Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Beautiful Blonde Lawyer

From Private Eye 1352
1 November - 14 November 2013

Page 36


"This slim stunning 50 year old woman has a Masters in Chinese and Middle Eastern Law.  She is understated and warm with a mischievous sense of fun.  She is compassionate and exciting whilst remaining grounded and down to earth.  This rather special woman is looking for a committed loving relationship with an interesting, genuine man.  

For a complimentary introduction telephone 0208 313 0918

This woman actually sounds quite interesting to me, but I may be discriminated against on the grounds that I am female.  I have in any case emailed her in the following terms:

"I would be interested to meet this client of yours, but suffer from the disadvantage of being female.  I would however like her to know that I am prepared to contemplate friendship or more, in principle."  

Gordon Ramsay admits to spying on teenage daughter 

But Gordon Ramsay allows his daughter to have a boyfriend at 15.  How many changes of boyfriend has his daughter had?

"Oh, dad, I have used up my last boyfriend, can I have another one?"

"Yeah, sure, babe. Just make sure you don't get pregnant, yeah?"

That is why Muslim sex predators groom the daughters of British men for sex.

"Dad, if I can have a boyfriend,  why can't I have a boyfriend of another race?  Is it because you are racist, dad?  If you stop me I could call ChildLine and tell them what a racist Islamophobic shit you are, and we all know that being racist is the worst thing in the world to be, and I shouldn't have to listen to anything a racist Islamophobic shit like you says, should I?"   

Male Facebook friend 1:

15 is too young to have a boyfriend really. When I was in sixth form and started getting to know girls I was surprised at how care-free some of girls' fathers were. These people were middle class as well. Very little control over their daughters' behaviour. Not like my dad was with my sister.


What do you when you have a boyfriend? Why, you fuck him of course. If you have a boyfriend at 15 does it mean you shouldn't fuck him? How many of these girls care about the age of consent? How many adolescent schoolboys under 16 care about the age of consent?

Male Facebook friend 1:

None of them I knew cared about age of consent. Most of them had lost their virginity at about 15. By 17 they had already has 3 or 4 changes of boyfriend. It's strange because when people talk about "promiscuity" they tend to mean having casual sex with many partners. Yet female serial monogamy is also another "hidden" form of promiscuity.

Male Facebook friend 2:

I enforce a nearly cloistered life upon my 15 year old daughter. There is plenty of time in life for her when she's mature enough to make decisions that could and will greatly effect her future. Her job at this point in life is to focus on her studies and then move on to University. She is smart enough to have noticed (disapprovingly) the 'slide' that many of her classmates have already made toward slutdom.

Maybe most British mothers don't care about their daughters having under-aged sex because they think it is all about growing up and learning how to bargain with men using sex.  

It seems most British fathers who are still living with their wives and children now have the same view too.

It is no wonder that sex predators of other races target white indigenous adolescent females when they are all expected to be sexually active by the time they are 15.

Male or female, the more sex you have had with different partners, the more likely you are to treat relationships as so many used condoms.  

Is it racist to mind *more* that your women are victims of sex predators of *another* race than sex predators of your *own* race?

Is it racist to feel that your women being groomed by sex predators of another race is worse than being groomed by sex predators of their own race?

The correct answer is as follows:

"It is racist, but I am entitled to feel greater anger and disgust as long as I do not propose that sex predators of another race be punished by law more harshly than indigenous sex predators."

While it didn't make any difference to their victims who were presumably prepared to have sex with their non-white boyfriends, though not to be passed around to their mates like a parcel, the fact is that these females initially agreed to have sex with these sex predators.

Are not all men who want sex really sex predators though?  Do not all sex predators try to "groom" women with treats and gifts either for sex or marriage?

The offence that is felt is the offence of white men who feel it is certainly much worse to have the women of their race become the victims of sex predators of men of other races.  

Is this feeling racist and therefore evil?  Not at all, I would argue.  Men of X race ought to feel more offended at the thought of sex predators of Y race sexually abusing their females, simply because they should be concerned about protecting women of their race.  The fact that more and more of their women are falling into the hands of sex predators of other races suggests things are not what they should be.   Is it because men are failing to protect their daughters?  But these adolescent girls are mostly fatherless.  Is it because the mothers of these adolescent victims have the morals of a sewer and only had their illegitimate and fatherless children so they could claim child benefit? If this is the case, then they ought to do something, but not a bit of it, and their continual whine about Muslims remains unabated, for their SSMs can do no wrong.  

If you leave food uncovered and flies come, whose fault is it that they come?  If you eat this food and you fall ill, whose fault is it?  Why, the flies' of course, and not the slut and the filthy slattern who couldn't be arsed to cover up the food or put it in the fridge.   To blame her would mean that she will refuse you sexual access to her body, and then where will you be?

I am capable of making creative points like this, while the old duffers at the BDP can only come up with boring old shit like

I demonstrably can plead the white male's case better than any white male in British nationalism, but they do not want me in their party, and I know precisely why.  It is because they are too afraid of offending their women by seeming to have anything to do with me.

What is so extraordinary about me, even if I do say so myself, as a female and a racial foreigner, is that I understand the male psyche because I think like one.  Not only do I think like a man, I actually think like an alpha male, and that is what freaks them out so much.

If I were white and male they would be begging me to lead them.  But if I were white and an alpha male, I would not want to associate with these beta and omega males because it would be bad for business and my wife would be so angry with me she would divorce me, deprive me of my children and probably allow my daughter to become a slut and even an SSM.  That was why Nick Griffin said: "Those who want my job cannot do it, and those who can do my job don't want it."

It is also very interesting that those who pop up from time to time to jeer at me that I have get myself precisely nowhere in politics because no party will not have me always run away when I invite them to consider why they will not have me.

They will not have me because what I say is unpopular, granted, but aren't these social and political pariahs already used to being shunned by all and sundry?

My anti-feminist stance is potentially more popular than an anti-immigration stance.  This is simply because most men and women are looking for a sex partner or a spouse, and their numbers will always exceed people who are bothered about immigration.  

Why don't they do something motherhood and apple pie instead and start supporting marriage, by defining it, discussing its purpose in the scheme of things and proposing policies that might support marriage?

They would have to define marriage as something that can only be legal and proper between a man and a woman of age and with consent not within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity for the purpose of procreation and the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions.

They would have to say that to respect marriage one must abolish no-fault divorce or what in effect amounts to this, and declare that gay marriage is the penultimate way of desecrating marriage.  The ultimate way of desecrating marriage would be of course to forbid heterosexual couples from marrying and only allow same-sex couples to do so.

Clearly, a nation of sluts and bastards, SSMs, SPOSSMs and MCSFs would have no respect for marriage which they regard as "a piece of paper" not fit to wipe their bottoms with.

The Islamophobes who go on and on and on about Muslim grooming completely ignore that that the total number of white sex predators significantly exceeds that of non-white sex predators. But they only focus on the fact that these sex predators are Muslim, and nobody cares to put them right on the fact that the total number of convicted indigenous sex offenders far far far exceed the total number of non-white sex offenders. Are they really too stupid to get this or just too scared to acknowledge the truth of this?

These same Islamophobes also refuse to address the question of why so many white girls become the victims of sex predators. There are plenty of women who have their illegitimate offspring and use them to claim child benefit.  When they are old enough to be interesting to the SPOSSMs of their single mothers, they get kicked out of by her, or they get into trouble and find themselves in a care home where they are so ineffectively controlled that they become the victims of sex predators before too long.

Why do these nationalists never address this issue?  Is it because they fear the wrath of SSMs, and their women are now mostly SSMs?   It is safe to criticise Muslims, but not SSMs.  These sex-obsessed men reason that because they don't want to have sex with Muslims, they can criticise them all they like.  However, because it is precisely SSMs they hope to have sex with they must not criticise them, for to criticise them would result in losing sexual access to them, a false rape allegation or perhaps even a false accusation of paedophilia.  That is why these low-born, sex-hungry jobless men who cannot afford a prostitute much less a wife cannot ever get it together to criticise feminism or sluts.

As for alpha males who do have a bit of money, they would be wise to not marry any woman for to do so would leave them with half their property open to spousal confiscation.

While I know how detestable it is for these men find it to acknowledge the horrible irony of a female and a racial foreigner being the only person in the land ideally suited and capable of saving them from their women, it is perhaps something they should come to terms with.

When they do finally come to terms with this, they could think about appointing me as the Media Spokesman of UKIP, BNP, or BDP.  

What I think of Gregory Lauder Frost's speech about immigration being a threat to the British nation

It is not that I dispute that GLF has a right to say whatever he wants to say about uncontrolled immigration and what he would like to do about it ie implement repatriation.

There was a time when he was talking about forced repatriation, which led me to ask someone there if he was NF (who do explicitly propose forced repatriation), but I was assured that he was too posh to be NF who are overwhelmingly plebs.

What exasperates me is that these so-called patriots do not seem to know the difference between making a complaint and proposing a course of action.

In his entire speech he does not in any way address the question of what is to be done about it.  Did he say vote BNP?  Or UKIP?  Or even NF?  No, he glorifies the achievements of the white race, says how unfair it is that liberalism seems to have gotten the better of them, and, er, that's it.

The speech was well-received though, particularly from a woman who laughed obediently and raucously at every predictable joke he made.

So this is the shambles of the so-called Far Right, these old men who don't like what is happening and can only complain like the querulous ineffectual old men that they are.  is where you can find GLF speaking for nearly an hour without proposing a solution. is where you can see how he is blinking like a frightened rabbit when being interrogated by Kirsty Wark about his views on immigration.

My purpose in blogging about this is not to mock the afflicted, but to make known that to TBG I am persona non grata.

While there are many who would point out that I should not be surprised that such an overtly racist group would wish to exclude me, I should point out that I have attended their meetings before and have therefore heard it all before when the TBG dining club (which is what it is really) was once called the Conservative Democrats and then the Baldwin Society when it was run by the late Mike Smith whom I am proud to have called a friend.  GLF and I were not on unfriendly terms and we, together with Andrew Moffat and Sam Swerling, attended Mike's funeral after he tragically committed suicide by throwing himself off Porchester Castle.

It would have been all too easy to dismiss the fact that I was disabled from commenting on the TBG Facebook page or that the TBG Secretary Louis Wellcome was ignoring me for racial reasons.  It may surprise people to hear that out of all the parties I have joined it is people from the BNP who are the people I still see socially and who have become friends and that in my opinion UKIP people are nastier and more full of hate than BNP people.

I have of course tried to discover the official reason why I am now persona non grata, but GLF steadfastly refuses to tell me and pretends it is nothing to do with him by saying that it is not his department, even after persistent questioning with a gap of many months. gives the reasons why I think I am now persona non grata.

It is of course disgraceful that these men are too frightened to even tell me why I am persona non grata. Where is the English sense of fair play?  Why are they behaving like cowardly and frightened old women? You would have thought that these men would have the wherewithal to tell me why they want me to sling my hook as they tell me to sling my hook instead of pretending it is nothing to do with them.

Why do I care so much?  I care because I would have relished the opportunity of being one of the speakers at their conference on 19 October, to tell me what I think is the cause of British malaise.

Only one of the speakers got anywhere near it, and it was the very handsome and Aryan Markus Willinger who has written this rather interesting book at called Generation Identity.

On sexual matters:

"We reject unrestrained sexuality more than any other generation. This is because for no previous generation in history has true love played such a great role as it does for us. Of all the things that you're devalued and destroyed, you've left us love. Truly, you've never really cared about love. You've despised it and sold it short. But precisely for that reason. you've never launched a frontal assault against it. It remained alive. And it became to our last place of refuge. So here we are this world of loneliness and fleeting happiness; we long for the person who can bring us to safety. It is our highest goal and our greatest happiness to find true love. Yet we are sexually promiscuous, drink hard, and settle for the second best. No one suffers more from this than we ourselves. /.../ The consequences of your 'sexual liberation' have us in a stranglehold. It is impossible to go out even even a day into the world without being greeted by half-naked men and women. All films, advertising, and magazines consciously manipulate sexual desire. So it is that desire grows, often in opposition to our love. When it's over and the wild, alcohol-soaked night is behind us, we regret what we've done. Often we feel sad because of it. This inner struggle, which each of us must win for himself, is also part of our identity. Yet we declare resolutely: we want to win it! A long road may lie for us, but in the end, the love within us will triumph over animalistic desire. For we are generation identity." Generation Identity - Marcus Willinger

A few years ago I was actually shocked at the number of disabled nationalists and nationalists with disabled and illegitimate offspring who wanted my head on a platter for saying what I had said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show.  I had expected some sympathy for about how I would deal with my hypothetical severely disabled baby, but not a bit of it: they were as equally horrified as the typical liberal.

I would have thought that if you cared about your race you would care about the quality of your race and be rather keen on maintaining and improving the quality of your race. I would expect that you would be prepared to support marriage as a means of improving or at least maintaining the quality of your race and to be at least concerned about the increasing numbers of your race that now have some disability or other, but not a bit of it.

There is nothing noble about British nationalism at all, but then what did I expect anyway, when it is clear that those most attracted to nationalism are the indigenous who cannot compete with immigrants in the field of unskilled manual labour and who are either too thick to see the role of marriage in maintaining the quality of your race or too cowardly to say so because saying so would offend most of their friends and family who are mostly SSMs, SSM-parented, MCSFs or SPOSSMs

Most of these men are obviously unmarriageable and must necessarily rely on the charity of sluts because they know they cannot afford the services of a prostitute, let alone take a wife.

While the more plebeian British nationalist with not much education cannot be expected to display aristocratic virtues, I had rather expected GLF and his ilk to do so.  How wrong I was.

Is GLF an MCSF?  I think we should be told.

Why are the men at TBG terrified of discussing feminism?  Are they MCSFs and SPOSSMs to a man?   If so, then that explains everything about why British nationalism as it is currently being represented and run will never get anywhere since they are donkeys being led by donkeys.

Must they rely on foreigners to do everything for them?

I am very happy to include this response from Gregory:

I see on your page that you describe yourself as a satirist.

Could I point out, as you very clearly failed to pick it up from my speech, that I reiterated in it (and also on Newsnight and Radio 5 Live) that I was in favour of the Conservative Party's 1970 General Election Manifesto pledge which promised to halt immigration and encourage voluntary [State]-assisted repatriation, and I said it was needed more today than it ever was in 1970. So you see I did call for action and it was not the NF, the BNP etc I was citing, but the non-Conservative Party.

When I was on Newsnight the delightful BBC thrust the studio lights in my face (not visible to viewers because of the camera filters) and so yes it upset my eyesight. Is your comment meant to be serious political observation when you don't know the half of it?

I have not the faintest idea why you are not allowed on the TBG Wall. Ask Louis Welcomme, the TBG Chairman (not Secretary, as you said), who is the Fat Controller there. Not me. I have not the time to be involved there.

Lastly, I resent being called "old". What will I be in 20 years time? How "old" might you be?

It always interests me that people who claim to be on The Right delight in attacking those on the Right.

To which my response was:

I would be the first to acknowledge that I am no spring chicken.  We are none of us getting any younger, which is why we should get our skates on and do something more than carry on as if we have all the time in the world. 

This exchange continues in the comments which follow. 

Monday, 28 October 2013

BDP Chairman Kevin Scott displays more pointless Islamophobia while saying he will vote UKIP in the 2014 EU elections

Kevin Scott Chairman of the BDP on Facebook today:

"I intend to vote UKIP in next year's EU elections (if only to help break-up the Lib-Lab-Con political cartel in this country) but I do so in the full knowledge they speak with fork tongue on issues such as immigration!"
He also said:

"An ideal way of spotting the politically correct is working out their attitude to Islam!"

He then posts which I reproduce below:

Opinions about Mohammed from the past

22nd October 2013

Ralph Musgrave

Mark of Toledo (who translated the Koran in early 1200s) said “sometimes Mohammed speaks like a crazy man, sometimes however like one who is lifeless, occasionally indeed promising eternal life to converts, but in a confused and unconnected style”.

Rocoldo, a priest who studied Islamic culture around 1300, said the Koran was “irrational, repetitive and obscene”.

Martin Luther (the German who founded the Protestant faith) agreed with Rocoldo.

Why weren’t Mark of Toledo, Rocoldo and Martin Luther arrested for . . er . . “inciting racial or religious hatred” (or whatever the fashionable phrase was in those days)?

Well, perhaps it was because they had more sense in those days. Perhaps their world was not infested with the politically correct.

I did a small amount of Roman and Ancient Greek history at school long ago, and I have no recollection of the word “racism” even existing in those societies.

In fact, this word was never used in Britain before World War Two!

How many Muslims can read and write?

According to the Muslim physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy: “Half of Arab women cannot read or write. The entire Arab world translates about 330 books annually, a fifth the number that Greece translates. In the thousand years since the reign of Caliph al Ma’mun, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain does in a year.”

So the idea that we have anything significant to learn from Islam is clearly hogwash. And that of course is exactly why the politically correct support the idea: they are perverse self-haters intent on destroying a robust European culture. In fact, you will find the politically correct supporting anything Islamic (it is a good way of spotting them!) and even self-declared far-left atheists defending Islam!

For the politically correct, “culture” consists of inane nonsense like wearing burkhas or other daft bits of cloth over your face.

As to homegrown European culture: it needs to be enriched or discarded.
In fact, if the politically correct had their way, the advance of civilisation would go into reverse and we would end up in caves making grunting noises at each other (while praying to Allah, of course!)

Apart from demonstrating his hatred of Islam and Muslims, was there any purpose to these anti-Muslim ramblings?  Was this yet another post by Kevin Scott under a pseudonym?

How is this more constructive than what I am doing which is to point out the cause of British malaise because the likes of Kevin Scott are too afraid of doing so, for fear of offending SSMs?

Do BDP members really think Kevin Scott is going to do anything for the party before it fades away into deregistration?

Why won't these men let me be the BDP Media Spokesman and at least go out with a bang rather than a whimper?

Because they are omega males afraid of their omega females.

If you want to meet omega females I can do no better than suggest you register at  Remember, omega females are the ones with qualities you least desire in a wife.  

I find a man I have never met intriguing and attractive because of his businesslike approach to marriage

There was this man a female friend of mine was dating.

Apparently, on the first date (the first time they met was not a date because they met through work) he was talking about marriage.  Actually, being a lawyer, he talked about a pre-nup rather than marriage.

Marriage would only take place she had gone on holiday with him to meet his friends, presumably on the condition that they returned from holiday after having had a lovely time.

What better way of testing out your intended than by going on holiday with him/her and introducing him/her to your friends?

However, she found his proposal rather too coldly businesslike and cancelled the second date.

I jokingly asked if I could have his number if she had finished with him, but I suspect this won't be forthcoming.

She said she hadn't quite finished with him, only that she didn't feel that she could cope with seeing him again that evening, because she was so confused.  Presumably she intended to see him again and was playing hard to get. I think she has lost her chance, to be honest.

If I were him I wouldn't put up with that crap and move on. Doing stuff like this is a good way of finding out how serious and adventurous a woman is about finding a partner.

Of course on the proposed holiday it was envisaged that sex would take place, but she told me she had insisted on separate rooms.

Talk of marriage would indicate that he was serious. If I found him attractive then I would be flattered that he was thinking in those terms. Most men just want a roll in the hay.

I rather admire his technique, if truth be told: no time-wasters and ditherers tolerated. I think she just couldn't cope with the idea of letting him being in charge, because she is used to being in charge.

Also, I would have sex with him here before going on holiday to see if I we had, er, anything in common. If it was awful, then I would have to move on, but if we had fun then I would be looking forward to the proposed holiday with slightly less trepidation.

I think his technique is a great way of hurrying things along and it is still a good deal for the woman. If you fancy the guy then why not fuck him for the hell of it? If he wants to offer you even more, why not consider it seriously instead of pretending you are still a virgin princess?

Another dinner in a nice restaurant and a nice holiday for a few rolls in the hay sounds all right to me.

I daren't even call her now because I have a feeling that little episode in her life is now over. I bet they never had another date.

The fact that no political party in Britain will have me is conclusive proof that it is a matriarchy

Below is an exchange on the subject of why no party would have me.  

Anonymous  Claire, there is no party would have you.

Claire Khaw  Because ...  ?

Anonymous  Claire, start your own party because no other party will have you, that is just a fact, like it or not.

Claire Khaw  Just give me a reason.  There must be so many, eh?

Anonymous  Why don't you ask them why they won't let you in?

Claire Khaw  I have tried to ask Kevin Scott [Chairman of the British Democratic Party].  First he says it is cos he didn't like my speech at the Newcastle meeting, and then it was my stance on feminism.  I just want an official reason.

It is very interesting the way they won't give me a proper reason.

I suppose they don't quite dare say to me "It is cos you are a tiddly wink, innit."

Or, they could say "It is cos you have blasphemed against feminism."

Or, they could say "It is cos you have insulted our women and we are afraid of associating with you cos our women will become angry with us and not have sex with us if we are seen to in any way endorse your views about our women."

Which do you think it is?

It wouldn't reflect very well on them if they were to tell me the real reason why, so that is why they are staying silent thinking I will just shut up and go away if they ignore me for long enough. They should know better though.

"We know who is in power by those we cannot criticise."

And we cannot criticise sluts, can we?

That the Traditional Britain Group also refuse to tell me why I am also persona non grata neatly demonstrates that posh or plebeian, all British men are afraid of British sluts, because they have the vote. To be fair to TBG, they are not a political party and are just a dining club, but they are probably to a man MCSFs.

Because men who are afraid of omega females instantly become omega males, it is not surprising that they are treated with contempt by the rest of the world.  The rest of the world thinks most white men are paedophiles, by the way.  Yet these white men who feel no shame continue to bury their heads deeper in the sand, for they have become women.  Denial is a feminine vice, after all.  

The quality of the members on Plenty of Fish makes me weep for the British National gene pool

Having read about yet another false rape allegation made by a promiscuous woman, I thought I would check out this website that sounded like it should be called Plenty of Sluts, Plenty of Slags or Plenty of SSMs. suggests that the men are not much cop either.

The results were not pretty.

"I love aving nites in front of the tv watching a movie.. I enjoy going out with friends and family and aving a drink and a laugh... my favourite movies are anything with vin diesel or Jason statham in them... and family is wat matters to me the most ..."

"Just want to find a decent honest genuine man thats gonna give me the attention I need im not looking for anything to serious at the minute just want to get to know someone and see where it leads"

"im looking to meet new people who share the same interests as me i like goin to concerts spending time with my 2 kids and hangin out with friends. i like to be around people who are easy going"

"What to say,,I'm looking for someone with similar interests to myself,not living miles away,someone who can take care of themselves financially (I'm not a cash machine)"

"Hi  Im a single mum. Mite c,an old profile on here. Cant get on it 4got my email addy. Im up 4 a laugh n good times. Not in2 dirty chat and not in2 meetin up 4 1 nite stands,either" [A photograph of a large lady holding a bottle of alcohol to her lips accompanies this ad, perhaps to suggest fellatio.]

Some comments about a POF by a former user:

The creatures on Plenty of Fish are horrendous. The most vile, demanding, disgusting, unbalanced and delusional females you will ever have the misfortune to come across.. My profile was deleted because I used "Plenty of Bipolar" as the headline.

 With that said. I slept with 2 women from the POF website so it wasn't a complete waste of time. Though of all the sites I have trawled, POF is by far the one which makes me weep for humanity the most.

Fat, useless single mums who think they're going to meet a member of the royal family who'll sweep them off their feet.

What is so alarming is that so many of its female members are mothers. This surely cannot bode well for the next generation, can it?  

Questions to ponder on morality

  1. What is the space that is in between morality and law?  (The gap that lies between morality and law is the gap that lies between being a slut and an SSM. Being a slut is immoral, but not illegal, and I propose no punishment until the slut becomes an SSM attracting the punishment of 100 lashes.  The difference between a slut and an SSM is therefore the difference between a suspected criminal and a convicted criminal.)
  2. Can morality exist without law?
  3. Can law exist without morality?
  4. Is what is necessary always moral?
  5. What is the purpose of morality?
  6. Is the purpose of morality the long-term survival and health of your society?  
  7. Is there such a thing as liberal morality?
  8. Is liberal morality a contradiction in terms?
  9. Is it the totalitarian Equality Act 2010 that enforces liberal morality?
  10. If the purpose of morality is to engender social cohesion, how successful do you think liberal morality has been at this?  
  11. Is the sum of liberal morality healthy eating, sexual liberation, to not be homophobic, to not be racist, to not be sexist, to nurture the weak and stupid until their numbers overwhelm the strong and rational at general elections?
  12. Is liberal morality effeminate?
  13. Is the Equality Act 2010 and no-fault divorce the twin pillars of the matriarchy?  
  14. Is the patriarchy the lesser evil?
  15. If we are morally rational people should we not choose the lesser evil?  
  16. Does sexual morality influence general standards of morality?
  17. If most of the mothers in your country are SSMs,  most of your women sluts (ie fornicatresses), most of your children bastards and most of your men MCSFs (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers),  do you think another group who does not suffer from these moral cancers easily defeat you in any human endeavour?  
  18. What are we to think of feminists who refuse to discuss sexual morality?
  19. Is feminism a moral ideology?  
  20. What are we to think of feminists who wish to deny the concept of slut?
  21. Is it not Orwellian the way feminists want to deny the concept of slut?  
  22. Why do you think feminists wish to deny the concept of slut?
  23. Do feminists wish to deny the concept of slut because most Western women are in fact sluts, ie fornicatresses?
  24. If most women in a society are fornicatresses, does it make most men fornicators?
  25. If most children are singly-parented, are these children likely to take on the vices of their single-parent who in the overwhelming number of cases would be their mother?
  26. Is the reason why most British men are now effeminate because they were brought up by their single mothers?
  27. Is men saying it is OK for their women to be sluts ie fornicatresses the equivalent of men handing over masculine and parental authority to women, with predictable results of decline and degeneracy?  
  28. Is the reason why British men refuse to discuss the low morals of their women because they know that if they acknowledged this, they would have to do something about it? 
  29. Is the reason why British nationalists (whom you would expect to care about the quality of their race) refuse to discuss sexual morality because they are the group and class of people most afflicted by this societal cancer and most frightened of losing sexual access to their women, who are overwhelmingly fornicatresses and SSMs?  
  30. Are women now so powerful that men now want to become women and are prepared to mutilate their genitals to do so?

Why John Bercow is despised

Bercow is the perfect demonstration of how having principles would help us, especially if we want a career in politics.

How can we respect the judgement of a man who knowingly gave up his political career because he chose to marry a woman who is a constant embarrassment to him?

How can we respect a man who gave up his principles to marry a woman who admits to having been promiscuous, is photographed posing provocatively like the attention-hungry harlot she is?

John Bercow was once a promising right-wing Tory.

But he gave it all up for a piece of ass, because he has no principles.  

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Was it a condition of the Chief Rabbi's appointment that he attends Limmud?
Matters rabbinical start from the 20th minute

I wonder if I was a rabbi in a former life for this inordinate interest I am taking in Jewish affairs, to the extent that I find myself exhorting rabbis to be more Orthodox.  I am very concerned that they will end up like the lost souls of the Church of England, and then where will they be?

What is most interesting is that it is now rumoured that it was a condition of the Chief Rabbi's appointment that he attend Limmud.

My advice to the Chief Rabbi at remains unchanged.

If it is indeed true that attending Limmud was a condition of your appointment then of course you must attend Limmud and tell them the following:

  1. You cannot be a liberal and an observant Jew, which is a contradiction in terms.  If you think you can you can only be someone who invests more importance in form than substance. 
  2. You could carry on thinking you can enjoy your rituals without practising the morality of your religion, but all you will do is end up like the lost souls of Anglicanism who are now infested by liberals, feminists and Commie Pinko homos, and the angels will weep for you.  
  3. Judaism is more than the rituals Jews practise, it is the moral values they hold as Jews. Judaism is both a race and a state of mind that holds certain moral values. 
  4. There is a world of difference between saying sodomy is an abomination and gay marriage should be legal.  Jews who say they are cool with gay marriage should be stoned to death for blasphemy. 

If I were you I would keep attending Limmud for the purposes of railing at the perniciousness of feminism as a cancer to the cohesiveness of any people and society until the female and liberal and reform rabbis start to boycott Limmud in protest at my views. 

Saturday, 26 October 2013

The Khavian Theory of Sex for a Gender-Balanced Nation

Why oh why oh why do these nationalists hate and fear me so?

This is so unfair when all I have been trying to do is investigate and discover the case of Western malaise and help white men find their lost mojo.  

As Mao said, "To investigate a problem is to solve it."  I did investigate and made a diagnosis.  It was a diagnosis that is unpalatable, requiring as it does to slay the sacred cows that Westerners worship. Not only is it unpalatable, it is also irrefutable, and so even my detractors have given up saying "No, you're wrong, Claire, it just ain't so."

They cannot deny the correctness of my diagnosis because the things they sometimes say, especially when they complain about Cultural Marxism (when they really mean feminism) suggests that they too understand the problem a little.

But they only mention it en passant when they talk about fatherlessenss, bad parenting, single mothers and the secret family courts.

Fathers4Justice are absolutely terrified of complaining about feminism and it is also actually run by a woman.

The men at the BDP,  TBG and the London IONA Forum surely know what I mean, but they are making a point of not telling me why I am excluded from their meetings.

Is it my race? Could it even be that they find some of my ideas objectionable?  But which ones, I have so many?

I cannot be sure, but I suspect it is my uncompromising view that slut-shaming would cure the West of its malaise and blow its cobwebs away.

They cannot deny that lashing SSMs 100 times per illegitimate offspring would probably be the only thing that would stop these immoral and irresponsible women from bringing into existence the next generation of illegitimate disabled, retarded, obese and behaviourally-challenged NEETs.

Even abolishing the welfare state would not do the job quickly enough, because there are bound to be more than a few who will still get knocked up however much you warn them not to.

Therefore inflicting corporal punishment in a  public place is the only way of serving as a regular and effective reminder for women not to be sluts, especially sluts who go on to become SSMs.

I suppose these men don't want to acknowledge this brutal fact, and want to carry on complaining about the corrupt oligarchy that comprises our government as well as Jews, Muslims, Zionists, Islamists rather than do something that might actually work NOW.

The British are after all addicted to welfare, cheap labour, cheap sex courtesy of feminsim and it is undeniable that all my proposals threaten the sacred cows of the liberals and breach their taboos.

You would have thought that these men who fear for their nation, their race and their descendants would be interested in discussing things in a bit more detail, or invite me to give a talk so they can challenge me about my views, if only to reassure themselves that things are not as bad as I say they are, but not a bit of it.

I cannot prove it immediately, but I suspect that all these nationalist men have

  1. girlfriends who are fornicatresses
  2. wives who have friends who are fornicatresses
  3. daughters who are fornicatresses
  4. grand-daughters who are fornicatresses
  5. daughters whose  friends are fornicatresses
  6. male friends whose girlfriends are fornicatresses
  7. sons whose girlfriends are fornicatresses
  8. girlfriends who are SSMs
  9. daughters who are SSMs
  10. grand-daughters who are SSMs

In short, these men who claim to be so concerned about the quality of the white race are either SPOSSMs and/or MCSFs  

This means that what I am trying to do is the equivalent of trying to take the bottle out of the hands of a drunk, when he is bent on getting drunk.  

The problem is also identified by Markus Willinger of Generation Identity:

"We reject unrestrained sexuality more than any other generation. This is because for no previous generation in history has true love played such a great role as it does for us. Of all the things that you're devalued and destroyed, you've left us love. Truly, you've never really cared about love. You've despised it and sold it short. But precisely for that reason. you've never launched a frontal assault against it. It remained alive. And it became to our last place of refuge. So here we are this world of loneliness and fleeting happiness; we long for the person who can bring us to safety. It is our highest goal and our greatest happiness to find true love. Yet we are sexually promiscuous, drink hard, and settle for the second best. No one suffers more from this than we ourselves. /.../ The consequences of your 'sexual liberation' have us in a stranglehold. It is impossible to go out even even a day into the world without being greeted by half-naked men and women. All films, advertising, and magazines consciously manipulate sexual desire. So it is that desire grows, often in opposition to our love. When it's over and the wild, alcohol-soaked night is behind us, we regret what we've done. Often we feel sad because of it. This inner struggle, which each of us must win for himself, is also part of our identity. Yet we declare resolutely: we want to win it! A long road may lie for us, but in the end, the love within us will triumph over animalistic desire. For we are generation identity."

Sex with sluts is the opium of the white man.

Once the current state of affairs (ie the fact that most British mothers are SSMs, most British women are sluts and most British men are MCSFs) is reversed, you can be sure that a new culture and a new tradition will come out of this, like a phoenix from the ashes.

But first we must systematically and absolutely challenge the supremacy of feminism. The future of this or any society depends on whether the men of the West, who are mostly manginas, can control their women.  To control their women they must first take control of themselves.

To get better, you must first acknowledge that you are sick, see the doctor and take your bitter medicine.  If SSMs are making you sick then you must ask yourself where they come from.  SSMs come from sluts, just as butterflies come from caterpillars.

The trouble is that men - especially men who do not have much money and status - want sex to be cheap, and cheap sex can only come from sluts.

Once the government has created a moral environment in which most women are sluts from whom most men get most of their sex, then you will have an entire nation that is addicted to cheap sex.

To expect such men to voluntarily make sex more expensive for themselves is like asking hungry men if they want to pay more for food.

I do not expect the hoi polloi or the great unwashed to support me in this, but I was expecting just a bit of leadership from the great and the good, but the trouble with living in a matriarchy is that the great and the good soon become extinct.

This is because a society that is run by slut values turns all its men into beta males, if not omega males.

You would expect every animal group to be led by an alpha male. In our society the alpha male (in this case the British Prime Minister and all the men who are leaders of political parties in Britain) is afraid of the omega female ie the SSM  The omega female is the least desirable female.  If you were looking for a wife the SSM would be the least desirable kind of woman for you.  By allowing indiscriminate universal suffrage to operate and allowing SSMs to vote turns all men into omega males - the least desirable kind of male. There is no other class of male that is lower than that of males who are afraid of the worst of his women, is there?   Men who are afraid of women are considered the lowest of the low in courage and principle, because such men would be afraid of human beings who are in fact stupider and weaker than him, and therefore beyond contempt.  

I suppose it is possible that men detest being told that most of the women of their race and nation are immoral and that they are afraid of these immoral women.

But if a patient must have his leg amputated or he will die, then surely the only ethical thing to do is for the doctor to tell him so rather than sell him another bottle of snake oil?

It is clear that the cancer of the matriarchy has spread to all the major organs of state in the West.

“If you want to destroy any nation without war, create adultery or nudity common in the young generation.”
- Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub

If these men want anything to be done they must not fear to denounce feminism.  If they are too afraid to do it themselves, then they must get someone to do it for them.

I am a bullet in search of a gun, but I doubt UKIP, BNP or the BDP are brave enough to discuss sexual morality precisely because they fear alienating their female activists and voters.  

Feminists don't want to be men in this way

Gavin McInnes:

"Those male creatures who have not “had your heart broken, broken someone’s heart, kicked the shit out of someone, and had the shit kicked out of you” are simply not MEN."

It is not surprising that feminists don't like the sound of that, is it?

Friday, 25 October 2013

Gay nationalist Peter Phillips did *not* part ways with BDP because they had a problem with him being out and proud

It was because he disagreed with the way the party was being run, and it is being run by committee. explains this concept.

It is also another way of saying run by buck-passing.

When I was excluded from the London IONA Forum it was a decision by Committee.  Ditto Traditional Britain Group.

Below are a few more suggestions of what it all means.

"It means they're pretending to make decisions as a group. But in reality the decisions have already been made by their handlers. It's all a sham."

"It's a way to avoid ever having a responsible party to blame."

They have a committee structure and insist on everything being "bottom up" up rather than "top down", whatever that means.  Party members think Andrew Brons is President, but he isn't and they have no real leader.  Kevin Scott is only the Chairman of the Steering Committee.  It is clear that they lack party identity and different regions do whatever they like.

It is possible that Peter Phillips

wanted a shot at the leadership, but everyone else was in favour of the Committee System.  You can see from his analysis of the national debt that he is leadership material, but it seems that is not good enough for the easily-frightened founder members of the BDP who really didn't want a leader at all.   The fact that he is gay would add great interest, but they decided not to take any chances.  He must have seen that the BDP was a hopeless case and because of this wouldn't give them the True Brits name which he had copyrighted.

It seems the Committee System is an extreme response to Nick Griffin's leadership style of Führerprinzip

Instead of electing a leader with suitable checks and balances, they basically opted to have no leader at all.

How interesting that these men do not or will not accept that without a leader they will never get anywhere. Instead, they prefer to faff around in the fields of failure until their dying day, while allowing nationalism to be associated with racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia peopled by the lumpenproletariat too stupid to even elect a leader because they are afraid of being kicked around by someone who is going to exploit and abuse them without getting them anywhere.

What this also says is that they are too distrustful even of each other to choose a proper leader.

What a shame that British nationalism is now reduced to this kind of pathetic and womanish risk-aversion.

Doubtless these men are not in the least bit afraid of being told that they are incompetent and effeminate cowards and prefer the occupational therapy of pretending to be in a party that is really a social club for old timers who cannot accept that times have moved on.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

Wednesday, 23 October 2013

2 questions for Peter Mandelson: is this Facebook page his and when is he going to start tweeting?

An extreme act of provocation by Muslims safe in the knowledge that West Ham FC would offer them a prayer room soon?

Earlier this year, Newcastle United announced it was installing a prayer room for its Muslim players, while reigning Champions League winners Bayern Munich have decided to build a mosque at their headquarters to make their stars comfortable.

The white indigenous atheist working class male should and understand and know precisely in what degree of contempt his views are held in by the powers that be, and how he has become second class citizen in his own own land.  His own football club will no longer take his side even if he is in the majority and instead favour a minority whom he loathes.  

How has that happened?  Because the Muslims have their religion and God, while the white indigenous have no culture, no family, no respectability and no God.  White indigenous women are well known to be SSMs and the men MCSFs, ignorant of their own degradation and the contempt in which they are held by the political establishment and respectable people all over the world.  As we can see, the establishment instinctively defers to a people with religion even though they are in the minority and dismisses people who complain about them as barbaric and savage because they are without religion, even if they are the overwhelming majority.

Their imam may wish to have a word with them about provoking the locals unnecessarily, or it may be his intention to encourage them to provoke the godless and the degenerate, knowing that Allah will protect them.

The Koran does however tell Muslims not to pray ostentatiously, which they should perhaps heed, for we already know what happens to people who ignore God's laws.

YUSUFALI: Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between."
PICKTHAL: Say (unto mankind): Cry unto Allah, or cry unto the Beneficent, unto whichsoever ye cry (it is the same). His are the most beautiful names. And thou (Muhammad), be not loud-voiced in thy worship nor yet silent therein, but follow a way between.
SHAKIR: Say: Call upon Allah or call upon, the Beneficent Allah; whichever you call upon, He has the best names; and do not utter your prayer with a very raised voice nor be silent with regard to it, and seek a way between these.

Are there any Muslim fans in Millwall?  They should try the same stunt there and see if they cannot wangle themselves a prayer room while non-Muslim white football fans have their objections dismissed as racist, evil and extremist.  Go on, I dare you.  What you don't ask for you don't get it.  

Tuesday, 22 October 2013

What made Islamophobic Ukrainian terrorist Lapsyhn do it?

Ukranian born Pavlo Lapshyn admitted the murder of Mohammed Saleem, 82, whom he stabbed as he walked home from a mosque, and also planting a series of bombs outside mosques

Shekhovtsov [Ukrainian academic Anton Shekhovtsov, who studies the country's far-right] said Lapshyn was by all accounts a "shy, polite, normal guy" with no links to extremist groups in Ukraine, a view confirmed by West Midlands police.

Lapshyn was part of Ukraine's Russian linguistic minority. Shekhovtsov says extremist material started to appear on Lapshyn's social media pages after he murdered Saleem. The extremist groups he cites are Russian in origin: "Before Birmingham, there is no evidence of rightwing material on his website."

Just before Lapshyn was due to travel to the UK his mother was left seriously injured after a car accident. Police can find nothing in the details of the case – the others involved were white – to offer any insight into why he became so hellbent on murder once he arrived in Britain.

It was probably a bit of a shock for him to see so many Muslims if there are no Muslims at all in the Ukraine, and have to live amongst them somehow.

Perhaps if he had to go and live in Pakistan or Bangladesh and had agreed to go there he would not have had such a bad reaction.

He came to Britain thinking he was going to live amongst the English but found himself living amongst Asians and Muslims instead. It affected the balance of his mind, clearly.,_Birmingham#Population

The total population of the area is approximately 36,898, based on 2007 estimates. The majority of residents are of South Asian origin, mainly of Pakistani (51%) and Bangladeshi (9%) descent, while people of White British ethnicity is 22%.  Many residents are also Muslim; there are many mosques in the area, the largest in Small Heath being the Ghamkol Shariff Masjid which, incidentally is also one of the largest in the UK. It holds regular Muslim prayers, funeral services and other religious ceremonies. Only 11% of the population in the area were actually born in the West Midlands area, the white British population has steadily declined in the whole of Birmingham, since 2001 it has dropped from 65.6% to 53.1 by 2011, less than half the population considers himself Christian, the Pakistani population is growing in Birmingham at a rate of 1% per year, while the population of Pakistanis in Small heath is growing at rate of 6% per year . Over 45% of the population have arrived within the last 12, months. Ref: Birmingham city council 2011 consensus.

He could have just moved out of the area, but he did not.  Perhaps he saw what he thought was the subjection of the white race by the brown race and could not bear it.  Perhaps he thought he was doing his race a favour.  Who knows?  It was very interesting that he put his hands up to it straight away and didn't plead insanity, depression, stress, disability or a bad childhood as you would expect the typical modern Englishman to do. Another Breivik perhaps?

Perhaps he could not bear the thought of there being so many Pakistani cities in England.  Unlike Englishmen who have been pacified and tranquilised for decades and told they were evil, extremist, racist and worthless for objecting to this, as a white non-Muslim Ukrainian male he could not quite accept things as they were, and just felt he had to do something.

Monday, 21 October 2013

BDP claims to support marriage but dares not denounce SSMs. Typical. drones on in a mournful and irritating way about monogamy but does not say how the BDP as a party would support the institution of marriage. Perhaps the writer Tim Haydon already knows that there is no chance that the hypocritical and cowardly Chairman of the BDP Kevin Scott will ever criticise feminism because he is afraid of SSMs withholding their votes from him.

SSM are explained at

The BDP should assume that these promiscuous and immoral female voters of Newcastle and Gateshead would withhold sex and votes from them as a matter of course and for this reason propose disenfranchsing the welfare-dependent who pay no taxes.  That would cause a nationwide stir too.

My other plans for the BDP can be found at

It does seem from that piece that  the BDP Chairman has nothing new to propose apart from saying on Facebook that he will vote UKIP in 2015.

If that is the case, I  urge him to stand down as Chairman and recommend that I be made Madam Chairman instead.  I really do not think that there is anyone in the land more suited than me to promote the interests of the marginalised white urban proletariat of Britain.

While I know I am neither white nor indigenous, the cognitive dissonance of a female and a foreigner being able to talk like a white man causes the brain of the average left liberal journalist to short circuit and go blank. This happens so regularly to them that these days their only way of dealing with me is to pretend I do not exist or tell everyone they know that I am mad, but we know different, don't we, boys and girls?

Of course, I can do nothing for these people unless I have their support, but, having been deprived of a platform by Kevin Scott, I cannot help them.

What can they do to help themselves and help me?

Well, they could get in touch with Kevin by phone or by email and talk things over with him.

Remember, I am the only person in nationalism who can say all the things nationalists need to say without saying anything racist, antisemitic or Islamophobic and, most importantly of all, who is not afraid of criticising feminism.

There is no one else in the land who can do what I do, ie making the BDP capable of rivaling the BNP but only if they do what I say.  

Is David Cameron guilty of the sin of pesha as regards gay marriage?

The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera (literally: transgression). Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for his or her actions.

Pesha (deliberate sin; in modern Hebrew: crime) or Mered (lit.: rebellion) - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.

Avon (lit.: iniquity) - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.

Cheit - This is an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw (:H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."

Cameron claims to be a Christian, so he must know the Bible reasonably well, as an educated man who is the Prime Minister of Britain.

He must have known about these verses at

And even if he did not, in the same way he did not know what Magna Carta stood for, it would have been pointed out to him by those who opposed gay marriage.

An open and shut case then.

In Old Testament times I imagine such a man would be stoned to death.

Is Claire Khaw a latter day John Snow (the doctor who proved that cholera was a water-borne disease)?

After so many taunts that I am a failure, I was last night suddenly heartened by the name of a man I could not remember.

Earlier this year a kind friend took me on a Karl Marx London tour and we walked past the John Snow public house and the Broadwick Street pump.

Having looked him up this morning I discovered it was John Snow, the physician who eventually convinced the relevant authorities that cholera was caused by contaminated water, not by miasma.

There were of course plenty of vested interests and entrenched attitudes that he had to overcome before his view was accepted, but accepted it was, finally, just as what I say about SSMs being the cancer of any society will one day be accepted and something done about it, hopefully before I pop my clogs.

The other thing that struck me about Karl Marx was what a terrible husband he was and how little he earned.  His long suffering wife stood by him though.  If there had been no fault divorce then, it is almost certain that Marx would never have written the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital, or indeed even got so far as to have enough to allow Frederich Engels to make a book out of his rambling notes, because she would have left him in the lurch and he would have been a broken man.  Lefties apt to sneer at marriage and wanting to turn it into sex toy for gay couples should reflect upon the importance of this institution.

One of these Sundays I will pop down to Brompton Cemetery to lay flowers at his grave.  The poor man died of a stroke at 45, and was never married.

How to solve the problem of the Japanese not having sex, not marrying and not having children
Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex?
What happens to a country when its young people stop having sex? Japan is finding out… Abigail Haworth investigates

Japan's under-40s won't go forth and multiply out of duty, as postwar generations did. The country is undergoing major social transition after 20 years of economic stagnation. It is also battling against the effects on its already nuclear-destruction-scarred psyche of 2011's earthquake, tsunami and radioactive meltdown. There is no going back. "Both men and women say to me they don't see the point of love. They don't believe it can lead anywhere," says Aoyama. "Relationships have become too hard."

Marriage has become a minefield of unattractive choices. Japanese men have become less career-driven, and less solvent, as lifetime job security has waned. Japanese women have become more independent and ambitious. Yet conservative attitudes in the home and workplace persist. Japan's punishing corporate world makes it almost impossible for women to combine a career and family, while children are unaffordable unless both parents work. Cohabiting or unmarried parenthood is still unusual, dogged by bureaucratic disapproval.

The price of sex has become so impossibly high that Japanese men have decided that not only can they not afford it, they don't want it at all.  It is a major case of sour grapes.

Because Japanese women have become increasingly independent, Japanese beta males know they don't stand a chance at all of getting any sex or getting married, and have given up.  Unlike their British counter-parts, Japanese women are not sluts who give sex free to any jobless or low-waged loser like they are some sort of sex charity.  Beta males now have no chance at all of either getting laid or married. 
Japan's 'grass eaters' turn their backs on macho ways
Yuki Sakurai and thousands like him have cast off the traditional image of the company salaryman

Some women, too, say they prefer their men rougher around the edges. A popular revival in interest in Japanese history has made unlikely pin-ups of feudal warlords from the distant past.

It is quite clear that Japanese women find the grass-eaters the opposite of sexy.  It is a vicious circle really.

As for the Chinese, they are also on a downward spiral.  The women are even fussier, knowing that there are 24 million "spare" Chinese men. 

There is however this strange phenomenon  of left over Chinese women. 

Recently, I heard on BBC Radio 4 a Chinese voice saying that there is a case for China importing immigrant labour because there are so many graduates in China who refuse to do manual work.

The problem is of course feminism.  It is not only a Western scourge, but a global one.

If this issue remains unaddressed, the fairer-skinned races will find themselves being outbred by the darker-skinned races who will be more numerous and have more masculine vitality.

For the Japanese, I recommend that they disenfranchise bachelors and ban the pill.

For the Chinese, I recommend that they end their one-child policy, particularly now that most Chinese couples say they only want one child now anyway.

For the West, I suggest that we women give men the respect they need to have in order to work better for us by repealing the Equality Act 2010 or its national equivalent and reintroduce fault into divorce.  These twin measures would have the effect of destroying the twin foundations of feminism and returning us all to sanity.

Keith Joseph's eugenic speech against never married single mothers

The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters. Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.

Yet what shall we do? If we do nothing, the nation moves towards degeneration, however much resources we pour into preventative work and the over-burdened educational system. It is all the more serious when we think of the loss of people with talent and initiative through emigration as our semi-socialism deprives them of adequate opportunities, rewards and satisfactions.

Yet proposals to extend birth-control facilities to these classes of people, particularly the young unmarried girls, the potential young unmarried mothers, evokes entirely understandable moral opposition. Is it not condoning immorality? I suppose it is. But which is the lesser evil, until we are able to remoralise whole groups and classes of people, undoing the harm done when already weak restraints on strong instincts are further weakened by permissiveness in television, in films, on bookstalls ?

He also says Mary Whitehouse was right.

We should be afraid - very very afraid.  

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Claire Khaw to buy the BDP for £5K?
Q:  would you be willing to buy the BDP for £5k
A:  To whom would this sum be payable? Kevin Scott?
Q:  £5k split between the committee and they all resign
A:  How many on the Committee? It does sound quite an interesting offer.
Q:  What is wrong with paper sales? Political supports starts at a grassroots level — bottom-up. Even Nigel Farage has publicly adopted the approach of Paddy Ashdown, which established the Liberal Democrats at local level first.
A:  I am just saying I want a more sophisticated and direct way of communicating with the party's potential supporters.
Q:  would you change the bdps name to the britain first party as the idea of putting the national interest above all is encapsulated in the idea of putting britain first?
A:  I don't like Britain First because it sounds so fringe party. If I could easily change the name I would call it the British National Independence Party - to be shortened into the B-Nips.
Q:  We are not sure if you are just grandstanding or are serious, you need to show us you are serious what do you do for a job? are you some joker on benefits?
A:  Serious about what?
Q:  If you bought the British Democratic Party and the Committee resigned, how would you build up the party in terms of popular endorsement from scratch?
A: has a few ideas. Clearly, I would invite the more talented ex-BNP members who would countenance working with me and are OK about how far they can be ethno-nationalists as I have outlined at
Q:  when we say £5k we mean cash all at once, if you get my drift, not £1 a week for the next million years, are you an attention seeking time waster?
A:  I don't even know if you are even in the BDP. *You* could just be winding me up! If you are really serious then get in touch with me by email, please.
Q:  we are not interested in a time waster like you, your ex associate Dave Jones has reliably informed us that you are on benefits please do not disturb us again, should you be able to find somebody genuine with £5k who will sponsor you, feel free to get back in touch with proof
A:  Get in touch with *whom*, please?
Q:  post something with proof on facebook that somebody reputable has agreed to put up £5k, preferably a nationalist with a good reputation, if this happens it will be done for mutual publicity purposes
A:  If you just get in touch with me by email and convince me you are not some mischief maker who is not even a member of the BDP let alone a committee member, we can take this further. I have already given you my email.
Q:  the burden is on you to prove you are not a mischief maker, we have nick name for you "The Grandstander"
A:  I will just ask Adrian Davies then. He is the Treasurer after all and he would know whether the Committee are really willing to sell.
Q:  btw you get to keep that civic adrian as part of the deal, we do not want him
A:  Thank you very much.
Q:  If Kevin Scott agreed to sell you the BDP for half of the value of your house, would you sell your house to raise the funds for the purchase of the party?
A:  I think I must be seen to be doing a good deal, *and not be obviously mad*, to make a go of the lame duck BDP. Buying the BDP for obviously more than what it is worth would suggest I am mad, would it not? Is there any nationalist in the land who thinks Kevin has it in him to make a go of it? Not even the people who have known him over the years and who say he is a good bloke.
Q:  if kev sells it to you at least 30 of us will leave, the man has lost his mind, WE WILL NEVER STAND A GOOK, we do not like your sort even if you got the €€€€€
A:  So it is Kevin who wants to sell, does it? I don't mind if you go after I take over, because I am only interested in working with ethno-nationalists who want to work with civic nationalists and adopt a strategy of civic nationalism. To be honest, I want to attract a better class of nationalist capable of understanding my ideas anyway, so please don't stay on my account.
Q:  is there any nationalist you can name that will put the money up, a man of sound reputation,obviously a civic
A:  I do hope that there will be civic nationalists who will want to be part of this political project, which is to rehabilitate the image of nationalism and turn it into an ideology that is acknowledged to be noble, rational and moral.

Mark Collett is such a nice young man.

It is possible that the person appearing to make the offer has no authority to do so.  What do you think, dear reader?  

Saturday, 19 October 2013

In the land of the free, no white man may say "monkey" within the hearing of a black man

Nor may he say "niggardly" within the hearing of a black man.

How the enemies of the West must be sneering at the subjection of the white man!

How they must think that these pussywhipped pushovers can just be pushed over and kicked in the head. Should they dare to protest, their treacherous women would only call them racist anyway, and they would be kicked even harder.

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them. And if ye efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 

SHAKIR: O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 

KHALIFA: O you who believe, your spouses and your children can be your enemies; beware. If you pardon, forget, and forgive, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. 

It seems that the white man has cut off his penis and served it up to his woman, minced, for supper.

It is impossible to do anything with these Western "men" who have now taken on the feminine vices of hypocrisy, cowardice and denial.  The people most affected by the cancer of feminism are the ones most frightened of denouncing feminism.  For example, Kevin Scott, who is Chairman of the British Democratic Party, has declared that criticising feminism has no place in his anti-immigration political party.  Does he even know that immigration was caused by feminism?  I think he does, because I have told him enough times, but he is afraid.

What is he afraid of?

Afraid of alienating half his potential supporters, who are women, of course, and mostly mothers of illegitimate offspring.

In short, all leaders of all political parties in Britain are afraid of sluts.

This rather explains why the white man is so anxious to invade Muslim lands for no particular reason.  It is to feel a man again.

Another example of displacement is the overseas campaigns of national leaders notably, in recent times, American presidents. An individual must have a great lust for power to attain such a position and it is not surprising that once installed he wishes to "flex his muscles" and exercise some real power. He cannot do this at home because of the interests of the people who paid for his election campaign and the agenda of other "string-pullers" behind the scenes. Hence military force is employed against some remote, often backward country instead. The masculine instinct to dominate and subdue is exercised far away because powerful vested interests have made this the path of least resistance.

They cannot now accept the truth of their real position, or they would either commit suicide or go on a killing rampage, probably.

And so they must remain sedated with football, drink, drugs and the prospect of easy cheap sex with sluts, SSMs and the illegitimate and sluttish daughters of SSMs whom they must groom for their sexual gratification, for they cannot afford anything better.

It seems that the white man these days is synonymous to paedophile.

Yet even now they refuse to do anything about it.

E Michael Jones in Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control:

"Men at the beck of passion is in may ways like a particle with no will of his own, since reason, especially morals, is the sole source of a man's ability to govern himself. Once gratification of passion becomes the definition of liberty, then liberty becomes synonymous with bondage because he who controls the passion controls the man."

Sexual freedom drives out political freedom, but soon the degenerate white man will not even know what "political freedom" means, for it is but an abstract concept, and therefore too far-removed from his base and materialist concerns for him to grasp.