What do you get when you add a crazy conspiracy theorist and quasi-legendary blob of leopard’s fanny batter to the Daily Mail? Nothing, it’s completely normal, and the only mystery is exactly how it took Paul Dacre this long to start throwing money at James Delingpole for writing exactly what his audience of 1 million pumped up twats want to read. Which is apparently a cringingly ignorant assessment of how Marxism is starting to erode our values because the BBC have shifted from using AD and BC to CE and BCE. Which they haven’t. But screw it, it’s something to do a defanged puff adder impression over.

BRAVO! A great article, but is anyone listening? I feel that it’s a lot like Nazism which crept in to Germany insidiously over time. If we don’t wake up to this creeping threat, then 1984 will be here sooner than we realize.
David , Darlington, England

Yes, to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller, first they came for the little letters at the end of dates, but I did nothing because I’m not a little letter at the end of a date. Then they came for the incorrect use of semicolons, but I did nothing because I know how to use a semicolon properly. Then they started herding free-thinking Britons onto trains, but I did nothing because they always complained that the trains never showed up, so how was I to know they didn’t want to go on the trains when they finally arrived? Then they started using knowledge they’d gained to change things, but it was too late, because I’m nearing retirement and still work in a low-level customer service job, and I don’t like change, so I got on the Daily Mail website and made a comment about how it’s all turning into Nazi Germany and 1984, and then I felt slightly better. But my boss is still a woman and a lot younger than me. And apparently she doesn’t go to church.

“Oh come on! Pretty much anyone who reads or studies history are well aware of BCE, its been widely used for decades, and is now standard practice in many universities in America as well as here.” – Chris, Dorset.
—————————————–
Jesus, that was Delingpole’s point. People who “have studied history”, ie people who have gone through tertiary. Outside of that, who else has?
Another Jeff, London

I know for a fact they specifically restrict books on history to those people who’ve got a degree in it. Last time I was in Waterstones, I tried to buy a Simon Schama book and was flatly refused because I couldn’t produce any documentation certifying I had at least an upper second class honours degree in history, or at least 48 level 3 credits in pre-Enlightenment historical analysis! Why should so-called “intelligent” people get to “use” their “education” to do “things”? How dare people “study” “history” at “university” and then “apply” that “knowledge” or “otherwise” try and make “people” “aware” that “their” ill-formed “rant” was “predicated” on complete bollocks? It’s just not sporting, telling someone they’re wrong.

I’m sorry, Chris from Dorset, but we’re British around here, and we get more British the more we think about people using knowledge they’ve learned from going somewhere we haven’t been and doing something we haven’t done. Unless it’s Richard “Hamster” Hammond, of course. Then we’re all too keen to learn how Hornby train sets ruled the world. As long as he looks suitably ignorant and childishly amazed while a credible boffin explains things in simple sentences. When you phrase things right, it’s not that hard to understand the complex stuff. Who needs a university degree to learn all about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle when Richard Hammond has just covered it with a toy car and a loofah in twenty seconds?

We built an empire on flat-out ignorance and thinking anything we don’t have to do is simple. And we’re so proud of it that if you dare come around here with your fancy book-learning, we’ll give you what for by letting you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we know fuck all and we’re proud of it! Imperial British logic, Chris from Dorset. Quail and cower in its presence:

All atheists are anarchists by nature; and all anarchists are parasites by design that enjoy feeding off the misery endured by the vulnerable. The vulnerable of course are all those Religious individuals who wouldn’t wish their worse fears on anybody else. All anarchists should be asked the simple question :- ” when did you decide to be born “.
Catch-42, Macclesfield, England

Chris, Dorset: pay close attention. This is the kind of supreme logic that made sure the sun never set on the British Empire. And not one piece of tertiary, secondary or primary education is involved. Just a whole one point seven five imperial pints of horse piss direct from Catch-42′s brain.

Women of child bearing age are the problem! i.e. from 15 to about 45-50. It’s why they can only work in the public sector and menial/trivial jobs like services and cleaning. Who in their right mind would hire a woman??? The REALITY is work for women is privilege not a right, so in times of great stress, caused by wishful thinking (banks extended all that credit for profit AND to pull the masses up from the gutter, admittedly for future profit), the British people have to compromise and yes, SACRIFICE for their survival. Women just have to take a step back for a while, stop emasculating the wealth creators, and continue to propagate the species! Did they forget what their PRIAMRY role is? I’m sure the feminists are all up in arms, but men didn’t create humans, so it’s not our fault that women have children while we work!
Clive, Oxford, UK

Who would in their right mind would hire a woman? Not Clive, who’s clearly in his right mind, and who has a really firm grasp on the situation. If the situation was his cock, and the really firm grasp was caused by his miserable sense of self-loathing and the tears that flow bitterly from his eyes as he finds himself passed over for opportunities by women who came from the public sector and turned out to be much better at his job than he ever was. And, curiously enough, not grossly offensive people.

But hey, don’t go thinking Clive’s a middle-aged blimp with a gender-based inferiority complex who can’t stop having angry wanks. No. I’m sure that’s not the case of all. It’s just nature. And you can’t blame nature, or Clive for pointing it out, no matter how many times you’ve read The Female Eunuch.

So, ladies – step up to the plate, and take it on the chin. Or in the vagina. Whichever’s easier. And when you’ve saved the country by quitting work and having babies on some kind of production line system, just remember to thank Clive for pointing out nature and shit. You’ll find him in the empty women’s bogs at work, staring at the tampon machine and having an angry wank.

If the army is sent in, that in itself will be a national humiliation.

Its important to remember that women (the Base Unit) are programmed to measure men by social status (Alpha, Beta, Omega), which means that men, who are little more than USB Flash Drives that are plugged into women, have no reason or purpose to live without their “functionality.”

Human Beings basically do Three Things:

1. Create
2. Fuck
3. Destroy

If a man cannot do 1 or 2, then many will turn to 3.

Don’t forget the lack of male teachers, too.Only role models for boys are thick footballers and idiot rappers.
Asquith

Oooh, I don’t know mate. I’m sure you could be a decent male role model. After all, what society really needs right now is men who can turn everything into a diatribe about their inability to form or maintain relationships with the opposite sex, taking their own failures and extrapolating them into the root cause of big, complicated issues because it’s just common sense.

Not that I’m comfortable with these dangerous assumptions, you understand. But if the cap fits – and preferably has a slogan on it about how everything is the fault of women – then, well, you should probably wear it. And then march in the street holding a big placard that says something like, “UNDERVALUED BECAUSE I HAVE A PENIS” or “I AM NOT JUST A PENIS, BASE UNIT”.

You could even riot. I note that the vast majority of the rioters consisted of socially retarded single males who got sick of watching too much internet porn and making shit up, the closest they got to fucking and creating. Well, actually, I just assumed it because of the blinding glare off the surface of the pasty-white crowd when they got close to the bits of society that were burning to the ground.

Please don’t blame me for this, ladies. It’s not really my fault, this tendency to assume things. The missus unplugged me without clicking the ‘safely remove hardware’ button first.

And if that’s not enough harrumphing for you, Tara’s dug up this fucker…

These days I always avoid drunken women. Drunken men are bad enough, but drunken women are an absolute nightmare. They’re not only irrational and violent like men; but spiteful and provocative in a uniquely female way. They’re also completely uninhibited sexually, whilst staggering about with more anatomy exposed than covered. They will fawn-over and aggressively flirt with anything in trousers, committing indecent assault almost as a matter of course in the name of `fun’. And if you decline their Amazon overtures, they will either explode into a paroxysm of rage and attack you themselves, incite their boyfriends or husbands to attack on their behalf, or claim that you assaulted them and attempted/committed rape. An obsession with rights has left them with a perverted sense of absolute and self-righteous liberty. Above all things; it is drunken women who have made inner-cities into Saturday night no-go areas for the sober and the sane.
Little Ted

Little Ted, gentleman sex offender, govt_helper with a better editor. He avoids drunken women like the plague. He avoids them by walking straight towards them and dispersing them with his powerful, natural repulsiveness.

If that doesn’t work, he avoids them by getting their partners to beat him up. Then failing that, he avoids them by encouraging them to press charges.

He doesn’t want to do any of this, and he wouldn’t have to if they’d only learn to behave and let go of their silly ideas about ‘rights’ and ‘living their lives the way they see fit’ and ‘expressing their sexuality’ and ‘wearing what they feel like wearing’, because apparently it’s not enough to just stick your cock into her fanny anymore, oh no, now you’re supposed to know what you’re doing with it as well, you’re expected to ‘pleasure’ and ‘satisfy’ her, and woe betide if you don’t, I mean what happened to the good old days when women didn’t really like sex and just pretended to in order to get pregnant and stop you going out and paying for it, and they stood by their man, however revolting he was, not finding attractive men attractive, because they were after more than that, or so they said, but it turns out they aren’t are they, they do want it after all, but then they pretend they don’t want it, and I’m sorry but they’re going to have to make their minds up, do they want it or don’t they, they can’t have it both ways. They need teaching a lesson.

Plus, binge-drinking is detrimental to their health.

No need to bring up the months of rising public anger, or the cluster of natural disasters mainly affecting non-whites, or the fact that Hastings’ card was declined whilst he was trying to purchase his wife’s Christmas present, as it should be clear to all by now that stern old Uncle Max is greeting the new year in whimsical mood. Or at least, as close as he can get to such a thing. File under ‘Yawn’ and move on. Except, Kris has found this bloke, who seems to have had a whimsy bypass…

No, MAX! There is a great deal wrong with our country and, sadly, many people like you are acting like the proverbial camels. Here’s a list:- 1. Too many people not prepared to work, 2. Education far too left wing and cannot be described any longer as education, 3. Bilderbergers controlling the world governments, 4. Police forces out of control and responsible, complicit with many in the judiciary and the so-called Ombudsmen, of allowing appalling crimes against families to continue with children and houses stolen from individuals wrongly. 5. And , most seriously, a TREASON against our Bill of Rights and Magna Carta that has left us with no Monarch since 1972, and which the police forces up and down the country refuse to deal with thereby committing MISPRISION of TREASON themselves. This, MAX, is indeed a lawless land. Your foolish optimism (or worse?), my lad, is way off the mark.
Bring Back Law ‘N’ Order, What used to be a pleasant place

What must it be like to be absolutely wrong about everything? And not just wrong, as in ‘not right’, but so completely wide of the mark – like, 6,000 miles at 90 degrees to the mark – that people only ever look at you out the side of their heads, with panic in their eyes, while they’re slowly edging away, muttering about you to their friends. Their actual friends. People they want to spend their time with. Awful, I should think. No wonder BBL’N'O is so angry.

The indie professor responds cautiously. Outwardly, the indie scene might be less macho than others, but wankers get everywhere, and remain wankers even if they listen to fey guitar music. And just because one of them has swapped his pink Ben Sherman for a bootleg Dirty Projectors tour shirt, his raging cock issues won’t magically resolve themselves.

Another reader – SexyLikeLemmy, apparently – isn’t at all happy with this assessment. Not that he particularly disagrees with it. No, it’s more that he’s sick of journalists sullying the purity of his musical experience with their ‘political ideology’, such as that of expecting not to get sexually assaulted.

Thanks to Nicholas.

This is infuriating! Why am I surprised that a music writer would write an article completely void of anything to do with actual music. Why? Why do music writers always do this? What compels you to apply your own vision of how you think the world should be on every one else?

What is it with you fucking people? Why must you try to enforce some ignorant orthodoxy of your own on every scene that comes down the road? Why? Why can’t you just see music for music? Why must you always try to attach some political ideology to everything? It’s asinine and it makes YOU the only one running around trying to be the equality hall monitor.

Is that what it is? Where all music writers hall monitors when you were kids? Miss the power over the other kids?

Let me let you in on how it REALLY works out here in indie-heaven. Whenever a group of guys gets together to build a band they always have to take into consideration that they’ll get slagged off in the press if they don’t find some way to live up to indie expectations. Get it? Whose the real cultural enforcer? YOU PEOPLE!

Think about it, you got 2 guys trying to put together a band, they know damn well they BEST get at least one girl, if they can’t find one, they better get a gay friend in there some how. Who cares if they know how to play? That’s not important. What’s important is getting treated fairly. You don’t stand a chance in the press if you don’t play there little game. Fine, find some girl and stick her on the bass, just turn the fucking amp down live so she won’t screw everything up!

You writers know fuck all about music, what you do know about it thrusting your orthodoxy on everyone else.
SexyLikeLemmy

So there you go. The truth, if you can handle it, is that Kim Deal was only there so the Pixies could call themselves an equal opportunities employer, and Vivian Girls are probably some sort of bloody PC local government initiative.

But take heart, girls in bands. Because as useless as you are, you are at least marginally preferable to benders.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Wight1984.

Your argument is based on this in my view now wholly unjusifed position that women are oppressed.

While this may have been true 100 or more years ago, where is the evidence that they are now?

On the contrary, there’s far more evidence that MEN are repressed.

e.g. the UK pensions age is STILL 65 fo women and only 60 for men.

Ironically as women live several years longer than men on average, many men don’t even make it to 65, so it’s DOUBLY DISCRIMINATING aginst men.

And lookee here, we’ve had FEMINISM for about 100 years and especially in the UK for about 50, but NOTHING IS DONE about this GLARING INEQUALITY.

Women can get a state pension at 60 and men have to wait till they are 65. I wonder why?

Or then we have 100s of soldiers dying in wars or arriving home without the faces they used to have or not as many limbs or in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, and about 95% to 99% of them are MEN.

Seems to be another INEQUALITY issue that the feminists aren’t talking about.

And then there’s what happens in divorces, with people like Heather Mills waltzing up and taking £25m of their husband’s – in this case Sir Paul McCartney’s – fortune, which it doesn’t appear like they’ve done anything to deserve.

HOw many MEN do we see marrying rich WOMEN and coming away with MILLIONS in divorce settlements?

Let’s even talk simpler everyday things.

Why is it that men on the whole have to ask WOMEN out for dates – and face rejection/humiliation if they are refused?

Why is it that millions of women still think it’s OK not to work and let their husbands bring in the money, like the footballer’s wives?

Whereas if a man did that, he’d be viewed as a total sponger and treated with derision and contempt.

Why is it that if a ship goes down at sea,it will STILL be women and children first into the lifeboats, and if any man caused a woman to die to save himself in such a circumstance, he’d have to live the rest of his life with the title “coward” hung around his neck?

So you are clearly swallowing this LYING feminist propaganda that women are some kind of underclass, when it appears that any OBJECTIVE OBSERVER who came from another planet would fairly soon conclude that it is MEN who are the underclass and women are the rulers of this strangely physically stronger, but yet still mostly enslaved and dominated other gender.

I’m now going to explain to you, what your probable REAL problem is, and who is responsible for it, and IT ISN’T MEN.

Men and women basically have simple underlying goals in life despite all the superficial complexities which muddy the waters, and hide the truth of what is really going on despite all appearances.

i.e. men are seeking a mate to make them feel comforted, respected and loved, and have a SEX partner.

If a particular man can afford it, or is considered a “dominant male” as they say, he may well have SEVERAL such “mates” either sequentially or even at the same time.

Women on the other hand also have A BIOLOGICAL MISSION, which once again is basically to find a mate, but this time with the aim of reproducing.

They want to build a nest and have chicks in it.

They want as nice and as protected a nest as they can get of course, and they also want the most esteemed mate they can find to produce the highest quality offspring and maximum degree of protection.

It makes me laugh to know, that one of the most esteemed (probably THE most esteemed) female author in literary history is Jane Austen who wrote Pride and Prejudice.

And do you know what the first line is (approximately) of that book?

She writes “It is an indisputable fact that a man with a fortune and X thousand acres of land must be in need of a wife.”

Her whole book is basically a treatise on the art of manipulation/seduction of a WEALTHY MAN/MATE desired by a woman, and the goal is to get his worship and for him to beg her hand in marriage.

i.e. the same old BIOLOGICAL MISSION of finding the best quality mate and feathering one’s nest to the optimum degree.

And WOMEN THEMSELVES have rated this in polls as the best novel in history.

So let me explain what this cry of “inequality against women” is really all about.

The feminists – due to their own psychological problems caused by unhappy childhoods – have brainwashed a large proportion of the rest of women into believing that this role of WIFE/MOTHER is some kind of repressed slavery, that has no real importance, significance, when in fact it’s the ONLY thing that really matters in the majority of women’s lives – it is THEIR BIOLOGICAL MISSION.

But finding a mate and having children is also quite a scary mission to carry out, it’s not easy to get the man women really want as Jane Austen explained, men can be very obstinate and relucatnt to commit, and childbirth can be scary, and women then lose their freedom because they have to look after their children, and in most cases then put their own needs in 2nd place.

So it’s very easy for women also to hum and har about it, to ask themselves if that is REALLY what they want to do, and of course the more “intellectual” they are, the more they’ll tend to debate it endlessly, rather than JUST GET ON WITH IT like the lower class, less intellectual women do.

And in that INTERIM, UNDECIDED period, in steps the feminist propagandist, who says that being a wife and mother isn’t the answer, and that a woman should prove she can do anything a man can do: – she should be a nuclear scientist, a poet laureate, a big business chief, an MP or even prime minister, and show actually that women don’t even NEED men, men are nothing really, so they aren’t to be FEARED.

Because women DO fear MEN, just as men even before feminism have lived in fear of women.

Because when another person has WHAT YOU NEED, that gives them POWER OVER YOU.

So in the case of men, they need women as sexual partners – they’ve got this awesome and overpowering biological desire which suddenly just appears TOTALLY UNEXPECTEDLY in their teens – and they also want the SOCIAL EESTEEM of having a girlfriend/wife, or they are considered “losers”.

And then men also have what WOMEN need, which is basically again the ability to give them children via sex,and also to give them esteem, give them a place in society, make them respected by other women, who will enviously look on if they get a “trophy man” like the footballer’s wives do.

Or otherwise the man ends up a sad old bachelor who other men look dubiously at, who clearly “couldn’t get a woman”, or the woman ends up as the “old maid” who no man apparently wanted.

So instead of facing up to the human and animal level biological problem of FINDING A MATE, the feminists divert women, especially young ones, down the avenue of saying MEN ARE THE PROBLEM, that the cause of women’s problem is the behaviour of men, which of course in the sense I’ve explained it is true, just as men’s problem is the behaviour of women.

Because each sex is actually trying to CONTROL the other, in fear of the possiblity that the other gender will use their POWER against them.

So tradiationally men use to congregate in groups, and to some extent still do, and mock women.

Not because they REALLY disrespected them, believed them unequal, but because when you are IN FEAR of somebody, you try to pretend they don’t have the power over you that they actually do.

So all the feminists are doing is basically the same but as regards MEN.

Trying to cut men down to size, humiliate them, so they don’t have to feel AFRAID of them any more.

And naturally because ALL women have got some of this fear, just as all men have some fear of women, lots of young women especially who haven’t yet “got their man” and are in fear of whether they ever will, are easisly persauded to join in the “protest” about the fact that they can’t control men as much as they’d like.

But even worse, by the feminists proposing the solution for the girl/woman who is unhappy about her inability to control the men she desires to, who won’t do what she wants them to do , that they should COMPETE FOR JOBS with men, show they can outdo men in the workplace, they gives a huge problem to a lot of women who DO NOT wish to compete with men or even necessarily enter the workplace at all.

Women in the past were not EXPECTED to be in the workplace, and certainly not in any difficult or responsible job, they were basically just awaiting the day they would marry.

So even if they had some kind of a job as nurse, secretary, teacher or whatever, it was only ever considred to be temporary, except perhaps in older age when their children didn’t need them any more, and they could retake whatever they wanted, for both the money and the feeling of being part of society, involved and contributing in some way.

e.g. many wealthy women who don’t need to work, and probably don’t WANT an ordinary job, because they don’t want to do things they aren’t interested in, or be bossed around, get involved in charity fundraising and so on.

But the problem is that a lot of women are not AMBITIOUS, PUSHY, OUTGOING, they do not WANT to shove their way into “the big bad world” they are NATURALLY reserved, or shy, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s party of their natural self-protective instinct.

Getting a job is not just an activity, it’s being forced to interact with A SOCIAL GROUP, with its PECKING ORDER, and few people who work will not be subject to some kind of abuse or even overt bullying.

You are forced to be with people you often don’t like and almost certainly would never choose as friends.

Envy, competition, rivalry, dislike or even outright hate, and all sorts of other ugly emotions, run rife in the average workplace, so it’s a potentially very threatening environment for a woman, especially a more refined, cultured or sensitive one.

And how have the feminists addressed this problem of women?

They have said, if YOU as a woman can’t hack it in the workplace, if you can’t get a job like men do, if all you can do is keep house and feed babies, you are INADEQUATE.

You should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

You are letting down WOMEN, in their “heroic struggle” to get equality with men, you’re letting down all the millions of women who have been abused, repressed and brutalised by men throughout the ages.

And that’s all NONSENSE.

Throughout the ages, the REAL truth is that as now, MOST men have been the servant, slaves and worshippers of women, and the only women who have complained about it are the ones who CAN’T GET A MAN TO SERVE AND WORSHIP THEM.

e.g. we don’t see footballer’s wives attending feminist study groups.

So I don’t know how old you are, but the reality for young women is simple.

There’s nothing wrong with you getting a job if you want one, but bear in mind there’s a man/boy out there, who’s trying to make his way in life, and HE is your potential mate.

He – and I’m in contact with young men who at times let me into their private thoughts – believes that to be worthy of YOU, being YOUR mate, he has to have A GOOD JOB.

And so if YOU take the job that HE NEEDS to be a respected member of his community, and thus to be deemed worthy of marrying (eventually) YOU, then when it comes to the time you want a mate, HE no longer exists for you.

He is getting drunk in a bar somewhere, bemoaing his failure, or maybe even commited sucide after his failure to SUCCEED.

Do you know, yet another “equality” is that between 4 and 6 time as many MEN/BOYS worldwide are committing SUICIDE than women/girls?

So clearly MEN/BOYS are now under some kind of presure that women/girls are not.

And that pressure is to SUCCEED.

Almost ANY woman can find SOME man or other, on her own level of looks/class/intelligence to mate/marry with, and SHE does not need a job.

But for a man, if he doesn’t “get that job” he is NOTHING, society regards him as a failure, a loser, somebody who should go hang his head in shame, and yes, it might well be better for himself and everyone else if he decided to “end it all.”

And that’s no joke – that’s EXACTLY what numerous young men and even older ones rejected by the system are doing, and even if they aren’t going that far, millions have now gone into addiction to prescripton or illegal drugs.

Have you not seen all the endless DEMANDS to legalise cannabis on here?

What’s THAT all about?

And I can guarantee you few or no women are starting those threads, or supporting them, the drug problem – prostitution aside – it is almost entirely a problem affecting MEN.

Women who use drugs – alcohol and tobacoo excepted – are usually only dragged into it if their partner does, and otherwise wouldn’t do so, except for the posh little rich girls who do cocaine and so on, desperatly seeking attention for their unloved and miserable lives.

So THIS is what’s really going on out there: men/boys being destroyed, and feminists smugly laughing at it vengefully out of their hate for everything male, and INNOCENT women/girls in the middle getting conned into believing that the male is their natural enemy who is suppressing them, when actually he is what they most need as a friend, protector and mate.

It’s appalling, and anybody can see this is what is really going on, if they stop looking through the eyes of prejudice and hate, which emotional states are mainly just brought about by FEAR.

AS I’ve said, boys/men are JUST AS AFRAID, or more so, as women/girls are of men.

Life is scary, uncertain for all of us, and demonising and scapegoating the other gender as the feminists are doing, is no way to security for any of us, quite the opposite, causing estrangement, competition and hate, between those beings – men and women, boys and girls – who should be cooperating, supporting, befriending and loving one another.

Like I said, most womem who get assaulted behave in such a way that they effectively bring it on themselves.

You don’t agree that, because you think women should have a freedom in society that is just not realistic, and no SENSIBLE women (you know, most of whom have NEVER been sexually assaulted) agree with YOU.

If you don’t want women to get raped, it’s REALLY EASY.

I’m going to give an even longer list of things women SHOULDN’T DO now, seeing as you have now annoyed me.

1. Don’t go in bars alone or even with just one girlfriend unless you are getting WELL KNOWN taxis to and fro door to door and preferably a relative or friend instead of a taxi.

2. Don’t walk in any public area on your own. You can get away with it in crowded city centres, as long as you stick to the CROWDED areas, avoid quiet streets where you could be dragged into a back alley or whatever without anyone noticing.

(university campuses tends to have a lot of these dodgy little quiet parts, and hence we find a lot of girl students get attacked).

3. Don’t dress in public in any provocative way. Not EVER. When you are married, your body is FOR HIS EYES ONLY.

4. Avoid mixed sex work places, and if you have a choice, don’t work at all, because as soon as you do, if you’re attractive, every male in the workplace will see you as an object of quarry/sexual fantasy.

If their parents can’t, THE STATE should support unmarried girls who need the money with basic benefits, and such girls/women should be entitled to refuse any work or not work at all if they please, as any form of work is a potential threat to their security.

If you must work, pick a female dominated environment like a hospital, typing pool or a girl’s or junior school.

If you expose yourself to public view on a routine basis, you will become an object of fantasy to any male who is able to see you regularly (but if you’re mostly covered up, that won’t happen much even if you are visible in face).

5. Don’t ever go alone on buses or trains if you can avoid it, or certainly not regularly or in any place you are not familiar with.

6. Don’t get drunk and incapable, because you think you can trust your girlfriends, but you may be wrong when they too have had a lot to drink.

7. Don’t have men friends except relatives, foolishly imagining you can have an “only friends” relationship with a boy/man, because any male friend of your own age if he finds you attractive (which you may not realise) will see you as a potential mate, and thus you can’t guarantee he won’t try to make the “friendship” physical sooner or later. It’s that old thing called his BIOLOGICAL MISSION “popping up” again.

8. Don’t tease with or flirt with men ANYWHERE. They’ll imagine you might want to have sex with them, when maybe all you were doing was trying to get served first at the bar, or “being friendly.”

9. Find a mate/marriage partner via one of your relatives or friends, (or some civilised group you can safely be part of like a church or whatever) and don’t EVER agree to go out with a man who you haven’t checked out thoroughly, and you wouldn’t see as long term relationship/marriage material.

10. Don’t go to university or college after 16 and attend a single sex girls’ school before 16, not a dreaded and dangerous comprehensive, full of boys all hoping to sneak a peek at you in the showers or be the first to rob you of your “virtue.”

If you want a degree, go to a girl’s only college or do an Open University degree.

We need to open some WOMEN ONLY universities/colleges for women who want to be doctors or teachers etc., and don’t want to be harrassed at such an early age.

You can stil have a social life amongst family and trusted friends.

Just make sure you are always (when out) part of a LARGE and (adequately sober) GROUP.

There you are – there’s govt helper’s 10 commandments.

If you follow ALL of those, your chances of getting even sexually assaulted, let alone raped, are almost zero.

PS and if you protest at any of those, you think you should have “more freedom”, undestand that boys and men have to be careful of thier movement too, not usually for fear of rape, but for fear or violent assualt, that can happen to men in all kinds of place – e.g. pub toilets – you wouldn’t even dream about, and for very flimsy reasons (e.g. somebody decides “you gave them a dirty look” or “you were ogling my girlfriend/wife”)

So please GROW UP and realise men have got LOADS of problems like women have too, and have to take LOTS of care with their own personal safety, just like women do.

You only have to read the news, and you see that grown men get beaten to death on a fairly regular basis by gangs of one kind or another, usually for some flimsy reason like complaining about the noise they were making or whatever.
govt_helper

I’m assuming govt_helper has recently suffered some rejection/humiliation himself.

And by ‘assuming’, I mean ‘hoping’.

What do you think when someone’s been sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery? Well, if you’re a suspicious yellow gusset stain like The Original Ray, then you think this:

Adultery SHOULD be punished although that seems pretty harsh.

Look at the mess our society is in. Seventy five percent of families break up because the woman decides she wants a different bloke and, in the West, this is rewarded by the state because she ends up with the home, the kids and a large proportion of the father’s income while the father is left to grin and bear it, or banged up if he doesn’t comply. (Never heard a feminist go on about that little imbalance.) Opposite ends of the spectrum is my point.

If you live under that sort of regime, as this woman does, and you know what you are in for if you cheat on your husband then more fool you. Its not like Sharia has just been invented.
The Original Ray, Liverpool

Yeah, Sharia has been around for ages, so she must have heard of it. Ray has, after all. He even thinks Sharia has some merits. That is, as long as it’s doing awful (and entirely proportionate) things to people who’ve done something similar to the bitch who did something awful to him. They all deserve it. They’re all the same. She knew the risks when she took the job. It’s not misogynism, it’s common sense.

Mind you, Ray, pretty harsh? You need to read the article again, mate – it clearly says that when they do the stoning, women get buried up to their necks so they don’t get whacked in the tits. That seems fair enough to me. If we’re going to implement any kind of punishment for adultery in the UK – only for women who deserve it, of course – then we should be very careful that at no point do women get whacked in the tits. And that’s being nice, what with all the houses and the money they’ve been getting for centuries and shit.

Frankly, Sharia would help deal with that seventy-five percent of broken families thanks to women. Something’s amiss in the West, and it’s nothing to do with the fact that Ray is a miserable, bitter, twisted, flaky old ringpiece. No ma’am sirree. We need positive solutions to the problems that aren’t caused by Ray being a stringy piece of knob cheddar, and Sharia sounds like one – a system where men get everything and women get fuck all, and where men can rely on the fact that they’re men to make up any old shit and get all these fucking cheating women swanning around the place like they’re fucking people or something put to death. As long as they don’t get whacked in the tits. That’s the line.

In fact, I heard that seventy-five percent of women stoned to death deserve it. And I’m honestly not just making this shit up because I hate women.

Get their parents in to have major brain surgery to fix their inability to take responsibility for their children. Maybe when that’s fixed a more responsible child will hit the streets. In the meantime, when they’re caught for violent crimes give them a sentence that fits the crime, if they go to prison for 10 years they should do 10 years and no luxuries when they’re inside. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a vacation, so follow monesterial practices, make them pray for foregiveness for the crime they have committed, provide them with just the bare necessities to survive.
Toothpick Harry

Brilliant! We should follow this through to it’s conclusion though. Why bother building prisons when we could just remove the bit of their brain that committed the crime and replace it with a bit of brain that thinks it’s been in prison (or a monastery) for 20 years without any luxuries? The more I think about it, the more I realise that any problem can be fixed by major brain surgery! Can’t spell “monastery” or “forgiveness”? Brain surgery! Education? Fuck that, just use brain surgery! This brain surgegry thing has really got me excitenig. It’s the bESt IDEA EVA. Unless… maybe I’ve had had major brain surgery to make nig think me what brain surgery is a goodnig idea? But how would would I know? Who cares? BRIAN SUGARY! It’s not exactly brain sugary!

See, the problem with us humans is our duality and shit, the eternal raging battle between our loftier ideals and our raw, bestial urges. For every word of Baudelaire there’s at least two thousand glued-shut copies of Razzle littering the hedgerows of Lancashire alone.

And nowhere is our species’ tragic condition more evident than in these two generous slices of pungent cheese, thoughtfully cut by Randy from some HYS nonsense about some telly programme or something.

There is nothing to which television shows will not sink to attract bigger audiences: Ok, the lowest common denominator is where the action is, tells us a lot about our so-called civilisation!
ian cheese

An admirable stance, Mr cheese! But then, having spent all of three minutes drooling through his vibrating Bundy eyeballs at Corin’s norks, he gets the horn and we see his high horse bolt from under him to dry-hump a Bravissimo catalogue.

I hope the female wrestler is a lesbian & make love to the beauty queens & the dwarf will be the voyeur.
ian cheese

Christ alone knows how he managed it, but if you look at the above post in its original context, you’ll find it’s actually stained with gobs of tear-diluted jism.