Thursday, 4 July 2013

Nick Griffin defends maternity leave at the expense of British business

UKIP at least propose policies that would help British businesses. The BNP are a different kind of party though: they represent people British employers don't want to hire.

In short, the BNP defends feminist legislation that so burdens British businesses.   These women who claim maternity leave do not even have to be married.

It is shocking and outrageous that a party that supposedly cares about the health of the white indigenous people of Britain should be so infuriatingly deaf over the degenerative effects of widespread illegitimacy that feminism and feminist-inspired totalitarian anti-discrimination legislation seeks to perpetuate.

Godfrey Bloom quite rightly points out that British businesses should  NOT be burdened by being obliged to pay women to have babies in the form of maternity leave.  Their HUSBANDS should be paying them to do so, but these days it is a bit radical to suggest that since most British mothers are not married.  

Nick Griffin, MEP, said: "We need to do more to help young families. They are the bedrock of a stable society.

No, Mr Griffin, MARRIAGE is the bedrock of a stable society, not just any old SSM having a baby at the expense of the taxpayer and her employer.  Not discouraging husbandless women from having babies or refraining from criticising their morals because most of your members are illegitimate or women hoping to claim maternity leave from their hapless employers is the opposite of principled opposition.  

It is all about breeding, and breeding is about mate selection.   Mate selection is not choosing a partner for the night with low enough standards to have sex with you no questions asked, is it?

Or perhaps it is, in morally degenerate 21st century Britain.

You would have thought that a party that claims to care about the indigenous white Briton would care about the quality of the national gene pool, but not a bit of it.

Is the BNP leadership now so totally lacking in moral vigour that it pretends not understand the purpose of marriage and the degenerative effects of totalitarian feminist legislation?

No comments: