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

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.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do……..

 

Every so often Ì go trawling on the internet to check out what the harpies (ooops I mean feminists) are up too. The reason why I leave a relatively long gap between each journey into fembot land is because…well…because after generally reading the first paragraph of any feminist diatribe I start to lose the will to live, my eyes glaze over, and I get that headache that starts just behind your left eyeball – you know the one – the headache that just sends out little spikes of pain that penetrates your brain…..anyhoo – you know what I mean.

Soooooooooooo, rather than type in any particular name into google, I simply typed in “antifeminist” and the reason is simple. When I first started to delve into the online world (about five years ago now) to search out information that wasn’t feminist, that’s what I typed in – antifeminist – and got what amounted to a blanket dismissal of “anti-feminism” as some kind of aberration, as a blip on the settled order of things.

Today? Whole other kettle of fish.

The journey begins with this articleIs this what an anti-feminist movement looks like?” By Bethonie Butler July 30”

Have never heard of Bethonie Butler, but she takes a particular stance, it involves being rather scornful and condescending of the womenagainstfeminism phenomenon, in a rather “let’s not mock those silly women” kind of way, a “they’re more to be pitied than anything else” kind of thing.

She cites several other writers to back up her benign and tolerant stance of these traitors to the sisterhood, such as Jessica Valenti – a paragon of tolerance, objectivity and……..ok I think that’s enough.

The impression created is that the “anti-feminist” movement” as she calls it, is nothing but a storm in a teacup or a b cup if you prefer. She neatly sidesteps any closer examination of the reasons why, even as she parodies it, even that there is an “anti-feminist movement” at all.

But she does provide a link to another article in the Daily Beast called “You Don’t Hate Feminism. You Just Don’t Understand It.” By Emily Shire 07.12.14

Her stance is pretty similar to Ms. Butlers, though she does unsheathe her feminist claws – just a tad – by waving the feminists to the rescue flag.

 

“It’s never a dull week for feminists, and now Women Against Feminism is the most recent ire du jour. The Tumblr photo collection of women holding signs explaining why they “don’t need feminism” is more annoying than frightening. We’ve got bigger fish to fry, like securing equal pay and ensuring women across the world can attend school without being kidnapped.

But Women Against Feminism is certainly getting plenty of attention. The Tumblr started in the summer of 2013. The Facebook group, which was created in January 2014, has 12,000 likes, suggesting it appeals to a not insignificant group of people.

Women Against Feminism is easy—too easy—to lambaste. Many of the reasons these women claim for not needing feminism are embarrassingly bad. One post that has made the rounds is “I don’t need feminism because I love masculine men like Christian Grey :-P.” Oy.”

 

Note the classic “equal pay” totem (resoundingly debunked over and over and over and over again) and the vague reference to saving random women worldwide from being kidnapped on the way to school. I wonder does she ride shotgun herself or does she “have people” to do that for her – either way – she caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares.

But, the overall impression is that this anti-feminist “movement” is just a bunch of silly women who should be benignly tolerated while the big girls “take care of all the worlds problems”

Neither one of them of course mentions the Men’s (Human) Rights Movement or even men – this is a “sisterhood” problem – with the womenagainstfeminism being just very very naughty. Therein lies the rub for feminists like Butler and Shire – these are WOMEN!

Not just any women – women AGAINST feminist – not a knuckle dragging, basement living, Neanderthal with a tiny penis who can’t get laid in sight – these are WOMEN. AGAINST. FEMINISM.

Shire does mention in passing something, in fact she almost displays a nonchalant disregard for the significance of what she links too – another article called “Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes” but makes more of “reaching out” as she calls it to the womenagainstfeminism” women and being rebuffed by a lady called Mel, hence the increasing level of cattiness. Meow!

 

“There is no question that Women Against Feminism is utterly and completely misguided in its understanding of what feminism is. But they aren’t only the ones. Feminism gets a bad rap, and people perceive the movement as meaning something very narrow and specific—and negative.

An April 2013 poll found just 16 percent of men and 23 percent of women in America identify as feminists. The women behind Women Against Feminism aren’t exactly a minority. However, that same poll found 82 percent of all Americans agree with the statement “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” That’s the simplest and most accurate definition of feminism, but the movement has come to be seen as anti-men, liberal, radical, pro-choice, and many other things that it is not.”

(emphasis added)

Before we go on to discuss the implications of the poll she links to – let’s just pause here for a moment and contemplate the sheer stupidity, crassness, blindness and unbelievable depths of hubris displayed by these feminists.

The clue is, as it always is, in the title of Ms. Shire’s piece – an apparently large group is gathering momentum and numbers – this large group are women who have publically REJECTED feminism – for their various different reasons – I have no doubt that for some people those reasons might seem a bit silly – but hey – each to their own.

But, out of her own mouth Shire acknowledges that feminists are a MINORITY and that non feminist women are to all intents and purposes a MAJORITY. Yet in her feministic hubris doesn’t get it – feminists do NOT represent the views of the majority of women, never mind men, yet continues to assume the mantle of selfappointed spokesperson for ALL women. Even when huge numbers of women reject them and their ideology. Publically.

Alas – for feminists, rejecting feminism can ever only be for one reason – you don’t understand what feminism is! There in a nutshell is what feminists think of women – women are morons who don’t know their own minds.

Feminism is the ideological equivalent of an ex/stalker who you have to take a Restraining Order out against – like the stalker ex – s/he just won’t be dumped – in their delusion and insanity, they weave fantasies about your lifelong commitment to one another – its completely insane, totally deluded, obsessive and about as attractive as the stuff I have growing on my shower curtain – but –they are your “one true love” or else! Yikes!

That’s what feminists don’t get – nobody rejects feminism because they “don’t understand it” they reject feminism because they DO!

So, about this poll – it is referenced in this articlePoll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes”by Emily Swanson. 04/16/2013

She continues;

“Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.

According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans — including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men — consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither……..

The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word “feminism.” Thirty-seven percent said they consider “feminist” to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it’s a neutral term.”

(emphasis added)

In between these two statements is an appeal to the dictionary definition of feminism, which the author cites as some kind of proof that yet again “people just don’t understand what feminism is” except, this author is claiming that this poll merely reflects a “branding problem” for feminism!

Yep – because after nigh on five decades of spouting vile bigoted lies, of shrieking like banshees about “the patriarchy” and how all men are bastards – after revealing yourselves to be insane, irrational, unhinged, liars, frauds, con artists, inhumane arseholes – people are rejecting feminism because of a misunderstanding of what the message of feminism is!

Yep. Right. Did I mention deluded?

It would appear as well that feminism is also suffering from the same “branding problem” on netmums as well – coincidence? I think not. In another article, “What does feminism mean to modern women?” referencing another poll, this time in the UK, the results were eerily similar, if not actually worse, with only 14% of the women surveyed self-identifying as feminist.

 

“What does feminism mean to modern women?

■Only 1 in 7 women still call themselves a ‘Feminist’ – with younger women least likely to.

■Two in five want to ‘celebrate difference’ rather than be equal to men.

■The biggest battle for modern women is to reinstate the value of motherhood, with 69% making it top priority.

■36 per cent of youngsters cannot imagine a time when men and women were not equal.

■New movement dubbed ‘FeMEmism’ to reflect women’s personal choice.

“Are you a ‘Feminist’?”   14% replied YES

■Just one in seven of the 1,300 women who took part in this study still describe themselves as a ‘Feminist’.

■Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a ‘Feminist’. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

(emphasis added)

Ok – let’s go back to that dictionary definition appeal so beloved of feminists whenever someone rejects feminism – we’ll use the bog standard one that they all use – though in this case Ms. Swanson paraphrases.

 

“However, that same poll found 82 percent of all Americans agree with the statement “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” That’s the simplest and most accurate definition of feminism, but the movement has come to be seen as anti-men, liberal, radical, pro-choice, and many other things that it is not.”

As a component of this tiresome appeal to dictionary definition, feminists also tend to bewail the continuing “inequalities” being perpetrated against women – ergo the need for feminism to be as the lone voice(s) in the wilderness championing the cause of “equality”– sigh.

“For example, one woman posted “I don’t need ‘feminism’ because I believe that men and women are EQUAL, not that women should belittle men.” Those posts hurt a bit more because they reveal how deeply misinterpreted feminism is.”

Oh how noble. Except.

Those results and the results of previous polls which consistently show an average of 28% and falling, of women who identify as feminists, indicate that feminists are a MINORITY – and further do NOT represent the views of a majority of women. At all. So, who exactly are these noble gender warriors speaking for, or on behalf of?

I’m female, NOT a feminist, and do not give my permission for any feminist to claim to speak for, or on my behalf.

In a global survey conducted by IPSOS –three things stood out.

 

  1. The MAJORITY of respondents already believe that equality has been achieved to all intents and purposes.
  2. The MAJORITY of people believe that men and women should be treated equally.
  3. Even when a question is skewed to link feminism with “equal rights for women” as this question is, in this survey – the top three countries show percentages who identify as feminists thus – Canada – 55%, the UK – 55% and the US – 51%.

 

Which, in relation to the results of point number three above when compared to the results of the question asked of only women is bizarre to say the least. – these are the percentages who AGREED with this statement.

 

Women: “I have full equality with men and the freedom to reach my full dreams and aspirations

Canada – 78%

United States – 70%

Great Britain – 69%

Argentina – 66%

Poland – 65%

Australia – 63%

Sweden            – 62%

Germany – 58%

Hungary – 53%

Belgium – 47%

Italy – 45%

South Korea – 43%

France – 42%

Japan – 36%

Spain – 30%

 

I bet you noticed what I noticed – that the top three with massive percentages of women who AGREED that they had to all intents and purposes achieved “equality” are the very countries with the loudest, most obnoxious and insane feminists – Canada, The United States and The UK. Though it must be noted the higher percentage of positive answers fell into the “agree somewhat” category.

Another thing to note is this – with regard to those top three – the percentage who didn’t agree that “equality” has to all intents and purposes been achieved more or less reflects the percentage of those women who self-identify as feminists – in poll after poll – in other words the MAJORITY are more or less satisfied that “equality” has been reached.

It begs the question then – if in countries such as the top seven, the vast majority of people believe that “equality” has been to all intents and purposes achieved – what is the bloody point of feminism? Especially in light of the fact that feminists are a MINORITY of the general populations (female) in those countries with the most raucous feminist “spokespersons”?

Apart from this IPSOS poll – the percentages of women who self-identify as feminists when simply just asked a straightforward question – Are you a feminist?” has NEVER risen above 30%.

For the hard of thinking (feminists) that means that 70% and over of women are NOT feminists – yet feminists like Shire above would have you believe that 70% and above of women who reject feminism – of their own free will “just don’t understand feminism

You know what it’s called when a minority tries to dictate to the majority? Tyranny. Women are “breaking up” with feminism – in droves – but like that ex/stalker who will not accept – “you got dumped” feminists are having a hard time “letting go” as illustrated by “You Don’t Hate Feminism. You Just Don’t Understand It.” By Emily Shire.

In one way she is right – for many women (the majority) they don’t “hate feminism” they simply cannot see the point of it – they are indifferent, it is irrelevant – has nothing useful or important to say – to them.

So, rather than being a “branding problem” as one of our feminists above spluttered in barely concealed contempt lamely asserted – it is a “you are way past your sell by date” and a “your message is toxic” kind of problem.

Personally I’ve never been much drawn to “isms” or “ideologies” and while I personally can understand why vast numbers of women are rejecting and have rejected feminism as the default prism through which they choose to interpret their life experiences, and to understand the social and cultural ecology in which they must live, I can also appreciate that this might leave, for want of a better phrase, a philosophical vacuum.

There is a deeply embedded need on the part of people to feel and be part of something – part of a larger community – I have a suggestion as to what community you should join.

Join the Human Race.

All political, philosophical or ideological conversations should begin and end with one simple belief – I am a Human Being first – every other sentient entity who shares this planet with me is a Human Being first – not female, not male – Human.

Acknowledge that you are no more “special” than any other Human Being because you happen to be a particular kind of Human Being – that you have no entitlement to extra or “special” rights over and above the same basic Human Rights as every other Human Being on the planet – then and only then can you consider yourself have reached an understanding of your place in this world – standing alongside your brothers and sisters as part of one “race” – the Human Race.

