Tuesday, 31 December 2013

The economics of Feminism AKA Why it is uneconomic and a BAD IDEA for most women in your society to be sluts

When you don’t get the basic principles of economics, you get hurt. It happens when you elect a president who thinks money can be printed off without a shred of harm. And it also happens when you don’t understand the basic premise of supply-and-demand. What women never got was that the most valuable bargaining card they were holding – their sexuality – does indeed conform to the laws of supply-and-demand (as well as to monetary principles); and that by making supply (of their sexuality) in essence never-ending, they were destroying the value of their sexuality on the market.

We can also put this proposition in monetary terms with female sexuality being like the dollar. When both the supply and the velocity of sexuality increase, the value of each woman’s sexuality takes a nose-dive. Now, if you think of each woman’s sexuality as a currency with which she acquires a unit of Stability (under this we can include things like the value of the male, his faithfulness, his ability to take care of the woman and her children, etc) then we can better show what is happening using Fisher’s equation for the quantity of money:

MV = PT, where:
M = Money Supply
V = Velocity of Circulation (the number of times money changes hands)
P = Average Price Level
T = Volume of Transactions of Goods and Services

Which we can alter a bit
SV = PT (where S = Supply of female sexuality)
What do we find? If we reorder to solve for P:

Not only has M (number of women ready to have premarital sex) incrased radically, but so has V (the number of times or the number of males with whom those women are ready to have premarital sex). The equation shows that the P for Stability has increased which means what? It means that the inherent value of a woman’s sexuality has been inflated into worthlessness. She can no longer afford to buy Stability, or, to put it differently, her bargaining position is now much weaker and can only obtain a much lower quality of Stability.

I am all for freedom and liberation, but freedom that goes against your long-term self-interest needs to be seen as foolhardy. Women have given away their most valued commodity and that will never be regained. The ship has sailed and the genie is himself fornicating and has no desire to get back in the bottle.

The sexual revolution that started off in the 1960s was an unmitigated disaster to every woman, except maybe lesbians.

A piece of ass, a dime a dozen.

With thanks and acknowledgement to my Facebook friend Rafal Pruszyn-ski

If you enjoyed this, you will probably enjoy also by Rafal.  

Sunday, 29 December 2013

UKIP too afraid of controversy to repeal the Equality Act, yet claims to be a party of libertarians

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:27  14/11/13
Hi Lynda.  Claire Khaw here.  Is Godfrey Bloom interested in raising his profile?  I have a few ideas.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:34  14/11/13
Hi, where are you from?  I suspect he isn't though ideas are always useful of course.

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:48  14/11/13
I am not a member of a party but a Eurosceptic blogger.  My view is that Farage should be more adventurous in pushing the envelope of debate on domestic matters.  I think talking about setting up a UKIP debating society nationwide would create interest.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:51 14/11/13
We already do really, they are the UKIP branches.  Meanwhile we concentrate more and more on domestic issues.

CK to Lynda Roughley 12:53  14/11/13
Are there any plans to repeal the Equality Act 2010, Lynda?

Lynda Roughley to CK  13:01  14/11/13
We can't repeal anything till we are in power.

CK to Lynda Roughley 13:05  14/11/13
You could say in your manifesto that you would repeal the Equality Act if UKIP come to power!  Are there any plans to do so, Lynda?

After my response to her idiotic answer, I heard nothing further.

CK to Godfrey Bloom  13:24  14/11/13
Would you happen to know what the UKIP leadership's view is on the repeal of the Equality Act 2010?

Godfrey Bloom to CK  15:56  14/11/13
To be brutally frank the UKIP policy is as follows:

1.      Leave the EU
2.      Strict immigration policy
3.      Bring back grammar schools
4.      Support fracking, bin wind turbines

All very good. There is nothing else, which is why I left in despair.

It was at this event that the libertarian Dan Hannan MEP answered YES to my question: Would he repeal the Equality Act 2010?

It is of course this legislation that contains all the hallmarks of Orwellian thoughtcrime, for what is discrimination but the active exercise of thought and what is hate but an emotion that can only be felt by thought?   And what is hate speech but the prohibition of the expression of certain emotions and thoughts?  

Saturday, 21 December 2013

Should Anjem Choudary join the BNP because it is the only party that is against UK foreign policy?

Anjem Choudary has acquitted himself very well in the following interviews after the conviction of the murderers of Lee Rigby.

He is smiling and calm while the white man huffs and puffs at him impotently and asks him why he doesn't go "home", forgetting in his anger that he was born in Welling, in the London Borough of Bexley.

In the meantime, Choudary calmly continues to preach that it is only a matter of time before Islam takes over the West.  He gloats at acts of terrorism while so far successfully dissociating himself from inciting the violence, being careful to remind his audience of the covenant of security every time he preaches.

Perhaps he should in addition ask the government what an antiwar Muslim is supposed to do to effectively protest against the military aggression being currently practised by members of NATO.

Should he and his followers join the BNP en masse and see what happens?  There is no other party in the land other than the BNP who are explicitly against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, after all.

The financial commitment is not that much really, as you can see at

He and his followers should turn up to a few BNP meetings and see what happens.  If the BNP exclude them for some spurious Islamophobic reason, perhaps they can tell on them to the Equality and Human Rights Commission who will doubtless administer a well-aimed kick at the place where the BNP bollocks is supposed to be found.

I know Choudary doesn't believe in democracy, but joining the BNP would be an excellent way to show how hopeless it all is.

Friday, 20 December 2013

British voters remain indifferent to UK foreign policy even after public slaughter of British soldier in broad daylight on busy street

I suppose most people still don't get it.

The men who murdered Rigby were terrorists and you suffer terrorism when you get some aspect of your foreign policy wrong.

Yep, I know the voter doesn't give a fuck about foreign policy. He will only vote for the party that he thinks will bribe him with the mostest.

No one but people who care about the principle of the thing would give two shits about foreign policy or vote for a party on the basis of its position on any aspect of foreign policy.

If it doesn't affect them, THEY DON'T CARE.

The British voter doesn't give a shit if anyone else is bombed to kingdom come as long as he gets all the goodies he thinks he ought to get. Winter fuel allowance and child benefit etc is more important to the voter than any atrocity committed on anyone else anywhere in the world by British soldiers on the instructions of British politicians.

The most they would do is kill a few Muslims and bomb a few mosques to show how much they hate Muslims, but they will still vote for the same old parties with the same old shit foreign policy come the next General Election.

There will therefore be more incidents of terrorism because the average voter will just huff and puff for a bit about those pesky Muslims and then carry on with their lives, until the next terrorist incident.

They do after all only have the intelligence of a snail and the memory of a goldfish.

UK foreign policy is beyond their ken. They only care about things they can see and touch and have very little interest in such things as the rightness and wrongness of UK foreign policy. They support "our" boys because they are "our" boys, whatever they do. It really is too much to expect them to read a book about Islam or Israel, because they are happy only to be told what to think about this and that by their tabloids and their leaders.

In this way they resemble illiterate people who call themselves Muslims who take as gospel everything their imam says about their religion and follow blindly, rather than read it themselves.

And this is the reason why most of these ignorant fuckers should be disenfranchised.

Oh, and quite a few people I know whom I would call friends are like that too, and I would fucking disenfranchise them all the same.

It is an uphill task being a terrorist, I fear. People here are so fucking thick that even when two terrorists kill a soldier in public in broad daylight and say why they are doing it THEY STILL DON'T GET IT.

The average voter doesn't care that that British soldiers go around killing Muslims in Muslim lands.

It doesn't bother them because they don't like Muslims.

The average voter is aghast and in a state of disbelief that someone should kill and be killed in the name of A CAUSE.

That is what they don't get.

They would never dream of doing something like that for people they don't know and have never met and will never meet as individuals.

The terrorist does it for THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING, while the average British voter really truly has no idea what a principle is, how it works and what it is for.

Omar Bakri in the Lebanon was saying that his Lebanese followers felt shamed by the dedication of the British Muslim terrorists which eclipsed their own, and have resolved to do better.

The clever thing about these preachers is that they only tell the truth. The Koran says X while the British do Y, which is the opposite of what the Koran prescribes, they might say.  Is it right for Britain to go around invading Muslim countries?  Does the Koran say go around invading other people's countries when you have suffered terrorism?  Does even the NATO treaty say so?

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Do acts of terrorism count?  Or was it envisaged that when NATO was formed its members only had the Soviet Union in mind and it was so obvious that they didn't even mention that an attack on one of them had to be made by a sovereign nation, not by some unidentified terrorist group?

Did the British invade the Republic of Ireland to take out the IRA terrorists?  Of course not.  They wouldn't dare.  Irish terrorists are white people living Europe while Muslim terrorists are usually brown people living in Asia.

All these preachers do, I believe, is show photos and videos of war casualties, point out all the verses of the Koran that the British go against, and invite their followers to come to their own conclusions on what if anything they should do about it.

Choudary I believe always precedes and ends his speeches reminding his listeners of the covenant of security, which basically says Muslims are not allowed to aggress against the government of the country they live in and by implication the people of that country too.

Interestingly, I had heard that one of the terrorists even chatted to someone running the BNP stall and was even considering voting BNP because the BNP was the only party in the land who opposed UK foreign policy.  I guess even they were not deluded enough into thinking that the BNP would ever be in a position to influence foreign policy within their lifetimes, so they decided to take matters into their own bloody hands.

I don't think these preachers directly incite anyone to commit acts of terrorism, but merely gloat when it does happen.

This is enough to keep the whole shebang going though.

You would have thought by now that we would get enough people calling for a proper debate about foreign policy but NO.  It really is like waking the dead.  If it doesn't affect them, they don't care.  Even if a British soldier is nearly decapitated by Muslim terrorists on a busy London street in broad daylight, the morally inert British just don't care. They have now turned the page even as we speak.

Why, the Evening Standard demonstrated that perfectly by how it treated this story at  It appeared in the lunchtime edition, but it was completely gone by the evening edition.  

Does Nigella Lawson owe Charles Saatchi £685,000, and will he sue her for it?

Charles Saatchi has reportedly dropped his threat to sue ex-wife Nigella Lawson for £500,000.

The full details of his allegations about Nigella's behaviour cannot be made public for legal reasons, but have been strongly denied by her spokesman and her lawyers. 

But Saatchi’s claims could now be revealed at London’s High Court after his lawyers sent a legal letter to his former wife’s solicitors warning that he was poised to sue her for around half a million pounds in a bid to clear his name. 

The chillingly formal letter lays out serious allegations against the popular cook and claims her actions have cost her former husband a fortune. 

It warns that if she refuses to settle the matter voluntarily, legal action in court will ensue.

Read more:

If the Grillo sisters are not guilty of credit card fraud then the jury must have accepted that Nigella Lawson approved their spending.  If she approved the spending then she must be liable to her ex-husband for that sum.

Will Charles Saatchi sue his ex-wife for it?

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

The purpose and nature of a theocracy

From The Last of the Wine by Mary Renault:

"Long ago there lived a wise old tyrant. We do not know his name and city, but we can infer him. His guards were sufficient, perhaps, to protect his person, but not to rule with. So out of the stuff of mind he created twelve great guardians and servants of his will: all-knowing, far-shooting, earth-shaking, givers of corn and wine and love. He did not make them all terrible, because he was a poet, and because he was wise, but even to the beautiful ones he gave terrible angers. 'You may think yourselves alone,' he said to the people, 'when I am closed in my castle. But they see you and are not deceived.' So he sent out the the Twelve, with a thunderbolt in one hand a cup of poppy juice in the other; and they have been excellent servants ever since to whoever knew how to employ them. Perikles, for instance, had them all running his errands."

The Reasoning Behind Secular Koranism

The temptations of temptation are too irresistible to resist without a belief in God’s laws which should be enforced to punish those who transgress in this life. Out of all the three Abrahamic faiths it is the Koran that is the most advanced and has the most liberal and humane scripture, giving women the most rights. For this reason we should base our next new religion on it and enact legal principles in harmony with it.

a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. 

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Are SSMs and tolerance of SSMs the reason why British education is falling behind?

Is this woman to blame for the failure of British education?

Should she be shot as Jeremy Clarkson once suggested?
Are the countries who did better than Britain in the PISA tests less slut and bastard than the English and Scots? has the list of countries who did better than Britain.  Are they less slut and bastard than the British?

Most British mothers are SSMs according to

What are SSMs? explains. and has statistics on illegitimacy.
Are the Welsh more slut and bastard than the English and the Scots?

Are British parents the worst in the world?

Is illegitimacy rather than race is the real root of crime, under-achievement and degeneracy?

Is the cause of degeneracy feminism?

Does feminism encourage female promiscuity?

Does female promiscuity facilitate male promiscuity?

Does fornication lead to illegitimacy?

Does illegitimacy lead to degeneracy?

Does feminism cause women to become bad men and men to become bad women?

Should feminism be questioned, challenged, denounced and renounced, for the good and long term survival of your civilisation?,0

Are most women feminists?  I would suggest that most men and women are indeed feminists.

Who is a feminist? Someone who objects to repealing the Equality Act 2010 and who won't reintroduce fault into divorce.

The overwhelming number of voters in the West are feminists.  Even UKIP refuse to propose repealing the Equality Act 2001, which is liberal thoughtcrime.

The BNP, which used to propose repealing all anti-discrimination legislation finds itself not quite saying that any more and do not even mention it, so effeminate have they become.  Have you seen their shit heart-shaped new logo?  Whom do you think was meant to be to appeal?  Women and children, of course, who are mostly stupid.

Do they ever talk about education?  Do they fuck, most of them are so fucking thick they don't even know what a grammar school is.  Even if they knew what it was, they would say "It's not for the likes of us."  If you started talking about selective education, their mouths fall open and their eyes would close in dumb incomprehension and boredom.  They are mostly slut and bastard too and because they are most affected by sluttery and bastardy, they are the people most unlikely to help themselves.  They are actually so stupid that they don't even know why people despise them, and keep blaming the Jews and Muslims as they attend their demos to show off their non-existent dress sense and their plebeian nature while making people despise them even more.  Their leader is like a parent who lets his children do whatever they like to do "as long as they are happy".  In this way does the sluttery, bastardy and the singular lack of breeding and education lead to the decline and fall of your civilisation.  They still don't know why British employers don't want to hire British workers.  British employers don't want to hire British workers cos they are mostly slut and bastard employees  no sane employer would want to hire if the option of hiring immigrant but non-slut and non-bastard employees is available.  Apparently, they don't get it that to be hired by British employers they would have to be competitive ie be cheaper and work harder, but that is another concept that has also gone out of the window with the average degenerate nationalist.  They expected to be treated like a privileged protected species about to become extinct, but they are hardly pandas, are they?

Is the teaching-profession female-dominated?

What is a particularly feminine vice?  I would suggest denial.

At what stage of the 5 stages of grief are the British at in accepting that their political and educational system is shit and they should do something about it, such as denounce liberalism and feminism and announce their execution at the hands of reason?  Not very advanced, I don't think.

Has what has been passed off as new and different ways of grading pupils and students merely been the means of hiding the failure of the corrupt and incompetent teaching establishment? suggests that previous grading systems were meant to confuse parents and employers and give pupils equality of failure while hiding the shittiness of British education and teaching.

Is the female-dominated teaching profession conspiring against boys?  You betcha.  Females like to tell males they are inferior just as much as males used to like telling females they were inferior.

Either that, or they remain in denial.

Is anyone going to tell them the truth?  Dare they?  Effeminate men are risk-averse and adopt feminine stratagems to protect themselves.  How long can they stay in denial?  How long is a piece of fucking string?

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate showing great grasp of the rules of rational debate

Johnny Mercer

Parliamentary Candidate for Plymouth Moor View

Johnny Mercer
Johnny lives just north of the Constituency in a cottage in the Tamar Valley with his partner and their two girls. Johnny has moved into Politics from a successful career in the Army, where he fought in some of the most contested summers of the Afghan Campaign.
Johnny is a determined and conscientious candidate who believes that the Coalition Government has started to reverse a period of real decline after the Labour years.
"The commitment given only last week by First Great Western to Plymouth is just another sign of renewed confidence investors have in a City with two Conservative members of Parliament since 2010. I want to join that team and ensure an economically bright and promising future for this wonderful city."
"I believe in the potential of our young people-a generation of whom have had opportunities taken from them by a Labour Government that promised a more comfortable life on benefits than one of self development and ambition.
"90% of the MP's who represent the Peninsula are from this Coalition Government. The recovery has begun locally and nationally for good reason; I want to continue that and bring it to Plymouth Moorview."

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Are you a liberal who denies the Truth? What stage of mourning for your former political identity as a liberal are you at?


  1. Disbelief out of stubbornness. This applies to someone who knows the Truth and admits to knowing the Truth, and knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration.
  2. Disbelief out of denial. This applies to someone who denies with both heart and tongue something that is obvious to the reasonable and honest person. 
  3. Disbelief out of arrogance and pride something that is obvious to the reasonable and honest person. 
  4. Disbelief out of rejection.This applies to someone who acknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. For example, rejection of an unpalatable truth or denying the necessity of a course of action that is unwelcome. 
  5. Disbelief out of hypocrisy. For example, someone who does mind about immigration but says he doesn't. 
  6. Disbelief out of trying to sanctify a sin. For example, David Cameron promoting gay marriage. 
  7. Disbelief out of detesting a truth which calls for an unwelcome course of action. For example, the fact that SSMs are bad for Britain and slut-shaming is the only way to get the message across.
  8. Disbelief due to mockery and derision. For example, mocking anti-immigration parties even though you know you really should be supporting them because you are concerned about immigration too.
  9. Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth. For example, not wishing to admit that you are no longer a liberal after so many years of being one. 
  10. Disbelief because of trying to substitute laws that promote social conservatism. This could take the form of:

(a) Rejection of Biblical/Koranic principles against extramarital sex without denying that they are are contained in the Bible

(b) Denying that the Bible/Koran e says homosexuality is an abomination and therefore rejecting it, or

(c) Substituting socially conservative laws which conform to Biblical/Koranic principles with PC liberal laws.

The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:

  1. Denial 
  2. Anger 
  3. Bargaining 
  4. Depression 
  5. Acceptance

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Khaw v Conservative Party hearing on 21 January 2014


  1. The Hon Mr Justice Collins 
  2. The Hon Mr Justice Holman (Family)
  3. The Hon Mr Justice Eady
  4. The Hon Mr Justice Charles (Family)
  5. The Hon Mr Justice Burton
  6. The Hon Mr Justice Silber
  7. The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty
  8. The Hon Mr Justice Henriques
  9. The Hon Mr Justice Ouseley
  10. The Hon Mr Justice McCombe 
  11. The Hon Mr Justice Owen
  12. The Hon Mr Justice Mitting
  13. The Hon Mr Justice Davis
  14. The Hon Mr Justice Keith
  15. The Hon Mr Justice Treacy
  16. The Hon Mr Justice Simon
  17. The Hon Mrs Justice Cox DBE
  18. The Hon Mr Justice Fulford
  19. The Hon Mr Justice Beatson
  20. The Hon Mr Justice Bean
  21. The Hon Mr Justice Wilkie
  22. The Hon Mrs Justice Dobbs DBE
  23. The Hon Mr Justice Walker
  24. The Hon Mr Justice Calvert-Smith
  25. The Hon Mr Justice Langstaff
  26. The Hon Mr Justice Lloyd-Jones
  27. The Hon Mr Justice Underhill
  28. The Hon Mr Justice Irwin
  29. The Hon Mr Justice Wyn Williams
  30. The Hon Mr Justice King 
  31. The Hon Mr Justice Saunders
  32. The Hon Mr Justice Flaux
  33. The Hon Mr Justice Stadlen
  34. The Hon Mr Justice Foskett
  35. The Hon Mr Justice Blake
  36. The Hon Mr Justice Cranston
  37. The Hon Mr Justice Coulson
  38. The Hon Mr Justice Plender
  39. The Hon Mr Justice Blair
  40. The Hon Mr Justice Burnett
  41. The Hon Mr Justice Sales (Chancery)
  42. The Hon Mrs Justice Slade DBE
  43. The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom
  44. The Hon Mr Justice Nicol
  45. The Hon Mr Justice Kenneth Parker
  46. The Hon Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
  47. The Hon Mrs Justice Nicola Davies DBE
  48. The Hon Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE
  49. The Hon Mr Justice Supperstone
  50. The Hon Mr Justice Lindblom
I will have to address him as "My Lord" or her as "My Lady".

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Both Nick Griffin and Matt O'Connor denounce feminism today


Friday, 15 November 2013

There is little that can be done about the imminent extinction of Christianity

Christianity has come to the end of the line, really. Christianity is no longer the religion of the West, Liberalism is, the way Fascism was the religion of the Italians under Mussolini, Nazism was the religion of the Germans under Hitler as well as Communism was the religion of the Chinese and Russians under Mao and Stalin respectively.

Christianity, by aligning itself with the Left, allowing women to be vicars and preaching Liberalism, has utterly destroyed its own reputation, in rather the same way that a woman with a reputation for being fast gradually descends into becoming a cheap whore.

To look to a stupid cheap whore as a source of moral guidance would be folly of the highest order.

Also, the reason why Christians are being attacked in Muslim lands is because Muslims do not have the means to attack the West for its foreign policy.

They only know it as the religion of Obama, Blair, Brown and Cameron, as well as the religion of the people who promote extramarital sex and gay marriage.

Because they are helpless against drones and the overwhelming military superiority of the West, they are only left with killing Christians who live in their midst.

Nothing can be done about Christianity in the Middle East. The West, who is mostly atheist and liberal, does not believe in or care about Christianity anyway.  Many Western Christians do not even know that they are not Christians if they do not believe that Christ is also God and that only good Christians go to heaven.  Only the non-European Christians understand the bargain, but they are not allowed to tell Western Christians for fear that Western Christians would all walk out of their Churches en masse at such a totalitarian requirement. Western Christians are not told about this totalitarian requirement because the Liberal clergy of the Western Church is more interested in getting bums on pews than in maintaining morality.

When the Pope was being chosen, European Catholics were saying that the new Pope must not be European, presumably because if he were from the West, he would be destroyed by paedophile allegations the moment he became Pope, and would receive no protection at all from any of Western government whose politicians are mostly liberal, feminist and atheist.  That is  presumably why the ex-Pope Cardinal Ratzinger dare not leave the legal protection of the Vatican.

It is not as if there is no other better religion for the West to adopt though.   Islam is here.  If Islam is Judaism Lite then Secular Koranism is Islam Lite.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury says gay marriage is OK, and Pope Francis is showing every sign of going the same way as the Church of England, you already know that Christianity is drinking in the last chance saloon.

Christianity cannot survive because no one will give it sanctuary, least of all the so-called  Christian West, whose liberal voters can barely conceal their contempt and disgust for those who have faith. The malice of the matriarchy is extreme and she is licking her chops at the thought of how many male priests whose reputations she will ruin by allowing any accusation of sexual misconduct to be treated seriously, no matter how stale, for the sheer pleasure of humiliating previously high status men. From cardinals to cartoonists to comedians to media consultants to Lib Dem peers, now, no man is safe.

The "business model" of the matriarchy is to entice men into sexual impropriety and then hang, draw and quarter them for it.

Only Islam will protect the Western man and his civilisation from the matriarchy, but they are not interested, because they hate Muslims and don't want to fuck them.  Instead, they will defend their practice of elevating fornicatresses and sluts who are immoral women into deities, because immoral women have their role in providing them with sexual services cheap or free.  That is why no Western male clergyman will say anything against SSMs  If feminism is a cancer, then SSMs are cancer cells.

For its cowardice and intellectual incoherence Christianity deserves to die and be replaced. Christianity is a moral vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.  Islam is the best candidate to takes its place.  

What should happen to Simon Cowell and Lauren Silverman?

It is interesting that crime of passion was the European equivalent of stoning to death the adulterous and pregnant bitch and her lover.

The Koranic punishment is rather lighter.

YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.
SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Thursday, 14 November 2013

Why the Red Poppy is Bad for Britain and Bad for the British Military

Why don't the British ask themselves whether they should have fought WW1 instead of rehashing the usual sentimental sludge again?

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1, then what was WW1 about?

What was Belgian neutrality to the British in 1914?

How relevant was the Treaty of London 1839 to Britain in the geopolitics of 1914?

Did Britain lose her world empire over a "scrap of paper"?

Was the most militaristic nation in the world looking upon every European war as a party she simply must go to?

Did Britain think she was the biggest party girl of the whole wide world?

Now she is a washed up old woman with an ambivalent attitude towards her past.

 It is of vital importance that the people of this country understand how this country lost its world empire.

Think of the Accumulator Principle, but of it working in reverse.

The Red Poppy is like the British worshiping the thing that brought them low.

It is a bit like Christians worshiping the Cross.

If Jesus was executed by electric chair would Christians be wearing electric chairs round their necks?

It is like watching people with the bubonic plague wearing a rat round their necks.

I despise the mawkish sentimentality and the nauseating hypocrisy every year when everyone wears their poppy and heart on their sleeves.

Only the world's most militaristic and sentimental nation would do it.

At least the Russians and the Chinese do it by marching properly and having rousing military parades displaying their weaponry.

Give a dead soldier a poppy after he dies in yet another stupid war as you sentence a live soldier for "murdering" an enemy combatant!

This is how the British respect their military.

Next year, the British will be celebrating the centenary of WW1 - the year of the beginning of their folie de grandeur - when they started to lose their marbles in a big big way.  It was a weak and Liberal Prime Minister who allowed it to happen, and now we have a Conservative Prime Minister who wants the world to adopt gay marriage.

It is hoped that someone will start a Rafflesia Campaign to commemorate the folly of the British.

The Rafflesia Corpse Flower

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Feminist Catherine Hakim equates feminism to empowering sluts. Feminism = Pornocracy
Miley Cyrus says she's 'one of the biggest feminists'

It would appear that Catherine Hakim is a feminist propping up a pornocrat.  She is also a very influential woman and a member of the matriarchy busily going about her business of corrupting the morals of the nation.
Catherine Hakim (born 30 May 1948) is a prominent British sociologist and expert on women's employment and women's issues. She has worked in British central government, and as a Senior Research Fellow in the London School of Economics. She is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies. 

Saturday, 9 November 2013

If you had to be executed and could only choose one of these methods, which would it be?

You are about to be executed. Which would you choose if you can only choose from the following?

  • A four-inch bolt to be shot into my brain and then my throat cut
  • Just my throat cut

I know some of you will not answer this question honestly or at all, because it would have implications for the validity of your opinion against halal slaughter and your inconsistent position exposed.

I do believe that if halal slaughter decreed that the animal has to have a 4 inch bolt shot into its head before its throat is cut these animal sentimentalists would say that was cruel and unnatural and want to ban it. They are just taking the animal rightist stance because they see it as a stick with which to beat those pesky Muslims.

I am assuming that meat-eating Islamophobes would consider their own comfort and dignity more than some dumb animal they would only eat, and would choose the least painful or most dignified method of execution for themselves, or what they would perceive to be the most dignified and least painful method. 

Halal slaughter 'consists of using a well-sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, windpipe, and jugular veins. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the qiblah [ie facing Mecca]. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered upon utterance of the Islamic prayer "in the name of God." '

If I were a rational animal I would choose this method of slaughter.

Non-halal slaughter is described thus:

The slaughterhouse process differs by species and region and may be controlled by civil law as well as religious laws such as Kosher and Halal laws. A typical U.S. procedure follows:

  1. Cattle (mostly steers and heifers, some cows, and even fewer bulls) arrive via truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
  2. Place animals in holding pens.
  3. Incapacitate them by applying an electric shock of 300 volts and 2 amps to the back of the head, effectively stunning them, or by use of a captive bolt pistol to the front of the cow's head (a pneumatic or cartridge-fired captive bolt). Swine can be rendered unconscious by CO2/inert gas stunning. (This step is prohibited under strict application of Halal and Kashrut codes.)
  4. Hang them upside down by both of their hind legs and place them on the processing line.
  5. Sever the carotid artery and jugular vein with a knife. The blood drains from the body, causing death through exsanguination.
  6. Remove the head and feet.

Personally, I would prefer to be dead before I was hung upside down.  Dunno about Islamophobes though.  

