My political education consisted of working out why the party with the policies I most agreed with were the party that wanted to turf people like me out. I did not assume, just because they wanted to turf me out, that they must be wrong. It really was not hard for me to work out why they would mind. Indeed, I remember feeling rather concerned for white people when I first arrived at Heathrow and saw how Asian West London was as I was driven through it into town.
The trouble with them is that no one will tell them why they are being overwhelmed by immigration. They prefer to blame the Jews, you see, rather than themselves and feminism.
It is to do with their birth rate.
Low birth rate = labour shortage
Feminist employment protection legislation causes a low birth rate.
The working mother became the divorced mother and the divorced mother the never married mother.
Most British mothers are never married mothers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
Most British mothers are bad mothers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1299400/Fathers-sleazy-mothers-lazy-What-au-pair-REALLY-thinks-you.html
Because of this most members of the white working classes are not fit for purpose. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r3qyw
‘It’s not worth getting out of bed for less than £300 per week.” That was the insistent reply from the spokesman of a small group of young unemployed people I talked to.
“Why do you think anyone is going to pay you £300 per week when you can hardly read or write?” was my reply. We exchanged comments, getting ever more heated. “So you would make us take immigrants’ jobs would you?” I was asked. “You bet,” I retorted.
These young people were existing on an income of benefits supplemented perhaps by petty crime and drug dealing. Their belief that this was a satisfactory outcome filled me with horror. What kind of life would they be leading 10 years’ hence?
It is against this background of embedded dependency that the government’s latest set of welfare reforms need to be judged. Welfare is being reformed primarily to save money to reduce the structural deficit.
Now none of them will dare to criticise single mums because almost every woman they know is a single mum. If they offend single mums they won't get any sex or have to question the morals of their own mother.
BNP supporters are most affected by illegitimacy, but you will notice that the liberal establishment will not criticise SSMs either because if they do they will immediately alienate half their voters ie women.
Most British women are fornicatresses and most British mothers are SSMs.
Men are more racist than women because they are in practical terms more threatened by foreign men coming to their land and competing with them for jobs, resources and females, but because women don't feel threatened by immigration they dismiss the fears and concerns of men.
If extramarital sex were forbidden, then men would not have to flatter women they are not married to and pretend to agree with them in order to have sex with them.
However, since it is now the norm to have extramarital sex, then the only thing left for you to do if you are the one looking for sex is to flatter your target and this means masking the truth or even telling lies to achieve your object.
Telling lies in order to get sex from women corrupts your morals. It is not so much the sex, but the act of actively and consciously telling lies in order to get sex.
When you think of all the countries the West has invaded and bombed, you may wonder what they are doing it for and who is benefiting.
In fact, even if you believed in one or all the conspiracy theories going around it still makes no sense. I suspect the truth is actually surprisingly simple.
Because the Western man is afraid of his women, he can only take it out on Muslims by bombing them to make him feel a man again.
Listen to any explanation given by any warmongering politician. The reasons really make no sense at all, do they?
In the conflict with Germany which began in August 1914, the desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead, just as a man who has lost control at home seeks to dominate elsewhere. Moreover, the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its enemy one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would have chosen. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males had been manipulated into serving the female interest. This hypothesis is supported by the following:
- The astonishing rapidity of the declaration of war against Germany, taking place even before a peace lobby could be organized. This was because, in effect, the government had already been at war for some years: the WSPU had publicly declared that a "state of war" existed in 1910.19 However the government's opponent was one for which their options for retaliation were very limited. Frustrated by the terror tactics of the suffragettes, and their impotence in fear of the public reaction which might result from any forceful response, the government was desperate for a "real enemy" they could properly engage.
- The suffragettes' alacrity in forming an alliance with the government on the outbreak of war. On 8 September 1914 Christabel Pankhurst returned from Paris and immediately gave a speech not on suffrage but on "The German Peril." Led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, militant suffragettes became the most enthusiastic advocates of the war. Copying Admiral Charles Fitzgerald with his initial group of thirty women, they became active all over Britain in "White Feather Brigades," handing white feathers to any man in civilian clothing with the intention of shaming him into enlisting.20 So fervent were they that demobbed soldiers, soldiers on temporary leave, civil servants and boys were confronted with this symbol of cowardice. Christabel Pankhurst crossed the Atlantic shortly afterwards to seek American support for the war.
- Much of the propaganda of the time featured obvious sexual imagery. Typical was the portrayal of a masculine German "brute" and a vulnerable, feminine Belgium, which men were exhorted to rally to defend.
Anyway, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.