Monday, 16 February 2015

Why no one in the matriarchy listens to Claire Khaw

The position is very simple actually. You either decide whether you are a social conservative or a libtard.

If you are a libtard, then carry on voting for the mainstream parties.

If you are a social conservative then identify the strongest and most reliable source of social conservatism in your country. In the UK, the political party that is most socially conservative is UKIP.

But what is the most reliable source of social conservatism in the whole world?

That would come from religion, of course.

And which religion would most satisfy the condition of being the world's most reliable source of social conservatism?

It is Islam, of course.

Why do I not say Judaism?

Because it has very high entry requirements and you might as well not bother if you are going to become a Liberal or Reform Jew, and becoming an Orthodox Jew is probably too difficult for the average gentile who won't be able to last the course and will predictably fall by the wayside.

Why do I not say Christianity?

Because it has OBVIOUSLY FAILED.

What has happened to the Church of England is also happening to the Catholic Church, the most powerful church in the world. Christianity is now seen as the religion of the people who want to spread gay marriage all over the world and is despised and abhorred because of this. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself said that the reason why African Muslims are murdering African Christians is because they want to show their disapproval of gay marriage. African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby This was in April 2014.

Homophobia must not be tolerated in schools, Church of England says This was in May 2014.

The Archbishop of Cant might as well himself have signed the death warrants of African Christians.

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury think the state religion of Britain is PC Libtardism?
Why did Meriam Ishag sacrifice so much for gay marriage supporters who despise Christians?

That is why Boko Haram is making it very clear that Christianity and its associated infections of gay marriage will not be tolerated in Africa.  

Its doom is sealed.

Why do I not say Hinduism?

Because, if people think Islam is not part of the cultural tradition of the West, Hinduism is even less so.
Why do I not say Buddhism?

Because it is about as useless as being an Anglican.

So there we are, back to Islam again.

Unless you have now given up on the idea completely, and retreated into thinking that voting UKIP will be enough to save yoru country from irreversible decline and degeneracy.

Do you REALLY think Farage and his band of Kippers is up to the job of doing this?

No, I didn't think so, but you are happy in your no man's land burying your head in the sand, voting UKIP, not voting for anyone at all, whingeing about the Jews, Muslims, blacks, Poles, and assorted immigrants . Yes, I do see where you are coming from.

If you have spent your entire life avoiding taking decisive action or drawing attention to yourself, I am not certainly not going to divert you from your chosen path.

Even if you don't believe in God, as I do not, would you really deny that social conservatism is best maintained and promoted through a religion whose laws shames sluts and promote marriage?

 If you DO deny that marriage can only be promoted through religion and laws that shame sluts and promote marriage, then what is your alternative?

I think by the time we get to this stage of the discussion we are at the point of the discussion where you think, if not say, that "by the time the Muslims take over, I will be dead".

It is precisely this quality of "masculinity" that now makes me certain that it is only a matter of time before Islam triumphs in the West.

What we know is that men in the West are either married or unmarried.

The married ones won't want to think of their powerlessness, but the unmarried ones don't want to get married either.

Why should they get married if they can get sex from a woman they are not married to?

Why should they risk offending a group of women from whom they hope to have sex, whose members are mostly their female friends and female relations?

I do not put the cart before the horse.

What I do is state the problem, the extent of the problem and what degree of change is necessary to solve the problem.

No political party in the land is interested in promoting marriage.

They are not interested in promoting marriage because they know most men do not care if the woman they have sex with is not their wife.

They do not want to say anything to offend female voters because female voters are half of their potential supporters.

It is most probably too late to save Western civilisation as we know it, but there is a cure, even as I know most of you would rather die of the disease.

I do know that the things I propose to challenge and denounce are sacred to the West and to criticise them would have me branded as an extremist.

1) feminism

2) the right to have extramarital sex with anyone, anywhere, any time (Did you know under-aged sex has been condoned by the House of Lords since 1985?

3) the welfare state

4) representative democracy

5) no fault divorce

6) Christianity

7) usury

8) consumerism

All of the above have very powerful interests and the overwhelming number of people regard challenging these concepts as taboo, even amongst those who wish to challenge the political establishment.

You see, I don't blame Jews for the fact that this message is not getting through. It is not getting through because people don't want to hear it, EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON MY SIDE.

 I remain persona non grata in UKIP because they don't want to be associated with my ideas, which I of course acknowledge would alarm the voters horribly.

The socially, politically and intellectually insecure would have no interest in being associated with my message because they don't want to be more ostracised than they are already.

They would have enough on their plates dealing with the crap the liberal media are already throwing at them without having to deal with my stuff.

And so the default state of caution that is borne of timorousness will take over. It is a FEMININE state of mind, of course, and most men have now been feminised without knowing it.

If the men of a nation are known to be contemptible cowards incapable of standing up for any principle even as they claim they have free speech, then of course their enemies will multiply and increase in strength as they become more neurotic, demented and degenerate, after having been accorded a status that to all intents and purposes is below that of an unmarried unfit mother.  

The truth is too awful to contemplate and no man will actually admit the extent of his current degradation nor discuss the measures necessary to restore him to his former position.  

The men - mainly Muslim - who do recognise this have joined ISIS while Islamphobes tremble at the thought of the returning jihadis. Which stage of grief are Westerners now at as regards the error of their ways and what needs to be done to correct it?

Did you know that 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did? Women are said not to be very good at thinking in the abstract, and tend to "reason" with their emotions. This may explain why women are less likely to defend the principle of free speech, because they are probably not quite sure what a principle is and what it is for. Men, knowing that reasoning with women is a futile exercise, end up by just trying to understand and predict their moods. In the process of doing so, they too have begun to think like women and now behave like women, and that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet. If it hasn't quite done so yet, it is perhaps analogous to a turd that keeps not being flushed away, but in time it will dissolve and go the way of all that is rotten, useless and past its sell by date, such as feminism and representative democracy ...

No comments: