Traffic Congestion 

Feminists Responsible for Traffic Congestion

25/2/00

How many times have you been stuck in a motionless sea of traffic and waited and waited and waited, only to move forward very slowly indeed, inch by inch, into the interminable distance ahead?

You're late. You're hot. You're tense. You're flustered. And you're angry. Because this happens nearly every goddamn time that you get into your car.

So many hours of one's life wasted. So much of the economy disappearing as petrol fumes.

And it's those bloody feminists again.

What? You mean that you didn't realise that the traffic jams in your city are caused by Feminism?

Well. Of course they are, My Ignorant One.

You see, feminists have managed to prise apart family relationships to such an extent that more and more people now live apart in single-adult households.

And that's more traffic. Whichever way you look at it.

You see, feminists believe that marriage and relationships oppress women. They want to see marriages split asunder. And they have been succeeding in this for over 25 years.

More single-adult households. More traffic. More jams. More hostility. More pollution. More road rage. More deaths.

So, more children driven in cars, rather than walking.

So. 

Even more traffic. Even more jams. Even more hostility. Even more pollution. Even more road rage. Even more deaths.

More tension. More arguments. More violence. More bust-ups. More misery.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said that the rate at which new houses were coming on to the market was being outstripped by the increase in the number of households, particularly as more people chose to live alone.  

It is very easy to dismiss such consequences as being irrelevant when it comes to discussing the impact of feminism on our lives. The notion that we can somehow pin problems to do with traffic on feminism seems laughable.

But this is not so.

Traffic and feminism are joined at the hip.

Even an 8 year old could understand this connection.

And here, in the UK, the lives of MILLIONS of people are literally blighted EVERY DAY by traffic congestion and its numerous negative consequences. The huge increase in traffic flow has cost us, and continues to cost us, and the planet, A GREAT DEAL. 

This has happened largely because both genders now mostly go out to work, whereas, in the past, it was mostly the male gender that did so.

This was the direct consequence of following the feminist agenda, which wanted women in the workplace rather than in the home.

Now, while I am sure that many people would say that there were numerous benefits to be gained from this - more independence for women, more skills in the workplace, and so on - this is not the point!

The point is that there has been a HUGE cost associated with this change (together with the many other HUGE costs of feminism e.g. from family breakdown etc etc) and that this HUGE cost - resulting from increased traffic flow - is YET ANOTHER ONE which is never identified as being one of the costs of feminism!

And yet, of course, it should be so identified.

Firstly, because it is a HUGE cost, and, secondly, because, if nothing else, people deserve to have their eyes opened to the connection between it and feminism. 

When people begin to understand the whole RANGE of costs that feminism imposes on their lives, and their eyes are further opened to the fact that the media and the chattering classes are either too stupid or too fearful to discuss the connection between feminism and its HUGE costs, feminism and feminists will be more readily seen by the public for what they are.

When the future history books of our period talk about the enormous traffic problems that people faced today, they will undoubtedly make mention of the changes in the working practices brought about by feminism.

However, we should not wait for the history books to be written, because we can make the very same arguments now.

Feminism and Political Correctness

In my piece about Global Warming - below - I pointed out - as I do all over this website - that the feminists and the politically corrected have no concern for the planet or for the truth. By and large, they seem to consist of a relatively small cohort of liars and deceivers whose primary aim is to serve themselves, and whose notions - unfortunately for everyone else - are supported by the gullible and the not very bright.

And, with regard to the latter, one can find a whole host of supposed 'professionals' - such as academics, lawyers, politicians, civil servants, teachers, lecturers and judges.

From the top of the ideological tree of feminism and political correctness has been spread a whole swathe of falsehoods and airy fantasies designed to empower those who are in open agreement with them and to disempower those who are not.

And this, in essence, is what they are selling.

Falsehoods and airy fantasies.

And if you say that you believe in them, then you get rewarded, otherwise you get punished in some way.

The whole enterprise is just a scam. A cruel game.

Here is how it works.

Imagine that I was going to start a belief system within which Angry Harry was a God or a prophet of some sort. None of you believes this, of course. But, I tell you what. If you say that Angry Harry is a God, then I will link to your website and send you thousands of visitors, thereby giving you some extra power - and, hence, money.

I get a few of you to do this.

Surfers come and go and they stumble upon some websites that say that Angry Harry is a God or a prophet.