No “ism” or “ideologue” can tell you, or dictate to you what kind of Human Being you ought or should be – those like Butler, Shire, Valenti et al have assumed the right to dictate to you what you should believe, have assumed the right to belittle and deride choices you make about yourself – that is the tyranny of feminism – the tyranny of the minority – the tyranny of selfappointed unelected, unrepresentative “spokespersons” who presume to set the parameters of what YOU can believe, what choices you should make.

Join the Human Race – begin and end all conversations with “I am a Human Being first….”

 

 

NBI personally do not subscribe to the concept of “equal rights” orequality” per se – because it implies that there are separate sets of rights specific to one group/person or another – based on some individual feature or characteristic of particular human beings – to me this is a nonsense.

What I subscribe to is the concept of equity – where the law is applied regardless of what kind of human being you are – though for the purposes of this article, I understand what is meant – in particular with the IPSOS poll – I have more of a problem with the concept of “equal rights” than with the much more elastic concept of “equality”

Just wanted to clarify that 🙂

Kristallnacht – Déjà Vue – Detroit – 2014

 

“Kristallnacht, literally, “Night of Crystal,” is often referred to as the “Night of Broken Glass.” The name refers to the wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms which took place on November 9 and 10, 1938, throughout Germany, annexed Austria, and in areas of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia recently occupied by German troops.

Instigated primarily by Nazi Party officials and members of the SA (Sturmabteilungen: literally Assault Detachments, but commonly known as Storm Troopers) and Hitler Youth, Kristallnacht owes its name to the shards of shattered glass that lined German streets in the wake of the pogrom—broken glass from the windows of synagogues, homes, and Jewish-owned businesses plundered and destroyed during the violence.”

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005201

 

There is none more fundamental Human Right that the right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Belief and Speech – but this basic Human Right encompasses more than just this.

“Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition — this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is

the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.”

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech

 

Instigating, calling for, threatening, or perpetrating violence against those who do not believe what you believe, who do not agree with your opinion, who do not think the way you think – is akin to the progrom that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews – and Kristallnacht was the first salvo in what became one the most horrific murderous periods of genocide in human history – and it began with broken glass.

Feminists have now embarked on preparations for another Kristallnacht – 76 years after that first Kristallnacht – because they do not believe that anyone has the right to believe, think or articulate anything other than what they believe, think or articulate.

Feminists are the new Nazis.

As a free citizen of the Republic of Ireland I declare that in my opinion feminism is a hate movement, a terrorist organisation and is akin to Nazism.

That anyone who collaborates with, supports, endorses or stands idly by and refuses to condemn feminism in all its manifestations, roots and branches is equally culpable, equally complicit is supporting a terrorist organisation, a hate movement and an ideology that has no other comparison other than to Nazism.

On June 26 – 29 2014 A Voice for Men (AVfM) intends to hold an International Conference on Men’s Rights in Detroit – the hotel at which this conference is being hosted has been in contact with Paul Elam owner and publisher of AVfM to make him aware that serious threats of violence, and of death threats have been made against not just conference attendees but the hotel, its staff and other guests.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/AVFM-Security-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

From a reading of the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – two things are clear – the hotel is taking these threats seriously, and the hotel also expects the conference organisers to pay for the protection of the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees.  Including attendees from other sovereign states – we’ll get back to this shortly, and anyone who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Against terrorists.

Except – the issuing of credible threats is a Federal Criminal Offence in the US – it is a crime.

“b)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(c)Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Source

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, § 63,Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (H), (K),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

See also

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-us_code_tabs

 

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any   communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of ‘intent.’ Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

The holding in United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992) confirms this statement. In DeAndino, the court held: “A criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C.S. § 875(c) does not contain a specific mens rea element. However, such a statute is not presumed to create a strict liability offense, because mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crime denounced.”

In other words, ‘federal stalking,’ as this crime is also known, is not a strict liability crime but it does require prosecutors to prove that the accused committed the offense. Thus, the ‘wording’ of the e-mails and the e-mails themselves are critical evidence in these cases.

Threats of injury must be found in the e-mails sent by the accused. As the Court held in DeAndino, the words in the [e-mail] message must fully, directly, and expressly set the elements of the statutory offense.

For instance, in Tuason, the wording of one of his e-mails said: “Mulatto kids are ugly freaks that should be destroyed. . . The blackie should be castrated. I want people in public malls, photo shoots, TV studios, radio, concerts, arenas, restaurants, NBC TV, Bravo TV, parties, sidewalks, etc. to stare and stab dead any blackie with a white girl like “SS”. . . If not, I “HK” WILL BOMB THE PLACE.” These words are a clear example of threatening words of injury under the federal statute.

Many other US circuit courts have followed this interpretation in DeAndino. For instance, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed this interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as not requiring specific mens rea (mental state of intent).

DeAndino held that this crime requires three specific elements: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains.

Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages. A simple ‘mistake’ in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.”

 

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=2064&s=latestnews

 

The communication from the hotel makes reference to “calls” and “other threats” would it be beyond the realms of possibility that these threats were also issued via email, and/or online?

The hotel suggests that AVfM pays for extra police officers in order to protect, the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees. From terrorists, and to take out insurance – against terrorist threats.

I have some questions – is the FBI involved? Are Detroit police investigating these criminal acts?

Again from reading the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – these threats are being made against not just actual attendees of this conference – but hotel staff, hotel guests NOT attending this conference and one presumes any other person who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again – I ask –  is the Federal Bureau of Investigation  involved in what appears to be credible threats of violence and credible death threats?

Back to citizens of other sovereign states who may either be attending this conference or just happen to be guests of this hotel at the same time.

Will the US State Department now be issuing warnings to citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America that they do so at their own peril – recommend that visitors bring full body armour and take out either private insurance or hire private security personnel to accompany them on their visit to the United States of America – “Land of the Free, home of the brave” because apparently now, one only gets state police protection and Federal protection against threats of violence, and death threats from feminists, if one pays – the police force.

I recommend that citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America, contact their embassies and Foreign Affairs Departments to make formal complaints to the government of the United States of America that threats of violence, and death threats against either US citizens or citizens of other sovereign states are tolerated in the United States of America – if they are made by feminists.

Apparently the targets of these threats of violence or death are irrelevant – whether attendees at a conference, staff of hotels or any other guests who just happen to be there.

So, what is it that the feminists who have issued these threats are “objecting” to? Not by disagreeing, not by legitimately protesting under legally sanctioned “freedom of association” – but by issuing death threats and threats of violence – not just against conference attendees, but the hotel, its staff, its guests, citizens of other sovereign states and any other person who – as I said – happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because they do NOT uphold or believe in that most basic of all fundamental Human Rights.

Freedom of Speech, thought, conscience and belief.

 

Many people have written about this fundamental Human Right – the prophetic George Orwell

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

Apparently in the United States of America – the home of “Liberty” if feminists don’t like what they hear – they will threaten violence and death against those saying those things they don’t want to hear – so that nobody else gets to hear them either – this would be in pursuit of “equal rights” no doubt?

Several US presidents have also addressed the issue of Freedom of Speech.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

George Washington

It would appear that George Washington knew what he was talking about with regard to “slaughter” as feminists appear to believe that killing those with whom you disagree with is a legitimate way to advocate for “equal rights”

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”

Harry S. Truman

Mr. Truman was prescient – “a country where everyone lives in fear.” From feminists – who will perpetrate violence or fatal injury upon anyone who “disagrees” with them.

How about one of the famous Americans of all time?

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

Did I mention that America prides itself on being the bastion of Liberty and Freedom and Democracy?

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

[The One Un-American Act, Speech to the Author’s Guild Council in New York, on receiving the 1951 Lauterbach Award (December 3, 1952)]”

William O. Douglas

Our own inimitable Oscar had something to say about Freedom of Speech.

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Oscar Wilde

A twist on that most famous of all quotes about Freedom of Speech.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire

Though from the feminist perspective that should read “if I don’t agree with what you say – I will visit death and violence upon you – so that you don’t get to say what I disagree with”

 

The last word goes to Christopher Hitchens.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

Christopher Hitchens

I would like to add this – for any feminist attempting to pull the NAFALT – (Not All Feminists Are Like That) card – let me say this – ALL feminism is like that – if you subscribe to, endorse, support or turn a blind eye to the toxic roots, murderous and criminal behaviour of ANY section, part, branch of form of feminism – you ARE like that.

And you can kiss my Irish arse.

 

All quotes from – http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech

 

For those who think “this has nothing to do with me, am not either a feminist or a MRA/MHRA – storm in a teacup” – then bear this mind.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

 

You don’t have to be a feminist or a MRA/MHRA or any other designation to believe in the sanctity of Human Rights – hell you don’t even have to like the human being whose rights you acknowledge as being sacrosanct – even the biggest arsehole on the planet has those Human Rights.

You don’t have to be anything but a Human Being to speak out against injustice, against prejudice, against hatred, against bigotry.

For those feminists caught in that toxic loop – “you must be a feminist” – I’m NOT a feminist – and hey look – my head didn’t explode – an asteroid didn’t hit the earth – the sun didn’t fall out of the sky.

I’m NOT a feminist and I believe 100% in the sanctity of Human Rights – you don’t you are a female supremacist – a supporter of thugs – of terrorists – unless you completely disavow and reject any tenet of feminism –  and you continue to stand idly by and say nothing about what YOUR movement deems a legitimate form of protest – threats of violence and death threats against those who also declare – I’m NOT a feminist.

Not speaking up – turning a blind eye makes you complicit.

These people claim to speak on your behalf – to be the voice of feminism – THIS is what your feminism is – in all its putrid toxic murderous and vile hate-filled glory. Your feminism.

There have been many many people whose beliefs were so deeply held they were worth dying for – YOURS apparently are worth killing for.

 

Edit – just got notification of this at change.org

“Its Time To Class Feminism As a Terrorist Group”

 

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-government-its-time-to-class-feminism-as-a-terrorist-group

Money Makes the World Go Round………Not Ideology….Feminism is Just Along for the Ride

 

An odd title for an essay isn’t it? But bear with me – no-one can be in any doubt that feminism is a toxic ideology founded on hatred, prejudice and vitriol – well apart from feminists that is – but even the most supposedly academic feminists are morons – well, you would have to be some class of moron to believe even a tenth of the unutterable crap that feminists spew out and have spewed out.

But – here’s a thought – what if – feminism is merely a cover for something deeper, something less obvious – something that operates in the shadows – but in parallel with feminism?

What if – feminism is just the public face of something else?

 

This article appeared in Irish Independant yesterday.

Separated dad wants State to pay for house big enough for visiting children

Tim Healy– Updated 27 May 2014 10:40 PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/separated-dad-wants-state-to-pay-for-house-big-enough-for-visiting-children-30309135.html

I didn’t comment on it or immediately decide to sit down a write a critique because I wanted to wait to see if anyone commented – last time I checked and no – not one single comment.

The issues in this case – and it is the subject of an ongoing High Court case speak to Men’s Rights, men’s Human Rights – but there are deeper issues within which this case is embedded and which inform the underlying causes of why in this instance Men’s Human Rights are believed to be of such irrelevance that ignoring them is government policy to do so, that this government is impelled to implement policies that are blatantly and very obviously an infringement of this man’s Human Rights?

Those issues are cultural, political and economic – what this case is not about is feminism per se, this case is first and foremost about Human Rights – and the human being whose rights are being violated is male – and a parent, and to uphold his Human Rights would cost this government – money – and ultimately lots of money it simply is not willing or able to spend.

It is also about how the concept of family has become skewed – and this is where feminism comes in – this is the point where the influence of feminism intersects with politics and public policy, with societal and cultural attitudes – and most significantly with economic considerations.

Please read the article now and bear these things in mind – the issue is Human Rights – and the broader issue’s are about the cultural and political narrative and language used with regard to how Irish Society views not just men – but men as fathers – as parents. But it is also about economic policy. This is not necessarily simply because of feminism alone, though feminist influence has contributed to this – but also to how men and women see themselves – as parents, and how that paradigm has been always been assiduously cultivated.

Underpinning all this is the “Housing Crash” – and the devastating results of a housing bubble that when it burst here in Ireland almost brought this country to the brink of economic collapse – we are still living with the consequences of this – and will be living with those consequences for many many years to come.

Was this precipitated by feminism? If only. This was precipitated by greed, by political cute hoorism, by the machinations of venal and corrupt bankers, developers, and financiers.

So, let’s take a look at this article.

The first thing to note is the title of this article – in particular the implication that this man’s children “visit” him – that as a “separated dad” his role in his children’s lives is peripheral and that his connection to his children is not that of a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that this entails but of a single person who happens to have fathered some children.

The constant reference to access, to “visits” from his children is to my mind grating – and it gives me no pleasure to say this – but it isn’t just those in “authority” or sneery journalists who view fathers through this prism of fatherhood being viewed as a secondary type of parenting, as subsidiary to “motherhood” but some men do this as well.

Ok – having said that, granted the current legislative framework enshrines this perspective and operates it institutionally through mechanisms like concepts of “custody” of “access/contact/visitation” and of course “maintenance/child support”

My personal belief is that we need to move away from this narrative – which is inspired by and influenced by feminism – reject these concepts and embrace the over-arching concept of default equal parenting.

I am not suggesting that mothers and fathers are interchangeable – not at all – because they are not – but that within the context of parenting – mothers and fathers each bring unique and valuable things to the parenting of children.

This attitude is very clearly illustrated in the very title of this article, the attitude that fathers are secondary parents. The barely concealed contempt in the title of this article towards this man having the nerve to believe the state should pay his rent for a “bigger house” so his children could “visit” is palpable.

Though there would be no default perception that a mother seeking to avail of either Social Housing provision or Rent Supplement is somehow “not entitled” to do so.

In the body of the article reference is made to the amount of €900.00 – as if this amount would enable this man to live in the lap of luxury in a 6 bedroom mansion.

The reality is this.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rents-continue-to-rise-especially-in-dublin-258278.html

Average rents in Dublin have been rising, and we are not talking about mansions here – just bog standard 2 or 3 bed houses or apartments

“Rents in Dublin City soared by more than 11% last year and average rents across the country climbed by 7% in the same period, according to a new report. 

The average advertised rent nationally is now €865, while in Dublin it is €1,210up 11.2% year on year.  

The quarterly Daft.ie rental report covering the last three months of 2013 signalled a warning that such increases in rent levels could adversely affect the country’s competitiveness.

Such was the increase in rental rates in Dublin that it is the fastest rate of inflation in the rental sector since the middle of 2007.

Rents are still 15% below the peak of the Celtic Tiger period in mid-2007, while around the country rental rates now are still more than 20% below those of mid-2007.”

The next thing is this.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/pdf/Revised%20rent%20limits%20June%202013.pdf

There are specific limits set on Rent Supplement – if a person is unable to provide housing from their own means – in Ireland there are two choices – make an application to one’s Local Authority for Social Housing – which this man has done and already been “deemed eligible” for.

“While he and his children have been deemed eligible for social housing, he has been told he will be on a waiting list for five years.”

 

Or try to find privately rented accommodation and apply for Rent Supplement – where, based on ones circumstances a sliding scale operates as to the amount that one can receive as a Rent Supplement.

If the same criteria was applied to his application for Rent Supplement as was applied in order to qualify him as a parent of four children for Social Housing he would be deemed eligible for a maximum amount of Rent Supplement of between €950.00 and €1,000.00 – depending on which area of Dublin he found accommodation in. For himself and his four children.

The last and final thing to note is this – there are NO Social Housing units available for the numbers in actualneed of this safety net, in fact the numbers on the Social Housing waiting lists has almost trebled since 2007.

 

“The social housing waiting list figures produced recently by the Housing Agency, showing almost 90,000 households in need, represent a 30 per cent increase since the start of the global financial crisis in 2007.

Since 2011, using updated methodology, housing need reduced by 9 per cent. However, if it had not been for vacancies that arose in the private landlord sector diluting the downturn, the demand for social housing might have been much higher, particularly in the capital and other cities and towns.”

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-housing-waiting-lists-indicate-that-new-phase-of-construction-is-now-needed-1.1648604

That 30% increase represents many different types of persons in need of Social Housing, top of the list would be “families” and family is now a much broader concept than it once was, with the majority of “families” being two parents and children, the next largest group of “families” would be single parents, or those who are parenting separately – as is clear from this man’s qualification of eligible for Social Housing – he is considered a “family” granted he is now on a housing list along with 89,999 other “households”.

So, why isn’t he considered a “family” from the perspective of the Department of the ironically named Social Protection?

MONEY!

The number of separated/divorced persons in Ireland according to the last Census in 2011 was, 203,964 in total – both male and female. I believe we can posit with some degree of accuracy that in quite a significant number of those cases it was the female half who retained possession of the “Family Home” and it was the male half who must find or secure “alternative accommodation” – being unable to do so can be a factor in decisions relating to custody/access, apart from any other factors – this man’s story is illustrative of that – even though it is quite clear from this article that there are NO issues relating to “access” or having “contact” with his children.

The issues in this case are political, economic and structural – though this article does have an underlying bias in its “tone” in particular, by characterising his need for housing because he wants somewhere for his children to “visit” him.

Back to the Census figures.

The total number of divorced/separated men in Ireland in 2011 was 88,918

Of that total – 38,412 are in rented accommodation and 50,497 (including not stated) are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

 

The total number of divorced/separated women in Ireland in 2011 was 115,046

Of that total – 46,071 are in rented accommodation and 68, 975 are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

These figures are for private rented accommodation.

The percentage of men in rented accommodation is just under 43% and the percentage of women in rented accommodation is a little over 40%

In essence almost parity – so one could posit that equal numbers of men and women are in the same boat, except for women there is a lifeboat, for men it is a leaky and capsizing rowboat.

Therein lies the problem – it is the “women and children first” into the lifeboats – and the men can die in the freezing cold waters of the Atlantic paradigm.

In relation to this particular set of circumstances there is an obvious paradox – between how two state bodies view this – on the one hand the Local Housing Authority deems this man is qualified for Social Housing – as a distinct “family” but on the other the Department of Social Protection (even typing that makes me grimace) is adamant that this man is “single” though legally he is not.

Consider this – if both parents were in need of Social Housing and if the “Family Home” is either already rented from a Local Authority or was privately rented whileavailing of Rent Supplement there is now a duplication of housing need – the Local Authority obviously has no problem incorporating this paradigm into its calculations and will now consider that both parents are equally eligible for Social Housing – granted the parent who leaves must now wait his/her turn on the housing list – which in this man’s case has been estimated at approx five years – but is prepared to accept that what was once, one “Family” or “Household” is now two – with the children being equally accepted as being part of each of those “Households”.

To reiterate, there is NO Social Housing available to accommodate the sheer numbers and this is a matter of economics, politics and as I stated above – the factors that went into causing the economic crash in the first place.

This is about money – this is about penny pinching, this is about putting economics before people – and finally this is about finding easy targets to implement these economic policies upon.

Separated fathers are easy targets – because of the default presumptions so clearly outlined and insinuated at in this article – fathers are visitors in their children’s lives – fathers are irrelevant to their children.

The Department of Social Protection rejected this man’s claim on the basis he was only entitled to the rate for a single person – if you look at the article you will see that this man separated in 2011 – even with stretching mathematical probability to its absolute limits – that he separated from his wife on the 1st January 2011 – neither he or his wife are eligible to apply for a divorce till the 2nd January 2015 – there is a 4 year qualifying period here in Ireland before you can apply – so – he is not legally “single” he is still legally “married” though separated.

Granted this is legal semantics and while a pertinent legal point – is not the crux of this matter.

The crux is how fathers are viewed – and in particular how separated fathers are viewed – as secondary parents – as persons who are “visited” by their children – from the Department of Social Protection’s perspective – the bottom line is money – saving money – eliminating as many people as possible from qualifying for any number of state supports or payments – separated fathers are easy targets.

It is that cynical.

Because even with the overlay of the influence of feminism on the perceptions and presumptions relating to parenting – and the role of both parents as being essential to the well-being of children – in a case like one – where there are clearly no issues of two parents being locked in a battle over the ownership of their mutual children – the state is actively and cynically creating a situation for economic reasons that imposes an additional handicap on separated fathers.

The ability to provide not just suitable accommodation for themselves – but for their children as well, and handing a potent weapon to those women who would gleefully and gladly use just such a weapon given half the chance.

This policy will actually reinforce and entrench the already difficult and painful experiences of fathers and will ultimately harm the children caught in the middle.

What or who could be in more need of “Social Protection” than children?

I did an ad hoc calculation on the figures and made a guess out of the numbers of men in rented accommodation that about a quarter of them would be in need of either Social Housing or Rent Supplement. Please bear in mind this is just a guess for illustrative purposes.

So we are looking at a figure of 9,603 separated or divorced men.

I calculated on the basis of these men having two children and that they were in the Dublin area.

Each one would qualify for a Rent Supplement of between €900.00 – €975.00 per month – an average of €937.50.

For a year this works out at €11,250.00 each.

In total for these 9,603 fathers it would cost €108,033,750.00 per year to pay them this Rent Supplement – so it does represent a hefty saving – on the surface.

How about this – at €100,000.00 a pop you could build 1080 houses in this country for that money – reducing the numbers to 8523, and the payout by €12,150,000.00 for the next year to €95,883,750.00

By the next year to €83,733,750.00 and the next to €71,583,750.00 – you get the picture.

Ok – let me just put all this into perspective – this state is paying 111 former ministers a total of €9.6 million a year in pensions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/965m-annual-pensions-bill-for-former-ministers-213448.html

“As pay levels of top-earning bankers come under intense scrutiny, updated figures show taxpayers are also footing an annual €9.65m pensions bill for 111 former ministers.

 Figures supplied by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform reveal that 35 former senior politicians are paid combined ministerial and TD pensions worth over €100,000 gross each year.

 They include over a dozen members of Fianna Fáil-led governments during the past decade, governments which sanctioned large increases to politicians’ pay and pensions during their terms in office.

 A further 68 former office holders receive pensions worth in excess of €50,000. All former ministers will receive the combined pension for the rest of their lives.”

 

If those pension were reduced by 50% to €50,000.0 that would be €4.82 million and would fund Rent Supplement for approx 428 of those fathers.

But this will really concentrate your mind on how our political class views Irish people.

 

“The highest earners are two former taoisigh, Brian Cowen and Bertie Ahern, who are largely blamed for overseeing policies which led to the collapse of the economy. They are each entitled to a combined annual pension of €164,526 before tax. After deductions for the pension levy, the two former Fianna Fáil leaders will receive annual payments of €150,163. Both men are paying an effective public service pension levy rate of 9%.”

 

What about those bankers (spelt with a capital “W”)

 

Well last year some of those bankers were caught on tape laughing about how not only did they know about the impending crisis but also that they would never have to pay a single penny back – have a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2013/06/28/the-anglo-tapes-the-guarantee-and-irelands-economic-crisis/

 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/29/bank-j29.html

We are talking about a sum of €7 Billion by the way.

Which brings me to my final point – remember I said that for the cost of paying out Rent Supplement for a year you could build 1080 houses at €100,000.00 a pop.

I know one way to fund the building of 5000 houses – straight away, at the same cost – for a total of €500,000,000.00 – or rather I know who should be forced to pay for this.

The ones who caused this crisis – every last one of them – like I said – bankers spelt with a capital “W” and politicians who shouldn’t have been allowed to run a stall never mind a country.

I began this essay by saying that money makes this world go round, not ideology – so to conclude – with regard to feminism – the motivating force behind feminism is to extract resources – to facilitate wealth transfers from men to women.

There is a purpose other than the obvious to this – women shop – women buy useless crap – in comparison to men – women literally do “shop till they drop” women are the main drivers behind consumerism.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this – feminism is a handy distraction from the underlying institutional and structural problems that are besetting almost all western states. It is still a toxic vile hate movement? Yes it is. Absolutely.

But if you look at some of the crap that mainstream feminists whine about – such as sexism – sorry, but who really gives a shit – it makes good TV for some idiot to go on a rant bout – will focus people’s attention on what are in essence trivial matters – and create a smokescreen of carefully hyped and manufactured hysteria over……………..nothing.

It is mass hysteria for the masses, for the hard of thinking.

Is it really the burning issue of the day that needs answering, that women are being “disrespected” are having their feelings hurt by not being taken seriously? Really? This is an issue worth addressing – on TV?

This planet is being driven to the brink of self-destruction – almost all western states are literally teetering on the brink of economic collapse – are men being systematically stripped of their Human Rights at the behest of feminists? Yep – they sure are.

The question is why? Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who are the ultimate beneficiaries of this? Women?

The answers are a damn sight more complex than “women’s rights” or “men’s rights” even – right now the west is almost stripped bare of resources – how does one destabilise a culture or a society in order to have a free hand to go in and like a plague of locusts strip that culture or society of its resources?

One destabilises the very foundations upon which all societies and cultures are based – the family, and kinship groups – one pits men and women against one another – creates a toxic social environment that will, to all intents and purposes create carefully controlled social unrest – and yep – even fund “services” exclusively for women – and engineer a neutered male population, and a disenfranchised male population is a docile male population.

Because here is the other thing – women vote – and in greater numbers than men – and women vote for stupid reasons – you flatter the average female enough – appeal to her sense of inherent entitlement and pander to her need to see herself as “special” and that dumb bint would vote for Atilla the Hun.

And if you can also convince enough men that this is actually a good thing – then you are laughing – all the way to the bank.

Feminism’s purpose is and was to implement a programme of male neutering – to implement a programme where men were literally stripped of the right to organise, to co-operate, to form cohesive groups and to embroil them is a positive shitstorm of social exclusion, social and cultural demonization and render them ineffective as a potential threat to the implementation of economic warfare.

 

This story is about this one man’s battle to have his Human Rights vindicated but it is also a symptom – yes it is a story of men’s rights – of father’s rights – and it must be said of children’s rights – but it also gives us a peek at the dark murky waters that flow beneath – at the underlying structural causes.

The Department of Social Protection in Ireland has a programme of welfare cuts to implement – it has to reduce the Social Welfare bill – this is not one of those “will we or wont we” things – this is one of those “do it or else things.

The reasons for this austerity programme are well documented and speak to not just economic policy failures but political failures.

But – the bottom line is this – cuts must be made and made they will be – now – who can we pick on? Who does nobody give a shit about? Who are the easy targets?

How did men find themselves in the position of being those easy targets – and more importantly why?

 

Cui bono? Who benefits?

 

Men’s Rights Are Human Rights

 

Other than the first word “Men’s” in any civilised society or culture, it would be rare indeed to find anyone who would have an issue with the statement  – Rights Are Human Rights – and here in the West, we rather arrogantly assume ourselves to BE civilised societies and cultures, we pride ourselves on our technological advancement, on our dedication to Human Rights, in fact we rather pompously issue statements about the Human Rights abuses happening in other less “advanced” societies and cultures, and, do you know what?

We are full of shit – totally and utterly FULL. OF. SHIT.

Because as soon as you put the word “Men’s” in front of the statement, so it reads MEN’S Rights Are Human Rights – all bloody hell breaks out – screams and shrieks of protest, insults, a barrage of complaints and whines, endless and interminable toxic little screeds written or posted, that decries, denies, objects, or opposes the notion that MEN should have, are entitled to, or vested with HUMAN RIGHTS.

All because of one word – MEN.

No-one raises an eyebrow at the word Rights, or Human, and definitely not at those words being used in combination, so the only logical conclusion is that Human Rights is a good thing, so what is the issue, what causes the mother of all shitstorms of protest when MHRA’s precede those words with the word MEN’S?

The answer is simple – Men in general are considered to be, believed to be, and are promulgated by one sect of society as – less than human. That sect? Feminism.

I’ve always maintained that feminists, by and large are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, as well as other less……kind things.  But another thing that distinguishes feminists and those policy and law makers who listen to the shit feminists peddle is this – they are also dumb as a bag of hammers.

Human Rights according to them are the prerogative of special human beings, and any human being who fails to reach the parameters and standards set by feminists is therefore NOT entitled to the SAME level of Rights Protection as these other Special human beings.

They shriek about violence, they wail and work themselves up into a hysterical lather about rape culture, they weep and sob about oppression and disadvantage, and male privilege. This is all in an ongoing effort to maintain a system, a cultural, societal and legal framework that denies Human Rights to Men.

Are some men violent? Yep. Do some men rape women? Yep. Are some men complete and utter arseholes? Yep. In relation to Human rights though, what would be my answer to that?

So what? It is –  IRRELEVANT.

What human beings do, what kind of human being a person is, whether or not a particular human being is a complete nutcase IS IRRELEVANT – THAT Human Being is still a Human Being. Granted, maybe an arsehole, or total bitch, but none the less, a Human Being. Ergo. Vested with Human Rights.

The ONLY qualification for being vested with Human Rights is to BE a Human Being – no-one gets to set the parameters of which kinds of human beings are acceptable, no-one gets to lay out any other qualifications for being a human being, other than the ability to pass a DNA test that comes back – Homo Sapien.

End. Of. Story.

Which brings us to Laws – at its simplest – laws are the framework within which the parameters of allowable human behaviour are to be conducted, for ALL the human beings in a particular territory or jurisdiction. Contained within the framework of laws are provisions for sanctions, for punishments if a particular human being violates one of the acceptable and allowable human behaviours. Ok – laws cover much more than this – but for the purposes of this essay, let’s just stick to the basics?

If one thinks of Human Rights instruments as Primary Legislation – mostly contained within International Charters and in Constitutions, and Laws and Legislation as Secondary Legislation, then one should, if one is not a feminist, be able to discern that Human Rights take precedence, and Legislation is enacted that should embody provisions that PROTECT those Primary Human Rights.

This, unfortunately is where feminism and feminists have infected, have corrupted our cultures and societies, and have literally turned this admittedly simple concept on its head.

Laws first – Human Rights second – because feminism and feminists have convinced the powers that be, in most Western States, that up is down, right is left, good is bad.

The reason for this about face, this switch, is as simple as it is vile – if we take the emphasis OFF the Humanity of all but the most Special humans – in fact, if one emphasises the innate humanness of ONLY one type of human being and denigrate, dismiss and deride the innate humanity of those have been deemed less than human one can chip away at basic fundamental Human Rights from below, so to speak – can undermine the protections and provisions of Human Rights Primary Legislation to such an extent that they collapse at worst, and become hollow, become mere caricatures. Needless to say feminists have “tinkered” with and continue to demand more “tinkering with” Primary Human Rights Instruments.

THAT is what feminism and feminists have done – by their actions, by their toxic and vile ideology they have made a mockery of Human Rights, and rather than giving any credence, any validity to any right, of those in the West to lay claim to being “advanced” or civilised” or in a position to look down their noses at less “advanced” or civilised” cultures and societies – it is here in the West, where the true barbarians reside, where the real “backward” societies are.

WE, are the champion Human Rights violators and abusers on this planet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

NB. Yes, I know, it is and has become a flawed Instrument, and yes I also know that the UN is infested with feminists, but for now, it is sadly almost all we’ve got. I posted the Preamble to illustrate how far FROM those noble aspirations we not just are, but are heading away from.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014.

On Being a Non Feminist

 

 From the perspective of the Right to: Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

I’ve heard it said more times than I can recall and read  innumerable times on various sites, blogs, articles and essays, that THIS is one of the most basic fundamental Human Rights – and I agree – it is.

Most people interpret this to mean that they get to say, think and believe whatever they damn well like, and anyone who attempts to suppress them exercising this most basic of fundamental Human Rights is pond scum.

But, this is not the real test of your personal endorsement of this Right, nor is it an indication of how you personally stand on higher moral ground as opposed to others, because of the fact that you believe anyone who attempts to suppress YOUR Right to Free Speech is pond scum, that is.

No, what truly indicates that you personally are a stalwart and immovable proponent of what I will just call Freedom of Speech, for convenience,  is your commitment, your endorsement, your 100% support of ANOTHERS Right to say, think and believe things that are in direct opposition, in complete conflict with, and are anathema to YOU.

Even feminists, even those who hold religious beliefs while you are an Atheist and/or Agnostic or vice versa, even those who express the most abhorrent (to you) opinions – what truly marks you as a genuine believer in the concept of Freedom of Speech is not just a grudging willingness to concede “they have a right to their opinion/belief” but a deep and unwavering stance that THEY have the Right (in capitals) to do so, just like YOU have the Right to hold yours.

The other aspect of being a true proponent of Freedom of Speech is an ability to depersonalise the person from the opinion or belief – and yes I am aware that there are those both historically and at this present time, who hold and have held the most egregious beliefs, the most abhorrent opinions, and have acted on those beliefs and opinions, and which caused terrible acts of inhumanity, which precipitated horrors of genocide and cruelty.  These people rightly deserve universal condemnation, without exception, and all those who acted in equally abhorrent ways because they “believed” in the veracity and “rightness” of the “opinions” and “beliefs” of these dictators, tyrants and murderous “leaders” also deserve the most adamant condemnation.

But, this is where the nuances come in – even these tyrants were entitled by right to hold these abhorrent opinions, they were and are wrong, and when they acted on those beliefs, they committed grave wrongs against humanity – but they were entitled, by right to BELIEVE whatever it was they believed.

So, when I say that the test for a genuine commitment to Freedom of Speech involves an ability to depersonalise the belief/opinion from the person what I mean is that one separates an opinion or belief NOT acted upon in a way that causes actual physical harm to another human being, or caused actual physical harm to be done – in your name – to another human being.

Also, when I say actual physical harm, I also include laws enacted that impose sanctions or restrictions or punishments unjustly upon others because of some characteristic that is inherent to them. Acts of individual social and cultural harm, acts that are designed to demonise or propagate permissions to treat other individuals in negative ways.

Feminism does that, feminism spreads and propagandise lies, misrepresentations and false information about men and boys – but – feminists – have the right to express those sometimes ridiculous and nearly always designed to BE harmful, opinions and beliefs should they be acted upon deserve all the condemnation and universal approbation that comes their way.

The question for others is this? Having heard, having listened, or read these opinions or beliefs – what will YOU do? How will YOU act?

Accept or reject? THAT is your Right. Whether you are an individual or a politician with the authority to enact legislation based on the beliefs or opinions of feminist – you have to choose – to accept or reject. Sometimes choosing to do nothing is as harmful as to choose to do something.

In many ways it is as simple as that, to say – “I hear or I read what you have written or said and I reject it” – and therefore CHOOSE not to act in ways informed by those beliefs or opinions that endorses, codifies or imposes laws, sanctions or punishments on others who choose also NOT to accept your opinion or belief about “how things should be”.  Choose not to act in ways that harms other individuals because I choose to believe and/or accept the opinions/beliefs of others that endorses and validates these harmful acts.

So, while accepting that even the misinformed, the perpetually stupid, the completely “off the reservation” have the Right to hold whatever opinion/belief they wish, you also the Right to say – thank you for sharing your opinion – now please go away. (or, words to that effect)

This encompasses the final element of passing the test for being truly committed to principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Belief – being willing to accept, to acknowledge and to endorse the rights of others to not just reject YOUR opinion/belief but that THEY have the Right to do so – unconditionally and to NOT act in ways informed by YOUR opinions/beliefs.

You cannot, you must not, you shall not expect, demand or attempt to coerce OTHERS to – believe what you believe, think what you think or ACT in ways informed by YOUR beliefs/opinions that conflicts with their right to act as THEIR conscience dictates. To do so, to expect so and to demand so is to be a tyrant, a dictator and an enemy of Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief.

What overlays all these elements that comprise the concept of Freedom of Speech, is an overarching belief and willingness to extend without conditions – The Right to Reply.

So, I’m not “anti-feminist” because feminists are people, individuals, and therefore have the right to believe whatever they like or choose to. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if you like and for all I care – but you do not have the right to demand that I do also.

I am a non feminist – in that I CHOOSE to reject in its entirety the ideology, belief system, doctrine, whatever one chooses, called FEMINISM, but absolutely, unconditionally and without hesitation endorse an individual persons right to not just believe in the tenets of “feminism” but to call themselves “feminists” and I will exercise MY Right to criticise, to condemn, to reject and to  basically take the piss out of ANY belief or opinion you, as a feminist EXPRESS whether verbally or written that is informed by the tenets OF feminism.

And if you truly are a proponent of Freedom of Speech – you will take it – you will do the only honourable thing, the only moral or ethical thing – answer mine or anyone else’s criticisms with counter arguments, with EVIDENCE that gives validity to YOUR opinions/beliefs and perhaps might convince me to CHANGE my opinions, and extend to others the same opportunity.

Though I should warn you – if no-one has presented an argument over the last 25 years and more, to recruit me personally to the “feminist” cause – I wouldn’t hold your breath if I was you. But, you are more than welcome to try.

Alternatively, you could do what HuffPo did to Mike Buchanan of J4MB, when he attempted to get a post published on their blog, show the entire world an almost perfect example of how those who have no idea what Freedom of Speech means – how to act to suppress, to deny, to violate and disregard the very principles that underpin this most important, sacred and  essential of Human Rights, for civilised Human Societies.

 

Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries