Tuesday, March 31, 2015

 

Top Selection! Ray Ban Only 14.12 GBP. 12:34:16

Hi stevemoxon.imprint@blogger.com exquisite fruit fruit

Top Selection! Ray Ban Only 14.12 GBP. 12:34:16 cap exquisite artificial

All Style + All Colors Free Delivery on Orders over 3pcs artificial guide railroad artificial

RayeBanqFactorylDirectaSalespNetworkeRoom. cap artificial artificial largely

GenuinehRaywBanlFactorydDirectoSaleaOnline. ShopxformGlassesbOnline. fruit exquisite artificial

OnlinguStore:  www.hottest-styles.comexquisite artificial artificial guide

artificial artificial guide guide largely grape exquisite guide

exquisite fruit fruit artificial fruit cap

grape exquisite artificial grape cap largely grape exquisite guide

grape grape grape artificial cap cap

 


Thursday, March 12, 2015

 

The daft farrago over Farage's call for employers to not preferentially out-source outside the UK, and to scrap totalitarian equality law

 
Predictably political class establishment figures have shown themselves to be the rabid bigots they are in attacking Nigel Farage's call for employers to preferentially employ the UK-born, and – even aside from this being misrepresentation – to get rid of some of the equality legislation.
    Out-sourcing abroad by employees seriously undermines the employment, pay and training opportunities of UK-born individuals, 'black' and 'white' – and especially relatively recently arrived migrants. It's nothing to do with 'race' It's a no-brainer. Even the Gorgon Brown called for "British jobs for British workers" (before he called "that woman" "bigoted" for having the same opinion).
     The farrago is more over a question to the UKIP leader about what might be the future in "UKIP land"; that is not what is likely to be in the next or any near-future UKIP manifesto; but anyway is hardly less of a no-brainer. 'Equal opportunities and diversity' [sic] is a farce, and it is about de facto quotas and not mere 'positive discrimination'.
     Not only is the legislation over-zealous, open to abuse, out-dated, and geared to looking in the wrong places – 'racism' being 'in-group love' rather than 'out-group hate', is therefore more apparent from migrant enclaves rather than to them: an issue more of 'ethnic'-on-'white and inter-ethnic – but it is the product of 'identity politics' totalitarianism, which is based not at all on any sort of consideration for minorities but on contempt for and hatred towards the mass of ordinary people. [See my paper on this: http://stevemoxon.co.uk/identitypoliticsandpc.php]
     Liebore politicians have the gall to accuse the UKIP leader of "breathtaking ignorance", when this charge can squarely be levelled at them.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

 

More hysterical nonsense about Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile

 
A further nonsense 'report' about Jimmy Savile is published just as the process which led to this witch-hunt travesty is being rehearsed all over again with Cliff Richard by the ever useless South Yorkshire Police and the BBC, stung into further wild flailing fantasy by the lambasting they received this week.
     When will anyone learn that if you carry out a police-media trawl of any and every celebrity, then inevitably a line of variously motivated complainants comes forward? This is just as would be expected no matter how clearly innocent is the target. And they don't come much more obviously innocent than Cliff Richard.
It's not as though this phenomenon is unknown or non-researched. It's taboo, of course: Professor Keith Soothill's findings about the amazingly trivial varied motivations of women making false rape allegations is never even mentioned in the media. And that's before you consider the research on the hopelessness of human memory even for events which have just happened, never mind putative occurrences of 30 or 40 years ago, for which 'false memories' are readily constructed. The media spotlight and financial recompense enter the fray with high-profile police-media trawling; as does the issue of the sheer volume of individuals – the entire population – from which there are significant numbers of psychologically disturbed women seeking a peg on which to hang their aberrant life histories, supposed PTSD, etc. When you have literally thousands of sexual encounters in your past, then it's a fair bet that a lot of now ageing females are going to redefine consensual and, indeed their initiated advances, as now somehow non-consensual.
     The report on Savile is merely yet further cataloguing of mere allegation, on the spurious grounds that parallel allegation must be mutually corroborating. It's profoundly false to rely on the very phenomenon your investigative methods in themselves were bound to produce as justification for your investigation and its mode. It's a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' almost certain to result in miscarriage of justice.
     It's not that all there is here is invention, of course; it's not least the exaggeration of behaviour which appears to be nothing out of the ordinary for a very high-profile youth-cult celebrity. At worst, Savile was described as a "sex pest". No doubt he had a presumptive attitude that a kiss or cuddle from him usually would be welcome. That's because usually obviously they were. But it is madness to extrapolate the likely high volume of sex he had with young women and older girls in his trailer by the TOTP studio to try to make out that somehow this was with unwilling partners, and that he transferred this behaviour to a hospital setting. Someone at the time in Savile's position would have had an endless stream of girls throwing themselves at him. It would require saintly behaviour never to have misread signals and never to have unwittingly had sex with an under-age girl (when girls by the thousand lied about their ages to get into the TOTP studio). The normal behaviour of such males at times might now, in our crazy era, pass for misdemeanour as 'sexual harassment', but hardly so at the time; and if it would have been thus considered it would be regarded as mild. It's not 'rape' or serious sexual assault. And still less was it 'paedophilia', even on the non-scientific current absurdly loose definition of the term – 'paedophilia is an exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubertal individuals, and Savile had a non-exclusive sexual interest in post-pubertal girls (he had sex with fully mature women).
     History, and very recent history included, is littered with appalling witch-hunts of male sexual behaviour. It is not long ago that we had the utterly risible 'satanic sexual abuse' hysteria. This was found, eventually, to be 100% bogus. It was a wholly non-existent phenomenon. Now we have a recapitulation of that ridiculous hysteria to try to convict any male ageing celebrity through inviting bogus allegation or to goad anyone who has any sort of social or willing sexual encounter to redefine it as assault. So it is that Rolf Harris – Rolf Harris of all people – is in prison on the basis of nothing substantive. Ditto several others, not to mention the many cases too absurdly flimsy that even in the current climate the sex-fascists at the CPS couldn't persuade some hapless jury to convict.
     I need to add, it should go without saying it (though in our numptie-coddling era it's necessary), that it may be that Savile indeed was the serious predator he's being made out to be, but there is in place of evidence only allegation. Therefore, no such conclusion can be made. But more than this, the likelihood is that surely he was 'a bit of a lad' but worse than that he was not.
     This debacle will be looked back on by future generations as an object lesson in how crazy a society can become..
 

Saturday, February 07, 2015

 

Rotherham 'PC': Liebore shafts itself in its own rotten borough

 
Everybody now fully accepts that 'political correctness' -- the enforcement of 'identity politics' principles – is at the root of the dysfunctional Labour rotten borough of Rotherham; everybody bar the Labour Party and its union sponsors, that is. The parachuted-in all-wimmin (and no locals)-rigged new MP there, Sarah Champion, reckons UKIP is inappropriately making a political issue out of it. Come again?! [Well we can hardly expect much logic or sense from someone so protected from any meaningful competition in her selection.]
     It IS of course a political issue and with giant knobs on. The issue is 'PC': the totalitarian ethos which, more than any other organisation, the Liebore Party has foisted on us. This is the political party that originally and still more than any other embodies the nonsense of 'the personal is political'. Yet Liebore is pushing the line that the gang-rape of large numbers of under-age girls in a pretty crappy town Liebore was instrumental, in various ways, of making crappy … that this somehow is not political! It's one thing to turn UK steelmaking into a crazily, vastly over-manned and thereby massively uncompetitive industry (costing the taxpayer, back in the early 1980s, £100 per week per employee), but it is quite a feat to feed the over-manning with huge numbers of wholly non-needed people from an alien culture; who form a separate migrant enclave, from which come those who manufacture instead of steel an actual (rather than the feminists' imagined) 'rape culture'.
     Could Liebore any better gift UKIP the Rotherham Parliamentary seat?
 
The now all-pervasive totalitarian ideology of our age ('identity politics' reinforced by 'PC') hides the basis of the strong link between rape and ethnic minority: the rape of 'host' community girls by migrant enclave men. The Pakistani-on-'white' gang-rape culture further revealed in Rotherham – already officially well known back in 2002 and the subject of now three reports – is a window on the core reality of forced sex (that is, rape as popularly well understood, and not the usually cross-signals or retrospective withdrawal of consent that is most 'acquaintance rape'): it occurs across a major in-group/ out-group divide. 'Normal' males do not appear to force sex on females within what they perceive to be their own community. Yes, in certain scenarios, such as a war theatre, given certain conditions men may force sex when the target would be clearly belonging to a very distinct out-group (not the sort of arbitrary 'minimal' group created in social psychology experiments). 'White' girls were not part of the community of these Pakistani men, as they perceived things; and evidently were regarded as 'fair game' -- like ISIS warriors view non-Wahhabi females.
     As highlighted in the new (as in the previous) report, and as everyone knows would always have been the case, the 'race card' was shown to anyone so much as hinting they might make a fuss about people who, though of the politically hated class 'men', happened to be of an ethnic minority. The critical factor in why the problem persisted unaddressed for so long is the 'identity politics' (/'PC') imperative not to raise an issue in respect of a 'group' identified as 'disadvantaged' and 'oppressed'.
     It is -- to use the risible Rotherham MP's word – "hilarious" that her Party's deliberate mass importation of an un-needed and undesired alien culture has bit the hand that fed it, just as the Roma are biting David Blunkett's guilty bum in adjacent parts of Sheffield. 'Social engineering' by politicians motivated by hatred towards the masses in their 'identity politics' (/'PC') has boomeranged, as it has long been obvious it would do.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

 

UK law on collision course with itself: The CPS openly inverts legal process in demanding the DEFENDENT must PROVE his INNOCENCE

 
Well there we have it. In plain record, the CPS is completely undermining its very legal basis of innocence until proven guilt.
     It has been very clear for a decade now that the rape law is a total inversion of the founding principle of law; ever since the Sex Offences Act of 2003, in which there is actually set out a list – though not an exhaustive one! – of the steps males supposedly should take to establish consent! [No mention, of course, of needing a degree in female psychology to work out when 'no' means 'yes' – this 'no' meaning 'yes' being the usual and often only form of consent females provide in the course of standard courtship behaviour.]
     The previous Director of Public Prosecutions, the idiot Kier Starmer, made it clear; and it's now even clearer with the statements from his replacement, the extreme-feminist, Alison Saunders. She was talking this week about 'date rape' but misleadingly elided it with 'stranger rape' when she cited the standard response by women in 'stranger rape' of 'freezing', as if this would be a usual or even a rare response in instances where the parties are so comfortable with each other as to be on a date, and where usually the worst of the matter is the sort of communication cross-wires that are the hallmark of interaction between the sexes. Saunders initially raised the context of drink – but anyway widened it to the extent that pretty well any sexual encounter would be encompassed – as if alcohol would not impair judgement by both parties and not just the woman. A man and woman drinking together are in effect a mutual conspiracy to bring about the prospect of sex by loosening courtship interaction, and this could be considered effectively entrapment of the man by the woman as much as if not more than the other way round. She cannot claim to offload all responsibility on to the male, so that only he can be deemed to be reckless and not her.
     Let's spell out what SHOULD and previously always was the case: that men 'must' in NO way establish that a woman consents to sex in order to avoid being found guilty of rape. It is entirely for the CROWN to PROVE, and to prove BEYOND DOUBT that consent was NOT given. That is a high bar, as it should be, in congruence with all other UK law – except that other arena where a woman is (supposedly, but – the research comprehensively reveals – actually in a minority of instances) a putative 'victim': domestic violence. Note that Saunders explicitly linked here.
     There is no debate on this issue. Either the founding principle of British law applies or it does not.
     The CPS has capitulated wholesale to 'identity politics' ideological hatred towards males, and it is now open to legal challenge.
This should get interesting.
     Even the media is starting to wake up. They have taken their time, but better late than never. The Telegraph led with the front page main headline: 'Men must prove a woman said yes'. The awakening media here surprisingly includes the dreaded Boob. A BBC Today presenter put to Saunders that she was in breach of the foundation of law. She pretended she was not, of course; but so thinly she didn't convince even her extreme-feminist woman interviewer.
     That Nutsville USA really has become Nutsbridge UK in the sex arena could not be better illustrated just this week, when a Sheffield man was given a four-year prison sentence for … outraging public decency! Four years?! So what was he doing: ejaculating on to seven-year-olds, or worse? Er, no. He was accused … and note, NOT found guilty … but merely accused of having sex. So who was it in front of? Well, actually nobody. Only in privacy?! Yes, indeed. What got the goat, as it were, of the (apparently insane) jury and the utterly witless judge was that the sexual partner – er, the ALLEGED sexual partner – was ….. a horse. The case was one of alleged bestiality. There was no evidence of any kind of harm to any horse: only to the apparent goat that got the jury and judge. The man in the dock was not inappropriately named Andrew Barnfield. [I am NOT making this up: check the news reports and the records of the Sheffield Crown Court.]
     Something is happening here, and we don't know … actually, we do know, very well … what it is. The times they are … well, soon will be … a changin'. Nutsville and Nutsbridge can last only so long.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

