Feminarcissism and Licensed Genocide of the Unborn


1. Belief in or advocacy of women’s social, political, and economic rights.

2. The movement organised around this belief, notably by propagandists such Edward Bernays and the tax-exempt foundations of the Robber Barons, who commissioned the propagation of this divisive ideology in the early part of the 20th century and continue to fund its primary agitators to this day.


1. Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself.

2. A personality disorder characterised by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. Also called narcissistic personality disorder.

3. Pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one’s own body or self, considered in psychoanalytic theory to be a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.


1. The infantile, self-important and attention-seeking personality disorder of female supremacists, who are generally incapable of humility, empathy and critical thinking.

2. The belief that women are superior to men and possess the natural right to commit infanticide to protect their bodies, careers and lives from the responsibilities of motherhood, which they regard as an imposition of patriarchy [an entirely fictitious society run by male supremacists for their own benefit and at the expense of women’s freedom of choice].

3. Pleasure derived from defaming, humiliating and destroying the lives of men, especially divorced fathers of their children, men’s rights activists and anybody else who does not share their totalitarian ideological beliefs.

A couple of years ago, I was partaking of a few pleasant festive ales with two of my oldest friends in a Newcastle hostillery, when I somewhat unexpectedly became perhaps more angry than I have been since I was banned from her majesty’s courts for demanding that the letter and the spirit of the law be applied to my family’s dispute with Bank of Scotland, which I have written about in detail on the pages of this blog and elsewhere.

The incendiary issue, which overwhelmed my erstwhile, consistently “laid-back” demeanor, arose from one of my friends, a long-time revolutionary anarchist with libertarian-Marxist leanings, describing himself as “a Feminist”; something which I did on several occasions myself in my late twenties, whilst courting the attentions of women I knew who held the same ideological position, which was pretty much every woman I dated during that period of my life.

The reason I bitterly regret doing so is because I have since realised that the propagation of Feminism has inexorably led to the 21st century epidemic of Feminarcissism, the spread of which is largely responsible for the systematic erosion of the sanctity of motherhood in the west, by and through the incessant promotion of the malevolent claims that the termination of a baby’s life is a female health issue and that men are to blame for all the problems in the world, including those caused by women.

When my friend casually stated that he is and always has been “Pro-Choice” and that abortion “is a woman’s prerogative”, I insisted that he should understand that what he was really saying was that he endorses the purported right of a pregnant woman to choose infanticide over becoming a mother, which UK law dictates must take place before he or she has lived in her womb for more than 24 weeks, irrespective of the father’s guardianship rights and the child’s unalienable right to life.

It naturally follows that the father of that child cannot be afforded any legal or moral right to do anything to interfere with the mother’s decision to abort their unborn baby, on the utterly contemptuous ground that it is her absolute right to make that choice unilaterally because “it is her body” to do with what she wills; despite the undeniable fact that it is her baby’s body that will be destroyed, not hers, if she chooses to have it surgically executed.

The young, privileged, rich and childless actress, Emma Watson, made a speech at the United Nations in New York, in which she proclaimed that she believes it is right that she should choose what she does with her own body; which is the socially acceptable couched language of the Feminarcissist, carefully chosen by SabbateanFrankist social engineers, to deceive people into believing that abortion is not the murder of an unborn child by its mother – it is simply the exercise of a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.

I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.

Why is the word such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.

Whilst she did say other things, which anybody who has succumbed to Feminarcissism will generally trot out on such an occasion, her words were, nevertheless, met by an enthusiastic ovation from the seemingly packed auditorium, which was either completely oblivious to her flagrant promotion of infanticide, or entirely made up of hand-picked zealots of the Kalergi Plan, eagerly anticipating a significant drop in the birth rates of white Europeans, whose very existence is threatened by exponential and systematic miscegenation, at a time in history when that cannot be said about any other race of people.

For the purposes of clarification, let’s flip the situation on its head. Imagine what would happen if a man from anywhere in the world made a public declaration to a selected audience at the United Nations, implicitly declaring that he thought it was right that he should unilaterally choose what happens to his unborn offspring, without any justification being given, other than: “I have the unrestricted right to choose whether an ovum fertilised by my loins lives or dies, until it has been gestating in the mother’s womb for six months.” Not even the most ardent advocates of the men’s rights movement would ever deny the existence of a patriarchy in such a set of circumstances.

Needless to say, such a man would be publicly vilified and would more than likely be prosecuted for hate crimes against women. Yet Emma Watson and her ilk are publicly lauded by the establishment as shining examples of womanhood, while men’s rights activists are almost universally derided, for merely pointing out that if we really did live in a patriarchy, the inherent right of every father to joint guardianship of his offspring from conception would never have been sacrificed by statute on the altar of Feminism.

So why is there such a huge gulf between what is socially acceptable for men and women to think, say and do in relation to the termination of a baby’s life?

Because women [and men] have been socially engineered over the last 100 years to view motherhood as an imposition of an entirely fictitious patriarchal world, in which men, their supposed oppressors, are deemed unworthy of even the right to protect the lives of their unborn children. A man’s world, eh? One day spent witnessing a child custody battle between a divorced husband and wife in the Family Courts will quickly reveal that twisted, urban myth as the abject falsehood it undoubtedly is.

