Aging femiservative explains what’s in all of this Savile child abuse hysteria for the hags – effectively putting the 60′s sexual revolution on trial and a call for a return to sexual puritanism. I’ve read about 20 similar commentary pieces by similarly aging hags, all saying almost identical things. This one was chosen just as an example :
Thursday October 11,2012
By Virginia Blackburn
SO NOW we know: Jimmy Savile was an absolutely disgusting pervert who was allowed to run riot because the BBC thought it was more important to safeguard the reputation of one of their own than to protect children.
But why has no one pointed out the decade in which his wicked behaviour began? It was the Sixties, the much-lauded time of the “sexual revolution”, which quite frankly has turned out to be an absolute disaster for women.
Today’s lonely singleton ladies and commitment-phobe men date back directly to that decade, as do ladette behaviour, the massive rise in fatherless families and the notion that there can be sex without consequences. There can’t and there isn’t and if we had any sense we’d turn back the clock right now.
Predators such as Savile have always existed but the fact is that it was much easier for him and a host of others to exist in an era in which girls were expected to sleep with anyone and everyone because they were told sex was as natural and no more special than having lunch every day.
The resounding silence of othe DJs of that era speaks volumes. Girls were “dolly birds” and what’s the harm of a bit of fun between consenting adults?
The fact that the girls involved weren’t adults is something no one seems to have been that bothered about but the same applies to women over the age of consent too.
When sex was something men had to fight for – and it very much wasn’t taken for granted as it is today – women were to some extent protected because sex was considered special and not given lightly.
The author Martin Amis, himself a renowned ladies’ man, said recently that the sexual revolution benefited men, not women, and he is absolutely right.
No one wants to go back to an era of puritan-like repression but we’ve created a society where no doesn’t mean no because, hey, everyone’s at it these days.
And frankly, it stinks.
perhaps a tad off topic, but that’s all nothing.
The Catholic Church is getting in on the action as well and is blaming the sexual revolution for the child abuse scandals among its own ranks…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18bishops.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It has sure taken some spin doctoring to undo and reverse the sexual revolution, but certain forces, femihags on the one hand and old-school moral conservatives on the other hand, have really been putting their minds to it. And both of them have been pretty successful the last couple of years. The difference being that old feminists simply miss the days sorely when they themselves were nubile, while for the pedophilic priesthood (in the sense that they ACTUALLY F*CKED AND MOLESTED prepubescent little boys and girls!), it’s a chance to shift blame. But what they have both succeeded in, is to frame the sexual revolution as the root of all evil, and the reversing of it as the decent progressive humanist thing to do.
And like the saying goes – if you throw enough dirt, something will stick. Sexual liberty can’t win. You have too many repressed moral conservatives and barren femihags making very sure of that.
Honestly, get the women out of the workplace, it’s the only way lads. They are competition now, thinking of them as anything but that and we have lost; they are using these story’s as a cover to smear men so men should not have money or be trusted to have a job. And it’s not because of any moral crusade on their part, but they are sneakily and bitchily removing competition from the workplace so they can have all the money to themselves. They are removing competition from the workplace and the lives of family so they are in a dominant monopolistic position in charge and with all the cash and the job.
If they are not removed from the workplace, being stay at home being happy mommy’s or kept women then expect the smearing engine to turn up notch after notch and they will get away with it every time with a ‘get men’ mentality to be the dominant UK workforce with all the cash. All men that have worked like Saville and Starr and any man else is now fair game so they can monopolise industries. See them as competition to remove them out of work, take the cash for yourselves, keep them kept at home raising the children or simply blowing joint credit card’s but just keep them out of employment or face more of this smearing blitz. It will get worse or you can take action to eliminate competition.
Ambition has made the bitch’s like this. A shame, they used to stand for something with their suffrage but have become worse than men, the figures of their hate because they have become too ambitious and taken advantage of the legal system to convict as guilty as charged on presumption alone, an abuse of power. Abuse of power is justification enough to remove a source of competition. Give them no trust in a position of authority, they have broken down all trust by creating their smear machine. Get the women out of the workplace or face more of all of this on an even greater scale. You are warned but warnings are nothing unless action follows them. It doesn’t have to be harsh, I can’t see anything harsh about being a kept woman indeed it may even be quite nice. But something has to be done.
