one example of how the 'abuse' figures are cooked ...
5% of women have Borderline Personality Disorder or something close to it.
Features of this include the habitual making of false
accusations of some kind of 'abuse' - often in order to seek some kind of
revenge. For women with BDP, seeing oneself as a victim of someone else's
is almost a permanent state of being. And given that some 1 million women
in the UK and 5 million women in the USA have this condition, the various
allegations of 'abuse' that are made every year - sex assault, domestic violence etc - are,
undoubtedly, mostly the result of these women attempting to
portray themselves as victims.
Furthermore, if you can believe it, the various 'data' collected on the basis of the testimony of
this relatively small group of dysfunctional women is then multiplied
by incompetent academics and various government departments in order
to figure out what is going on in the rest of society!
Thus, and for example, if 30% of women claim to be 'violated' every
year, and 5% of women are 'dysfunctional', then these latter women would not
account for much of the data.
But if, as appears to be the case, only 1% or 2% of women claim to be 'violated' every year,
and 5% of women are 'dysfunctional', then the likelihood is that these
'dysfunctional' women are the ones making nearly all of the claims!
As such, 'professionals' who extrapolate the evidence gleaned from the
collective testimony of these women
to the rest of society are either charlatans or incompetent.
Mostly, one discovers that they are both.
the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE
violent, even toward their children, than were the men
they were supposedly escaping from." Erin Pizzey
"It could well be that the people who use our services most often (the mad, the drunk and the perennially self-destructive) aren’t actually the best people to judge whether we’re doing a good job or not; if only because we’ll never be able to solve their problems."David Copperfield - a UK police
the statistics on 'rape' are inflated by some 2000%, ...
There are numerous reasons why women lie about rape and sex-assault; to gain
sympathy, to seek revenge, to explain their own bad behaviour, because they are
mentally unbalanced, because they have a personality disorder, because they are
impulsive, hysterical, vindictive, drunk, imbued with PMS, and so on. They also
make false allegations to gain some legal advantage - e.g. in divorce situations
- and, often, simply to make money.
Indeed, western governments
nowadays offer so many encouragements, incentives and rewards to women for making false
allegations against men - including direct financial compensation - that women now do make
false allegations by the
Can Play ...
BBC News Presenter - made up to look like a DV victim.
Have you noticed that women who perpetrate crimes - such as
Lynddie England - are often defended by suggesting that they were the victims of abuse by their fathers.
Rarely do we hear them being defended on the grounds that they were abused by their mothers.
This is very strange; because the overwhelming evidence - found in the
government statistics published in the UK, America, Canada and Australia - is
that almost twice as many children are abused by their mothers as are
abused by their fathers; e.g. see NSPCC Exposed Yet Again
When a successful man is divorced by his wife, she is commonly assumed by
the judge to have contributed to his success and is, therefore, entitled to a
considerable portion of his wealth.
But, surely, his secretary, his colleagues and his employees have contributed
far more than has she.
And, of course, when a man is unsuccessful - perhaps being convicted of a crime
- why is it not assumed that his wife must have contributed to this? - and,
hence, should pay for some of the consequences.
Men's Rights shall not even require the same time and effort which
feminism expended on its objectives, because those structures - legal,
political, social and moral - which have been used to entrench female
privilege are now already in place. They can simply be put to use in a
different direction, on seemingly the same rationale: equality. The very
same laws and regulations which artificially elevated women's status may
end up being used to bring them back down again.
It's John Stoll's story, but it's also the story of dozens of other
men and women who found themselves ensnared in a spiral of fear, ignorance
and hysteria. These people are Americans, working class moms and dads, who
were rounded up with little or no evidence, charged and convicted of
almost unimaginable crimes. All sexual. All crimes against children
Recover from your
nice guy ways, get a good career and some self respect, and these chicks
will be begging for a little of your attention in a few years. You just
have to learn to be an a*shole that doesn't care. The proudest moment of
my life occurred not too long ago when a chick told me I was the biggest
as*hole she had ever met and to never call her again. Two days later she
was on her knees blowing me. Life gets good. Trust me.
We have created a panoply of mechanisms and institutions allowing
divorcing mothers to rid themselves, temporarily or permanently, of
inconvenient children: “safe havens” have legalized child abandonment
by mothers; daycare is tailored to the needs of mothers, not children;
foster care relieves single mothers who cannot provide basic care and
protection; “CHINS” petitions allow single mothers to turn over unruly
adolescents to the care and custody of social workers; “SIDS” and in
some countries infanticide laws have even made the murder of children
semi-legal. And then of course there is abortion.
... It is well documented that feminist crime lab technicians fabricate and doctor evidence to frame men they know to be
innocent. Yet there has been no systematic investigation by the media or civil libertarians as to why so many innocent citizens are regularly incarcerated on fabricated allegations and evidence.
Robert Baer, one of the highest ranking CIA officers on the ground in CIA history, literally with James Bond freedoms and responsibilities, speaks openly about his beliefs on Iran, 9/11, and other geopolitical forces and shakeups in the
As is typical these days, the authorities wish to attract the attention of
even 8 year-olds in order to indoctrinate children at a very early age into
believing that all men are violent abusers.
Newcomers who are too stupid to see why these adverts are so disgusting might
like to think about how women would feel if, in an attempt to cut down on
prostitution, the adverts said something like, ...
"One day I am going to be a slut."
"When I grow up, I will be a whore."
Those adverts are disgusting. Please email the culprits.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the fact that, when it comes to suicide,
young males are far more often the victims than are young females.
Was it you who failed to mention this - perhaps for reasons of political
correctness and funding - or was it the media?
After all, since the trouble was taken to mention the alleged (but incorrect)
fact that young females self harm more so than young males, it seems rather
strange to leave out the fact that it is mostly young males who commit the most
serious self-harming of all.
Not a bad piece - but it contains a fundamental error.
Lionizing Clark Rockefeller, or other violent, lawless fathers will not promote fathers' rights or fix the family-court system. It merely perpetuates the same outdated ideas about fatherhood and fathers that have tainted the family-law system for too long.
The feminists in the UK have even 'lionised' female murderers
like Sara Thornton, Emma Humphreys and Kiranjit Ahluwalia with much
success Indeed, the latter was even given an award for murdering her husband by
Tony Blair's wife! And there was even a Hollywood film recently that praised her
Furthermore, these three murdering women are still lauded today - many years
after their crimes; e.g. see the BBC's recent piece Spotlight on domestic abuse laws.
And if you read the BBC piece, do not be bamboozled by the description of Joseph McGrail.
Everyone who knew this man said that he had suffered years of
serious violent abuse at the hands of his vicious wife, and that he was a very
quiet, gentle and timid man who never even argued back - unlike
the three women above.
Я как отец-одиночка (да, я сказал отец-одиночка) двух подростков, имею непосредственный опыт общения с мужененавистнической системой, насквозь пропитавшей наши общественные учреждения, в первую очередь Социальный Сервис.
Yep. Good point!
... Увы, AH, я вынужден не согласится с вами по одному очень фундаментальному вопросу. Я не верю, что положение улучшается. Я даже уверен, что будет намного хуже, перед тем как станет лучше. Мы уже 30 лет живем при феминизме, а они "зарывают" . Их пропаганда и ложь в наше время - форма публичной политики, а их ненависть преподается в наших школах и университетах. Они заправляют
I thank you most kindly.
(Nope: I haven't got a clue what it says. But I'll bet that it's good!)
From Denis ...
Without smart and productive men America is finished. We have almost 40% out
of wedlock births now. Greater than that in some communities (70+% in Black
community; almost that in Hispanic communities-combined Blacks + Hispanics make
up a large and growing percentage of the total population). This means greater
and greater government spending to support a growing segment of the population
that is made up of single-parent households. There are costs associated with
increased poverty, increased crime. More taxation at a time when the elderly
population is beginning to explode. Combining retired seniors and a large
underclass and we are talking about a HUGE and entrenced unproductive drag on
the economy that comes at the same time in history when America is facing stiff
competition by global competitors. India and China each produce many times more
engineers and scientists than the U.S. does. America cannot live off past
accomplishments forever. The costly and unproductive direction that America's
culture is going is unsustainable in the face of this stiff competition. America
NEEDS men who are smart, productive, and have a vested interest in the society.
To have vested interests men have to be first class citizens with rights,
justice, and fairness. Damaging men's position in society will only guarantee a
much worse future for EVERYONE. When the writing is on the wall and everyone
else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart,
Their conclusion contradicts those of the dominant psychological theory that the preference of boys for vehicles and toy soldiers and that of girls for dolls is down to social rather than innate
"How can a supposedly 'scientific report' be both defamatory and 'fair comment'? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't get it."
Hmm. It's very simple really.
The Canadian judges are corrupt.
Perhaps Ken will finally wake up to the fact that when it comes to hurting
men, there is no law to protect them. They can be hurt or defamed with impunity.
And the corrupt judges - who have got to be some of the lowest human beings
serving in public office these days - will not lift a finger to help them.
MRAs Activating In The Guardian Newspaper
Some of AH's most experienced MRAs are now doing some very good work indeed
in the comment section
of the Guardian newspaper - which, at the moment, seems to be allowing a
wide range of opinions to be expressed.
Both rightists and leftists seem to be fairly free to say what they wish.
So, please join them by popping along on occasion to burst those feminist
American men are now going to be heavily discriminated against in the fields
of science and maths, so that less able - and less enthusiastic - women are
given the jobs.
So, prepare to watch American science and maths go down the tubes compared to
the rest of the world.
And, of course, millions of poor Americans are going to be losing millions of
valuable tax dollars so that their government can subsidise a relatively small
number of privileged middle-class women who believe that their poorer performance in science and maths
is due to discrimination.
Indeed, it is already the case that most women who fly
high in their careers these days are only flying high because affirmative action procedures
have been employed to promote them. And the argument that women have to be
better than men in order to reach the same levels in their careers is no more
than the customary feminist lie. Indeed, the very opposite is true.
It is men who nowadays have to be much more capable than women in order to
reach the same levels.
Notice also that because men have to be much more capable than women in order
to pass through their various career hoops, the differences in capability between men and
women at every stage in the process will tend to get wider; which means that
more and more discrimination against men has to be applied the higher up the
career ladder one goes. (A bit of maths will demonstrate this fact; e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?
and A Permanent Gender War?)
Steve Moxon's first book, The Great Immigration Scandal, led to the resignation of the immigration minister, Beverley Hughes. But immigration was never his primary interest: he joined the Home Office in order to study its HR policy, as part of a decade-long investigation of men-women relations. Not withstanding its provocative title, The Woman Racket is a serious scientific investigation into one of the key myths of our age that women are oppressed by the patriarchal traditions of Western societies. Drawing on the latest developments in evolutionary psychology, Moxon finds that the opposite is true men, or at least the majority of ordinary males have always been the victims of deep-rooted prejudice. As the prejudice is biologically derived, it is unconscious and can only be uncovered with the tools of scientific
psychology. The book reveals this prejudice in fields as diverse as healthcare, employment, family policy and politics.
I often get the impression when reading about the fact
that men are highly competitive that their competitiveness is somehow deemed to
be directly related to their wish to attract desirable females. The implication
is often that men are forever scuttling around the place competing with each
other simply in order to attract females - a bit like male deer locking antlers
in order to determine which gets the hareem.
I am afraid that I just cannot see this.
For example, when you watch 8 year old boys glued to their video games,
desperately trying to beat their opponents, they are not competing for the
attention of any females. On the contrary, as far as they are concerned, females
are mostly decidedly uninteresting.
And the millions of men who are obsessed with sport are certainly not
engaging in such competitive activities in order to attract women.
Such interests seem to have the opposite effect on women.
Similarly, men who are devoted musicians, scientists, artists, sportsmen,
politicians etc etc etc etc and who spend so much of their lives labouring at
their various occupations seem hardly to be doing any of these things in order
to attract women. Once again, if anything, they are alienating themselves from
women by devoting so much of their energies to such pursuits.
So, while it might well be the case that men have evolved to be competitive
because this quality, by enhancing survival prospects, was evolutionarily
significant, it does not seem to me that this competitiveness is mostly used by
men as a way of attracting women. Indeed, it seems to do the opposite.
Women, themselves, are certainly more attracted to 'higher-ranking' men, but
it simply does not follow that men are pursuing these higher ranks mostly in
order to attract women.
My belief is that men are, indeed, competitive because it is 'fun' for them,
and because they very much like to master those aspects of the world with which
they have chosen to engage. But in most of these situations, women are very much
at the periphery of their minds.
In other words, neither Beethoven nor Shakespeare composed their numerous
great works to attract women.
And I think that it is a big mistake to assume that because men desire women
greatly and that men are competitive with each other, it follows that men
compete with each other in order to attract women.
In my opinion, they mostly do not do this.
Indeed, my belief is that men would happily compete with each other for years
on end even if there was not a single woman in sight; and, of course, married
men are also highly competitive even when they have no inclination - or
possibility - to stray.
The film is in three parts and outlines how 'the people' have been grossly
deceived in three main areas - religion, war and the economy.
The first seven minutes or so of the film were so over-dramatic and over-long
for my tastes that I nearly gave up watching - but I held out - and I ended up
enjoying the film very much.
And, while on the subject of 'conspiracies', I feel impelled to state that I
have no doubts at all that such things happen, that they are often 'large', and that
they are often carried out by some very powerful groups who are serving their own
interests at the expense of everyone else.
In most instances, of course, I do not have enough detailed
knowledge to decide whether or not the specific claims about various
conspiracies are valid. I just have to make some judgements about the people who
are making these claims.
But, in some cases, I do, actually, have the expert knowledge required to
come to some very informed conclusions about what is, and has been, going on.
For example, when it comes to the various machinations of the feminists and
their friends in the abuse industry and the government etc etc, I am absolutely
certain that we are being positively deluged with lies - and, further,
that the main aim of these lies is to break apart as much as possible the close
relationships that people might have with each other - mostly in order to
benefit those in the higher echelons of government.
The above film does not deal with this particular area, but it is not
difficult to see how the breaking down of people's close relationships ties in
with what the film does claim.
Finally, I must point out - yet again! - that MRAs who are concerned about
such things should not waste their time trying to get their politicians to do
something about them. Nearly all the politicians who get to the top of the
tree and stay there are corrupt to the core. And if, indeed, any of them
were to be foolish enough to pick up the banner for men's rights at this
particular point in time, then they would rapidly lose a large percentage of the
female vote, they would quickly be shunned by the mainstream media and their own
colleagues in government, and they would, therefore, swiftly disappear from
The media are the key to the success of the MM - but not just the mainstream.
And, thankfully, some 80% of active political activists (writers,
journalists, musicians, comedians, etc) are men. And it is these men that the MM
needs mostly to get on board.
Aaron Russo Interview - video
- 10 min - a shortened version of the interview (filmed just before his death)
where Aaron Russo (big-time movie producer) talks about the 'bogus' war on
terror and the main reasons why the Rockefellers funded feminism with millions
Notice that he also talks about the Council for Foreign Relations. This is a
hugely influential organisation that masquerades as being concerned about world
matters in general, but which, in reality, is mostly concerned about spreading
communism throughout the world so that those in the governing elite can be
empowered even more so than is already the case.
A great lecture about the corruption and self-serving nature of the EU.
For a short period of time - about 40 minutes of the way
through the lecture - Ashley allows questions from the audience and his lecture
gets sidetracked slightly; but bear with it, because he is soon back in action
(PS Here is John
Trenchard's blog exposing some more of the huge extent of Common Purpose - a
well-funded group that promotes the EU in somewhat clandestine fashion.)
A question that often arises in MRA discussions about secretive pro-big
government organisations like Common Purpose and, of course, the associated
forces that seek to bring about World Government - the New World Order! - is how
this will effect the gender issue questions that the MM often address.
And, in my view, a New World Order would, in fact, be very beneficial from
the point of view of men's rights (vis-a-vis those of women) though it would be
somewhat deleterious to the well-being of people as a whole.
It would be deleterious for all the reasons that communism itself is
deleterious to the well-being of people - something that has been well
demonstrated throughout history - with the main reason for this being that
communism brings about enormous corruption, arrogance, dishonesty and greed in the very
people who have the most power; especially once they get used to it and, thence,
feel entitled to it.
But - strangely enough - it would also be beneficial from the point of view of men's rights (vis-a-vis
those of women) because if there is only one world government on the planet then
there will be no escape from it. And where there is no escape, weaker groups
tend to succumb much more readily to stronger groups.
One only has to look at the History books to see how forces that have existed
outside of a group have so often had to be employed in order to
curtail the excesses ('the unfairness') that had been established
But if no outside group exists, then the power structures within a group
simply become more and more entrenched.
There is nothing to oppose them.
And when it comes to gender relationships,
'women' in a one-world situation are just not going to have much
in the way of bargaining power; indeed, they will end up having hardly any bargaining
power at all - because, quite simply, apart from their reproductive capacities
(shortly to be surpassed by various technologies) there is precious little that
women can do that men cannot do better - much better in most
of the areas that are considered to be 'important' by most people.
women must be out of their minds to support the feminists and their
big-government loving friends.
Common Purpose is a secretive charity that channels EU funds and your
tax money - millions of pounds worth - into providing help up the
career ladder only to those people who will support the EU agenda of breaking
down individual countries.
These 'chosen' people - mostly government officials - can then, basically,
serve themselves most handsomely by betraying their countries and
their countrymen by selling their services, their support and our
information to a foreign organisation - the EU - that seeks power over the UK
and over other countries.
In essence, Common Purpose is a secret club - a club of traitors. And in the
above lecture, Brian Gerrish exposes - with much evidence - just
how huge and powerful is this secret club.
Brian Gerrish is not an MRA. He has probably not even heard of the MM. But
MRAs will be shocked at what he has uncovered about the machinations of those
who aspire to be part of the 'governing elite'. And what he says will resonate
very strongly with readers familiar with this website.
These people want to empower themselves. They are already
in government positions. And by undermining and disorienting the population and,
in particular, men and their families - i.e. by causing societal 'disharmony' -
they intend to empower themselves much further.
Essentially, those who work in government have found a way of empowering
themselves at the expense of their very own people. By causing dysfunction and
disharmony throughout their very own countries, they can fool the public into
supporting increases of their own powers under the guise that they are
attempting to 'solve the problems' - the very problems that they, themselves,
Regular readers of this website will already know that there is an enormous
amount of circumstantial evidence on this very website that attests to the
notion that something deeply sinister has been taking place over the past few
decades in respect of the way in which - in so many areas - western governments
seem to have done their very best to cause serious problems to their very own
people in order to empower themselves.
Brian Gerrish gives you some further insight into how this is being done.
Serious UK MRAs must view this video. It is not riveting, and a bit slow at
times, but it is well worth the time.
Non-UK MRAs can also benefit from watching this video because they can be
sure that the very same type of self-serving treachery is going on all over the
world at the moment.
But what really exasperated me was how he ended it.
He said something like; "I cannot understand why our politicians are
co-operating with this ridiculous immigration policy," - or words to that
But, to me, the answer is blatantly OBVIOUS.
The politicians are doing this because they are benefitting
****THEMSELVES**** by supporting EU immigration policies.
By supporting the EU, politicians will get millions of pounds worth of
support for their parties and oodles of positive publicity - directly and
indirectly - from the HUGE resources of the EU; and, possibly, if they play
their cards right, a fine career at a later stage in their lives and an
extremely handsome pension.
The EU is a gravy train for them.
Of course, not all politicians are dishonest, self-serving and corrupt. But
those who succeed in getting to the top- and staying there
- are corrupt to the core.
There is no other way of getting to the top.
Honesty will get you nowhere.
And the main reason that a communist/Marxist agenda so often appears to be
behind what these people are up to is that those who work for government
***AND*** who seek to empower themselves is exactly what
'communism' is about!
Indeed, this is why people like Gordon Brown nowadays end up being Prime
Minister. He is a communist (e.g. see my piece
The Young Parasite - Gordon Brown)
and his clear aim is to empower government at the expense of the people - and so
the hugely powerful machine of 'government' (and this now includes the power of
the EU) whirrs into action - on numerous well-hidden fronts - and makes damn
sure that he gets the job.
Of course, in some sense, the politicians are competing with each other in
their greedy scramble for personal wealth and power but, for the most part, they
are on the same side - the side of bigger and more powerful government; i.e.
themselves. And this is why there is barely a difference nowadays between the
Labour Party and the Tories.
Burma's iron-fisted - yet superstitious - military junta believe touching lady's underwear will "rob them of
Hmm. I think they have a point!
But, on a more serious note, this is a form of protest that I still believe
that men should engage in - hence the images of underwear that have sat at the
top of most of the pages of this website for the past few years.
I am not going to write a detailed piece about this again - given all the
flak and the jeering that I received the last time - but I will simply reiterate
my belief that if men learned to 'post their pants' en masse to those
organisations that deserved to receive them, then this would be one of the
simplest and most effective forms of activism that I can think of.
Moshe Aberjil, who heads one of the fathers’ rights groups present at the meeting, complained that the Welfare Ministry’s forms are all worded with gender inflections that are only suitable for complaints of violence carried out by men, when it has been clearly shown that female domestic violence is a reality. Other representatives alleged that police do not follow up on complaints filed by men, indicating an order from above not to pursue such investigations.
Lady Hale, in a judgment made in the Court of Appeal on the 13th February 2003, stated: "Father should be satisfied with 1 day of contact per year. Father should appreciate that any happy contact, no matter how brief, no matter how infrequent, is of benefit to the children."
... around 5% of the population are either socially and/or emotionally highly dysfunctional.
Therefore, where children are brought up by single parents, some 5% of these parents are going to be highly dysfunctional.
Indeed, because highly dysfunctional adults are the very ones most likely to end up as single parents, the percentage of those children with single parents who are highly dysfunctional must be quite
high - probably many times higher than 5% ...
Nevertheless, sticking with the overall 5% figure just to make the point, the probability of children ending up
solely in the hands of dysfunctional parents drops from around
5% (for children of single parents) to around 0.5% when two parents are around.
As such - and to generalise - whatever dysfunctional traits, harmful to children, that one considers that parents might have, it is clearly the case that one of the very best ways of protecting children from the effects of them is for children to have TWO parents!
UK MRAs wanted for TV programme ...
I apologise for contacting you out of the blue but I am researching a new TV
programme and wondered if you could help...
I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike
towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or
gender-specific movements (feminism etc).
As one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers, [did
he say 'one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers'? Huh! This
man needs a lesson or two on how to flatter far more effusively a man of my most
magnificent stature!] I wondered if you could write a piece on your blog
about what I'm looking for and encourage people to get involved.
So, there you go, Boys - and Girls. Here is your chance to let rip and have a
really good moan about all those horrible feminist wimmin out there. Show them
no mercy. Eat them alive. Squash 'em like pesky bugs.
Rip out their throats. Stomp on their heads. And then whack their behinds
till they blister and burn.
Saw them in half. Boil them in oil. Pulverise them with ...
Goodness, I don't know what came over me.
I feel faint.
But, before I pass out, if you've got nothing better to do - and, let's face it, if you're
hanging around here then you clearly have got nothing better to do
- then email Andy and check out the angles.
Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?
It is clearly the case that many of you who visit this most fabulous of
websites are more than just 'readers'. Some of you are very active indeed. And
if you are one of the latter then please start thinking about setting up your
Blogs are not difficult to set up, and once you get used to the way in which
they operate, they are very easy to run.
I use Google's Blogger for my various blogs and you can find out more about
Google blogs here.
You do not have to be a keen writer to run a blog. Indeed, some blogs just
contain links to articles of interest, and the blogger author makes no comment
on them. And some of them contain almost nothing but pictures accompanied by
various links which lead to sites wherein one can view more pictures - usually
of the same kind.
Furthermore, simply acquiring the ability to set up and run blogs is very
empowering. Apart from the fact that blogs are good vehicles for disseminating your
point of view, learning to deal effectively with this new technology will likely
benefit you in numerous ways in the future; e.g. see Run Your Own Website?
- which also applies to blogs nowadays.
You also do not need to put your blog on view to the general public. (Indeed,
apart from my two websites, I currently run five blogs - but you
can only see three of them - Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Subterfuge!) In other words, if
you are worried that you will make a pig's ear of the whole process, or that
people might think that you are a twit - or something - then you can always keep
your blog accessible to your eyes only until you have got it into shape.
I am also fairly certain that running a blog is good for your mental and,
hence, physical health. For example, rather than sitting at home fuming over yet
another outrageous episode and developing hyper-stress and ulcers over it,
blowing off that steam and telling others about it is very cathartic indeed.
Finally, once you get used to it, you can post up material very quickly
indeed. For example, it takes me less than 2 minutes to lift a
paragraph from a newspaper, paste the link over it, and send the new blog piece
to the web. It is only if I decide to pontificate over the matter that it will
me any longer than this.
We know that female power exists because women are not our slaves. They
must be using something quite potent to counteract all the terrible powers and
tendencies women say we have.
What is the power that gives a 115-pound woman the audacity to jump in the
face and give endless grief to a 220-pound man, when no 115-pound man would dare
to do the same?
If, as they claim, women dress to impress other women, not to attract men,
are we supposed to believe that they get breast implants to impress other women
If a woman ends a marriage, she is putting an end to a stifling and
oppressive relationship. If a man ends a marriage, he is abandoning his family.
Men's typical style of sexual harassment is like a pushy salesmen who
won't take No for an answer. Women's high-volume sexual harassment is like a
junk mailer who gives you no way to get off the mailing list.
The government is, apparently, very concerned
about 'the environment'. But notice than none of the government's proposals
include anything that encourages people to live together - an obvious social
policy that could cut very dramatically the emissions of carbon dioxide. On
the contrary, the government is doing the very opposite; i.e. discouraging
people from living together.
But Tony Blair and the members of his
cabinet, together with many European politicians, have stated over and over
again that the issue of global warming is the most important issue
of our times.
But, if they really believed this, then,
surely, they would head straight towards a social policy that would have a
dramatic effect on greenhouse gas emissions. And encouraging people to live
together (e.g. by getting married) would help to do this.
So, what is going on?
How can it be that these politicians believe
that global warming will lead to catastrophe, and yet they continue to ignore an
obvious social policy that would help significantly to prevent this?
Well, the only realistic answer to this
question is that they are lying.
Because, whether or not these
politicians believe that global warming is occurring as a result of our
activities, the evidence clearly shows that their real Number One policy
to break apart people's close relationships and their families. And they are not
going to back away from this agenda even if it causes global warming.
In other words, maintaining the onslaught
against people's close relationships is far more important to them
than global warming.
Well, I have provided so much evidence on
this website to show that one of the Labour government's main
(feminist-inspired) priorities is to damage people's close relationships, and so
I will not regurgitate the evidence here.
But I just want to point you to another piece
of UK legislation that has materialised over the past few days concerning
women's pay, ...
... Amongst other things, this is another
ploy to reduce the 'value' of men - relative to women - when it comes to their
relationships, and it is a way of destroying a young couple's hopes of a
traditional marriage - wherein the man goes out to work and the woman stays at
home with the children.
By reducing a man's pay relative to that of
his partner, a couple are far less likely to be able to arrange matters along
traditional lines. And, for those who do not earn very much, a man will soon
have virtually no monetary value at all.
(He certainly will not be able to compete
with the state handouts that are made to women.)
Indeed, the evidence demonstrating very
clearly that one of the main aims of our left-wing
feminist-dominated government is to destroy the relations between men, women and
children just keeps mounting, and mounting, and mounting.
And nothing stands in the way
of this agenda.
Not even 'global warming'.
And now I have two questions to ask all my
When, exactly, are you going to start fighting
against these malicious parasites?
For how long, exactly, are you going to allow
them to continue with this hateful, self-serving agenda?
But Angry Harry! What can I do? I am a
nobody. A nothing.
Well, so am I.
But this does not stop me from continually
going at them; in my own little way.
And if you want to defeat these
scumbags and boot them out of the way, then you must do the same.
Remember: They are doing everything that they
can to damage your close relationships - even those with your very
own children - in order to profit themselves.
As such, you should not have the slightest
qualms about doing everything in your power to defeat them; no matter how small
you might be.
For all the public shock and fury over his behavior, there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the '90s. They built case after headline-making case charging the mass molestation of small children, and managed to convict scores of innocent Americans on the basis of testimony no rational mind could credit.
I felt that the above article which was
printed in the Wall St Journal was so important that I lifted the whole piece
and planted it in one of my blogs.
And I hope that this piece will help many of
my newer readers to recognise that I am not exaggerating when I say that many of
those who work in powerful positions in government are the most self-serving,
corrupt, dishonourable human beings in our society.
There are thousands of people
like this revolting man Michael Nifong working in government positions, and
there are many thousands more who say and do nothing about them -
so ambitious and greedy are they for their own self-advancement.
This man - and others like him - should be in
prison - long-term. He would have happily had the Duke lacrosse players
incarcerated for 30 years - knowing full well that they were innocent - in order
to benefit himself.
These people need to be punished. They should
not be tolerated and they should not be allowed to escape from prosecution.
Goodness knows how many men who are
completely innocent of any sexual assaults have been wrongfully imprisoned
because of the numerous benefits that nowadays accrue both to self-serving
government officials and to malicious false accusers - many of
whom clearly collaborate with malevolent intent over their cases - for mutual
The Duke Three have managed to gain
themselves a great deal of media publicity - largely because of their status and
also, of course, because the alleged victim is clearly
'unbalanced' - but can you imagine what must be happening to so many other men
who find themselves in a similar position? - such as those who have no status,
and those who are up against credible false accusers?
No close media attention for them!
These men will simply find themselves in
Crystal Gayle Mangum, the street walker who ruined the lives of the Duke Three, was not
prosecuted. She was given counseling, and eventually graduated with a degree in
It really sickens me to see the Observer continue to disseminate this LIE
that "19 out of 20 women in Britain see their attacker go free".
There is no evidence for this whatsoever. The best
evidence available suggests that the reason that 95% of all allegations of rape
in the UK result in no conviction is because in most of these cases there was no
I am, however, glad to tell you that
profits for BA have plunged by 27% this past year, and that they seem likely to
I, myself, will also be campaigning for
airlines to have to pay the full tax duty on the fuel that they use. And I hope
that you will all join me in this whenever you chance upon the opportunity.
moment, airlines are not paying the rates that everyone else has to pay. In
other words, they are being subsidised by taxpayers - mostly men!
My advice to MRAs who find themselves on
BA flights is to complain about everything - and to sue in the small claims
court for the slightest 'damages' which might be deemed legitimate. Brits can
use Money Claim Online
to issue a summons with hardly any effort. It is a very effective
means of seeking damages for small amounts.
The cost of making a claim is small; and
if you lose, that is all that you can lose.
If you are suing a big company, however,
they will have to use a lawyer - which will cost them a fortune, and so the
chances are that they will not even bother to defend a claim.
I last used Money Claim when an MP3 player
that I bought kept malfunctioning. My emails to the online company that sold me
the player were not being responded to. So, I issued a summons.
I got all my money back within six weeks -
plus the claim costs - without going to court.
Given that the government already knows that the conviction rate actually
falls the more widely that it loosens the definitions of 'rape', it is clearly
the case that the real idea behind these new
laws is not to increase the conviction 'rates', but to increase the
number of convictions and the number of false allegations.
And, of course, to increase the number of men dragged into the criminal
courts - mostly by malicious women who are seeking to hurt them in
some way and who know that they will remain anonymous.
By doing this, the government can profit from the greater inter-personal
disharmony that this will cause, and the
feminists can revel in the fact that it will be easier for women to be able to
And, of course, by encouraging many more false and exaggerated allegations to
take place - which, in the official statistics, will be counted as real
rapes - the official rape figures will increase further (and then multiplied to
account for those women who, allegedly, did not report their 'rapes') thus
allowing the government and the feminists to argue for even more corruptions of
the justice system, and so increase even further the amount of inter-gender
disharmony that takes place.
Basically, however, what will happen under these new laws is that thousands
of women who are feeling vindictive, for some reason or other, will suddenly
recall that they had been drinking when they had sex, and so they will use these
new laws as a weapon with which to hurt their partners - or they will simply threaten
to do this.
Ministers are also keen to make it easier to bring rape cases many years after the alleged incident
Yep; women will even be able to do this - or threaten to do
this - many years after an alleged incident.
Still, who knows? - one day men might actually wake up to the fact that their
own governments are their real enemies - because, quite simply, their own governments profitHUGELY by causing them problems; e.g. see The Governing Elite.
Oh look, here is the government now trying to make it more difficult for
people to live together, ...
Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.
The sweeping changes are expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years.
On rape ...
I was quite pleased with the BBC Panorama programme on rape a few
days ago. Despite the fact that it was - as usual from the BBC - very heavily
biased and that it gave the impression that the low conviction rate in the UK
was an indication that men were getting away with rape when, as we know, the low
conviction rate is because most rape allegations are false, the various
officials who spoke on the programme (with one or two exceptions - who will be
hearing from a very angry me sometime soon) were very careful not
to support the feminist-inspired lies. "We are looking into the reasons
why there is such a low conviction rate," is what they said - very
This is a significant change from the kind of programme being produced even
three years ago when the officials would have readily agreed that men were
'getting away with rape'.
And, yet again, in this programme we saw that women who claimed to have been
raped - but who failed to get convictions - were decidedly not 'normal'. For
example, one had been so drunk that she had no idea what had actually happened
during her alleged rape the night before, and another one had 'mental health
Furthermore, they made it fairly clear at the beginning of the programme that
the usual figures bandied about for rape in the UK are for complaints
of rape, not for incidents of rape.
All in all, therefore, I was only marginally irritated by the programme.
My main complaint about it was the way in which it tried to portray sex with
a drunken woman as 'rape'. The deceitful trick in the programme was to give the
impression that the fact that a woman ended up virtually unconscious after a
night of drinking was necessarily in such a state when she had sex. This is
purposely done to give the impression that she must have been virtually
unconscious at the time that the 'rape' took place.
But, as most people know, getting drunk is usually a fairly gradual process.
And many of us who, for example, have drunk too much at a party, will have
remained in a state of relative stupidity and silliness for many hours before finally
collapsing into a drunken heap. And it is during this period of stupidity and silliness
drunken women can easily give the impression - intentionally or otherwise - that
they want sex - and a
drunken man who is similarly stupefied is very likely to fall for it!
But in this Panorama programme, a certain outrage was expressed because a
woman - who ended up too drunk even to remember what happened the
night before - failed to secure a conviction for rape against a man with whom
she had sex.
Are we really supposed to imprison men on the sole testimony of women who
too drunk to remember what they did, too drunk to remember how they behaved, and
too drunk to remember what, in fact, happened?
Feminist and law professor Jennifer Temkin was on the programme, and she got
on my nerves with her evident bias. So I sent the following email individually
to some of her legal colleagues, and I BCCed every single one of them to her.
Professor Temkin appeared on the BBC's Panorama programme recently to air her
views about the alleged rape epidemic that is apparently raging throughout the
Given what she said, I think that it would be wise for those who are
concerned with the law to study far more closely the way in which rape
'research' is conducted.
The following three articles will give you some idea of how the official
'rape' figures are calculated. And you will see from them that these figures are
probably inflated by some 2000%.
The evidence suggests that there is no epidemic of rape. If anything, there
is an epidemic of false accusations.
(URLs of my three main articles on rape ...)
"Not long now, Boys."
on Scotland no longer requiring corroboration of evidence for rape
At the end of January, the Scottish Law Commission published a consultation document on proposed changes to Scottish rape laws. One of the proposals is that the current requirement for corroboration be removed in such cases.
As a support and campaign group based in Scotland, we are currently gathering evidence to submit to the Commission in response to this.
We would therefore like to hear from anyone whose accuser was found guilty or prosecuted for making false allegations, and whose case was based in Scotland.
Though we know from personal experience that most false accusers are never recognised as such, let alone punished, for the purposes of the consultation response, we must limit ourselves to cases where this has been proved.
If anyone wishes to assist us in preventing this new proposal to further undermine Scottish criminal justice from becoming law, please contact us, Penny or David via our website
on those other organisms that I rarely talk about
In your reply to S's email yousay that
"I am extremely
confident about destroying this monstrous organism of man-hatred - bar, that is,
some extreme disaster - because there are so many other organisms that will have
a bearing on the matter that are moving and/or growing in the right direction -
and most of these I have never talked about or I have only
referenced them obliquely."
Can you please give me a taste of wht you
or is this a secret for some reason?
Well, 'secret' is too strong a word. It's more a
case of not wanting to confuse the hoi polloi - LOL!
But, if you want a 'taste', here is a taste.
1. Women being 'encouraged' to go out to work is
actually going to backfire on women, because they will end up working very hard
indeed. For example, if women earn 'good' money then men will expect them to go
out to work more, and, of course, their own children will expect the same. The
pressures on them will just increase. And most men will not, in fact, undertake
much more in the way of childcare in order to compensate women for this extra
workload. In other words, feminist-induced government policies - coupled with
the growing activism of the men's movement - will eventually turn women into
2. Having more women politicians in parliament -
especially women who will undoubtedly be ***far*** less able than the men (for
statistical reasons; e.g. see the second section of A Permanent Gender War?)
- will simply help to undermine the whole of government - which, therefore, will lose even
more of its perceived legitimacy.
It would be a bit like having women playing in the
men's national football teams. As they continually mess things up on the field, the
public will begin to resent them and will gradually lose interest in the whole game.
In other words, more women politicians -> less
power for government.
Furthermore, as more of those men
who work for government get fed up with, for example, the promotion of decidedly
inferior women at the expense of those men who really do deserve promotion
(something which is evidently happening on a large scale in, for example, the UK police
forces) then those men working for government will begin to throw their weight
behind the men's movement.
3. Women actually need men far more than men need
women. Apart from carrying and caring for youngsters, the same is true for society as a whole. As
such, and generally speaking, it must therefore be the case that the greater is
the gender divide, the more will women lose out relative to men. At the moment
it might not seem this way, because of the many and various discriminatory
interventions of government; but these will soon be dealt with; e.g. as per
arising from 2. above and from the 'increasing downfall of the more powerful' -
which continues to occur.
Well, the above are just three examples. But there
are many more that I could give. And another reason that I do not talk about
such things very much is that I am more than happy to see these various groups undermining
I see that you are doing **yet another** report on female suicides in prisons.
Given that five times more men in prison commit suicide than women, do you not feel even remotely embarrassed by your **blatant** prejudices in
Belfort Bax (1), written in 1908 ...
It is a common saying of the legal profession that multitudes of husbands allow judgments to go against them by default, as they are quite conscious that no man not of absolutely angelic
character - unless he be himself a lawyer - has any chances before a prejudiced pro-feminist judge and jury.
For more pieces written by Belfort Bax, and by many other
lofty intellectuals of the past, go to Thomas' splendidMen's
Women - beasts of burden.
Why did the men of the past not collude together and both breed and
'domesticate' women in much the same way that they did with cows and horses?
Why is it that women were not penned up in stables and treated like beasts of
It would not be that hard to do, surely?
So, what stopped men from doing this?
This might sound like a silly question, but, on the contrary, no feminist
can answer this question without fundamentally contradicting the ESSENTIAL basis
of feminism; viz, that men have always oppressed women.
Try to answer the question yourself and see where it leads you.
Better still, ask a feminist, demand that she answers you - and then watch her squirm.
A term of abuse typically used by narcissistic empty-headed women who are
simply trying to stymie any legitimate criticism of themselves - often because
they believe that women are so superior that they should never be criticised.
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do
nothing. Albert Einstein
President Bush still wishes to stop people
who are seriously ill and dying from having access to medical marijuana and to
other drugs that would reduce significantly much of their
perfectly horrible suffering ...
... drugs which are, in fact, already consumed by
millions of people throughout the world.
Bush could allow very sick people to have access to drugs that would alleviate
their suffering enormously.
These are his very own people!
But he would rather see them suffer and die horribly than allow them to consume
As such, please think very carefully about what people like Bush must really be like
at their core.
Do you really want such people having so much power over
you and your loved ones?
No man can obtain a divorce except by a terribly expensive process in the High Court at a minimum
charge of forty pounds. This means a denial of justice to the vast bulk of the male
population. [However,] Any woman, by the asking for it, can get a summary separation and
confiscation of her husband's property, and an order for her maintenance out of his earnings from the nearest
police court. ... This process, which costs only a few shillings, the husband has to pay for.
But divorce or no divorce, the wife's property, where ever acquired, cannot he touched. There is no question here of interfering with her "earnings" though she be
an opera singer with £40,000 a year.
Similarly with her capitalised property, which, though man-acquired, as usual, cannot be touched.
... No matter how flagrant her conduct, the wildest dream never suggested that the wife's "earnings"
- no matter how exorbitant - should ever be touched for the benefit even of her
That a portion should be sequestrated for the
maintenance of the husband - even though a husband is incapacitated by disease or
accident - of course would be a barbarous suggestion, hardly to be discussed outside Bedlam
[a famous insane asylum.]
... A working man, earning eighteen or twenty shillings a week, is calmly ordered to provide twelve
shillings a week, for life, for the keep of a clamorous and malignant shrew.
The denial to the working man of the same facilities for summary separation, through the police court,
granted to every brawling wife who chooses to ask for it, simply means that the man is in a state of
legal subjection to his wife.
The wife has but to scream and appeal to the nearest policeman, and prison, separation,
custody of children, and maintenance, are decreed as matters of course.
A woman can habitually repudiate her duties, neglect her children, pawn her husband's and
children's clothes, waylay her husband at his work, and disgrace him before his friends, procure his dismissal, assault him, and
there is no remedy open to the working man.
To tell him that he can appeal to the Divorce Court at a cost of forty pounds, is a piece of savage and
He might as well be told that he can, if he has the money, promote a private Act of Parliament, at the
cost of some thousand pounds.
If goaded by intolerable misery, he so far forgets himself as to strike his torturer, he is sent to
gaol, with his condemnation headed ''A cowardly brute.''
The special facilities for women to obtain divorce, separation, confiscation of the husband's property, do
not end with the provision of a cheap and expeditious
Court for women alone. If the woman elects to go to the Divorce Division of the High Court, the path is
made similarly smooth for her. Her unfortunate husband, who may afterwards be held to be quite guiltless
of the lying charges brought against him, is ordered to find money for her solicitors, and has to pay in advance!!
He must also pay her alimony pendente lite [during the litigation].
Then when he is dragged to Court by a heartless and vindictive woman, he finds the scales still
more heavily weighted against him.
The rules might be
formulated somewhat in this way:--
1. Every woman's statement complaining of her husband is assumed to he true until he conclusively proves
it to be false. burden of proof is on him and the difficulty he has to face is that of proving a negative.
2. The slightest harshness or even carelessness of speech or behaviour, no matter under what provocation (the records of years being searched to find one) is
absolutely final proof of "cruelty" if committed by the husband. [But] No amount of insolence and brutality--short
of actual attempt to maim--is cruelty in a wife. Anything she does is a pardonable exhibition of feminine
3. The husband and his witnesses are prosecuted for perjury on the slightest inaccuracy being discerned in
their narration of facts. Deliberate perjury is passed over if committed by the wife, her paramour, or her
4. No charge, no matter of what infamous crime, falsely made by a wife against a husband, is a ground
for his refusing to take her back. If he should refuse the Court confiscates for her benefit as
much of his
property or earnings as they think fit.