2012 and Beyond

It’s an appropriate time to look at the future of the anti-feminist movement, and what we should strive for in the coming year and beyond.

Our basic goals could be usefully separated into simply continuing to grow the men’s rights/anti-feminist/pro-male sexuality movements, and having some concrete activist results that demonstrate the reality and effectiveness of that growth.

In terms of effective activism, the MRM has been derided in a number of quarters as having not yet actually achieved anything of substance.  I disagree.  Given that we are still a very small movement (the main thing is we are unequivocally now growing), the fact that we have already demonstrated the ability to become a nuisance, at least to certain feminists, shows that we are probably punching above our present weight, thanks largely to a handful of unusually dynamic individuals (such as Paul Elam, obviously).  This is a very hopeful sign for what we could be achieving in a few years time, when we are many times our present size and level of experience and organisation.

There remains a feeling amongst many MRAs that we won’t be a true political movement until online activism spills over into ‘the real world’, with street protests and the like.  I don’t entirely subscribe to that position either.  As Angry Harry often points out, the internet is the most useful tool for political activism and change that has ever been put into the hands of ordinary men (but, somewhat bizarrely, it has to be admitted that feminists themselves have exploited the internet rather well).

Online and offline activism can go hand in hand, and ultimately both will be needed for substantive results.

Another mainstream Men’s Rights assumption that I disagree with is that feminism can only be defeated when ‘we’ outnumber the enemy.  Hence the insistance of many MRA’s that we simply have to embrace women into our movement, often pointing to the fact that the success of feminism has relied upon the support of men.

I believe that political activism should be more than a simple numbers game, and in terms of voting blocs and the like, I think it’s a futile hope anyway that the sexual trade union can ever be defeated through the ballot box.  It’s not impossible that sufficient numbers of disenchanted women (and voters) could be drawn to a sexually conservative ‘men’s rights movement’ – enough to meaningfully sway the policies of politicians facing re-election.  Likewise, we could ‘reach out’ and seek alliances with the Islamic hordes. But as my readers are aware – this is an anti-feminist, pro-male sexuality men’s rights site, not a conservative father’s rights blog.  So I have nothing much to say on those possible strategies.  Readers will also be aware of my position that large numbers of ‘sympathetic’ women entering the movement will inevitably dilute the cause and lead to sexually conservative policies that will be as much in the selfish interests of women as they are of men in general, and justice in particular.

Next week I’ll post an article on what type of demographics a pro-male sexuality men’s rights movement could and should hope to attract.

Suffice to say at this point that the results that the MRM have achieved thus far with the simple but effective online activism involved in Register-Her, demonstrates to my mind that the success of the MRM is not dependent on a crude ‘numbers game’.

Concrete Goals

Apart from maintaining the growth of the men’s rights movement, spreading the word, waking up men, and ensuring that the MRM stays true to its pro-male sexuality roots, there is one over-riding goal that we should aim to achieve as early as possible :

That the feminists who are launching wave after wave of draconian anti-male legislation wake up to the fact that if they continue in their actions, being held accountable for their crimes against humanity within their life-times is a realistic possibility – sufficiently so to put a check on their legislative ambitions within the next 5 – 10 years or so.

To achieve this overarching goal, it should be a primary aim within the next 5 – 10 years to have established a pro male sexuality lobby group that has the funds and means to actively pressure, and even to seek prosecutions against certain key members of the sexual trade union.

Establishing such an effective lobby group will not be easy.  It would require an individual (or individuals) who possess the dynamism and commitment of a Paul Elam type figure, who is unremittingly pro-male sexuality, and who will have the strength to withstand the inevitable merciless scrutiny and character assassinations that both the sexual trade union and the media will throw at him.

We could get lucky, and a high-profile figure – a Dominique Strauss Kahn or a Silvio Berlusconi – somebody who has had their life and mainstream career destroyed by the sexual trade union, and who has nothing much left to lose, join our fight.  Perhaps if I’m being realistic, that would be the best chance for achieving the goal I set out above in any near future time frame.

Personal Goals

2012 will personally be a big year for me, as I’ll probably finally join the quarter of a million White Flight Brits escaping annually from the utterly destroyed society that a decade of FemiLabour rule has left our formerly great land in.  Unfortunately, the clueless and cowardly ‘Conservative’ Party are likewise far too much obligated to the Vagina Vote to even begin to repair the damage.

Of course, there aren’t many places left in the world to ‘escape’ to these days.  All I want is a place in the sun, where being white and having muscles doesn’t subject me to racist physical intimidation and challenge, or even assault, every time I pop out to my local grocery store. I want to be able to walk down the street and not see row after row of boarded up shops that have been torched and looted by ‘disaffected yoof’ – the first generation of ‘children’ (and last) in human history to be taught that not only is hating older males an act of youthful rebellion, but actually one of the only true and absolute values and civic duties that exist in the (feminist Cultural Marxist) moral relativerse.

Oh, and perhaps where I can walk down the street and smile at a pretty and fully developed 17 year old girl and be reasonably sure I won’t be spat on as a ‘paedophile’ in return. Especially as I slowly turn into that most detested and unforgivable creature in 21st century progressive society – an old white guy with a dick that still functions.  Not much to ask is it?

I’ll try to devote as much time as I have in the past to maintaining this site.  I even have ideas for some new projects, but perhaps I shouldn’t bite off more than I can chew.

I want to spend more time researching the history of early feminism, explore the philosophical ideas behind the notion of ‘consent’, and also to develop a trans-humanist men’s rights position.  I also want to get more organised and industrious in regards to posting pro-male comments on news sites and such like.

Let’s hope 2012 is another good year for the men’s rights movement.

Merry Christmas to the Men’s Rights World

Merry Christmas to all my readers!  As I still find having to run this site somewhat depressing, I’ll probably not be updating for a few days – a rare opportunity to relax and to close my eyes and ears to the scheming harridans of the sexual trade union and their never ending evil plots!

Of course, this year has been something of a breakthrough one for men’s rights.  Although the pace of anti-male legislation still appears to be accelerating, I’ve never been more confident that a genuine pro-male sexuality men’s rights movement is emerging that will soon have the strength to challenge feminists.

This site continues to grow modestly but continually, more or less.  Although traffic took a hit in the summer when I went offline for a few weeks, it’s more than picked up since.  For that I have to thank the continued support of the likes of Ferdinand Bardemu, Angry Harry, Man Woman Myth, and several other MRA bloggers, and also to the loyal and esteemed readers who have been posting links to this site on forums and other men’s rights sites.

anti-feminist traffic 2010-2011
Visitors to the Anti-Feminist 2010-2011

Call for ‘More Women on the BBC’.

Former Conservative politician, and now BBC Trust Chairman, Chris Patten has called for more women to appear on Radio and television :

BBC Trust chairman Chris Patten has said there are not enough women in on-air roles at the public broadcaster.

“We should have more women on radio and television,” the former Conservative party chairman said in an interview with The Observer.

He singled out Radio 4’s Sarah Montague and Martha Kearney as being among the “good ones”.

The BBC pledged two years ago to find more women, particularly older women, to front its shows.

It later announced that Julia Somerville, Carole Walker, Fiona Armstrong and Zeinab Badawi had been appointed to front its news bulletins.



Personally, I switch over anytime a female presenter appears on screen, especially news readers, and especially the older token ones.  Not only does their aged physical appearance itself slightly nauseate me, all I can see in their wrinkled but ‘glamorous’ features is the smug face of an empowered rapist staring back at me.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that whenever a news story involves a sex crime, or any new ‘child protection’ legislation, the journalist presenting the story is invariably a woman.  The assumption is, I suppose, that it is sensitive to have a female covering a story that impacts upon women.  Of course, until a rape accusation is proven in court, the story involves men as much as women – it is a story about a man who, according to statistics, is likely to have been falsely accused and is experiencing his life being put through the grinder by a malicious, evil woman.  Child protection, you might think, would affect both girls and boys, but of course, it’s implicitly understood that whenever new child protection legislation is mentioned, what we’re talking about is keeping men’s hands off of nubile teenage girls.  It’s also implicitly understood, I’m pretty sure, that it’s a story for women because it is women who are pressing for men to keep their hands off of teenage girls, and on them, in a free sexual market in which men have increasingly instant access to sexual gratification.

I can’t even read books by women anymore.  If I do see a book that interests me that is written by a female author then I spend far more time researching it and checking out the personal history of the author than I do with books written by men.  I’m talking about non-fiction here, because there are probably only 5 books that I will ever read that have been written by a woman – and the author’s name in each case ends in Bronte.  And truth be told, the novels of the Bronte sisters are the only works of genius that woman are truly capable of inventing.

Wuthering Heights, in particular, is one of the greatest works of art ever produced by a human hand.  Few artistic masterpieces, be it in literature, music, art, or scupture, have come close to capturing the reality and tragedy that this novel conveys – that the individual cannot escape from being a part of the blind sweep of natural forces.  But it’s the only great w0rk that a woman is capable of – Jane Eyre, and the other Bronte novels, and other ‘great’ novels by female authors – such as those of Jane Austen – are really only inferior variations on this theme. Only Emily Bronte was able to turn the Mills and Boon formula into an unnerving literary masterpiece that genuinely says something about the human condition.  Other women have come close, but certainly no man could have written it – or arguably any novel that so removes the divide between the human and the natural (although Joseph Conrad perhaps succeeded with ‘Heart of Darkness’).  And the reason is that, in truth, women are better able to see directly their animal natures than we are able to see our own – men who have built a myriad of intellectual masks between ourselves and reality.


Do 40 Year Old Men Really Want Relationships with 16 Year Old Girls?

If men are really hardwired to prefer teenage girls, why are there so relatively few men having relationships with (legal) 16 and 17 year old girls?

I’ve been pleading with loyal and highly-esteemed reader ‘Highwayman’ to write a guest post here, or at InMalaFide, for some time, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.  Reading an old comment of his this morning made me realise I can do the next best thing – publish one of his best comments as a post.

Highwayman is replying to a comment from a femiservative reader – Danica – who questions whether  many 40 year old men would really want to have a relationship with a 16 year old girl, by pointing to the fact that the age of consent is still 16 in many places and yet such relationships appear quite rare.

QUOTE: “Do 40 year old men really want relationships with 16 year olds? No.”

Well 16 year old girls are illegal in many US and Australian States. Furthermore, as the Age of Consent is 18 in California the meme that 16 year olds are “jailbait” and “16 will get you 20″ has spread throughout the Anglosphere and beyond as a lot of entertainment media is produced in Southern California. Even in jurisdictions where 16 year old girls are legal there are many ways for a man to get into trouble via laws against “grooming”, laws criminalizing men for taking a sexy photograph of their under-18 girlfriend, vaguely written “sexual exploitation” laws such as we have in Canada, laws against having sexual relationships with under-18s if the person over 18 is in “a position of authority”..etc. Given this legal situation is it any wonder that older men avoid relationships with young girls? Also keep in mind that in many jurisdictions laws governing sex with “minors” are strict liability offences where the adult will be punished even if he reasonably believed that the girl in question was over 16/17/18 (depending on the jurisdiction) therefor not only do men generally avoid under 18s but they also tend to avoid under 21s as well (to avoid the risk of an underage sex charge should the girl turn out to be under 18).

On top of the legal situation described above you also have a cultural environment where the definition of pedophilia has been extended to include sexual attraction to girls under the age of 18. Thus a man with a 16 year old girlfriend (or a man who desires one) will be branded a “sick pervert” or a “pedophile” and risk serious social ostracism.

Another thing that prevents many relationships between older men and young girls from happening are laws such as the legal drinking age ( 18 or 19 in Canada depending on the province and 21 in all US States) legal driving ages and laws/practices WRT how old you have to be to participate in certain recreational activities (nightclubs..etc) these laws and practices encourage a high level of age segregation.

Finally there is the fact that many 16 year old girls today are brought up in a culture of extended childhood and the result of this upbringing may make a number of 16 year olds unattractive to men (for relationship purposes). While some people may say “just let a kid be a kid” some mental health professionals have noted that this culture of extended childhood is NOT HEALTHY for adolescents.

In conclusion, I am simply trying to drive home the point that while it may be true that many men avoid 16 year old girls, this situation is an artificial one created by age of consent laws, pedohysteria, legal and cultural age segregation practices and a culture of extended childhood…if those factors where to change I guarantee you that there would be a very significant increase in the number of men who would be interested in 16 year old girls.

Six Footballers Caged for ‘Gang Rape’ of Lying ‘Lolitas’

Six footballers jailed over gang rape of 12 year old girls

Six footballers who had a midnight sex orgy in a park with two 12-year-old girls, have been jailed.

Courtney Amos,19, Ashley Charles, 20, Dennis De Sousa, 18, Jahson Downes, 20, Jahvon Edwards, 19, and Luke Farrugia, 21, have all admitted rape of a girl under the age of 13.

