Cheapskate Casa Morada Under Fire After Offering Six Month Unpaid Internships Totalling Nearly 5,500 Hours Of Work

An interior design business has come under fire for offering six unpaid “voluntary internships” totalling nearly 5,500 hours of work and equating to more than £34,000 in wages.

The Edinburgh-based Casa Morada has been reported for investigation to HMRC after the six month-long placements were spotted by eagle-eyed student journalists at The Student.

The company posted an advertisement on job searching website Gumtree in late August, offering six unpaid “voluntary work experience internships” on a 35-hour week for half a year.

Although the company has since taken the adverts down on Gumtree, HuffPost UK was able to locate the original post.


Pakistan’s neo-colonial rule of Balochistan

The people of Balochistan are demanding an end to Pakistani military operations and the restoration of self-rule

Tuesday 1 April 2008 19.00 BST


This week is the 60th anniversary of the Pakistani invasion, annexation and occupation of the independent state of Balochistan. On April 1, 1948, Pakistani troops poured across the border. Ever since, Balochistan has been under illegal military rule from Islamabad.

The Baloch people were never asked if they wanted to be part of Pakistan. They never voted to join Pakistan. Indeed, the Baloch parliament voted unanimously against incorporation into the new Pakistani state.

Thousands of Baloch people have been massacred, hundreds of thousands made refugees, and thousands more have disappeared or been tortured and jailed, often without trial. Pakistan is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Baluchistan’s natural resources have been looted by Pakistan’s political, military and big business elite, while most Baloch people live in abject poverty. The Balochi language and culture have been suppressed in classic colonialist style.

Details of Pakistan’s human rights abuses in Balochistan are well documented by Pakistani and international human rights groups, including the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (see two HRCP reports hereand here), the Asian Human Rights Commission, the International Crisis Group and by Amnesty International.

Last year, I interviewed Mehran Baluch, the Baloch representative to the UN Human Rights Council, about the subjugation of his people. You can watch the interview here.

The latest Pakistani military offensives in Balochistan, which were launched in December 2007 and February 2008, have involved the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and the mass slaughter of livestock, which is deliberately designed to starve the people in pro-nationalist towns and villages.

Baloch leader Akbar Khan Bugti was killed by Pakistani security services in 2006. Akhtar Mengal, a former Chief Minister of Balochistan, has beenjailed without trial since December 2006. Another nationalist leader, Balaach Marri, was murdered by the Pakistani military in November last year.

The Baloch people are demanding an end to Pakistani military operations, the release of political prisoners, a fair share of the natural resources in their own country, and the restoration of self-rule.

Last Sunday, these demands were echoed by Baloch, Sindhi and British human rights campaigners, who protested outside Downing Street. They handed in a letter to the prime minister, Gordon Brown. It was signed and delivered by Suleman Ahmadzai, the Khan of Kalat, Mohammad Akbar Baluch of the Balochistan Action Committee UK, and Dr Haleem Bhatti and Lakhumal Luhana of the World Sindhi Congress.

The letter documented the forced incorporation of Balochistan into Pakistan:

“In accordance to clauses of the 1876 treaty between the Kalat State (Balochistan) and the British Empire, the independence of Kalat was announced by the then ruler of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, in 1947, prior to the creation of Pakistan.

“After the partition of India and the creation of the religious state of Pakistan, the newly-independent Baloch state came under tremendous pressure both from Pakistan and the colonial authorities in India for a merger of the Kalat with Pakistan. However, both the houses of parliament of Kalat (House of Commons and House of Lords) unanimously voted not to join Pakistan and resolved to retain its independence.

“Ultimately, when the Pakistani government could not bend the Baloch will to remain independent by sabre rattling, the Pakistan army invaded the Kalat State to get the merger statement from the Khan of Kalat at gunpoint.”

The letter concluded by appealing to the British government to press the government of Pakistan to halt its military offensive in Balochistan and grant the people of Balochistan self-rule.

This appeal to Gordon Brown is all the more relevant and urgent because the Pakistani army and air force are being assisted by the British and US governments, which have given military equipment to the Musharraf regime. US-supplied F-16 fighter aircraft and Cobra attack helicopters are currently being used to bomb and strafe civilian areas of Balochistan.

Britain has, thus, not only reneged on its historic treaty pledge to protect the Baloch people, it has supplied weapons to the murderous Pakistani army and colluded with the dictator Pervez Musharraf.

This collusion appears to include cooperation with the Musharraf’s murderous intelligence agencies. Two leading exiled Baloch human rights activists in the UK have been charged with preparing acts of terrorism. It is widely suspected that their arrest in London has been at the request of the military and security services in Pakistan. Many Baloch people and their British supporters believe these two defendants are innocent and that the charges have been instigated at the request of Musharraf’s thugs. One of the arrested men is Hyrbyair Marri, a former Balochistan MP and government minister. The Pakistani army assassinated his brother Balaach Marri last November.

Balochistan was never part of the British Indian Empire. From 1876, it was a self-governing British Protectorate.

In August 1947, Britain granted Balochistan independence, separately from India and Pakistan, as it did with Nepal. This independence was short-lived. On April 1, 1948, Pakistan sent troops to conquer the Baloch people. They have remained there for the last six decades, blanketing the country with hundreds of military garrison posts to suppress the people. If the Baloch people are happy and free, as Islamabad claims, why is there a need for this suffocating military presence?

Pakistan was once a victim of colonialism. Now it has turned colonial master and is subjecting Balochistan to colonial-style subjugation. The Baloch people, like all people everywhere, have a right to self-determination, democracy, human rights and social justice.

Whether self-determination means the restoration of independence or regional autonomy within a federal Pakistan is a matter for the Baloch people. The best way to resolve this issue would be for the new democratic government of Pakistan to authorise an internationally supervised and monitored referendum to allow the people of Balochistan to freely and democratically determine their own future.

feminists’ hatred and jealousy of sexually attractive women




Emily Guedes had no intention of becoming the centre of a social-media firestorm when she attended a Vancouver Whitecaps soccer game with two friends earlier this season

Footage of the three young women cheering in the stands at BC Place Stadium was used in a promo video posted on the team’s YouTube and Instagram accounts on Wednesday. The video proved popular online and Guedes, a Port Moody resident, drew comparisons to former Baywatch star Pamela Anderson, who was discovered at a B.C. Lions game 25 years ago.

In the slow-motion video, Guedes — wearing a white tank top and holding a beer — jumps with her arms extended in the air as she follows the action on the field.

The team pulled the video within hours of it being posted after some fans complained it was sexist and misogynistic in nature.



Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women.

This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post-peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

And as that threat grows, so the ostensible power of feminism grows.

The history of feminism is the history of a female sexual trade union, growing in political power in exact correspondence with the steady loss of female sexual power caused by the continual widening of the sexual market. The opening up of the sex market, the ever increasing opportunities for men to gain access to cheap and anonymous sex, is the result of constantly emerging new technology, and itself completely out of the hands of feminists, or anybody else, to control or put a stop to.

Recently, W.F.Price at the Spearhead revealed that proto-feminists were lobbying the British government as far back as the 17th century when their sexual interests were seen as threatened by the emergence of male frequented coffee houses. This was a prelude to the social purity movements of the 19th century, described above, which feminist academics have always acknowledged as the birth pangs of the campaign for the vote.

But the vote was always seen as a means to the end of controlling male sexuality. Industrialisation had brought men out of the countryside and into the cities, working in close contact with women and girls in the new factories – girls who were no longer married off as soon as they reached puberty. Those same factories mass produced cheap condoms (bitterly opposed by feminists at the time), and men no longer had to fear syphilis – and could now enjoy the hundreds of thousands of prostitutes who flocked to the new cities to take their share of the working man’s growing income.

The suffragettes achieved the vote as a result of violence and of male Enlightenment thinking which saw women’s enfranchisement as a natural progression of other civil rights movements.

But in fact, women did not exercise their newly won franchise very differently then their husbands, and when they did vote differently, it was to vote in fascist dictatorships throughout Europe. It was not until the 1960′s, and the second wave of feminism, that women began voting significantly differently from men…

The 1960′s saw the beginning of possibly the most remarkable event in human history – the end of ‘patriarchy.’ Within the space of a generation, a social system that had endured in every corner of the globe throughout recorded history had more or less crumbled.

In every corner of the globe…except the Islamic world.

In his book The Decline of the Male, anthropologist Lionel Tiger identifies the introduction of the contraceptive pill as the trigger for this unparalleled social revolution, the ‘second wave of feminism.’ For Lionel Tiger, the pill shifted reproductive power from men to women, for men could no longer be sure as to the paternity of their offspring.

I don’t accept all of the details of Tiger’s thesis, but I agree wholeheartedly that the pill was a catalyst for the second wave of feminism

An unforeseen technological innovation had revolutionised sexual relations and, in a blind and uncontrollable way, had transformed society almost overnight.

According to most feminist thinkers (and many MRAs), the pill gave women power over men. I disagree. In fact, it was male sexuality that was liberated by the pill, and women – or at least older/unattractive women – were left dangerously exposed in the free sexual market that had suddenly been created.

Suddenly, women became active in politics. Suddenly, women demanded (and won) the right to university education, to a career, to easy divorce, to an abortion. Suddenly male politicians had to legislate according to the female vote.

The pill did not give women power over men.

The pill forced women to take power from men.

But, of course, this did not happen in the majority of Muslim societies. Under Islam, there is still no free sexual market, and thus unattractive Muslim women have no need for feminism.

The astonishing and sudden representation of women at all levels of government over the last decade may fairly be described as the Third Wave of Feminism. In just one or two decades, from having virtually zero representation in high government, the female sex has come to near dominate many of the leading democracies of the West, even in South America.

Alongside formal governmental representation, largely female dominated non-governmental pressure groups have suddenly come to hold massive sway over an increasingly powerful United Nations, as well as other international bodies such as the European Union.

Why has this astonishing Third Wave, no less extraordinary than the Second, suddenly come about? That this is the first generation of women raised as feminists no doubt has played a part but it cannot alone explain the sheer rapidity of change. Like the first and second waves of feminism, the third has been propelled by technological progress threatening the sexual interests of ordinary women.

The globalisation of society and of communications has threatened to further open up the free sexual market to an extent as great as the pill itself did.

Suddenly men had before them a whole new array of alternatives to a ‘real’ sexual relationship, from the cheap Polish hooker at the street corner, to the nubile young slut showing herself on cam from her bedroom half way across the world.

This was a brave new sexual world that an already politicised generation of middle-aged women could not tolerate for long…and certainly not entrust to men to control or put an end to.

The Future of Feminism

The future of feminism will be dictated by the same forces that have shaped its history – blind and largely uncontrollable economic and technological changes continuing to widen the free sexual market.

The further increase in mass global communications, advances in robotics, 3D and holographic porn, virtual sex, and the growing realism and popularity of male sex toys, are all rapidly coalescing into a perfect storm that will either achieve sexual and emotional independence for men…or a fourth wave of feminism even more terrible and damaging than the rest.