Alison Saunders Denied Damehood

Finally some good news to end the year, Alison Saunders, Britain’s most evil chief prosecutor who’s whole ambition in life seemed to be to lock up the entire cis gendered white male population for “rape” has been denied a damehood and the reason is suspected to be because of her successful attempts to pervert the course of justice and get innocent men locked up in prison for rape. Apparently she is the very first CPS chief not to be awarded the honour.

Hurray! Happy New Year everyone!

This entry was posted in Crimes Against Humanity, Free Speech, Men's Rights, News, Paedohysteria. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Alison Saunders Denied Damehood

  1. Yure says:

    Karma? No, just justice.

  2. galileo1439 says:

    There is a real danger that the FBI may attempt to lure us using the incel forums into terror plots, so they can entrap us and indict us for conspiracy. Anyone involved in our movement might be acting as an informant, even trusted and regular leaders. If anyone here is facing criminal charges they might be acting as informants in exchange for getting their charges reduced or dropped. Use your instincts. Especially if anyone suggests establishing a IRL place to use as a headquarters, i.e. renting a building or getting a trailer etc. That might be a trap where the FBI is waiting to arrest us there.

  3. Erich says:

    An almost radical feminist who supports youth rights and anti-pedohysteria:

    Today there is no longer any difference between feminist and anti-feminist (and masculinist etc.) in terms of youth rights and sex between adults and minors.

    You can be anti-feminist because you oppose feminism as an ideology but not because feminism is the enemy of sex with minors.

    A while ago I saw an anti-feminist woman denouncing feminism saying that simon beauvoir defended sex with minors (as a bad thing) and that a girl of 14 goes dating an over-18 man is an aberration.

    Remember that the last bill in Malta that LOWER the age of consent to 16 was mostly a feminist bill, and the last attempt to lower the Aoc in the UK to 14 was stopped mostly by right conservatives.

    Antifeminism as the source of adult-teen sex liberation is outdated and only defended by die-hard old MRAs.

  4. Erich says:

    Comment from an alt-right anti-feminist guy about a man talking about a 17-years-old boy:

    “Most likely you’re some homosexual fantasizing over having sex with a minor.”

    Only an ignorant or a fool can think that this rubbish is better than feminism.

  5. KEr says:

    Message to theantifeminist and a-likes about we use the term MAP (and ephebophiles, hebephiles):

    Minor Attracted Person (MAP) is a new term to me. Still, I have already noticed that most nons/antis and guys like Theantifeminist view it as an attempt to be deceptive. Honestly, I would have agreed (though I find it a necessary deception) but nons/antis had already done the same thing on the other side.

    When nons/antis call 6ix9ine a pedophile for sexual actions with a young teen girl near his age that he thought was older or call drake a pedophile for interacting with late teenagers in a somewhat sexual fashion then I can only dismiss their complaints about the term MAP.

    Nons/antis have already lumped nepiophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles (most of these are normies), ephebophiles (these are just normies) under one umbrella. They created MAPs and now they must deal with the consequences.

    It is hypocritical to on one hand attack any adult who is interested in or has sexual relations with anyone under 18 and call them a pedophile but then get mad when the people in those groups band together and create a label for all of them. You have created your own enemy.

  6. @Erich – what kind of argument is that? You pick one ‘feminist’ blogger and one comment by an alt-right on homosexuality to prove that feminists can be our friends? And when did the UK vote on lowering the age of consent to 14? I think you’re making this stuff up. There was a very sexual libertarian brand of feminism in the 60s, made up of very young females who were being caught up in the tide of the sexual revolution (caused by the pill, not by feminists). That didn’t last very long.

    The lobby groups that push for high age of consents and repressive laws on teen porn etc are always dominated by feminists or femiservatives (the same thing really). I once did a quite thorough analysis of the NSPCC, the charity that has done more than any other to create the present environment in the UK (and by extension to Europe) and nearly every single member of their top tier is/was a radical feminist, who did their research at university in gender studies, published papers on ‘toxic masculinity’, patriarchy, domestic violence etc.

    But I don’t know. You might be able to convince Holocaust21 to become a feminist.

  7. One of the #OpDeathEater trolls behind the Hampstead Satanic abuse hoax has been jailed for nine years :

    At least some trolls go to the jail, although we appear to be still waiting for the paedocrite one who tried to post child porn on Eivind Berg’s blog to be locked up. I suspect it’s the TakeDownMRAs guy.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Ha, yeah I saw the one about the Hampstead Satanic Abuse hoax troll. I had mixed feelings about that. On the one hand she seems to have been jailed for (unusually) the kind of “trolling” that I am against and she’s a woman which makes an anti-feminist statement. On the other hand it is free speech and represents yet another milestone in the UK’s war on free speech as the sentences just got longer. In fact, I am not sure if anyone else has ever been jailed in the UK for longer for what they’ve said? Even Anjem Choudary was “only” given 5 years. The only exception that immediately comes to mind is distributing indecent images of children, which is free speech btw, lest we forget…! Still, then again maybe giving her such a long sentence starts to send a message to all the “child abuse fantasists” out there to shut them up and is the beginning of change to a new oppressive society which I like the look of more than this one.

  8. von says:

    The criminalization and social repulsion of the sexuality of adults with people under 18 is not to increase the sexual market value of old hags, the objective is to prevent adult men from turning good girls into good women and wives and to force minors to have relations with peers of their age, where it is practically impossible for a boy to turn a girl into a good woman.

    No old hag is going to increase its sexual value by prohibiting sex with teens under 18 when a man has women available from 18 to twenty-somethings, men know that older women are equally hot and some even more, so they don’t care the least, the proof: 99% of men are not interested in minors under 18 or care about the laws against.

    I repeat: banning sex with teenagers does NOT increase the sexual market value of mature women as long as it is not banned with twenty-somethings.

    No one seems to have a problem with only dating women over 18… if not for a problem, the supreme problem of men: men should look for GIRLS not WOMEN.

    A woman does not become a good women and wife alone nor does a woman become optimal just reaching adulthood, and even if she was, a woman who has not grown since her adolescence with a man will never be loyal and truly loving. The love and loyalty of a real woman is achieved by impressing girls to get loving and loyal women.

    When a society repudiates this is just the countdown to its end. This denaturalization of sex is unavoidable to achieve that goal. Forcing teenage girls to look for people of their own age only prevents a good man from creating a good woman.

    A man comes to this world to find a good girl to mate with and thanks to his paternal love make her his good wife and mother. Everything else is a deviation and perversion of the natural order, and it is not a naturalistic fallacy but you only have to study history to realize that it is the basis of all healthy civilization.

    • holocaust21 says:

      You make some good points on why girls under 18 should date and the current laws are wrong. But I’m not sure you offer an alternative motivation to the “sexually jealous old hag” theory for banning sex with under 18s. The idea that “the objective is to prevent adult men from turning good girls into good women and wives” doesn’t sound like a motivation, it sounds like a goal. The sexually jealous old hag theory gives us a motivation too. Why would anyone be motivated to prevent adult men from turning good girls into good women and wives?

    • “The criminalization and social repulsion of the sexuality of adults with people under 18 is not to increase the sexual market value of old hags, the objective is to prevent adult men from turning good girls into good women and wives and to force minors to have relations with peers of their age, where it is practically impossible for a boy to turn a girl into a good woman.”

      First of all, banning sex with under 18, especially with ignorance of the girl’s real age being no defence in law (as is the case in the UK and most countries), is going to have a chilling effect on men seeking out even 18-25 year olds.

      Paedo hysteria is a stepping stone to making the attraction towards any fertile, young female, morally or even legally dubious.

      Thus feminists have gone from making it taboo and illegal for men to seek out teenage girls, to making it taboo and even (apparently) illegal for men to seek out young women :

      Further, you don’t understand that feminists appear relatively amenable to the idea of men marrying teenage girls, so long as they don’t simply ‘use them for sex’. For example, an anti-Islam politician in Austria recently was convicted of slandering the prophet Mohammed by calling him a paedophile. Apparently, there was no dispute that Mohammed had had sex with an 8 year old girl (as a middle-aged man) but the feminist judge ruled that he wasn’t a peadophile because he married the girl and looked after her for the rest of her life.

