Harriet Harman criminally hates men

There is nothing wrong with having women politicians, as long as they are honest, objective, and not of the man-hating feminist kind.

I came into this world living in a totalitarian regime.  I was born into and raised during Hitler’s regime.  I experienced the destruction and human misery deliberately caused by that regime.

After the Hitler Regime was defeated, there was then in all developed nations a short interval of democracy during which we became promptly and intensely indoctrinated to adhere to materialism and consumerism.  The all-out drive toward that resulted in another form of totalitarianism that brought us the systematic implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family. That was to achieve the liberation of women under the guise of freeing them from the slavery of the family.

That brought women into the workforce, intensified materialism and consumerism, and that made the vast majority of us on average very poor, spiritually and economically. It also created escalating totalitarianism that is as bad and just as deadly, even far more deadly and destructive — demographically — than any other totalitarian regime was throughout the history of mankind.

There has never been another totalitarian regime that systematically and deliberately destroyed the population that supported it.  Not enough children are being born to maintain our population levels critically necessary to ensure our survival.  Within about three generations, at the most four, the people of the West and their cultural heritage will have vanished.  As Lenin said, if you destroy the family, you will destroy society.

It now appears that just as I was born into and raised in a totalitarian regime, I will be leaving this world while firmly in the grip of a totalitarian regime that is worse than the one I came into when I was born.  Not only that, but hatred of a visible minority (this time is is all men who are being targeted) drives and controls this regime to a far greater extent than the one I was in when I was a child.  There is a major difference between the totalitarian regime then and the one we are in now.  This time around there will not be any war trials to bring the radical extremist ideologues to justice that, for the sake of gaining absolute power and control, exploit and harm us.

Daily Mail [UK]July 29, 2008

Erin Pizzey, champion of women’s rights, says radical feminist plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are an affront to morality

By Erin Pizzey

Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.

The joke caused bewildered looks rather than laughs, partly because of her lack of comic timing, but more importantly because there is nothing funny about her aggressively feminist agenda, which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society….(Full Story)

Comments (34) on Erin Pizzey’s article

About Erin Pizzey — Founder of the Modern Women’s Shelter Movement

Angry Harry puts Harriet Harman (and all others like her, plus the statement that deservedly got Erin Pizzey’s ire) into the proper context.  After all, although what Harriet Harman says and does in relation to men is extremely harmful, it is only a relatively small part of the government-sponsored man-hating enterprise in the developed nations.

Men’s News Daily

Do Not Respect Them

By Angry Harry

In my last piece on MND I suggested that long-time MRAs would do better by focusing less on the outrages that men so often have to endure (family courts, misandry in advertising etc) and focusing more on stirring up fear in the public about the impending awfulness that is going to continue to materialise unless we do something about political correctness and feminism.

But I now want to go further than this, and try to urge all MRAs to spend less time in the future discussing all the bullets that keep coming the way of men, and to spend more time firing some bullets back….(Full Story)

To allow you to assess how harmful Harriet Harman’s political ambition were and still are to millions of people in the UK and elsewhere, you need to delve a little more into her history and ambitions. Why would anyone in his right mind vote for someone who should be prosecuted?

This entry was posted in Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Harriet Harman criminally hates men

  1. An update, a little dated but still importantly relevant:

    MailOnline

    Why does Harriet Harman hate marriage?

    By Leo Mckinstry
    2008 05 20

    Political ideologues live in a permanent state of denial, refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts them. A classic example of this pattern lies in family policy.

    For decades, feminist zealots have told us that family structure is irrelevant, fathers are unnecessary for child-rearing and marriage is outdated.

    These views have had a disastrous influence, encouraging the state to preside over the breakdown in the traditional family. The results are everywhere – in crime, in benefits dependency, poverty and the rising costs to public services.

    Yet, amid all this wreckage, hardliners still cling to their dogma. And none is more hardline than the High Priestess of British Feminism, Harriet Harman.

    In an extraordinary interview published yesterday, she declared marriage was ‘irrelevant’ to public policy and described high rates of separation as a ‘positive development’, as it reflected ‘greater choice’ for couples – never mind the children….

    Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020553/Why-does-Harriet-Harman-hate-marriage.html

    It boggles the mind why anyone bothers to cast his vote for her. She incorporates everything that one hates to see in a bad politician. The last paragraph in Leo Mckinstry’s article summarizes her well: “Her entire career, based on the elitist belief that she knows best, represents a betrayal of the traditional working class – the very people Labour was founded to represent.”

Comments are closed.