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