It is assumed that throat-cutting is the quickest and most irreversible way of ending the life of a living creature.

Female ritual suicide known as Jigai was practiced by the wives of samurai who have committed seppuku or brought dishonor.

Some females belonging to samurai families committed suicide by cutting the arteries of the neck with one stroke, using a knife such as a tantō or kaiken. The main purpose was to achieve a quick and certain death in order to avoid capture. Women were carefully taught jigaki as children. Before committing suicide, a woman would often tie her knees together so her body would be found in a dignified pose, despite the convulsions of death. 

This idea of a quick death through throat-cutting is confirmed by Tennyson, writing of  Iphigenia's ritual sacrifice:

"I was cut off from hope in that sad place, [12]
  Which yet to name my spirit loathes and fears: [13]
  My father held his hand upon his face;
  I, blinded with my tears,

  "Still strove to speak: my voice was thick with sighs
  As in a dream. Dimly I could descry
  The stern black-bearded kings with wolfish eyes,
  Waiting to see me die.

  "The high masts flicker'd as they lay afloat;
  The crowds, the temples, waver'd, and the shore;
  The bright death quiver'd at the victim's throat;
  Touch'd; and I knew no more." [14]

Would you prefer to be subjected two violent life-terminating procedures when just one of them would by itself be enough to send you into the next world, or would you prefer just one?

Would you rather be both stabbed in the heart and then have your head cut off, or would you prefer to have either, but not both?

Which would be choose if you were trying to choose the method with the least pain and the most dignity?

Those choosing to be stunned should bear in mind that it does not always work:

10 November 14:59
"Bolt/stun guns don't always work - the worst thing I've ever seen as far as animal suffering is concerned was a bullock shot with a bolt gun which for some reason didn't work right - this poor beast is howling and kicking and shaking the whole cage, truely sickening, grown men in tears, nasty."

If I had to have my throat cut I would rather have it cut facing Mecca in an upright position with a prayer said for me, than to have it cut when I was hanging upside down insensible, with no prayer said for me at all.  

If the Koran said stun the animals and then cut their throats, can you imagine the Islamophobes saying this should be banned because both stunning and throat-cutting is unusual and unnecessary cruelty?  I can.

There really is one correct and rational answer only, isn't there, as to which method you would choose for yourself if you had to choose?  Not that I would expect an Islamophobe to see it or ever answer the question honestly.

The ideal form of halal slaughter I propose: the animal proceeds through a passage towards a pleasant and clean room facing Mecca. A kindly slaughter man greets it and says the usual prayer, its throat is cut and it dies quickly.

How easy I would be on politicians if only they would do their jobs properly

Do you think an elected politician, such as an MP or mayor, should or should not resign from office if you learned that they had done one of the following?
Smoked marijuana
No, this person should not resign

Accepted cash gifts while in office
No, this person should not resign

Was frequently drunk in public
Yes, this person should resign

Used cocaine
No, this person should not resign

Smoked crack cocaine
No, this person should not resign

Was in a bar fight
No, this person should not resign

Claimed expenses they weren't entitled to
No, this person should not resign

Been unfaithful to their spouse
No, this person should not resign

Frequented prostitutes
No, this person should not resign

Sent their children to private school
No, this person should not resign

Took ecstasy
No, this person should not resign

Improperly failed to report all their income to the taxman
No, this person should not resign

Sent explicit images of themselves that became public
Yes, this person should resign but only these images were sent to a woman not his wife.

Friday, 8 November 2013

A reason for pet-lovers to become Muslim

God, who is said to be the source of The Koran, must have anticipated the 21st century pet-lover, for He promises in the Koran:

YUSUFALI: There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.
PICKTHAL: There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.
SHAKIR: And there is no animal that walks upon the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but (they are) genera like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered.

Pets go to heaven if they are good to join their owners if they too are good.  Pet owners must therefore be good.  

Who will lead the British branch of Generation Identity?

It does look like it could be Jack Buckby because he is young, politically active, has met Markus Willinger, and is reproducing large chunks of Generation Identity at

But what ideas has he apart from the ideas of Liberty GB, an Islamophobic party even more Islamophobic than the BNP contained in the following links

and his failed Culturalism?

Why Jack Buckby's idea of National Culturalism cannot work

As you can see at Jack Buckby does not like me and cannot provide coherent ideological reasons for doing so.

Quite often my rivals simply hate me for saying the things that they dare not say.  They call it "grandstanding" because, not surprisingly, I do get a lot of attention when I say the things I say.  It is quite understandable, in a way, that many nationalist men would hate to see me succeed where they have failed, since I am but a female and a foreigner, or something infinitely more sinister ....

I am the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a female, and am nothing like what they have come across before.  Apparently, they want to be led by someone just like themselves - timorous failures - thereby allowing the matriarchy to control the terms of debate.  

If you were a sane lunatic would you let someone like you - that is, another lunatic - represent your interests, or someone who is actually sane, knows what the problem is and has the solutions?  

In my opinion, there can only be one correct answer.

The kindest thing to do is to assume that they do not know what they want, and proceed to tell them what it is that they do want.  

Compared to Jack I am an intellectual giant.  

Why I, a non-white, do not feel threatened by the ideas in Markus Willinger's Generation Identity

Yes, I know Willinger talks about a time when Africans and Muslims have returned to their homelands, but in a way I think anyone, even the indigenous, will want to flee the country when things get bad, and they will.

The rage felt by the youth of today is the rage felt by any adolescent that is unsure of its identity and cannot find anything appealing in its own land.  There are surely many now who find British culture shallow and degenerate.

What is British culture but pop culture, pub culture, TV culture, football culture, gay culture and drug culture?

What is the British character most recognised by foreigners but the culture summed up as "Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Tesco, ASBO and Paedo"?

If you agree that British culture is the result of its laws and social practices, so is it also the result of its political culture, and its political culture is called Representative Democracy. This means that its political system consists of amoral political tribes incapable of thinking beyond the next general election whose divisions are easily exploited by the Israel lobby. The rights of these tribe members are abused regularly by their leaders and their cronies, and but they (especially the ones in Parliament and who are Cabinet Members) are too stupid to notice or too scared to protest against this. The consequence of this political culture is that all politicians who want to remain politicians must toe the line and play the system, and this means not saying anything that might resemble the truth or engage the public.

Only when the political culture changes will the British character change for the better.

When British culture changes for the better, Muslims will no longer wish to distant themselves from the culture of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, nor will Muslim women feel the compulsion to wear the niqab, hijab or burkha to proclaim that they are not sluts like the non-Muslim indigenous females.  They may not be so rude as to tell Western women what they really think of their morals, but that is what their obsession with wearing the Muslim uniform is really all about: an assertion of a feminine identity that is not part of Western slut culture.

The solution is therefore very simple: Western women should simply collectively resolve to cease to be sluts, for the good of everyone else, including themselves and future generations.

What is a slut?  She is a fornicatress.  Who is a fornicatress?  Any woman who has pre-marital sex.

It remains to be seen how resolute are these Identitarians in challenging the matriarchy that squats above their heads.

Generation Identity by Markus Willinger: an indictment against the liberal establishment and the 68ers

You can order it at where I have reviewed it.  It is reproduced below:

It is short, sweet and strong as well as a compelling read. I must say I relish the thought of liberals reading this book and quaking in their boots, for they cannot refute any of the accusations Willinger makes with facts or logic.

As for British identity (which is currently Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Tesco, ASBO and Paedo), it will change for the better when the right laws are in place.

The right laws, as far as I am concerned anyway, will be in place after the following take place:

1. after the repeal of the Equality Act 2010
2. after the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
3. after the repeal of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1975
4. after fault is taken into account in any divorce settlement
5. after a flat rate income tax of 20% is in place
6. after the welfare-dependent and low-waged are disenfranchised
7. after the civil partnership and inheritance tax is abolished
8. after the welfare state is dismantled
9. after the NHS is broken up and sold off
10. after it is again shameful to have a child out of wedlock

The right laws would be the laws that undermine the foundations of the West's entrenched matriarchy that have made its government and people so venal, irrational and immoral. It would not be difficult at all to entirely discredit feminism as a viable, moral or intellectually respectable ideology when our voices are loud enough.

Generation Identity significantly increases the volume.

For an explanation of 68ers, does this quite well:

In May 1968, wildcat strikes across France initially sparked by student rebellions brought the entire nation of France to a standstill, with President de Gaulle going so far as to flee the country. The slogans of the ’68ers were a classic example of postmodern Marxism, a cry for a life more meaningful than what was possible under capitalist alienation. “A cop sleeps inside each one of us. We must kill him. Drive the cop out of your head.” “It is forbidden to forbid.” “Be realistic, ask the impossible.”

Though de Gaulle was able to defeat the would-be revolution, and his Center-Right party even gained seats in the elections that followed, May ’68 had a huge impact on European society, government, and culture. It heralded the establishment of Cultural Marxism [feminism, in other words] as the default culture of educated Western opinion. The rebellious young figures of the uprising, like the charismatic Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (aka “Danny the Red”), have gone on to become the boring old bureaucrats of the European Parliament, lecturing the people of Europe on what products they are allowed to use, what they are allowed to say, and what they are allowed to think. Instead of the beginning of a new era of freedom, May ’68 was the beginning of what Keith Preston has called “Totalitarian Humanism.”

NHS spends £700 on negligence cover for every birth and what to do about it
Tory deputy mayor: The best thing for disabled children is the guillotine
The retired GP made his sick suggestion to fellow councillors as they discussed sending the youngsters to a £3,000-a-week care home

If the infant is disabled, offer to dispose of it and only offer compensation if the mother is married. Sorted.  

Thursday, 7 November 2013

Claire Khaw agrees with Godfrey Bloom that the unemployed and public sector employees be stripped of the vote

Godfrey Bloom and Ian Cowie follow in my wake as regards narrowing the franchise. has my radical and thrilling plan to narrow the franchise even more.

I am even thinking of disenfranchising bachelors.

These ideas need to be introduced gradually to the voters and the political establishment, of course, and I would be very happy to go through my plans with him next time he is in London.

We will know how much the public like these ideas during the 2014 EU elections.  I do hope Mrs Bloom will strongly discourage him from standing down because I know how much fight there is in the old boy still. He would only get under her feet if he decided to retire from politics.

I will be able to get him all the publicity he wants and more.  All he needs to do now is get in touch.

Jane Collins is the MEP candidate UKIP are thinking of replacing him with.  She is bound to be completely boring and not say anything of interest at all.  We have had quite enough of over-promoted female mediocrities already, have we not?

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Nietzsche approved of Islam

If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men….
Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization.

The Christian God is a "... declaration of war against life, against nature, against the will to live!"[24] This God is a "... formula for every slander against 'this world,' for every lie about the 'beyond'!"[24] Recalling Schopenhauer's description of the denial of the will to live and the subsequent empty nothingness,[25] Nietzsche proclaimed that the Christian God is "... the sanctification of the will to nothingness!"[24] Nietzsche criticized the "strong races of northern Europe" for accepting the Christian God and not creating a new god of their own. "Almost two thousand years — and not a single new god!"[26] He maintained that the traditional Christian God of "monotono-theism" (Monotono–Theismus) supports "... all the instincts of decadence, all cowardices and weariness of the soul ... ."[26]

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Why we should all support the right of Golden Dawn *not* to be gunned down in the street

I know for a fact that many non-white British citizens complain about immigration.

In a way they are more isolated than the BNP, because such a person saying this to the liberal establishment would be shouted down.  "You can't complain about immigration," they would scream.  "You are an immigrant yourself!  Why don't you join the BNP and see if they don't send you on the first banana boat home?" etc.

While the indigenous voter have their pariah parties against immigration, the anti-immigration immigrant has nowhere to go.

Happily or sadly, things are so bad now that UKIP - a middle class anti-immigration party - want non-white members.  The BNP were actually delighted to have non-white members to show that they are really not that racist.  The fact that they were so anxious to have me as their London Mayoral Candidate was telling. After I was expelled the candidacy was still determinedly withheld from a local indigenous member and was given to an Uruguayan Londoner by the name of Carlos Cortiglia.

It seems we foreigners have our uses, even to "Far Right" organisations who so vehemently object to immigration.

Newly-arrived immigrants are tools of the political establishment, who know that granting them British passports would make them grateful and loyal.

The Right too find themselves in the paradoxical position of finding immigrants useful, for immigrants come from other places where social conservatism has not been so salami-sliced away that they find the leader of their Conservative Party thinking nothing of promoting gay marriage nationally and globally.

I will tell you why I do it then, apart from the desire for notoriety that is so often imputed to me.

I do it because I support the right of the voters to complain about immigration, whether they are racist or not.

I do it because I know I wouldn't like what has been happening to this country if I were myself white and indigenous.

I know that even the immigrants who come here to make their fortune wouldn't like it either if the same thing happened to their country and they found the racial composition of their neighbourhood, locality and nation racially changed within a short space of time.

I first visited Ireland in 1992 when it was recognisably Irish.  When I visited it 3 or 4 years later I found that its racial composition resembled London's, and felt concern for the Irish.  The Dubliners surely cannot find their newly cosmopolitan city an unmixed blessing, I thought.

The analogy of kicking away the ladder so others cannot follow me is an accusation that has often been levelled at immigrants who express anti-immigration views.  Even the most complained of group of immigrants - Muslims - complain about immigration too.  The first time I noticed this was in the 1997 General Election when a Muslim leader in Nicholas Budgen's constituency said something must be done about immigration.  More recently in the last few years, I attended a neighbourhood watch meeting at which Lutfur Rahman presided, before he became Mayor of Tower Hamlets.  A cry of "Why must everyone and his dog come to Tower Hamlets?  As if we didn't have enough problems of our own!" was something I found bemusing and very memorable.

Returning to the subject of analogies, a more suitable one would be that of being allowed on a nearly full lifeboat.  If allowing more would make the boat sink, then I owe it myself and those who let me on the lifeboat in the first place to say no to those who are scrambling to get on board.

Otherwise the entire boat would just capsize and all its passengers drown.

And this is why I have decided to accept Eddie Stampton's invitation for me to join him in the demonstration against the treatment of Golden Dawn, who are trying to effect change using the political process.

Condoning the gunning down of two Golden Dawn members would send a message to all who object to immigration that effecting change through the political process through peaceful means is clearly useless and that violent means must be employed to be effective.  This is precisely the message that must not be given to those who already filled with hate and fear that their complaints are always ignored and know that those who dare to complain will always demonised and ostracises.  If my presence at the demo in any way helps make this point, then I would be glad to accept Eddie Stampton invitation to attend.

Eddie Stampton's free speech should be defended, whatever you think of his politics

Eddie Stampton:

As already stated, I am currently on a 6.5 month suspended sentence and 2 year 'supervision order', for the absolutely terrible crime of using the 'N' word in public. I also had to pay £100 for the 'victim's' hurt feelings, 250 hours community service & have to attend a crackpot 'diversity & prejudice awareness course. At court, the National domestic extremism unit urged the Magistrates to ban me for life from attending 'far-right' events.

Anyway, due to this page, and the fact I am still politically active, I just received a warning letter from my black probation officer. I won't replicate it all on here, but anyone wishing to see it can have a look at the demo. They are warning me that if I don't comply with their commie bullshit I will be taken back to court & have the sentence imposed. I would only serve 13 weeks, which ordinarily would not bother me in the slightest, but Christmas is coming up. 

Here is the first paragraph of the letter:

I have been notified by the Extremism & Hate Crime Unit (EHCU) - London Probation Trust department - that you have posted or circulated or kept derogatory and offensive material in your Facebook Account/Page. Similar information has been shared by the Police on two previous occasions and the matter was discussed with you accordingly.

This is free speech & democracy EU style in 21st Century Britain. What a joke

It seems they made Prince Harry do this course, too, twice, which does make it seem that the Prince is racially even naughtier than our Eddie ...

It will be the second time he has been required to attend such a course, but this time sources say the training will be more intensive.

His remarks have also been be written permanently into his Army record.

A ridiculous and oppressive punishment for saying a rude word on his own Facebook account!!! that black people sometimes use on each other, don't you think?

A Roman salute from Eddie Stampton

If the BNP were a serious political party Eddie would have the legal representation he needs to protect his free speech, but nationalists already know what a moral coward Nick Griffin is.  His utter lack of imagination and success in the field of politics is well-established.

Please note that Eddie has not been a  member of the BNP since 2005 but I am just making the point that if I were leader of the BNP I would see to it that the party always made a point of helping out members who got into trouble with the law, especially if they had their free speech infringed.  It is the best way of making your point peacefully and legally, after all.

Members of any successful political party would like to to feel that if they go out on a limb for their party the party will look after them in return if they get into trouble, not dumped like a hot brick the moment things get a bit iffy.  If you buy legal insurance as a party, you would get a good rate too, I imagine.

The free speech of people whose views you dislike is your free speech too.

If you even understand the principle of free speech you would already know this, but no one understands this any more, not even the dime a dozen law graduates that this country keeps churning out.

  • Eddie Stampton When they remove free speech & democratic right to protest, what road do they push us down?