Sunday, 20 July 2014

Claire Khaw asks Professor Laffer a question about David Davis MP

Friday, 18 July 2014

What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism

What was that all about anyway?

Most people already know they obey the law because the fear punishment than because they think it would be immoral to break the law.

If you think it is immoral to break the law, then you must logically think that the law is moral.

Irrespective of whether you think the law is moral or not, you would seek to avoid its punishment.

Do lawyers think much about the morality of law, or are they more interested in applying it and interpreting it in a way that suits their clients and works in the interests of their clients, or if not their clients, themselves?

What has morality got to do with a lawyer as he goes about his business? Nothing, I would suggest.  What is legal is not immoral, and it is socially and politically acceptable to operate within those parameters, whatever they are.

What then is this imbecilic subject called jurisprudence that law undergraduates are obliged to study in their third year?  Perhaps it is an introduction into academic philosophy, to make law students grateful that if studying law is a waste of time and money, it is not such a waste of time and money as studying academic philosophy.

What is justice? What is considered fair by most people, even if they have no legal knowledge.

What is the origin of this so called "debate" between natural law and legal positivism? It may have been an academic exercise of wasting the time and energy of law students, would be my suggestion.

Even those without legal knowledge would know that some laws are fair enough and others an insult an affront to justice, and that they obey laws irrespective of their morality simply to avoid punishment.

What could have been a very interesting question about the morality or otherwise of God's laws has been subsumed in a pointless debate about what constitutes law and what is morality, without any attempt to define the latter at all.

In short, law schools up and down the country have been led down a blind alley by whoever devises the syllabus for law students and lecturers in jurisprudence have been stating the obvious while competing to state it in the most obscure ways possible.

What was the purpose of this? To subvert social conservatism, of course.

That infamously dull legal positivist H L A Hart had a wiife who was a commie. Actually, all the legal philosophers law students have had to study for decades were Commie Pinkos.

Hart is described as a social democrat in the obituary and his blessed wife once a member of the Communist Party. This brings to mind Smiley's infamously treacherous wife Ann in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. So now we know that this debate has been a conspiracy of liberals who have gone against the principles of the God's laws and think it very fine to do so. Rather than inviting us to consider the clever and wise laws that they have passed that are so obviously cleverer and wiser than God's laws, they have kettled us into a bind alley of choosing between whether we are natural lawyers or legal positivists, when it is obvious to anyone even without legal knowledge that some laws are obviously moral while others are obviously not, and that is all that needs to be said about the subject.

What we should be discussing, and which we have been prevented from discussing through a foul liberal conspiracy to keep us in ignorance while wasting our time, are the following:

  1. What is the nature and purpose of morality?
  2. Is morality synonymous with the long term national interest?
  3. Have you noticed feminists ever discussing the long term national interest?
  4. Have you noticed that feminists only care about privileging women for being women without any thought for the long term national interest?
  5. Is the purpose of morality to obtain social cohesion in a society?
  6. Is the purpose of social cohesion to preserve the existence and strength of a society?
  7. Is the institution of marriage necessary for social cohesion?
  8. Do you have social cohesion when most members of your society are agreed about general standards of behaviour and morality?
  9. Is the purpose of social cohesion to protect a society from its external and internal enemies?
  10. If our external enemies are invaders and rival nations, are the internal enemies of a society sluts and socialists? 
  11. Have you noticed how socialists always support feminism and how feminism supports the right of women to be sluts?
  12. If you cannot subvert a society through open revolution, you do so through corrupting the morals of its women. Have you not noticed?
  13. The lower the standard of sexual morality, the more chaotic the society, the more irrational its decisions, and the more men are afraid of sluts. Have you not noticed?
  14. Are you really sure that sex between consenting adults has absolutely no long term effect on the health, strength and prosperity of your nation?
  15. Is the existence of masculine and parental authority a necessary ingredient of marriage and social cohesion?
  16. Is masculine and parental authority obtainable only through marriage?
  17. Are single mothers capable of exercising masculine and parental authority? (Is this question as stupid as the question law students have had to answer on whether a law has to be moral to be considered law?)
  18. Should single mothers be discouraged by the law if their offspring tend to be criminal under-achievers?
  19. Would it be immoral not to pass laws that would discourage single mothers from mostly having offspring that will only grow up into under-achieving criminal degenerates?
  20. Is it immoral not to criticise irresponsible and promiscuous women who become single mothers incapable of exercising parental and masculine authority over their illegitimate offspring that they do not bring up properly?
  21. Are the men who do not wish to offend sluts hoping to get sex or votes from them?
  22. What should we think of men afraid of criticising sluts because they hope to get sex or votes from them?
  23. Did you know that in Britain most women are sluts because the overwhelming majority of its sexually liberated people think there is nothing wrong with premarital sex? 
  24. Is it immoral not to make an attempt to reinforce the  practice of the institution of marriage when it is clear that most never married single mothers who subvert it are irresponsible, selfish and stupid women whose offspring are under-achieving criminal degenerate sluts and bastards?
  25. Are men who are afraid of unmarried single mothers and by extension sluts reluctant to offend them because they are hoping for sex and votes from lower than sluts?
  26. Is a society of sluts and men who are afraid of offending sluts the kind of society likely to attract the hatred, ridicule and contempt of other nations whose society do not consist mostly of sluts and bastards?
  27. Is Britain's "paedo problem" anything to do with the widespread prevalence of sluts? 
  28. Is paedos are mosquitoes, are never married single mothers awarded and rewarded with council accommodation at taxpayers' expense not stagnant pools of water?
  29. Are you really surprised that British Muslims don't want to integrate into a society of sluts, bastards and paedos?
  30. If men are motivated solely by sex, should not this motivation not be better managed in order to benefit society than simply allowing sluts to breed bastards with anyone, anytime anywhere at taxpayers' expense? 
  31. Do sluts giving sex to men free corrupt their characters and turn them into contemptible emasculated cowardly hypocritical effeminates afraid of offending sluts?
  32. "The sluttier the women, the more pussy-whipped the men." Have you not noticed?
  33. Is everything about feminism an attempt to subvert God's laws?
  34. Is a matriarchy or a patriarchy more likely to have moral laws and preserve the rule of law?
  35. What makes a law moral?
  36. Are all God's laws moral?
  37. Where are God's laws to be found?
  38. If God's laws are to be found in the scripture of all the world's major religions, what is the one thing they have in common?
  39. If what they have in common is the promotion of the patriarchy through marriage, are we to infer that all laws that do not respect marriage ie legislation that promotes feminism, are in fact immoral?
  40. How can we tell if a law is immoral?
  41. How should we define good and evil?
  42. If there are two forms of evil, are we not morally obliged to choose the lesser one?
  43. Which is the lesser evil: the patriarchy or the matriarchy?
  44. Can the usefulness of such definitions be judged by how well it enables us to distinguish one from the other?
  45. Are all man-made laws immoral?
  46. If some man-made laws are moral is it only when they coincide with God's laws?
  47. Has the marginalisation of God's laws by generations of subversive, arrogant and ignorant liberals been in the long term national interest?
  48. Is God an instrument of government?
  49. Would it be useful for government if most people believed in God?
  50. Do you think academic philosophers will be discussing this question? If not, is it because they are mostly useless libtards for whom this question will not compute? 
  51. We already obey stupid laws we don't agree with to please feminists, champagne socialists, libtards and their running dogs, so what is the problem of having a theocracy and obeying a different set of rules we don't always agree with, if it is in the long term national interest?
  52. Do you think any feminist, libtard or socialist can answer these questions honestly without ceasing to be a feminist, libtard or socialist?
  53. How many people in government do you think will be discussing these ideas?
  54. Can you imagine BNP or UKIP discussing these ideas?
  55. Is there any purpose in having elections to take place when it amounts to no more than political parties pandering to the vices of their voters every five years?
  56. Is representative democracy fatally flawed?
  57. Can a representative democracy reform itself?
  58. Should representative democracy be considered synonymous with good government when it is clear that it is so fatally flawed that it cannot reform itself?
  59. Shouldn't our politicians be concentrating on good government rather than on pandering to the vices of their voters every 5 years?
  60. Can education be reformed in this country within 5 years?
  61. If not, is this the reason why successive governments refuse to tackle it and only end up conspiring to hide its failure?
  62. What will happen to a country whose populace are mostly sluts and bastards with a substandard education that makes employers and businesses always prefer to hire immigrant workers?
  63. Can Britain explain its foreign policy in rational and moral terms or is it all really a matter of destabilising other people's countries so as to sell them arms when they descend into war and revolution?
  64. Is UK foreign and domestic policy both immoral and irrational?

