It's almost time for the most important award in the manosphere - the David Fraudtrelle Paedocrite of the Year 2014. Nominations are required now! Who do YOU think has stood out in 2014 as the world's most disgusting paedocrite? David Futrelle has won the award for an incredible 4 straight years, but each poll he recieves ever greater challenges to his crown from talented new paedocs. As Futrelle will shortly be standing trial on incitement to murder charges, this may be his last chance to defend his title (unless he is allowed to continue his male feminist paedocrisy from a prison cell, aka Kyle Payne).
Here's the current shortlist (leave your suggestions in the comments and I'll add them) :
David Futrelle - needs no explanation. Raised the ignoble art form of Paedocrisy to entirely new and disturbing levels in 2014. Max Clifford - British publicist, often acted as a paedo finder general, now in prison for sexually assualting a 15 year old girl. Lena Dunham - claimed that men who looked at naked hacked pics of celebrities were sex offenders, then made money from an autobiography boasting how she liked to peer into the vagina of her 1 year old sister. RalMCG - Could Futrelle lose his crown to one of his own disciples? RalMCG is just one of David Futrelle's readers who appears to have learnt from his master all too well - posing as a 'transgender', the male feminist openly moderates a forum (as 'assistant executioner') dedicated to men with sick fetishes concerning the crucifying of women and girls. Futrelle himself responded to the revealing of this fact, not by condemning RalMCG, but by calling for me to be murdered. Rolf Harris - Went out of his way to make a video putting fear into children over the dangers of adults as potential perverts - now in prison for sexually assaulting children, including a 4 year old girl. Inclined Reader - Former regular commentator at this site - until we started recieving death threats from jealous femihags thousands of miles away over our publishing pictures of Yulia Lipnitskaya, the Russian Ice Skating sensation whose beauty and grace had captivated the entire world. Not so the Inclined Paedocrite, who felt it necessary to disassociate himself from our admiration of Yulia.
The daft authoritarian calls for the hapless Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, to express remorse whilst he is going through a legal process of trying to overturn his conviction is a classic catch-22. The extreme-feminist stance now dominant is not going to relent no matter what Ched Evans does, and he is right to challenge his conviction in the light of cctv evidence contradicting the court's finding that the alleged victim was seriously inebriated – not to mention the inexplicable outcome that others involved were acquitted whereas he wasn't.
Aside from the questions as to the safety of the conviction, and ignoring any complicity by the supposed victim (who had not been plied with drink by Ched or any of the defendants, and likewise got to the hotel of her own volition), the idea that this was some heinous crime is self-evidently absurd. Evans' punishment has already been far in excess of any that was warranted. There is no basis to presume (and no evidence to support) that there has been any sort of significant negative impact on the supposed victim. If she was, as the court accepted, inebriated beyond sense, then there could have been no negative impact at the time. We know that there was nothing more than at most some degree of regret afterwards, because any impact was not just tempered but completely overturned by her apparent joy at contemplating the many thousands of pounds she expects to receive in criminal injuries compensation (as revealed in her tweets). So how does this justify a five year jail sentence?! Taking into account the alleged victim's complicity, then it is hard to see how any imprisonment was justifiable.
The general tenor of the debate over the incident is the stuff of the Dark Ages, predicated on the impact of rape in times past. Pregnancy. This is no longer an issue at all. There is no possibility of any even mild inconvenience from conceiving an unwanted child, give the technology of the 'morning-after' pill, and, failing that, infallible non-intrusive early abortion.