      Why are feminists so against child porn (i.e. teen porn) as much as they are against actual sex with teens? They managed to get the age of consent for porn raised to 18 before they’ve managed to do the same for sex (in most countries). How does your theory explain that? Isn’t it obvious that if a man faps to a picture of a teenage girl, the sexual market value of hags is reduced as much as if he had actual sex with a teenage girl? (perhaps even more so, because at least he might end up marrying the teenage girl and supporting her when she’s a hag).

      So basically you’re wrong. You’re factually incorrect in saying that criminalizing sex with teenage girls does not raise the sexual market value of hags (of course it does), and my theory has huge explanatory power and a weight of evidence to back it up. Your theory has no evidence or explanatory power and is contradicted by the behaviour of feminists, particularly the femiservative kind who are equally predominant in the lobby groups and NGOs that force these laws upon us.

      Not to mention that paedohysteria leads to fathers having more control over their teenage daughters, which doesn’t exactly fit in with your theory either.

      • That story about the arrest of the pickup artist in Scotland for doing what PUAs do is very remarkable, possibly the most invasive attack on male sexuality so far. I can’t even discern any suspected crime in that story, or complaints from the women themselves, just the opinion of “the force” that talking to young women in the streets, or offering men advice on how to do so, is “predatory behavior” which ought to be cracked down on. Now I am sure a law to cover this will soon follow if they don’t have one already, but WOW, that is bold either way even in the current climate! How can this happen without any noticeable outrage from men? There is no pretense that this is to protect underage girls either, just to prevent men from picking up young women, so how can they get away with it without the slightest hint that there is anything out of place with the police’s actions here? Does it not occur to BBC that maybe there needs to be a suspected crime before a man should be arrested, besides just being a man with an interest in women? Or is that so normal now that no explanation is needed because male sexuality obviously equals criminality?

      • holocaust21 says:

        You’re right actually Eivind, I looked into him a bit more and literally all he was doing is asking girls out and talking about how to ask them out.

        The Scottish police are some of the most radicalised feminists in Europe. I believe they are worse than the ones in England. In fact, Jordan Peterson singled them out for criticism because they arrested the guy with the pug and shove signs up all over the place about hate speech etc. Whilst it’s refreshing that Peterson singled them out and he has a lot of followers, unfortunately I’m not sure that it’s enough. For one, the guy with the pug hates paedophiles so despite him being a victim of the PC police state, he’s also a perpetrator, lol. And Peterson himself hasn’t said much on the topic, and I feel doesn’t try hard enough to move the goal posts when sexual harassment is mentioned etc.

  9. galileo1439 says:

    Are you shaving with a Gillette?

  10. Reader says:

    Do you hate women? I’m asking very seriously, not trying to annoy/tease you or something. Would you be ok with your mother, girlfriend or daugther being raped? Would you rape someone if you had the chance?

    • holocaust21 says:

      I don’t hate all women, but I do hate feminist women.

      Rape is a word with many meanings to different people. What I am trying to do here is to provide an alternative mode of discourse to the feminist narrative. The radical feminist narrative is basically that “all sex is rape”, and most feminists advocate only just short of that, defining a whole series of complex, arbitrary, unrealistic, undesirable and stupid rules for men to follow for them to have the “luxury” of engaging in sex with a woman who has the power to accuse him of rape anyway (even if he followed all the supposed rules) and/or divorce him and take all his life savings.

      So to answer your question, no I don’t think that a clearly violent, forceful rape is a good thing. But I think most “rapes” fall short of that and so I think in many – or most – cases they are either not wrong at all or only very moderately wrong. For example, I think having sex with a willing 15 year old girl is perfectly fine. I also think that having sex with a woman who seems willing but where you didn’t explicitly ask her for consent is fine. I don’t think that women should have the right to claim rape and be automatically believed. And I don’t think that smacking a woman’s bottom without her consent should be regarded as some heinous crime (FYI women loved that in the 1970s when everyone was doing it). And probably a series of other things, but you get the idea.

      In the case of forceful rapes I do think some level of sympathy should be given to the perpetrator in the same way that some level of sympathy is given to female murderers (they often get reduced sentences for any range of excuses). If the man raped because he can’t get laid, but other men or women are all judging him and calling him a “monster” despite the fact that they have managed to get laid, then isn’t it a bit judgemental to judge someone so harshly who has been comparatively disadvantaged?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.