 

'Page three' exploited MEN, not women; and the 'campaign' was a risible femascist own-goal

Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted ….. and then discovering the horse to be a mule. 'Page three' is irrelevant against the tsunami of free internet porn vids. Getting rid of 'page three' ends an exploitation of men, not of women. Men were charged for a newspaper for which their main interest was a single still of a woman's boobs. Nowadays there's an infinite array of actually moving images of a lot more than just boobs and it's ALL FOR FREE. The complainants today about the Sun's apparent move are hardly male consumers …. they're the 'page three' models themselves. They deeply resent feminist authoritarians telling them that they can't freely choose to flaunt their bodies to make a living by exploiting men. What is feminism for, they point out, if not to give women wider choices? How can feminism be about narrowing women's choices? They may well ask.
     Of course, actually the Sun's move has nothing whatsoever to do with feminists' lame, frankly comic – frankly risible -- campaigning. On the very contrary, the femascists were great publicity for the Sun. Like the suffragettes, their upper-middle/upper-class numptie counterparts a century before them, they were key to keeping going the very thing they were campaigning against! They did everything bar marching working-class blokes into the newsagents to show their solidarity by even more assiduously buying the rag. Self-evidently, Rupert Murdoch has long realised that an image on newsprint paper is very low-quality, and no match for the high-res images on-line – an orgy of boobs and more will continue there in the online edition of The Sun, just as before. 'Page three' was a rather embarrassing anachronism in the new internet digital world, rendering the Sun very 'yesterday' in context. It wasn't an embarrassing anachronism as femascists see it.
     The femascists can't even get Germaine Greer on-side on this one (as re many of their airhead campaigns). On C4 News she insisted she'd never called for banning 'page three'. She was never in any position to, having famously plastered herself in 'wide-open-beaver' shot on the front cover of a magazine in the 1970s! Harriet Harpy-twat was hilariously ambushed on the programme between Germaine and a young model.
     And so is starkly illuminated the hapless idiocy of contemporary feminism with its split on every issue. In the pithy words of a popular Youtube vid: 'Feminism .…. Make your fucking mind up'.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

 

'Radical Islam' is a revolutionary Left ideology as much as or more than it is Islamic


'Radical Islam' -- as espoused by the Parisian terrorists this week -- is not, or is only partly an extremism that comes from Islam itself; albeit that the very old sect of Wahhabism certainly is extremist. As the philosopher John Gray outlines in his book, 'Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia', the founder of 'radical Islam', the Egyptian intellectual, Sayyid Qutb, got his ideas from Bolshevism (of Lenin's).
     A notably Western revolutionary basis of 'radical Islam' is ignored – covered up -- by the political-Left elite, now the establishment across the board. It's the same wilful blindness as when they continue as ever unconvincingly to vehemently deny that 'National Socialism' was anything to do with them, despite it being clearly a pragmatic version of Marxism in rejecting internationalism (as Mussolini, the editor of the newspaper of the party of the Italian socialists had done) as a motivation for 'the proletariat' when it is impractical – it does not accord with human nature regarding in-grouping – and counter-productive in time of war.
All revolutionary politics stems from the French Revolution and the notion of 'the terror' as the means of supposed irreversible change. It's the antithesis of conservatism, so it cannot be of the political-Right. Religions are notably conservative; they are not revolutionary in nature.
     The truth is that just as we have the extremist bastardisation of the political-left in 'identity politics' and its enforcement in 'PC' to attack the masses for not being revolutionary; so we have a revolutionary movement from within migrant enclaves that also attacks us.
     Yet even the self-evident fact that we have a 'fifth column' of revolutionary Islamists was denied in the usual closed ranks of the political class and media when Nigel Farage pointed it out (and one of the miscreants was the perennially useless Teresa May). That it's a small minority – as Farage himself explicitly qualified – does not detract from the fact that we indeed do have a 'fifth column' of 'Islamacists'; here in the UK as in France, as in the Netherlands, etc.
     Debate hasn't got any more honest, has it? It is wholly dishonest, and will remain so as long as the major parties and media continue to play at being 'useful idiots' to the hegemonic extreme ideology of 'identity politics' and 'PC' they thereby assist in entrenching, instead of seeing 'identity politics' and 'PC' for the total nonsense, gross deception and actually ant-egalitarian nastiness it is.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?