Heretical Sex
« Previous EntriesArticle Summary
- Some Recommended Reading [2010-Aug-22]
- WikiLeaks founder falsely accused of rape [2010-Aug-21]
- Feminist Moral Bankruptcy [2010-Aug-14]
- Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Defence Secretary [2010-Jul-22]
- Book Recommendations [2010-Jul-21]
- The Reckoning [2010-Jul-18]
- Abusegate: It’s About Time This Scandal Surfaced. [2010-Jun-13]
- Another Dangerous False Accuser on the Loose [2010-May-25]
- Quote of the Day [2010-May-25]
- Titanic Day Petition [2010-Apr-17]
- « Previous Articles
Some Recommended Reading
Sunday, August 22nd, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Feminism is a Communist Plot, at 'A Voice For Men'
Human Rights or Wrongs? by Steven Baskerville.
The Welfare State We're In, by James Bartholomew
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
WikiLeaks founder falsely accused of rape
Saturday, August 21st, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Swedish prosecutors made the dramatic u-turn less than 24 hours after the document was originally issued, saying it had been based on an unfounded accusation.
Confusion now surrounds the case which has been branded a 'dirty tricks' campaign by Assange and his Wikileaks team.
The whistleblowers were preparing to release a fresh batch of classified U.S. documents from the Afghan war.
Reference
This shows yet again that false accusations of sexual offences can be and are routinely used to destroy the lives of innocent men. What more effective way is there of destroying a man? It's a silver bullet.
This is a blatantly sexist aspect of our culture, and a gross sexual injustice. Do you hear feminists complaining about it? No. Quite the reverse. They are largely responsible for promoting this climate of fear and suspicion.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Feminist Moral Bankruptcy
Saturday, August 14th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Hillary Clinton lost no opportunity to brandish her feminist credentials during her campaign to become the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee in 2008 and even went so far as to blame her failure to beat Barack Obama on the “glass ceiling”.
Unfortunately, the concrete ceiling of Ashtiani’s jail cell hasn’t inspired any comparable rhetoric. All she has said is that she’s “troubled” by Ashtiani’s case.
At least Hillary Clinton was able to bring herself to mutter this mild rebuke. No other prominent feminist has spoken out about Ashtiani’s case, unless you include Yoko Ono who has signed the petition calling for her to be freed. We’ve heard nothing from Germaine Greer, nothing from Gloria Steinem, nothing from Jane Fonda, nothing from Naomi Wolf, nothing from Clare Short, nothing from Harriet Harmen.
We know why, of course. Almost no one on the left, with the honourable exception of Christopher Hitchens, dares to breath a word against any Islamic country for fear of being branded “Islamophobic”. Thus, a brutal dictatorship is able to torture and murder thousands of innocent women, safe in the knowledge that the self-styled keepers of the West’s conscience will remain silent.
The left has always had a blind spot when it comes to the abuse of human rights in the developing world and no one is more guilty of this myopia than the women’s movement.
...The reaction of some in the West is to accuse them of a colonialist mentality. A British critic...demanded: “Why are we so wonderful? Our society is still just as sexist, albeit in more subtle ways, than the burka-enforcing Taleban. Working on a farm and producing your own food is a far more viable and healthy option that slaving in a sweat or sex shop.”
Could the West’s self-appointed defenders of women’s rights have done anything to prevent the wholesale slaughter of their sisters in the developing world if they’d taken up their cause? Could a feminist outcry today about the plight of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani do anything to prevent her death? We will never know, but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their continuing silence reveals the moral bankruptcy of their movement."
Toby Young, Why have Western feminists been so muted in their criticisms of Iran?
Toby Young is quite right to identify the moral bankruptcy of the feminist movement, but if he is surprised then he is clearly expecting too much of it. I learned a long time ago that you cannot expect feminists to stand up consistently on large matters of principle, despite how much they might like to fool themselves to the contrary. Consistently holding a moral principle means that, sometimes, you might have to forego an opportunity to indulge or enrich yourself, and that won’t do at all. Feminism has never been anything other than a call to narcissistic self-aggrandisement, encouraging women to ‘have it all’, and to cover any resultant negative consequences by bleating that ‘men have always had it all, so it’s only fair’. As such, feminism is a doctrine which is fundamentally designed to promote opportunism, selfishness and narcissism, and rather than encouraging high principle, it naturally leads instead to the sacrifice of high principles on the altars of avarice, spite and apathy.
Why does Young even think that feminists in particular should comment on the Ashtiani case anyway? It is of course, because Ashtiani is a woman, and because feminists are ‘the West’s self-appointed defenders of women’s rights’. Feminists are only interested in their own chosen client constituency: women. They are only interested in women because they themselves are women. They believe that the State should do as much as possible to ensure women’s comfort and security. As such, the feminist movement is essentially a National Socialist movement. Cradle-to-grave, State-funded social care, but only if you are an Aryan, sorry, Womyn. If you’re not one of the chosen ones, then you can go hang. That was Hitler’s social program in a nut-shell. The implication here is the same. Human rights abuses are only a bad thing if they are happening to women; as long as they are happening to men, the feminist movement couldn’t give a toss, and is not even expected to. What paragons of moral virtue.
As Young's quote above demonstrates, feminists apparently feel unable to distinguish why life in the West is any better than life in Iran anyway, without fear of seeming racist. This lack of moral confidence is a problem not just of the feminist movement, but of the Left in general. Since the late 1960s, radical scepticism has been the fashion in Western Left-wing academic circles. The dogma insists that there is no such thing as the truth, there is only opinion; nothing is 'natural' or determined, everything is socially constructed through discourse. If knowledge is impossible, then moral knowledge is also impossible. There is no such thing as right and wrong, good or bad. These terms are too judgemental. It is impossible to say anything about anything. Except that women are good and men are bad. Go figure.
Feminists have generally chosen not to speak out on the Ashtiani case, and it is easy to see why. For one thing, Iran is a very long way away (I would love to read about it, dahhhling (yawn), but I have a lunch appointment).
More importantly, feminists only have two moral positions to choose from:
- Self-serving, Statist, Manichean partisanship (the morals of National Socialism).
- Post-modernism (no morals at all).
Which one goes with this burka? Does my ego look big in this?
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Defence Secretary
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Since the Second World War, the nation has maintained a force that can conduct all-out warfare, counter-insurgencies such as in Afghanistan or medium scale campaigns like the Falklands or Sierra Leone.
But Dr Fox has given the strongest signal yet that it will have to give up one or more of these capabilities, which have been maintained at the same time as contributing to collective security pacts such as Nato. “We don’t have the money as a country to protect ourselves against every potential future threat,” he said. “We just don’t have it.” Reference
So, the Greenham Wimin have got their way in the end. The Toys will be taken from the Boys (and Girls) on the grounds that they are too expensive.
As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialists will spend other people's money on pursuing their dreams until there is none left". That is what has happened here. New Labour has left the country so bankrupt that it cannot even defend itself.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Book Recommendations
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
I can't believe that I haven't previously mentioned 'Taken Into Custody' by Steven Baskerville. As I have said before, my on-going research demonstrates to me that the political discrimination facing men, fathers and the family are infinitely worse than I had imagined. This book is truly shocking.
Some interesting videos related to the book can be found here.
Another astonishing read was 'The Welfare State We Are In' in which James Bartholomew argues very persuasively that Britain, and especially its poor, would have been better off had the welfare state never happened. Sound surprising? Read the book. Or watch a related video here.
Both highly recommended.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
The Reckoning
Sunday, July 18th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Firstly, that appalling government is now out of office at last. I am sad to say that I voted for Blair in 1997, but during the last two or three years of New Labour, I found them little short of terrifying. It is undoubtedly the most authoritarian government we've had since World War 2, and probably since Cromwell.
There is too much to say in one short article, but three things really stand out in my mind about the Labour government.
Immigration policy.
As Home Office whistle-blower Steve Moxon exposed in his excellent book 'The Great Immigration Scandal', and Labour apparachik Andrew Neather later admitted, it was Labour's policy to flood the country with uncontrolled mass immigration, specifically in order to alter the composition of British society, and to destroy traditional British national identity. They wanted to 'render the Right's arguments obsolete, and rub their noses in diversity'. They had to keep this secret from their core white working-class voters - the very people the Labour Party was formed to represent - because they knew that the electorate would never accept such a policy. I don't know about you, but to me, secretly planning to destroy the country's national identity sounds a lot like treason.
The Illegal Wars
The New Labour government launched military invasions of two sovereign countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, without any basis in international law. The reasons we were given for these wars were fabricated, and kept changing over time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Alastair Campbell fabricated evidence claiming that he did. The distinguished scientist David Kelly knew this, and died mysteriously, almost certainly murdered. Campbell is a war criminal under any meaningful definition, a propaganda minister who is prepared to disseminate lies in order to manufacture a spurious casus belli, provoking a conflict which caused over 100,000 civilian deaths, with countless others maimed, injured or displaced, a war which has provoked Islamic terrorism at home.
Afghanistan is hardly any better, one of the longest and most intractable military quagmires of recent times. And for what? Because Osama bin Laden is hiding there and they make women wear the burka? Why am I not convinced?
Both of these wars were ultimately about global energy security, and us sucking up to the Americans.
Not only did Labour send our troops to war, but kept them deliberately starved of funds and equipment. How many troops have died in Afghanistan for want of a helicopter or some body armour? I heard tell of troops being sent on patrol with only 10-15 rounds on them, in a rifle which holds 30 rounds. This is the way that Labour fights wars, sending troops out on foot with a half-empty gun, while squandering billions on a failed welfare state, increasing government surveillance, and promoting political correctness.
Some say that Labour has a long-standing distrust of the military ever since the planned coup in the late 1970s. When Wilson resigned in office, there was an internal leadership election. In the event James Callaghan won, but one of the candidates was Tony Benn, an ardent Leftist. There was apparently a plot involving Airey Neave, later killed by the IRA, to mount a coup if Benn came to power. Neave himself was a noted WW2 veteran, and this coup would have involved the military. The story is that Labour has had it in for the military ever since. So, Labour, when it returned to office, made sure that the army was kept very far away, very busy, and very starved of resources. That way it could not be a threat to Labour ever again.
Whether or not this is true, it seems clear that the Left does indeed hold the military in deep suspicion and contempt, because the Left, since it had its own internal coup, and Labour moved from being the Party of the Working-class Man, to being the Party of the Middle-class Working Woman, now regards the military as the symbol of everything it hates about 'The Patriarchy'; "Take the toys away from the boys and give peace a chance", chanted the Greenham Common wimin in the 1980s. This culture will have had real effects during cabinet horse-trading; more Chinooks, or more state-funded child-care? Hmmm. What would Harriet Harman do?
We should never have been in those wars in the first place, but it was infinitely worse to go into them without even supporting the troops properly. No wonder Cameron talked about "a breach of the Military Convenant". It was exactly that.
The Deficit
Labour expected to be wiped out at the polls, so it spent the last six months or so in office pursuing a scorched earth policy, deliberately making spending commitments it knew the next government could never honour. On its way out, it then left a sneering note saying "Sorry, there's no money left". Again, deliberately wrecking the country's finances for years to come sounds to me a lot like treason.
I don't have space here to talk about the economic mismanagement during the good years, the crime on the streets, the catastrophe that is the education system, the bloated benefit-dependent underclass, or the systematic attack on men and the family.
It is easy for us to sneer at politicians, but this is far worse than casual pub cynicism. This was a train-wreck of a government. It is difficult to imagine a worse set of outcomes.
It is not enough merely to say good riddance. Half of these people should be in prison for the rest of their lives, and what's more, they know it.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Abusegate: It’s About Time This Scandal Surfaced.
Sunday, June 13th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Abusegate: The Most Important Word in the English Language.
'Abusegate' refers to the systematic distortion of the truth about partner aggression by representatives of the domestic violence industry. Reference
"The story of Abusegate is as much about the attempt by feminists to obscure their real intentions as it is about feminist attempts to conceal the reality of partner abuse, in order to claim the issue as their own, and possibly the only issue available at the time to keep this essentially destructive philosophy alive. Reference
[In the 1970s and 1980s] except for the halls of academia, which began to offer “women’s studies” courses, and a few academicians pushing “feminist law,” and “feminist psychology,” the general public had little interest in a movement that was so clearly designed to create antipathy between not only the sexes, but between career women and those choosing more-traditional paths for themselves.
It was about the same time that the issue of partner abuse began to emerge as an issue on the public radar. In 1971, Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for abused women in the UK. There were also a few shelters for women developing independently in various places in the US.
This did not escape the attention of the zealots of the feminist faith and other opportunistic women. Surely there was profit and power to be gained in promoting this cause.
A theory regarding abuse was formulated, relying almost entirely on feminist supposition and the input from self-identified abused women. There has never been any kind of formal research or investigation of the feminist theory of abuse; it has simply been presented as a fait accompli and seldom, if ever, questioned. A look through the “Herstory,” (on the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse website, funded by your tax dollars) reveals a stunning lack of mention of research of any kind behind the feminist concept of domestic violence.
This is probably the most astonishing fact of Abusegate: While Climategate has at least some basis in research and scientific theory, there is none whatsoever behind the myriad programs and laws established since the 1970s by the so-called, “Battered Women’s Movement.” Even the term itself was created for its impact by feminists whose goals had very little to do with providing aid for women."
Once we've jailed those responsible for AbuseGate, we need to turn our attention to RapeGate, PaedophiliaGate and PayGapGate. Feminists are people who quite literally lie for a living. They have got to be stopped.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Another Dangerous False Accuser on the Loose
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
Despite being exposed in court as a serial liar, legal restrictions mean the 21-year-old woman can never be identified.“ Reference
Consider this woman’s actions. She has maliciously accused at least two men of raping her. She must be aware of the fact that one of them committed suicide. Yet she shows no sign of ever stopping. It seems likely that this woman has the potential to become a serial life destroyer if left unchecked; she will spend the rest of her life getting as many men as possible falsely imprisoned. Like a kind of serial killer by proxy, driving as many men to suicide as possible. This is someone who is probably a clinical sociopath. She is demonstrably a danger to the public. Yet it seems that no action has been taken against her, and she remains protected by legal anonymity.
How can this situation be explained? The problem is that false accusations are only ever seen as a crime against the State, not as a crime against the person.
All victims of crime have a right of redress. In a democracy, we relinquish our personal right to revenge, and instead transfer it to the State, which acts on our behalf.
Ms Jones alleges that Mr Smith has raped her. She seeks help from the State. In the ensuing trial of the Crown vs Mr Smith, it transpires that Ms Jones has been lying all along. However, her motivations for having done so are rarely examined. Her action is seen only as an offence against the Crown; wasting taxpayer's money, or wasting the judicial system's time and resources. It is not seen as a crime against Mr Smith.
As I mentioned above, whenever a crime is committed, the victim has the right to seek redress. In such cases as this, the Crown usually chooses to forego its right. If the false accuser is charged with anything at all, she will only be charged with crimes again the Crown; wasting police time, or perverting the course of justice. In many cases, the accuser could be charged with the more serious crime of perjury, but this almost never happens. The State wishes to appear magnanimous and merciful, and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office have been comprehensively penetrated by feminists who do not believe that women should ever be charged with criminal offences, certainly not with offences against men. Thus accusers are almost never held to account for their actions.
However, even when they are, look what happens. A false accusation, if it is even seen as a crime at all, is seen only as a crime against the State; it is not seen as a crime against the wrongly accused. She may be charged with wasting police time; she will not be charge with crimes against Mr Smith. Yet she has made a concerted attempt to destroy his life.
Men, it seems, simply have no right of redress against women, due to an ideological assumption that it is impossible for women to commit offences against men. Ms Jones has not committed an offence against Mr Smith by accusing him of rape. She has only committed relatively minor offences against the State, by wasting its time, and these can usually be overlooked.
However, this is profoundly wrong and unjust.
In lobbying for false accusers to be dealt with by the courts in order to discourage others, many people have been asking for the wrong things. Some have been asking only that the state does not forego its right of redress, and that false accusers are charged with perjury or perverting the course of justice as a matter of course. Perhaps they should.
However, we should always be making the far more radical demand that false accusations are recognised as a serious crime against the person. The accused man must be given a right of redress also. The crime against him is far more serious than the crimes against the State which have been committed, and he is far less able than the State to treat the offence with equanimity.
In a rape trial, the law regards the accuser as the victim, until such time as it becomes clear that she is lying. After that, the law regards itself as the victim. At no time does the law ever recognise the interests of the accused man. This is what needs to change.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Quote of the Day
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
George Orwell
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
Titanic Day Petition
Saturday, April 17th, 2010
By Heretical Sex [source]
"We hereby proclaim the 15th of April to be Titanic Day. It is a day of reflection and contemplation for men who reject the tenets of chivalry, feminism and all other forms of male indentured servitude.
We seek on this day to remind ourselves, our sons and each other of our intrinsic, inalienable worth as human beings. We collectively reject that any ideology or social code that would reduce us to mere utility or regard our state as disposable."
I'm not sure that I do 'reject the tenets of chivalry'. I think chivalry has a plausible evolutionary basis. I just think that women should stop, through the offices of the feminist movement, biting the hand that feeds them. The fact is women benefit from chivalry, and yet they manage to make out that it is somehow an evil conspiracy against them. I still want to hear a feminist explaining why is was that back in the bad old days of the Patriarchy, before feminists saved the world, it was women and children first in the lifeboats. Why was it not men first in the life-boats?
There is an interesting article here: Titanic Sized Hatred by Feminists Predates Second Wave
Apparently feminists were whining even at the time, diminishing men's contribution.
"Mis [sic] Sylvia Pankhurst, sister of Cristabel, was asked how the remarkable proportion of women saved accorded with the suffragette theory that chivalry was dead. She said she did not want to minimize in any way the gallantry displayed, but it must be born in mind that it was the universal rule in the cases of shipwreck that women and children should be saved first and that the instance of the Titanic was not the only one in which that was carried out. It was merely a matter of rule. There was no special chivalry attached to it."
She did not bother to reflect on the fact that any such 'universal rule' in fact constitutes a female privilege, which must be offset against any apparent under-privilege. She assumes that a seat in the lifeboat is simply a part of her entitlement.
Topics: Heretical Sex | View Comments
« Previous Entries