"Who is this amazing Angry Harry?" they ask themselves. "Many people seem to have a very high opinion of him. I shall visit his website."

Some of the new visitors 'stick' to Angry Harry. After all, many people say that he is a God. He is definitely worth reading. The more they read, the more does Angry Harry get inside their heads. They can hear him talking to them sometimes, popping into their heads at unexpected times. Words. Phrases. Ideas.

I make more money as a result of these new visitors. And so do the websites that I link to. And the webmasters of these sites know this!

The more that they convince people that Angry Harry is a God, and that it is definitely worth visiting his site, the more money do they make.

The webmasters and I start to collude even further.

The enterprise starts to grow.

Angry Harry is the Master - and all Ye who shall follow Him shall get most excellent rewards.

We punish those webmasters who fail to support His Angriness, and we send surfers (rewards) to webmasters who follow His Most Excellent Principles.

And so on!

And a whole new organism grows.

I dish out the crap. My colluders endorse it to pull in the punters. And, together, we grow into a huge enterprise - an organism.

This, in essence, is how the feminists and the politically corrected got their power.

They got it on the basis of agreeing with each other to spread the same unmitigated rubbish, to support those who supported them, and to silence and intimidate those who would disagree with them.

This is all that it takes! 

Eventually, you can create a huge conglomeration of power based entirely on unmitigated rubbish.

You really can!

And this is what the feminists and the politically-corrected have done.

But, of course, this does not matter to these people, so long as they profit from it in some way. 

And, my goodness, do they profit!

In much the same way that religions - and religious leaders - grew hugely powerful on the basis of various compelling yarns and ideas, so it is that the feminists and the politically-corrected grew hugely in power - with white, heterosexual men being given the role of the Devil himself.

Of course, if the feminists and the politically corrected had good ideas and yarns to spin, then one would cheer them on. But they do not.

Worse still. The ideas and the yarns that they do promulgate, and the manner in which they conduct themselves - e.g. they lie a great deal - are causing western countries and western peoples the most enormous amount of harm.

But nothing stands in the way of these self-serving phonies. Not the planet. Not the truth. And, as the following reposted piece shows, they do not care even about the spread of deadly diseases among their own people and, hence, among their own families.

Yes indeed. You really cannot get much lower than these people. 

And I urge all my readers to take them on and to depose them with as much energy as possible.

From Anthony Browne's book, the Retreat of Reason ...

...

The interview on the Today programme was on a highly sensitive subject—the exponential rise of HIV in Britain since Labour was elected in 1997. Figures from the government’s Public Health Laboratory Service were being published showing a 25 per cent rise in just one year, with almost all the increase being among heterosexuals. The government and media had been warning for years about the dangers of the new complacency among heterosexuals, ever since the number of heterosexual cases had swept past the number of homosexual ones, a well reported and much commented-on phenomenon. The government minister was responding on the Today programme to the latest increase with a new sexual health campaign telling people to practice safe sex. If teenagers would just wear condoms, it would put a stop to the rise. 

But the trouble is that the increase in HIV had virtually nothing to do with British people practicing unsafe sex—it was almost all the result of HIV positive people (mainly Africans) coming to the UK, and being diagnosed with HIV once here. 

I first wrote about the issue in a front page story in The Times, announcing that African immigration had over-taken gay sex as the main source of new HIV cases in Britain, according to government figures. The government’s epidemiologists with whom I had worked on the story had been worried about the reaction. They needn’t have bothered. The reaction was incredulity. Clearly, in most people’s minds, the story couldn’t be true—everyone knew the increase in HIV was because of complacent and promiscuous Britons. 

The Department of Health’s director of communication, when I spoke to her about it, clearly thought I was bonkers —she was launching this safe sex campaign because everyone knew the rise in HIV was the result of unsafe sex. 

The only people who phoned me up to thank me about it were HIV doctors, who lived in the real world, not the politically correct virtual one. Their patients were now predominantly (and sometimes exclusively) African immigrants, and yet no one was talking about it. Some doctors told me that when they had tried to bring it up in public with their local health authorities, they had just been shouted at. 

One of the government’s own medical advisers phoned me up secretly from within the Department of Health thanking me for highlighting the issue, and urging me to carry on: Britain was facing a massive explosion in HIV and ministers and civil servants simply refused to discuss the cause of it. ‘Ministers just won’t listen because they think it is racist’ he said, ‘but the public deserve at least honesty.’ 

Even when the truth became intellectually commonly accepted, media outlets such as the Guardian and BBC carried on reporting dishonest accounts, presumably because they had such deeply held emotional beliefs in the issue that they couldn’t bring themselves to write honestly about it. 

...

Global Warming

Readers in the UK will know that there seems to have been an unprecedented amount of attention given to the issue of global warming recently. Scientists, politicians and the media have been positively deluging us with information about the matter. Tony Blair has given us speeches. The BBC Newsnight team has produced a series about Eco-Man - or something like that. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has talked about the "moral need" to tackle climate change. David Cameron, the Tory leader, now cycles to the House of Commons in order to save energy. And even David Attenborough, the renowned BBC presenter of numerous documentaries about our planet, has just aired two special programmes about the matter.

In short, there is a huge wave of concern being spread across the nation about global warning and about the need for people to cut down on their energy consumption. And all manner of things are being suggested to achieve this aim. Cutting down car use, fitting energy-saving bulbs, insulating the roof, buying local produce to save transporting goods. On and on it goes.

And we are also told that about 50% of the greenhouse gases that we produce come not from businesses and factories, but from our own households and our cars.

And also, for example, we are told that the UK is going to have to build 5 million more new houses over the next decade in order to accommodate people's housing needs, with some 60% of this 5 million being accounted for by the fact that more people are living alone.

And yet, NOT ONCE, have I heard a politician even suggest that encouraging people to live together rather than apart might be a good idea.

Not. 

Once.

Now, I want you to think very carefully about this.

1. According to much current opinion hitting the airwaves, global warming is the biggest challenge of the new century, and it presents serious dangers to the entire planet. And it is not just the politicians and the media saying this. There are thousands of scientists saying the very same thing.

2. One of the most effective ways of reducing the greenhouses gases in our own countries is, clearly, to encourage people to share their living space with someone else rather than living alone; e.g. by getting married.

3. No one mentions this.

Tell me. What enormous forces could possibly be silencing so many people on such an important issue?

Well, regular readers will already know the answer. It is simply not permissible to oppose feminist ideology. To do so is to invite obscurity and intimidation of some sort.

I can already hear the usual type of wailing from various women's groups. "To encourage people to live together will mean that women will feel obliged to remain with their violent partners," they will cry. "Do you not care for these abused women and children!?" they will charge.

Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Furthermore, feminism is about breaking up people's close relationships, not endorsing them. And so feminists will oppose anything that will likely achieve the opposite to this. It is a very powerful force. And this is why one of the most obvious strategies to reduce greenhouse gases does not even get discussed.

Indeed, the entire planet can go to hell as far as feminists are concerned. There is only one common denominator that underpins the various policies and pronouncements endorsed by feminists, and this is a hatred of men. This hatred overrides everything else. Nothing else explains the patterns of what they have said and done over the years.

Indeed, when you understand that a hatred of men is the very heart of feminism - the very core - the driving force - just about everything that feminists say and do falls into place. Everything that they say and do makes sense.

And nothing must be permitted to stand in the way of this hatred. The costs to everyone else - financial, social, psychological, medical, meteorological etc, simply do not matter. And these costs are truly astronomical - e.g. as per my piece The Benefits of Feminism.

And this is why there is silence on the matter of encouraging more people to live together in order to decrease our greenhouse gases. Nothing, not even the prospect of worldwide catastrophe, must stall the feminist agenda.

Newcomers perusing this site will, of course, think that I am crazy. If so, then perhaps they can come up with some more credible explanation for the silence.

I await their emails with baited breath.

Of course, part of this silence will be caused by the fact that feminists and wailing women's groups have, over the years, successfully hypnotised most of the population into a mindless acceptance of their perverse and bankrupt points of view, and so it never actually dawns on most people that feminism and global warming are, in fact, linked.

But, surely, there are thousands of scientists and clever people out there who are so concerned about this issue that they do, indeed, recognise this link.

But why do we not hear them saying so?

Well, the answer is feminism - and, of course, political correctness. This combination of thoroughly destructive ideologies exerts the most monumental of forces. And these forces block out what feminists do not want people to hear - and, hence, think.

So, to all my UK readers, please watch all the experts and the pundits on global warming, and monitor whether or not they ever mention that the strategy of encouraging people to live together could reduce energy consumption significantly.