This is a war, see them only as competition now, the feminists. Seen as anything else and you are already dead in the workplace, you just don’t know it yet. Get rid of the competition or it’s all over for man in the workplace, no kidding around, that’s your choice now and please don’t see it as anything else, I’m trying to help you with warnings about what they are really up to. Knowing about it may help to compromise or even get rid of the problem at the source, by having man seize the workforce back and dominating it as birthright, and the gossiping cows can do less harm. It’s that simple.
Dave, married men are one big obstacle to removing women from the workplace. Married men think “my wife’s job = our money”. In fact married men are one big obstacle to fighting feminism because as long as they don’t get kicked out into alimony slavery. Every female privilege benefits their wives, ergo benefits them as married husbands. Not until men got ostracised in great numbers in the US did they change sides. As long as the numbers of divorced enslaved fathers were kept low, like they are in Europe, such men sided with “their” women because they saw anything benefiting women as benefiting them as well relative to other, unmarried men.
In Europe the losers right now are the unmarried men, who lose jobs to other men’s wives, pay increased taxes to finance other men’s families, and have to pick up the slack in the workplace for female employees who are always stirring trouble, reporting sick and filing for invalidity and sucking pension funds dry.
In the US “ex-married” men are quantitatively the big losers. Serves them right. When the going was good (“two wage-earners in the family”) they thrived. Now they’ve been kicked out. It’s only a question of time before the European hubby gets the boot too. When that happens, he’ll have deserved it.
Hey guys, this Saville business is becoming more farcical by the minute. I’ve just tuned in to the BBC’s Six O’Clock news (October 13th) and one of the alledged victims of Saville was a girl when he (allegedly) abused her. I say “was” because in the meantime the victim has had a sex change to become a man. The little girl Saville abused is now called “Steven George”. Here :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n4lcv
The part about the abused ex-little-girl is at 01:53
You can hear Steven George’s at 02:10 announcing to the World in a quavering voice how Saville “put his hand STRAIGHT UP BETWEEN MY LEGS”.
BBC = British Broadcasting Circus.
And the BBC don’t think there’s anything ‘abnormal’ or ‘perverted’ about that? No of course not – she / he isn’t a
hereticpaedophile…Yet a sexually normal man who allegedly indicated some sexual interest by groping at this ‘individual’ is such a filthy and perverted child predator, he needs to be practically exhumed, tried and punished even when he’s dead.
If a spaceship landed on this planet and watched that video and read the tabloids, they would surely ask: ‘Is that how human’s normally behave’?
And after being told it is, they would take off and find another planet to call their new home.
Total INSANITY!!
The only people whose ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘sexual conduct’ needs questioning here is not the late Jimmy Savile’s, nor even ‘Steven George’s', but the SICK and truly perverted reporters from the BBC and all other feminist-manipulated tabloid newspapers and other news media sources, reporting on this ‘case’; but even more than them: the British paedohysterical
Inquisitor’spublic’s: for even listening to or reading such total BALONEY, let alone believing it!And isn’t great how these BBC paedocrites are trying to pose as ‘enlightened’ by exposing a ‘cover-up’ that earlier BBC officials engaged in? LOL
This entire revisionism of the so-called ‘Sexual Liberation of the 60s’ is nothing but a quagmire of lies. The obvious purpose is for Socons to project their interpretion of ‘child sexual abuse’ onto a supposedly ‘liberal’ generation—as if NO previous generations actually saw teenaged marriages &c!
Key points in their counter-revolution are abortion/birth control and “child” pornography. Target the border cases. They like to use bloody images, but so can Animal Rights activists who oppose fur.
Speaking of aging, bitter femiservatives and their ‘everything a man does with a female is rape’ mindset, here’s a good story along the same lines. They’re always drumming that “No means no” mantra, well here’s a different take on it…. (Be sure to read the last paragraph of the post).