Dangerous Rape Myths: Part 1

By Hannah Wallen: In the wake of the flurry of rape accusation–related news stories, feminists are up in arms again, spouting the same old casually hateful rhetoric against presuming the accused innocent until proven guilty. Most are advocating automatic belief of accusers, and as always there are feminist groups consistently attacking the recognition of due process rights in criminal and civil court when an accusation of sexual misconduct is at stake. Some groups are even complaining about the prosecution of false accusers. These groups are not bothered at all about the impact of a false accusation on a man’s life, yet they are outraged that if it appears that a woman abused the system in a way that wreaks such havoc, she might as a consequence experience a shadow of it. Feminist advocacy pits the accuser’s feelings against the accused’s right to due process and the innocent’s right to liberty.
Feminist writers and advocates are using the most flimsy, sexist excuses for this. Many of these have been discussed and countered. I’ve written about them before as well, but it’s obvious from recent discussion that they’ll need to be addressed over and over because knowing that they’re unjustified does not stop feminists from continuing to spout dangerous rape myths. These rape myths must be examined and challenged.
Here in Part 1, I will examine three common and destructive rape myths: that doubt = misogyny; that the innocent have nothing to fear; and that false allegations are rare.
1. Not believing a woman’s rape accusation is misogyny.

Move Out Or We Will Take Your Kids!!! + Russell Brand v Nigel Farage - The BBC Sucks O Cocks News

"Social Housing Not Social Cleansing!"
The Artist Taxi Driver

Debt Meteor Approaching Earth - Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert with Simon Dixon

‘Something’s gotta give’ as the real world continues to tumble while equity markets continue rising - and not everyone is 'lovin' it.'

Russia’s Proposed Interbank System Threatens Global Economy

By Ted Baumann: The international financial system is based on the U.S. dollar. The greenback is both the world’s “reserve currency” — the one everyone wants to hold when things go bad — and the principal means of exchange. The vast majority of transactions between companies, countries and people are denominated in dollars.

As my investment-oriented colleagues regularly discuss on this page, the dollar’s dominance isn’t unchallenged. The Chinese yuan, in particular, has pretensions to become a second global currency, one so widely used that transactions unrelated to China could be conducted in yuan.

But there’s another challenge on the horizon … a new international interbank system that could create important opportunities — or chaos — for the world economy, depending on how the proverbial ball bounces.

Not So SWIFT

You probably know the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system as that little jumble of letters and numbers you need every time you send money to a foreign bank account. It’s the global banking system’s address book and postal system. SWIFT has more than 10,000 members in more than 200 countries, and handles more than 15 million messages daily.
But even though SWIFT is based in Belgium, and subject to EU law, the U.S. government claims legal authority over all SWIFT transactions denominated in U.S. dollars — even if those dollars never enter a U.S. bank account — because they are ultimately “backstopped” by the Federal Reserve.

Sexodus: Why Are Young Men Giving Up On Women?

Why are more and more young men giving up on women and checking out of society?   

 The Sexodus

Squaring The Circle: Contact Denial As Coercive Control?

By Karen Woodall: Since Theresa May’s announcement that men who shout at their wives could face up to 14 years in prison, the issue of coercive control has been in the media.  Launched by a plethora of largely meaningless headlines, the idea that coercive control is a new offence which tightens the net around nasty men, protecting feeble victim women has been on our front pages recently.
Interpreted by women’s groups as being behaviour designed to control women’s freedoms, actually coercive control is defined as follows
Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.
Which pretty much makes this a gender neutral piece of legislation, meaning that it covers the behaviours of both men AND women.  The problem of course is, that any piece of gender neutral legislation, when enacted in a gender biased field, ends up re-inforcing gender biased outcomes.  Which means that this legislation ends up without a doubt, being about nasty men and defenceless women who are being bullied and nothing else.
What it is most definitely not interpreted as is ‘contact denial’ that pattern of behaviour which is both coercive and controlling in that it involves the systematic interference of a child’s relationship with a parent on a deliberate basis designed to cause harm and abuse.

Correcting History: “Petticoat Government” (1896)

By Peter Wright:  
Women’s Political Influence
The women of good society in America are what they are everywhere else, satisfied with their lot which consists in being the adored goddesses of refined households; but there exists in this country, among the middle (or in European parlance, lower-middle) classes restless, bumptious, ever poking-their-noses-everywhere women who are slowly, but surely and safely, transforming this great land of liberty into a land of petty, fussy tyranny, and trying, often with complete success, to impose on the community fads of every shape and form.
If there is one country in the world where the women appear, in the eyes of the foreign visitor, to enjoy all manner of privileges and to have the men in leading strings, that country is America. You would imagine, therefore, that America should be the last country where the “new woman” was to be found airing her grievances. Yet she is flourishing throughout the length and breadth of this huge continent. She is petted by her husband, the most devoted and hard-working of husbands in the world; she is literally covered with precious stones by him. She is allowed to wear hats that would “fetch” Paris in Carnival time, or start a panic at a Corpus-Christi procession in Paris or a Lord-Mayor’s Show in London. She is the superior of her husband in education, and almost in every respect. She is surrounded by the most numerous and delicate attentions. Yet she is not satisfied.
The Anglo-Saxon “new woman” is the most ridiculous production of modern times and destined to be the most ghastly failure of the century. She is par excellence the woman with a grievance, and self-labelled the greatest nuisance of modern society. The new woman wants to retain all the privileges of her sex and secure, besides, all those of man. She wants to be a man and to remain a woman. She will fail to become a man, but she may succeed in ceasing to be a woman.

On the Brink of War and Economic Collapse

By Paul Craig Roberts: On occasion a reader will ask if I can give readers some good news. The answer is: not unless I lie to you like “your” government and the mainstream media do. If you want faked “good news,” you need to retreat into The Matrix. In exchange for less stress and worry, you will be led unknowingly into financial ruin and nuclear armageddon.
If you want to be forewarned, and possibly prepared, for what “your” government is bringing you, and have some small chance of redirecting the course of events, read and support this site. It is your site. I already know these things. I write for you.
The neoconservatives, a small group of warmongers strongly allied with the military/industrial complex and Israel, gave us Granada and the Contras affair in Nicaragua. President Reagan fired them, and they were prosecuted, but subsequently pardoned by Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush.
Ensconced in think tanks and protected by Israeli and military/security complex money, the neoconservatives reemerged in the Clinton administration and engineered the breakup of Yugoslavia, the war against Serbia, and the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders.

Joe Biden Will Kill Your Son + MGTOW, For Women

johntheother: Not all women are like that? Okay, I get it, just most of them.

Hanna Rosin: A Lesson In Feminist Propaganda

By Jim Muldoon: Slate magazine, that bastion of free speech (as long as you agree with them), gave us the lowdown on men’s status in the family court in a link to one of their articles:

Men’s Rights Activists Say The Courts Are Against Them. They’re Wrong

Of course, when I clicked on the link I got a modified headline:

The perception that family law is unfair to fathers is not exactly true.

Interestingly, the title on the link says:

men_s_rights_recognized_the_pro_father_evolution_of_
divorce_and_paternity

Make any sense of that?
You’re not supposed to. The intention is to twist, turn, and deceive in order to manipulate the emotions. There is no intention to inform the mind.
The author of the actual article, Hanna Rosin, is a deft hand herself at this type of propaganda. It is important to understand and expose this emotional manipulation, in order to counter it with some effectiveness. While her article addresses the U.S. family court system, this discussion is equally relevant in Australia, the U.K., Canada, and elsewhere.

What Society Is And Is Not....

"Society did it, that's what we are. ...Society is what we are, we are not what society is." ThinkingApe-TV

Google Strikes Back Against Spanish Newspaper Cartel

By Don Quijones: Google raised the stakes today in its bitter battle with Spain’s most powerful newspaper publishers lobby, the AEDE. Following the Spanish government’s announcement of its intention to introduce a so-called “Google Tax” – a levy on websites’ sharing of links to other sites – the world’s most powerful tech company hit back with an audacious all-in.

The head of Google News, Richard Gingras, announced that on December 16th it would suspend the Spanish edition of its news service, a move that has sent jitters through the newsrooms of Spain’s largest newspaper publishers. The U.S. tech giant also said that it would remove all links to Spanish newspapers from all its Google News sites around the world.
Both moves have the potential to take a huge chunk out of Spanish newspapers’ national and international web traffic, sending members of the AEDE newspaper publishers lobby into a flurry of panic.
This morning they organized an emergency meeting, at which it was decided that a) Google was well within its rights to close its Spanish news service, and b) the Spanish government must nonetheless do something (anything, goddamnit!) to head off the threat – though the government’s intervention (at AEDE’s behest) caused the problem in the first place.
How is it possible that AEDE did not see this coming? Did it really think that it could shakedown the world’s most powerful quasi-monopoly without any repercussions? Did it not learn anything from the bitter painful experience of the more than 200 German newspapers who decided last month to abandon Google News en masse in protest against the US tech giant’s growing influence? In the space of just two weeks Germany’s largest newspaper publishing group, Axel Springer, lost 40% of its web traffic and is now pleading with Google to allow it to return to its pride of place near the top of its news aggregator.