Claire Khaw discovers Anne Reid on Desert Island Discs

Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

The question of the connection between the law and morality is central to the history of legal philosophy. The debate, which has lasted from Ancient Greece to the present day, has been dominated by two broad categories of theory: natural law theory and legal positivism. Classical natural law theorists like Aristotle argued that laws were necessarily connected to man’s moral life, and had as their aim some higher moral – or divine – framework. Legal positivists, whose arguments dominated the 20th Century, argued that natural law theory confused the issue of what the law is and what it ought to be, and that laws could have authority irrespective of whether or not they were ‘good’.

Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral. The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this? Is it simply because natural law theory has been convincingly defeated? Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society? Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?

I think it would be helpful to redefine the terms of debate so we know what we are talking about. My heart always sinks when people approach this debate with a discussion about morality, which none of us can ever agree on and which no one ever attempts to define.

To this end, I shall attempt to define morality in terms general and neutral enough to acquire the necessary consensus required to move this debate forward.

The purpose of morality is social cohesion.  

Religion is the means through which a society acquires social cohesion and is also another name for state ideology. It comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind". To bind what? To bind society. Religion is the means through which any society acquires social cohesion. This means that in every age we will have different ideas of what constitutes morality according to fashions of thinking and the spirit of the age.  Religion is therefore the means through which morality - different in every age - is instilled.  In Britain and the West, morality is no longer Christian, but PC Liberal, however much politicians insist that the West is Christian and witter on about its Judeao-Christian heritage.  It can be seen that PC Liberalism overrides the moral values of other forms of morality, because PC Liberalism is supported by legislation ie the Equality Act 2010.  It is already clear that all other ideologies are subordinate to it when a Christian couple was fined for refusing the custom of gay couple and a Jewish school was declared sexist and racist for having selection criteria that went against the rules of PC Liberalism. Freedom of contract is no more, and a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake of gay propaganda is threatened with prosecution.

If morality is for the purposes of instilling morality, then what is the purpose of politics? I would say that politics is the process of imposing our belief of what  is moral on others.  If we are in government, this is what we can do to others.

The problem with this debate is that nobody really properly defines what natural law is because they confuse it with a kind of universal morality which they cannot define.  As I understand it, natural law was synonymous with God's law and in the West God's law came from a Christian God and can be found in the Bible.

As I see it, all the Abrahamic faiths promote the same kind of moral values and essentially promote what feminists would call the patriarchy through in effect forcing women into marriage because its alternative - prostitution, spinsterhood, a life of fornication, abstinence or lesbianism, was generally considered undesirable.

Social conservatism as I see it amounts to no more than the imposition of the rules of respecting marriage, which logically must meanthe prohibition of extramarital sex.  If in this day and age we as a society do not respect marriage, it is only because the overwhelming majority of people have premarital sex, which is a species of extramarital sex.  Indeed, we are encouraged and expected to do so by the government and the media in the form of literature, theatre, cinema, TV and even schools.  The easiest way to make men respect marriage again would be to simply forbid all forms of extramarital sex and punish any transgressions.  If this were socially and legally forbidden, no one will ever say again that marriage is "only just a piece of paper".

For the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful to define natural law as anything that is in harmony with Biblical and Koranic principles, for we would then immediately know we what laws and what kind of morality we are discussing and rejecting and the reasons for so doing.

The Bible and the Koran are undeniably "sexist" and "homophobic" and clearly forbid extramarital sex.

It is also worth nothing that much of our PC Liberal laws go directly against the moral vaues of the Abrahamic faiths ie what constitutes natural law.  If this is how natural law is defined and perceived, then this would help clarify the terms of debate, and tell us what we are really for or against as individuals, and actually get us somewhere.

In a nutshell, we should regard natural law as laws promoting social conservatism forbidding inter alia extramarital sex, suicide and usury and legal positivism as laws promoting the opposite.

"Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral."

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die" has always been the official position of the legal profession and the judiciary, who are in effect mere "soldiers" of laws following orders. Lawyers can only work within the parameters of what the law and the legal process allows, ie apply it rather than make it, and it is up to criminals and politicians in the legislature to push the boundaries and see how far they can go. Of course, it is not completely unknown for the criminal, lawyer and politician to reside in one person.  

It should also be noted that the "I was only following orders" excuse does not always work, as those tried at Nuremberg discovered.

"The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this?"

Because there is  no agreement about public morality in our society known for its diversity and people would rather not "go there" to avoid being accused of hate speech, presumably. In any case, the only "public morality" that is now allowed is PC Liberalism, and this means refraining from saying things offensive to the protected groups in the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act 2010 should be considered the 21st century equivalent of the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813.

Has natural law theory been convincingly defeated?

I would suggest that it has not been convincingly defeated because war was never officially declared, let alone fought.  PC Liberalism simply crept up on us unawares and we suddenly found it in our homes as a flood water, perhaps. In time it will recede, then we can begin clearing up the mess and think about how in future we can strengthen our flood defences.

"Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society?"

The triumph of legal positivism is akin to a successful breaching of a society's defences when its leaders were asleep on the job, or who were perhaps like the Trojans ignoring Cassandra's warnings against bringing the Trojan Horse into through their city gates.

"Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?"

Only if we think the moral values contained in the Abrahamic faiths serve a useful protective purpose. Clearly, those who value their right to have extramarital sex more than the need to respect marriage as an institution - ie social liberals - do not.

Is there any purpose to respecting marriage? Only if we think it useful to rear the next generation in in optimum conditions.

What would happen if we give up the practice of marriage? If we did, most children and people would be illegitimate and we would become increasingly a nation of sluts and bastards. Is there a problem with illegitimacy? Is there a problem with becoming poorer, stupider, more depraved and held in hatred, ridicule and contempt by the rest of the world? Jamaican levels of illegitimacy are over 85%.  I would have thought so, but not liberals, it seems, who have sanctified the slut and really cannot see the problem with illegitimacy, which is akin to suffering an inferior race to flourish within your race at the expense of the legitimate. Perhaps everyone else is right and I am wrong. None of the stuff I fret about will come true, will it? These are only prophecies contained in an old old book about a deity it is no longer fashionable to fear.

What is morality really? It is a set of rules designed to maintain and perpetuate the strength of a society beyond the lifetimes of its current members.  Most childless people, and people who care nothing for their children or the next generation, and who do not believe in God, would not trouble their heads too much on this question, I imagine. "This will last my lifetime", they probably think.

These days it would not be socially acceptable to point out that people without children probably vote, vote think and behave in a  more selfish and short-termist way than parents with legitimate children that they love or that female MPs voted in a conspicuously different way to lower the standards of sexual morality when it is obviously true. These days, it seems to be socially acceptable for men to avoid offending women and to even say that they are afraid of offending women. Perhaps that makes sense if they have women in a position of authority over them and who could easily deprive them of their job, status and income.  Legal positivists should be pleased about this, I imagine, while natural lawyers are in a state of traumataised horror, awaiting a malicious accusation of a historic sexual offence in a state of pitiable and emasculated helplessness.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."
What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about

Thursday, 17 July 2014

"Archbishop Justin" rolls up his sleeves and says "If you don't like female bishops, fuck off out of the C of E" or words to that effect

"Archbishop Justin" addressing the morbidly feminised Anglican Church.
The sleeves rolled up to past the elbow in the plebeian way is to show he has, er, rolled up his sleeves.
For some reason this disgusts me and the thought of anyone being taken in by this makes me want to vomit. 

I know this is stupendously dull, but all should read the transcript of this speech if only for a lesson in English comprehension, and comprehend that those who wish to say nothing will sound and read like this.

"To pass this legislation is to commit ourselves to an adventure in faith and hope. Like all adventures it carries dangers; we’ve been reminded of that eloquently today. Uncertainties. And full success will require perseverance, integrity and courage. Speeches today have been good examples of the adventure – costly, painful, but generous and hopeful. That is a cause of genuine gratitude and even much admiration. They have not been culture versus theology, but genuine theological arguments which differ.

"The five principles at the heart of the House of Bishops declaration are fundamental to how we proceed. It will be hard work. Progress will be all but impossible to achieve without a fresh embrace of one another in love that Jesus Christ gives us by his spirit. Reimagining and spiritual growth are inextricably entwined if we are to demonstrate the reality of Jesus and serve the common good.

"Today this legislation allows us to move forward together, all of us as faithful Anglican Christians and all of us committed to each other's flourishing in the life of the church. We must mean it, not just in what we say but in how we now live and work together in the months and years ahead. That is as true of those who find this difficult to accept as it is for those of us who rejoice in it. An independent process to hold us to account for the promises we have made to each other allows us to take the risks necessary to build trust.

"The House of Bishops must act on their words – on our words. We do know that. I expect and hope the vote to go through, and I rejoice in that. But I also rejoice that we are promising to seek the flourishing in the church of all those who disagree. If I did not think that was likely, I could not support this legislation. You don’t chuck out family, or even make it difficult for them to be at home: you love them and seek their wellbeing, even when you disagree.

"The House of Bishops means what we say. If this passes, especially in the light of the debate, we are going to deliver. But to make these principles real will require practical steps of training and development, and a long period of culture change so that we learn in practice what it means to love, to struggle for truth, and to do so in the mists and sometimes darkness of disagreement that derive from our fallible humanity.

"Even if at times, in the past, we have been overwhelmed by the tortuous path we have taken, we must not understate the significance of what we can do now. Today we can start on a challenging and adventures journey to embrace a radical new way of being the church: good and loving disagreement amidst the seeking of truth in all our fallibility; a potential gift to a world driven by overconfident certainties into bitter and divisive conflict.

"Jesus invites us to radical belonging to one another, so that all the world will know we are his disciples – not that we are perfect, but that we love one another as he has loved us.

"Thank you."

Thank God I was never an Anglican. If I had been I might feel tempted to convert to Islam just to show my disgust and contempt.

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

Feminists show their grasp of reasoned debate

The Great Paedo Witch-hunt has begun!

UK police arrest 660 suspected paedophiles

National Crime Agency detains suspected child abusers, including doctors and teachers, and takes more than 400 children into care

Who has been appointed Witchfinder General?

Who is more culpable: the pornographer or the viewer of pornography?

Why do the police pursue the viewers of pornography rather than the pornographers themselves?  Is it because the former are easier to catch and convict?

I would prefer it if the police tried to catch the actual pornographers rather than speculatively take people's computers away in the hope of discovering child pornography to boost their conviction rates. In this regard my views are in harmony with Sean Gabb who was banned from attending a UKIP meeting by that moral coward Nigel Farage just for daring to say that possession of pornography should not be a criminal offence.

Why do so many people claim that child pornography is not pornography? Very odd.

I would ban all live pornography requiring the participation of porn actors and actresses, by the way.  

All scenes of extramarital sex would be depictions of a crime in the process of being committed and the police should of course prosecute all its participants and those who aided and abetted the crime. 

YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.
SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

As for child pornography, all the above rules would also naturally apply, with harsher punishment for the harder cases eg rape would be punished more harshly than consensual fornication or adultery, the rape of a child would be attract harsher punishment than the rape of an adult etc.

"The fact that child pornography offenders can be given longer sentences than child abusers or violent offenders reflects a lack of care by Congress"

"If you vote against these harsher penalties, the sound bite is that you're protecting child pornographers, and that could be the end of somebody's career"

We already know what cowards and hypocrites our politicians are, don't we?

And we already know how the plebs love to kick someone even lower than they are.  They can no longer kick around nob-whites, foreigners and queers so they can only content themselves with kicking anyone they think is a paediatrician or a paedophile. To intervene would end you up getting your hand bitten, like taking a steak off a hungry and vicious dog, so better not, eh? 

Matriarchy further entrenches itself with more female MPs in cabinet and PC Libtard clergywomen becoming bishops

Esther McVey, dressed for a date at Downing Street.

Questions to ask yourselves about female MPs:

  1. Why did David Cameron and his advisers think for a even one moment that replacing male mediocrities with female mediocrities is going to attract votes to the Conservative Party at the general election?
  2. Do you think the female MPs might be thinking more about what to wear every day than about the principles of good government?
  3. Do you think female MPs ever think about the principles of good government?
  4. Do you think male MPs ever think about the principles of good government?
  5. Do you think the PM ever thinks about the principles of good government?
  6. Did you know that people in the Philippines have considered having it constitutionally enshrined that the people of the Philippines will never ever be subjected to the horror of having another female President? 
  7. Did you know that the reason why female leaders are crap is because they are always obsessed about the femininity and wanting to seem compassionate rather than competent and avoid making difficult decisions?
  8. Did you know women tend to favour PC Libtard crap just because that is the current orthodoxy?
  9. Did you know women tend to favour PC Libtard crap just because most of them cannot think for themselves and are not original thinkers?
  10. Did you know most women - if they knew what they were doing - would consciously wish to lower standards of sexual morality because they are biologically more vulnerable to the consequences of being a slut ie unwanted pregnancy, finding oneself in need of an abortion, having illegitimate offspring?
  11. Did you know that if women conspired to lower the standards of sexual morality for themselves, they would lower standards of sexual morality for both heterosexual and homosexual men?
  12. Did you know that, because women are vulnerable to the consequences of having an ill-advised sexual relationship ie being a slut, women would consciously or unconsciously conspire to condone extramarital sex eg be in favour of gay marriage, lowering the age for homosexual consent, not "judging" single mothers etc?
  13. Did you know that men instinctively favour social conservatism because they know it protects their interests and the civilisation their male ancestors created? 
  14. Did you know that most people are feminists these days?
  15. Did you know that a feminist is just anyone who refuses to contemplate repealing the Equality Act 2010 and abolishing no fault divorce?
  16. Did you know that feminism undermines marriage by encouraging women to be sluts?
  17. Did you know that feminists want to trash the patriarchy through trashing marriage?
  18. Did you know that marriage is what maintains the patriarchy and gives men their masculine authority and parents their parental authority all of which are lacking in our degenerate matriarchy?
  19. Did you know that all advanced civilisations are patriarchies and all declining and primitive civilisations are matriarchies?
  20. Did you know that any society that does not respect marriage is a matriarchy?
  21. Did you know that in a matriarchy most people regard their right to have extramarital sex as more sacred than the institution of marriage?
  22. Did you know that most women in Britain are sluts and most mothers in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland are Slut Single Mothers?
  23. Did you know that no political party in the UK supports supports marriage?
  24. Did you know that the ultimate way of trashing marriage is to say that same sex couples can get married?
  25. Did you know that the original purpose of marriage was for the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions?
  26. Did you know that marriage is eugenic and bastardy dysgenic? 
  27. What do you think will happen to your society if most people in it practice purely recreational sex while trashing the values of those who have procreative sex within wedlock while the government punishes them by taxing them more?
  28. How likely will any of these female MPs speak up in support of marriage? (I am not suggesting that male MPs are at all likely to do so, but I am saying female MPs are even less likely to do so, and even less likely to suggest that the only logical way of respecting marriage is to forbid extramarital sex.)
  29. How has feminism benefited society at all except increase the opportunities of stupid selfish sluttish irresponsible and immoral women to make government and voters even more incompetent, immoral and irrational?
  30. What about Thatcher, you ask. Everything Thatcher did a man should have done, but didn't, presumably because there are no real men left anywhere in Britain to do it then, even way back in 1978 and there sure as hell ain't any men now to do anything principled or courageous now. If you think this is nothing to worry about, you really should think again. The reason given by this Malay male politician that women should not be given positions of responsibility in government - ie that women have periods - was ridiculous. He should have said women suffer from mediocrity, irrationality, excessive emotion, often being in the dishonourable position of wishing to wound but being afraid to strike, cowardice, hypocrisy, the compulsion to display indiscriminate compassion on the undeserving poor as a display of femininity and the tendency to abuse their power when they know a man fancies them. They will course be the first to avail themselves of all the excuses traditionally available to women when things go wrong.

The worst of this is that they will turn the men in their society into the worst kind of women, as we have seen.

What did the men talk about in the old days after the women had left the room, apart from politics?
I am sure they told offensive jokes about women, especially rape jokes, and the women withdrew to complain about their husbands. I would like to make it a rule that men and women can join the other group if they so wish, on condition that they never reveal to their sex what was said about them by the other. 

That we were told on the same day that we will now have female bishops as well as more women in the Cabinet was no coincidence at all.

The matriarchy is tightening her grip on the testicles of men and digging her manicured fingernails into them more deeply, but they seem to be enjoying the experience, so far.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Sir Paul Coleridge: how to let a lesbian feminist walk all over you when you are trying to promote marriage

We are joined by the writer and activist Julie Bindel who says that marriage is a Conservative institution which curtails women's freedom and still with us is Paul Coleridge previously a High Court judge specialising in family matters and now founder and chairman of the Marriage Foundation.  Paul Coleridge, first of all, why does marriage provide a better foundation for bringing up children than just having two loving parents who aren't married?

Because it lasts.  It is as simple as that. The statistics are absolutely overwhelming that people who get married for all sorts of psychological reasons which we can discuss stay together longer than people who don't who have children and the overwhelimingly important factor in the upbringing and development of children as one of your commentators in your film made clear is the stable relationship of their parents and anything that provides that stability - which is what the Marriage Foundation is all about - anything that reinforces that stability is a good thing from the point of view of the children.

[I would have made it short and snappy eg "Married couples are more likely to stay together than unmarried parents and single mothers are the cause of all of the social problems you can think of, including teen pregnancy and paedophilia."]

JC [turning to JB]:
You are going against the statistics, the evidence, that being married is better if you are going to have children and have a family.

No, because we don't know because we don't uphold to the same extent those couples who don't live in non-wedded relationships and in fact they are increasing though there is a slight rise though the OLS [?] show in marriage more and more heterosexual couples are veering away from choosing not to even share the same household.  Many children are being raised in non-traditional families and are far better off for it. [Prove it.] My concern about the way marriage is being peddled as a great institution is that we are not looking at the number of wome who instigate divorce - the majority of divorces - which is that 1 in 2 divorces at the moment are instigated by women and the majority of the reasons given are either their husband's infidelity or domestic violence.  Now many children who grow up in marriage environments are very badly affected by domestic violence and by child sexual abuse and by very unhappy relationships. That's not the stability that should be forced on children.

You've seen plenty of that in the Family Division so do you accept, or are you advocating that couples should stay together even in those circumstances, that marriage above everything else is more important than in terms of raising a family whatever is going on in that family?


No, I am not advocating that. We have never advocated that.  What we are advocating is much more thought before breaking your relationship whether it be a married relationship or an unmarried relationship because what we do know from very recent literature by experts is that however you dress it up, the separation of parents - the breakup of a parent's relationship affects the children for the rest of their lives so everything that can reasonably be done to keep relationships reasonably happy - and not just have a fairy tale idea of a long term relationship whether they be married or not - should be done, and the current level of family breakdown as you rightly say is miles too high needs to be addressed and tackled and the government, all of us, individual organisations like ours, need to focus people's minds on the damage they are doing to their children.

[I would have said : "Marriage should be regarded as an agreement to bring up  the children of the marriage together to adulthood and should be regarded as a long term business partnership instead of the romantic pink and fluffy idea of living happily ever after that so many infantililsed adults now have of it .  It is now time to stigmatise those who do not marry before they have children and also those who married in haste and are now repenting at leisure, who made their beds and who now refuse to lie in it. At the very least ending up divorced means you have married the wrong person and that your judgment must have been defective in your choice of spouse.  Those who did not even marry before having children had even more defective judgment than those who took the trouble to marry and found out they married the wrong person. The kindest thing to do now would be to discourage unmarried parenthood and stigmatise those who are not discouraged. Prevention is better than cure and the nettle of unmarried motherhood must be grasped now. These irresponsible women are the ones who bear responsibility for the criminals and under-achievers of tomorrow, and we already have quite enough of them today in the here and now.]

I can think of nothing worse than staying in a relationship for the sake of staying in that relationship.

Do people leave too easily? Do they walk away from it more easily? If there was more pressure being put on people, more agencies working with people to keep people together, would that not be better?

I think that's the worst possible thing to do for women and their children in particular. Many women are coerced into marriage.  We just have to look in the UK, never mind elsewhere, where we see early marriage, child marriages, forced marriages, where women are trapped because of religious obligations in very unhappy or violent marriages.  Where the state or legalities are involved in a marriage of course it is far more difficult for women to leave and the last thing we should do is piling more pressure on them, and I think that any institution that is based on inequality, property, ownership and the view that women are shackled to that household has to be very bad for the children.

[No opportunity was given to PC for rebutting this farrago of nonsense and taking it apart bit by bit and throwing it hard back at Bindel. The Marriage Foundation only concerns itself with marriage for white middle class people, and to suggest that middle class Englishwomen are the victims of early marriage, child marriage or forced marriage who are trapped into it because of religious obligations is just laughable.]

Paul Coleridge, what about this idea of single parents in this whole debate are going to feel that you and the Family Division don't regard them as being able to provide a loving relationship and a loving stable home and that actually the only option is the institution of marriage?

We have never said that, I have never said that ...

That is the inference or implication.

Well, I am very sad that it is because single women do a fantastic job ...

Or single men for that matter!

Or single men for that matter, yes, but it's mostly single women but of course they do a fantastic job and those of us who have brought up children know what an extraordinarily arduous task it is over many many years and it is very much more difficult to do it on your own so of course they should be given every plaudit for doing so. [Sir Paul wants to give plaudits to SLUT SINGLE MUMS!!!! Utterly disgraceful. Never ever say single mums do "a fantastic job" of bringing up their bastards, even if they are. They are the agents of degeneracy and bastardy.]

Are you advocating judicial activism though? You wanted to be released from your work to talk about this more. Do you think it is right for a judge or for someone in that position to be advocating a moral standpoint?

It isn't a moral standpoint, it's got nothing to do with morality, I'm not interested in people's morals.  If they don't have children they can have as far as I am concerned three new relationships a week. That is nothing to do with what we are about.  We are about children and the best outcomes for them and the best outcomes are in married stable relationships.

And Paul Coleridge would know, wouldn't he, Julie Bindel, because he has worked in the Family Divsion and he has experience of the misery that is caused. Is it not worth listening to?

But he still wants people to stay married despite the misery and interestingly, your organisation was against equal marriage for lesbians and gay people, when I think that the reason why they have been invited to join the insitution was because it is a failing one with numbers dwindling. For me, we have to look not just a child sexual abuse and domestic violence as the cause of many divorces and unhappiness for women and children but as Bea Campbell found in her new book on the failures of equality legislation the fact thta men within marriages are doing so little housework and childcare than they ever were: one minute per day per year for the last three decades increased. That is a disgrace and no wonder so many women are so unhappily married.

[If I had been given a chance respond to this rubbish, I would have said: 'May I ask a question? Are either you or your parents married? Do you have children? So you are a lesbian feminist living with your partner and your partner's children and you write for The Guardian? Then this explains your hostility towards marriage. I think that is all anyone listening needs to know about your "facts" and your "arguments".']

Julie Bindel, thank you very much for coming on. [She didn't thank Sir Paul, I noticed.]
Sir Paul Coleridge from 44th minute

How it should be done:

I am aware that I have problems with fluency, but I suspect the stuttering and stammering and the hesitation and the false starts have the effect of increasing the tension. The point is to make one's points clearly and not to be on the defensive and not be apologising.  Surely Sir Paul with all his legal training can do that next time he is on air?

Claire Khaw's theory of sex and politics in tweets

Prissy reaction by feminist female to views she dislikes:

Her lefty Twit friends then pile in and you can read what they say at

Interesting that they don't think they even need to discuss the issue because they have so "obviously" won it, isn't it?