The seething irony of the moral hypocrisy of so-called “liberal progressives” will certainly not be lost upon the Sabbatean-Frankist social engineers, who, over the course of the last century, have implanted this deadly program so deeply into the psyches of both genders, that the majority of people in western civilisation falsely assume that it would be wrong for a man to do anything other than agree [without discussion] that a woman has the right to instruct a licensed child-killer to murder their unborn baby, with or without the knowledge and consent of its father.

When I was an adolescent, myself and two girls I was friends with ended up having a conversation about whether or not one of them, who had fallen pregnant to an unnamed boy three months previously, should book a termination or give up her youth and have the baby, knowing that the relationship with the father, who knew nothing of the pregnancy, was unlikely to outlast the year.

It is with the deepest regret that I must confess that I told her, without ever even having thought properly about the subject before, that it was her right to choose what she did with her own body. I mean, she was only three months gone, so it was just a cluster of unconscious cells we were talking about, right?

In actual fact, I couldn’t have been more wrong if I’d tried, which I slowly discovered to my horror over the course of the next twenty five years. This horrifying discovery culminated in seeing the ten week scan of my daughter in her mother’s womb, whose limbs, head and body were clearly formed, at which point I wept for every unborn child murdered as a result of the propagation and acceptance of this despicable lie; for the women who would never have ordered the murder of their babies if they had not been brainwashed into believing that aborting their child would not cause it great trauma, horrendous suffering and overwhelming pain; and for the men who helplessly stood by as the women they loved exercised their so-called prerogative to instigate infanticide.

“So what about pregnancies which occur because the mother was raped, you misogynistic bastard?” I hear the Feminarcissists scream, with smugly self-righteous indignation.

“Is the unborn child responsible for that?” I reply, to metaphorical tumbleweed and a gaggle of deeply offended misandrist snowflakes.

Moreover, it has also become clear to me that I was fooled into taking my original position on abortion by subliminally absorbing the dictates of Cultural Marxism during my youth, which was compounded by the erroneous assumption that no central government would have de-criminalised abortion up to 24 weeks, in the event that there was any possibility that there was anything more than a lifeless cluster of cells being discarded as municipal waste, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as these photographs so emotively demonstrate.

Furthermore, it was reported in a Time magazine article in May 2011 that:

Last month, a baby girl widely considered the most premature European baby ever to survive left a German hospital and headed home. Frieda Mangold was born more than four months early, at 21 weeks and five days. She weighed a smidge over a pound.

Her twin, Kilian, succumbed at six weeks to heart and intestinal complications, but Frieda slowly soldiered on. Her doctor at the Fulda Children’s Clinic, Reinald Repp, said there was “no indication that she will not be healthy,” according to the Daily Mail, and described her survival as a “medical miracle.”

Yet what exactly constitutes a medical miracle is unclear. Any premature baby is at risk for complications — the tiniest of the tiny even more so. News of Frieda’s birth and her tenaciousness after five months of neonatal intensive care has raised an issue that is discussed in medical circles out of clinical necessity, yet rarely reaches beyond hospital confines: how young is too young to save?

Baby born after just 21 weeks of mother’s pregnancy.

Whatever anybody else might claim in a desperate attempt to rebut the irrefutable facts of this matter; the right to life of an unborn child is unalienable and it is the moral obligation of both parents to protect and nurture that life from conception, without exceptions, irrespective of what the law prescribes.

Nevertheless, the vitriolic reaction of Feminarcissists to this perfectly reasonable,  well balanced and empirically sustainable line of argument will go something like this:

Anti-abortionists say that abortion is murder. We reject this argument. The fetus is a potential life only – it is not comparable to the life of a person of any age or ability who interacts socially and functions independently. We don’t deny that abortion takes the life of a potential human being. The right to choose means that it is the woman’s right to choose whether to bring that potential life to full term or not given the circumstances of her life. As anarchists we demand that right…

The fact that the author of the above paragraph claims that this is the anarchist perspective on abortion is just as misleading as baldly stating that anarchists believe everybody has the right to choose to kill somebody else. However, whilst police officers and soldiers have the right to do so within the law under certain limited circumstances, only a pregnant woman can instigate murder without being punished for the heinous act of doing so.

In any event, real anarchists would never demand that any government grants them the right to do anything; they would simply exercise their free will and act as they see fit, in accordance with their own moral code, in the absence of which, they would be satanists, rather than anarchists; on the basis that philosophical anarchy does not prescribe that morality must be abandoned and replaced by self-serving material concerns – it simply stipulates that there can be no rulers in a voluntary association of the self-governed.

In other words, the true anarchist’s position on abortion is that both parents have the right to choose abortion as an alternative to rearing their child, but that does not mean that they are unaccountable for destroying what is fallaciously described as “potential life only”, when there is unequivocal evidence that life begins at conception. Abortion must, therefore, be regarded as pre-birth infanticide at any stage of the pregnancy.

I am not a blob of tissue to be disposed of. When I became a zygote at fertilization, I was already composed of 39,000 genes made up of 3.2 billion base pair sequences.

[…] After this beginning, I worked actively to prevent any other sperm from fertilizing the same egg, and on my own impetus took a journey down the Fallopian Tube to implant upon my mother’s uterus.

At 5 weeks, my cerebral cortex was developing, and well before I reached 12 weeks my brain was functioning. I was already responding to stimuli.

So how can you allow me to be tortured? Shouldn’t you be working to protect me from suffering? Why allow me to be torn limb from limb?

[…[ I am not a “potential” child, but a real child. Take a good look at the image of me that you received. My mother cannot “choose” to have a child – she already has one! Her only “choice” is whether or not to let me live.

Life News

The real question at hand is not whether to keep an unborn child; to kill or not to kill, that is the question. The answer to that, under UK law, can only be given by the mother, which emphatically demonstrates, in and of itself, that human life in Britain has been legally subjugated to matriarchal dictatorship; whilst it is abundantly clear that Feminism is nothing more than a social engineering program intended to divide and conquer the traditional family unit, whilst masquerading as a movement for gender equality.

I must, at this juncture, sincerely urge every Feminarcissist reading this post to consider the following proposition, before rejecting what I am saying without investigation and angrily defaming my character, thus revealing your own inabilities to determine right from wrong, think critically for yourself and learn from your mistakes:

In the event our sons and daughters don’t fall for the same evil lies we did, the world will become a better place for all of us within one generation; since such a sea change in attitude to the sanctity of motherhood would almost certainly result in a collective reaffirmation that life [and the responsibilities of both parents] begin at conception and that those responsibilities must be embraced, fulfilled and cherished, not ridiculed, ignored and evaded. For all our sakes.

Every man who has experienced the trauma of having no power to prevent the slaughter of his unborn child, once the decision has been unilaterally made by its mother to terminate, will not need reminding of how even a strong, loving relationship can never be restored to its former level of trust and respect, once a life that was created out of such a union is destroyed for the sake of her body, her career or just about any other imaginable reason she can think of.

This is because there is nothing more natural for us than the urge to procreate with the women we love, so when our woman is prepared to kill our offspring whenever necessary and expedient, with or without our knowledge and consent, it inevitably has a detrimental emotional effect upon the relationship, which is almost impossible to overcome, due to the total lack of empathy conferred upon any man placed in such an untenable position.

For this reason alone, many, if not most, heterosexual men would rather raise another man’s child than have its life terminated in the womb of its unfaithful mother; whilst some husbands and lovers of women who fall pregnant after being raped would rather the child survived to be given up for adoption at birth. However, the life of that child, in either scenario, is solely at the mercy of it’s mother.

Having been truly blessed with the love of a wonderful, strong, fiercely intelligent, successful woman, who gave birth to our effortlessly remarkable, courageously creative daughter; it saddens me so deeply to observe that, despite my good fortune, the plague of Feminarcissism has all but succeeded in suspending the awesome power, reassuring comfort and astonishing beauty of true femininity on these shores; whilst all forms of real masculinity have been culturally prohibited and every man must now engage in totalitarian adherence to Feminarcissist dogma, or face the threat of iron-fisted emasculation, should he refuse to let his woman keep his balls in her designer handbag, made by somebody else’s children in a sweat-shop for zero dollars a day, so she doesn’t have to pay through her blood-diamond-encrusted nose for it.

Nevertheless, I am also deeply encouraged by the ever-increasing number of courageously unreconstructed women [and men] all over the world who have started speaking out on this and other related issues over the past few years, all of whom have been sources of inspiration for this article, but particularly the inimitable Karen Straughan, her comrades-in-arms at Honey Badger Radio and An Ear For Men founder, Paul Elam; along with the child I never had the joy to meet because he was surgically bludgeoned and butchered to death after 21 weeks in his mother’s womb. No words can adequately express my sorrow over failing to prevent his death, by any means necessary.

For all the babies who never saw the light of day because of legalised infanticide, I humbly beseech everybody to reject the purported right of a mother to murder her unborn child, simply by looking deep inside your hearts and knowing the difference between that which is right and that which is plainly wrong, regardless of legality.

Let’s face facts; if we were talking about legislation permitting partial-birth abortions of puppy dogs, there would be a public outcry demanding the cessation of such barbarity and the repeal of the statute with immediate effect. But because we are talking about the murder of unborn babies, the majority of whom are white, there is a public outcry declaring that to prevent such infanticide is to fundamentally breach every woman’s prerogative to condemn their unborn baby to death, until they have gestated long enough for the law to arbitrarily afford them legal protection.

In reality, if you are not Pro-Life, then your only other choice is Pro-Matriarchal-Infanticide, in which case, you must consider where you would be now if your mother had exercised their lethal prerogative when you were growing in her womb.

Would you still be marching to protest against the end of state-sponsored abortions in the US, rather than for the abolition of legalised infanticide worldwide? Only in the event that your mother cancelled her appointment at the abortion clinic; but if she did, I seriously doubt you would even consider making the tragic mistake she so narrowly averted.

Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , .