Thursday, 11 June 2009

Fear of Men’s Impending and Inexorable Innocence

Does the law fear your innocence more than your guilt? If so, what is the incentive for justice?

Cults become precious by two means: glorifying the chosen; and vilifying the pariahs. The German fascists chose to denounce Bolsheviks, Slavs, Jews, and others, which did not fit into their racial or political cult system. They convinced many of the German people to fear the mendacity of the chosen pariahs. At the time of wars end, when that brand of racial fascism was smashed in physical form, there was a psychological inertia to renounce the propaganda. Allied soldiers would comment that among the German people, they met very few ‘Nazis’. The reader is reminded of the stark difference between denounce, and renounce; the latter is to acknowledge regret by reassessment, whilst the former is to avoid regret by dissociation.

In a contemporaneous setting, nobody does or says what they believe to be wrong, because there is no reason to contradict oneself; but if circumstance change, then it is possible to reassess ones deeds or words, and have regrets or new excuses to accommodate both the changes, and ones credibility. This process can not take place if the system or the cult is too precious to acknowledge error; such is the pitfall of glory, as it will surely encourage the conceit of political correctness, also known as bigotry.

From the above, it follows that a fascist cult in power will deploy glory, fear, and censorship; the latter extendable to imprisonment or even death. Censorship and political correctness are the spokes upon the wheel that breaks the butterfly of reason; the great evils that promote bigotry by stifling free thought, in favour of those cults that need pariahs, to compensate for their own lack of virtues.

If, in opposing a cult, you have made an error in judgement, then it is in the cult’s interest to quote you. If however you do not oblige the cult with an error, then the cult may choose to misrepresent your views as that of a straw man, and they hope the gullible will quote that instead. An extension of the straw man misrepresentation is constructive baiting; whereby someone they wish to discredit is provoked into inappropriate behaviour, then judged ex post facto, whilst denying any such provocation occurred.

A tragic example is that of recent double murder by Mohammed Ali:

“The court heard he had resumed a sexual relationship with Yasmine after being released from prison. He had spent five months on remand in prison after being arrested in February 2008 following her rape allegation, the court heard. The court heard he was charged with 12 offences, but he was cleared of the allegations when the prosecution offered no evidence. Mr Ali told the jury that on the day of the killings, Yasmine had sex with him at the flat before they discussed his time in jail and her abortions. "I said, 'remember what you did to me?'," he told the court. "She just blanked it... she was just laughing," he said.”

Although Ali can not be forgiven for such a disproportionate reaction, it remains true that a case of provocation exists from the point of view of Ali. The feminised legal system, and the mainstream media, have completely down-played this aspect of the case, for the sole purpose of defending the unjust imprisonment of falsely accused men, inline with feminist misanthropy. There probably would not have been this murder if not for the spiteful feminised law that vilifies men to the point of guilt before proof. The feminised law must therefore share the guilt for this tragedy; with the feminist cult being directly responsible for the epidemic of false rape allegations that presently plague our society. When bad people do bad things, that is a tragedy; but when normal people are driven to bad deeds, then that is evil. The system is as culpable as any individual, and if that system corrupts and we do not oppose that system, then we are culpable by negligence.

“People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.” [Edmund Burke].

The glut of domestic violence campaigns, have a similar disregard for truth and honesty, designed to vilify men and to scare women away from heterosexual relationships, rather than offering any useful solutions; they are merely spiteful feminist propaganda to encourage the ostracising of men from the family, the workplace, and society.

Wikipedia: “Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviours of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.”

Spot the Difference

Straw man beats straw woman:

Goebbels making hay:

When will women realise that the slogan for Women’s Aid group - “1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence” - is feminist propaganda, with the added financial bonus of fundraising for their misandric political hobbies. Truth and reality are best served by objective scientific investigation, for example:


And the final irony, when Erin Pizzey, the founder of the worlds first women’s refuge, exposed the myth about domestic violence being perpetrated exclusively by men, she was inundated with death threats by the same feminist groups that would later peddle the ‘end domestic violence’ campaigns.

Going back to the opening paragraph regarding the psychological inertia towards German Nazi propaganda; when feminism is fully exposed, women will face a similar challenge, of whether they are to denounce or renounce feminism. As for the rest of us, can we easily shake off the Pavlovian association of women and misandric feminists? And how innocent are the women who stand by passively watching, as feminists poison boys with Ritalin, encourage false allegations against men, and separate biological fathers from their children, under the deceptions of equality and safety?

All fascist cults need demons to vilify, and feminism is no exception; its misandric propaganda typically hides from truth and reality for its survival. Feminists need women to be victims, they have no vested interest in improving the wellbeing of women; they value them too highly as morbid object lessons, to be pickled in jars of oestrogen. Meanwhile, the few real male criminals, act as vectors to spread the disease of feminism via hysteria; hence feminists have a symbiotic need of bad men, rather than a need of safe women; which is why the feminised legal system generates unjust laws to provoke men, and insinuate their guilt. The induced paranoia of women, and the feminisation of law, ensures no incentive for truth or justice.

Truth and reality are the only known effective inoculations from the virus of feminist propaganda. Truth and reality may even cure women from their present paranoia; a fair and just reversal that may well place feminists in fear of men’s impending and inexorable innocence.