist slut shaming theme, a British girl has become the first white victim of honour killing by the muslim community :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9149929/Teenager-is-first-white-victim-of-honour-killing.html

Joan Bakewell on the ‘Raunch Culture’

Posted on January 6, 2012 by theantifeminist

Sex is Good!

Joan Bakwell used to be a ‘sex positive’ feminist back in the day – when she was young and mildly attractive (and earned the tag – ‘the thinking man’s crumpet’). Now a wizened old hag, she spends most of her time trying to justify becoming a fully paid up member of the sexual trade union, slut shaming British tweens at every opportunity.

So what is there to complain about? It is the availability – indeed, the marketing – of such raunchy videos to the young and impressionable that disturbs me. Something has shifted in our culture to bring sub-teens within the orbit of suggestive sexual activity. T-shirts with cheeky, even lewd slogans – jokes that only adults can understand – are designed and sold to the under-10s. Children can hunt on a multitude of television channels for something that looks vaguely adult and vaguely transgressive. Can it be good for them? I for one would not be prepared to take the risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8998434/Sex-in-society-too-much-raunch-too-young.html

Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with arguing that under 10′s are exposed to too much sexual imagery. The problem with the ‘sexualisation of children’ debate is twofold. Firstly, the way feminists ignore the distinction between the sexualisation of pre-pubescent children and the ‘de-sexualisation’ of post-pubescent teenagers (which is what most feminists are really after). Secondly, the infringement of liberties and sexual freedoms that any measures to end the supposed sexualisation of children inevitably entail.

Sex is Bad!

But what occurred to me whilst thinking about this today is that there seems to be something amiss here with the very notion that ‘children’ can be sexualised at all. At least, it appears to me, that it is inconsistent with the idea of ‘informed consent’ that lies behind feminist statutory rape laws. The reason why feminists hold that 15 or even 17 year old girls are unable to consent to sex is that they do not know what they are doing when they get into bed, at least with an older partner. They do not understand what sex is – they do not have ‘informed consent’, this mysterious thing that a 15 or a 17 year old girl doesn’t have, but an 18 year old or a 21 year old does. This thing that is so mysterious and esoteric, that it could not possibly be written down and taught to an underage child, in order to give them the capability of informed consent. And even if it could, presumably a child’s brain is either so innocent or immature, that they simply couldn’t understand this knowledge.

Yet the viewing of a raunchy MTV video can somehow turn an innocent child into a sexually experienced whore. A 10 year old girl who sees Lady Gaga opening her legs on screen will suddenly turn into an 18 year old slut walker, eight years too early. According to Joan Bakewell, a pre-teen who overhears a comedian telling a sexy joke will have her sexual innocence corrupted.

But doesn’t a child’s supposed lack of ‘informed consent’ regarding sexual matters mean that she simply can’t understand what the joke is about, or why it is that all the men are looking at Lady Gaga when she opens her legs or wears a skimpy outfit? If that’s the case, why the fuss over the ‘sexualisation of children’? If the feminist theory of ‘informed consent’ is correct, a ‘sexualised child’ is a contradiction. If little girls are dancing ‘sexily’ in their bedrooms across the land after watching Lady Gaga, they are merely imitating their favourite pop star like parrotts. But they don’t and can’t understand what they are doing, or what Lady Gaga is doing, because they are incapable of sexual knowledge. So what exactly are feminists worried about?

Sexual Trade Union Protests Against Miss World 2011

Posted on November 16, 2011 by theantifeminist

The British sexual trade union, led again by Kat Banyard and her UK Feminista group, have been holding protests against the latest Miss World contest in London. For more information, read the excellent Human-Stupidity article at InMalaFide (warning – article does contain graphic images of the protestors).

Some feminists do appear to mellow with age, and learn to accept their departure from the free sexual market : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15692592

But it’s also the case that, since those bad old days, television and other mass media have committed crimes far worse than even the “un-reformed” Miss World ceremony did. This year’s competition included a couple of 17-year-olds, the Anna Karenina fan from Bosnia Herzegovina, and Miss El Salvador. Otherwise, just like they’ve been in all 60 years of the competition, they were a collection of young adults, up to (in the case of Miss People’s Republic of China) the age of 25.

This isn’t, in other words, the licensed child abuse (or that’s what it looks like to me, at any rate) that we watch on Britain’s Got Talent, where there is no age limit at all – you could enter your toddler if you wanted to – and where to see a prematurely-sexualised 11-year-old reduced to tears, or a vulnerable middle-aged lady driven to despair, seems to have become part of the pleasure of the show. A hundred, apparently robust, grown-ups in bikinis don’t seem quite as offensive as that.

It does appear that, at a street level, the demographic of sexual trade union politics is becoming younger, although still as hideous. Of course, street protests are nearly always the preserve of the young, but I wonder if it could also be because the unattractive young female, these days, is starting to feel the displacements caused by the free sexual market even more strongly than their older sisters?

Young women have now been brought up to feel they have a right to have a hundred male partners by the age of 21. When it doesn’t happen for these ugly ‘feministas’ then they are even more likely to want to lash out than their aging, and even uglier, older feminist brethren. Perhaps Kat Banyard is a symptom of this?

Here’s the youngest contestant in this years Miss World – the delightful 16 year old Miss Bosnia. And no, I’m not showing you a picture of Kat Banyard. Too early in the morning.

Schools Across UK Banning Girls from Wearing Skirts

Posted on October 17, 2011 by theantifeminist

Headteachers across the country are banning girls from wearing skirts in school for fear that their ever-shorter hemlines put them at risk of attack.

Parents in the Kent town of Herne Bay are the latest to receive a letter from a local secondary school warning that, because of “serious safeguarding issues”, pupils will be forced to wear trousers if they continue to wear skirts more than 10cm above their knees.

The school is following the lead of a number of others across England, from Cheshire to Suffolk, that have imposed – or threatened – a ban on skirts this year, with most citing “health and safety” or “safeguarding”.

In her letter, Claire Owen, the principal at Herne Bay High School, said she feared some pupils were “putting themselves at risk” and that unless skirts became longer she would institute a ban. Speaking later on a local radio station, Dr Owen added that she thought the girls were unaware that the way they were dressing could “give out the wrong message”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-to-ban-skirts-if-pupils-dont-lower-their-hems-2371359.html

So when one Canadian police officer voices his opinion that young women shouldn’t dress as sluts if they want to avoid making themselves targets of assault, the entire femiverse erupts and whordes of pug ugly obese twenty something women hold mass protests whilst wearing ‘slutty’ clothing.

An ugly older women, however, and one of an increasing number of older women, doesn’t just stop at voicing her opinion, but actually PREVENTS beautiful teenage girls from dressing sexily, under exactly the same pretext as the Canadian police officer, and it seems feminists don’t really have an opinion.

The attempt to sexually infantalize completely 15 year old girls in an age when girls are starting puberty as young as nine, in a world where hardcore porn is a firing of a neuron away, will always be doomed to fail – unless we really do go down the road of Sharia Law style rules and punishments for under 18 females. Last week I passed by a couple of schoolgirls in uniform – one was wearing a ridiculously short skirt, the other was actually wearing ‘trousers’ that resembled more skin tight leggings, but were presumably just enough to fit in with her school uniform regulations. I couldn’t decide which one was dressed the more sluttily. If you ban skirts, most girls will simply dress like her.

Of course, there is one valid reason why schoolgirls might be told to dress more conservatively – and that is because it distracts the boys in their class, not to mention their male (and lesbian) teachers. This isn’t an argument I, personally, want to pursue however, despite dropping a grade in my GCSE History because of a mini-skirted 16 year old doll sitting alongside me in the school hall when I took my exam. No, it’s too Islamic for me. Sometimes I do think that men would be better off without the distractions of female flesh all around them. Better able to concentrate on creating art, poetry, mathematical laws etc., that sort of thing. But that’s hardly how it’s panned out in the Muslim world is it? In fact, as I’ve recorded here, much of art, and indeed perhaps most great contributions to civilisation, were made by highly sexed men, who usually didn’t marry, and who were most often (probably) ephebophiles.

It’s probably more of an issue that if a schoolboy takes a photo of the (female) classmate sitting alongside him wearing a mini-skirt barely covering her nubile ass, that he will potentially face child porn ‘sexting’ charges.

Feminists and Femiservatives Ban Raunchy Ads in the UK

Posted on October 9, 2011 by theantifeminist

The femi-islamification of the UK proceeded apace this week with the news that ‘indecent’ advertising billboards will be outlawed everywhere. Indecent in the UK now apparently means any image of a female in a sexually suggestive pose. Advertisers can still dare to risk fines or imprisonment by showing women in bikinis, but if she is in an ‘indecent’ pose – for example with her hands on her hips – then the the advert will be deemed illegal and a threat to the sexual innocence of children.

The move comes ahead of a Downing Street summit this week between David Cameron and companies involved in leading the Coalition’s campaign to combat the sexualisation of children.

Banning raunchy billboard adverts near schools was one of a number of recommendations made in May this year following a Government-commissioned review by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers’ Union.

While billboards will be allowed to carry posters of models wearing bikinis, they will not be allowed to show them in poses that are deemed to be sexually suggestive, the ASA guideliens rule.

This will cover everything from images of stockings and suspenders to poses where the legs are parted or even hands are placed on hips.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/8815242/Raunchy-adverts-slapped-down.html

Reg Bailey is the head of the fundamentalist Christian/femiservative group ‘the mother’s union’. The UK is supposed to be a secular society, with less than 3% of the population attending church regularly. The present coalition government includes ‘the liberal democrats’, which to a naive person, should have something to do with pursuing policies that are liberal and democratic – rather than imposing religious edicts that a Saudi Arabian mullah would approve of.

The original report into the sexualisation of children was written by Linda Papadopoulos, an American pop psychologist and feminist now living in the UK, and somebody who loves to attend children’s charity galas in incredibly revealing and sexualised outfits.

Of course, the logical next step is to control what children wear. Dressing up billboard models with burqas instead of bikinis won’t, in itself, have much impact on the vast numbers of barely pubescent girls walking around in semi-transparent spandex leggings and g-string in every town and city in the UK (and giving conservative middle-aged men uncomfortable erections). Not when every other 20 year old woman in the UK is wearing the same and the younger girls are noticing all the male attention that such clothes attract.

In fact, the ‘review on the sexualisation of children’ has already made a recommendation that fashion brands stop making children’s clothes with ‘inappropriate’ materials. Unfortunately, as far as feminists/femiservatives are concerned, this won’t be enough to stop 15, 16 and 17 year old ‘children’ displaying their perfectly near naked and fertile rumps to every man who passes them – unless you actually ban the selling of such clothes to anyone under 18, ID checks and all – which is probably where we’re heading. In the Islamic world, it is only when girls begin puberty (i.e at 12 or 13, when they cease to be children in the land of non-feminist reality and start to become attractive to men) that they are required to cover themselves up. In the Western feminist world, we will soon have a sort of curious ‘reverse’, at least for a while. Only ‘children’ will be required to cover themselves up – under the pretence that it is to save ‘children’ from being ‘sexualised’. Of course, what feminists and femiservatives are really trying to do is to stop and disempower the the most fertile and desirable group of females – teenage girls – from attracting male attention and driving their own aged haggard selves crazy with sexual envy and fury.

Meanwhile, as children’s innocence is protected by the billboard burqa police, probably every other teenage ‘child’ in the land is watching videos of mexican drug gangs beheading rivals with chainsaws and the like. And reading, with a curious erection, of the latest dirty pedo to be disemboweled in prison – wot, no video?

On a lighter note…there are a number of videos on YouTube where sexy young women have attached spy cams to parts of their body to show what disgusting dogs men are, through secretly capturing every glance at their see-through spandex clad butt. Well here’s a video where the tables are turned. A muscular, fit young man attaches cams to every part of HIS body, and then goes out and meets women. What do you think these non-objectifying women are going to be staring at?

No Porn or Prostitution in Sharia Law UK

Posted on July 30, 2011 by theantifeminist

Sharia law zones appearing in the UK :

A religious scandal is unfolding in Britain after dozens of posters appeared in London and other cities, declaring some areas as “Sharia law zones”. Imam Anjem Choudari, notorious for his extremist and radical remarks, has claimed responsibility for the Sharia law zone campaign.

As Europe recovers from the shocking bloodbath staged by anti-Islamist Anders Breivik, UK-based Islamists have seized the opportunity to score political points. Bright yellow posters on buses, lamp posts and the walls of houses warned pedestrians and drivers that they were entering a Sharia controlled area. Distributed by activists of the Muslims against Crusades group, the posters carried an inscription “Islamic rules enforced” along with the no alcohol, no drugs or smoking, no porn or prostitution, no music concerts and no gambling pictograms.

Some fear the Sharia poster campaign that Imam Choudari says aims at planting the seeds of an Islamic Emirate may kindle anti-Islamic sentiments in British society. Russian analyst Anton Chernov shares his view:

“I don’t think that this is an attempt to set anyone against anyone. Such campaigns are actually a demonstration of force. The Muslims thus want to show that there are quite a lot of them in Foggy Albion. A similar peaceful demonstration demanding a tougher immigration policy and anti-Islamic restrictions seems to be a likely response.”

Anti-Feminist Theory of Feminism, Male Sexuality, Men's Rights

Resisting the Rape of the Male – Feminism as a sexual trade union

Category Archives: Feminism and Islam