Rory Hearn on Austerity

“Ireland’s austerity ‘success’ is no model for Greece

GREECE is being told to follow Ireland’s crisis solution of harsh austerity and acceptance of bank-and-bailout debt. This narrative conveniently ignores that the Irish ‘recovery’ has been built on major human rights violations and the undermining of long-term social and economic development.

Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments.

There is a dark side to Ireland’s ‘success’ that requires discussion about the most effective responses to financial and fiscal crises.

The eight austerity budgets between 2008 and 2014 involved €18.5bn in public-spending cuts and €12bn in tax-raising (revenue) measures. Key public services, in particular health and housing, have been weakened as a result.

Public service staff have been reduced by 10% (37,500). Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments. One-third of all children admitted to hospital suffering with mental-health difficulties have been put in adult wards and the waiting lists for youth mental-health services have increased to 2,818 people.

Funding for local authority housing was cut from €1.3bn, in 2007, to just €83m, in 2013. This meant a loss of 25,000 social-housing units. This is a major contribution to the homelessness crisis, with 1,000 children and 500 families now living in emergency accommodation in Dublin. Because of the decision to prioritise bank recapitalisation and developer debt write-down, homeowner mortgage arrears have escalated.

There are 37,000 homeowners in mortgage arrears of over 720 days, and legal repossession notices were issued to 50,000 homeowners.

The cuts to welfare have had devastating impacts.Affected areas include lone-parent supports, child benefit, youth payments, fuel, back-to-school clothing and footwear, rent supplement, and disability and carers’ allowance.

But charges were introduced where they did not exist before — putting a further burden on lower-income households. These charges are ‘regressive’, in that they were not tailored to income level. These include water, property, school transport, prescription, A&E and chemotherapy charges. Fees have effectively been reintroduced at third-level (increasing from €1,000 to €3,000). This will have major implications for participation rates from lower-income households.

Funding for local community development, youth organisations, drugs prevention, family support, and to combat rural and urban disadvantage was disproportionally hit. Programme funding was reduced by 50%.

We are likely to see the long-term social impacts of these cuts in the further exclusion from the labour force of youths in disadvantaged areas. Issues of drugs and crime will surely worsen.

An EU report on the impact of austerity showed that the quality of secondary- and primary-level education has also been reduced, with fewer teachers, rationalisation of teacher/student support services, and the abolition of school grants.

The report links early school-leaving to austerity measures, which are highly concentrated in low-income areas. This, along with the cuts in funding to third-level, will seriously damage our education system, the core of the country’s economic development.

Hundreds of thousands of families and children have been pushed into poverty. The child-poverty rate rose from 18%, in 2008, to 29.1%, in 2013.The deprivation rate increased from 26.9%, in 2012, to 30.5%, in 2013, while for lone-parent families it has risen to 63%. Food poverty affects 600,000 (up 13.2%). Austerity has also devastated rural areas and small towns, with unemployment levels remaining much higher in the south-east.

In one of the most disturbing pieces of research into the impact of austerity, UCC and the National Suicide Research Foundation found an increase in self-harm rates of 31% in men, and 22% in women, between 2008 and 2012, while the male suicide rate is 57% higher (that’s 500 additional deaths). They cited a number of factors, including reductions in public expenditure, cuts to welfare, substantial healthcare cuts, falling house prices and personal debt.

Capital expenditure on important public infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, roads, transport, broadband, water and wastewater was drastically reduced, by 60%, between 2008 and 2014.

Such spending on infrastructure is the bedrock of sustainable and competitive economies, and the lost decade of investment in these will leave Ireland’s economy much more vulnerable into the future.

Don’t forget, also, €17bn of our national pension reserve — which was available to fund infrastructure development and future pensions — was put into the bailout.

The commitment by Irish governments to pay all the bank- and crisis-related debt will damage our long-term social and economic development, and result in ongoing crises in health, housing, and mental health, and in rising poverty and inequality. This is because funding that should be going to these much-needed public services will, instead, be going on debt interest payments. Debt interest payments rose from €2bn (3.4% of tax revenue), in 2007, to a staggering €7.5bn, or 18% of all tax revenue, in 2014. These interest payments will enforce a form of permanent austerity in the coming decade.

Then, there is the often-forgotten issue of forced emigration. Almost 10% of Irish young people emigrated during the recession and emigration worsened as austerity intensified. It rose from 20,000, in 2009, to 50,000, in 2013. Without emigration, the unemployment rate would be 20%.

Finally, almost half of Ireland’s dramatic increase in GDP is from multinational activity, which does not take place in Ireland.

Thus, much of Ireland’s growth is based on facilitating some of the most profitable global corporations and financial services in reducing the tax they otherwise would have to pay to countries across the world. This is an unethical, unfair, and ultimately unsustainable form of economic activity.

It is clear, as highlighted by a recent assessment by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, that austerity hit the most vulnerable and marginalised the hardest in Ireland. But there was, and remains, a choice about how countries such as Ireland and Greece, and the Troika, respond to debt and financial crises. Debt relief is an important option, as is taxing the wealthy, financial services or higher incomes, rather than taking it from public services, the poor and middle-income earners. The Troika and Irish governments favoured the latter and we can see the human misery and economic damage caused, as a result.

The Irish austerity-and-recovery model is being misrepresented on the international stage and should not be followed by Greece or other crises countries.

The Irish case actually points to the human and economic necessity of debt relief and alternative approaches to fiscal crises.

Dr Rory Hearne is a lecturer in the department of geography and faculty of social sciences at Maynooth University

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved”

 

 

 

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/irelands-austerity-success-is-no-model-for-greece-340662.html

 

 

 

 

 

My Note – What he said🙂

Knowledge – v – Information

 

 

We live in an information age apparently; everything about everything is available literally at the tips of our fingertips. Yet – we know very little about anything worthwhile.

Let me try to explain.

Information is merely the flat shallow recitation of what is or isn’t as the case may be, knowledge is a multilayered, multifaceted deep understanding of why and how something is or isn’t.

Information can be manipulated, manufactured, corrupted and twisted to suit a particular purpose – knowledge requires looking beyond information, dissecting information, peeling back layers of information to reveal the source and motivation of the giver or disseminator of that information.

Information merely requires the passive acceptance of this flat, hollow and carefully constructed edifice of “facts” “theories” and “analysis” knowledge demands a more proactive challenge to this “information” acquiring knowledge means being willing to look beyond the surface and question so called “truths” or “facts”. Acquiring knowledge means being willing to discard information, reject the validity of information, including information upon which one has built one’s external place in the vast sea of humanity and the internal psychological scaffolding we have constructed to allow us to navigate and filter all the information, both sensory and otherwise that bombards us continually.

Setting our internal filters to accept only those pieces of information that maintain this internal psychological scaffolding in place allows us to sail through our lives without ever having to challenge ourselves, make ourselves uncomfortable or question the very basis upon which we anchor ourselves in the here and now.

Knowledge requires an inner journey fraught with peril to our carefully constructed psychological scaffolding – information allows us to coast through life, both external and internal, without questioning the journey, the destination or the means of travel.

I have been pondering on several clichés that seem to have acquired deep purchase into the zeitgeist and are expounded with monotonous regularity. One of which is that “life is complicated” bizarrely pointing to the technological advances and hyper technology within which modern societies conduct the business of human interaction. As if, the more “hi-tech” a society is, it follows that this society is also extremely complex and “advanced”

Actually “modern” society is savage, superficial, tawdry and shallow – the driving impetus behind the vast majority of “modern” societies is greed, selfishness, vanity and egotism – hardly what one would call “advanced” not from a human evolution perspective that is.

Look around you – what do you see?

A world of mass consumerism, a vast sea of humanity almost permanently attached to some piece of “technology” that most have no clue about how it works (including me by the way) waves of “information” pouring out from this “technology” and embedded in all this “information” carefully crafted “messages” designed to mould and steer the consumers of all this “information” in a certain way – passively.

Let’s just take a moment to reflect on something rather bizarre – 100 years ago – not actually that significant an amount of time historically speaking, human beings, despite the more environmentally perilous nature of society were actually healthier. Mentally and physically.

Yes, I know – infant mortality was high, life span was shorter and life was tougher – I am not disputing that in western societies infant mortality has plummeted and life span has grown longer – nor am I disputing that living has become less an exercise in survival and more an exercise in staving off boredom – for some.

Now, compare the technological advances to the actual state of humanity.

100 years ago people were striving to improve not just their physical environment but their intellectual environment – there was a seething desire to know – to understand – to learn.

Today? Hmmmm.

When the doings of an intellectually challenged nitwit “celebrity” invariably female, dominate all sources and avenues of “information” and the hysterics of yet another coven of brain dead females about the shirt a scientist who has just achieved an amazing technological feat is wearing is deemed of more importance than said scientists achievement – then you know – you must know that humanity has been and is not evolving – but de-evolving.

Let’s go back to the original premise of this piece for a moment – the difference between knowledge and information.

All of the great thinkers of humanity have invariably been male – note to feminists – shut up whining and pay attention.

As I said – all the great thinkers of humanity have been male – from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas to Emile Durkheim and Emmanuel Kant – and they addressed that eternal question – to paraphrase – the meaning and purpose of life (yes – I know it’s more complicated than that) in effect the big questions.

But – before they did, they spent many years in study and reflection and contemplation – they spent time thinking, acquiring and testing information to achieve knowledge.

What is significant to note is that, not only the ones I mentioned above but many many more produced what are referred to as seminal works – the distillation of the knowledge they had strived to acquire. Invariably one or two works of such significance that the content is still being discussed today.

Time to mention feminism (did you all think I’d forgotten about the toxic influence of feminism?)

If there is one thing that distinguishes feminism from all if not most “theories” or “belief systems” it is the sheer volume, the unending deluge, the unabated outpourings of unadulterated crap that feminism has produced. A positive avalanche of ……………………verbal diarrhoea, and it never stops, does it?

And all of it on one singular topic – being female. A biological accident of birth over which no-one has any control. One is either born male or female and that is out of the hands of either of the two human beings who contributed the genetic material to create this new human being.

But – before we get off track – the question to be asked is – why the need for such a deluge of “information”? Why the need to keep regurgitating and spewing out the same “information” over and over and over again?

Simples. To hide the paucity of knowledge and insight into the human condition in this deluge of “information” to disguise the shallowness and superficiality of feminist “theories” and of course to deaden and neutralise any desire to question all of this crap by its sheer weight and constant and interminable repetition.

There is of course another agenda in operation – for almost six decades the western world has been inundated with this crap (feminism) in order to deflect attention away from another agenda – the neo-liberal agenda to consolidate and bring under the control of global entities all the worlds resources, including controlling the flow of all this “information”

Feminism is and was the perfect vehicle through which to exert this covert social, political and cultural control – because if there one thing feminism is good at, in fact is excellent at – it is spreading stupidity, passivity, damping down intellectual curiosity, numbing the desire for knowledge, narrowing the psychological filters of a human being to such an extent, that only the carefully constructed “messages” get through.

It sounds like feminism is a bigger player in all this than it really is – yes and no – feminism is merely the mask, the vehicle, the delivery system – but it did harness, corrupt and twist deep seated impulses embedded within human beings in order to find purchase in the cultural and political frameworks of western societies.

Sounds like it’s all over for humanity doesn’t it?

No, it isn’t. Human beings are naturally endowed with curiosity, with a desire to know – why? How? Human beings are also naturally endowed with an inbuilt bullshit meter – you can deaden it, you can trick it, you can even turn it off in some people – where they will in effect literally believe anything – and I mean anything – you tell them.

But – as someone once said:

“You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”

The second thing to note is this – I believe that human beings also have a deep-seated desire to move forward, to improve, to harness and understand the positive and find ways to defeat and diminish the negative – be it poverty, hopelessness, despair – but above and beyond all that, human beings have an almost visceral need and desire to be part of a community of human beings.

Both feminism and neo-liberalism working in concert have elevated the cult of the individual and the cult of selfishness and self-absorption to epic levels.

Neo-liberalism emphasises and lauds the separation and disconnectedness of human beings – the dog eat dog mentality – and feminism emphasises the inward looking, egotistical, shallow and vapid female-centric world view that creates an imbalance, a toxic fracture in human relationships, solidifying and entrenching the neo-liberal agenda – it has become a vicious circle.

Yet – both these agendas emanate from a small elite of persons exercising social, cultural and political control over a larger majority upon whom this control rests.

The thing is – the vast majority of people are actually “not like that” selfish, avaricious, egotistical, shallow and mercenary.

Now – don’t get me wrong – yes indeed huge numbers of people exhibit those kinds of behaviours, and particularly some women, those behaviours have been assiduously encouraged and cultivated, nor am I excusing or justifying those behaviours – but – it goes against the grain for some of them – they are acting out their social conditioning – following their programming – consciously and deliberately to be sure.

What is feeding this behaviour, what is creating the conditions, the societal and cultural conditions that allow this behaviour to prevail is a manifestation of the deliberate and conscious fracturing of the bridge between information and knowledge.

Acres and acres of information filling up every corner of the human psyche in a never-ending stream, layers and layers of data, of “facts” of “slogans” of “theories” of “messages” with no pause.

Ask yourselves – is there any time during the course of your day when you are not being bombarded with “information”? TV, Radio, Internet, iphone, magazines, newspapers, you name it.

I personally don’t watch television or listen to the radio, except in the car – I use the internet to access only a few things, mostly for research but I do have some sites and blogs that I visit regularly – I don’t use facebook or twitter and I certainly don’t feel deprived or starved for “information”

As far as I can see – most of the “information” out there is complete unadulterated crap, and I have zero interest in it.

With regard to feminism – this last year has seen a definite and accelerating souring of attitudes to feminism and feminists, and because of the innate stupidity of the vast majority of feminists they have countered this turning away by becoming even more toxic and insane (if that was even possible)

My personal feeling is that the conversation has moved on – humanity is moving on – or at least is struggling to do so – the tactics of feminism merely indicates a frantic desire to pull everybody backwards – to drag the conversation back down into the cesspit of feminist control.

With regard to the neo-liberal agenda, the other side of the toxic social control coin – this is actually being thrown into stark relief here in the Republic of Ireland – we are literally trapped in the grip of this agenda in an unrelenting and vicious cycle.

But – they have gone too far here – they have awakened a sleeping beast – every day more and more people are waking up and rejecting the programming – all the programming – including feminism – over the last couple of months I have met and spoken to one feminist – every other female I have spoken to has vehemently rejected feminism – in quite trenchant language I might add J

What is very significant is that alongside this awakening is a renewed enthusiasm for knowledge, for understanding, and for putting into context raw information, rather than simply accepting and internalising this “information” undigested, unquestioned and unchallenged.

Because of its intertwined relationship with the neo-liberal global agenda feminism is also coming under more intense scrutiny – a process that began to gather momentum with the advent of the internet and is now unstoppable.

If I had one wish it would be this – disengage from the trivial, unplug yourselves from the never ending conduit of asinine and pointless “information” streams – including endless TV and create space, time and silence for the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

You don’t have to know every tiny inconsequential detail of every tiny inconsequential event that happens in the world, but if you allow yourself to think, to challenge yourself then you can begin to see that most of frenetic activity around you is pointless and is merely a ploy to engage you in said activities to distract you from the broader picture then from there you will see the patterns of control emerging from the shadows – if you can see it – you can begin to disengage from it.

 

Slainte

 

We Had A Dream…….Once

 

We had a dream once – as a nation – we dreamed of freedom, we dreamed of shaking off the yoke of tyranny and oppression.

We dreamed that we could lift our heads up, reclaim our heritage and step forward into the future as a sovereign nation of equals.

On 24th April 1916 a declaration was made on the steps of the GPO in Dublin – it was addressed: To Irishmen and Irishwomen, and it spoke of our aspirations, of our heartfelt wish to be free.

“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the last three hundred years they have asserted it to arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.” [1]

(emphasis added)

Today almost 100 years later that dream lies in ruins, we do not control our own destiny, we are not free, and our people are suffering, our young people are leaving, creating not just an impending demographic crisis, but a State where the pool of “taxpayers” is far too small to sustain even the most basic level of services. We are getting a taste of what that is like right now as we speak – but – it will get worse. Unless we change it.

“Youth organisations in Ireland are warning that the number of young people emigrating could be devastating for the country’s economy.

On Wednesday, they will meet politicians in Dublin to demand that more is done to tackle the problem.

Around 300,000 people have left the Republic of Ireland since 2009 – many of them young and looking for work – and tens of thousands more say they are also likely to leave unless the economy starts to improve.” [2]

Because that’s all we are now, taxpayers – not citizens, not human beings – TAXPAYERS – merely a means to an end – and the end is to keep the coffers of the rich and the privileged filling up.

EMIGRATION is tearing families apart and creating a new generation of lonely older people in Ireland, a charity has claimed.

Irish charity ALONE says it has seen an increase in the number of older people at an all-time low as a direct result of their children and grandchildren emigrating.

The charity’s claims follow news last week that a record number of Irish workers under 35 are set to move to Canada after more than 10,000 Canadian visas were made available this year.

ALONE CEO Sean Moynihan said: “We have even received calls from the emigrants themselves asking us to check on their older relative.

“The children and grandchildren of Ireland’s older people are emigrating in droves, leaving behind a large huge increase in the number of older people requiring our services because their support systems have disappeared.”

EU figures show Ireland now has the highest level of emigration in Europe.

The latest Central Statistics Office figures show almost 250 people leave the country daily – one person every six minutes.” [3]

We will become a grey nation, and how will we treat our elderly citizens, those who cannot just up and leave? Well, we already have a pretty good idea of how this State already treats our elderly citizens. Our elderly people are forced to lie on hospital trollies for hours, awaiting treatment.

“You see my mother has been lying on a trolley since Wednesday morning and as I write this on Thursday afternoon, she is still there.

She’s not alone, there are dozens of others who’ve been waiting even longer.

Lourdes is a hospital from hell but don’t blame the staff. How they cope with what is a never-ending crisis is beyond belief.

But they do and because they do, the scoundrels who have failed to end this misery will allow it to continue.

Maggie Flanagan will be 94 next September and is paralysed on her left side following a stroke last year.

She led an exemplary life and raised five children alone. The youngest was just three when my father died in 1964.

She never drank nor smoked and was forced to go out to work to keep us alive and to get us through school. She was the model citizen who certainly did the State some service.

Now this great Republic can’t provide her with a hospital bed.

Maggie was brought to the Lourdes from St Mary’s nursing home suffering from pneumonia and the antibiotics were having little effect.

She is now lying on a trolley less than one metre away from a woman who is constantly coughing up phlegm.

Yes, we Irish certainly know how to look after our old folk.” [4]

Our water is and has been for many years undrinkable [5] in some parts of the State, never mind that in fact we don’t even own our own water anymore.

“During 2013 There were 57 Boil water notices and 12 Water restriction notices active in 16 Counties affecting 35,831 people. By comparison, in 2012 suppliers issued 42 Boil water notices and water restrictions affecting approximately 50,000 consumers. By The end of 2013, 19 Boil Notices and 8 Water Restriction Notices In 12 Counties remained in place affecting over 17,000 people. Notices can apply to all or part of a supply and last from several days to several years depending on the scale of works necessary to solve the issue.

In some cases notices are precautionary in nature due to inadequate treatment or failure of the disinfection system, whereas in other cases notices are put in place because E. Coli or Cryptosporidium Is detected. Also, several of the water restrictions relate to the presence of lead pipes.

Appendix 5 Provides a list of the notices in place during 2013. As Of 11 December 2014, There were 23 supplies on Boil Water Notices Affecting a population of 23,297 And 15 Supplies on Water Restrictions Affecting a population of 4,071. The Majority of the population affected by these current boil water notices are in County Roscommon and they relate to Cryptosporidium risk.” [5]

We have a housing crisis in the midst of a glut of housing lying mouldering in unfinished estates littering this land, we have children going to school hungry, and young men in crisis, in despair take their own lives rather than face another day. We have bankers awarding themselves massive bonuses while a soup kitchen – a SOUP kitchen in Sligo is forced to close. [6]

We have lurched from one crisis to another, we have watched in horror as tales of abuse and maltreatment of our most vulnerable citizens have been told, we have seen with our own eyes as corruption and malfeasance in the highest levels of government has gone unpunished, in fact we have seen the architects of our destruction awarded, been given yet more opportunities to destroy this country.

On that April day in 1916, a startling declaration (for that time) was made – we pledged allegiance to an as yet unarticulated concept – a concept that would take another 40 or so years to find purchase in the wider world – the concept of Universal Human Rights.

“The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally……..”

It would be 50 years before another martyr on the altar of Human Rights also declared – I Have a Dream. Dr. Martin Luther King said to the American people, and it resonates today for us.

“I say to you today, my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.” [7]

100 years ago WE had that dream – that dream has become a nightmare.

Next year in 2016 we will have an opportunity to remind ourselves of the dream our forefathers and mothers had – a nation, free of tyranny, a nation that cherishes its citizens, ALL its citizens, a nation that can hold its head up and face into the future bowed but not beaten, hopeful not hopeless, willing to put aside petty differences and ancient rivalries and embrace once more that dream.

We have been betrayed, we have been lied to, we have been almost brought to the brink of destruction by those whom we trusted, those whom we should have been able to depend on to steer us through the oft times turbulent waters of our history. Now, we the people are being forced to pay the debts of those who caused that destruction, who brought this calamity upon us – we are paying with our young people, we are paying with our tears, we are paying for the privilege of being crushed, being impoverished, made homeless, driven to despair and hopelessness.

If we could but embrace that dream again – a dream of a nation where all its citizens are valued, where that declaration that acknowledged the fundamental tenets of Universal Human Rights – that all Human beings have intrinsic worth and value – that the only requirement to be vested with Human Rights is to be a Human Being.

We’re not just taxpayers, we’re not just faceless economic units, we are Human Beings, we are Irish citizens. We’re not a faceless multitude of “burdens on the State” – we ARE the State – WE are The Republic of Ireland

Our worth as Human Beings is not dependant on whether or not we are toiling away to pay off debts we did not incur, to fund the lifestyles and cynical ambitions of corporations and greedy developers, to line the already bulging pockets of avaricious businessmen.

Being poor is not a character flaw – being rich on the backs of the poor IS. The late great Nelson Mandela said:

“Over coming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice it is the protection of fundamental human rights. Everyone everywhere has the right to live in dignity. Free from fear and oppression. Free from hunger and thirst and free to express themselves and associate at will” Nelson Mandela [8]

We had a dream once – we had hope, we had a future, our children had a future and we were willing to fight for that future – our future has now been mortgaged – our children’s futures have been sold.

The resources to fund our services were signed away in order to satisfy an agreement made in the dead of a cold September night in 2008 to save the skins of crooks and gombeen men.

But – we have as a nation survived much worse – we have endured – we are still here – our people have gone out in the world and done extraordinary things – we refuse to give up.

We will not give up – we cannot give up – we have a destiny to fulfil, almost 100 years ago we had a dream, the time has come to make that dream a reality, to build a nation that;

“……guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally……..”

In our national anthem [9] the last line of the 1st chorus – in English says

“we’re children of a fighting race, that never yet has known disgrace, and as we march the foe to face, we’ll sing a soldiers song”

The foe we face is among us, the enemy is inside our gates – 100 years after we articulated our dream of being free we will have an opportunity to reclaim that dream, to start again, to fulfil our destiny.

My fellow Irish men and Irish women, and all those who call this land home, in the words of Dr. Rory Hearne from NUI Maynooth;

“A century after rising up and (partly) freeing itself from hundreds of years of colonization and associated enforced famine and oppression, Ireland has once again become a colonised state. Its sovereignty and the dignity of its people, its natural resources and public assets having being handed over to financial and corporate capital (big business) by the Irish political establishment and management classes.

From Irish water, publicly owned land, to the Corrib gas field in Mayo, our fisheries, our wind, motorways, housing, welfare job supports, community services, public transport, health services – they are all already, or are in the process of, being privatised and sold off to the control and ownership of private corporations and their wealthy owners. The most grievous forms of re-colonisation and abandonment of the principles of the Republic took place when the Irish people bailed out domestic banks, developers and the European financial system.

As a result, the people suffered massive austerity and the national debt has reached the point whereby a fifth of all tax revenues are now paying debt repayments rather than much needed public services. People are being evicted from their homes and made homeless or suffering from exorbitant rent and mortgage repayments in order to satisfy the profit seeking of the banks (including state owned AIB), and this is being worsened as NAMA and the government enable international property vulture investment funds to buy up swathes of Irish homes and land, irrespective of the short and long term social impacts. The Euro financial system and associated treaties such as the Fiscal Treaty have removed much of Ireland’s sovereignty.

For example, Ireland is restricted in its ability to borrow or increase investment in vital public services and infrastructure because of EU Treaty and Euro financial rules. Germany and the core European countries are dictating the imposition of austerity across all countries.

How is Ireland still a sovereign, independent, country in this context? How can the will of the Irish people be expressed and translated into practice through their democratically elected government? In a way, Ireland has become a neo-colony of neoliberal capitalism, US multinationals and the EU.” [10]

Dr. Martin Luther King articulated the only answer possible for both us and any nation that finds itself crushed under the heels of faceless bureaucrats, corporate bullies and sycophantic politicians.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.”

We must once more become “a risen people” and throw off this new yoke of oppression and tyranny and throw out those who enabled it.

From Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (Constitution of Ireland)

Article 6

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.”

(emphasis added)

It is time. It is way past time we took back what was taken from us – squandered, given away, sold – “ownership of Ireland, and [to] the unfettered control of Irish destinies

 

 

References

[1]Poblacht Na hEireann

http://www.irishfreedomcommittee.net/HISTORY/1916_Proc.htm

[2] Irish youth groups warn of emigration crisis 29 May 2013

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22698740

[3] Ireland’s new ‘lonely’ generation as emigration increases By Siobhan Breatnach on March 25, 2014

http://www.irishpost.co.uk/news/irelands-new-lonely-generation-one-person-leaves-ireland-every-six-minutes

[4] Pat Flanagan: Kenny’s response to our A&E shambles is truly sick

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/news-opinion/pat-flanagan-kennys-response-ae-5241354

[5] From the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Drinking Water Report 2013

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water%20Report%20Web.pdf

[6] Soup kitchen in Sligo forced to close over toilet red-tape; Tuesday, December 16, 2014

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/soup-kitchen-in-sligo-forced-to-close-over-toilet-red-tape-302677.html

[7] I have A Dream – Dr. Martin Luther King.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1951-/martin-luther-kings-i-have-a-dream-speech-august-28-1963.php

[8] Nelson Mandela – make poverty history.

http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/extras/mandela.shtml

[9] National Anthem – Abhrán na bhfiann/A Soldiers Song

http://www.irish-folk-songs.com/irish-national-anthem-lyrics-chords-and-sheet-music.html

[10] The Irish water war, austerity and the ‘Risen people’; An analysis of participant opinions, social and political impacts and transformative potential of the Irish anti water-charges movement; Dr Rory Hearne, Department of Geography, Maynooth University, April 2015

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/TheIrishWaterwar_0.pdf

Straighten Up and Fly Right Lads – You’re doing it Wrong – Tut Tut!

 

Apparently Kathy Gyngell was a bit taken aback at the less than positive reaction to her post “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind” so she posted another article in response to the………………….response(s).

Bear with me for a moment while I indulge in a wee rant.

For the love of all that’s good, would you drop the patronising, condescending “mother knows best” crap and GET this – feminism is merely the visible face of a toxic female mindset – GYNOCENTRISM –a toxic mindset that has morphed its way through several manifestations – each one becoming progressively more and more poisonous and spreading throughout and within ALL levels of society and culture – including ALL institutional, administrative and political structures.

There is no part of civil or political society that has not been corrupted, poisoned and tainted by this – INCLUDING marriage, family, education, the legal system, the media, and male/female relationships.

Slapping a smiley face on the CURRENT structures of civil and political society and going “there there, all fixed now” is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. Then expecting men to trot obediently back into the fold because a WOMAN now tells them that all is well, we can all go back to the way we were.

BULLSHIT!

We can never go back – we must never go back – we need a new conversation – not ludicrous attempts to relaunch the same shoite that caused the problems in the first place – unbridled GYNOCENTRISM.

Okie dokie – now I’ve got that off my chest – lets delve into Ms. Gyngell’s latest offering.

“Kathy Gyngell: Sexodus anger needs to be channelled before it explodes” By Kathy Gyngell Posted 27th April 2015

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-sexodus-anger-needs-to-channelled-before-it-explodes/

Right out of the gate Gyngell assumes a “I’m shocked and hurt that you’re angry with me, when I was only trying to point you in the right direction” stance – coupled with a nicely subtle dash of condescension – note the use of the word “coo”

“‘Coo’ is pretty much my response on reading the 255 record number of comments on my blog urging men to stand up to feminists rather than turn their backs on women in general.

I now feel some sympathy for that P. G. Wodehouse character, the irritating Edwin, (Florence Craye’s younger brother in Joy in the Morning, for the non-Wodehouse fans among the readers). He is the boy scout hell bent on doing a daily act of kindness only to find it erupt in his face each time. ‘Coo’, he says, as the cottage burns down when he attempts to clean the chimney using gunpowder and paraffin. Mine was, unintentionally, a gunpowder and paraffin blog.

Talk about a fusillade of return fire. Coo indeed. If I had set out to annoy ‘sexodus’ men (which I didn’t, needless to say) I could not have succeeded better. There were two common themes to the comments, which can pretty much summed up as, ‘how dare you’ and too late. MGTOW (men are going their own way – and not coming back) so put that in your pipe and smoke it (that, at least, is my polite interpretation”

She also has deliberately chosen to minimise and devalue the legitimate Men Human Rights abuses prevailing and embedded into the very DNA of our cultures and societies by referring to and characterising ALL MRA/MHRA and MGTOW activism with one blanket word – “sexodus” men.

See – if you can dismiss and caricaturise Men’s Human Rights activism as a narrow and slightly sillysexodus” then you don’t actually have to look too deeply into the myriad Human Rights issues affecting men and boys – all the while maintaining that you only “have good intentions”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and there is no better way to diffuse the importance of an issue and deflect attention away from it than to project a “I’m hurt that you are angry with me” stance and then deliberately misrepresent what that/those issues are.

She also takes a little swipe at some of the commenter’s and pours a little scorn on the anger expressed – in some cases quite vehemently by them, as she lauds herself by comparison for her “polite interpretation” in other words dismissing the legitimate anger of men by tut tutting over their lack of politeness. Gosh darn it – can you all not be nice!!!! Tut tut.

She quotes from some of the comments and acknowledges that:

“Anger and disgust is palpable in the stream. There are so many quotes it is impossible to chose. The same writer pretty much sums them up:”

Ah, but does she accept that male anger is legitimate, is justified, is a direct response to decades on ongoing vilification, demonization and rights stripping of men?

Yes and no – yes because she does acknowledge that “Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism.” There it is – BUT – the standard empty FEMALE type acknowledgment of a male statement of his anger – a la – “*yeah yeah, you have a point……………BUT”

Let’s just examine this a bit closer – what feminism has done is made the “traditional” paradigm of man/woman in blissful married happiness with 2.4 happy well-adjusted children – TOXIC.

Has made exactly the set-up that Kathy Gyngell is “urging” men to return to and commit to akin to putting your head into a lions mouth and hoping he’s already been fed.

Gyngell apparently wants men to accept at face value that women will now play nice! For the good of society no less! Because you can always trust a woman, any woman not to stab you in the back at the first opportunity! Because she says she won’t!

Oh well – that’s grand – women are going to play nice now – its aaaaaaaaaaaaalll sorted – everything is hunky dory now – lads start lining up and “give women the chance to see if they find them(you) attractive.”

Yeah right – that’ll work.

“My ‘coo’ response, however, is not altogether one of surprise – even at the vitriol and abuse we moderated out. Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism. Vive la difference! remember? If this is not apparent from our blogs (Laura Perrins, Belinda Brown, Kimberly Ross and Caroline Farrow all regularly expose its flaws and dangers as have I done too) please turn to our mission statement:”

First of all, the comments were directed at the opinions Kathy Gyngell expressed in her piece and the manner and form of THOSE opinions – ergo – what anybody else has or hasn’t written on this site is irrelevant – this is all about you Kathy.

Second – your phrase “it’s a bit rich” indicates that you seem to be getting on your high horse a bit, are a bit miffed that men, who have been deliberately and with malice aforethought cast into the role of the source of all evil in the world are now fighting back – with less than “polite” words, with anger, with a complete lack of gratitude at being told what “men should…..” now do to fix the problems within societies and cultures because women are now experiencing fallout from them – or rather from men unwilling to continue to be of service to women.

To paraphrase with an example of a female/male conversation – a sort of before and after thing.

Before the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: OMG – what can I do to make you happy – I’ll do anything you want.

After the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: bummer – not my problem, see ya – have a nice life – don’t forget to feed the cat🙂

Yep – I did notice the use of the word “need” in the title – if I may interpret – men washing their hands of women, or as Gyngell misinterprets and caricaturises it the “sexodus” goes right to the heart of one of some (a lot of) women’s most basic “needs” – babies.

Babies that they and they alone get to make decisions about, babies that they and they alone are in charge of – in fact – OWN – and babies that are their ticket to access a man’s assets, wealth and property.

She does touch on this subject, albeit from a strictly narrow perspective – ignoring the actual realities for men if they do try to form “families” if they do have children.

“It is hard to disagree with him – except his last sentence. His deduction from this cost/risk analysis is a counsel of despair if there was one. What then of the future for children, family and society – or does he think a Brave New World of test-tube genderless babies is fine?”

(emphasis added)

This would be laughable if it wasn’t so obtuse – in particular her plea to men “What then of the future for children, family and society” does she seriously expect men to engage in the extremely risky action of getting married and having children with modern western women? In THIS society? In THIS culture?

Are you mad?

In a society that has over the last five decades relegated men and boys to sub-human status – in a society where the mere pointing of an accusatory finger at ANY man means his life is over – in a society where fathers are literally ordered out of their children’s lives on the word of a toxic spiteful woman?

Feminism may have been the driver behind the corruption of society but it is WOMEN who sustain it – women who perpetuate and enforce toxic gynocentrism, women who demand “special” treatment – just because they happen to have been born female.

Is there any point in repeating that the vast majority of women are NOT feminists – I believe the percentage has now dipped below 20%.

No woman actually needs to be a feminist to be a complete and total bitch – did you not know that Kathy?

In fact the vast majority of women are “I’m not a feminist BUT……”

Then she really puts her foot in her mouth with this;

“This is exactly why right minded men and women must fight the battle against feminism together. Men and women enacted the Equality Act, not just women – men have gone along with this agenda.”

Men have gone along with this agenda”? Really?

Men have deliberately excluded themselves from consideration when it comes to “Equality” in the UK?

Like this you mean:

“We support and protect the rights of women by:

Helping women to reach their potential in the workplace and helping businesses get the full economic benefit of women’s skills, including through the work of the Women’s Business Council, Women on Boards     and the Think, Act, Report programme, making sure that women’s interests are represented in government, by regularly meeting women’s groups and campaigners, and listening to women across the country, providing grants to people who want to set up childcare businesses”

(emphasis added)

From: Department for Education, Government Equalities Office , Office for Disability Issues, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, Edward Timpson, Mark Harper, Jo Swinson , Women’s Business Council and Ethnic Minority Employment Stakeholder Group others

First published: 4 November 2010

Last updated:27 March 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society

Needless to say there are no equivalent services or provisions for MEN.

She makes some final points, which again would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

“…….if feminism is not challenged democratically, this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord. That would not be a good thing for male – female harmony, which is necessary both for children’s wellbeing and a happy, healthy society.”

While there are feminists infesting every single area of civil and political society – feminism is a state of mind – informed by a gynocentric worldwiew that women are extra special human beings – feminism is merely the label currently attached to a way of being female (oh God I cannot believe I had to use that phrase)

Anyhoo – one does not simply remove a toxic way of being by moving the political furniture about – most highly influential feminists are hidden away in the shadows, lurking in colleges and universities spewing out “studies” and “research” or writing toxic anti male hit pieces and peddling lies and myths on the MSM (main stream media) avidly swallowed by hordes of brain dead wimmin only delighted to have their “specialness” and perpetual victimhood confirmed.

Alongside a continuous propaganda campaign to demonise and vilify men and boys and pathologise maleness and eulogise femaleness.

Gygnell also rather strangely seems unaware that male anger (justified) has already manifested itself, is already simmering, is now unstoppable when she says “…this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord.”

But perhaps the thing that really pisses me off about this piece is this – Gyngell is trying to shift the blame, she is very cleverly pointing the finger at an idea, a “theory” a set of toxic beliefs – feminism – carefully sidestepping any hint that actual real female human beings are ACCOUNTABLE for the actual real life actions and behaviours that these persons CHOOSE.

Individually and collectively.

Or is she suggesting that the innumerable women who made and make false accusations against men, the innumerable women who excise fathers from their children’s lives, the innumerable women who strip every last asset from the man who unfortunately married them were all under some kind of feminist spell?

How about female teachers who rape their students? Deliberately treat little boys with contempt in schools, what about women who bite, kick, stab, burn, beat and abuse their male partners?

Let me guess – “feminism made me do it – wasn’t my fault – boo hoo”!

Am done with Kathy Gyngell.

Women Should Stand Up to Feminists, Not Turn Their Backs on ManKind

 

I’ve just read the Kathy Gyngell article “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind”

Link Here

I also read all the comments, most of which were less than supportive of Ms. Gyngell’s….eeeemmm, request, instruction, plea…whatever it is.

I had two initial problems before I even started to read this article – the first two words for example “Men Should……..”

Seriously?

That’s how you think entitling an article directed at men by a woman ought to be phrased!

Men Should…….”

You may take it as read that my eyes are drifting heavenwards – for decades, nay, for centuries women have been telling men that they “should………[insert whiney female demand here]” do/not do, in increasingly strident, irrational and hysterical tones.

My second problem is with this “…..not turn their backs on womankind” what the ever loving fuck is “womankind”?

Is it some kind of secret organisation that all female children are inducted into at the moment of their birth?

Well, I’m female, and I feel absolutely no allegiance or weird cosmic psychic connection to random women I don’t know, don’t want to know and if I did know them – would probably not piss on them if they were on fire.

Guess I’m out of the “womankind” club now!

Anyhoo – Ms Gyngell is another of a growing number of this mysterious “womankind” who are beginning to realise there is a problem – a huge problem looming – epic – massive – what they are becoming aware of is the fallout – the disturbance in the sure and certain foundation of their superiority in the world, their unassailable smug cosmic importance.

In actuality, what they are experiencing are the symptoms – and failing to recognise the source – they are vaguely aware it has something to do with men, and are incorrectly assuming that men are the problem – ergo we have articles like Gyngell’s pleading with men to fix this problem. For women.

Oh dear, oh dear Kathy – men are not the problem – WOMEN are the problem.

All men are doing is………….walking away……washing their hands of women…..refusing to be your whipping boys, your failsafe, your soft landing, your shield, your invisible and unappreciated lackeys.

What you are feeling is the cold wind of being left to fend for yourselves – just like you all claimed you could do. Wanted. Demanded.

Reality bites – doesn’t it?

You know what you should have called your article?

Women should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on mankind

And you should have directed it at WOMEN!

The first bloody thing you should have said to “womankind” was LISTEN to men, the second – shut the fuck up for once in your life and LISTEN to what men are saying.

Am sure Kathy Gyngell probably thinks she’s being oh so compassionate, and concerned and sincere – but – it’s too little, too late – and anyway – you’re using a tired worn out, frayed at the edges template not fit for anything but the rubbish heap.

The old, men protect, provide and sacrifice for women, and women do………………….absolutely sod all in return – gynocentric model. Talking about Peter Lloyd she says this:

“He is right to argue that there has never been a worse time to be a man. Many of the statistics of anti-male bias in modern British society are ones we have rehearsed here on TCW too.   He is also right to describe the routine rubbishing of men as feminist fascism and stiletto sexism and men as the new second class citizens.

I call this deeply hypocritical behaviour, feminist chauvinism or misandry. Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.

Reading through his account of the contemporary vilification of men – the extent to which the dice are loaded against men in work and health, you cannot be surprised that men are going off women.”

She calls the demonization of men and maleness, the vilification and deliberate prejudice and bigotry against men “routine rubbishing of men”!

