As golf fans count down to the first ever Welsh-hosted Ryder Cup, teeing off this Friday, Wales has been told to brace itself for an influx of sex-trafficking victims.
A recent Welsh Assembly report concluded that it is ‘highly likely’ that the Ryder Cup will result in a surge in sex trafficking to Wales. As evidence, it pointed to how Greece licensed new brothels ahead of the 2004 Athens Olympics to meet demand and said that ‘mega-brothels’ were built to satisfy sex-seeking football players and fans during Germany’s 2006 World Cup.
The media has repeated the assembly’s claims without question, predicting that the Ryder Cup will ‘fuel a boom in women and children forced here from abroad to work in the Welsh sex industry’.
But there is one problem with all this: the claims around the Athens Games and the World Cup in Germany in 2006 are based on myths that refuse to die.
Sex Trafficking for the Ryder Cup is about as real as a Japanese Prostitute Vending Machine :
We can dream.
Feminist hysteria and bullshit over sex trafficking might be as strong as ever, but could we be seeing an effort by Britain’s coalition government to finally stem the destructive tide of paedohysteria?
The myth that England’s teachers are not allowed to touch pupils when they need to restrain or comfort them is to be tackled, the education secretary has said.
Michael Gove said the clarification was part of a “new deal” for teachers.
They would also be given some anonymity when facing allegations from pupils.
The Government must scrap the vetting system for people working with children and vulnerable adults or risk creating a broader culture of fear that will “poison the relationship between the generations”, a think-tank has said.
The atmosphere of suspicion created by the vetting and barring scheme (VBS) decimates the Government’s Big Society concept and “actually increases the risks to children”, Civitas said.
But charities warned that while it may be nicer to believe the scheme was not needed, and while it “might be unpleasant to stomach”, in reality it is “necessary to protect our children”.
Meanwhile, the UK’s self-appointed Pedo-Finder General – Jim Gamble – has resigned after his anti-paedophile organization was forced to give up its independence. No more posing as sexy 15 year old girls and luring lonely men to their doom for him then. Well, maybe now and then for ‘research’ purposes only.
Police chiefs, campaigners and politicians are urging the Government to reconsider plans that would affect the independence of the agency combating online paedophiles after its boss quit in protest.
Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) Centre, tendered his resignation over a proposal to incorporate it into a new National Crime Agency.
He felt the decision was not in the “best interests” of vulnerable children despite Home Secretary Theresa May saying the country did not need “another quango”.
The only thing that will end the paedohysteria and child abuse industry that is eating away at our society, and which is turning young people into ferral, self-loathing, adult-loathing animals, is some kind of law to stop it. I propose something along the lines of this :
It be made a criminal offence to exploit the natural concern for the welfare and protection of children and young people by an adult or adults for selfish gain, be it financial, sexual, or psychological.
Hopefully, the punishment for the ‘child’ victimisers breaking such a law would be a good old fashioned witch burning. Anything to stop the shameless exploitation of real child abuse and the erosion of the values (such as respect for older people) upon which every prior civilisation has been built.
“There was a lot of stuff about paedophillia in the papers that year. It was as though somebody had put the word out – ‘come down hard on the paedophiles’. And all because they hate old people and the idea of growing old themselves.”
You’ve had it. Vile. Buggered, really. Boring, smelly, grunting, boring, droning, snoring, droning… hang on.
Couple of questions. Male? Check. Older? Check. Right. You’ve had it. You can’t cook. You do something terrible and unspecified with your socks. You have no conversation. You may be living longer but is that necessarily a good thing? Or better you die (quietly, without smells, grunts or droning) and reduce the surplus population. You’re just taking up space. Worse, you’re failing to please women. So get lost. NOW. Women insist on it.
It turns out that older men chasing younger women contributes to human longevity and the survival of the species, according to new findings by researchers at Stanford and the University of California-Santa Barbara.
Evolutionary theory says that individuals should die of old age when their reproductive lives are complete, generally by age 55 in humans, according to demographer Cedric Puleston, a doctoral candidate in biological sciences at Stanford. But the fatherhood of a small number of older men is enough to postpone the date with death because natural selection fights life-shortening mutations until the species is finished reproducing.
There’s something uniquely sad and degrading about the growing phenomenon of women in their 40′s and 50′s re-touching their Facebook photos to look like a beautiful teenager again. And usually, when the re-touching is not done via professional hands, the results are quite grotesquely alien and unnerving.
Fortunately, even feminism can’t stop nature constantly renewing itself and for every withered flower there is always another blossom revealing its natural beauty to the sunlight.
Sugihara Anri, Japanese busty idol – female perfection embodied
A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.
His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.
His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.
They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.
Good! This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.
I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’. Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers. The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).
In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market. In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia. Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies? In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention. Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.
Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.
Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)? After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week. Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?
Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women. Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.
The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age. But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants).
This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions. We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality. Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games. Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd. Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.
Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity. In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light. In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.
Manwomanmyth, creator of a superb series of men’s rights videos on YouTube, has become the latest MRA to voice concern over Reddit/r/mensrights- a place supposedly for supporters to post and discuss links relating to the cause, yet instead dominated by feminists who spend most of their time telling others what is and isn’t an issue for men (and never mention men’s needs when posting in other reddits that are of importance to themselves – i.e anything and only anything pertaining to sex and relationships).
It is the Internet equivalent to a false-flag operation against the men’s movement….
The genuine issues affecting men and viewpoints voiced by men are, with regularity, roundly dismissed and disparaged in an orchestrated fashion by what seems like a clique of individuals – bothmen and women, I believe – with strongly Feminist viewpoints. The intent seems to be about constructing a “pretend” or faux men’s rights forum, a kind of hoax or dummy site whose purpose seems to be to draw attention away from legitimate and fair examination of men’s issues.
Now, no single person or group, no particular political persuasion or allegiance, has the right to define what men’s rights is and ought to be – although one or two individuals with out of control self-aggrandizing egos might think otherwise. The problem with Reddit mens rights is that it is feminists who are defining what our agenda should be, feminists who clearly have no real interest in men’s rights or for speaking up for men elsewhere on the internet. This is a danger because reddit is likely to reach no.1 on Google for ‘men’s rights’ and will therefore become our unofficial ‘home page’. Yet it will not have been able to achieve this feat through the usual and valid route of being linked to, and thus given authority, by dozens of genuine men’s rights blogs. It enjoys its high position on Google simply because it is piggy-backing on the massive page ranking of Reddit.com itself.
In fact, if myself and JayHammers hadn’t set up our alternative – reddit/r/mensrightslinks (and thus splitting the reddit Google page rank) it probably would already have reached the summit, or at least managed to nestle itself behind wikipedia.org/mensrights.
The human race will be extinct in 100 years, a top scientist in Australia credited with helping wipe out smallpox believes.
Humans devouring natural resources and population numbers exploding daily have made microbiology professor Frank Fenner a pessimist.
Now I like to keep a sceptical mind on tales of environmental doom as much as the rest of us who belong outside the PC Leftie religion, but it seems to me to be just as much an irrational act of blind faith to suppose that homo-sapians can continue indefinitely to breed, consume, and to strip nature of its dwindling resources. Why should it be assumed that global warming is a left-wing issue and disbelief in it, not only a conservative, but a men’s rights issue? Why does ‘Mens News Daily’ carry THREE different ‘global warming is nonsense” stories on its front page on the very day that it chooses to completely ignore Elena Kagan’s triumphant supreme court decision to allow the indefinite detention of men who break feminist sex laws? It is true that the great Angry Harry talks a lot about global warming, but he at least places the subject in its proper context – an example of how elites are using fear and ropey science to increase their own globalised state power and personal wealth. And, as usual, he has been proven to a large extent right. However, what is the underlying faith of humanism and it’s feminist parasitical off-shoot, if not the incredulous dogma that humans have God like powers to shape the world in their own image – completely ignoring the Darwinian reality that we are just another shifting gene variation, subject to evolutionary laws like every other animal? Surely it is the role of Conservative’s to challenge this delusion in all it’s forms?
On a related topic, I spotted this interesting piece by Ferdinand Bardamu of Inmalafide.com, in which he proposes a novel solution to the ever diminishing birth rates of the white race and consequent possible demise at the hands of breeding like rabbit johnny foreigners. The typical answer of conservatives, and of course, white nationalists, is to propose a return to the ultra-traditional family values that have been devastated by a combination of feminism and sexual liberation. Ferdinand, on the other hand, claims that ‘it’s easier to destroy than create’ and argues that we should concentrate on spreading the poison pill of Western decadence to our foreign rivals :
We begin by mass airdropping “sexual humanitarian aid” packages into third world countries. Porn mags, hand lotion, and condoms for the guys, vibrators and the Pill for the girls. When Achmed from Fallujah getsa look at this month’s Playboy Centerfold, he’ll be too busy cranking his little Muhammad to spare a drop of love juice for his hairy, burqa-clad wife. And if Maria from Santo Domingo doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant, she’ll be free to spend her quinceñera getting her Virgin Mary desecrated by all the hot boys in the barrio. It’ll be like a sweatier, sexier, more sallow-faced Berlin Airlift.
I agree. First of all, the planet could not sustain a Europe and America that rediscovered how to breed like Muslims or Indians.
Secondly, what the hell is the point of abandoning Western liberalism and copying Islamic values, simply in order to maintain Western civilisation? (O.K, it would be valid if you simply want to preserve the ‘white race’, which is what Ferdinand’s post is responding to, but squarely put to the multitude of ultra-conservatives who dominate the anti-feminist movement – just convert to Islam and be done withit. Don’t bother with men’s rights. Just spend your time trying to bring awareness to feminists that their movement is merely a subconscious response to the supposed sexual liberation, and that Islam IS the best lowest common sexual denominator between the mass of beta males and beta females.
Of course, there isn’t any need to drop playboy magazines over Tehran or Islamabad. Per head of internet population, these burka barmy nations have the highest number of google searches for porn in the entire world - despite porn being illegal in those countries. As Michael Houellebecq has pointed out (see below), the technological, economic, and cultural forces forever widening the free sexual market will inevitably rip open Islamic societies too. That might save the west, but it will largely mean that feminists will replace Mullahs in those countries, in vainly trying to close the sexual market, whilst having their (economically independent) cake and eating it.
I don’t believe that sexual liberation is, in itself, the cause of problems in western society. As I constantly argue here, Feminism is a response to sexual liberation, not the cause of it. Single teenage mothers, the hatred and distrust between generations, boys having no male role models in their lives – these things are the cause of societal breakdown in the West, and the primary cause of these things is the feminist response to sexual liberation. Furthermore, as I will argue in another post, the conservative response (particularly the American model) only serves to exacerbate these problems.
Today’s adventures in Craigslist: A California man called the cops when the woman he hired from the site to perform a “sexy dance” showed up and, surprisingly, didn’t live up to the promises of her ad’s photo. The man gave her $200 upfront, then reconsidered and told her to take $20 for cab fare and be on her way. She left with all the money instead, prompting the call to police
And why shouldn’t he? Women excel in obtaining what they want from men through false sexual signals – whether they are deceitful whores of the official or unofficial sort. Yet there are actually feminist creatures such as Denise Romano attempting to have Pick-up-artists arrested for rape – when such people are doing nothing other than using skill and their high iqs to send false sexual signals to beautiful women in order to lay them (i.e. that they are alpha male dominant apes when in fact they are beta male ‘geeks’).
Here is a suggestion. There are now nearly a million sex offenders in the USA. An ever increasing majority of those will have become sex offenders through breaking laws that were created by feminists that just so happen to increase the sexual power of those feminists (in a free sexual market). Why not attempt to have the evil women behind those laws brought to court for ‘attempted rape’? Now that you can be locked away indefinitely, it’s not as if u have anything to lose except your chains (and your daily ass rape in the shower). At least it might bring to the public arena the clear selfish sexual motivations of most of these evil harridans.
A secondary school has banned girls from wearing skirts, regardless of length, to prevent them from attracting unwanted attention.
Another step closer to the burka…for teenage girls only..
A common objection to my thesis of feminism being primarily a sexual trade union is to point out that feminists no longer seem overly concerned, or at least active, at attempting a complete ban on pornography. The reason is actually quite simple. Feminists have largely retired their attempts at obtaining an outright ban, because the hysteria over child porn and subsequent laws have enabled them to achieve something far greater than an outright prohibition would. It has enabled them to spread the worldwide meme that all under 18′s (‘minors’) are non-sexual children who are stictly, and equally, out of bounds for men. That the innate maleattraction to fertile teenage girls is ’paedophilia’ is something that no culture in human history has ever taken seriously before (and any such culture would likely have been outbred and wiped out by rivals in a few generations if it had). And it would never have been able to propagate itself outside of America and the dusty vaginas of middle-aged feminists and train-spotting ultra conservatives, if porn had been universally illegal.
In effect, feminists have used ‘child porn’, a concept that would have little meaning if ALL porn was illegal. to introduce a world-wide age of consent of 18, something which has been a driving motivation of feminists since the social purity movements and the early suffragettes, and something which they have singularly failed to achieve (outside of a few states in America). As recently as a decade ago, feminist lobby groups were still trying to force the United Nations to impose a global age of consent setat 18. They failed, but successfully switched tactics to effectively obtain the same end by pressurising the UN to universally define a child as anybody under the age of 18. So now, so much as look at a 17 year old girl anywhere in the world and you face being spat at as a paedophile if you’re over 21, despite the fact that the age of consent is 18 in less than 2% of the nations of the Earth (you could also face ‘child porn’ charges in Europe if you sexted your 17 year old girlfriend thanking her for the ‘great sex’ after legally fucking her).
On the issue which has been the historical driving force behind feminism, the unattractive, middle-aged woman has finally won, and it is a victory that would likely never have been possible if second wave feminists had succeeded in making porn illegal.
*Also, the existance of virtual child pornography laws, as well as the infamous 2257 law, are largely responsible for the entire ‘MILF’ fetish. Pornography webmasters are now so afraid to fall foul of these laws that ‘Barely Legal 18 y.o. teen sites are becoming much rarer. Pornographers are choosing to play safe and promote MILF/Mature sites, which now proliferate in the pornosphere.
This is a bit of an antifeminist.com exclusive, as the announcement of Houellebecq’s forthcoming new novel hasn’t appeared yet in any english google news links. Michel Houellebecq is an important writer (and massively read everywhere outside of the anglosphere) because he picks apart the delusions of the Feminist ’liberal’ equality faith, most commonly in the primal sexual setting which acts as both their embarrasing origin and their inevitable demise. A Houellebecq novel is a pornographic version of what might be produced by throwing into a fucked up literary grinder the collected works of Marx, Schopenhauer, Camus.. and the Carry On Film scripts.
The new novel is entitled La carte et le territoire (‘the map and the territory’) and no doubt the small band of English speaking Houellebecq fans will have to wait an extra year for the translation to appear.
