Ian B on Paedomania


by Ian B

My heart sank when I saw the Hall guilty plea. Yewtree needed a first scalp, and now they have it. The concept of justice has been entirely trampled now by a stampeding mob frenzied by moral panic.

I can understand why an elderly man in his position would accept a plea bargain, for the reasons described by Ecks above. But it is sad.

Ecks quotes me, some time ago, saying they want a Steven Lawrence Moment. I still stand by that. The thing they are after though is a complete repudiation of the 1970s. It represents the period between the two Feminist waves, when First Wave Political Correctness all but collapsed, and before Second Wave PC had been installed, under which we now live.

First Wave PC was the Victorian/Progressive system. It was installed at the behest of upper class matrons, seeking a puritan value system to maximise their own benefit (strict control of men and morality, such as temperance, censorship etc). They then demanded the vote in the expectation that women voters would maintain that system in place. Having achieved as much as they could, FW Feminism withered away. Intelligent educated women gravitated to marxism and other such ideologies. As such, there was nobody left minding the Feminist store; and as a consequence, that first wave of PC broke down.

It turned out that women en masse, even with the vote, didn’t really like it that much; because it restricted their freedom too. Feminists believed that women are naturally reluctant virgins who only have sex due to male pressure. That isn’t true. When the Pill arrived, the women were truly free. And Puritanism wasn’t what most of them wanted.

So, the second wave arose, out of a small cabal of upper class, prudish protestant and Jewish princesses. By tying themselves to the Left, they could pretend to be new and radical, even though all they were doing was resurrecting the aged Victorian system. (A few more liberal feminist writers spotted this, and denounced the Radicals as “Neo-Victorian” in the Village Voice, but were sadly ignored).

One has to grudgingly admire them for their success. The breakdown of the Victorian system by 1970 was so complete that people less motivated- or less mad- would have thought the situation hopeless. But they persevered. It took torrents of propaganda, endless political manouevering, moral panics of an insane nature like Satanic Ritual Abuse, and a cunning alliances with remants of first wave puritanism on the American Religous Right, the adoption of “trauma” narratives from loony therapists, the Recovered Memory cult, and enormous dogged persistence, but they did it. They reinstalled sexual Puritanism.

Hence the need to kill, specifically, the 1970s. It represents the world without puritan feminist rules. It represents a time when they were not in control. It is thus vital to their campaign to show this period as one of horror, degradation and misery. It is saying, “look, when you tried freedom, see what happened! Do you want that again?”.

People have forgotten that men like Savile and Hall and Dave Lee Travis were once, in the 70s, genuinely big names, admired by millions, especially youngsters. By the 1980s, they had become rather faded stars as the 1970s became tragically unhip, with memories of flared trousers and everything made of nylon. The Smashie And Nicey characters represented that perfectly; these two faded, naff, minor celebs past their sell-by date. A bit creepy, old hat, representatives of an era that had entirely passed in the wake of Punk and Alternative Comedy and so on. Nowadays, it is rather hard to believe that they were ever cool, and so the idea that any young woman might have thrown herself at them seems so hard to believe; indeed the women themselves, now older, would have found that they had once done so hard to believe. Unlike the big rock stars who (besides being considered generally left wing and thus jolly good sorts) are stil considered admirable and “cool”, if in a retro-nostalgia kind of a way, and who everyone knows had numerous underage girls on their tour buses and who, surely, some of whom must have been more insistent than a naive young groupie expected- these faded 70s has beens were perfect targets for represnting the repudiation of the era. Because all one can imagine today is a naff old man in an ugly sweater and combover, seedily fiddling with a naive waif. The mental image is important. In the mind, we might well create a sympathetic mental image of a young Mick Jagger with a fangirl. But not that silly old fucker off It’s A Knockout. Perfect!

Well, the Radicals have played their joker on this one, and it looks like they’re not heading for an early bath. (How long before we hear of Eddie Waring in his pork pie hat, doing something unspeakable?) This is the damnation of an era. An era when the matrons briefly lost control of everybody else. They will not willingly let that happen again.

Dark times ahead, I fear.

 

About these ads

39 responses to “Ian B on Paedomania

  1. I disagree. I don’t disagree in the sense that Ian has got it comprehensively wrong. There is something to the historical scheme he draws. Where I think he goes wrong is in his analysis of where the present witch hunt is going.

    Rather than argue about the past – which is open to endless interpretation – let’s look to the future. I say that the Great Paedomania is now going out of control. Its immediate cause was the wish, last autumn, to draw attention from those trials of Moslem rapists. Jimmy Savile seemed a good victim to throw to the wolves. But we then moved to living victims of the same type. Now, the Establishment is trying desperately to protect Nigel Evans, one of its own, who is being done for (so it has been alleged) “consorting with rent boys”.

    Until a few months ago, it was possible to sneer at all those claims that we are ruled by a cabal of kiddy-fiddlers. The systematic cover up at the Beeb has wiped the sneer off my face. I still say that no prosecution should be allowed more than three years after any alleged assault, or one year after a complainant reached the age of eighteen – whichever is later .I say that anyone who comes forward outside those limits is by definition unreliable. On the other hand, those old men were almost certainly up to something. And so was Cyril Smith. So was that Tory MP who died recently and was outed as a pederast with good connections.

    I certainly think there is something in those claims that Thomas Hamilton – the Dunblane gunman – was procuring child prostitutes for members of the Scotch Establishment, and that he went mad when they dumped him. I don’t believe that paedophilia is the glue that holds our ruling class together. But I do believe that a disproportionate number of people at the top have been indulging a taste for green fruit.

    If anyone mentions certain names, David and I will censor their posts to protect ourselves from libel suits. But many of us know the names of the great and good paedophiles.

    I predict that the Paedomania will move away from show business and the media to politics. It will also move to the police and the bureaucracy. It will be increasingly indiscriminate in its victims – former Labour and Tory Ministers, present Ministers, police chiefs – you name it.

    Ian is wrong to speak of a “Stephen Lawrence Moment.” The real SLM took place when a clique of certified anti-racists made everyone else go through the motions of public confession and absolution, and made it impossible to discuss race and immigration even as openly as they could be in the 1980s. It was a coup. This is a peasants’ revolt. On the one hand, as a good liberal, I’m appalled by the hysteria – the destruction of Jimmy Savile’s grave stone struck me as a sign of public lunacy. On the other, the people about to be dragged down probably have it coming to them; and the system of which they are leading members is in need of comprehensive delegitimisation.

    This being so, let’s leave aside Ian B’s grand scheme of a Hag Conspiracy that binds together three centuries of sexual prudery, without reference to political ideology. Let’s wait and see. If Ian is right, we shall proceed soon to digging up Morcambe and Wise and all the dead Beatles for show trial and burning of their remains. If I’m right, there will be a desperate fight to save Nigel Evans, followed – however that fight goes – by a wild, and occasionally accurate, attack on our rulers.

  2. I still agree more with Ian than your analysis Sean. If the attention suddenly went to FEMALE paedos, then I might believe that events are going out of femmi control. At the moment, so long as the madness and hatred remains firmly aimed at men, the femmi cause is served even if some of their fellow leftists may get sucked in. They are only men after all and no loss to the march of feminism.

    Can it really be believed that the top level of society is riddled with paedos?. Nobody hates the Violence Gang (aka the state) more than me but I just can’t see the evidence. The Dunblaine and Holly Grieg affairs are out there but they are so larded around with BS and disinfo that the chances of getting to the truth are better in the Kennedy assassination. Dr Who merged with Batman and Sherlock Holmes couldn’t get to the truth of those two messes. It won’t be revealed for decades if ever and it will never be proved against TPTB even if they do turn out to be guilty.

    As for the BEEB’s “systematic cover-up” Sean, who are you referring to ? If Saville, I don’t believe their has been a cover-up in that case as lots of his accusers have made too many mistakes about where and when they were aledgedly abused. Their are all kinds of anomaly in matters of when and where people supposedly suffered and a lot of proof that Saville was not where his accusers say he was at the time they say he was. Those cases that are on a “he said/she said” basis might be impossible to disprove but a true investigation of ALL of the allegations against Saville will throw up such a mob of liars, nutters and gold-diggers that doubt must be cast on all the allegations.

    • Mr Ecks – No doubt most of the allegations against JS can be dismissed out of hand. Ditto the other victims of the Paedomania. But there seems to be enough truth there to suppose a cover up.

  3. PS–BTW Ian, if my memory serves, they already had a go at Eddie Waring–he was accused (my memory is vague as to what exactly) of some kind of sexual wrongdoing just before he developed dementia and died in 1986. Wiki says nothing but I am sure I have remembered aright.

  4. Sean, I don’t have time for a long comment, but I think that you’re riding the wrong horse on this one. The fact that in the past, inevitably, various people will have done bad things and, inevitably, their establishment friends will have covered for them (who can forget the excitement of Jeremy Thorpe, eh?) is not proof of David Icke’s paedophile alien lizard conspiracy. It’s really just proof that people have always acted as they have always acted.

    The last thing this is is some kind of “grass roots” rebellion to bring down the establishment. As with Lawrence, this is an opportunity being used by members *of* the Establishment to extend their dominance by implementing new control structures. There is already talk of Yewtree becoming permanentised.

    There are many things this hysteria may produce, but liberty is certainly not one of them.

  5. Apropos Sean’s comments, I sense that this witch hunt is comparable with McCarthyism, in that the establishment has been allowing and encouraging it to run along on the basis that it serves their goals – principally, no doubt, the idea that young people can only be kept safe by a vast bureaucracy of child welfare officers and specialist police, backed by a dense framework of law.

    Apart from the career benefits to the class of officials who enforce this regime, there is the secondary benefit of further undermining the family, which has always proved an impediment to the totalitarian state.

    But now, as with McCarthyism when it began to draw in senior military and political figures, the campaign is beginning to take on a life of its own and is becoming potentially disruptive to elite interests. The same kind of thing began to happen to the Stalin purges around the end of 1938 (swiftly followed by Nikolai Yezhov’s demotion to the water transport portfolio!).

    If it follows McCarthyism’s trajectory, we should now expect it to be reigned in – watch out for calls for “realism” and “common sense” – and perhaps cut off altogether in favour of some new meme.

    Perhaps I am quite wrong, but it seems hard to imagine that this campaign will be able to continue at full blast indefinitely.

  6. One aspect of this which it is important to remember is that “the Establishment” is not an homogenous, unified bloc. It is a coalition of interests, who struggle among themselves for power. This is an internal struggle for power. In this case, one interest- the immensely powerful, third sector backed, Core Feminists, are teaching other interests- the BBC, politicians, police, etc, who is the boss.

    As I said in the “essay”, the ideological narrative is that the relatively liberal, intra-feminist period between the 1960s and AIDS, was a ghastly mistake and chamber of horrors that must never be allowed to happen agan. Of course, all the positive parts of this- all the ordinary women (and men) who had a cracking good time- are not allowed on stage to testify. By presenting only negative, exaggerated and, we may guess, often entirely false, testimony an entirely false picture of horror is created.

    All the old puritan campaigns from the first wave are back. We have Temperance campaigning again, the White Slavery Panic (now: “Sex Trafficking”), and so on. The shrieking demands for the restoration of censorship grow ever louder. It is unlikely that for instance David Cameron gives a tinker’s cuss about tits and bums on wifi, but the Feminist bloc cannot be ignored. They did all this a hundred years ago. We are such fools that we are falling for it all over again.

  7. Sean,

    I do not see any evidence of a “cover up” in the conspiratorial sense. I see people desperately trying to cover their arses, because the institution(s) they are part of did not predict, in 1975, that social mores would have changed so radically 40 years later.

    I think most people at that time expected that the easygoing attitude to sexual matters would not only remain but broaden. The opponents of it at the time appeared to be little more than the demonstrably barking Mary Whitehouse and a small collection of old fuddy-duddies who would eventually pass away. Even the Feminists, then, appeared to be crazy outsiders, shrieking in their dungarees. Nobody reasonably would have expected them to have such success; unless they thoroughly studied history and reached the conclusions I have, haha. Remember, this was all before the Satanic Ritual Abuse myth and its associated nebula of recovered memory, therapy victims, Oprah Winfrey emotionalism, the paedopanic, and so on. The term “sexual harrassment” wasn’t even invented until 1978 (by Mackinnon). Many people at the time believed that groping a girl was rude, ungentlemanly, and worthy of a smack in the mouth. Nobody would have given a second’s credence to the claim that it would create some permanent devastating trauma.

    This last part is quite important. The story now being peddled is that “nobody cared”, as if adults were en masse conspiring against children. The fact is that our perceptions of harm have been utterly changed. Nobody went into hysterical fits about groping then, because nobody- women and men alike- thought it a devastating harm. They simply could not have predicted how we (or they themselves) would have been led to characterise it 40 years later.

  8. Well, without denying your incidental insights, I agree with Peter. This is a witch hunt set off last year that is now running out of control. The main question is whether it will be reined in by a scared establishment, or if it will be allowed to start destroying careers at random.

    As for the Hags, they are only part of a broad coalition of attack. The anti-racists haven’t gone away, nor the militant gays, nor the blue pork controllers, nor all the others. We shouldn’t be diverted into exclusive fear of a pack of mad women.

  9. Sean, this witch hunt has been running since the 1980s. It has peaks and troughs, but is nothing new.

  10. In Oxford, in the 60s and early 70s, all Staircase-Parties (that’s what you got together to agree to have, and the Colleges allowed you if you didn’t destroy their property) had A “GROPING ROOM”. This was an agreed, and freely-assigned room, somewhere in the purlieus of the “party” and usually on the same staircase but sometimes elsewhere if there was little room and there were lots of people invited. It was where you’d go, with your chosen woman, and you’d grope her. That was the agreement: you would grope: she would be groped.

    On one weekend in late October 1970. in Worcester, on staircase 16 in “Pump Quad”, we all agreed that the “Groping Room” would be Gilbert Hall’s room on the ground floor. He was forced to comply, unwillingly, and of course he duly agreed. (He was the Music Scholar.)This was 16-1. It was a slum as he was a slut and not very good at washing plates, dusting, cleaning out etc, but we just put a red bulb in his light, installed a Dansette record-player, and a few very smoochy slow LPs, and left it like that, with the curtains drawn shut (he did have some curtains.). Lots of nice intelligent young women studying at the most famous women’s colleges were groped willingly in that room during the staircase-16-party that night.The “Discotheque”, basically my hifi set and a record player, was in 16-3 at the top of the cottages, where the “bar” was, which was Vance Hall’s sitting room and bedroom (the bar.) My room, 16-2 on the first floor, I think was used as a sort of cocktail bar cum-chattup-room, oh and we said we’d allow smoking in there too as I didn’t mind but the others did on the staircase. Certainly I threw out lots of empty bottles the morning after.

    I also had a rather accurate scale-drawn-plasticine-model of Stonehenge on my table, on which I was doing astrocalculations, at the time, and which was too intricate to move out, and do you know? NOBODY sat on it or disturbed it all night. Astonishing.

    I did indeed grope my first wife, for the very first time, in the Groping Room in Worcester staircase 16 (room 1, the Groping Room as stated) on that occasion. She was actually pissed off that she’d seen me groping (someone else name redacted) about ten minutes earlier upstairs, and not even in the groping room, shameless hussy that I was. This was of course a few years before she (first wife) assumed that office formally.

    I hope we are not all going to go to jail, in the evenings of our lives, for this sort of thing.

  11. Meister Hex

    “I say you chaps–Hags are awful”
    Billy Bunter

    We have a rich choice of foes Sean, indeed a larger rogues gallery thanThe Flash, but they would all be nowhere without the stupidity of the average chump. The irony is that human nature does exist and so there will never be a new socialist man but also it seems unlikely that there will be many free ones either.

  12. Meister Hex

    Yes it is Mr Ecks above–I have at last found a means to defeat your poxy comment busting system–so the day has not been a total loss.

  13. we saw this whipped up paranoia under Tony Blair, Remember the slogan tough on crime, the mental obsession of new Labour, Crime, Crime, Crime, according to them we had a mojor crime problem in Britian, but the reality is it never really existed in the first place, it was the master plan of the of the former labour government, and the Noddy Dog lawyers and barristers, who got fat on the proceeds, thank god they got diabetes for their sins, with 500,000 cases being diagnosed with the random testing, I’m sure we’ll see many surface fron the rankes of government, you know the type the ones with the big, the ladies with an arse the size of elephant, the sort of statist employess types. Of course I wonder what happened to all the thousands of criminals and buglars the police claimed existed, but rest assured according to our constabulary, they have all gone now, no more bogie boy’s breaking into your garden at night, running down the road with a lawnmower over his back, how sad, I miss the excitement of such scenarios, anyway according to the police these type of criminals no longer exist, along with violent offenders, where have they all gone, into the ovens one must wonder, or could be they are all in hospital care of the NHS. Anyway, they have gone now beleive me, the police say so, it must be true. So, Bobby Woodentop, not wanting to reside on the DHSS has to come up with something different, a new crime stategy, all the crims have gone now, lets start something new, get the pedo’s, get the fucker who in 1947 touched the sexy girls tits at the train station, get those two as well, they rubbed themselves up against to females in 1867 whilst on a steam train, so what’s at the end of this new conveyor belt of prosecutions, jobs for boy’s in blue, fat bank accounts for the lawyers and barristers, and a demeted judge calling you a naughty boy and given you 50 years. But what when this candle has burned out, where do they go more law’s even more criminals on criminal island, I don’t know, but inspector “Plonker” made a comment, sergeant, get your men, up to the grave yard exhume plot 48, 1647, I found a dirary, he touched someones tit, put his bones in the box and get to the custody desk quickly.charge him, remand him in custody.

  14. Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested now, another antique allegation, leaked
    during the night.

  15. I just went into the spooks websties, and the HO pages, it seems they are arresting 1.5 million people a year now, without the minor matters were only a summons is issues, in relation to motoring matters this is in millions as well. There have been over 2,700 terrorist arrests, with just over 130 convictions, he rest have had their lives f-up with no compensation, this would not include otheres arrested like Irish Republicans held care of the Norfolk Health Authority,and subject to interrogations by our new health service SS. We will never now the true figures of these do to their serious corruption and ability to quickly destroy evidence and forge records. In secure units they have been holding criminal suspects like a production factory for various matters, with a leak stating thousands have been held illegally. With very few facing any charges,of getting redress of compensation for their wrongful loss of liberty.

  16. I was trying to find out how many people were summoned to court last year for criminal matters, but the government will not release the correct figures, going by the active fine accounts held by courts for fines for criminal matters this was literally millions, there were no doubt millions more arrested for failing to turn up for court, so claimed. For Norwich the fines accounts held by the clerk in relation to convicted people for criminal matters are horrific, I don’t think the HO or spooks will release the summons figures for fare of public out cry.

  17. There’s been a large increase in arrests and convictions under the vagrancy
    act 1824 “Solicitation Of Money For Food” this carries a criminal record, it
    was originally brought in to deal with soldiers returning from war and other
    beggar elements of society.

  18. Mr Justin P Fox Ph.J Paranoid State Convictomania.

    Very interesting, I think it would be a good idea to look into the HO files,
    process the information and obatin a clear picture of whats going on!

  19. Now, Jimmy Tarbuck.

  20. I’ve been thinking , in my shallow style, as to how far the femministas can push this shit. Can they create the “dark times” IanB writes of way above in the comments.
    Well, as part of an axis of evil socialist scum, lined up with the rest of the gang, the Greenfreaks, the anti-whites, etc, ad nauseum–well yes, they can usher in some dark times. However, what can the femmis alone do to push their shit further?.
    It seems that, while the paedo panic has served them well it is also a self-limiting tool. If they can’t twist matters to involve kids their scope is limited.
    Despite the rise of femmicrap, this society is still laced with sex to degree the Victorians could never have dreamed of. It is everywhere in every media and endless tomes have been published on every adult sex antic you can think of. Yes there has been a partial claw-back but I can see no conceivable way even the modern gang of hate-filled bitches could usher in a new Victoriana.
    The scum of NuLabour tried to attack other “extreme” but non-paedo sex urges under the guise of protecting women from violent nastys but there are limits here too, certainly in the age of “Fifty shades of Grey”.
    Trafficking is their other bow-string but see “The Honest Courtesan” blog–it looks more and more as if this particular hysteria is being exposed to the light of day.

    Anybody got any thoughts?.

  21. Anon is I, Mr Ecks.

    Sean, you asked earlier what is wrong with your comments system. It won’t publish my comments in 1 of 3 cases. And it takes the piss by telling my attempts to republish are duplicating my vapourised wisdom.

  22. Justin Fox

    The feminists are taking control, they are taking over hospitals, public
    office, they are completely power drunk none democratic, totaliterian.
    In many cases far more corrupt and devious than men. They have no
    probem conspiring and forging documents and evidence to get themselves
    out of th “Shit” when they control whole offices they all protect each other
    many of them hate men, full stop. I think some of them are sick.They just
    want power, more and more power, to take over.

  23. Justin Fox

    New labour on reflection F-ed the country, there’s no viable alternative to
    them, they just explioted the working classes like cattle.

  24. Tuffington Toptails, Spitfire Pilot. On Fem.

    Hey Old Boy’s, some of those cows in public office are terrible one might say, they are evil beyond comprehension, if you upset the cows, they will make you pay, believe me they really will, good old gals are hard to find now, this new labour brigade have brainwashed the female population to the point of madness, where did all go wrong. I remeber the old day;s of the 70;s when the gals liked a good time and good night out, why ever did they become brainwashed by all this PC crap, their mentors are normally fat pre- diabetic power drunk, yuk. yuk’s, anyway tallihoe chums, I have a flight to catch. Take care now.

  25. Come in Tuffington. Over.

    Tuffigton, old boy be carefull those bitches are worse than a 109, they’ll stich you like a Kipper, turn hard when diving that will get the witches off your tail, ust go tuffington, have a 109 on comming at 5 oclock he’s opened up his cannon, buy for now old chum.

  26. Tuffinton Toptails calling.

    Over and out, old Boy, just got one, shot the buggers tail off. Recived, they are evil get your point, fabricating malicious bitches, Got go chum Junker at 10 oclock good hunting. Get your point.

  27. Any none tosspot-troll thoughts?
    Crash and Burn Biggles.

  28. Tuffinton Toptails

    Not .Tuffington Toptails Old Boy, been at the game to long, have a nice
    fry up before you bail out, I’m on your arse. Don’t leave a bollock behind
    you old woman won’t like it.

  29. Come in Tuffy

    Tuffy, over,give the the bugger a quick burst in the engine block, see how good his gliding skills are, he’ll just about make it to Dover. Dover Sole
    Old Boy!

  30. Well, this comment thread seems to have turned into a bit of a morass…

    Anyway, Ecks.

    Sure they can’t “win”. But they haven’t won the war on drugs either. Neither, a century ago, did they win the war on gays, or the war on booze. Many of them a century ago probably believed that they genuinely could stop booze, buggery and (tries to think of drugs term beginning with “B”, gives up) and quite possibly some today believe they can win the war on sex. Humanity is infinitely malleable, and with sufficient “re-education”…

    But of course they can’t win.

    What they can do is do what they’ve done to drug users, did to gays, and to boozers; insitute a lottery of ruin. Millions take drugs, some get caught, go to prison. They can randomly ruin males. Not all males. But some. They can “denormalise”. They can immiserate. Just as with the war on drugs, they can’t win. But they can cause enormous damage in the not winning of it.

    War without end. Some people really get off on that.

  31. I think the point to remember is that we’re not dealing with a rational enemy. It’s like the communists; they cannot “win” because communism cannot work. But they caused enormous misery in the process of finding out.

  32. Moral crusaders are a sad, demented lot.

  33. But they are winning,they just shift their spotlight around on something else every so often.There is no final battle to work toward just drip drip drip.As you say,it’s about control.Look at the control they have over women.The feminist message as I understood it (at which point I stopped being one) was to free women from the shackles of men who held them back,controlled them,and oppressed them inside a prison known as marriage. Marriage had to go,sex had to be divorced from it’s consequences and obligations. Voilà;women were free. But only from men (sort of) Women are now far more dependent on the state than they ever were on a husband.And, whereas in marriage a women needed only cultivate good relations with one individual she knew like the back of her hand, she now has to navigate her way through a whole panoply of state busybodies who proclaim they have only her best interests at heart and,probably her children too. Whether it’s child care, impregnation,employment,housing, she needs the state to live the dream of freedom.

    Maybe they realised that marriage was like a little semi-autonomous republic with privately acquired rules of engagement,policies on external and internal relations,economics,child rearing,income distribution and,law and order. All it ever needed to work was a commitment to make it so and one person at least to bring home the bacon. There was little need to call in help from outside so ‘foreign’ influence was minimal.

    But, perhaps they didn’t realise,that when you free women from men you free men from women.So,no longer being subjected to the sobering and civilising effect of responsibility for a whole republic his boyhood can last a lifetime. And as sex is now just a pastime like any other-well boys will be boys. But for how much longer.

    Just as an aside, though it may support the swivelling spotlight thingy, there are calls for a government apology over the treatment of unmarried mothers in the 1950s who feel they were forced to give up their babies for adoption. Watch out for an official enquiry taking evidence from 80 year old guilt ridden former nurses thanking the state for letting them unburden themselves at last. Does any one know any compensation lawyers looking to hire. I can type,make tea and pass out tissues quite professionally.

  34. Interesting points Patricia.

    One interesting thing is their ability to rewrite history. The regime that had babies forcibly removed from their mothers for adoption was set up by the women now lauded as First Wave Feminists. As was the anti-gay hysteria, and lots of other Bad Things that are now nebulously blamed on conservatives, The Patriarchy, etc.

    I think another point worth making is that Feminism, the core movement, doesn’t desire a society where women are sexually promiscuous. The confusion here occurs because during the “liberal interregnum”, female sexuality was promoted. But the Radicals- the hardcore revivalists who reasserted dominance of the Women’s Movement after the 1970s- are profound anti-sexualists.

    The model is that sex is a thing men do to women, into which women are coerced. Women who think they like it have been brainwashed. Either way, the consequences of it are not their fault, so women must not bear any responsibility for them. The anti-marriage thing is not intended to free women to sleep around. It’s to free them from sexual obligations to men. It’s exactly the same ideology as, e.g. the Progressive doyenne and Social Purity fanatic Jane Addams describing sex within marriage as a “noxious weed”. The aim then, as now, was a generalised state of chastity.

  35. Justin P Fox. Phj

    All this has not done any good, I remember my friends in the 70’s most were married, jumping forward thirty years they are all now single, of course I like the arguments how these femenist types claim they want their own independence from men, they want to be free, why don’t they do it on their own money instead of high wages of the state, This perk does not appear to be available to many working class woman, of course they claim all to frequently they are anti sex, and only men desire sex, I don’t think so, on the basis of fact many have female casual partners,and they do indded plan thier social interactions around other females. I think simply they just hate men, if we are more correct. When they say anti-sexulaists I think this is amied at the male population in truth. The “noxious weed” ideology, one can’t help noting how the work place has changed, in the 80’s there was an equal proportion of male and female workers in the workplace, now in many cases they are totally dominated by woman. of course the union of marriage has dissapared, but this was a result of the spreading feminist ideologies marriage is prison and they must be free of it.It will not return as a tradition things do not go backwards when the engine drives the motion forwards in direction.

  36. Of course Mr Fox, you raise some good points, but not all men are single, I have friends who are married, albiet they have takne a back seat in the role of equality, I do pity some married men now they have fallen in to the trap of the, I want, I want, I want, pit, I want my independence as well, the new male role the backseat driver. Of course I can’t help noting the arguments of many feminist woman, in which they appear to state the want jobs simply on the basis of being female. But would you not agree Mr Fox if one to to take control of a panzer, they must be qualified to drive the thing, read the maps, and thus fire the guns when required, I now it may sound strange to many feminists but this is the way things work, the requirement for the jobs, must also come with a requirement of qualification to undertake the task as part of the obligation, if people are unable to meet this criterion, they should not hold the position, either male female or any other sexual orientation. I think feminisim has had a great inpact of the female persona, even those who are engaged in marriage. We know about the one where are blackmailed by the witholding of sex, not a rearity these day’s.

  37. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System