Friday, 17 April 2015

Men of Yore: Hugo Grotius

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form. Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards. We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity.

Hugo Grotius

Hugo Grotius; (1583-1645), Dutch jurist, who has been called the father of modern international law. The name Hugo Grotius is the Latinized form of Huig de Groot.

Life 
Grotius was born into a distinguished family in Delft on April 10, 1583. At the age of 8 he had already composed some Latin verses, and at 11 he entered the University of Leiden, graduating at 14. In 1598, when he was not yet 15, he accompanied the Dutch statesman Jan van Oldenbarneveldt on a diplomatic mission to the court of King Henry IV of France. The King was so impressed by the youth that he called him “the miracle of Holland.” Before leaving France a year later, Grotius obtained a doctorate in law at the University of Orléans.
 
On his return to the Netherlands in 1599, he began practicing law in The Hague. Two years later he was chosen official historian of the province of Holland by its assembly, the States of Holland. He became attorney general of Holland in 1607.
 
From 1613, as a representative of Rotterdam in the States of Holland and of Holland in the Netherlands States-General, Grotius was involved in a bitter religious and political struggle. A majority of the States of Holland supported Calvin-ist reformers against the orthodox Calvinist party, which was backed by a majority in the States-General and by the stadtholder and army commander, Maurice of Nassau. In 1618, Maurice suppressed the dissenters by force. Grotius was arrested and the following year was condemned for high treason to life imprisonment in the fortress of Loevestein. However, he escaped in 1621 with the help of his wife, who hid him in a chest that was being carried out of the prison.
 
Grotius fled to France, where he was warmly received, and in 1634 he entered the service of Sweden as minister to the French court. He was finally permitted to return to Holland in 1645, but died on Aug. 28, 1645, at Rostock, Germany, on his way home from Sweden.
 
Works 
The most influential work that Grotius wrote was De jure belli ac pads (On the Law of War and Peace), published in Paris in 1625 during his exile in France. Applying the doctrine of natural law to the conduct of nations, Grotius held that states, like individuals, are bound by a code of duties and prohibitions that are universal, reasonable, and unchangeable. One nation, for example, may not attack another. However, Grotius regarded certain wars or hostile actions as just if there is no tribunal authorized to settle a dispute. In that case, a state may use armed force in defense of its rights or property or to punish a criminal act.
 
Grotius’ first important work on international law had been De jure praedae commentarius (Commentary on the Law of Spoils). Although written in 1604, it was not printed until 1868 except for the 12th chapter, which appeared in 1609 as a short treatise called Mare liberum (Freedom of the Seas). In Mare liberum, Grotius asserted the Dutch right to unhindered commercial navigation to the East Indies on the principle that no state may claim sovereignty over the high seas.
 
Grotius was a prolific writer with many interests. Besides other legal books, his works include poetry, plays, and writings on history, theology, and philology.
 
 
If you want to know why the seas are full of many merchant vessels, few warships, and even fewer battles then you have this man to thank for it.  He contributed to the consensus that the Earth is a community of nations rather than a battle ground which Empires fight over.  The result of his work is that merchant vessels can carry goods and people safely over the seas with the risk of being attacked by an enemy ship or a privateer.  Goods and people that we almost certainly benefit from (putting aside the matter of outsourcing, product dumping and so forth).
 
 
[End.]
 

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

On Theories About Andreas Lubitz's Murder-Suicide

So it's been two-three weeks since Andreas Lubitz crashed into the Alps killing 150 people and in those few weeks lots of people have tried to explain why Lubitz committed suicide/mass-murder, some of their theories are more crazy than others.  It's incidents in life like this that allows you to see people's philosophical/metaphysical views because ultimately many of them use it as a medium to express their own outlook of the world, somewhat like how a politician uses a crisis to his promote his political view (the politician does it wittingly these people do it un-wittingly).

The result is that you get a variety of theories all clamouring for your attention, all claiming to be 100% right.  Obviously they can't all be right, and so you have the arduous, laborious job of weeding out all the theories that are wrong.  You could do that by using logic and genuinely assessing each theory in turn; but this isn't really advisable because you'll just end up wasting your time on wacko theories (e.g. the Earth is hollow, or Jesus will return in October, again...) on the mere possibility that they might be right.  That way madness lays.  It's like debating with a cheating girlfriend who tries to convince you not to dump her on logical grounds by saying that she might not cheat again, even though she has a habit of it.  Logically she's 100% right - it's entirely possible that she might remain faithful, but she's so obsessed with sex that she probably would cheat again.

A quicker way of dismissing theories is by appraising the people whose mouths they come from, and then asking yourself: are they two cans short of a six pack?  Are the people spouting the theory simply fitting the event it into their pre-existing worldview; like David Icke who sees shape-shifting reptilians behind every event in the world, or Michael Moore who thinks that racist Corporations are responsible for every bad event in the USA.  These people are dominated by their weltanschauung, and it shows.


There comes a time when you have to put aside these foolish theories put forth by such people because they ultimately end up wasting your time, your effort, your life; and in the end you only get one of those.

Anyway, here are a few of the multitude of theories about why Andreas Lubitz crashed into the side of Alps that are knocking around on the net:
  • Heartiste is obsessed about sex, so he thinks that Lubitz committed suicide because he wasn't getting his end away. [LINK]
  • White Nationalists (from the lunatic fringe of the movement) are obsessed with Jews, so they think that Lubitz was an agent of Mossad (the Israeli secret service). [LINK]
  • Vox Day is obsessed with many things one is hating Islam and another is his 'socio-sexual hierarchy', so he simultaneously thinks that Lubitz killed himself because was a Muslim Jihadi (on his Vox Day blog) AND that he was homosexual Omega (on his Alpha Game blog). [LINK to Vox Day post] [LINK to Alpha Game post]

[End.]

Friday, 10 April 2015

Men of Yore: Henri Nestle

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form. Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards. We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity.



Henri Nestle (Source: http://20thcenturyfamous.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/henri-nestle.html)

Henri Nestlé, born Heinrich Nestle (10 August 1814 – 7 July 1890), was a Swiss confectioner and the founder of Nestlé, the world's largest food and beverage company,[1] as well as one of the main creators of condensed milk.

 
Early Life
Heinrich Nestle was born on 10 August 1814, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.[2] He was the eleventh of fourteen children of Johann Ulrich Matthias Nestle and Anna-Maria Catharina Ehemann. Nestle's father, by tradition, inherited the business of his father, Johann Ulrich Nestle, and became a glazier in Töngesgasse. The later Lord Mayor of Frankfurt am Main, Gustav Edmund Nestle, was his brother.[citation needed]

The Nestle family has its origin in southern Swabia, predominantly in the boroughs of the Black Forest as Dornstetten, Freudenstadt, Mindersbach, Nagold and Sulz am Neckar. In the Swabian dialect, "Nestle" is a small bird's nest. The name Nestle also has different variations, including Nästlin, Nästlen, Nestlin, Nestlen, and Niestle.

The Nestle family tree began with three brothers (thus the three young birds in the nest being fed by their mother on the family coat of arms) from Mindersbach called Hans, Heinrich and Samuel Nestlin. The father of these three sons was born circa 1495. Hans, the eldest, was born in 1520 and had a son with the same name, who later became mayor of Nagold. His son Ulrich was a barber and his fifth son was the first glazier in the family. For over five generations, this profession was passed down from father to son. Additionally, the Nestles provided a number of mayors for the boroughs of Dornstetten, Freudenstadt, Nagold and Sulz on Neckar.


Career
Before Nestlé turned 20 in 1836, he had completed a four-year apprenticeship with J. E. Stein, an owner of a pharmacy. At the end of 1839, he was officially authorized to perform chemical experiments, make up prescriptions, and sell medicines. During this time, he changed his name to Henri Nestlé in order to adapt better to the new social conditions in French-speaking Vevey, Switzerland.