There isn't even mild embarrassment in terms of social standing: going to a hotel for the purpose of having sex with prominent footballers is not something a girl has to live down, if indeed she might not publicise and celebrate. Of course, it may cause problems if she has a boyfriend, but that's an extraneous matter – which is brought in to create many a bogus 'acquaintance rape' scenario, when but for this there would be no retrospective withdrawal of consent
This ridiculous debacle – generically, and Ched Evans' own case – stems from the 'show trial' nature of rape in the contemporary highly politicised climate. Sex in effect has been declared by default illegal for males, who are liable in respect of any instance to be summoned before a court and required to prove they had ensured that consent had been obtained. The legal process has been inverted from what it should be: that it is up to the Crown to prove, and to prove beyond reasonable doubt, criminal wrongdoing. Most rape cases are simply one person's word against another's, with the man's word then presumed, on no basis that is warranted, not to be believable; despite there being often an all too obvious basis for false allegation, and research revealing that this is routinely for the most trivial reasons. Such cases should never get as far as the CPS, let alone court. In Ched Evans' case there was some evidence that the alleged victim may have been too drunk to consent, but this was not clear-cut, and now appears to be undermined by evidence which should have been put before the court.
This abandonment of any semblance of due legal process succeeds – as was the intent – to make the most fundamental activity in life impossibly fraught for boys and men, whilst providing carte blanch for girls and women to retrospectively withdraw consent in the event of the slightest feeling of embarrassment; this at a time when sex has never been less likely to compromise female social standing.
On the fulcrum of 'acquaintance rape', the madness of 'third wave' feminism, and the 'identity politics' of which it is core, surely is set to implode from the weight of its own absurdity; albeit that things might well get yet more absurd in the meantime. Eventually the collective penny will drop that the femascist twitterati at the very least are sixpence short of a shilling.
The nasty if comical piece of extreme-feminist man-hating obscenity that is Fiona MacTaggart, MP for Slough, last night was defeated in her absurd amendment to the 'Modern Slavery' bill in the House of Commons to criminalise men paying for sex but not the women selling it. She was strongly attacked from both sides of the House for going against all of the academic evidence and all of the groups representing prostitutes, that criminalising does nothing whatsoever to reduce the scale of prostitution, and merely pushed it underground. Moreover, it is the surest way to bring criminal elements into prostitution – just as did prohibition of alcohol … and drugs – and thereby to make prostitution less safe for both parties. In any case, the consequent driving underground would make it far more difficult for prostitute and client to pre-assess each other, thus likewise increasing the potential danger for both parties – as the many groups representing prostitutes have unanimously most vociferously repeatedly indicated.
MacTaggart indeed is a wholly evidence-free zone. She has no interest whatsoever in any evidence because her position is about nothing but out-dated mindless ideology. The only evidence she has is that asking men in Sweden if they have recently had sex with a prostitute – which recently has been made illegal in Sweden – reveals … surprise, surprise ... that men are more likely to answer 'no' than previously. You don't say! Even rice-pudding-for-brains MacTaggart should be able to spot the glaring confound in the data here!
The overwhelming evidence against is not even the principal reason why her proposal was insane. Prostitution is the exploitation not of women but of men: women extract money from men by exploiting the universal male desire for variety of sexual partner. In no other scenario where money is exchanged for a service is the payer regarded as the one exploited!
Furthermore, to criminalise one party to sex freely engaged in on both sides – never mind to criminalise the exploited rather than the exploiting party – simply on the grounds of their sex, would be the most obvious and unbelievable infringement of any sort of notion of equality. It is flagrant sex discrimination. Total sex discrimination about … having sex … now that would really be something for libertarians to sink their teeth into. It would be a cause celebre of a sort not seen since the 1960s.
The extreme-feminist position is that all sex is exploitative of women – indeed, that all male-female interaction of any kind is oppressive to the female -- and that somehow this is particularly the case when the woman is actually paid! This is how the idiotic entirely false presumption is arrived at that no woman can freely choose to engage in prostitution.
The likes of MacTaggart try to back this up through a radical misrepresentation of the typical prostitute. The notion that prostitution is a woman pimped on the street is grotesque: a minuscule proportion of prostitution is of this form. Not only are even most street prostitutes not pimped, but the whole street 'scene' has long been superseded by its indoor counterpart. The abundance of such provision is evidenced by the prices in 'parlours' (brothels) rivalling those on the street. Given that a 'parlour' is under police scrutiny to not employ drug-users and under-age girls – the sort of girls who would pose a threat to personal safety or legal sanction to men, and who are not infrequently found on the street – then it is less than pointless for men to bother with the 'street' scene at all; even before considering the risk of criminal sanction as a 'kerb-crawler'.
In any case, MacTaggart's focus on the street undermines her case in a profound additional way: the principal victim of violence in this scenario is the client [I actually made this point to her when I confronted her on BBC Newsnight several years ago in the wake of the Ipswich murders. – I had previously lived in a 'red light' area for two decades, and with the advent of drug use becoming the hallmark of the street prostitute (because uncontrolled drug use precludes being able to work in a brothel or to have the organisation to become an independent), then this violence was quire visible.] Violence is a much rarer feature of indoor prostitution, for the obvious reason that in a brothel there are other people around, and escorts and their clients are traceable through their phones.
The police, self-evidently, are completely opposed to adding to their burden the impossible task of pursuing one party to consensual sex to arrest and process them for court action; especially now that they haven't got the resources to tackle even the high priority crime of domestic burglary. It would render them literally a laughing stock.
It is a pity, actually that the risible amendment was not passed, because it would have been immensely to the entertainment of the nation to see the legal actions to overturn it.
Actually, the attempt to retreat to a position of a backstop amendment simply to promise to consider the evidence for future legislation backfired: it too was thrown out. Most MPs well know that there is no balance of evidence worthy of consideration: MacTaggart's position is unsupported by anything other than a data proof determination to proceed, to go down in history as a prize fatuous femascist freak.
Yet she is sure to try it again.
Bring it on, I say.
PUAs eager to sell bootcamps to desperate incel virgins rarely make clear to their students that in order to get the bangs, you're going to have to suffer blowouts like this - even if you're average looking or above. Check out the evil bitch at the 1:09 mark who actually apears to call him a 'circus freak' for having the audacity to approach her.
The good thing about being a PUA is that it teaches you the truth about women.
Not only regarding the unfortunate fact that women do not prefer 'nice guys', but also that the majority of women wouldn't piss on you if you were burning in the street.
PUAs may be pussy hounds, but it's almost impossible to be a persistant PUA and remain a pussy worshipper.
T-shirts worn by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman celebrating feminism are allegedly being produced by poverty stricken migrant workers paid just 62p an hour.
The women making the t-shirts, which carry the slogan "This is what a feminist looks like", are being made in factories in Mauritius where the machinists are paid just 62p an hour, according to an investigation by the Mail On Sunday.
The paper says the women sleep 16 to a room and work 45 hour weeks earning the equivalent of just £120 a month.
The t-shirts retail in the UK at £45 and cost £9 to make.
One factory worker told the Mail On Sunday: "We do not see ourselves as feminists. We see ourselves as trapped."
It comes as Harriet Harman appeared on the front bench of Prime Minister's Questions wearing the controversial shirt.
Sums up exactly how disgusting feminism is - a pure fraudulent hate movement, or rather 'rape' movement. White middle-class ugly women exploiting other women in order to demonize men and raise their own pitiful sexual market value. The only time Harriet Harman has probably ever taken an interest in the Mauritius is when supporting feminist Sexual Trade Union lobbying groups trying to ban prostitution or sex tourism there, taking away a means of escape for young women from spending their lives in shithole factories producing shitty consumer goods for privileged white women to make shitty statements with.
You're probably all aware of the viral 'hollaback' video that purports to show a moderately attractive white woman walking around ethnic areas of New York and smiling smugly as she receives cat calls and compliments from various bums and street punks, nearly all of whom are black. The video lasts for less than 2 minutes - less than 2 minutes of 'harassment' out of 10 hours walking around the most economically deprived parts of New York in figure hugging jeans and top, deliberately seeking to provoke reactions from low status males. Only one incident in the video appears to constitute genuine harassment - a soft spoken black male compliments her in the street and when she completely ignores him he allegedly walks silently by her side for two mintues. It's possible that he did so because he could see that he was being filmed as he clearly looks at the camera even in the edited 'highlight' featured in the video.
The video already has 22 million views and has been featured throughout the MSM as an example of how all men are pigs (one article actually used that title). The video was made by the feminist campaign group 'Hollaback' which seeks to make it illegal for men to speak to, catcall, or even wink or look lavaciously at a woman in the street.
Despite the video gaining over 20 million views in the space of a few days it appears that the video has attracted so many downvotes that the ratings have been disabled. Not only that, but the comments section is dominated by anti-feminists, with the top comment made by our old friend the PUA 'Squatting Casanova' :
There is a fine line between flirting and sexual harassment. And that fine line is called being attractive. HAHAHA?
One thing to note about the video is its disturbing racism. A white (possibly Jewish) New York woman walking around the most economically deprived ethnic areas seeking reactions from low status black males to paint all men as pigs and all women as victims and to justify laws that will criminalize interacting with women in the street (unless you are rich or handsome). The life outcome disparity between white women and black males in the west is the largest of any two groups - from life expectancy to the likelihood of being homeless or incarcerated.
I've been thinking about the feminist assumptions behind 'sexual harassment' for a while now, and it seems to be a straightforward Sexual Trade Union case of unattractive women victimizing attractive women and shaming/criminalizing low status males in order to raise their own sexual market value. Although there is simple resentment at the attention that more attractive women receive in terms of looks and leers, the primary motivation of feminists is not to stop cat calling per se, but to criminalize pick up artists (who they see as 'rapists' for lowering the sexual market value of women and in particular the plain or ugly feminist demographic).
Attractive girls aren't usually the ones who complain over harassment. Every PUA knows that it is the plain Janes who react to street approaches with the disgusted feelings of harassment, not the hot girls.
Feminists ignore the positive aspects of being an attractive female and ignore the negative aspects of being male (especially a beta male) :
Hot women get to passively choose between countless men.
Hot women are guarenteed the physical protection of virtually every man in their vicinity - these 'harassers' might catcall but they know they would get lynched immediately by other men if they did anything more.
Hot women obviously get the attention and desire from men, something which nearly all women spend years of their lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to obtain (attention which is then re-interpreted by feminists as 'harassment').
Men,on the other hand, have to approach women and face rejection or even being branded as a harasser or creep, and increasingly, arrested and imprisoned under present and future sexual harassment laws. They also risk being attacked by protective boyfriends and husbands, or by white knights if their approaches are clumsy or aggressively rejected by the female.
Feminists also of course ignore the fact that many men can face the same kind of 'harassment'. A few years ago, I had a competitive bodybuilder's physique. In the summer months, I would often get females from 11 - 70 making a point of licking their lips at me. I would also get verbal abuse if I didn't make clear I enjoyed their show of interest, especially from groups of girls who would shout things like 'wanker', or 'shame you're a ginger'...'your biceps are almost as big as your ears'.. or an insult based on some other aspect of my appearance if I ignored them.
Over the last couple of days, David Futrelle, the Chicago child torture porn apologist, has made what amounts to a public incitement of violence against my person. He has also publicly declared support for a woman who has been making violent threats against myself and my readers here - criminal threats which Futrelle must have been aware of. I have to take these threats seriously and will be seeking criminal charges against Futrelle in the coming months, as well as legal action over his repeated defamatory writings stretching back at least 5 years. Not only is this necessary for my protection, it means that at last, in a court of law, we can get to the bottom of why David Futrelle continues to refuse to even acknowledge the fact that he mocked American police officers for thinking it was inappropriate for a video depicting naked children being anally raped, made to eat shit, disemboweled, and tortured to death, to be rented out in a seedy gay sex shop.
To the handful of men's human rights activists who occasionally attack Futrelle over his child torture porn apologia - please note the last sentence of the previous paragraph. It does not matter that in the sick minds of 'left-wing' social justice warriors, a film made by a left-wing homosexual gratuitously depicting naked 14 year old boys eating shit and then being slowly tortured to death is considered by them 'classic' art.
The fact is, David Futrelle attacked the police for removing it from sale in a gay sex shop.
David Futrelle is going to have to explain why he defended its sale in a sex shop. The prosecuters are not going to go gently on him on this. When he comes out with his lazy rehearsed defence of 'it's classic art...it shows how bad fascism is'..the prosecution are not going to let him off the hook and just fall silent like the tweets of an MHRA. They're going to ask
all very well Mr Futrelle, but why did you mock the police for removing a video depicting the torture and abuse of real, naked, and underage children, from a gay sex shop - 'classic' or not?
In court, Futrelle is also going to face questions over the following :
In the same year as his sickening defence of 'Salo', he wrote an article lambasting a feminist for refusing to admit that we all harbor secret fantasies to torture and abuse other people. He also claimed that the primary means of expressing these fantasies was through watching them being played out on film and in news reports of serial killers and other monsters.
This was also the same year that John Wayne Gacy, another Chicago resident, was arrested for the sadistic murders of young boys.
Several of the male feminist (or 'transgender') readers at his site MammothBoobz appear to be sadistic psychopaths and hardcore paedocrites - one of them is 'assistant executioner' at a BDSM forum catering for men who fantasize about crucifying women. Since I reported this here, Futrelle has not publicly condemned his reader and it is not clear if he has even been banned, but instead it appears to have motivated him to make a public incitement of violence against me.
David Futrelle also wrote an article claiming that the 'innocence' of female victims of abuse is 'exaggerated' and that abusers are unfairly demonized.
He also regularly wrote articles denouncing child sex abuse hysteria, accusing leading child protection charities of lying about the extent of ritual sexual abuse. In another article, he discussed sympathetically whether statutory rapists should often be encouraged to marry their victims, even using the term 'we can't send them all to jail'. Today, he regularly libels men's rights activists and even the likes of Richard Dawkins as 'paedophiles' and 'child abuse apologists' for discussing the same topics. He even wrote an article mocking the idea of child welfare being a subject of political concern - even appearing to mock the 'innocence' of child victims of AIDS.
David Futrelle has repeatedly libeled Warren Farrell over a disputed word in one interview made nearly half a century ago. Not only clearly insinuating that he is a paedophile in the tone of his articles attacking Farrell, but by his use of the tag 'paedophiles...oh sorry ephebophiles' underneath every article he writes about him. He has used this tag when attacking myself or any other MRA who even mentions feminist laws on 'child protection' as well as in stories relating to real paedophiles. If either Warren Farrell or Richard Dawkins chooses to sue him for defamation, he would not have a legal leg to stand on. Similarly, he is no legal position to seek defamation charges against others for suggesting that he, in fact, is a paedophile, by his own logic, for having regularly in his past career as a 'sex positive' journalist discussed critically the feminist narrative on child sex abuse and teenage sexuality.
David Futrelle clearly incited violence against Warren Farrell at the recent men's rights conference in Detroit, using that same disputed interview given nearly half-a-century ago. Farrell is obviously now an old man, subjected to intimidation and attempted violence at previous speaking engagements on men's rights. Futrelle clearly tried to incite similar and greater violence against him and other attendees at the conference using insinuations that Farrell was a paedophile and a 'paedophile apologist'. Again, if Farrell chooses to take legal action against Futrelle over this, he will have an extremely strong case.
Fraudtrelle even recently boasted that it was not illegal to slander somebody as a rapist even if they are found innocent in the eyes of the law by a court :
David Futrelle exists in a psychopathic fantasy world in which he can make a living from constantly slandering hundreds if not thousands of men and yet when one of his victims highlights past quotes that he has made, he threatens to sue for defamation because it might harm his chosen 'career' of making money out of trying to criminalize the very idea that men and boys have rights. He publicly promises to 'assist' a woman who has been screencapped making death threats against myself and my readers for simply highlighting a quote of hers made in a public space (erm..sound familiar David?).
The other day he exploited the latest tragic school shooting in America to slander the entire manosphere as potential murderers- which must number at least 100,000 individuals now, on the basis that...err...I'm not sure but something about the shooter having a penis and most of the manosphere having penises. No doubt he will be launching an early donation drive if he gets a spike in traffic from the mainstream media, just as he did when he took advantage of the Elliot Rodgers killings to spuriously link them to the MRM.
Unfortunately David Futrelle has crossed the line with me and he will be facing the consequences.