Thursday, 26 April 2012

On being often compared to Adolf Hitler

Someone said to me today: "Some people have compared you to Adolf Hitler. I bet you did Nazi that one coming."

"But how am I like Adolf Hitler?" I asked in dismay.

"Probably because of your views on euthanasia of the disabled."

It should be noted that I at no time advocated a policy of systematic extermination of all who are disabled though many of enemies like to pretend that I did. My brand of Libertarian Eugenics consists only of legalising the practice of infanticide by the parents of the victim.  This means that up to the age of 12 months, parents of unwanted babies may dispose of them without getting into trouble with the law in rather the same way that the Ancient Greeks exposed their unwanted young.

This would considerably speed up the adoption process too, and obviate the need for social workers, adoption agencies and the like saving the taxpayer billions of pounds.

I really don't mind discussing the subject of EUGENICS.

Infanticide was not exactly unknown way, way, way before Hitler was even a twinkle in his father's eye.

"After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed."

"Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations."

"Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people." is where you will find Allen Roper's essay on ANCIENT EUGENICS argues the MORAL case for Eugenics.

"The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death. The survival of congenitally disabled adults—conspicuously evidenced among the elite by the partially lame Emperor Claudius—demonstrates that personal choice was exercised in the matter."

I don't mind undertaking the task of explaining again and again these agreed facts of Western history to ignorant Westerners who have not been taught their own history in their morbidly feminised curriculum after they abandoned the Classics.

I don't mind explaining again and again that the institution of Marriage is Eugenic in intention, just like laws prohibiting incest.

Feminism is of course anti-eugenic because it promotes gender equality which encourages female promiscuity.

A matriarchy is a society which condones female promiscuity while a patriarchy is a society which condones male promiscuity.

What is wrong with female promiscuity?  Because it tolerates widespread illegitimacy.

Why is widespread illegitimacy a Bad Thing?  Because it tolerates and makes excuses for ever-lowering standards of behaviour, morality and educational standards, leading to the decline and fall of your society, race, nation and civilisation.

In a degenerate society, women find good men dull and bad men attractive, and are not punished for this preference.

Women, because of their weak, conformist and masochistic nature, will tolerate most evils while their strong maternal instincts seek outlet through the care of the helpless and the pathetic.  In those whose instincts are mainly masochistic, the more pathetic their offspring, the greater their status.

It has been noted that the most notorious cases of Munchausen by Proxy cases are women.

If only people would concentrate on what I am saying rather than wondering whether I am like Hitler in their infantile way.

I have no intention of having a union with Austria, or of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.  In fact, if truth be told, I am really a bit of a peace-nik who believes in good old fashioned family values and the virtues of good government by a wise, courageous and rational political class capable of directing their minds to the principles of good husbandry in the long-term national interest and never again towards bribing the voters with their own money to their own long-term detriment for the sake of  a miserable term in office in which they will do very little good.

I am really not at all like Hitler.


Anonymous said...

In a lot of your blog posts where you condemn 'feminism', you are saying basically the same thing over and over again, i.e. it leads to female promiscuity and a nation of unemployable sluts and bastards, or something to that effect.

Now me... I barely ever hear the term 'feminism' used in real life. It's more talked about on the internet and in academia. Mostly, it is an American Jewish Marxist Lesbian invention that, at least in its academic form, has little to do with the lives of most ordinary people in the UK.

There are also different strains of feminist thought - radical feminism (e.g. Andrea Dworkin), sex-positive feminism, and others. What all of these have in common is that they are concepts that tend to exist in the minds of university-educated people, and not in less educated people.

Claire Khaw said...

Yes, I do say the same things over and over and again. I am glad some of it has stuck then, cos it has been such hard work!

Anonymous said...

Yes you do.

Back to the point about 'feminism' - what does it even mean? It means many different things to different people.

It could mean

*a radical Marxist Jewish Lesbian ideology designed to get (white) women not to have babies
*a way of making it as hard as possible for (white) men to get sex from (white) women
*an ideology designed to corrupt the traditional family unit

...and many other things.

As Simon Sheppard has pointed out, all female procedures amount to raising the cost of sex. 'Feminism' just enables that cost to be increased further.

Claire Khaw said...

Feminism is an ideology of gender equality.

Gender equality entails that women are allowed to be as promiscuous as men.

But the greatest injustice is to treat unequal things equally.

Men are not equally good at bearing children as women.

Women are not equally good at soldiering as men.

Gender division is a form of specialisation or division of labour intended to obtain maximum efficiency.

While the male leaves his home to hunt and gather and bring home the bacon, the female stays home to look after his home and his children.

Feminism also enables women to compete with men and advantages them unfairly through anti-discrimination legislation.

It would be fine if they did the work of men better or just as well as men, but they do not.

They are forever taking maternity leave and whingeing that their offspring is ill.

Worse, these days, unmarried women can now take maternity leave to have their illegitimate offspring at the expense of their employer.

But back to sex. Men do not get knocked up but women do.

Therefore it behoves the woman to take more care, you would have thought.

But feminist extremism is now so advanced that it is considered a great blasphemy to even point this out.

My anti-feminist stance would require the repeal of the Equality Act 2010, the Equal Pay Act as well as the reintroduction of fault into divorce and the introduction of the requirement of a marriage contract for anyone who wishes to get married.

I also propose to take measures that would disenfranchise most Slut Single Mothers by requiring that all voters pay a minimum of tax.

But to go back to your original question, my objections to feminism are that it requires thoughtcrime legislation to maintain its existence as well as much oppressive legislation that encourages women to behave immorally while protecting them from the consequences of their immorality using taxpayers' money.

As for the cost of sex, you will be interested to know that the Koran tolerates prostitution and by definition brothel-keeping.

This is rather more than current British feminists would tolerate.

Please do continue to ask questions if anything I have said is not clear.

I am very flattered that you are taking an interest in my ideas.

Anonymous said...

Would the Qu'ran tolerate bringing home bacon though?

What benefits would the tolerance of prostitution and brothel-keeping have? I understand that in some jurisdictions, the male client, rather than the prostitute, is the one who is held to be the criminal. Don't know that much about it, to be honest. There is a very high risk of STDs with prostitution, and many of them are drug addicts as well as victims of human trafficking. Wouldn't these women be better inside traditional family relationships with a husband, rather than in this... mess? Remember, for each single woman out there on her own alone, there is also an unhappy single man...

"What are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy?"

You know Claire there's no one quite like you. Let's see...

1. You met Simon Sheppard.
2. You did an Anders Breivik pose with a gun under a Nazi flag.
3. You expressed your dismay for how an internet search for "white sluts" returned pornography sites displaying how much they love "big black cock".

I can see that not many people are actually responding to the posts on your two blogs. Other bloggers like that Whiskey's Place dude get a lot of responses, but he's American and so there are some cultural differences there.

You should also check out this site:

Read some of his work and see what you think. He should be right up your street.

As for the economic aspects of feminism, it seems that many jobs these days are more suitable for women than for men. This is particularly true of the service sector in an age when heavy industry has declined to a large extent. Male unemployment is significantly higher than female unemployment.

Claire Khaw said...


I come from Malaysia - an officially Muslim country - and there is no problem with getting pork or bacon. It is widely available in supermarkets.

I would have thought such things should be legally available, because, to show the superiority of Islam, you allow non-Muslims not to practice Islam, and you allow Muslims to practice Islam, and then compare the results.

A Muslim I knew joked to me about getting halal pork, bacon and ham at his local butcher's shop.

Claire Khaw said...


It is tolerated in the Koran so I would use that as moral authority.

The purpose of allowing prostitution is to make the point that, for men who are only after THE ONE THING, they should be made to pay for it.

Also, no-strings sex from sluts is not really free, since if she gets knocked up and has the baby and knows where you live, the Child Support Agency will get part of your income until the child is adult or has finished full-time education.

"Free" sex is just like one of those free offers that have all sorts of hidden charges.

Giving sex to men free corrupts their characters anyway.

Claire Khaw said...


A lot of these jobs for women are for services that aren't needed in the public sector or ie social work.

First, promiscuous women and bad mothers create social problems, and then they say more women are needed to solve them.

Sounds like a protection racket to me. "Pay us money because you need us to protect you from being beaten up by our boys .... or else."

To me, it is parasites living off parasites.

If we are to have a job creation scheme for unmarried women, we would do better to have a Cult of the Vestal Virgin than to keep these women in employment in social work at taxpayers' expense.

Claire Khaw said...

Anthony M. Ludovici

I am not quite sure of the purpose of looking to the political writings of a man from a bygone era.

As far as I am concerned, if you want to change people's minds, you do it by communicating with them, not suggesting that they read stuff they don't know about and looks obviously dull and difficult.

Most people are not intellectuals and many intellectuals can be a bit lazy about their reading!

Anonymous said...

You say: "Free" sex is just like one of those free offers that have all sorts of hidden charges.

Right, so I got told that the tooth fairy wasn't real, Santa Claus wasn't real, and now this.

Read these pages from Glenn Wilson's book:

So even many married men probably aren't getting any sex, right? Sigh.

Anonymous said...

It could be that the only way to get 'free' sex is to go down the homosexual route. Big sigh.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it is true that one man could impregnate hundreds of women.

If a polygamous harem type situation exists where one man has exclusive access to many women, that is going to increase the number of men that have no access to women at all.

Women can pretty much always have access to men whenever they want them. The fact is, for a good proportion of the time, many women don't want any man at all.

I suppose the tyranny of women's rights is that they have control over everything, and men have control over nothing. Nothing that matters from a sexual-racial-genetic evolutionary perspective, anyway.

Claire Khaw said...

For many married women, sex is "work".

Yes, with gay sex, you would at least know that your partner wanted it as much as you did, though I have read about this strange phenomenon called "lesbian bed death".

Claire Khaw said...

It was Cato who said that "If we allow women to be our equals they will soon become our superiors."

When Aristotle said "It is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally," perhaps he was thinking of feminism.

Anonymous said...

I have read about that lesbian bed death phenomenon as well. It seems many, many people read Wikipedia - I saw that article before and thought about it in the context of women's apparently limited desire for sex.

It may be the case that the current trend for young women to proclaim themselves 'bisexual' is really just a way of, as Sheppard puts it, "raising the cost of sex". That is to say they would rather have, or feign, a relationship with another female as a means of avoiding males.

Take a look at this page:

Again, there is so much truth here. For example:

* I have seen women hold small puppies in the same way that they would hold a baby.

* It is obvious that more men like spicy food than women. Although not mentioned on this page, spicy food is another thing that stimulates pleasure centres in the brain as a sex substitute.

The question is, does that mean when say you have a woman who drinks a bottle of wine every night (and such types do exist), this is really a sex substitute?

Claire Khaw said...

The fact that there are so many obese women and men in Britain suggests that food is a sex substitute.

The fatter you become, the less likely you are to get your end away. The less you get your end away, the more you comfort eat.

Anonymous said...

Yes. But food is primarily a female sex substitute because it is a relationship substitute (think "comfort eating").

The primary sexual activity of the male is physical sex; the primary sexual activity of the female is relationships.

Spicy food is a male sex substitute because it is a physical sex substitute.

If women get overweight because they eat too much (again think "comfort eating", a relationship substitute) then men get overweight because they drink too much beer (a physical sex substitute).