In 1843, Henri Nestlé bought into one of the region's most progressive and versatile industries at that time, the production of rapeseeds. He also became involved in the production of nut oils (used to fuel oil lamps), liqueurs, rum, absinthe and vinegar. He also began manufacturing and selling carbonated mineral water and lemonade, although during the crisis years from 1845 to 1847 Nestlé gave up mineral water production. In 1857 he began concentrating on gas lighting and fertilizers.   
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Nestle)
  
The Development of Baby FormulaUntil the end of the 19th century, if a mother could not breastfeed and the family could not afford a wet nurse, babies were often fed with porridge. This led to severe intestinal disorders and many babies did not survive. At that time, approximately one in five children in Europe died before their first birthday. Henri Nestlé experienced this first hand – five of his thirteen siblings died in childhood. This may explain why he was so interested in this field of research.

Improvements in the hygiene of living conditions and the reduction of infectious diseases increased the survival chances of children, but significant improvements in child mortality were only achieved once research paid attention to the importance of baby nutrition, such as the work carried out by the Medical Academy in France. 
Henri Nestlé, who was now a qualified pharmacist, also contributed to this progress. Mothers who could not breastfeed were faced with a dilemma: the baby needed feeding but the digestibility of animal milk was poor. So Henri had the idea of producing a nutrient enriched cereal that could be used for feeding in situations when no mother's milk was available.
After several tests, in 1867 Henri Nestlé created the first baby formula; his research had finally succeeded. His baby formula managed to save a little baby just a few months old, who had been on the brink of death – « Little Wanner ». From that time onwards, his baby formula was tested and approved by numerous doctors and midwives and became famous as a complete product, easy to digest and with a good taste – the first in Europe and then throughout the world.

Henri Nestlé continued his research and ensured that his products were regularly tested by recognised authorities. At the world exhibition in 1871, Nestlé's baby formula was awarded a gold medal for its merits in reducing infant mortality. He had helped to achieve a major goal: feeding non-breastfed babies was now safer.

However, in spite of his ongoing scientific achievements and new developments in baby food, Henri Nestle always recognised the superiority of breast milk and breastfeeding. In 1869 he recorded his thoughts on this issue, stating "During the first few months, mother's milk will always remain the most natural form of infant nutrition and each mother who is able to do it, should breast-feed her child."
 
Henri Nestlé in PrivateHenri Nestlé remained a bachelor for a long time. It was only in 1860, when he was 46 years old, that he married Clementine Therese Ehemant, a lady from Frankfurt, during a stay in his birth town. After their arrival in Vevey, she also changed her name and called herself Ehmant. Unfortunately the marriage remained childless, but the couple later adopted an orphan: Emma Seiler, later called Emma Nestlé.
(Source: http://www.nestlebaby.co.uk/about-us/henri-nestle)

Retirement and Later Years
Henri Nestlé sold his company in 1875 to his business associates and then lived with his family alternately in Montreux and Glion, where they helped people with small loans and publicly contributed towards improving the local infrastructure. In Glion he moved into a house later known as Villa Nestlé.

Nestlé died of a heart attack in Glion on 7 July 1890. he was buried at Territet Cemetery in Montreux.[1]

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Nestle)

Corporations need not be bad, despite what the political left might say.  Henri Nestle is proof of this.  He founded a company that manufactured baby feed for children that would have otherwise suffered from malnutrition and potential death (remember that malnutrition and infant death is something we in the West associate with impoverished third world countries), and he did it with good sound scientific reasoning and study.  He put his years of study as a pharmacist to good use and devised a foodstuff (no mean feat - scratch-building a foodstuff) suitable for infants.  The results speak for themselves: reduced infant malnutrition, reduced infant death, reduced suffering.  No one, no one in their right mind anyway, could argue with positives like that.  That's what corporations do, and do on a daily basis, regardless of what the left-wing harpies might say about it.


[End.]

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Ross Kemp Held at Gunpoint in Papua New Guinea

How would you hold up if a gun was pointed at you?  What if you were out in the back of beyond and a gang of known killers were armed and pointing guns at you threatening to kill you?  How would you act?  Me, how would I act?  I honestly don't know.  Badly/wrongly probably.  Ross Kemp on the other hand did have a gun pointed at him while investigating social issues in Papua New Guinea (Ross Kemp: Extreme World), and acted with enough composure to defuse the situation without anyone getting injured.  He even managed to have an interview with the armed men afterwards.

At a time when people are quite often overcome by their fears when confronted by a man with a gun (as we occasionally read about in the media), here's a man who managed to keep his composure and came out of the situation un-harmed.

In addition to his composure, he also showed humility rather than faux-bravado by admitting a few times during an interview that what he said during the encounter "was a bit wimpy" (3:21).  This is the kind of honesty and humility that the fakers in the PUA community could do with instead of bragging about how 'manly' they are because they managed to talk to some women and get their phone numbers.  Whoopy doo!

This is one example of a confrontational situation and how to deal with it in a manly way: by 'taking control' of it rather than 'reacting' to it (i.e. in a fight or flight response).  Men think and take control of situations no matter how timid or terrifying they may be, and this is just one example of that.




The Youtube clip can be found HERE or viewed below.  The following is the introduction to the video taken from the website:
Published on 30 Jan 2014 
Actor and journalist Ross Kemp is not only an award-winning performer and investigative reporter, he's also a badass.

During a recent journey to Papua New Guinea, Kemp stumbled across a group of militia while searching for a local general. While the gunmen he finds are initially friendly and offer him food and some form of cigarette, they quickly turn confrontational and demand that Kemp get on his knees.

"They're going, 'get down on your hands and knees, get down on your hands and knees.' Now, you know at that point, you're going to become a victim," Kemp says.

Rather than submit to victimhood, Kemp proceeds to grab the barrels of whatever gun is pointed at him and insist repeatedly that he is not going to be killed that day by them or anyone else.

"Are you going to kill me?" he asks. "No one's going to f***ing kill me."

Out of respect for this ballsy move, Kemp suggest, his would be killers were moved to back down. 





[End.]

Monday, 30 March 2015

Bad Science

Here's a good TED Talk video (~15 minutes) on 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre.   In it Ben discusses why many of the conclusions of scientific studies we read about in the media are dubious.  He also warns why we should be sceptical of so-called 'health experts' who use the authority of science to advance their own theories.  Some of these 'experts', e.g. Gillian McKeith, purchase their qualifications from diploma mills in order that they can appear like authoratative doctors and then sell there snake oil to the un-witting public.

The topic of bad science is pertinent to the manosphere/androsphere because it's unfortunately susceptible to following bad science fads like the paleo diet, the juice/cleanse diet, or evolutionary psychology, and so on.  All of which you would do well to steer clear of.

It seems advisable to have a healthy suspicion of science reports in the media because bad science and conflicting advice abound.  Just the other day I read two conflicting reports, one saying that peanuts caused cancer, and another report how peanuts cured cancer.  Try and wrap your head around that one!

 
P.S. The Bad Science website has a small section on Evolutionary Psychology.


[End.]

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Women Use Gossip as a Weapon, Men Use their Fists as a Weapon

The following article is re-printed from the 'All the Rage' blog which can be found HERE:
Fact Check: Do women use gossip as a form of aggression more often than men? 
We have likely all heard people say that men typically express their aggression physically while women express their aggression indirectly using gossip. Gossip, or talking about people without their knowledge, is something that surrounds us every day. It starts in the hallways of middle school, follows us through college, and is present in our workplaces; it is nearly impossible to escape. That said, gossip isn’t always bad, as researchers often talk about “positive gossip.” Positive gossip helps individuals understand peer groups, learn who to trust, and build social connections by sharing personal information. It can sometimes, however, become a tool for aggression. 
But do women gossip more often than men? To answer that question, we’ll turn first to a 2014 study conducted by Dr. Francis McAndrew, who investigated the distinct way women express aggression. McAndrew found that gossip was used in an effort to eliminate, damper, or constrict the social network of others. McAndrew also discovered that women were more likely to gossip about other women rather than men and he argued this was because women are seen as more direct competition. 
Another study that looked for a concrete difference in aggression between males and females was a 2006 study by Dr. Nicole Hess and Dr. Edward Hagen exposed men and women to the same aggression-evoking stimulus. Specifically, participants were told that their group members had reported that they had not done any of the required work on a group project. Hess and Hagen found that women, in response to this provocation, had a stronger desire than men to aggress indirectly through gossip. One other interesting aspect of this study is that they controlled for social norms and approval and still concluded, “Young adult women reported a significantly stronger desire than men to retaliate with gossip against a reputational attack, even after controlling for social norms and approval” (p. 242). 
Anger and aggression can be expressed in many different ways. The studies presented here don’t suggest that women are more angry, temperamental, or aggressive than men. However, they do seem to confirm the idea that compared to men, women use gossip more frequently as a form of aggression.  
(Source: http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/fact-check-do-women-use-gossip-as-a-form-of-aggression-more-often-than-men/

One of the questions that I ask myself after reading this short article is: Why do the police and courts persist in punishing men for using physical violence but they do not punish women for using psychological violence (which is equally as harmful/damaging)?  Is this not evidence that the justice system is presently stacked against men and in favour of women?


[End.]

Friday, 20 March 2015

Men of Yore: William Ewart

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form. Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards. We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity.

William Ewart
(Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/197548/William-Ewart)

William Ewart (1798–1869), politician, was born on 1 May 1798 at 7 Queen Square in Liverpool, the second of the four sons of William Ewart (1763–1823), merchant, and his wife, Margaret (1773–1844), daughter of Christopher Jaques of Bedale, Yorkshire. Descended from a Kirkcudbrightshire family, William Ewart senior, who was the brother of the diplomatist Joseph Ewart and godfather of the future statesman William Ewart Gladstone, had made his fortune as a general commission merchant, and was senior partner in the firm of Ewart, Rutson & Co. of Liverpool. His son and namesake was educated at Eton College from 1811, and proceeded in 1817 to Christ Church, Oxford, where he won the college prize for Latin verse in 1819 and the Newdigate prize the following year. He graduated in 1821, undertook a two-year tour of the continent, and, having been admitted to the Middle Temple in March 1820, was called to the bar on 26 January 1827. On 15 December 1829 at Prestwich he married his first cousin Mary Anne (1805–1837), the daughter of his father's youngest sister, Mary, and the Manchester cotton merchant George Augustus Lee of Singleton. 
Ewart, who was elected for Bletchingley at a by-election in July 1828, took his seat in the Commons on 5 February and made his maiden speech in favour of Catholic emancipation on 27 March 1829. He was left without a constituency in 1830, but, following the death of William Huskisson later that year, he was narrowly elected for Liverpool after a fierce contest. Although unseated on petition by the house on 28 March 1831, he regained his seat at the general election in May, and held it until 1837. A Liberal with radical leanings, who advocated the ballot, reform of the established church, abolition of colonial slavery, and repeal of the corn laws, he was active in parliament, speaking on general topics ‘with considerable ease, and with much rapidity … without being eloquent’ (Grant, 289–90). In 1832 he secured the passage of an act to end the use of capital punishment in cases of theft of money or animals from a dwelling house (2–3 Will. IV c. 62), and in subsequent years succeeded in obtaining other legislative steps towards the total abolition of the death penalty. On 1 August 1833 he made the first of a series of annual motions for equalization of the duties on East and West Indian sugars, as an indirect attack on the use of slave labour in the West Indies. Other humanitarian achievements of his included the acts of 1834, to end the hanging of the bodies of prisoners in chains (4 & 5 Will. IV c. 26), and of 1836, to allow felons to be defended by counsel (6 & 7 Will. IV c. 114). 
Having been defeated at Liverpool and Kilkenny borough in 1837, Ewart lost a by-election at Marylebone in March 1838, but returned to the Commons as member for Wigan in March 1839. In The Reform of the Reform Bill (1837) he urged the case for widening the scope of political changes, and in a major intervention in the Commons on 28 January 1840, called for these to be extended to the realms of free trade and national education. At the general election of 1841 he returned to his family's Scottish roots, becoming member for Dumfries burghs, which he represented for the next twenty-seven years. In the 1840s he continued to press for free trade, being involved in the activities of the Anti-Corn Law League. Strongly internationalist in his outlook, he also attended several peace congresses in Europe. He maintained consistent opinions on public finance, arguing for a system of more direct taxation in a published speech (28 May 1847). Other speeches which were separately printed were those on capital punishment (10 June 1856) and European settlement in India (16 March 1858), in which he expressed the hope that ‘our mission there would be for the benefit of the Natives themselves’ (Munford, 145). He chaired a select committee on this question, which provoked John Warden to write his Letter to William Ewart. The select committee on the adoption of the metric system, which he also chaired, led to the permissive act of 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 117). On 3 May 1864 he secured the appointment of a royal commission on capital punishment, on which he served from July 1864 to January 1866. 
Ewart's concern to promote education and public libraries, which was largely motivated by a wish to improve the economic and social status of the lower classes, began in 1836, when his select committee's report on arts and manufactures led to the creation of the School of Design at Somerset House, London. He spoke often on education—for instance, on the need to free it from church domination (20 June 1839)—and in 1841 requested that an annual ministerial statement be made to parliament. In the autumn of 1846 he explained to Lord John Russell that while he was against large-scale public provision of education, he was ‘rather desirous of combining the voluntary system with government inspection and public encouragement of it’ (Baines, 135). He endeavoured to introduce competitive examinations for entry to the civil and diplomatic services (1845 and 1852), and the army (1847). He supported the Museums Act of 1845, which enabled town councils to levy rates to pay for local museums, and was instrumental in securing the extension of this scheme to libraries, chairing the select committees which were appointed in 1849 and 1850. The resulting Libraries Act of 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 65) established what ultimately became a nationwide system of public library provision. He sponsored an amendment bill in 1855, and on the introduction of another on 27 February 1866, Gladstone told the Commons that Ewart's name was ‘associated with many achievements of public utility, but with this act of legislation [of 1850], I think, he may feel assured that his name will be associated not only during his life, but after he is gone’ (Munford, 151). In July 1863 Ewart proposed in the Commons a scheme for ‘inscribing on those houses in London which have been inhabited by celebrated persons, the names of such persons’ (Cole, 9). Ewart's idea of identifying residences with plaques was initiated by the Society of Arts in 1866 and taken on by London county council in 1901 and English Heritage from 1986. A blue plaque marking Ewart's home at 16 Eaton Place, Belgravia, was installed in 1963, a century after his original proposal. 
Ewart, who retired from parliament in 1868, died of pneumonia on 23 January 1869, at Broadleas, near Devizes, Wiltshire, which had been his country residence since 1854. He was buried on 28 January at Bishops Cannings, Wiltshire, where his next younger brother, Joseph Christopher Ewart (1799–1868), who was Liberal member for Liverpool from 1855 to 1865, had recently been interred. He left the bulk of his estate, which included personalty sworn under £70,000, to his only son, William Lee Ewart (1836–1892), and provided for the two of his four daughters who survived him. Ewart, who was described by Benjamin Robert Haydon as ‘a keen little man’ (Diary, ed. Pope, 3.356), was a slightly built figure of respectable character, who applied himself diligently to the introduction of many social improvements over a long career. He was an advanced Liberal, whose political philosophy was based on a desire for better public administration, and this was expressed in all his concerns, which ranged from the organization of business in the Commons to the establishment of free public libraries. The Ewart Library in Dumfries is named in his honour, and a bust of him is displayed in the Ewart room at the Library Association headquarters in London. 
Source: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9011?docPos=1

We may all have access to books, libraries and the internet nowadays, but this was not always the case.  Yonks ago books were only accessable to those who were part of the establishment or those who could afford to pay the subscription fees, William Ewart was one of the pioneers who made public access to libraries a key part of modern day culture.  And that was amongst his many other reforms to make the law more favourable to the less well fortunate.


[End.]

Monday, 16 March 2015

A Woman Get's Her Ex-Husbands Money Twenty Years After they were Divorced

The following article is another reason why all men in the UK should avoid marriage - because it could bite you in the arse... twenty years later.  The original article can be found HERE:

Kathleen Wyatt wins right to take her former husband, wind farm entreprener Dale Vince, to court despite not lodging a claim until nearly 20 years after their divorce 

 

A former New Age traveller whose ex-husband became a millionaire more than a decade after they separated has won a cash fight in the Supreme Court.

Kathleen Wyatt wants a payout from Dale Vince - although she did not lodge a claim until nearly 20 years after their divorce.
 
A judge ruled that her claim should go ahead following a High Court hearing.
 
Court of Appeal judges overturned that decision, ruling that the claim should be blocked after Mr Vince, 53, complained it had been lodged too late.
 
But five Supreme Court justices ruled in favour of Ms Wyatt on Wednesday after analysing the case at a hearing in London in December.
 
Justices were told that the couple met when students, married in 1981, when in their early 20s, and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle.


Dale Vince has made a fortune from his company Ecotricity  
The couple separated in the mid-1980s and divorced in 1992.

In the mid-1990s Mr Vince began a business career and went on to become a green energy tycoon after launching a company called Ecotricity.

Ms Wyatt, 55, lodged a claim for "financial remedy" in 2011.

Deputy High Court judge Nicholas Francis gave her claim the green light in 2012 but three appeal judges blocked the claim in 2013.

Now the Supreme Court justices have said it should go ahead, saying that a judge in the Family Division of the High Court should now analyse her claim..

They were told that Ms Wyatt wants £1.9 million.

One justice, Lord Wilson, said her claim was "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process".


Mr Vince takes part in the Brighton to London Future Car Challenge  
He said a £1.9 million payout was "out of the question" but he said justices thought that there was a "real prospect" that she would get a "comparatively modest award".

Mr Vince said the decision was "mad".

In a statement, he said: "I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided not to bring this case to an end now, over 30 years since the relationship ended.

"We both moved on and started families of our own. For my part the passing of time is extremely prejudicial, it's been so long that there are no records, no court has kept anything, and it's hard to defend yourself in such circumstances - indeed the delay itself has enabled the claim, because there is no paperwork in existence.

"I feel that we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders. This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago... it's mad in my opinion."

Ms Wyatt said after the hearing: "It's an important judgment."

Ms Wyatt's solicitor, Barbara Reeves, added: "Financial claims generated by marriage cannot be extinguished arbitrarily by guillotine.

"Our client has had a very difficult time and we are very pleased."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11463632/Delayed-divorce-battle-Ecotricity-founder-Dale-Vinces-New-Age-traveller-ex-wife-wins-payout.html

As if there weren't enough reasons to not get married (divorce favours women, family courts favour women, women have authority over men in the marriage etc etc etc; just look at the average MRA or MGTOW website if you want more on marriage stats and stories).  In short: men in England should avoid marriage because women, the feminist-friendly government, and the judiciary are hostile to them.


[End.]

Monday, 9 March 2015

A Short Video on the BBC TV License Fee

For those living outside the UK who may well watch one of the BBC Worldwide channels believing that it is an impartial/un-biased institution (which it isn't cf. Biased BBC), you may be interested to know how the BBC is funded and what it does with those funds.

While most other media corporations have to generate income via advertising and subscription fees, the BBC extorts money from the population of the UK under the TV License Fee which requires that everyone who owns a TV set must pay a £145 annual fee which goes exclusively to the BBC (total ~£5 billion).  The BBC can then uses this money to pay for it's programmes, exorbitant salaries etc.  BBC Worldwide (a subsidiary of BBC that deals with international BBC channels, like BBC America) then sells the programmes (like Top Gear) which were paid for by the UK TV License Fee payers to overseas commercial channels.  It's this method of attack that allows the BBC to have such a huge influence internationally by effectively treating the home population as free slave labour while expecting other countries to reject this approach.  It's also very cunning because it means that unlike commercial channels, which rely on advertising and subscriptions for it's income, the BBC will always have a reserve of money in the form of the License Fee.  Like I said it's tantamount to owning slaves in a free market world while demanding that everyone else can't own slaves.

This relates to men because as we all know the BBC regularly pushes the feminist agenda: overtly in programmes like 'Bring your Husband to Heel', and covertly in 'gender equality' in comedy shows, and female exclusive history shows like 'She Wolves; England's Early Queens'.  More recently they started showing 'Up the Suffragettes', a 30 minute comedy show about the female suffragettes.  Unsurprisingly the comedy programme fails to state the fact that these middle-class women were in truth terrorists who engaged in firebombing, arson, public disorder and so on.  Coincidentally the violent actions of the suffragettes a hundred years ago reads like the violent actions of 'Pussy Riot' today.

Here's the video, it's ~11 minutes long.


[End.]

Friday, 6 March 2015

Men of Yore: Humphry Davy

This is another in a series of posts about men from history who have either achieved great things in one form or another by pushing boundaries: either in themselves or in society or science or exploration of some form. Boundary pushing and growth is what men do, it's their nature: to grow and push outwards. We, as men, are the frontiers men, the first to discover/uncover new territory, in a metaphysical sense (i.e. including both material and the immaterial) that is later colonised and 'civilised' by the rest of humanity.

Humphry Davy

Sir Humphry Davy, widely considered to be one of the greatest chemists and inventors that Great Britain has ever produced, is highly regarded for his work on various alkali and alkaline earth metals, and for his valuable contributions regarding the findings of the elemental nature of chlorine and iodine.

Early Life and Education:

Humphry was born on December 17, 1778 at Penzance, Cornwall to a wood carver. After learning to read and write from ‘old Mr Bushell’, he was sent at the age of six to the grammar school at Penzance, where the schoolmaster, the Revd Mr Coryton, made learning a pain (notably by twisting the boys' ears). Here Davy enjoyed much idleness, which he later felt was fortunate for him, the source indeed of his talents and their application. He became intellectually self-propelled. He was naturally a gifted and sharp boy who could write impressive fiction and poetry, who also enjoyed fishing and shooting. His first experience of chemistry was when he made fireworks with his sister. At sixteen, he lost his father. After the tragic event, Gregory Watt, son of the famous Scottish inventor James Watt, came to visit him and subsequently became a lodger in the house of Mrs. Davy, his mother. They became great friends and their strong relationship have had an important influence on the later career of Davy. Mr. Davies Gilbert was a huge source of inspiration and encouragement for Davy, who later went on to introduce him to the notice of the Royal Institution in London.

Contributions and Achievements:

Dr. Thomas Beddoes, an emiment English physician and scientific writer, founded the “Pneumatic Institution” (a medical research facility) in Bristol, and Davy became associated with it in 1756. Within one year, Davy wrote his legendary publications “Essays on MAI and Light, with a New Theory of Respiration” and “Researches, Chemical and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide and its Respiration”. Both of these works instantly gained worldwide recognition. Davy was not only the first scientist to reveal the peculiar exhilarating or intoxicating properties of nitrous oxide gas, but his “Researches” also featured the results of various interesting experiments on the respiration of carburetted hydrogen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbonic acid and nitrous gases. 
Davy delivered his first lecture at the Royal Institution in 1801 and instantly became a popular figure there. His tenure as a lecturer was immensely successful. During his second Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society in 1807, he made public his tremendous achievement – the decomposition by galvanism of the fixed alkalies. He performed a demonstration that these alkalies are simply metallic oxides. These discoveries are said to be the most important contribution made to the “Philosophical Transactions” (of the Royal Society) since Sir Isaac Newton.   
1812 saw the development of the Davy Lamp, a head-lamp worn by miners, which eliminated the risk of methane-based explosions in mines for which he received the Rumford Medal.
Other important books of Davy include “Elements of Chemical Philosophy” (1812), “Elements of Agricultural Chemistry” (1813) and “Consolations in Travel” (1830).

Later Life and Death:

Davy was knighted in 1812, after which he married a rich widow named Mrs. Apreece. He was also made a baronet in 1818 for outstanding contributions to his country and mankind; most importantly, his invention of the safety-lamp. He was promoted to the president of the Royal Society in 1820 and he performed his duties for consecutive seven years. 
His health began to decline in 1827 which became the cause of his resignation. Davy died at Geneva on May 29, 1829.

Source: http://www.famousscientists.org/humphry-davy/ (slightly modified)
Here we have another example of a scientist who had a strong sense of curiosity about the world combined with genuine love for whatever he turned his hand to.  His curiosity wasn't limited to just one field, as is shown by his love of poetry, fishing, shooting and chemistry; nor was he limited to being a cloistered scientist living in a laboratory cut-off from the real-world, as is shown by his practical lectures and his inventions like the Davy Lamp and the anaesthetic Nitrous Oxide.  This shows us that true scientists are simply human beings who have a love for knowledge, and for learning, wherever they may be and whatever environment they find themselves in.  And that curiosity about the world is something that we can all foster and enjoy, regardless of whether we are PhD students or backstreet chemists or whatever.

For those who are interested there's a much more extensive biography that can be found HERE.


[End.]