Notice how a woman can’t quietly drink at a hotel any more? Every drink may be drugged.
While every man may not be a rapist, a certain level of paranoia is prudent.
If they target you, that’s pretty much it.
The victim blaming in these common cases makes me sick. It’s such a Just World fallacy where men expect if they were a woman, they’d be too smart to get raped… it doesn’t work that way. Predators target. Men are typically much stronger and in groups, impossible to resist. It’s so horrifying they shut their brain to the possibility, that life is really that dangerous for women, that what they most fear about prison is quite a statistical reality for the sex most rapists choose.
I think the real fear of rape is the only reason feminism is clinging on.
After all, the men won’t protect us.
I’m avoiding the internet until this wedding farce is over.
BTW, the father was never going to make the trip. It takes weeks to learn the cues and get the tailoring and co.
It was all PR to make her look doting.
Instead of a callous bitch.
They’ll say the mother or someone doing it is a “powerful feminist statement”.
I looked up the news in Windsor. To see how very safe it is.
Lots of rapists.
It’s a new thing.
There might even be a rape gang.
Rapists are pairing up!
They’ll spend so much on security for an American nobody cares about, meanwhile the white women are meant to just get raped and get over it.
No security money for them.
This seems to be a pattern.
No justice, certainly no real sentences. No deterrence whatsoever.
They also stopped giving out rapist descriptions, which would help women avoid the monsters.
Of course, you can guess why.
He’s ever so gentle with the truth.
Better than Stefan and to the point.
They keep Molyneux’s videos up to keep people away from this guy.
No, they know. It’s class war.
They don’t view poor women as human. Or poor men, but still. This explains male feminists, who cannot openly insult the poor but they can insult ‘racists’ too poor to live in a white area and suffering the consequences. Holding brown men to the standards of white ones would make them the same class – can’t have that.
Ban public schools and you might see a change, if they don’t move to homeschooling. They see the threat, it’s a deliberate betrayal. You bring in people to hurt those you want to see hurt (not-so-silly rabbits). There is no social justice, there is only working class oppression by signalling middle-class twats. Prior to their spotlight theft, the poor had a voice – their own. They will throw every identity at an Enemy like the kitchen sink. All but the one that really matters, class. You aren’t allowed to talk about that. They might feel some of that (anti-)white guilt. Poor women are outcompeted to work as nannies for the middle class, poor men aren’t diverse enough to be taxi drivers. Oh dear. Oh course, the middle-class signalling cuntmonkeys of the Left like it this way, it’s a sign of their power. Like how male feminists date black girls to slave roleplay in bed, they feel like that brown people crowdsurfing scene in Game of Thrones.
You and I both know that in any reality, the white blonde woman would’ve been raped by SOMEONE. Call it Taharrush or something else, same practice. “It’s alright,” she says, “those people won’t hurt me.”
A new stratospheric level of conceitedness.
The maternal instinct is perverted, as you can clearly see as a crowd of brown people chants Mother, like the hybristophiliacs who think they can change rapists, cheats and killers. Exactly like that. We used to leave those people to natural selection, not deciding national policy. When do we put them on trial for placing other humans in harm’s way, aiding and abetting?
Look at working class actresses, I won’t name names. However beautiful, they fail.
If low IQ men cannot stop themselves from rape (they can), there are two solutions: deportation or the death penalty. If it were women doing it, I’d say the same. The ones calling themselves teachers shouldn’t get off lightly either.
I would mention one point almost nobody does. It is better to be a male victim of rape than a female one.
Why? Well, the little boys are more likely to be believed and so less likely to be targeted. In addition, the girls are told they don’t understand what happened to them and he was just a “boyfriend” (ban this term) or that she is actually a prostitute, which the rapist claims. Make filmed prostitution illegal by enforcement and unfilmed genuinely punished, and these girls might actually get a look-in. Age of consent was brought in to stop child prostitution, it was meant to rise at a later date. Later on, biological proof for how wrong that (if it bleeds, it breeds) idea is came in but no change. Both sexes are told to man up and shake it off. Rape is the result of conquest after an invasion. It always has been.
But baby gets what baby wants, because baby is backed by a lot of charities and people with money.
The Third World isn’t a plot of dirt, it’s the shitty quality of people that aren’t willing to make the sacrifices we did in our history for a better quality of life. Britain’s spate of hangings in the 18th Century, for so much as stealing a crumb of bread, eliminated those shitty genes for a time and made the 19th century such a lovely place… until more waves were imported with the same problem. It doesn’t sound very kind, with an historian’s eye, to import people who cannot cope behaviorally in the 21st century and the First World, to invite them only to hang them. Of course, the people inviting them with pretty signs don’t really care about them and don’t want to be taxed for them more directly (like if you buy a pet, you have a duty to care for it), which will change obviously. The prisons are full, we never had a referendum on the death penalty. It makes you think.
After Brexit, there’s nothing stopping us. After all, they believe in democracy, right? And liberal democracy, people are allowed to have one vote and settle the matter? Plenty of prog countries have direct democracy, votes all the time. Don’t they trust us to think the correct thoughts? And how many rape kits have been tampered with by “Asians” intentionally entering forensics to cover for their cousin?
In the late 13th century the act of hanging morphed into the highly ritualised practice of ‘drawing, hanging and quartering’ – the severest punishment reserved for those who had committed treason.
Britain’s ‘Bloody Code’ was the name given to the legal system between the late-17th and early-19th century which made more than 200 offences – many of them petty – punishable by death. Statutes introduced between 1688 and 1815 covered primarily property offences, such as pickpocketing, cutting down trees and shoplifting.
And the economy did great because property rights were enforced. The Empire would’ve been impossible without that regulation.
People weren’t crowding to move here back then for some odd reason.
Later, liberal MP William Ewart brought bills which abolished hanging in chains (in 1834) and ended capital punishment for cattle stealing and other minor offences (in 1837).
What a lovely person, wait until they commit a serious crime before punishing them. The ones he dubs minor don’t count, have at it!
Think: if a farmer is running on thin margins and their most valuable possession on legs is a cow, stealing one cow isn’t just a cow – in context – it’s ruining the whole farm and making his family starve. Sure, “minor.” To a professional politician.
as did abolishing the death penalty for under-18s in 1933: no-one below this age had been executed in Britain since 1887.
Like psychopaths were never children.
Like children are never sadists?
A few years later, in the 1930s, a wealthy businesswoman named Violet van der Elst became a well-known campaigner for abolition. She argued that capital punishment was uncivilised
What about the choice they made to be in the dock? You don’t just fall on top of someone and rape them by accident.
and harmful to society
stupid bint, it’s called a deterrent
and that it was applied disproportionately to poor people.
Rich criminals can afford good lawyers. Still, getting some criminals is better than no criminals.
In fact it was his friend Christopher Craig who had shot Miles during the pair’s bungled break-in in Croydon, Surrey, while Bentley was detained by another officer. However, Craig was only 16 years old at the time of the crime and was therefore ineligible for the death penalty.
Why, was it less murdery? That’s the age of consent for sex (wrongly) so he’s old enough to produce a life but not to be held responsible for ending one?
They’re still using this technicality, by the way.
Why not do it, they can’t punish you?
Labour MP Sydney Silverman’s continued attempts to pass abolitionist legislation in 1956 foundered, but the following year the Homicide Act of 1957 restricted the death penalty’s application to certain types of murder,
some animals are more equal than others
such as in the furtherance of theft or of a police officer. Up until this point, death had been the mandatory sentence for murder and could only be mitigated via reprieve – a political rather than legal decision. This change in legislation reduced hangings to three or four per year, but capital punishment still remained highly contested.
In 1965, the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act suspended the death penalty for an initial five-year period and was made permanent in 1969.
Anyone want to contrast this with willing immigration?
Capital punishment was in 1998 abolished for treason and piracy with violence, making Britain fully abolitionist, both in practice and in law, and enabling ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.
By Blair. You trust Blair to make treason less of a crime, right? Why would he do that, other than the Goodness. Of. His. “Heart”.
Referendum or bust.
Pat’s on BitChute, LiveLeak and PewTube.
Ah, but we can’t discuss the historical or scientific implications.
After all, we’re free and equal… and those are opposites. Freedom is the ability to be unequal, if your nature requires it. Read Harrison Bergeron.
There is also the demographic side. They know the miscegenation numbers are low for white women, of all categories available, so the only way to produce those mixed babies they crave (on another woman’s behalf, because you’re liberated!) is to produce the conditions of rape. That is a level of evil I cannot comprehend.
Meanwhile, Zuckerberg thinks he can ignore a government.
Look how much he has on everyone (worse than doxxing).
Freedom fighting isn’t a cover for raping a bunch of white women but okay, history. OK.
It’s difficult to find discussions of this.
As Jenny Sharpe has shown, other accounts invoked the ultimately unrepresentable rape of British women through hints and innuendoes
If you want to liberate your race, why murder white babies and rape the mothers or their daughters?
This was the rape gang scandal of its time and inspired paintings.
There are some acts of atrocity so abominable that they will not even bear narration…
We cannot print these narratives—they are too foul for publication. We should have
to speak of families murdered in cold blood—and murder was mercy!—of the violation
of English ladies in the presence of their husbands, of their parents, of their children—and
then, but not till then, of their assassination
Who talks about this?
In similar terms of unrepresentability, the Englishwoman’s Review reported in August
1857 that “the details of the sufferings and barbarities endured by English women and
children almost surpass imagination
Back when men were men and protected their women.
Unless you wanna claim you can install the greatest Empire ever and not be a Patriarchy.
Which I don’t think anyone is going to claim.
The Englishwoman’s Review (and Drawing Room Journal of Social Progress,
Literature and Art) was published from 1857 to 1859 and was, according to Margaret
Bentham, a “proto-feminist” journal that sought “to address the women of England
from the women’s point of view”. Although it identified the lack of occupation for
middle class women as a pressing social problem, the Englishwomen’s Review refused
“to prate of women’s rights”, and rather redefined “rights” and “occupation” in more
feminized terms as “usefulness and kindness”. In its extensive coverage of the conflict
in India, the Englishwomen’s Review focused on the fate of British women. As Vron
the paper adopted the tone of the aggrieved victim, giving full encouragement to the
brave men who survived to avenge their sex. Accounts of dead children, of rooms filled
with blood, matted hair, mangled toys, rotting clothes, would all have had a particular
impact in the pages of a woman’s paper which aimed to reinforce the conventional
female role in the domestic sphere.[
The men were scared to cover this.
In its coverage of female victims in the ‘mutiny’ and its calls to avenge their suffering,
articles in the Englishwoman’s Review closely resembled those that appeared in more
mainstream newspapers with largely male readers such as the Times and the Illustrated
London News. But, at the same time, another newspaper that was addressed to female
readers interpreted events in India in markedly different ways. Although the Lady’s
Newspaper and Pictorial Times reflected the same domestic concerns as the Englishwoman’s
Review, its interpretation of events in India was very different. Unlike the
Englishwoman’s Review, the extensive coverage of the ‘mutiny’ in the Lady’s Newspaper
included several vehement protests against ‘the war cry “For the Ladies and the
Those are the SJWs. Nowadays they’d work in Rotherham.
But its coverage of the Indian uprising came to eclipse all other
stories in 1857 because “every other matter is just now of secondary importance. The
magnitude of the atrocities and the immensity of the stake have united to secure the
public mind, and it is satisfied only with what has reference to the great rebellion”.
This used to be common knowledge, do your schools mention this? Haha no. Don’t be silly. All Indians were Gandhi and their holy men never rape little girls, they just sleep in the same room alone to “test” themselves.
In August, the Lady’s Newspaper pleaded that:
If there is a political necessity for wholesale butchery, let it not be done in the name of
woman; if the women and the children of our country have been the victims of the
heathen, it is not so we would have them avenged; if we cannot raise these barbarians
to our own light, let us not sink into their darkness; if we sicken with horror at their
atrocities, let us not follow in their blood-stained footsteps.
Victorian “If you kill your enemies, they win”.
Honour doesn’t win you wars but it’s a good start.
In the context of masculine discourses of honour, heroism, and revenge,
the prestige of the British army and its success in reestablishing British rule were
inextricably linked to its ability either to protect or to avenge British women.
If you can’t defend your women and children you are not a man and deserve neither.
It’s very simple.
That’s their traditional purpose of living!
Anyway, read around.
Indians were not dorky sidekicks in a shitty sitcom.
That’s like thinking all gay men are toe-tapping effete sweethearts.
In 1857, British rule in India was challenged when Indian sepoy troops of the British Indian Army began a year-long insurrection against the British. To the British, the most shocking aspect of the events in India was the massacre of white women and children by Indian men. There was extensive coverage in the press and illustrated journals, which stimulated calls for revenge..
In newspaper accounts, parliamentary debates and visual images, the severity of the conﬂict came to be embodied by the fate of British women and the deﬁlement of their bodies and their homes.
Historically, we’ll be the same.
Paton’s famous painting In Memoriam was dedicated by the artist to the Christian heroism of “British Ladies in India during the Mutiny of 1857.” In 1858, the first version of the painting, which depicted Indian sepoy troops bursting through the door, was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Art in London.
Ideologically, the Rebellion dramatically increased racial antagonisms between Britons and Indians. On the British side, this was in large part due to the savage attack on British women and children, who were allegedly being raped and murdered by fanatic soldiers in alarming numbers. The British had to have a heroic fight against depraved sepoys intent on rape and murder of innocent and helpless English women and children.
The depth of public reaction to the murders was due in large part to the lurid nature of the published accounts. Though papers frequently argued that the ‘vile tortures’ practised upon British women and children should “be remembered, not told,” all of them did in fact ‘tell’ of rape and torture in graphic detail.
but not the babies
Indians had the original fetish for baby rape, it’s the tribal rumour thing. I wouldn’t be shocked if the African HIV thing originally came from India. They cover wounds in cow shit and drink from the corpse strewn Ganges. I saw a photo taken of what looked like a dog playing with a football, just out of a tourist area. No, head of a child.
None of them care. It’s savagery of the first order.
To assume everyone has a conscience is very white privilege.
Letters and telegraphs flooded the papers with accounts of women being raped in front of their children before being killed, of matted blood, gory remains of children’s limbs, and of the suffocation of living children among their dead mothers when the victims were thrown into a well.
Such graphic tales of rape and murder inflamed public sentiments calling for vengeance on a massive scale. The Illustrated London News voiced its indignation in tandem with most other national, provincial, and local papers when it claimed that “every British heart, from the highest to the humblest of the land, glows with honest wrath, and demands justice, prompt and unsparing, on the bloodyminded instruments of the Rebellion.”
Strangers (swarthy strangers) on the internet encourage you not to care, because women and children supposedly “deserve it” for things voted in before their birth. Well, if we do end up running a black flag over a monarch’s dead body, the men who refused to defend this country will “deserve” to lose their head.
You had one job.
“Much of what is used in Hollywood today that would be considered Luciferian in nature really comes from a lot of the Druidic incantations, the Druidic witchcraft, the worship of Gaia, of earth, in ninth and tenth century England,” Robberson said on the webcast. “And prior to that, you can trace that through Kabbalistic witchcraft and Jewish mysticism all the way back, really, to what was going on in Babylon.”
“There is a distinct through-line from the time of when the Babylonians were sacrificing kids to Moloch in the temple at the top of the Tower of Babel,” Robberson noted, explaining the dark history of this sadistic ritual. “From the time that they attempted to slap God in the face with that stuff to Hollywood today, you could do an exhaustive study and find a distinct through-line in the practice of witchcraft.”
“There is pedophilia running rampant in Hollywood,” Robberson said. He then noted, just like Wood, that this ring preys on young children and it is made up of the “highest upper echelons of Hollywood, executive VPs of development, producers, mega-power agents and the international bankers that fund all this stuff.”
Can I point out here that porn teaches you to enjoy voyeurism, vital for cuckoldry and orgies? Once that boundary has been broken, there’s no limit to what you can be taught to enjoy viewing, the pleasure circuits are already wired.
“According to occult researcher Jordan Maxwell the very word “Hollywood” refers to the type of wood used by Druids for their wands: the wood from the Holly tree. In other words, “Hollywood”.”
PETA is suspiciously silent.
“Lifestyle choice” now where have we heard that before?
R-types = animal rapists and violent abusers.
Germany = animal porn illegal, rape of animals legal.
I happen to know from a paraphilia researcher that Germany has had bestiality brothels for a long, long time. It used to be known for that in Europe, over places like Amsterdam. S&M and bestiality. That was its USP. It had laws that didn’t expressly forbid them because it was a great way to blackmail foreign diplomats. Picture Hitler crying.
Danes have something similar but who cares about Denmark? Danes with Great Danes, sick bastards.
This is what happens when sexual entitlement meets weak consent laws.
They also use heavily pregnant women to test the pedophilia laws, since they’re technically having sex involving a child.
Instead of blaming prostitution (and fornication), they blame capitalism. There’s nothing more objectifying or dehumanizing for the species than hookers and sex robot slaves. Is that the best use of humans or robots?
The women-are-property meme is not only un-Biblical (violates the vows about honouring and cherishing), it’s part of the degenerate spiral to paedophilia because if women are property and cannot say NO (withhold consent, the assumption) then neither can little girls.
OT How long before vore becomes an accepted fetish among African cannibals?
The ultimate way to deal with this is to spread out pamphlets from the Koran that forbid premarital or extramarital ‘fun’.
They can’t possibly dispute with this, without insulting their own religion. It becomes No True Muslim.
Nobody chooses the niqab, ‘to submit’, the meaning of Islam’s name. Similarly, no sane woman chooses to become a hooker. It’s exploitation on par with trafficking, which is sex slavery that uses prostitution as its cover.
Nobody owns an unmarried woman’s body, the only sexual right is the conjugal and the religious canon in Christianity clearly states that the spouses own one another’s bodies. Atheists lie, thinking if they can’t control one woman, a whole flock couldn’t possibly refuse to submit…. A+ logic. Having one nagging wife is Hell, imagine a herd.
A white woman’s body isn’t a public squeezy toy and even a dog understands ‘No’, unlike these IQ85 degenerate scumbags.