‘Political correctness’ – PC – can accurately be considered the new fascism (as will be fully explained).

Contrary to its tenets, it’s the ordinary person, the Average Joe, we are prejudiced towards, and who indeed is disadvantaged and ‘oppressed’; not women, ethnic minorities and gays. 
* Women have always been actually privileged, and if in some way some women lost out as social conditions changed, then this was amended with a speed hampered only by inertia itself caused by the very strength of the arrangements already in place to provide female advantage but now anachronistic.
* Many ethnic-minority groups fare better in education and in work than the average citizen, often in the context of the sort of community cohesion now lost to the host culture.
* ‘Gays’ likewise benefit from community cohesion, are notably over-represented in nice-jobs-if-you-can-get-them, and don’t have the costs of compromising with the opposite sex.
The hard-done-by group in any and every society is the mass of (necessarily) lower-status males.

The deepest of reasons account for this: the root function of the male across biology (as will be explained). But synergistically with this, in our own culture there has been a pathological all-pervasive political development.

There is a powerful reason why we never hear talk about ‘the workers’ any more: it’s that they never ‘rose up’ as Marxist theory prescribed and predicted; leaving egg on the faces of those with a political-left mindset. Reducing this ‘cognitive-dissonance’ could be achieved in the classic way of not blaming either one’s own gullibility or the belief itself, and instead to blame others.

Given that the typical worker was male and white, so it became imperative to erase this sub-group from consideration as being in need of ‘liberation’, and to substitute sub-groups that are non-male and non-white. Hence women, ethnic minorities and gays were latched on to as the superficially plausible new ‘oppressed’; not merely displacing ‘the workers’ but inverting their role in ideology to be the new ‘oppressor’ class, whilst transforming the state in political imagination from the tool of the ‘boss’ class to the supposed agent of social change. On the standard principle that a turncoat is reviled even more than an enemy, enmity transferred from the ‘boss’ class to the mass of ordinary people (less the abstracted aforesaid sub-groups).

The process began long ago, in the late 1920s, when it was first realised that the Soviet experiment was failing economically, and that therefore a cultural rather than an economic theory of Marxism was required. Academics in central Europe (who took themselves and their ideas to the USA and its Ivy League universities) rationalised the failure of theory regarding the ‘proletariat’ by utilising then current (but now entirely discredited) pseudo-scientific ideas of Freud concerning repression and the family. ‘Capitalism’ was deemed to ‘repress’ the ‘worker’ through the agency of the family, which itself was falsely regarded as a ‘capitalist’ creation.

These idiotic notions filtered down through the vastly expanding university systems across the West in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, through highly influential writers such as Herbert Marcuse, ready to fully ‘hit the pavement’ at the time that the political-Left collapsed first as an electoral force (circa 1980 with the end of the post-war settlement and the rise of Thatcher and Reagan), and then as a forcible imposition (in 1989 with the spectacular implosion of the Soviet empire). In the 1990s, if not before, PC became the new religion of the government-media-education elite, and then, as ever, the rest of the establishment – not least the police and the judiciary – fell into line behind the new order.

It was never a question of ‘political correctness gone mad’: PC never made (any rational) sense in the first place. In pretending to be about being nice to people but actually despising us, it’s the deepest and widest, most serious political fraud in history; that may be – is clearly meant to be — the death of our culture. PC is the quintessential example of expressing pique in the time-honoured manner of ‘throwing the toys out of the pram’.

Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them  from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.

A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.

Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.

On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse.  But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.

I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide.  I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).

Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts.  And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.

I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition.  I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market.  Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill.  That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades.  But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves. 

Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century.  The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male.  It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker.  Since the 60′s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing.  But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).

Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind.  The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).

The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.

Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia).  They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.

 But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry?  Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have.  The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for.  Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want).  The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.

The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism.  Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open.  Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.

But what really angers me is the constant media portrayal, and general assumption, of the burqa ban being something championed and carried through by French feminists. Is this really the case? A recent opinion poll found that over 80% of French people were in favour of a ban. In fact a majority in most of the European nations surveyed were in favour of a ban in their own countries. Interestingly, there was ‘little or no variation between the genders‘ in the level of support. Now, given that we know only too well how prone women are to vote for their own selfish gender interests, it does seem a little surprising that if this is about the oppression of women that there is no variation between genders. It should also be noted that the socialist opposition party abstained from voting in favour of the ban.

Isn’t it a little more likely, given the general deafening silence of feminists towards Islam, that this is all about Sarkozy and his center-right party appealing to the ‘Islamaphobic’ fear that the white population in France have of the rapidly accelerating demographic shift between themselves and their un-integrated muslim minority? This ban is about preventing white working-class votes falling into the hands of the far right and, in itself,  likely no more to do with feminists standing up against the Islamic ‘oppression of women’ than is the recent Swiss ban on building minarets.

Don’t believe me?  Well why don’t you listen to the voice of third wave feminism herself?

Jessica Valenti on the French Burka Ban :

Banning the burqa doesn’t further women’s rights – it limits them. Now, obviously there’s a difference in Islamic women’s dress from the hijab to the burqa – but legally banning any of them erases all agency from Muslim women.

Is anyone really surprised by this?  Surprised by the fact that a feminist who wants men caged for having sex with love dolls is opposed to a law that increases men’s buying options in a sexual market?

Well, actually, depressingly, I think most MRA’s are still surprised by this.  But thankfully, not anti-feminists with intelligence.

An adequate discussion of men-women in the Islamic and Hebraic traditions would require a whole book, so I limit myself here to one sentance : Islamic garb, like other phenomena such as foot binding and female circumcision, is as much to do with female-female competition as it is with men jealously guarding their women.

(a footnote in the forward of Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’)

Pretty girl get’s choked and humiliated by feminist school bully

Warning – very disturbing video

Now, the supposed oppression of women under Islam is not the only thing that feminists are mysteriously silent about.  Whilst feminist sexual pressure groups such as the NSPCC, posing as child protection charities, are busy organizing massive freebie conferences from Brazil to Japan, dedicated to ridding the world of the tragic scourge of 17 year old Lithuanian girls happily showing themselves on webcam, another internet phenomena has grown up in the last few years – the YouTube bitch fight.  And strangely, whilst those who profess to care about ‘children’ will stop at nothing to prevent nubile 16 and 17 year old girls from freely giving sexual enjoyment to men, somehow, the existance of thousands of online videos showing children as young as 5 beating, bullying, and maiming each other has somehow slipped under their collective radar. 

Slipped under their radar?  WTF am I talking about?  Dozens, if not hundreds of websites (mostly openly based in America – a country which locks up teenagers for ‘sexting’ each other) feature hardly anything but these horrific videos.  And the sole purpose of these websites is to make money from the graphic and undeniable, but non-sexual, abuse and traumatisation of children.  In fact, judging from the invariable calls of ‘this is going on YouTube’ intermingled with the screams to ‘fuck her up Ashley’, there is no doubt that if these websites didn’t exist (i.e. were shut down by the FBI after being lobbied to do so by ‘child protection’ groups) then thousands of young children wouldn’t have had their trauma viewed by millions, if not avoided altogether in the first place.

But of course feminsts and their sexual pressure groups have no interest in stopping the abuse of children. Their only desire and motivation is in limiting competition to themselves and their female supporters by preventing teenage girls from entering the free sexual market that their feminist predecessors were only too happy to proclaim back in the 60′s and 70′s.

Two girls, who appear to be no more than 10 years old, fight each other, apparently spurred on by adults, in a YouTube video that was uploaded over 6 months ago and has thus far received 7,000 viewers.  5 people have upvoted the video, 2 have downvoted it…presumably because they feel it is not violent enough.

If any feminists reading this (and I know most of my readers are feminists) can give a satisfactory explanation as to why NOT A SINGLE feminist or A SINGLE ONE of their sickening child protection charities are campaigning against these videos, and yet it has been necessary (and easy) to introduce world-wide legislation to imprison any man who looks at a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini, I hereby promise to abandon this website and become a committed supporter of feminism henceforth.

The silence is deafening.

The flames of hell are not good for the skin.

Ministers have vowed to press ahead with plans to give anonymity to men accused of rape despite a cross-party campaign led by a new Tory MP.

Members from all sides of the House said the Coalition’s plans not to name men until they are charged would deter victims from coming forward to the police.

But junior justice minister Crispin Blunt yesterday confirmed he was pressing ahead with the controversial proposals, which were imposed on the Tories by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition agreement.

Louise Bagshawe, a successful chick-lit author who became a Tory MP at the last election, told the Commons that by ‘ singling out rape in this way ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape’.

SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293169/MP-Louise-Bagshawe-leads-rebellion-anonymity-rape-defendants.html#ixzz0tOkFq6Ni

The attempts by the Liberal Democrats to give men accused of rape anonymity are looking increasingly fragile.  The rebellion, led by a CONSERVATIVE female MP tells us a lot about female politics…as well as confirming Arthur Schopenhauer’s ‘misogynistic’ observation that ‘the fundamental defect of a woman is a lack of a sense of justice’.

Whether they are representatives of ‘the left’ or ‘the right’, female politicians invariably speak for the interests of women. On this issue, only one question is relevant for them. Will granting anonymity to men accused of rape increase female sexual power, or decrease it?  No brainer.  It will decrease it, and therefore every woman MP, no matter what supposed party political allegiance, will fight against it.  Men’s rights? Human rights?…pffffff.

And again, to the deluded majority of the men’s rights movement who assume that our cause is synonymous with conservatism – this bill (to grant men anonymity) is being re-introduced by the liberals.  When British women were granted anonymity in rape trials several decades ago, the accused men were given the same protection.  It was the CONSERVATIVE party who changed this in 1982, allowing hundreds of men’s lives to be ruined by false allegations in the years since.

As you would expect, the False Rape Society is doing an excellent job in covering developments in what might turn out to be a defining moment for the future of men’s rights.

If you live in the UK, please write to (e-mail) your MP stating the case for anonymity for accused men : Write to Them

Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket – looking forward to reading this

I’ve read a few anti-feminist books, and I think I’m aware of the existance of most of the few that I haven’t yet got round to, but this one has somehow slipped under my radar.  Until, that is, a loyal reader by the name of ‘Highwayman’ informed me of it in a comment left here a few days ago.  I can only think that the reasons it doesn’t get mentioned a lot in the MRM community are similar to the relative neglect of Neil Lyndon’s classic ‘No More Sex War’ :

1. It’s by a British author.
2. It’s pro sex (or at least against the feminist rape of male sexuality).
3. The author has probably never had a wet dream involving Sarah Palin.

Anyway, here’s the Highlander’s excellent comments on the book – comments that prompted me to order it from Amazon the same night and have left me drooling in anticipation at reading one of those rare books that might affect my entire intellectual landscape.  Hopefully it lives up to my expectations and I’ll try to put up a review here very soon.

I highly recommend reading the chapter on prostitution in Steve Moxon’s book The Woman Racket. He really tears into the arguments that feminists and others try to use to suppress prostitution and to punish the men who patron sex care workers.

His theory as to what motivates people to oppose men patroning prostitutes is interesting. He belives it is caused by the “cheater detection mechanism” whereby people become outraged by what they PERCEIVE is a lower status male having access to females that his position in the dominance hierachy would not allow him to if he were not to patron prostitutes. This could explain why some men are also opposed to men seeing sex care workers because they might fear that if lower status males can “cheat the system” then perhaps the entire dominance heirarchy could be undermined. Of course it could also be that some men oppose the patronage of sex care workers because they believe that a deity commands them to or because they are trying to suck it up to women too.

BTW according to research men who patron sex care workers come from all varieties of socio-economic backgrounds and even if some unattractive or “lower status” men are able to find some sexual fulfillment through patroning sex care workers…good for them I say!

Bernard Chapin, author of one of the classic anti-feminist works himself, has compiled this excellent Men’s Rights Book List

Also check out this classic old skool Chapin’s Inferno :

 Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle Fight Over Emma Watson

You see old femiwhores – you could introduce the death penalty for glancing in the street at a girl under 21 and castrated bitch MRAs might be the first to applaud you. But you know what? Ultra alpha males like Brock and Kurt would still fight over who caught the pretty jailbait’s eye.