Well, there’s no defending that is there?  The gang rape of two innocent little 12 year old girls by a pack of wild animals.  Surely the antifeminist isn’t going to sink to new depths by defending this savagery?  No, I’m not, but wait a minute.  First of all, these girls lied about their age, told the footballers that they were 16 (i.e. legal in the UK), and were completely willing.  One of the girls texted the footballers saying that each girl would ‘take three of them’.  And why would the footballers disbelieve them?  Who would believe, even in broken Britain, that tarted up girls walking the streets at 2 am in the morning, begging to be fucked by random black meat, could only be 12 years old?

Note also that the most eager girl of the two, who called each man out in turn to perform sexual acts on their black manhoods, was under investigation for making a false rape claim, and had a Facebook profile in which she lied about her age.

Note, furthermore, that in the UK, the NSPCC (scroll down the page to read about that vile feminist fake child protection charity) recently successfully lobbied the European parliament (i.e. sent them a single letter) to force all member states to define sex with a willing girl below a certain age as rape (not just statutory rape, but rape).  In fact, the NSPCC wanted this to be defined as any willing sex below the age of consent, and specifically asked for a minimum sentance of 14 years jail throughout Europe for any man who slept with a girl under 16.  The EU replied back to the NSPCC apologetically (I have read the original but unfortunately do not have the link) that they didn’t have the power to do that, but ‘compromised’ by bringing in the directive telling member states to define sex under a certain age as rape.  This has had certain curious results.  For example, in Germany the age of consent is still 14, but if you have sex with a willing 13 year old, you will be charged with chld rape.  However, in the UK, where the age of consent is 16, only if you have sex with a girl under 13 will you be charged with rape.

So, no, I am not defending these black men having a 2 am orgy with a pair of 12 year old girls, I am saying that it is obscene that they should be branded and caged as child rapists when the only ones who should be being punished are the girls and their parents.  Once again, the message proudly trumpted by the Daily Mail and the courts is ‘don’t have casual sex with any female who looks under 25, or else this might be your fate’.

Hank Pellissier Responds to the Men’s Rights Movement

Hank Pellissier has left a couple of comments responding to the anger caused in the men’s rights movement over his support for David Pearce’s ‘women only’ governments.  You can read them here and here.

He also left a link to an article he wrote earlier this year attacking feminism for its lack of support for Israel and its general hard left bias : http://www.thejewishnewsplace.com/blogs/latest-posts/entry/feminists-need-to-support-israel.html

The majority of USA radical feminists need a jug of ice water splashed in their face… why?To wake them up from their rabid, psychotic, intolerant behavior.

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of feminism – “belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes” – has been kicked aside by ultra-left leadership.  Instead, USA radical feminism seems to be focused on hate.  Hating Sarah Palin, hating Republicans, hating housewives, hating Christians, and fervently hating, above all else… Israel.

Shameful!  Stupid!  Internationally, there are myriad atrocities harming the female gender that we can all battle against: sex trafficking, female feticide, dowry burnings, female genital mutilation, honor killings, incest, rape, wage inequality, lack of political representation, child marriage, wife-beating, sexual harassment…

 Half of that list looks like daily life in Palestine, doesn’t it?

It’s been suggested, especially since the Spearhead allowed an article of his to be published there, that Hank allows a men’s rights activist to write a piece for the IEET, in order that we may present the case for men’s rights…or at least the right not to be wiped out in a transhumanist gendercide.  I understand that he is only a reporter on the site and not the moderator or owner, and so might not have the power to make that happen.  He does inform us, however, that he is planning on editing a book on gender and would be open to possible contributions from men’s rights supporters/anti-feminists.

Although we’ve all been shocked by some of the misandristic beliefs expressed by transhumanists over at the IEET recently, I believe that the right approach is polite dialogue, especially if it is offered.  I do not believe that Hank or David Pearce are bad people.  It is impossible to read the ‘Hedonistic Imperative’ and believe that they are – they are simply idealists wihout any inkling of the pain and suffering that feminism has caused.

UPDATE : Up to this point I hadn’t actually read the following article of Hank’s :

Ova-Fusion and the Elimination of the Male

In the future, women will easily be able to get “baby juice” without the big mammal attached, or even his Y chromosome. Already there is enough frozen sperm available to keep babies popping out for a couple of decades; by the time the last vial is drained, improved stem cell technology should have tanks of artificially-created replacement ready, ditto for Kaguya ova.

Gentlemen, what should we do?

Personally, I’m not that attached to my gender. Am I a traitorous “mangina”? If my species turns into small healthy super-femmes running around for 130+ years, that’s all right by me.

Maybe they’ll keep a bullpen of short-lived testosterone studs around for sexual services, 24/7, old-style. Or is that just my deluded fantasy, because I want to be one of those guys? It’s more likely that all heterosexual activity will be performed with male sexbots.

Of course stuff like this is completely indefensible.  The following quote taken from the essay struck me as being particularly insane :

Of course, males have their accomplishments. Indeed, we do. Almost all the great war heros were men— oops! I mean, all the inventors. Yes, males are clever engineers; we’ve got to keep that in the gene pool.

Well, yes Hank, or else Transhumanism wouldn’t get very far would it?

As somebody who does keenly follow Transhumanism, and for somebody who spent much of the last summer reading the writings of David Pearce on my Kindle, I’m not enjoying discovering the insane misandry at the heart of this movement, and having to be the MRA who addresses it.  I agree that this is important, it’s not possible to dismiss the IEET or people like Hank as mere kranks.  I really do think that one of the more important members of the men’s rights movement, such as Paul Elam or Welmar, should be the person tackling this and seeking out a debate with Hank and his friends.

I would request, however, to please keep comments civil, however much anger you rightly feel.

The NSPCC as an Evil Feminist Organization.

The NSPCC is the leading child protection organization in the UK.  It has a royal charter, and is the only child protection charity whose officers have some legal powers to intervene in specific instances of child abuse.  But its real importance lies in the areas of lobbying and campaigning.  It frequently runs major ‘awareness’ campaigns which figure prominently in both offline and online British media, usually involving either men being characterised as physically abusing both their wives and children, or else being demonised in straightforward anti-paedophile campaigns – the type that inform every parent in the country that their daughters are almost certain to be raped by a male predator the moment they go online behind their backs, and that the only way it can be prevented is by  making a donation right now.  The Royal Charter also mandates the NSPCC to campaign against bullying (more children in the UK commit suicide because of bullying than for any other reason), but that rarely seems to get a look in.  Teens driving other teens to suicide just isn’t sexy, I guess.

Many supporters of the men’s movement believe that some of the topics I discuss on this website are not men’s rights issues. I feel that they are because they affect chiefly men, and they do so because they derive from the lobbying of organisations that hate men – organisations such as the NSPCC.  If you are unsure that such organisations hate men, then please read to the end of this article. Once you have done that, please ask yourself whether the laws that these evil feminists create really only become men’s rights issues if they are applied in the courts differently to men and women.

This article kind of takes up where Angry Harry left off, in one of his essays last year.  In that piece, he described how a woman who had just taken up a senior role at the NSPCC, a woman by the name of Marriane Hester, was a committed feminist who had already published some ridiculous research that claimed that WOMEN were three times more likely than men to be arrested in cases of domestic violence!

In fact, as this article will illustrate, virtually ALL of the senior research staff listed on the NSPCC website  have a clear feminist background, and usually have a history of involvement in campaigns against ‘gendered violence’.

Marriane Hester – Professor of Child Sexual Exploitation, NSPCC

Marriane Hester was last year appointed the ludicrous role of NSPCC ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’.  She was already professor of ‘gender, violence, and international policy’ at the University of Bristol.  She appears to have earned her salary at that seat of learning by conducting numerous and essential comparitive studies into domestic violence, such as that between China and the UK.  According to the blurb on her Bristol academic homepage, she has also been involved for a long time with the UK Rape Crisis Movement.  But her most infamous contribution to human learning was the above mentioned study which claimed to show (in the words of the Guardian) :

While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10.

Lorraine Radford (NSPCC Head of Research)

 The first two of her chief research interests listed are ‘the impact of domestic violence upon children and on parenting, safe child contact arrangements’.  Lorraine was well placed to judge whether Marriane Hester was qualified to earn the salary that a prestigious role such as ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’ no doubt brings.  The two co-authored a book entitled ‘Mothering through Domestic Violence’, published in 2006.

Susana Corral – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Susana is the first of three senior research officers.  Her speciality appears to be in ‘intimate and dating violence’.  Prior to working for the NSPCC, she had apparently conducted research into the maltreatment of women.  Her bio also tells us that she completed her PHD in violence in dating relationships. 

Are you beginning to detect a pattern?

Alison Jobe – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

The first paragaph of Alison’s NSPCC blurb reads :

Alison’s research interests are in the areas of gender based violence; violence prevention; trafficking; immigration and asylum policy; social exclusion; and children and young people’s rights.

Wouldn’t you expect, on the profile page of a leading staff member of Britain’s official child protection charity, that ‘children and young people’s rights’ would be listed first, not AFTER ‘gender based violence’ and all the other crap?

Alison has apparently had 7 pieces of research published, 6 of which relate to trafficking, and only 1 of which focuses on the rights of young people.

Sarah Gorin – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Sarah Gorin has published a work looking at the impact of domestic violence upon children. but there doesn’t seem to be any obvious evidence of an overt feminist background or clear misandristic bias in her case.

Silvia Bovarnick – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Silvia’s research interests are listed as…I hardly need to tell you, do I? Gendered violence, trafficking..blah, blah, blah

Patricia Hynes – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Patricia earns her salary protecting British kiddies by studying : “forced migration; trafficking; refugee and asylum policy; social exclusion and inclusion; human rights; and the ethics of conducting research with migrant populations.”  I’m sure Sun readers will be pleased to know that their donations are going to such a worthy cause.

Patricia has worked with the women’s refugee movement and completed her PHD from crappy Middlesex  university by writing a billion words on the social exclusion of asylum seekers in the UK.

These are all the ‘senior researchers’, the rest seem to be ‘senior fellows’.  I won’t list them all, at least not now, but suffice to say they follow the same pattern.  I should mention one of them however, as he is only one of two men listed as a member of the NSPCC research team (out of 16).

Simon Lapierre –  NSPCC Visiting Academic (McGill University, Canada)

Simon’s research interests are in the field of violence against women and children, mothering and child protection.

Simon has conducted research on women’s experience of mothering in the context of domestic violence.

He has published a work entitled : “La persistance du blâme envers les mères chez les femmes victimes de violence conjugale“, which according to my ropey french, reads something like ‘the persistance of blaming mothers for the violence they suffer in domestic relationships’.  White knight Simon has also enriched human understanding by publishing work on problems of gender and identity in a multi-cultural framework.

Prelimanary conclusions

So there you have it.  There is no doubt that the NSPCC exists primarily as a feminist organisation and lobbying group. Five of their seven senior research staff are hardcore feminists whose main interests lie in domestic violence against women and/or trafficking.  These are the senior staff members of an organisation which recieves its Royal Charter on the basis that it will protect British children from abuse and neglect.  One of the two token male members of staff is a Canadian feminist whose main area of interest lies in domestic violence against women.  It appears that the NSPCC is a British ‘child protection’ organisation which awards research positions on the basis of strength of support for feminist political world views, and in fact, picks from candidates whose resumes demonstrate a primary research focus upon violence against women, and, to a sightly lesser extent, trafficking and asylum issues.  None of the seven senior research members of the NSPCC listed amongst their interests the problem of teenage bullying, something which by any objective measure, including their own (see below), is the biggest single problem tormenting the lives of British school children today.

The NSPCC is one of the most powerful social forces in Europe, let alone the UK.  It largely defines our understanding of the health and moral state of the British family, in particular the status of the father, and in more general terms, all of us as men.  Furthermore, the legislation that results from its questionable research and incessant lobbying, from Westminster to Brussels, reaches into the homes and lives of men and families across the continent.

And it is indisputably a hardcore feminist organisation that hates men.

I’ll be writing further pieces on the NSPCC and other supposed child protection charities over the next few months. I may also update this article with further information regarding the feminist backgrounds of the rest of its research staff.  In the meantime, you may want to look at Angry Harry’s ‘The Curse of the NSPCC’ collection of essays. 

NOTES 1 : The NSPCC have their own telephone hotline for children who feel that they are being abused, called ‘Childline’.  According the the NSPCC’s own statistics being bullied by other children is the number 1 reason both boys and girls ring Childline, followed by physical abuse and general family problems.  Logically, you would expect the NSPCC to therefore devote a great part of its campaigning to addressing the issue of bullying, followed by the other two concerns.  Instead, it appears to focus the great majority of its campaigning and lobbying towards ending child sexual abuse, primarily that involving teenage girls, which, despite what you read in the media, is not even in the top 3 concerns of British children.   Likewise, you would also expect the NSPCC to give the greatest weight, when selecting research staff, to those candidates who have some experience in the understanding and prevention of bullying.  In fact, not a single one of their senior research team lists the prevention of bullying as a research interest or goal.  On the other hand, as we have seen, if you have a PHD in migrant studies or domestic violence, you certainly appear to have a head start on the rest of the ‘child protection’ candidates.

NOTES 2 : The NSPCC’s website also gives the following interesting statistic – ‘while 37% of girls say their mother is the source of the physical abuse, 25% say their father is’.  Something which completely contradicts their frequent misandristic emotional televison appeals featuring bruised and battered tiny daughters cowering in fear from their physically abusive fathers.

 Also :


Even social workers can see through the NSPCC

Professor Marianne Hester – Professional Liar

If you know of any other articles attacking the NSPCC as a corrupt organisation, please leave the links below in a comment.

The Abuse of Language (and real children) Continues

“If you define a child as anybody under the age of 30, the number of adults having sex with children rises to a sickening 80%”

The above quote wasn’t actually made by the Daily Mail or the NSPCC, but you’d hardly be surprised if it had been.  In fact, it was taken from the brilliant satire on paedohysteria brought to us by the genius of Chris Morris.  The point being that such manipulative shock language, when made by ‘experts’ such as the NSPCC, could get celebrities, politicians, and the public, to support just about any measures, no matter how insane, in the war against paedophilia.

We may not quite be at the point where a man having sex with anyone under 30 is a paedophile, but we’re fast approaching it.  The British media are currently in outrage at a scandal involoving Prince Andrew and his friendship with a ‘convicted paedophile‘Jeffrey Epstein’.  You’ve probably noticed that the media love the phrase ‘convicted paedophile’.  I can sort of see why.  It’s a manipulative loaded term that suggests that all men are paedophiles, only not all have been convicted yet.  And under their absurd definition of paedophilia, they’re right.  Jeffrey Epstein has not displayed any sexual preference for pre-pubescent 8 year olds.  In fact, his ‘crime’ consists of paying a beautiful 17 year old girl to give him a massage.  And who wouldn’t enjoy a massage from a beautiful 17 year old girl? Only (real) paedophiles, that’s who.

I have to confess that I’m pretty ignorent of American cultural history.  I don’t know what steps America took to get from Elvis Presely representing everything masculine about America in the 1960’s, when his penchant for adolescent girls was well known, to the 21st century, where even admitting that 17 year old girls are sexy will earn you a tag of paedophile notoriety.  Frankly, I’m not really interested.

I do have more knowlege of how it’s happend in the UK and Europe.  Largely because it has taken place before my eyes.  Only fifteen years ago nobody, and I mean nobody, would associate men having sex with 17 year old girls with paedophilia.  In fact, paedophilia hadn’t really even been ‘invented’ then. It was a term largely known only to professionals – a clinical term used to describe adults with a sexual fixation towards pre-pubescent children.  Fifteen years ago men who had sex with even 13 or 14 year olds were jocularly described as cradle snatchers, not paedophiles, and were rarely prosecuted unless the parents of the girl made a complaint.

Only 10 years ago, and British men were still happily staring at the breasts of 16 year old ‘children’ in tabloid newspapers.  Yet those same newspapers now speak of men simply being touched by 17 year old girls as perverted paedophiles.  What kind of self-deceit is taking place in the primitive brains of the people who write these things, and the morons who read them?

“She was just 17, if you know what I mean, and the way she looked was way beyond compare…so how could I dance with another,  when I saw her standing there?”

Well actually Sir Paul McCartney, we don’t know what the hell you mean you sick (un)convicted paedo you.

Maybe next week the papers will be screaming fury at the Queen and Prince Philip, for once being seen in the same room as four Liverpudlian paedophiles who sang about the unrivalled beauty of 17 year old girls?

Meanwhile, reader Highwayman brings disturbing news that an appeal court in Canada has upheld the nation’s infanticide law– a law which effectively means that women who kill their children are tried for a lesser crime than murder.   These are laws passed by the same wicked feminists who have defined men’s natural sexual desires as the worst form of child abuse.  Such feminists are worse than paedophiles, and not just because they support child murder.  They are worse because they don’t just exploit children, they exploit child abuse itself – for their own evil, selfish, sexual and financial ends.  The only thing they can really be compared to is the worst type of child pornographers, or perhaps those largely non-existent child prostitution traffickers.

Coming This Week : The NSPCC as a Feminist Organisation