Thursday, February 08, 2007

This is What We Need to be Doing!

I have filched the following from a UK blog which I stumbled upon in the course of my internet meanderings. Although it is self-explanatory, I will explain it a little bit anyway. Notice that the author is addressing women as a group for counter-feminist recruitment purposes. We need to start doing this more and more! We need to start cranking out these kinds of open letters and manifestos that talk directly to the female population and incite them to open rebellion against feminism!

What's that you say, women won't go for it? I beg to differ. It is probably true that the majority of women won't go for it at first. However, a significant and influential minority will in fact do so, and once those individuals are in motion we can expect a follower effect, followed by a growth of social pressure along useful lines - which ought to encompass both non-feminist women, and weak feminists. The harder strata will prove resistant as always.

The prose style in this piece is, I would say, nearly ideal to reach the audience that needs to be reached.

A CALL TO ALL WOMEN

The majority of women have given up their right to speak for themselves, their basic human rights and their political authority, to others. No it’s not men who dictate to you women nor is it the imaginary “Patriarchy” who now speaks on your behalf and dictates what it is that you women supposedly want. It isn’t men who influence the politicians who shape the law. No, it’s feminists or should I say man-haters.

Let me enlighten the majority of women, the ones who actually like men, as to just how a situation like the one described in the interview above can happen. The corrupt laws that make this travesty of justice not only possible but, indeed, likely to occur again and again, are the laws that were created by man-haters called feminists. You think that feminists only hate bad men, but that’s not true, they hate all men, including your father, your sons, your husband and even your male ancestors. By giving these people a voice our society now pretends that feminists speak on behalf of all women. This is not true. As you read the interview above does it fill you with anger that a completely innocent man (and his loyal wife) have had to endure three and a half years of wrongful imprisonment purely on the word of a serial rape liar who used several aliases in order to make many false allegations against many innocent men?

It’s now claimed that the police knew his accuser was a serial liar who had a long record of making false accusations, but it didn’t stop them pursuing the case. Nor did the negative forensic evidence that proved she had lied about being raped, but as a consequence the police merely downgraded the charge to sexual assault. Just think about that for a moment. It’s claimed that the police knew that this woman had made false claims many times before and that the forensic evidence contradicted her story, and yet they still persisted with the case. If this is true it beggars belief. The only evidence was her testimony and yet she was apparently known to be a repeated false accuser. Oh and guess what? The Crown Prosecution Service announced recently that they intend to take no action whatsoever against this serial rape liar who still enjoys legal protection and as a result cannot be named. So she’s quite free to do this again.

So, I ask you women this question…….. What will you do when your son, your father, your brother, or your husband is accused and wrongly imprisoned like Warren Blackwell? Why do you allow feminist-man-haters, whose lifestyle is nothing like yours, to speak on your behalf? Unless you women stand up for your men these man-haters will continue to erode the basic human rights of your men folk. If you stand back and do nothing you have no right to complain when it affects your family.

If you’re a woman go to feminist websites and look at what they say about men like your husband, your sons, your brother, your father, in other words the men you love. They celebrate when men are killed, they wish false imprisonment on all men, they say that all men are rapists and they do this because they hate men, all men, including your men. So why do you allow these psychos to speak on your behalf?

Here is a link to the text in its native habitat:

A Call to All Women


I don't know what your experience will be, but I find that this blog formats dreadfully in my Firefox browser. I had to copy and paste the text into an editor in order to read it effectively!

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe what you are doing is right but have you thought more about enlarging the scheme to include the catholic church now that it's hour has come.I know most of us are not ardent catholics or even go to church very much but gay adoption and abortion are probably 2 things we CAN agree on.
I feel that it is not a % of women we are fighting but also a fair % of powerful gays who are determined that heterosexual should =perversion and that families should be a thing of the past.Icannot see theem as MRA'S.

2:26 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

You seek to elicit my opinions, yes?

I am, let it be confessed, not an ardent catholic - nor any other kind.

Nor do I regard Christ Jesus the Divine Logos as more than a platonic convenience with Judaic embroidery.

Abortion? That is beyond a doubt the WORST method birth control ever invented. I grant that it ain't nice, although I percieve a stark difference between aborting a 2 day-old zygote and aborting a third trimester fetus which is recognizably human and very likely viable. The universe is replete with gray zones and gray transitions, to be sure!

If the fems continue to provoke my ire, maybe I will join the pro-life camp; it would serve them right! At the very least, they had better step up and beat the drum for a 'Roe vs. Wade for men'. Then I might look more charitably upon them....

And if those "powerful gays" indeed want to equate heterosexuality with perversion, then I quite agree, in that case, that they are worthless as MRAs. In addition to being stark, raving, blithering idiots!

Gay adoption? Best not to encourage it, particularly in view of of the shambles which hetero family and marriage have fallen into in recent years. Gay family-making is frankly at the bottom of my list of concerns nowadays - it's not unlike like fiddling while Rome burns. We need to get our priorities straight. And I would say that hetero always out-prioritizes gay!

Families? Yep...let's preserve them. Just to be on the safe side. Write me down as a conservative in that respect.

8:12 PM  
Blogger Davout said...

Fidel,

I am one of those non-ardent Catholics and oppose abortion, but on non-religious albeit moral grounds.

My opposition is based on two points:

1. What is the difference between zygote and human, if there is no impartial scientific consensus on when exactly the zygote becomes human?

The burden of proof should be on the scientists to show the exact point at which life begins. If credible scientists can provide evidence like this:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetology.htm

How, then, can anyone assume that life does not begin at conception?

The working philosophy of abortion providers is 'guilty until proven innocent': "It is not a baby if one cannot prove beyond doubt that it is a baby".

2. The burden of responsibility should be placed wholly on the both people engaging in the sexual act that produced the baby i.e. you play, you pay. No cop-outs allowed or straws to clutch at.

If provisions to implement the above are put in place, there is an immediate burden placed on sexual partners to not have sex until they are in a position to pay for the result of a conscious and deliberate act.

11:04 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Davout: Since I'm too tired to write much, I will pass over the question of when life begins, whether life is "sacred" (whatever that might mean), and what is the source of morality...

However, for pragmatic reasons...I do believe there is a good case to be made that the expression "casual sex" is an oxymoron.

9:09 PM  
Blogger Danny Vice said...

Although this case exposes the outlandish miscarriage of justice towards the wrongly accused in the UK, we wish this were an isolated incident.

The fact is, even in the United States, restitution for those incarcerated is certainly not guaranteed. In fact, in many states, there are more government resources for those released on parole than there are for those who have been wrongly incarcerated and later exonerated and released.

Currently, an overwhelming number of people who have been exonerated of a crime are not compensated for the toll the incarceration took on their lives socially and economically.

Thus far, only 22 states in the US have laws in place to provide some level of compensation for those who were wrongly convicted. This means a majority of those who went back to court and proved their innocence are then required to sue for this compensation.

This process utilizes significant resources that a recently released inmate typically does not have. For those who do have the knowledge or financial ability to bring a case, the enormous cost of the additional legal wrangling involved may soak up much of the payout.

Many victims of this outrageous process are handed the more daunting challenge of simply restoring their name, let alone consideration of a lawsuit that may or may not result in restitution for the time that has been lost.

What's more, the payout often times received is meager in comparison to what is usually lost. Marty Tankleff for example was sentenced to a New York state prison after being wrongly convicted of killing his parents. Although his case was recently overturned, Marty just recently visited his parent's graves for the first time since their deaths.

Ronnie Taylor, a Houston man who was recently exonerated of a crime he didn't commit was engaged to be married before his arrest in 1993. DNA testing proved his innocence 14 years later - allowing him to finally marry his bride Jeanette Brown. (source)

The Innocence Protect, one organization established in 1992 utilizes DNA testing as a means to force new hearings for those who are wrongly accused. It's website lists hundreds of cases of wrongly convicted individuals who's cases were overturned after a conviction.

While the Weekly Vice does not subscribe to every point of view of the Project's mission statement, one has to wonder where our culture would be without such advocates. Many wrongfully accused individuals have languished in prison for decades before their faulty convictions were tossed out.

Here are a few more examples of justice gone horribly wrong:

Dennis Brown from Louisiana was convicted of a 1984 rape and spent 19 years in prison before DNA testing confirmed that he could not have been the rapist.

Marvin Anderson became the ninety-ninth person in the US to be exonerated of a crime due to post-conviction DNA testing. Even when another individual confessed to the crime Lamont was accused of, the Judge upheld the conviction until DNA evidence finally confirmed Lamont's innocence. He wasn't exonerated until 1992, nearly 20 years after his arrest.

Orlando Boquete's wrongful conviction of attempted sexual battery was vacated a staggering 24 years after his arrest back in 1982.

Robert Clark, wrongly convicted of rape, kidnapping and armed robbery in 1982, languished in prison primarily by mistaken eyewitness. Mistaken identity seems to be a common theme with the cases that later get overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. Clark was finally vindicated 24 years later.

Luis Diaz was wrongly convicted in 1980 as the 'Bird Road Rapist', where 25 women were attacked, many of them sexually assaulted. Diaz was convicted for 8 of them. His case was overturned 25 years later in 2005.

Conclusion:

These are only a handful of the cases you can view HERE, however they are a sampling of the many instances where our legal system goes horribly wrong to such degree that compensation for one's life cannot be calculated as a mere loss of wages as most restitution awarding states provide.

The Weekly Vice supports tough sentencing guidelines for all sexual assault cases, particularly those of minor children.

We also believe however, that states should be equally aggressive with some level of state subsidy, restitution or other adjudged compensation that is deemed appropriate for each individual case. A dismal 22 states is not a goodwill showing for a nation who prides itself on a Justice For All philosophy.

Thanks For Accepting Comment-----

Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talking about abortion, has anyone noticed that pregnant women NEVER carry a BABY?
And never did.

Women do not give birth to human babies: they can give birth to foetuses only.

If you follow the feminist theology, feminists claim loud and clear that what they bear in their uterus is NOT human.
So, according the the feminists themselves, no woman has ever given birth to a human being.

Since they can abort until the foetus is about to come out, what they produce is not a human infant, but a MERE FOETUS.
A simple, worthless foetus.

Therefore, motherhood does not exist any more than fatherhood.

I thought it was important to point out this fallacy.


Anarchiste

12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home