The following passage is from Houellebecq's novel 'The Possiblity of an Island'. The main character is recounting the gradual break-up of his marriage, due largely to declining sexual attraction. His wife is the editor of a women's fashion magazine entitled 'Lolita' - ostensibly aimed at teenage girls but read mostly by women in their 30's and older :

"A few months passed. Summer returned then autumn; Isabelle didn't seem unhappy. She played with Fox, and tended the azaleas; I devoted myself to swimming and re-reading Balzac. One evening, while the sun fell behind the residence, she looked me straight in the eye and told me softly: 'You are going to ditch me for someone younger...'
I protested that I had never been unfaithful.
'I know...' she replied. 'At one moment I thought you were going to be: that you'd shag one of the sluts that hung around the magazine, then come back to me, then shag another slut, and so on. I would have suffered greatly, but perhaps it would have been better like that, at the end of the day.'
'I tried once: the girl turned me down'. I remembered passing the morning in front of the Lycee Fenelon. It was between classes, the girls were fourteen, fifteen and all of them more beautiful and desirable than Isabelle, simply because they were younger. No doubt they themselves were engaged in a ferocious narcissistic competition - between those considered cute by boys their age, and those considered insignificant, or frankly, ugly; all the same, for any one of those young bodies a fifty-something would have been ready to risk his reputation, his freedom, and even his life. How simple, indeed, existance was! And how devoid it was of any way out! Once, on passing by the magazine's offices to pick up Isabelle, I had chatted up a sort of Belorussian, who was waiting to pose on page eight. The girl had accepted my invitation for a drink, but had asked for five hundred euros for a blowjob; I had declined. At that time, the judicial arsenal aimed at repressing sexual relations with minors was getting tougher; crusades for chemical castration were multiplying. To increase desires to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfilment of them more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based. I knew all this, I knew it inside out, in fact I had used it as material for many a sketch; this did not stop me from succumbing to the same process. I woke up in the middle of the night and downed three glasses of water. I imagined the humiliations I would have to endure to seduce any teenage girl; the painfully extracted consent, the girl's shame as we went out together in the street, her hesitation to introduce me to her friends, the carefree way she would ditch me for a boy of her own age. I imagined all this, over and over again, and I understood that I could not survive it. In no way did I pretend to escape from the laws of nature: the inevitable decrease of the erectile capacities of the penis, the necessity of finding young bodies to jam that mechanism....I opened a packed of salami and a bottle of wine. Oh well, I told myself, I will pay; when I reach that point, when I need tight little asses to keep up my erection, then I'll pay. I'll pay the market price. Five hundred euros for a blowjob, who did that Slav girl think she was? It was worth fifty, no more. In the vegetable drawer, I discovered an opened chestnut mousse. What seemed shocking to me, at this stage in my reflection, was not that there were young girls available for money, but that there are some who are not available, or only at prohibitive prices; in short, I wanted a regulation of the market."


The other night, after a long hard day of creep shamings and rejections, I sat down exhausted, ready to eat my veggie burger consolation meal, in a McDonalds restaurant. A Spanish woman was sitting opposite me, and as I sat down at my table, she immediately looked over at me with obvious admiration and smiled eagerly. There was nothing particularly unattractive about her apart from the fact that the Mediterranean sun had taking a painfully heavy toll on her skin, and whatever her chronological age was, she had now clearly crossed the demarcation line seperating young women from hags - to the point where you could no longer even picture her as a young woman, let alone as a girl. I was exhausted, and any good will to the opposite sex, nevermind moral sensitivity, had departed from my soul over the course of a day spent suffering some particularly cruel looks for not averting my eyes when passing privileged young women with sexual power. But this woman had none, and when she smiled at me, I decided to give her the most withering look of contempt I could muster. Then I stuck my teeth into my veggie burger, and she no longer existed.

However, I happened to look over at her again, and saw a human being utterly deflated, as though I had stuck a pin in her and all her will to live had escaped into the ether. Worse though, I could see tears clearly welling up in her eyes. She appeared to be fighting back the urge to sob uncontrollably. I suddenly became a compassionate animal again, and tried smiling at her to let her know that she shouldn't take me so seriously. However, she steadfastly refused to look at me, no doubt aware that she was crying and wishing not to let me derive pleasure from the fact.

The next moment, a beautiful young girl came to her table, about 14 or 15 - obviously her daughter - and the two got up and left, the woman still proudly fighting back the tears. I realised then just how painful it must be for the mother, or for any woman, to decline into a hag, if she had once looked anything at all like that girl.

I'm not inhuman, and I felt bad for the rest of the night, and it nagged on my conscience for much of the next day, and even now. Should it? She would likely have enjoyed seeing me be anally raped to the end of my days in a prison cell if I had so much as given an admiring glance to her daughter (or any teenage girl). Then again, she might have been a decent woman, the type who believe in free hugs for all, although such women are extremely rare.

And then again, men suffer such withering looks from women constantly, as I had that day on a number of occasions, and yet we are expected to be able to take it on the chin brutishly without complaint or resentment (else we are 'misogynists').

As a woman ages, she becomes invisible. This is cruel, it is true, especially for those who were once attractive and were accustomed to turning the heads of men. But for women it is simply a matter of fading into the background. And at least these women can no longer complain that they are the subject of the 'objectifying male gaze'.

However, for men there is no hiding place. Even if we choose to no longer chase the beautiful young women and suffer the inevitable indignities of cruel and humiliating rejection (or worse), few of us can resist the consolation of resting our tired old eyes on beauty and youth when it passes before us. But even here we are now subjected to the reminder that we are old and unwanted, with the looks of disgust, revulsion, and of course, constant self-righteous creep shaming.

I truly believe that the average woman would not be able to survive one day in the body of a man in the 21st century. If a woman can be reduced to tears by one unexpected look of disgust from the opposite sex, she would soon be consuming a bottle of sleeping pills if she had to endure the daily torment of casual sadism that it is a woman's right to inflict upon men who have no sexual value to them.


Chris Brand in sparklingly un-pc form this week :



As paedohysteria raged in Britain, with virtually no-one prepared to acknowledge that trim young teenagerettes had always been attractive for (and attracted to) men, a rare case came to light of academics doing their duty of discussing the facts of life. The Sunday Telegraph’s hawk-eyed reporter Andrew Gilligan got wind of a Cambridge University conference held in 2013 (6 vii):

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds....

Cognoscenti would note the new name for traditional paedophilia (which term had been grossly overextended to include paedosadism with babes in their cradles). Even so, Gilligan’s piece would probably have sent quite a few Cambriensians scuttling back under their stones for cover.


The democratic and lawful government of Australia found its tentative move to re-introduce a White Australia policy would require a fight with holy money-grubbing taxpayer-funded High Court überbabblers who professed themselves uncomfortable with Oz returning Tamils to Ceylon (where the astonishingly co-operative Buddhist government was willing to prosecute its feckless emigrants who got their country a bad name) (Sydney Morning Herald, 7 vii).

{The Oz High Court decision to appoint itself in charge of immigration policy had the merit of showing it was not just the European Court of Human Rights that was the source of all silliness; and another merit in bringing out Queensman PM Tony Abbott to defend the Commonwealth principle of the supremacy of Parliament (under the Queen).}

{In fairness to the ECHR, that ‘court’ had graciously decided in the same week to allow elected governments to ban the berker in public places if they were so moved. But this concession to parliamentary authority would be much aided in the West if a robust Australia insisted that its state-paid legal-eagles pipe down (or, preferably, expire entirely).}


As British witch-hunting of kiddyfiddlers reached a new high, with 115 top politicians, TV personages, military supremos, royals, sportsmen and civil servants being thrown on to the tracks for alleged hanky-panky in the 1970s, the exercise was at least doubted by one elite figure, the conservative-liberal ex-Cabinet minister David Mellor, writing in the Guardian (7 vii). Mellor, an ex-MP who had had his own experience of press persecution (over the details of his affair with an actress), properly pointed out that the 115 possible paedophiles had already been investigated and cleared in a 3-year effort by the Home Office which had met with satisfaction from the chief lynch-mobber of the time (one Geoffrey Dickens MP who could hardly pronounce ‘paedophilia’).

{That Britain should embark on multiple multi-month ‘enquiries’ into ancient possible naughtiness was beyond belief – except in so far as paedohysteria had become the major form of self-righteousness across two generations of socialism undermining the family and 50% of Brits obliging by divorcing, sodomizing, m*sturbating or just never marrying in the first place. Why could not just 5 of the 115 cases be re-investigated in a week’s work by a couple of cops, and – if they found nothing -- any dissatisfied puritans told to pay the bill for any fuller ‘enquiry’ themselves?

Where would it all end? Already the Queen was embroiled by her friendship with gifted and much-loved Oz knicker-fondler and neck-nibbler Rolf Harris; but, if the hysterics could not find more paedotolerance in the Royals (already Prince Andrew had drawn fire for his cavorting with distinctly youthful gals in America), perhaps the hysterics would demand ‘enquiries’ into and re-prosecution of Jesus – who was, after all, suggestively recorded in the Gospels as having spent the night alone with a naked boy whom He had resurrected and who subsequently was perhaps the boy with Him (in just a loincloth) in the Garden of Gethsemane [where Jesus was arguably nicked for paedophilia/pederasty with the boy and Judas] and (in white) at the Tomb of the Resurrection (Secret Gospel of Mark; Mark x 34; Mark xiv 50-52; Mark xvi 5; John xi)....}


At the risk of ‘re-inventing’ the wheel,’ researchers in Robert Plomin’s groups (at University College London and King’s College London) reported that attainments in reading and arithmetic among 12-yr children were strongly correlated and both 50% determined by the same genetic factors (Science Daily, 8 vii). However, new authority was given to such time-honoured claims by Plomin et al. drawing on no less that 2,800 British families – containing plenty of twins and children who had supplied DNA data. And the exercise provided a demonstration of just how much nature-nurture research could attract government funding so long as researchers agreed to talk up the importance of nurture and ‘education’ – and, of course, never to talk about eugenics or race (or indeed the g factor...).


A new popular book on the enduring plight of Black people in America was called simply Stop Helping Us! Its Black author, Jason Riley, detailed the striking argument that the efforts of Whites to solve the USA’s embarrassing racial gap, even if well-meaning and not just self-serving (to make comfy jobs for leftists), were actually counter-productive. That the ‘minimum wage’ kept young Blacks out of work and turned them to drug-dealing and crime and sexual fecklessness, and that ‘affirmative action’ pushed Blacks into university courses and jobs where they had high failure rates and dropped out were just two of the observations picked out from the book by (Black) Thomas Sowell in his welcoming summary (for star libertarian and race realist Lew Rockwell’s homepage, 9 vii).


A day after Britain won a £250M deal to supply rockets to India, the quid pro quo was announced by Chancellor George Osborne: India’s national hero Gandhi, a pacifist, was to be honoured with a statue in London’s Parliament Square – alongside the war-winning Lloyd George, Lincoln, Smuts and Churchill. Still, the oddity of this had been matched in Gandhi’s own life by his wanting to hand India to the Japanese and his getting a million killed in the frantic partition that followed his insistence on democracy (which left Muslims in a permanent minority – so millions of them fled to what became Pakistan).

Gandhi was also was an avid supporter of discrimination in South Africa. He only protested at it in so far as he thought Indians should be treated on the same level as the Whites, not the African natives. He also stated that the White race of South Africa should be the predominating race and many times stated that Blacks were no better than the Untouchables in India, where he intended to preserve the caste system (Daily Mail, 10 vii).

(Whether Gandhi shared paedophilia with another left-loved figure having his statue outside Parliament, Saint Martin Luther King, was a moot point – Gandhi usually had a lissome and nubile naked girl share his bed but always insisted nothing ‘happened.’)


As pressures for more high-level action against long-dead ‘establishment’ paedophiles and Parliament produced two ‘inquiries,’ an inquiry into inquiries, and a threat by PM Daft Dave that he would criminalize any who failed to report suspicions of kiddyfumbling, columnist Sue Cameron bravely brought the terms ‘witch-hunt,’ ‘McCarthyism,’ ‘febrile atmosphere’ and ‘hysteria’ into play and especially mentioned an Australian warning [from Labour PR man John McTernan] that criminalizing non-reporters there had led to officials being “overwhelmed” by gossip as teachers, priests, TV celebs etc realized they had to cover their own backsides by generating a mountain of paperwork for legal contemplation (D.Telegraph, 10 vii, ‘Witch-hunts thrive in a climate of fear’).

(Meantime, Britoid paedohysterics went on their frothing way, complaining that the 80-yr senior judge [Lady Butler-Sloshed] appointed to run one of the inquiries was too much of an establishment figure herself and that her own 30-yr-dead brother [Sir Michael Havers, Attorney-General in the early Eighties] had once declined to prosecute a diplomat suspected of paedophilia who had a ‘connection’ with the Paedophile Information Exchange [a body which may have received as much as £.5M from the Home Office in those far-off days of sexual liberalism and research].)

{The idea of dealing with the multi-million pound mess by quickly passing a ‘statute of limitations – like most European countries (and which I had re the Gajdusek case) – apparently had no appeal to Westminster’s big spenders and their learned friends.}

Happily, Sue Cameron was joined two days later by the mighty Charles Moore. He not only attributed Mrs May’s planned footling ‘inquiries’ to fear of the paedohysteria which parliamentarians had unleashed and of the public cynicism about politicians (on perpetual half-time, have handed Britain over to the EUSSR); but added that much of the interest in trying to track down unspecified historic paedophilia in high places by un-named figures with unknown results arose from a crude desire to link gropings of the Eighties to Mrs Thatcher.


After a half century of primatologists preferring to avoid talking about the dreaded ‘general intelligence,’ let alone showing the intercorrelations between cognitive tests run on their animals, researchers in Atlanta, Georgia (led by William Hopkins of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center) bit the bullet and reported a clear, strong and human-like g factor among 13 mental tests given to 99 chimpanzees ranging in age from 9 to 54 (New Scientist 11 vii). Hopkins et al. measured ability in four broad categories: spatial memory and ability; tool use; communication skills; and establishing causality. Tests to remember which of three beakers hid food, for example, helped measure spatial memory, while challenging chimps to obtain visible but otherwise inaccessible food by attracting attention from humans helped measure communication skills.

By combining results from all the categories, the researchers calculated values for g. And, lo, chimp g turned out to be 53% heritable – just like the g factor in man, the authors observed. (The research group had genetic and other data on the animals’ likely relatedness.) "The historical view is that non-genetic factors dominate animal intelligence, and our findings challenge that view," said Hopkins. Chimp IQ differences could not, of course, be attributed to the socio-economic differences envisaged as so crucial by Western social scientists; and being reared by humans yielded chimps no advantage in g.


The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, announced that he had come to support ‘assisted dying’ – in cases of ‘terminally ill’ patients being within six months of death for which they positively pleaded (Guardian, 12 vii). He thus broke with the preachments of most Christian churches (eager to dissociate from Hitler as once from imperial Rome) on the eve of a debate in the House of Lords on assisted dying. Empirical support for him came from Oregon, where assisted dying for mentally competent near-death patients had been legalized in 1997 – with one person thus suiciding per week, entirely unproblematically.

Religious support came from the South African CofE Archbishop, Desmond Tutu. {But the real problems were that low-g people – including many previously normal-g people who had contracted senile dementia [aka ‘Alzheimers’] – were not considered legally competent to choose death or anything else; and that low-g’s often had even no clear wish to die, living as they did (with the help of modern medication) from one ice cream or Teletubby episode to the next [as in the case of philosopher-novelist Iris Murdoch in her dotage].

In truth, the only way out of these problems was to give absolute guardianship of anyone with a Mental Age of less than 5 to a panel [composed of, perhaps, the chief inheritor, the ward’s GP [or deputy], and a close friend (agreed by the heir and GP)] which would be fully competent (by majority decision) to make life-or-death decisions, perhaps once per year. Only by taking g/IQ/MA seriously could the real dilemmas of euthanasia/mercy killing/assisted dying be confronted and handled. Obviously, the panel’s expenses would be met from the ward’s estate.}


Leading psychologist Dr Noreen Tehrani, who advised specialist child abuse detectives in the Metropolitan, Surrey, Thames Valley and Hampshire forces, said police were under colossal strain from the escalating demands to investigate ancient paedophilia, requiring her to spend her entire time soothing cops’ frayed nerves.

She added that pressure from Westminster politicians forced police to divert attention from children at risk to historical cases. "They are just completely inundated with work, they are beginning to collapse. What I am getting are more and more exhausted officers. There aren't enough officers in these specialist teams and they are overwhelmed," Tehrani said.

The psychobabbler – whose own views on the merits of investigating past paedofiddling remained unknown -- said officers were on the point of collapse, with many going off sick as a growing number of historical claims of abuse increased pressure on already busy teams. She told the Guardian (12 vii) that she would be writing to PM David Cameron and Theresa May, the home secretary, to express her deep concern at the pressures the teams were under.


Attempts to encourage more girls to study the sciences ‘completely deny human biology and nature’, a male academic claimed. Schools should stop trying to close education gender gaps because innate differences between the sexes mean they will always be drawn to different subjects and careers, according to a Glasgow University psychologist (addressing a beano of British educashunists, and reported in Times Educational Supplement).

Defying conventional peecee wisdom that had infected most psychologists, politicians and physicists themselves, Dr Gijsbert Stoet argued that Britain ‘probably needed to give up on the idea that we will get many female engineers or male nurses’ (Daily Mail, 12 vii). “Do we really care that only 5 per cent of the programmers are women?” asked the brave heretic psychologist. “I don’t care who programs my computers. A wealthy, democratic society can afford to let people do what they want.”


Stephen Fry is a good guy, as I always suspected. And proving as well that there's at least one homosexual left in the UK after all with balls and integrity.


Stephen Fry left an audience in shocked silence at a Labour fundraiser attended by Ed Miliband by publicly criticising the Operation Yewtree investigation into historic sex abuse.

The Labour-supporting comedian, who was hosting the event, complained that less than 50 per cent of those people held under Yewtree have been found guilty and that those who make false accusations should be prosecuted.

But last night Mr Miliband’s office issued a rebuke to Mr Fry by insisting that the party fully supported Yewtree and making clear that Mr Miliband’s ‘thoughts were with the victims’.

Mr Fry singled out for criticism Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was present at the gala dinner last Wednesday.

Mr Starmer was the architect of the successful prosecutions under Yewtree – the Scotland Yard operation spawned by the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal – of entertainer Rolf Harris, publicity guru Max Clifford and TV presenter Stuart Hall.

But Yewtree has also led to failed prosecutions against entertainers including Coronation Street star William Roache. And cases were dropped against comedians Freddie Starr, Jim Davidson and Jimmy Tarbuck after months of destructive publicity.

...After citing Magna Carta, the 799-year-old foundation of British constitutional rights, Mr Fry said that ‘fewer than half’ of the people held under Yewtree had been found guilty – before identifying Mr Starmer in the audience.

The comedian then launched into what one guest described as a ‘rant’ about how the law should be toughened up to deter people from inventing claims about sex abuse.