As if a systematic campaign to strip men of their Human Rights, a toxic malign propaganda campaign that has painted men as the source of all evil in the world is a just a minor spat, a few harsh words here and there.

This is the bit that made me smile – grimly – “Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.”

She’s actually right – up to a point – except it would be lunatic feminists and gynocentrists shrieking like banshees – granted at this point in time the hysterics are just boring and tedious and oh so predictable – so – let me be the one who “denigrated womanhood

If you are a feminist or a “I’m not a feminist but…..” or a special little princess or goddess then listen up petal.

You are a pain in the arse, a selfish self-absorbed twat with the charisma of roadkill and the personality of a turnip – you’re not “bubbly” you’re mentally unstable, you’re not “curvy” you’re a fat-arsed trollop, you’re not “educated” you’re an indoctrinated clone with the intellectual capacity of a mushroom.

You’re not a victim of anything, you’re a whiney tantrum throwing narcissist, you’re not an independant empowered “sex in the city” wannabe – you’re a slut.

I think that about covers it🙂

“…..….you cannot be surprised that men are going off women

No shit Sherlock!

Ok – I am perfectly aware that I have described the extremes of toxic female behaviour and that there are women who can and do behave like decent human beings – but – I also know that somewhere in the back of your minds you really do believe that you are “special” because you are female – you’re not – you do also believe that men are inherently created to be in service or of service to women – they’re not – human beings, ALL human beings are of equal value and worth – and no – NOT “equal” as in the same – but vested with the same rights as every other human being – and should be subject to the same sanctions if they violate the rights of another human being, ANY human being. No exceptions.

“But what all women need to face up to are the two types of ‘modern men’ that feminism has so cruelly manufactured for them: The Oh so correct honorary Nick Clegg-type feminists (Miliband and Cameron also fit this mould) who promote and toe the feminist party line – men who I suspect don’t really turn women on at all. Second are the refuseniks who have gradually turned into a worrying class of embittered, angry misogynists – leading the sexodus. These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive”

(emphasis added)

Jeez Kathy – you really need to get out more – seriously – the first thing to note of course is that men apparently exist only to be of use to women – “for them

The second thing of course is these “two types” of men and only two types that apparently Kathy Gyngell asserts exist!

I will concede the Nick Clegg/Milliband/Cameron type – though these are actually what could be more accurately called either “white knights” or manginas – poor emasculated saps who believe arse kissing and grovelling before hatchet faced feminists is a valid exercise!

As for the second “type” she describes – you know, I’ve never actually met an honest to God, dyed in the wool misogynist – never – have met and talked to lots of angry men, disillusioned men, hurt men, sad men, even some who were caustically funny. About women.

Methinks Mizz Gyngell is trying (really badly) to infer that any man who rejects “womankind” or the gynocentric worldview (most MHRA’s and all MGTOW) are………………..what did she call them? Oh yeah “……embittered, angry misogynists

Pretty pathetic attempt Kathy – all faux concern on the one hand, and dismissive contemptuous caricaturing on the other.

The last bit is the best bit “These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive.”

Can you see that? The bleedin nerve of these men – refusing to be assessed, to be evaluated, to be given the once over by all the sad lonely wimmenz pining away for a man!

I’m shocked!

Imagine that – men thumbing their noses at women – men declining to subject themselves to the scrutiny of women “to see if they find them attractive.”

I got to that bit, and I began to think – is she taking the piss? Is this a parody? Is this satire?

Can I suggest that women read the comments – from men – put your vag rage on hold – lose the entitled princess attitude and really pay attention to what these men are saying.

I’ll be honest – I generally can’t stand most women – especially in groups – and I am not a person with much by way of patience or…..tact……..or diplomacy……………..the thing is, most women can’t stand other women either – and you all bloody well know it – because if you were honest with yourselves you’d realise and acknowledge that you see yourself in the bitchy catty backstabbing antics of your “friends”

What you all should also realise is this – men ain’t stupid – they see it as well – what is happening now is they’re not interested in pandering to your bullshit anymore, tippytoing around your tantrums, your irrationality, your moods, not interested in giving in to your incessant demands and unreasonable behaviours.

It’s not cute, it’s not sexy, it’s not alluring – you have become toxic little timebombs waiting to go off – to be blunt.

You are so NOT worth it!

Let me give you a clue – you know when a man is eying you up with a speculative look in his eyes? He’s not “eye-raping” you, he’s not lost in admiration at your divinity and awesomeness ya dozy twat – he trying to assess how high up on the “crazy as a loon” scale you are – whether you’re mentally stable, or will you scream rape if he tries to talk to you.

Well that or he’s dumbstruck that you poured your 200lbs of lard into the equivalent of tube sock!

What Gyngell and her ilk consistently fail to understand is this – men and women are naturally drawn to one another, and not just physically, human beings over the course of millennia have evolved to value and desire a stable pair bond, in order to create the basic building block of functioning and healthy societies – FAMILIES.

There was an element of reciprocity in these relationships, men and women played to their strengths and natural inclinations, they supported one another. But above all they trusted one another, and valued each other.

Am I saying this was a perfect state of affairs? Of course not – there were imbalances, misunderstandings, discriminations – not on the scale that feminists would have you believe – and these issues were being and would’ve have been resolved – then feminism stuck its pointy nose into everybody’s business.

Then everything went to shoite.

Under the influence of feminism harnessing the innate seeds of gynocentrism within women a toxic and malign social cancer began to grow.

Gyngell and her fellow cronies – whatever their particular stance, do not get – women – the vast majority of them have corrupted their natures, have embraced a toxic and self-destructive paradigm – are, with very few exceptions, repulsive to a huge of men.

Shall I repeat that? REPULSIVE. Throw in offensive, unattractive (as human beings) distasteful, noxious, abhorrent and vile.

Most men are far too polite and diplomatic (and in some cases scared shitless) to say that to the numerous women they encounter who behave in the normal rancid, belligerent, obnoxious ways a huge number of women display.

But I’m not.

Ladies (and I use that term very loosely) YOU poisoned the well, YOU and only you are responsible for the growing numbers of men who to be blunt – wouldn’t touch most of you with a ten foot bargepole.

Just in case any of you think that all you have to do is slap on a fake simper and play the adoring girlfriend till you hook your man – think again. Too late.

Support the MHRM and SPEAK OUT  till every corrupt and biased piece of legislation is repealed, till every feminist is rooted out of public policy areas, out of schools, out of NGO’s – till no-one, and I mean NO-ONE will give any feminist the time of day.

Start with yourself – stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself, over and over again till you get it “I’m NOT all that” “I have no more or less worth than any other human being”

Finally men are starting to wake up and realise they have a choice – they don’t have to put up with your shoite – so they are CHOOSING not to.

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn cue a massive fit of the screamies…in…..1……2…….3….

 

Slainte🙂

There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

Yeah, yeah I know, more sci-fi (ish) metaphors – what can I say, am a sucker for sci-fi (ish) films. As a reflection of, and metaphor for societal mores and “norms” films act as a sort of filter through which those mores and “norms” become embedded in the zeitgeist – doncha think?

Someone mentioned the Joss Whedon film Serenity a few weeks ago on a comment stream – for the life of me I cannot remember where I read it – anyhoo – one of my personal favourites as well, especially the theme of an all powerful authoritarian system literally with the power to invade your mind.

Classic scene where River (as a child) is being lectured by a sanctimonious teacher about how the “outer planets” refused to accept the social conditioning of the all powerful alliance – for their own good – now where have we heard that justification before.

In other words those who reject this social conditioning are nothing but savages and barbarians – or words to that effect.

The title of this piece though, pertains to something related but parallel, the undermining of the prevailing ethos within and through the societal glue that holds that society together.

An unchallenged (till now) allegiance to a femalecentric worldview controlled and disseminated by the official spokespersons of modern gynocentrism – feminists.

No-one can now dispute that ALL “theories” emanating from feminists and various acolytes of academic feminism are complete and utter bullshit, fraudulent, phoney, lies and deception.

These are facts, and they are not in dispute by anyone with half a brain.

The question to be asked though is this – the underlying driving force behind modern feminism and all manifestations of a female centric worldview is and has been gynocentrism. Whither to now for feminism?

Aha! Whither to indeed? Why back to the drawing board – to the source – for inspiration, for a new and shiner template upon which to write the outline for the next manifestation of gynocentrism. A caring sharing warm cuddly gynocentrism, a nice gynocentrism – with a large dollop of………………….”it’s for your own good” as seasoning.

Because who could argue with a sincerely expressed motive that all you are offering is a template to follow that will be “for your own good” hmmmmm

I came across these two words juxtaposed next to one another some months ago – and decided to wait to see how this latest salvo would be received.

Freedom feminism.

I shall never need to hunt for another example of a perfect oxymoron than these two words placed together to form a whole.

Main driver behind this new and improved and shiny feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers. Have always been in two minds about Hoff Sommers, she has done some good work in the area of men’s and boy’s rights – and to be fair, has taken some quite accurate pot-shots at “gender feminism” but – there was a point about a year ago when it was time to “chose a side” or rather, to shit or get off the pot.

She chose to attempt to repackage feminism, airbrush away its toxic roots, sidestep its inherently flawed premise and inexplicably try to rewrite history – or what passes for history – feminist style.

It’s what my mother would describe as “wanting jam on both sides of your bread

Hoff Sommers is relying on something to give this new shiny improved feminism purchase into the zeitgeist – a willingness on the part of societies at large to continue to endorse a gynocentric world view of…………………everything, in effect the theory goes – if it’s good for women, then it’s good for men, ergo the emphasis should always be on what’s good for women, and making men become what’s good for women – again. Just not in that nasty, shreiky, gender feminist, all men are patriarchial bastards kind of way. Nosireebob – in a nice, “it’s for your own good” kind of way. Sigh.

Hence the title of this piece – there is indeed a disturbance in the force – a singular lack of willingness on the parts of a great many people, both male and female to subscribe to, endorse or give tacit or implicit approval to a continuing female centric world view.

Without that willingness, gynocentrism withers and dies, without gynocentrism any manifestation of feminism will fail – will become subject to the derision and disdain that all crackpot ideas or “theories” deserve. Freedom feminism is one of those – hence why I couldn’t actually be bothered giving it any more attention. Bit like spotting some roadkill at the side of the road as you drive past – depends on the state of it, if you go – eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuw as you glance at it.

I was asked recently “just how old is gynocentrism? And was it always a bad thing?”

Actually – gynocentrism is very old – and was not necessarily always a bad thing – it developed out of a need to protect and provide for one’s “mate” during our human history when life was an exercise in survival. Though one couldn’t actually call this form of human interaction true gynocentrism.

To illustrate just how old this particular way of seeing male/female relationships is, the quote below is from an ancient Egyptian text called The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep.

“……..Instruction of Ptah-hotep in its entirety, divided into sections by red writing, as aforesaid.[7] In this, also, we get a definite date, for we learn in the opening lines that its author (or compiler) lived in the reign of King Isôsi. Now Isôsi was the last ruler but one of the Fifth Dynasty, and ruled forty-four years, from about 3580 to 3536 B.C. Thus we may take about 3550 as the period of Ptah-hotep.

(emphasis added)

What this quote below also illustrates is something very important – how women were viewed in ancient Egypt – as persons to be treasured and cherished – not a hint of oppression to be found. Damn!

“21. If thou wouldest be wise, provide for thine house, and love thy wife that is in thine arms. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; oil is the remedy of her limbs. Gladden her heart during thy lifetime, for she is an estate profitable unto its lord. Be not harsh, for gentleness mastereth her more than strength. Give (?) to her that for which she sigheth and that toward which her {51} eye looketh; so shalt thou keep her in thine house…. “

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

As an Irish person I can trace back some of my “traditions” to the Iron age – so it does amuse me when I read either positive or negative commentary from feminists/gynocentrists regarding “traditional” practices – usually referred to as “traditional gender roles” with “traditional” marriage practices being either lauded or denigrated.

The period of “history” generally used to illustrate the “historical oppression of women” by the dumbest of the dumbest feminists are the 1950’s – because apparently the 1950’s was a really really really long time ago!

Did you know that the phrase “tying the knot” actually originates from one form of marriage practiced in Ireland called “hand-fasting” – this form of marriage (yes, we had several different forms of marriage) – was only designed to last for a year and a day – after that time expired, one could renew it or not – if not, both parties went their separate ways with no-one owing anybody anything. It was very civilised – it was a contract – between equals – as were most forms of marriage in ancient Hibernia (Ireland)

Pure Gynocentrism evolved in feudal societies and had its roots in a warped form of chivalry – the place to go for a thorough grounding in this is Peter Wrights site Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

This form of a warped chivalry (gynocentrism) lies at the heart of all manifestations of feminism. A demand for special status to be afforded to women because they are women. There is a complex interplay between echoes of an ancient urge to protect and provide, that early gynocentrists harnessed and various “waves” of feminists hijacked – till it eventually evolved into the toxic ideology we have today.

The paradox is that feminism demands “equality” by invoking that ancient “oppressive” urge to protect and provide for women because they are “vulnerable fragile creatures who need special treatment” institutionalised toxic chivalry (gynocentrism) masquerading as “equality”

Now don’t get me wrong – feminism is deeply embedded into the political and intuitional structures of almost all frameworks of our societies and cultures and they (feminists) will fight tooth and nail to resist being excised from there. In fact that battle is already ongoing.

But this is the 21st century – the rules of engagement have changed utterly – whereas previously, during times of social and cultural shifts, the mores and norms of a society or culture were imposed from the top down. Now?

Ah yes – now – the power to influence society and culture at large now rests……………….within society and culture.

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

Answer – Nobody. Everybody. Actually the only way to regain control of the flow of information now would be to shut down the internet – permanently. Would be to erase from the billions of individual personal computers spread all over the world every single piece of information that has been disseminated from the time when one individual sent another individual………..anything.

That’s an awful lot of free-flowing information to track down and destroy – wouldn’t you say?

There are also two other things that you would need to unravel and suppress – the much trumpeted dedication to “democracy” and “Human Rights” that ALL western governments take enormous pains to claim as their raison de etre.

Over the last 6 decades or so, there has been an almost comical pissing contest among western nations to outdo one another in the “most democratic” and “best Human Rights record” contest.

Again granted – the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there are visible and concrete examples abounding of the lack of democracy, the pathetic Human Rights records of very many western states.

But – the fact is – those Human Rights instruments EXIST – those claims are on record – and there are very few people with access to the internet who cannot with a click of a mouse sit and read in the comfort of their own homes, a concise and detailed account of their personal – HUMAN RIGHTS.

100 years ago – the average person wouldn’t have had a clue what rights they did or didn’t have – wouldn’t perhaps even believe that they had rights.

Today? Please – I hear it all the time – it gets monotonous – “I know my rights

Generally this is a rather self-absorbed declaration because it rarely takes into account this – “do you know everybody else has the exact same rights?”

Feminists and gynocentrists are typical of the first example – they “know their rights” as they should – they clawed out most of those extra rights by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs. Nearly. By playing the poor fragile wittle woman card.

But – the fact of the matter is this – even the most ignorant twat or arsehole has a very definite belief that they “have rights”

One does not have to be a genius to discern from even the most juvenile and poorly written feminist screed that the over-riding theme is a direct assault on the notion that men and boys have rights.

Feminism is a rights stripping narrative wrapped up in hysterical rhetoric about…..all kinds of trivial bullshit that has “upset” or “pissed off” or “offended” some whiney irrational and petulant female.

Acknowledging that men and boys have rights would dissipate and render null and void the idea that all attention and focus should be on – women’s rights. It would literally deprive women of that thing they crave above all other things – being the absolute centre of attention by…………………….everybody.

Like I said – everybody knows or believes that they “have rights” everybody is aware that the last 6 decades or so have been the era of “rights” so when insane feminists keep shrieking about “women’s rights” and claiming that women don’t have rights to this that or the other – even the most ignorant of persons is going to look at these claims and think “what the fuck is that fool talking about”

How much more could you possible want?

Here is where it gets just a tad complicated – the belief is/was that “everybody has rights” even among men – until they come to test that premise – then they discover something.

Those rights they believed they had – they get violated, trampled on, brushed aside – in favour of enhancing the extra rights of some female.

The knowledge that this has been happening over and over again in all these self-congratulatory “democracies” at the behest of feminists is now saturating the zeitgeist through the power of the internet to disseminate information directly to millions of people – without interference from anybody.

As Mr. Universe in the film Serenity says “you can’t stop the signal”

Hence why there is a disturbance in the force – the force being the power of feminism to dictate the narrative, to set the terms of what is or isn’t true – about anything. To control the flow of information.

There is a terrible sickness in a government that lauds and congratulates itself on its Human Rights record while actively endorsing, encouraging and supporting blatant abuses of Human Rights – against men and boys.

That blindly and with wilful ignorance gives credence to the bigoted, biased and fraudulent “research” being shoved at it by vicious malign and toxic feminists designed to strip rights from men and boys. Designed to prevent even the conversation taking place about Human Rights abuses being perpetrated against men and boys. Hence why the shrieking, caterwauling and hysterics are growing in volume and intensity from feminists – all in an effort to drown out the voices of men and boys.

The question for these governments is – has it ever occurred to you to take the societal temperature – to take your heads out of your over-fed arses and listen to what is being said outside your golden privileged elite circle? To ignore the nutcase feminists, the screams of outrage, the tantrums and hysterics and listen to men.

Take IPV/IPA – Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Abuse.

I’m NOT a feminist so I have no problem saying this – approx 20% – 23% of all relationships have aspects of IPV/IPA.

Within that relatively small cohort of relationships – approx 40% of “violence/abuse” is mutual – meaning both parties are as bad as one another.

The rest of the violence/abuse is more or less evenly distributed between male and female perpetrators – meaning that approx half those violent abusive arseholes are male and approx half are female. Which means that approx half the victims of uni-directional violence are male and approx half are female.

The causes of that violence are myriad and complex – and have sod all to do with patriarchy or any other stupid and ridiculous feminist non “theory” but everything to do with, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, childhood experiences of family violence etc to name but a few of the more prevalent “causes”.

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

There is no such thing as “gender based violence” and to continue to believe and endorse this rubbish is to fail to actually address the causes and TOTAL victims of IPV/IPA.

Have I deliberately and callously ignored female victims of IPV/IPA? No – I bloody haven’t – I have quite clearly acknowledged that approx half of victims are female.

Because – I’m NOT a feminist – ergo – I have no need to lie or dissemble or fraudulently try to airbrush ANY victim OF ANYTHING out of the picture in order to advocate for excessive amounts of funding to line the pockets of poisonous malign ideologues.

To those in power – you seem to believe that unless you endorse these lies peddled to you by feminists that “society” will follow suit and go into hysterics at being told NO.

Newsflash – society will applaud – society will be right behind you – society is WAITING – is begging you to tell these malign bitches to – bugger off!

There is a disturbance in the force – a change in the zeitgeist – NO-ONE – other than insane toxic feminists believes or wants that crap anymore – READ the damn comment section of any article – including the ones peddled by feminists.

You are basing your policy decisions on blackmail from a small toxic network of vicious ideologues – you are making political decisions based on lies, on fraud, on bigotry.

There is a delicate balance that holds most societies and cultures together – more importantly – an even more delicate balance that holds an economy together.

Citizens and the state must interact with one another is a myriad number of ways in order to maintain those balances.

Feminism has and is putting enormous uneven pressure on one side of that societal, cultural and economic scale – the tipping point is drawing closer and closer – that tipping point is the gathering critical mass of a shift in the zeitgeist – a shift in mores and norms that the majority of peoples within those societies and cultures endorse.

There is also nothing more important within healthy functioning societies than the quality and depth of the relationships and kinship groups that individuals are part of.

Feminism has consistently attacked and set out to destroy the delicate strands that hold those relationships together – the relationships that are the glue that keeps societies functioning.

The toxic effects of these attacks are becoming more and more visible – more and more apparent – and people are finally waking up and really seeing the devastation caused by feminism. Ultimately feminism is the ideology of elitists – a superior “class” dictating to the “peasants” and it is fuelled by malice.

“19. If thou desire that thine actions may be good, save thyself from all malice, and beware of the quality of covetousness, which is a grievous inner (?) malady. Let it not chance that thou fall thereinto. It setteth at variance fathers-in-law and the kinsmen of the daughter-in-law; it sundereth the wife and the husband. It gathereth unto itself all evils; it is the girdle of all wickedness.[11] But the man that is just flourisheth; truth goeth in his footsteps, and he maketh habitations therein, not in the dwelling of covetousness.”

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

No-one needs feminism to point out or interpret anything for you – all you need, is to be a fully aware Human Being with a conscience. All you need is to recognise that male or female you share this planet with other Human Beings.

All Human Beings suffer – why would anybody need a vicious malign ideologue who hates one half of humanity to tell you that?

Feminism is the belief that human beings not yet born are guilty of crimes not yet committed and are only waiting for these human beings to be born so the punishment can begin.

Peddling Propaganda Pt. III: Born Again Virgins – v – Sluts or Gynocentric Multiple Personality Disorder.

 

 

  1. Introduction to Gynocentric Personality Disorder
  2. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland
  3. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.
  4. The Issue of Consent and the role of Hazardous Alcohol Consumption.

 

  1. Introduction to Gynocentric Personality Disorder

Of all the areas of human interaction that feminists have planted their flag upon the high moral ground – sex – is………..the Mount Everest of all high moral peaks. They have laid claim to the narrative, the discourse, the interpretative framework, the language of sex, the mechanics of sex and declared themselves to be the oracles of all things sexual.

None of them would have sufficient cognitive ability to recognise the absolute paradox in operation here.

The vast majority of the pioneering “experts” on male/female human sexuality were……..dysfunctional, bitter and twisted………………lesbians.

So, the vast majority of women, most of whom don’t give a flying fuck about feminism – the ideology – have patterned their thinking, their inner dialogues, their perspectives on the rantings of a bunch of lunatic lesbians who hated men, hated the very thought of sex with men and – did I mention – hated men?

This is where it gets just a tad complicated – these original “experts” had to step carefully – because after all we are talking about women who represent at the very most 2% of the female population of ANY population – because the biological urge to reproduce is deeply embedded into the very DNA of most women – and before the marvels of modern technology the only sure fire way to make that deeply biological urge a reality was – to have sexual intercourse with a male human being.

That’s not the complicated part – seriously it’s not – the basic equation goes like this – man + woman + sex = baby.

The complicated part is the myths and fables that grew up around sex and were informed by the cultural and societal environment in which human beings developed.

Women themselves – before lunatic lesbian nutcases came along – created most of the myths – one of which was the Madonna/Whore dichotomy – ably assisted by men it must be said – because rampant unrestrained expression of that deeply embedded biological urge in women left unchecked would’ve been a disaster for these early human societies.

The only way to ensure that a female could convince a male that the progeny she had produced was his progeny and thereby guarantee his sole exclusive commitment to protect and provide for her and these progeny was to have no doubt about the paternity of said progeny. You with me so far?

Finally – in order to make it appear that entering into that protect and provide contract – to make doing so a prize rather than a burden was to mythologise the act which gave rise to the appearance of said progeny.

In other words – just giving it away – willy nilly (no pun intended) was not on – men had to fight for, strive for, and endeavour to gain this marvellous prize by acts of fealty, acts of supplication and literally and figuratively get down on their knees and beg for it.

Thus was born – chivalry – thus was born – gynocentrism, and thus from these beginnings grew a perception – sex with women was a prize to be won – sex was a gift that women bestowed upon men – sex was the gateway to nirvana – and women held and would always hold the keys to that…………………..heaven.

From early protofeminists to suffragettes to women’s libbers to feminists – sex has been the central theme, the golden thread running through all narratives, after the “magic contraceptive pill” became a reality, as far as those original women’s libbers were concerned – women’s control of sex was now unassailable.

Yet – the mythology surrounding sex – the fables, and to be blunt bullshit created to ensure that sex with women was a prize, a gift – didn’t die. In fact not only did it persist and continues to persist to this very day – it is assiduously cultivated, to such an extent that not only do modern gynocentrists (feminists – the spokespersons of gynocentrism) but women themselves (the acolytes of gynocentrism) without the slightest irony or difficulty hold two completely diametrically opposing perspectives in their heads.

They are both born again virgins and free sexual beings (sluts) at the very same time – if and when it suits their purposes.

They are both the gatekeepers of sex, and the innocent fragile victims of male sexual urges – they are asexual vessels who have sex done to them, and strong independant autonomous wimmin who see sex as not just their right, but as “recreation” and validation of their female power (you go guuuuuurrrrl))

The choice of which of these opposing perspectives they prefer to hold at any time is entirely dependent on two things.

Which option will absolve our putative woman from responsibility and accountability for the option she did chose, and which option will ensure she doesn’t ……………….look bad……and more importantly……………..feeeeeeeeeeelllll bad……..about herself.

To summarise – women are not responsible for anything sexual, except when they are, and even then it’s somebody else’s (any man will do) fault.

So, it is no surprise that Ruth Lawlor – the toxic little feminist weasel from UCC – University College Cork – here in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) has focused on sex and sexual activity as the rallying cry, the banner around which she and her cronies are attempting to launch a campaign of propaganda, whose end game is to impose US style campus rape hysteria here in the ROI. She and her cronies ran a little “survey” [1] a toxic little “survey” carefully designed to elicit exactly the answers she needed and wanted – in a small enough sample so she and her cronies could play feminist silly buggers with “percentages” and produce nice scary “statistics”

And the online newspaper thejournal.ie obliged this little weasel by publishing her nasty little article. [2]

She claims that this “survey” found that “……nearly one in seven students had been the victim of rape or serious sexual assault, while around a third of students said they had experienced minor sexual assaults.”

No surprise at all that the mainstream media has already jumped onboard the bandwagon, and like tame manginas and fools gleefully started to peddle the latest “soundbite” statistic and trope that these feminists believe they can just about get away it.

No one and I mean no one of sound mind and basic sentience, believes the “1 in 4” or “1 in 5” crap anymore – let me rephrase that – no one with half a functioning brain believes that. But this new one – this “1 in 7” or “15%” might – just might slip past the critical faculties of enough people to allow this propaganda campaign to grow legs.

Paralleling this “survey” another “survey” was run – the results and conclusions of which have been disseminated in a Report called “SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault.” [3]

I have already written about two aspects of this Report – [4] and [5] – today it’s all about sex. Or as it is characterised in this Report “Unwanted Sexual Experiences”

But first – let’s just familiarise ourselves with:

  1. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland

“A range of sexual offences in Ireland are prohibited by law. The following information sets out the most important of those offences. The precise charge for these offences depends on all the circumstances of the case, the age of the victim and the evidence available. The current penalties for sex offences in Ireland include:

  • Imprisonment
  • Fines
  • Being placed on the Sex Offenders Register
  • Sex Offenders Orders
  • Post release supervision.

Rape

The crime of rape may be charged under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 or the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The circumstances of the case, age of the victim and evidence will decide which legislation will apply.

The maximum penalty in Ireland for a rape offence is life imprisonment. There are related offences under the law of attempted rape, and separately of aiding and abetting a rape. (That is, assisting another person to commit a rape).

Sexual Assault/Aggravated sexual assault

Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 sets out the law in Ireland on sexual assault. A sexual assault is an indecent assault on a male or a female. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment or 14 years if the victim is aged under 17 years.

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault involving serious violence or the threat of serious violence. In common with rape offences, the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault is life imprisonment.” [6]

This is how the law in this jurisdiction defines Sexual Offences.

“Sexual assault.

2.—(1) The offence of indecent assault upon any male person and the offence of indecent assault upon any female person shall be known as sexual assault.

(2) A person guilty of sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

(3) Sexual assault shall be a felony.” [7]

(emphasis added)

In the USI Report under the section entitled SECTION THREE: Experiences on-campus: harassment appears this comment;

“Man, 19: On several occasions a female member of the Student Council while intoxicated has taken to groping my genitals and I have been rather offended by each incidence however don’t see it as severe enough to report.”

Please note the section this comment was used in was to illustrate “Harassment” NOT in SECTION SEVEN: Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

Now read the LEGAL definition of Sexual Assault again.

The operative phrase is “indecent assault” – groping a male sexual organ is an “indecent assault” IS Sexual Assault and is a felony. Not a joke, not a laugh, not an example of “harassment” it is – Sexual Assault.

This lad says that this female took to doing this “while intoxicated” – do you see anywhere in that section where being pissed is a defence?

Being pissed while committing an Offence is not a defence – in fact being pissed while doing anything – including having sexual intercourse does not absolve you of your own personal responsibility for whatever it is/was you were doing.

The fact that this female was “intoxicated” suggests to me this happened in a public space – possibly a bar – ergo – WITNESSES.

TO ALL MALE STUDENTS: if you are in a bar or a public space and some female – intoxicated or not – grabs/gropes your penis – then she has just committed Sexual Assault.

Have the bitch arrested and charged.

Someone putting their hands on your waist ISN’T Sexual Assault, someone hugging you ISN’T Sexual Assault, even someone touching your breasts isn’t necessarily Sexual Assault – but – someone grabbing a male person’s penis IS Sexual Assault.

Let’s just dwell on the whole doing something while pissed (drunk) thing for a moment. There are degrees of being “under the influence” from being nicely relaxed – (depending on your tolerance for alcohol) 2 – 3 drinks, to being a bit tiddley – 4 – 6 drinks, to being falling down drunk and a pain in arse 6 + drinks, to the final stage – in a drunken stupor – if not outright unconscious, then as near to it as you can get.

It is really only definitely at the last stage and maybe the one before it where your faculties are impaired to such an extent that your ability to make rational decisions is kaput – almost.

Unconscious is the only stage where you are unable to give consent to anything – still conscious even if completely rat-arsed means anything you do is still your responsibility – yep your IQ drops about a million points and yep your inhibitions go out the window but – you’re still you, other parts of your brain still function – this is just a completely uninhibited, pissed, and probably pain in the arse version of you. An exaggerated version of YOU.

The final thing to note is this – unless someone held you down and poured that alcohol down your throat – then YOU are responsible for whatever degree of pissed you find yourself in – YOU – and you alone.

The next step up is:

 

“Aggravated sexual assault.

3.—(1) In this Act “aggravated sexual assault” means a sexual assault that involves serious violence or the threat of serious violence or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted.

(2) A person guilty of aggravated sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Aggravated sexual assault shall be a felony.” [8]

(emphasis added)

Let’s use that example of the “intoxicated” slut who grabbed that boy’s penis – let’s add in that she twisted his penis or testicles, that she subjected that boy to humiliation, jeering, taunts and gathered around her a gang of jeering taunting gal pals?

This bitch has just committed Aggravated Sexual Assault. The maximum sentence for which on conviction is life imprisonment.

  1. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

In SECTION SEVEN: Unwanted Sexual Experiences of the report this is the opening comment:

“Woman, 24 : Coming to terms with the realisation that it wasn’t my fault, that I was extremely drunk and he should have known better and that any of my friends wouldn’t have let that happen should they have been around, took a very long time to do and I still struggle 3 years on with not blaming myself, with accepting that he did know that I was too drunk to give consent having been getting sick and passing out, but that he was an a[**]hole. Even writing this today I still feel the need to justify and explain myself.”

I’m going to assume that what this woman is talking about is sexual intercourse – a reasonable assumption.

And yep – I am going to raise the ire of feminists, gynocentrists and lots and lots of wimmin when I say – not buying it.

First – “extremely drunk”? The only person responsible for her being “extremely drunk” is herself – second why “should he have known better”? Is she not responsible for herself and for getting herself “extremely drunk”

Known better than” who? Was he also “extremely drunk” when whatever happened – happened?

Why were her friends not around? Was she kidnapped, abducted, under what circumstances did she get “extremely drunk”? and sorry but “he did know that I was too drunk to give consent” not accepting that. (we’ll talk about the issue of consent further along)

If she was as she says “extremely drunk” herself – how the hell was she able to deduce the level of drunkenness of anybody else?

Without more details, more context then this account is dubious – in my opinion. I am willing to concede that with more detail and context – it is possible that she was raped – anything is possible given sufficient evidence. This comment here does not even come close to showing sufficient evidence.

The question asked in this survey was this: in order to gauge the level of “unwanted sexual experiences” was this;

FIGURE 17: QUESTION ASKED – WHILST YOU HAVE BEEN A STUDENT AT YOUR CURRENT INSTITUTION, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WHEN YOU DID NOT CONSENT? N=430

As you can see 430 out of a total of 2,752 respondents answered this question.

The question was then broken down into five categories – I have ranked them by the positive female responses (highest to lowest) and expressed the numbers as a percentage of the total respondents.

1,811 – female
926 – male
15 – other

“Sexual contact (this could include kissing, touching, or molesting you including through clothes.                                                                                                                                     

Women – 196 – 10.82%
Men – 39 – 4.21%
Other – 5 – 33.33%

Sexual intercourse (this means someone putting a penis in your mouth, vagina or anus.                            

Women – 95 – 5.25%
Men – 7 – 0.76%
Other – 1 – 6.67%

Attempted sexual intercourse (when someone has tried to have oral, anal or vaginal sex with you but has not been successful)                                                                                                                  

Women – 56 – 3.09%
Men – 9 – 0.97%

Assault by penetration (this means someone putting an object, such as a bottle, in your anus or vagina)                                                                                                                            

Women – 8 – 0.44%
Men – 2 – 0.22%

Other                                                                                                                                     

Women – 6 – 0.33%
Men – 6 – 0.65%”

Time for some “feminist math” We’ll take just two categories.

Sexual intercourse (this means someone putting a penis in your mouth, vagina or anus.                         

Women – 95 – 5.25%
Men – 7 – 0.76%
Other – 1 – 6.67%”

That is actually the LEGAL definition of rape:

“Rape under section 4.

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.” [9]

Now – a total of 430 individuals answered this question and the supplementary questions – 361 women, 61 men, and 6 other.

Expressed as a percentage – that is 19.93% of the female respondents, 6.59% of the male respondents and 40% of the other respondents.

To really understand the excruciatingly small samples of students this represents, this is how the percentages look.

Female – 19.93% OF 1.726% total female students.

Male – 6.59% of 0.0869% of the total male students.

So. Back to “feminist” math. If you wanted to create a false impression of the prevalence of “unwanted sexual experience” all you’d have to do is take that total number of 361 women regardless of what question they answered and express it as a percentage of the total female respondents – it would give you a big scary percentage of 30.57%.

If you just wanted a scary “rape” percentage just take the number of positive answers, express it as a percentage of the total females who answered this part of the survey (361) and you get – 26.32%

See how easy it is to massage and manipulate “percentages”

  1. The Issue of Consent and the role of Hazardous Alcohol Consumption.

Time to talk some more about alcohol and sex – a deadly combination – in the sense that as above – being pissed lowers your inhabitations and causes (not makes) causes you to do stupid shit.

One of the areas that the weasel feminist Ruth Lawlor in her putrid little article mentions is “consent” and this is the area that feminists attack in an effort to undermine the legal protections afforded to persons (male) who have been accused of a Sexual Assault.

 

Recently an article [10] was published on AVFM with a video that “explains” in excruciating detail the correct way to go about “getting consent” watch it if you stomach it.

Consent is a funny thing – and no I’m not actually being flippant – feminists will maintain – erroneously – that “consent” means an ongoing verbal declaration of one’s ongoing agreement to…………something.

The law says differently – well it does at the moment. We’re going to borrow from the tenets of Tort Law to give more nuance to the issue of consent. Different areas of Law do not necessarily have rigid borders – principles of law are fluid and interchangeable in some instances.

Consent also means acquiescence by the way.

There are two kinds of consent/acquiescence in terms of proving that a valid “contract” or “agreement” to do or allow something to be done – is valid – express and implied.

Express consent is self-explanatory is it not – it is the kind of consent that feminists rely upon to make sex, whatever the circumstances under which that sex happens – a mechanical and contrived event. Rather than a human interaction that includes both verbal and non verbal communication.

Implied consent is reliant upon the actions of the alleged parties to the “contract/agreement” – if one person acts in a manner that a reasonable person would conclude implied consent – even though they may not have concluded or “signed on the dotted line” of a contract or “agreement”– as I stated above – it is the actions and behaviours of the parties involved that decides whether consent is in place.

Express Consent:

Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.

Implied Consent:

Consent inferred from someone’s conduct rather than from his direct expressions.” [11]

The language of human sexual interaction is universal, that language – both verbal and non verbal spans borders and cultural differences – and is understood on a subconscious level – instinctually by receiving non verbal visual and behavioural cues as to the intent of the person giving out those non verbal signals. Observing the behaviours of persons involved in the human “mating game” also gives those observers enough information to conclude whether or not those persons are “into it” or not. In fact the Law pertaining to Sexual Offences in the ROI allows for this:

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it, and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.” [12]

Both the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 and Criminal Law (Rape)(AMENDMENT) Act, 1990 may be read together for the purposes of Sexual Offences in the ROI.

So – what about this Report and the circumstances under which those 361 women had their “unwanted sexual experiences?

Well two questions relating to alcohol and drug use during these “unwanted sexual experiences” were asked:

TABLE 7: QUESTION ASKED – AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, WAS THE PERSON THAT DID THIS TO YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS? N=4305.

220 women said yes to “under the influence of alcohol4 said yes to “under the influence of drugs” and 24 said yes to “under the influence of both” (the person they alleged perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience upon them)

The next question was:

TABLE 8: QUESTION ASKED – AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, WERE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS? N=430

230 women said yes they were “under the influence of alcohol”, 2 said yes they were “under the influence of drugs” and 8 said yes they were “under the influence of both drugs and alcohol”.

I’m going to be fair – and am only going to eliminate the numbers of those who answered positively that both themselves and the person they allege perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience” upon them was “under the influence of alcohol” only.

So, out of the 361 women who claimed an “unwanted sexual experience” I am eliminating 220 of them – leaving a total of 141.

This represents 7.78% of the total 1,811 female respondents of this survey. Who we already know represents 1.726% of all female students in the ROI.

To put it bluntly – those women represent 7.78% of 1.726% of female students.

Am I disputing that the remaining 141 (7.78%) out of a total of 1,811 of female students had an “unwanted sexual experience”? nope – nor am I accepting at face value that they did. But that is the total number who were neither under the influence of drugs or alcohol when this alleged incident happened or claimed that the alleged perpetrator was also not under the influence of either drugs or alcohol when this alleged incident happened.

Both parties are claimed to be cold stone sober – look at the numbers in the Report – out of 361 women 220 (60.94%) of them were – and yep – I’m speculating – pissed as farts – as were the persons they allege perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience” upon them.

I mentioned previously a recent report from UCC about “hazardous alcohol consumption” ON the UCC campus – and one of the findings of that Report was this:

“A key finding was that 66.4% of students responding reported hazardous alcohol consumption, 65.2% for men and 67.3% for women. At the higher end of the scale, approximately 17% of men and 5% of women were consuming more than six units of alcohol at least 4 times per week, and in some cases on a daily basis.” [11]

Look at how closely the two percentages tally – in the USI report 60.94% of those female respondents were “under the influence of alcohol” and in the “hazardous alcohol consumption” report 67.3% of female students “……reported hazardous alcohol consumption….”

May I make just a teeney tiny suggestion?

The biggest bloody problem amongst students isn’t “unwanted sexual experiences” it is getting rat-arsed pissed and DOING STUPID SHIT!

 

ADDRESS THAT!!

 

 

 

References

[1] This is the link to her “survey”

https://www.facebook.com/UCCSU/posts/10155232571100471

[2] We need to talk more about relationships, consent and sexual violence
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/rap-sexual-assault-university-2008877-Mar2015/

[3] SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault. “
http://usi.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/say-something-Final-Online-Report.pdf

[4] Peddling Propaganda: Whipping Up Campus Rape Hysteria in The Republic of Ireland.

https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/peddling-propaganda-whipping-up-campus-rape-hysteria-in-the-republic-of-ireland/

[5] Peddling Propaganda: Part II – Flogging The “Gender-based Violence” Dead Horse.
https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/peddling-propaganda-part-ii-flogging-the-gender-based-violence-dead-horse/

[6] The law on Sexual Offences in Ireland. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

[7] Section 2: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[8] Section 3: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[9] Section 4: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[10] Feminists don’t understand consent.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminists-dont-understand-consent/

[11] Consent to Torts Against Persons.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts/defPersonsProperty/consentPersons.asp

[12] Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/print.html

[13] UCC alcohol research signals last call
http://www.ucc.ie/en/about/uccnews/fullstory-523011-en.html

Previous Older Entries