Translate

Monday, 1 October 2012

Should I marry this man to demonstrate my commitment to anti-feminism?

Daryll Christopher - a great rarity in modern Britain for he is a man not afraid of saying what he thinks:




"They [the BNP] should have capitalized on that publicity [generated by Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time] and embraced immigrants who loved Britain, instead they started to fight against each other. They need a Max Clifford type person, it was a opportunity missed."


I rather thank I am that Max Clifford person capable of promoting both a radical and a racially neutral agenda that promotes the institutions of marriage and the family, as well as lower taxes and fewer laws in the long-term national interest.   Too bad then that anyone who expresses views that are socially conservative will be immediately denounced as a bigot or a fascist or a Nazi if they even so much as get anywhere near questioning feminism.

If I were leader of the BNP, Daryll would be snapped up at once as the BNP Women's Affairs Spokesman, he who says such things as the things said at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/irreversible-decline-happens-when-your.html

It is worth doing just to watch feminists have a collective fit of the vapours.

To rescue the institution of marriage, you have to make marriage attractive again to men like Daryll.

And that is the reality of reconsecrating the institution of marriage.  That is the sacrifice we women are required to make for the good of the nation.

Would I be prepared to marry Daryll as evidence of the sincerity of my anti-feminist fervour?

Only if we can successfully agree a marriage contract.

I acknowledge that this proposed sacrifice is not quite as great as the sacrifice that Joan of Arc made for the people of France, but it will have to do for the moment.

But perhaps I should hold out for Peter Mandelson (who appears to be equally keen to marry me), but who will probably not make quite as many sexual demands on me.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/475490985806139/
Public Debate group on Facebook discussing this.   

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Of course you're not a Max Clifford type person -he is about commercialistion. You are not in the least bit commercial. If you were a shop, you'd be bankrupt.


"To rescue the institution of marriage, you have to make marriage attractive again to men like Daryll."
Bollocks. Men like Daryll are superfluous to the arguement. You have to make 'housewife' a less derogatory term, and give financial incentives to couples who choose to marry, and choose to have one of them stay at home to raise children.

How's this for an idea ? Let the State pay women more money to stay at home for each quaification they hold, or if they don't have professional qualifications, for the level of IQ test they can pass.

At least you would make cleverer women procreate and feel valued (and the Country would get genetically cleverer children), and it would push the SSM to study. When the kids were grown, or as the Mums reinserted themselves into the job market these exams should count.

They should be tests based on maths and literacy and philosophy
(no cookery & needlework), and also serve to help stay at home mothers to help their children with their homework. Being married should be a condition of being paid this money. Graduates would be fast tracked.

It would make it more attractive for clever women to marry and stay at home, educate the SSM and encourage them to marry, free up jobs for men, and create jobs for tutors (although the work done on computers to fit in with the housework !).

That seems far more sensible to me than marrying Daryll as a ..a...protest ?

You would need a special contract if you did that, otherwise the ordinary marriage contract understands 'conjugal rights', surely?