Misandry Review » Heretical Sex

The Great Immigration Scandal

Heretical Sex — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:46:00 +0000

The true scope of the Labour project has now become clear.

“The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 — in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.”
Reference

The evidence for this claim seems to be mounting. Steve Moxon made the same claim in his book ‘The Great Immigration Scandal’.

Moxon was employed by the Home Office as an Entry Clearance Officer, and he wrote the book to expose corruption and malpractice in the service, forcing the resignation of the then immigration minister, Beverley Hughes.

He also claimed in his book that it was Labour’s clear intention to use mass immigration as an instrument to destroy, quite deliberately, the traditional character of British national identity.

Some naïve voters still think that the Labour Party is ‘the party of the working man’. It is not. It probably has not been that since the 1950s. The party traditionally represented the interests of the working-class, particularly males employed in heavy industries, like coal, steel and ship-building. This was the working-class that I was lucky enough to see the final years of. This industrial ‘labour’ force no longer exists. Those industries finally disappeared during the Thatcher years, and in many places, were not replaced with anything.

The disappearance of traditional industries resulted in the disappearance of the working-class. Where is ‘the working-class’ today? Once a Left-wing Shibboleth, it is an expression you almost never hear any more. Now we have an ‘under-class’ instead.

It was inevitable that Labour was going to have to re-invent itself. But who was it going to represent?

They know from their market research who votes for them. Public-sector employees. Benefit recipients. Ethnic minorities. It should come as no surprise to find that they went out of their way to maximise the population of all three groups, in order to build their new voter base.

The number of people on benefits has massively increased under Labour. We now have the largest public sector workforce since World War 2. Around three million immigrants have arrived in the UK since Labour came to office. This seems to be part of a cynical master-plan to keep themselves in power.

What they have done, in fact, is to open the door to neo-fascism. We are seeing, for the first time since the 1930s, a racist party gaining significant support, on an anti-immigration platform. This, as well as the rest of the economic and social chaos we see around us, is the result of Labour's grand strategy.

I am not alone in feeling that Labour’s plan is verging on treason. What a great legacy they will leave behind. Borderline treason. International war crimes. Economic and social ruin. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth, have only ever delivered hell".

Duke Lacrosse Liar Charged with Attempted Murder and Arson

Heretical Sex — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:30:00 +0000

The stripper who falsely accused three university lacrosse players of rape nearly four years ago has been charged with attempted murder after a fight with her boyfriend.

Crystal Mangum, 31, was arrested on Wednesday on charges including arson and assault, according to police in Durham, North Carolina.

She was also charged with identity theft, communicating threats, damage to property, resisting an officer and misdemeanor child abuse.

Mangum became infamous in 2006, when she accused three white Duke students of gang-raping her at an off-campus party.

The athletes were cahrged on the strength of Mangum's claims.

But the rape indictments were later dropped after Mangum told North Carolina prosecutors she was no longer sure whether anyone had sex with her.

By then, Duke had kicked the athletes out of college and their names and reputations were badly damaged.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was later disbarred over his handling of the racially-charged case.

The troubled accuser was not charged with making false accusations because investigators concluded she actually believed the tales she told.

It also turned out the Duke case wasn't the first time Mangum had accused men of harming her.

In 1996, she told police she had been kidnapped and raped three years earlier - when she was 14.

The case was never pursued.

Reference

The Truth about the Equality and Human Rights Commission

Heretical Sex — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:37:00 +0000

The fanaticism of the Left was recently exposed in guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for public bodies on how to treat transgender people, including transvestites and those undergoing a change of sex.

In one startling passage in this 68-page document, the Commission warned it may be illegal for any school to require girls to wear skirts as part of their uniform, since this could discriminate against transsexual pupils.

Such an edict would be laughable were it not so indicative of the disturbing mindset of the equality bureaucrats who wield such control over our lives.

The threat to take legal action against schools because some uniforms can be deemed 'gender specific' is beyond satire. The number of transsexual adults in Britain is tiny, perhaps as few as 5,000, yet the Commission wants all public services to be altered for the sake of this minuscule group.

Furthermore, it is absurd to start putting these highly emotive, questionable labels on young people before they have barely passed puberty.

Such action highlights three of the most dangerous traits of the Left-wing doctrinaires. One is their remorseless focus on categorising individuals by race, gender, sexual orientation or class - and then placing them within hierarchies of victimhood according to the perceived disadvantage they have suffered.

Another is the sexualisation of children, in which the innocence of youth is destroyed by the aggressive promotion of the so-called 'sexual rights' agenda.
The third is the eagerness to obliterate all traditional morality by presenting support for normal, married family life as outmoded and discriminatory.

There is also a deluge of ultra-feminist drivel. 'Gender identity is subjective,' proclaims the document, contradicting almost a million years of biology.

How outrageous that we have to pay for this through our taxes. No one voted for this radical agenda or for the bureaucrats pushing through the change.

In its ruthless campaign to impose the creed of the hard Left on Britain, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, headed by Labour schmoozer Trevor Phillips, swallows £70million a year and employs 525 staff.

A scathing report from independent consultants DeLoitte, who had been appointed to examine the disastrous chaos at the EHRC, agreed. In language that was deliberately toned down, the report found that the board 'does not operate against clear, consistently understood rules and a common purpose'.

DeLoitte further condemned the bias of the Commission. 'There is currently a lack of representation from the private sector and a need for representation from a broader political spectrum.'

But despite all the turmoil, Trevor Phillips remains in post. With the backing of new legislation, his quango will soon be more powerful than ever, the leading apparatchik of Harriet Harman's sinister new social order.

Reference

Documentary film on Feminism

Heretical Sex — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:59:00 +0000

There is a very good documentary on feminism the Man Woman & Myth website.

Excellent Documentary on the History of Communism

Heretical Sex — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:50:00 +0000

This documentary is in two parts. It is in Flash format, so I am unable to embed it. Click on the links below:

Part 1

Part 2

This is well worth watching.

“Child Rapists Protected By The State” – Journalist Arrested

Heretical Sex — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:40:00 +0000

An important story was drawn to my attention today. Watch this video to learn all about it.

The man presenting the talk in the video is a journalist called Robert Green. The story concerns allegations made by a young Scottish woman with Down's Syndrome. She claims that she was sexually abused from the age of six by her father and up to sixteen other people, both men and women, including:

A serving Sheriff (Scottish Judge)
Police officers
Her own Social Worker
Prominent lawyers
Other Prominent Professionals.

This mentally disabled girl is apparently able to name names, and tell a consistent story. When her mother went to the police, nothing was done to investigate the complaints. In fact, the mother was arrested and sectioned under the Mental Health Act (i.e. confined to a mental hospital against her will), accused of being schizophrenic. She sought her own independent psychiatric assessment and was given a clean bill of health.

The latest news is that Robert Green, the journalist who has been trying to expose the case, has been arrested by Scottish Police!

Supporters are asking that everyone calls the Grampian Police "to enquire about Robert, they can be contacted by telephone on 0845 600 5700 or by email servicecentre@grampian.pnn.police.uk.

If you call, ask for the Chief Constable. Please stay calm, be polite, but be firm. It is your right to speak to a police officer, so if the receptionist refuses to pass you on, ask them if they are a police officer, and again, politely but firmly ask to speak to the Chief Constable. Record the call if possible. One question you might like to ask is whether or not Robert has been permitted legal representation".

Women-Only Food Relief in Haiti

Heretical Sex — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:55:00 +0000

The UN and other leading relief agencies have set up women only food distribution centres in Haiti, following the recent earthquake. Some good material on this can be found on the excellent 'Man Woman & Myth'.

Major Canadian Conference on Parental Alienation Syndrome, March 27th 2010

Heretical Sex — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:19:00 +0000

Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome ( CSPAS ) has just released a Promotional Video Clip of its upcoming conference.

We need your support, I need your support, targeted parents and children suffering from Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome, need to know about this conference and so do the professionals that assist them.

This major conference is taking place on March 27th 2010 in the Metro Toronto Conference Center, Toronto, Canada. Places are limited, so register on-line as soon as possible.

Dear Ioana…

Heretical Sex — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:04:00 +0000

Ioana said...
Firstly, I want to apologize on behalf of Western women for indulging in man-hating, supposedly-feminist ideologies.

Secondly, I am a Western woman, and I am a feminist, also, I'm eighteen years of age. Before you decide to glide over the rest of this post, I'd like to make a case for myself. Heretic, I absolutely agree that men and women ought to pursue symbiotic relationships that foster mutual development and continued learning. I don't believe women are legally oppressed. However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance.

I suppose under the veil of internet anonymity, you could peg my beliefs as having arisen from bitterness caused by my possibly being unattractive. You have nothing but my word that this is not the case. Assuming, for the sake of my argument, that I'm being genuine, I don't feel it's just that even an attractive woman of reasonable intelligence and merit ought to be regarded by men who're far less intelligent than her as naught but a piece of meat. I'm not saying you've done so, but it happens to me often. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance. In fact, I commend you for boycotting feminists; at least you'd take the time to listen to what a woman has to say before deciding whether or not to date/marry her. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TV-watcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked.

Perhaps I'm being long-winded. What I essentially mean to say is that I don't believe feminists today are still pining for more legal leverage. In fact, I believe child support, among other things, is an abomination of modern justice. I do believe, however, that women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired.

I'd like to hear your take on this.

Dear Ioanna,
Thank you for your post. You sound like an intelligent and thoughtful person. It is a breath of fresh air to receive a message of this kind from a feminist, instead of the usual childish rant. I commend you for your honesty in particular.

I apologise for the fact that it has taken me so long to answer you, and my answer has turned out to be rather long. I hope you will take the time to read it.

“There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance”.

A little evolutionary theory would clarify things for you here.

Briefly, we are chimpanzees, and we live in hierarchical social groups. Our selfish genes are telling us to maximise their chance of survival by reproducing as much, or in the best way, possible. The aim is to leave the greatest number of surviving offspring after your death. High-status individuals tend to leave more surviving offspring than low-status ones, although in modern Western societies, the Welfare State tends to distort this fact.

Men and women are different, and have different attitudes to sex. This is not just due to social conditioning, it is due to the fact that we do not have the same roles in reproduction. We do not differ only in terms of ‘hardware’, or what we have between our legs. This hardware also comes with ‘software’ to make it work effectively; we have different evolved psychological motivations and behaviours which complement our sex.

These psychological drives evolved, along with our bodies, tens of thousands of years ago, and have not changed since. The wheels of human evolution turn slowly. We still have the brains of stone-age people. In order to understand relations between the sexes well, we need to look at the subject using this evolutionary perspective.

Given the best conditions, a woman can only get pregnant once at a time, and produce about one baby a year. This is a potentially life-threatening experience, and even without complications, the baby remains dependent for many years, requiring constant support. Consequently the decision to have sex is, for a woman, a very serious one.

For men, on the other hand, it is very different. In the period of a year, he could potentially father hundreds of babies. His capacity for reproduction is limited only by the availability of women.

For men, a good strategy is just to impregnate as many females as possible. For women, having a hundred men is no better than having one; arguably it is worse. It is in a woman’s interest to mate with the highest-status male she can find, and to stay with him exclusively, and expect that he will provide support for his own children.

He will probably be willing to do this if he is sure that the children are his; one of the greatest evolutionary failures for a man is to be a victim of paternity fraud, and to unwittingly provide economic support for another man’s children. If the mother is unfaithful, this is a possibility, and the man is more likely to refuse to give support, as he cannot be sure the children are his. If she is loyal to him, or he believes that she is, then he can be sure that the children are his, and has no reason to refuse support.

Although promiscuity works as a strategy for men, most men do not have the opportunity to impregnate large numbers of nubile females; those few who do tend to be extremely high status men, like rock stars, movie stars or football stars, and in the past, kings and politicians. The rest of us men will succeed best by remaining loyal to one wife. That way, we can expect a regular supply of sex, and to leave at least some surviving offspring. By refusing to commit to one woman, most ordinary men would probably remain celibate and childless.

Thus, both men and women have a vested interest in monogamy, but we are also not above committing adultery on occasion, women as well as men. Men benefit from adultery in an obvious way. If he impregnates a passing female, there is a chance that she will bear his child, and what is more, he will not have to provide any economic support for that child; in evolutionary terms, it is a quick win.

For women, the situation is a little more complicated. They want to give birth to healthy children, and they want to have those children cared for by a high status husband. These two requirements may be in conflict. It often takes men a very long time to accumulate wealth and status, by which time they are relatively old. Older parents of both sexes are more likely to produce children with birth defects. It is in a woman’s interest to get good quality sperm. Sperm quality diminishes with age, as copying errors accumulate. Good quality sperm means younger men; high status provider means older men.

As a choice of husband and father, the middle-aged tycoon is a good choice socially and economically, but a poor choice genetically. His young gardener, on the other hand, is a virile, handsome youth with good quality sperm, but he is penniless. A good strategy for a woman is to marry the middle-aged Lord and then shag the gardener. Get good quality sperm, and then persuade a high-status husband to pick up the bill. Adultery thus carries benefits for both sexes, but is somewhat risky.

To return to your original question. Youth and appearance actually are much more important for women than they are for men. Men really do judge women by their appearance more than women judge men by theirs. The reason for this is that beauty equals fertility. A woman’s fertility is short-lived; it starts to diminish at age 27. By the time she is 45, it is almost entirely gone. The fertility of men, and that of other apes, including females, tails off gradually throughout later life. With human females, there is a menopause; a sudden, sharp cessation of fertility. A ‘beautiful’ young woman is one who shows all the outward signs of fertility. If you are a man looking for a mate, a fertile one is the best kind to choose. It is a waste of energy having sex with a woman who cannot get pregnant. People used to die young. Women used to die in childbirth a lot. A woman who is at the beginning of her child-bearing years is the most desirable. She has not yet had any children, and will probably live long enough to see her children reach independence. If she loses one child, she still has time for another attempt. Older mothers are more likely to produce children with birth-defects. It is in everyone’s interest to have children young. Remember, these are very old instincts produced by evolution.

So, men have two mating strategies which they can apply both at the same time; ‘Look for wife’ and ‘Look for casual sex’. Men who judge you purely by your appearance are using the latter strategy. If he wanted a wife, he would judge you by other criteria as well.

When a guy propositions you in the street, you are offended because you are looking for the highest-status long-term mate you can find, and you believe that you can command a higher price than he can offer, and that in any case, he is not looking for anything more than casual sex. Look at it this way: even if the casual propositioning of passing females only paid off one time in a hundred thousand, that is enough, over the course of evolutionary time, to make it worthwhile. Don’t be too hard on him; he doesn’t know you. He fancies himself as a dashing young buck, and for all he knows, you might be married to an elderly tycoon, and be on the lookout for some better quality sperm. He might get lucky one day. Just say no. It is his responsibility to take no for an answer. Just let it go at that.

What are you complaining about anyway? There is only one thing worse than men finding you attractive; and that is men not finding you attractive. You wouldn’t mind if Brad Pitt propositioned you for casual sex. You only object to this guy doing it because you consider him to be low-status, and yourself to be better than him. Isn’t that so?

Further reading:

The Mating Mind, by Geoffrey Miller

The Evolution of Desire, David M Buss

Why is Sex Fun?, Jared Diamond.

You expressed the view that women are under greater social pressure than men to look good, or are judged by their appearance to a greater extent than men. I think what you say is largely true, but is far from being the whole story.

Firstly, I have already discussed reasons why women are judged by their appearance to a greater extent than men. But this does not mean that men are not judged at all. We are judged by other criteria. We are judged by our physicality, not just in terms of good looks, but also in terms of athleticism, soldierly qualities, whether we are ‘scary’, and can physically and socially dominate other males, whether we can satisfy a woman sexually, whether we will produce handsome sons. We are judged on our education and intelligence. We are still judged on our clothes like women, but also by our cars and other possessions. We are judged by how funny or talented we are as entertainers. We are judged very harshly on our moral character; soldierly qualities of self-discipline, motivation, mental strength, resilience and emotional stability. We are judged very harshly on our sexual continence. We are used to being characterised as violent sexual predators, even as we do our best to live lives of work and family, and strive to have positive relationships with women. We are judged in terms of what other males think of us, and by our capacity for work. Most of all we are judged by how much money we have. Women are not judged by any of these criteria. Overall, men are judged much more harshly than women. A woman who does not have a job is exercising a positive lifestyle choice. A man who does not have a job is a pathetic loser.

Secondly, this pressure on women that you refer to does not only, or even mainly, come from men. It comes from other women. It is the shop-girl who will smirk knowingly when you ask her for a bigger size, it is the female fashion-police in your peer group who will publicly humiliate you because you are carrying the wrong kind of handbag, the jealous co-worker who will give you an unpleasant task to do because she is jealous of your shoes. Most of the pressure to be thin also comes from other women. Women will starve themselves into emaciation in order to compete with other women, and because they are scared of other women calling them fat, and humiliating them.

Men tend to be fairly straightforward, uncomplicated creatures. If we look at a woman, we probably just decide that she is more or less sexually attractive. The finer points of fashion do not register.

In the talent competition of life, men are generally the performers, and women the judges and critics. That’s pretty much how it is, and there are good evolutionary reasons for that.

You say: “However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance.” Well, some do, just as some women base the value of a man purely on his bank balance. But those are not the sort of men you would want to get involved with, I’m guessing. Yes, there are shallow and dishonest people in the world, it will always be so. Learning to deal with that is an essential life-skill.

“I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TV-watcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked”.

Well, I think I must disagree. I don’t know what kind of men you hang around with, but it seems as though you are judging the entire male population by them, whoever they are. I for one appreciate good ideas, and I do not judge the idea by whether or not I find the speaker sexually attractive. Couldn’t men make the same complaint? A woman is going to be more appreciative of a story, idea or joke if it comes from a handsome, high-status man whom she finds attractive, than if it came from a poor, unattractive one.

“women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired”

Your thinking clearly is influenced by feminist thinking, because you evidently never consider men’s perspective, you believe that everything is worse for women, that this is some kind of evil conspiracy, and that you are under-appreciated.

Feminism has done a spectacularly poor job. It presents itself as the leading authority on all matters concerning sex and relations between the sexes, and yet the quality of its analysis is utterly piss-poor. Not only has it ignored evolutionary psychology, the most significant new intellectual tool to emerge since Freud in the 19th Century, it has actively resisted any mention of Darwinism, and is being dragged kicking and screaming into the Darwinian age. It sees new ideas as a threat. It is bad enough that it demands a monopoly on discourse, but it also maintains its monopoly by coercion. This is an outrageous imposition on to any democratic culture, which absolutely cannot be accepted. The feminist movement is a crypto-fascist dinosaur which has dominated all Leftist thinking for decades, and is demonstrably leading to catastrophic social outcomes. It is based on nothing but a lie of truly Hitlerian proportions, that women have been systematically discriminated against for millennia. This is, at worst, a travesty, a perversion of the truth, and at best, a very poor theory. Personally, I would like to hear some better ideas from the women, attractive or not.

Best regards,
Heretic

Phillips on Cultural Marxism

Heretical Sex — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:26:00 +0000

The last successful Conservative administration, under Mrs Thatcher, made great progress in attacking the classical Left, by reining in the trade unions at home, and confronting the Soviet Union abroad. What Mrs Thatcher didn’t realise was that the Left had already begun to attack on other fronts.

“The collapse of communism was actually a slow-burning process. Its moral and political bankruptcy became obvious decades before that glorious Berlin day in November 1989.

For many communist fellow travellers, the scales fell from their eyes when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in 1956. Others, over the years, lost faith not just in communism but in its less radical sister, socialism, as their core tenet of ‘equality’ proved itself in a myriad different ways to be the enemy of freedom and justice, with market forces appearing to carry the torch of liberty instead.

But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilisation found another way to realise their goal of bringing it down.

This was what might be called ‘cultural Marxism’. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.

This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals — who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today.

Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of ‘production, distribution and exchange’ as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.

He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.

So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.

This strategy has been carried out to the letter.

The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a ‘right’. The tragic disadvantage of fatherlessness was redefined as a neutrally-viewed ‘lifestyle choice’.

Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might foist upon them.

The outcome of this ‘child-centred’ approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought.” Reference

The next Conservative administration must confront the Cultural Left in the same way that Mrs Thatcher confronted the classical Left.