Wednesday, 30 October 2013

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.  

No comments: