Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Well, since I have been gone, I have heard of great commotion in the realm of the Tiger. It seems, that his Swedish Viking Gal,  Elin Nordegren took a golf club to his ass for cheating, he crashed some big expensive Cadillac, and then the shit fell through the roof.
I don’t remember when it all first broke out, but that’s not what this article is about, its about “Tigerness”, no matter how big and bad he may seem, one cannot forget, he still a cute little kitten. No matter how big and bad his golf game was, no matter how much money he had, and no matter how much pubic hair he shaved off, he was still fritz the cat.
Lets face the facts, Tiger, despite his millions, is a slump, he is an omega-dreg in a way that is so HARD core. I mean, just listen to the way he spoke to his whores ( that is what you have to be in order to go down on the Tiger, right?? ), any man knows, a whore is not his equal, and many suspect, no western women are there equal in dignity, ( but possibly in function ). But just listen to him talk to her like she is his mother, like a boy who just got his hand caught in the cookie jar, taking to many pussy’s out and then dropping one on what would just happen to be his wife’s feet ( And it was when she looked down on the pussy/cookie that fell on her feet, she got the golf club, his most powerful iron dick-substitute. )
And, he is in such bad taste of women too, such ugly whores, I mean, even if your an omega-dreg, Cmon!!!, you have got BILLIONS!!, go buy yourself one of those “Empire” girls like Elliot Spitzer.
Rachele Utichel
Another One
Another One
The really Ugly one he banged in a church parking lot
The Junkers JU 88 Flying wing
SHE WOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugly Porno slut number 1
Ugly Implant-boob porno slut number 2
OHHHH, it still may not be over, but my question knowledge is, would this happen to some real Alpha, like George Cloney, or some fag chicks love like, like Johny Depp, ………NO, that’s because women would always want the opportunity to get another chance……
But no one wants to get another chance at anything but the Tigers money. And that is fact.
PS. I have found it interesting that he never choose to fuck anyone but pieces of trashy shit ( they go to the porno stars because they don’t complain about ruff anal, just sayin ). I mean come on, he could have at least gone to Russia or Ukraine to get some quality, some class…….but that tells me a lot about the Tiger, when given the opportunity for class and quality he will go for the feces with an open hole to fuck. ( Even Elin is a piece of Swedish shit, look at this youtube vid, and you will see that both Russia and Sweden birth much more attractive women than anything Tiger has tapped )
PPS. And that brings me to my second point, brought to me by Lady Dissident in her post on Tiger of which she will be gladly added to the blog-roll for upon request; I ( and others ), think Tiger is quite the racist. He must really hate ANYBODY with a drop of ethnicity in them ( Even the super attractive Slavs, Baltic chicks, Asians, and maybe even Germans!!! ) to go so far as to screw so many ugly pieces of American trash before even ogling at any women with an actual heritage. That is an especially hard blow to African Americans, I mean Cmon!!!, he already said he wasn’t black, but a strange Hybrid called a “Caublackasian”, and now he would screw so many ugly trash shit holes before looking into ANY race( other than the race of American trash ), but apparently, especially not his own.

Advertisements

I have been going though the comments since I have been back, and have noticed, one little ducky stood out. His name was “Dale”and he commented on my post about the great role men played in the sexual liberation of women. And let me tell you something about “Dale”, he is the vagina man, and not in a good sense. In a well written post, to which humans seemed in mutual agreement, he chose to be the man with nads small enough to feel the need to not even refute the article, but launch an attack on ME……….. Just read it…………….

Wow, so much writing, yet all you manage to convey is that you’re a bigoted and misogynistic caveman masquerading as somehow enlightened. You’re not even worth additional words–an angry man seeing the brutish world you love ever slowly fade away. Good riddance.

I mean, is that all you had to say!!!, A jab at ME, not the article, there were so many things you could say about the article, but instead, you panhandled me a bunch of words which he probably had to use the spellchecker to type correctly.
A. I don’t “Love” anything, especially anything you describe.
B. I have never heard a male use the term “misogynistic” in that reference. Damn!
Well, I am not really sure if “Dale” is a guy, he ( She ) may just be using an alias, which is quit a good idea on the net, but in light of such..uh…I don’t even know what to say, either u have one tiny cock, or you are a “Well” of a woman.
Was this your Gender???????

I RETURN!!!!!!!!

Hello, I have returned from the depths of the underworld, I have been away, and since have neglected my blog………BUT!!!! Now I am Back, and Will resume the posting of useless thoughts.

If women really loved men just as much as men loved women:

*Why is it men that generally pay for dates?

*Why do men traditionally take most of the initiatives?

*Why do some women expect men to buy them so much stuff on Valentine’s Day? Why do so many women expect flowers, spa treatments, boxes of chocolate, and other gifts from men? Don’t men also deserve these things? Shouldn’t Valentine’s Day include both genders?

*Why do women generally expect men to buy them wedding rings? Are men not “special” enough to also get a ring?

*Why do divorced men commit suicide 10x as often as divorced women? Don’t women feel as much heartbreak after divorce?

*Why are 2/3 of breakups initiated by women? Are men less “likable”?

*Why are men traditionally objectified as disposable protectors, heroes, or breadwinners when many females seem to receive love based on their looks alone?

*Why do many women expect to be the ones to feel “protected” or “taken care of” like a princess or “damsel in distress”? Can’t a man expect these things too?

*Why are there so many more homeless men than women? Are homeless men less likely to marry and earn a woman’s love?

*Why is “chivalry” generally something that women expect from men?

*Why is the man the one expected to be the disposable “bodyguard” to get up at night if there is a loud noise?

*Why does society as a whole seem to have more compassion for “women and children” than men?

*Why do many women expect “crying privileges” and a shoulder to cry on at any moments notice? Why do many women perceive a man’s tears and vulnerability as “weakness”?

*Do women have any “protective instincts” for their men in the same way that some people claim that men have “protective instincts” for their women? If not, does this imply that women love men less than vice versa? After all, we tend to put more effort into protecting the things in life we value more.

*Do women love their children more than their husbands? Is a woman’s “chivalry” generally reserved only for her children (or pets)?

*Why does a man have to “earn” his way into a woman’s bed? Why are some men willing to pay for a prostitute while women would never sleep with a gigolo even for free?

*Why do men (much like job applicants) compete with other men to impress a woman(when she gets to play the role of the choosy employer)?

*Why are so few women or feminists willing to get in the trenches and help do society’s dirty work to help reduce male injury, male disposability, and the longevity gap?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the glass ceiling than the glass cellar?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the so-called pay-gap (which is a myth) than the female-dominated spending gap? Why do some women expect to spend most of the money that the man made?

*Why are there seemingly so many more chivalrous male feminists than female masculists?

*Why do many men treat women as “queens” when many women treat men as “worker bees”?

*Why are so many men “took to the cleaners” after a divorce? Don’t men have feelings like women do?

*How many women are willing to support a stay-at-home husband (and let him spend a large portion of her money)?

*Why do “tomboys” and “daddys girls” seem to be considered charming or cute while “mama’s boys” and “jill girls” seem to elicit images of laughing stocks that still live with their parents and are too “unmanly” or “lazy” to deserve a girlfriend?

*Why aren’t women sometimes made to feel “efemilated” by their mates in the same way that men are sometimes made to feel “emasculated” (it is telling that “efemilated” isn’t even considered a real word)? Why isn’t there a phrase “take it like a woman” to go with the phrase “take it like a man”?

*Why do many women (and men) seem to have pink ribbons on their cars for breast cancer awareness at the expense of also rallying for prostate cancer awareness? Is women’s health more important?

*Why do some women find it easier to slyly “support” or “thank” a man for engaging in dangerous work or war instead of actually showing real thanks by actually doing some of the dirty work themselves (after all, actions speak louder than words)?

*Why do some women not allow metrosexuals the same fashion privileges as themselves? Why are the mens departments so much smaller than the womens departments in many clothing stores?

I know I am generalizing a bit, but I think in general men are traditionally socialized to think of themselves as “less than” women and women are socialized to think of themselves as the proverbial “prize” to be fought for. As such, men could very well be at least half the problem for this less-than-savory state of affairs. At any rate, A first date with a woman can almost seem like a job interview to a man. It seems like many feminists and women want the good parts of traditional roles coupled with special treatment with their new roles. This is not progress….it is traditional and age-old expectations of pampered entitlement.

As for men, I think they need to drop that macho facade and demand better treatment for themselves (and other men). Machismo may indeed be a form of brainwashing to keep men “in their place”. Men are not disposable wallets, and shouldn’t expect to be treated that way by other men or women. They are human beings. I think society should advocate a “new chivalry” where we all protect and care for each other.

I think it would behoove men to consider if it is really worth it to love someone else who might not love them back equally. If a man is willing to “take a bullet” for his true love, it only seems fair that the woman would be willing to do the same for him.

Gender roles hurt us all. Feminists have made their case for equality. Now masculists have to continue doing the same (if true equality is the goal). True equality involves equality in relation to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this is indeed a goal of any given commonwealth, this means helping society close the life expectancy gap, disposability gap, female sentencing gap, spending gap, and establishing equal opportunities for finding joy. It might behoove masculists and feminists alike to join forces in achieving this goal. After all, it seems to me that most people are mindless robots who could essentially care less about masculism or feminism.

A few days ago I heard from a dental nurse that her dentist had looked up the address of her patient before deciding how much to charge her. The patient lived in a good part of town, and so the bill for the removal of her wisdom tooth was bumped up – without her knowledge, of course.

That’s not fair! – was my initial reaction.

But then, I suppose, the dentist would argue that she can charge whatever she likes, and, further, that by doing this sort of thing, she would not have to charge so much to her less well-heeled patients.

Hmm.

Well, that sounds a bit fairer.

I suppose.

But, on the other hand, surely she is just squeezing out of her patients as much money as she thinks that she can get away with?

It all depends how you look at it. It depends on the ‘spin’. But what is the right thing to do?

If the dentist charges the same to everyone, then this is a bit unfair on the poorer patients. On the other hand, if she charges the wealthier more, then this would be a bit unfair on the wealthier patients.

But what is the right thing to do?

Charging wealthier people more for the same services seems to be morally acceptable. After all, this is how the income tax system works. The wealthier pay more taxes for the same governmental goods and services that the poorer will pay less taxes to receive.

It sounds fair.

On the other hand, in most situations, regardless of their wealth, people purchase goods and services at the same price. For example, the supermarket and the electricity board do not determine how much to charge people for their goods and services based on their wealth.

So, in practice, both things seem to be generally acceptable. And, on the whole, it all seems to be more a question of balance. Provided that the wealthier are not charged too much more than poorer folk because of their financial position, they do not create too much of a fuss about it.

But for any given differential between the two, a fuss, at some level, is usually made.

For example, there are some considerable forces at work both to try to reduce the tax burdens on the wealthier as well as to increase them.

As a general rule, the right-wing wants the differentials in tax to be reduced, and the left-wing wants them to be increased. And the only point that I am trying to make in this article is that there is no real solution to the problem. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. It is all a question of balance.

And so there will always be a tussle between the two camps.

But ‘tussle’ is surely too tame a word for what is, in fact, much more like a war.

If you think about the huge amount of energy and resources that go into this problem, it is clearly no minor tussle; the form filling, the accountants, the lawyers, the politicians, the Revenue services, the investigations, the financial planning and pension schemes, the hiding of funds in tax havens, the fiddling of accounts, and so on.

The enterprise concerned with this issue alone is positively enormous!

And it will probably remain so for a considerable length of time to come because there is no solution. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. There is nowhere to be found where to draw a line which will be acceptable to everyone.

It is all a question of balance, with some people leaning one way and with other people leaning the other way.

There is a permanent state of war!

But the balance between the two sides can be very much affected by the motives that appear to be behind the policies being applied.

And this is of considerable significance.

For example, the dentist can be portrayed as a Robin Hood figure, helping the poor by taking some more from the rich. But, on the other hand, she can be seen as something of a Scrooge who is simply trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of each of her clients.

The more that she can get away with, the more she charges.

And who could ever really know the truth behind her motives?

Now consider the following.

Should a woman who can carry one brick in her wheelbarrow be paid the same as a man who can carry two?

By and large, the women will answer Yes to this question, and the men will answer No. But, just as in the previous case concerning the dentist, there is no place where to draw the line that is acceptable to everyone.

For example, if the woman is to get paid the same as the man despite the fact that she does only half the work, then the men will see this as unfair. On the other hand, if the woman gets only half the pay because she does only half the work, then the women will argue that this is unfair because women cannot physically do the same job as the men.

And the important point to understand is that there is nowhere to draw the line that will be acceptable to both sides of the argument.

And so it is that the quest for women’s ‘equality’ will never be achieved.

Just as in the case of the dentist charging differential amounts to different patients, there will always be arguments over where to draw the line.

And, just as in the wheelbarrow case, there will always be different ways of portraying the opponents.

“Women are just too selfish. They expect to get paid the same for carrying one brick as we men will get paid for carrying two.”

“Men are just too selfish. They expect to get paid more than women even though women put in the same amount of effort.”

A permanent gender war over pay!

And, of course, the one-brick versus two-brick argument is just a trite metaphor for all the arguments that might surround pay. In the real world, the arguments over pay might be over the issue of, say, women in the military getting the same pay as the men despite the fact that they are very rarely asked to risk their lives. Or, perhaps, the argument might be over whether or not a woman who has chosen to take eight years away from her job in order to have children should get the same pay on returning to work as those men and women who have worked without such long term absence.

And, of course, the arguments concerning the two genders will not be confined solely to issues that arise over pay. These controversial issues will – and do already – extend to the family, the children, the home, the workplace, divorce, the justice system, the health services, and so on; in fact, they will extend to wherever there is an issue where one gender might seemingly be being treated differently, or preferentially, to the other.

And these issues can be made to be controversial wherever men and women function together in their lives – in other words …

… just about everywhere!

And in arguing for the line to be drawn so that it always heavily favours women, the feminists and their supporters have, indeed, managed to invade everybody’s lives just about everywhere.

Thus, in much the same way that there are huge and pervasive industries that have to deal with the ins and outs of our taxes and our welfare system in order to ‘draw the lines’ when it comes to money, other huge and pervasive industries have been growing in order to help to ‘draw the lines’ in the battles of the genders – though, thus far, these industries have been highly prejudicial against men.

But, because there is no way that these lines can be drawn in a manner that will be acceptable to everyone, there will always now be a tussle between the two genders! – with the tussle becoming much more evident – and much worse in nature – now that the men’s movement is growing.

There is no solution even to the problem of how much a woman should be paid relative to a man when it comes to carrying bricks in their wheel barrows.

And there will also certainly be no solution when it comes to most other matters.

The arguments are therefore going to be endless, and the balance is going to swing this way and that way for ever more.

What a terrible thought!

Not just over pay, remember. But in just about every area of life.

Thus far, however, for the past 30 years, the feminists have been arguing the case for women almost unopposed. The case for men has been silenced through the weapons of intimidation and political correctness.

In fact, there has not been much of a tussle at all.

But this is now changing.

Even though it is still the case that huge resources are being put into bolstering the case for women, the case for men, at last, is beginning to garner more and more support.

And, in the not too distant future, billions upon billions of dollars worth of our energies and our resources are going to be bound up in dealing with these insoluble issues – the issues surrounding the differential treatments of the two genders, and where to draw the lines.

What a waste of our time.

But there are three big differences between the tussles over drawing the line between those who have more money and those who have less (the dentist scenario, taxes etc) and between those tussles relating to gender issues.

The first difference is that our personal relationships, which are probably the most important areas of our lives – far more important than money in the eyes of most – are being interfered with by outsiders.

The second difference is that the industries that are being spawned to deal with these gender issues are encroaching upon people to an extent that is rapidly becoming unacceptable, and it is causing relationships to break down.

And the third difference is that the two genders are being divided into opposing sides to an extent that is probably unknown in history.

It is a nightmare scenario.

There is nowhere to draw the line! – and so there will be a permanent gender war; until, that is, the feminists and their phony victim groups are finally kicked into the oblivion where they belong.

 

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.
They hadn’t. Feminists had nothing to do with it.
It was manufactured by a man – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.
You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.
This is complete and utter rubbish.
I was actually a young man when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can you without reservation that it was men (like me) who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.
But, as is usual, the feminists have lied and deceived over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.
Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.
Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.
I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960’s and the early 1970’s.
They seemed to appear from nowhere.
‘Normal’ feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.
Make love, not war!
These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner.
Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.
The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.
Regretfully, they didn’t.
They stayed.
By the very late 60’s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by men.
But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.
When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.
Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.
However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.
And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.
(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)
If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.
This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.
Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.
Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.
Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!
Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.
The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.
And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!
Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.
In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.
And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.
Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ‘sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ‘sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.
And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.
Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!
The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.
It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.
Of course it was.
It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.
As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.
It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.
I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.
Feminists repelled them.
And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally ‘genderless’.
Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.
And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.
Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!
And some even end up in prison.
It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.
Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.
It’s pretty much what they do today.
And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.
When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.
They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.
And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.
It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.
And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.
The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).
The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.
But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.
The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.
And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.
And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing.
They hadn’t. Feminists had nothing to do with it.
It was manufactured by a man – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other male scientists who went before him.
You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade you that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.
This is complete and utter rubbish.
I was actually a young man when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can you without reservation that it was men (like me) who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.
But, as is usual, the feminists have lied and deceived over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked oppressors of women.
Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.
Well, as someone who was sexually active around the time that the pill became available in the UK, here is what the situation was really like in those days.
I remember very clearly the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960’s and the early 1970’s.
They seemed to appear from nowhere.
‘Normal’ feminists (such as the likes of Erin Pizzey) had been around for some time, and we were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.
Make love, not war!
These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly derogatory manner.
Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.
The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.
Regretfully, they didn’t.
They stayed.
By the very late 60’s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by men.
But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.
When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.
Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.
However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression by the men whom they wished to marry.
And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.
(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)
If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.
This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.
Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.
Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.
Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed!
Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his penis just at the point when he really wanted it there.
The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.
And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!
Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.
In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.
And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.
Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ‘sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ‘sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.
And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.
Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!
The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.
It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was men who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.
Of course it was.
It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.
As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.
It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.
I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.
Feminists repelled them.
And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile and emotionally ‘genderless’.
Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. The truth is that men sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.
And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.
Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!
And some even end up in prison.
It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.
Think about it. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.
It’s pretty much what they do today.
And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.
When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.
They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.
And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.
It was men who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.
And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.
The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and sex each other, without clothes, and without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life! (as marriage was once wont to be).
The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.
But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.
The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.
And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.
And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

 

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake “nuclear threat”, with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year  a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist”in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran  in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?