Same ol’ feminist bullshit, just never gets old, does it?

Voila, Hatie the deputy leader of the party that deserves her and her new van. Same old drivel, same old misandric lies. Blah blah male dominated politics blah blah domestic violence by men blah blah

On a lighter note, here’s the rear end
Harriet's (van's) fat arse

And a quote which I imagine comes from her days working for the Paedophile Information Exchange…hence her sometimes being referred to as HarPIE Harman

‘Paedogate’ Gets Worse For Harriet Harman As PIE Leader Tom O’Carroll Reveals New Details

And I haven’t even mentioned Rotherham’s Labour run from top to bottom council’s betrayal of the local kids, have I? Not just Rotherham either.

Hatie and Labour deserve each other. She’s a poster child for all that’s wrong with it.

Posted in Feminism, Gynocentrism, Politics, SJW
51 comments on “Same ol’ feminist bullshit, just never gets old, does it?
  1. Yoda says:

    Flattering pictures these are not.


  2. Spawny Get says:

    The state of democracy in parts of the UK
    The guy deserves an award for services to third world politics in the UK


  3. Yikes! And I thought American politics were bad!


  4. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    What is encouraging is that woen are getting tired of it. Everything Harriet referred to would promote the lot of the single, or frivorced, mother. At who’s expense? Why men’s of course. Married women don’t want to fund the lifestyle.

    It’s good news that Harriet is taking flack from women.
    What worries me is that women, in general, feel that they have achieved complete social dominance. They may be correct.


  5. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Feminism has been much more advanced in the UK than in the US for as long as I can remember.


  6. Spawny Get says:

    HarPIE is on Channel 4 news right now. I’ll upload it tomorrow. Next we have an interview with the female leader of the SNP. Toxic lefty too. I doubt a straight, honest word has passed their lips in years…just an opinion.

    Nicola Sturgeon, SNP leader, yesterday


  7. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Spawny Get,
    I’ll look forward to watching it. I can’t understand how a woman, mother of three kids, two of them sons, and married over thirty years can take this political stance.
    Bear scratching head.
    The only thing that I can think is political opportunism without regard to personal values.


  8. Yoda says:

    What worries me is that women, in general, feel that they have achieved complete social dominance. They may be correct.

    With men working not, dominance over a soon to be shit hole it would be.
    Worth much this is?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Yoda says:

    The only thing that I can think is political opportunism without regard to personal values.

    Naive bear you are.
    Happens much it does.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Yoda says:

    Dignified these older women look not.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Spawny Get says:

    On second thoughts, that picture might be Wee Jimmy Krankie


  12. Spawny Get says:

    These wasters actually have the cheek to demand your votes. Check out the level of content in what they say

    I think we should electrify all the seats and give Andrew Neil the right to press the buttons. Just in order to raise standards in politics, you understand?


  13. Spawny Get says:

    Not all women are impressed. For the sark and lolz

    When they bailed out the banks, I didn’t understand why they were underwater. When they fiddled their expenses, I had to ask a man to explain why that was bad.

    I did get a bit upset when I heard there was a Westminster child abuse scandal, but only because it had the word “child” in it and my womb vibrates like an unanswered mobile whenever I hear it.

    Every single day of my life, without even realising, I was being oppressed, degraded, belittled and kept in ignorance by those awful men and their different language which sounds so much like ours but isn’t.

    They don’t even realise we have 50 different words for “shoes”!

    So imagine my delight when I learned that you, Harriet, had broken through this male-centric domination of public political discourse.


  14. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Spawny Get,
    Was that “gobbledygook” and “doubletalk” that I heard?

    I thought so.

    Yes, naive bear I am.
    The most natural approach would be to vote in your own interest.


  15. Spawny Get says:

    Some cockwaffle mixed in too.


  16. Cill says:

    “Things got so serious that in 2003 the Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation (PACE) group warned the Home Office that South Yorkshire Police were leaking to the perpetrators.”
    Jesus wept

    Liked by 1 person

  17. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    I had a horrible thought. Harriet gets reinstated. White vans from all over the country, loaded with male passengers are clogging the southbound lanes headed for the Channel ports. A redio station is playing this stuck in an endless loop.


  18. Spawny Get says:

    She joked years ago that if she became the Prime Minister the queues of men trying to leave the country would be immense (words to that effect).


  19. Spawny Get says:

    HarPIE on Channel 4 news


  20. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Spawny Get,
    Underneath all that pink paint, the van is white. They missed the doorwells.
    I can understand Harriet wanting to be PM, that’s ambition. But to get there and then lose the cooperation of the men, should they stay,doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of the exercise?


  21. Farm Boy says:

    That picture on the main page associated with this post is a shocker


  22. Farm Boy says:

    I can understand Harriet wanting to be PM, that’s ambition. But to get there and then lose the cooperation of the men,

    Perhaps a pyrrhic victory is better than none for her.
    People can be driven.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Farm Boy says:

    the queues of men

    You say queue.
    We say line.
    Your word is better.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    I don’t know where Spawny finds these things. He does have a talent for it. If we were all good at finding bear videos, we’d soon tire of them.

    I have to take issue with the title of the post, “Same ol’ feminist bullshit, just never gets old, does it?” It is getting old and with women, the demographic group that they’re supposed to represent.
    Which leads one to the question, what do you do with unwanted fembots?

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Farm Boy says:

    That picture does contrast with my landscapes.

    Perhaps it is better that way.

    Serene and shocking.

    Just like how women can be.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Farm Boy says:

    Which leads one to the question, what do you do with unwanted fembots?

    But they are awesomely awesome. If one does not see this, then one is defective.


  27. Farm Boy says:

    “The bottom 10% have suffered immeasurbly under the austerity program” the Scotsman stated.

    Somehow, I do doubt that.
    This book tells the true story,


  28. Spawny Get says:

    Actually there are two (dead) mutant piglets each with a penis on their heads in the news right now. One from China (pictured) and the other from Scotland. Seemed perfect for a story about politicians;

    Dickheads with a propensity to shamelessly stick their snouts in the trough. Brain dead to boot.


  29. Yoda says:

    “Life at the Bottom” written by C3PO it was.
    Thank the force Jar-Jar wrote it not.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    As a thought, a post, written by Yoda, interesting it would be.
    Incisive, to the point, and brief.

    Spawny Get, since you put it that way, it all makes sense.


  31. Yoda says:

    Bear senses good writing he does.


  32. Spawny Get says:

    Thanks for a link to that blog, I’ll be following it.


  33. SFC Ton says:

    what did that English fella say about rivers of blood….. good luck Spwany…. I have a bunk house here on Camp Ton


  34. Spawny Get says:

    Hey, I’d rather go out fighting in a zombee ‘poccylips than in bed aged 90…


  35. SFC Ton says:

    Someone has to serve you in Valhalla

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Spawny Get says:

    Helpful link for others; Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech

    I really recommend a reading, see what you think of what he said. You know? (Rather than just accept the standard frame that he was just a racist evil Tory bastard)

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
    One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
    Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
    Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
    At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
    A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
    After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
    I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
    The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
    I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
    In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.
    There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
    As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
    The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
    The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
    It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
    Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
    I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
    I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
    Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
    Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
    Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
    The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
    There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
    The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
    This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
    Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
    Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.
    But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
    They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
    In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
    I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
    “Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
    “The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
    “The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
    The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
    Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
    But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
    We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
    Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
    ‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’
    All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
    For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
    That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
    Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Tarnished says:

    “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage.”

    What the fuck? 😡


  38. Tarnished says:

    I really hope she’s talking about sex between a 16 year old and their 18 or 19 year old boyfriend/girlfriend…but I won’t hold my breath.


  39. Spawny Get says:

    No, she wasn’t. Now I haven’t seen the specific context of the remark shown above, but this is the company she was keeping while working for the NCCL which was affiliated to PIE at the time.

    “The group [Paedophile Information Exchange]’s stated aim was “to alleviate [the] suffering of many adults and children” by campaigning to abolish the age of consent thus legalising sex between adults and children.[3]”

    In 1978 and 1979, the Paedophile Information Exchange surveyed its members and found that they were most attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15. In 1978, Glenn Wilson and David Cox approached O’Carroll with a request to study the PIE membership. A meeting was held with the PIE leadership to vet the survey instruments and, after approval, these were distributed to PIE members in the course of their regular mailing. Wilson and Cox went on to use the data in writing their book, The Child-Lovers – a study of paedophiles in society.[6]

    Affiliation to the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties (now known as Liberty))

    Allegations against Labour politicians
    A number of senior Labour Party politicians were linked in newspaper stories to PIE in December 2013, and again in February 2014, as a result of their involvement with NCCL at time of PIE’s affiliation. The party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman had been employed by NCCL as an in-house solicitor and met her husband, the MP Jack Dromey, then a member of NCCL’s executive committee, while working in this capacity. In addition, Patricia Hewitt MP was NCCL’s general secretary for nine years. The trio were labelled “apologists for paedophiles” by the Daily Mail.[20] The former chair of PIE, Tom O’Carroll, claimed the three had not attempted to expel PIE out of fear for the impact this might have on their careers at the NCCL.[21]
    Harman denied she had supported PIE while at NCCL and the specific allegation that she supported a campaign for the age of consent to be reduced to 10, and expressed regret at the involvement of the NCCL with PIE.[22][23][24] She accused the right-leaning newspaper of both embarking on a smear campaign and of hypocrisy, making the counter-accusation that the Daily Mail sexualises young girls.[25] Dromey also denied the accusations.[26] Hewitt apologised separately, saying she had been “naive and wrong to accept that PIE was a counseling and campaign group”.[27]


  40. Yoda says:

    Toward end of article get closer they do

    Dr Martin Seager at the central London Samaritans sees a danger in approaches to help men that, in essence, tell them to act more like women. For Seager, the core of the problem with that approach is that it goes against evolutionary biology. “The way I look at it, if men have evolved as fathers, protectors and survivors, they are going to feel life is worth living to the extent they can provide and protect.” In his view, the problem comes when the world changes and men are no longer able to fulfil this traditional role.

    With this subtle change of emphasis, the whole question of how best to address male suicide is subsumed by a deeper ideological battle – one that strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a man. Mike Buchanan, 58, is founder of the world’s first political party for men’s human rights, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). He is also a prolific self-publishing author of volumes including David and Goliatha and Feminism: The Ugly Truth. “There is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional masculinity, absolutely zero wrong with it,” he said. “I think that idea is batshit insane.”

    Buchanan and others prominent in the online “manosphere”, where he has developed a following, are generally “essentialists”, believing male and female behaviour is predominantly biologically determined, rather than the product of social influences. From this point of view, the problem lies not with stoicism or other elements of traditional masculinity, but with their dilution in what Buchanan believes is a “gynocentric world . . . run to pander to the wants and needs of women all along the way”. This perspective is blunt: the rise of women has triggered the fall of men.


  41. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    What is interesting is that harriet Harman and friends are being condemned by the mainstream media and, the sense that I get, it is because Harman is too moderate.
    If the fembots cannot be satisfied by Harriet and Co., then we’re in for it.

    Yoda, that link from PJMedia was astute.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: