Thursday, 29 September 2016

Claire Khaw on Nationalism And Conservatism at the Swinton Circle

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter

Friday, 23 September 2016

The true status of men in the West

Feminism causes immigration and turns women into sluts. 

How long are British men going to put up with this disgusting treachery from their immoral women? Have they no sense of shame? Don't they even care what other nations think of them?

If I am taken away by the agents of the Big Sister State for my heresy against their sacred religion of feminism and their sacrament of sluttery, I expect British men to defend me, because no one else has gone out his way to say what I have said and done what I have done to warn them of their folly of worshiping sluts. I am not even a white or male, but just want to live in a country where the men are not afraid of immoral women whose morals are lower than that of even a common prostitute. Is that really too much to ask?

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Paul Gascoigne should have fought for the right of Englishmen to tell racist jokes all the way up to the Supreme Court

While it is clearly racist and false to suggest that a black man's teeth would glow in the dark while a white man's wouldn't, which Act of Parliament forbade the telling of racist jokes? Is a freeborn Englishman still entitled to assume that what is not forbidden is allowed, or must he check with a woman every time he decides to say or do anything? So when exactly did the rules change?
Gazza was being prosecuted under s 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.  The purpose of that Act 1986 is to preserve public order. Telling a racist joke in Wolverhampton Civic Hall in no way threatened public order. Therefore the prosecution of Gazza by the CPS headed by feminazi Directrix of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders was obviously politically motivated.

It is politically motivated because it was not in the public interest to worsen race relations. How is it in the public interest to make the white man feel that the black man has the whip hand over him in his own country, as Enoch Powell warned would happen if immigration was not controlled?

Can you imagine the PC CPS seriously considering a white man's complaint about a black man telling a joke about white men and humiliating him in public? Of course not. The femimazi DPP would send him away with a flea in his ear.

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males Did a woman write this? I think we should be told.

What does this politically-motivated prosecution reveal about the position of the white man in his own land? That he is lower in status than the black man and certainly lower in status than his women, who despise him.

Feminazis are after all white middle class women who fear and loathe white working class men angry enough to vote BNP or at least UKIP.

Feminazis pose a far greater threat to white working men than Muslims, but white plebs are too Islamophobic to see this or to see that only Islam will be strong enough to eradicate feminism. After feminism is eradicated, men will finally be able to wrest back control of a government that now prioritises the preferences of immoral parasitical women at their expense.

If we don't watch out, feminazis in charge of Government Departments will soon be declaring that using the word "feminazi" is misogyny, and misogyny is THOUGHTCRIME punishable by fines, loss of liberty, manual amputation, castration and perhaps even the death penalty.

The American working man has Donald Trump to represent him, but British male MPs are too stupid, skint and scared to challenge the matriarchy. Philip Davies MP is only one man anyway, and very from being a billionaire. He also voted for Andrea Leadsom rather than Michael Gove to be Tory leader which suggests that his judgement is not infallible. It is to be doubted he will do much for men all by himself while other male Tory MPs cower and quake at the thought of Theresa May frowning at them.

Philip Davies MP - the only male MP in the UK not too afraid to challenge the matriarchy

Monday, 19 September 2016

The British Thought Police widens its definition of thoughtcrime

Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation. Vituperative statements made in anger, such as calling someone "an arse" during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory.

What is not even a civil wrong has now become a crime in matriarchal Britain.

In the days of the patriarchy, there was free speech, but no longer in our demented matriarchy.

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."

"Out of the corruption of SLUTS 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."

"Out of the corruption of TOLERATING SLUTS AND BASTARDS 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."

The price of sex - Part 1

The price of sex is crucial to the how feminism strikes its bargains with men. It offers men cheap sex with women they are not married to, and also allows men to have sex with other men. Feminism is about facilitating sexual liberation and getting men so hooked on cheap plentiful sex they lose the will to fight feminism.

The patriarchy forces both men and women to mostly have the most expensive form of sex - marriage - by forbidding and punishing extramarital sex. It also criminalises gay sex but allows brothel-keeping. These measures ensure that men pay for sex up front and don't expect to get it for free.

Feminism, you will have noticed, pretends sex is free but loads it full of high hidden charges for which the man himself pays eg CSA or society eg a higher crime rate when singly-parented juvenile delinquents become adult criminals.

The patriarchal imperative is to go forth and multiply thereby creating the manpower with which to acquire and maintain empires.

Sexual liberation - which a matriarchy condones - results in a shrinking and ageing population ultimately becoming unable to even have enough manpower to fight a successful defensive war.

Feminism is not just bad for the West, it is bad for any civilisation.

Thursday, 15 September 2016

My offer of free advice to Pauline Hanson

While I am neither Australian nor white, I do believe I understand exactly how white people are feeling about their national identity and immigration. Although I live in the UK, it is not hard to see how uncontrolled immigration and migrant swarms makes everyone nervous. Even my parents who are neither European nor live in Europe feel alarmed and concerned about European identity because they like to go there on holiday. 

I am really writing to offer you my services as political consultant for free until the benefit of it is proven.

That I am not white should have the effect of deflecting some of the more predictable accusations of racism made against you. 

You may be interested to know that as well as being legally trained, I was a member of the British National Party and was nearly its London Mayoral Candidate in 2011. My expulsion before this was the consequence of an unmarried single mother in the party taking against me for criticising the morals of such women.

Why the West is a matriarchy

Feminism is just the practice of slut-fucking. Anyone who wants to be a slut or who wants to fuck sluts is already a conscripted foot soldier of feminism. A feminist society is a society in which most of the sex that takes place is extramarital sex. This would include Western society, wouldn't it?


1. A slut is a fornicatress.

2. A fornicatress is any woman has had sex with a man not her husband.

3. A conclusive sign of moral degeneracy is ignorance, disbelief and outrage upon being reminded about these principles of marriage.

4. Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage.

5. Everything about feminism undermines marriage.

6. When people talk about the Western Way of Life that Islam threatens, they really mean their widespread practice of Fornication.

7. The sacred religion of feminists is feminism. To feminists, I am a heretic.

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Why some female teachers have sex with schoolboys

Not only are men lower than sluts, sluts are now corrupting the morals of boys.

The best way of corrupting boys is to give them sex before they even ask for it, so they will always yearn to be taken by a woman the way a woman is taken by a man.

Men now yearn to be dominated by women, to be disciplined and punished. It turns them on.

The more power men give to women, the more they will take, and to be weak is to invite exploitation.

It is clearly the intention of these immoral female teachers to corrupt the morals of adolescent schoolboys in their charge in order to destroy their masculinity as adult men. You won't have much masculinity to display if all the while you are seeking a woman who is older than you who will dominate you and boss you around. Give such a man who has been got at by an older woman a submissive woman, and he won't know what to do with her.

Men who are submissive to women and addicted to sex with sluts are easy to control. Such men would never be able to recognise a principle, much less stand up and fight for it. Such men would be spiritually incapable of standing up for the patriarchy and incapable of even desiring a patriarchy because patriarchy supports marriage and this by definition means it would forbid and punish extramarital sex, which is the very thing they are constantly craving for.

Sex addicted men are not interested in marrying and having progeny, but in merely continuing to enjoy sex with women they are not married to. Most men in the West are MCSFs - Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage.

Such men would be spiritually incapable of protecting their women from invaders. Men with no wives and offspring are not going to risk anything to protect sluts or random women from invaders. They can't even get it together to challenge the status quo - feminism- after all.

Talking to Western men about this is like talking to drug-addicted and intoxicated men who are incapable of focusing on the matter at hand, much less being persuaded by the case I have put to them for supporting marriage.

All they will be capable of doing is denying that things are as bad as they say they are and then changing the subject to something they would much rather talk and think about, probably the next fix of extramarital sex they hope to get.

I guess we women in the West will be taken as slaves and sex slaves by invaders because our men are too weak, gay and old to defend us.

The invaders will be predictably Muslim, and Western women will have no choice.

Perhaps surrender will be sweet, precisely because it is inevitable.

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

The War Against Marriage | Stephen Baskerville and Stefan Molyneux

A chilling analysis of the consequences of no fault divorce for men

How frail and elderly men soon in need of nursing afraid of offending their daughters can fight feminism

Elderly men fear to offend women because they fear to offend their nurses. Men who wish to improve the quality of the next generation and save their civilisation from the degenerate depravity of feminism should take this risk and make the sacrifice required. Feminism must be denounced and its evil exposed. I suggest elderly men write a letter to their daughters denouncing feminism and explaining why they must forthwith abandon this evil and toxic ideology quoting my ideas and words.

If your daughters disown you and your wives divorce you, then you will know what vipers in your bosom you have nursed for so many decades.

Take it on the chin, men, and save your sons and your civilisation!
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

I'm not exactly asking that you run up stairs without handrails in your chainmail, armour and sword wearing your helmet to face the enemy, am I? All I'm doing is just asking you to explain to your daughters why feminism might be a bad thing. Can't you even do that to make up for all those decades of condoning feminism and enjoying cheap slut sex? What is wrong with you?

How Islam checkmates Liberalism

Islam is so powerful liberals give up the principle of freedom of worship and free speech in order to fight it. Islam even has the Islamic equivalent of Article 9* of the European Convention of Human Rights and the First Amendment**. It is verse 2:256***. Game, set and match for Islam.

The Koran is superior precisely because it enshrines the religious tolerance that is not even mentioned in the Bible.

If you were guided by truth and logic, you would acknowledge this at once. However, most people are not guided by Truth and Logic, sadly, but their subjective emotions of Pride and Anger, Lust and Greed, Sloth and Gluttony as well as the deadly sin of Envy. It is even sadder that our politicians have abandoned altogether the rule of law because they no longer even know what a principle is. If the media were guided by Truth and Logic, my ideas would be given some publicity. The liberal media even now conspire to ignore me, declining to mock or attack me, for that would give me the oxygen of publicity. Make of that what you will.


* Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

** First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

*** 002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Monday, 12 September 2016

Why feminism is bad for civilisation

1. Young women want sexual liberation until they have a husband.

2. By the time women want to marry they are over 30.

3. By the time women want a baby they are 40+.

4. Feminism tricks women into spinsterhood.

5. Feminism tricks women into becoming sluts.

6. Feminism tricks men into becoming MCSFs (Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting the institution of marriage).

7. Feminism tricks clever women into childlessness.

8. Feminism turns children into bastards.

9. Feminism turns women into bad mothers.

10. Feminism is dysgenic, but men dare not agree.

11. Feminism turns men gay.

12. Feminism turns men into women.

13. Feminism makes it OK for sluts to have bastards.

14. Feminism lowers the quality of your gene pool.

15. Idiocracy (The Movie) explains how feminism makes you stupid.

16. Feminism created the Idiocracy.

17. Feminism makes men lower than sluts.

18. Feminism bribes men with extramarital slut sex.

19. Feminism: a drug-dealer dealing in fornication.

20. Feminism is the religion of the West.

21. Feminism is the opium of Western people.

22. Feminism lowers your IQ.

23. Feminism: the cause of Western malaise.

24. Western men dare not agree with me because they are afraid of sluts.

25. Western men are afraid of sluts because they are afraid they will withhold sex.

26. Most of the sex that takes place in the West is extramarital sex.

27. Western men prize their access to fornicating sluts above their own dignity as men.

30. Western men are too degenerate even to decriminalise prostitution.

31. Western men are too afraid of feminazis to decriminalise prostitution. (Hired prostitutes are unlikely to make false rape accusations against men or demand child support for illegitimate offspring they never intended to father. Probably, Western men are too poor or miserly to hire prostitutes to protect themselves from false rape accusations or having to support unintended and illegitimate offspring. It is just too bad that they cannot see that slut-fucking is a false economy for which they and their society will pay dearly. The reason why feminazis will predictably refuse to decriminalise prostitution is because they want sluts to control the market in extramarital sex. Slut-fucking men will be too much in denial and stupid to acknowledge that criminalising the punter - as they do in Sweden - is in fact a ban on prostitution.)

32. Feminism causes mental illness and dementia.

33. Feminism will be the end of Western civilisation as we know it.

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

My message to Channel on being radicalised by the resignation of Keith Vaz

Although I am not Muslim, I feel I am becoming increasingly radicalised every time I hear about the stupidity, hypocrisy and cowardice of our MPs.

Is there anyone in a position of authority I can speak to whose views would command my respect, who could persuade me that the answer to the problem of increasingly stupid, hypocritical and cowardly MPs running the government is not in fact a one-party theocracy governed under Islamic principles?

I was very upset to hear that not a single MP defended their human right to hire prostitutes. Hearing that Keith Vaz had resigned his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee disappointed and saddened me profoundly.

Not only are MPs incapable of defending a principle - the principle that it is not illegal to hire prostitutes - they are also incapable of protecting their own interests of having the option of hiring prostitutes should they ever choose to do so. If those in charge of the ship of state are incompetents and imbeciles, then how can they give us good government?

If they cannot properly look after the interests of voters, let alone the long term national interest, then an Islamic State could be seen as an increasingly viable and attractive alternative.

While I have no intention of joining Islamic State at present, I would like someone in charge to reassure me that our liberal democracy is working well, so that I do not become even more radicalised the next time I hear of our MPs not defending a principle or the rule of law, or appearing not to even know what they are.

Your prompt response and assistance in this regard would be much appreciated as I do not want to become dangerously disillusioned with the current government or the current system of government and end up becoming a jihadi bride or sex slave.
What Claire Khaw wishes to avoid

In defending Keith Vaz, we are defending the rule of law and British values


Relevant and rational considerations

  1. There is no law against hiring prostitutes.
  2. Keith Vaz at no time took a position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that is inconsistent with the exercise of his human right to hire prostitutes.

Irrelevant and irrational considerations

  1. You hate Keith Vaz.
  2. Everyone you know hates Keith Vaz.
  3. You'd be furious if you found your husband had hired prostitutes. 
  4. You would never dream of hiring prostitutes.
  5. You don't want anyone at all to hire prostitutes. 
  6. You want to punish Keith Vaz on behalf of his wife who has decided to stand by him.

We will always need politicians prepared to defend the rule of law. Keith Vaz by refusing to resign as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Commitee is in fact using his position to defend the principle of decriminalising prostitution, which its members are already agreed upon.

What is not forbidden is allowed. It is not forbidden to hire prostitutes, even if you are an MP who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. If there is some unwritten rule that says MPs are forbidden from hiring prostitutes, why would MPs support this infringement of their own human right? They are the legislature after all. If they do not even support their own right to hire prostitutes when it is not illegal to do so, does this mean they are stupid or scared, or both?

Why are British voters being governed by MPs who are more stupid and scared than they are, and who won't even stand up for their own legal rights when those are not in question?

If Keith Vaz is ousted as Chairman, the more thoughtful voter - not very many admittedly - who is also for the decriminalisation of prostitution would be asking himself precisely this question.

If Home Affairs Committee Tory MPs try to oust him, it would be only because they are following the orders of Theresa May. Being an unprincipled woman, she will probably be unable to think beyond how angry she would be if discovered her husband had hired prostitutes, but that is not the point.

The point is that if everyone has the right to hire prostitutes then wives enraged by the thought of their husband doing so is completely irrelevant.

Mrs Keith Vaz has clearly decided to stand by her husband and it is not anyone's business to punish him on her behalf, not even our female Prime Minister, who is also a wife.

Monday, 5 September 2016

In defence of the human right of Keith Vaz and all MPs to hire prostitutes

After spending most of yesterday on Twitter on the subject, no one there has yet given me a good reason why non-MPs can hire prostitutes, but not MPs.

No one has yet told me how Keith Vaz hiring prostitutes is inconsistent with his position as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

When I ask them if they would prefer it if Keith Vaz had hired two female prostitutes and had sex with them one after the other while the other watched, they do not answer.

When I ask them if they are possibly what is called homophobic if they think hiring two male prostitutes is in some  way worse than hiring two female prostitutes, they again remain mysteriously silent.

If Mrs Vaz is upset at her husband hiring prostitutes, it is up to her to seek a remedy in the Family Courts, and is none of our concern.

Frankly, if I were Keith Vaz's wife I would be relieved that he was not constantly pestering me for anal sex and drug-fuelled frolics when I already have a full time job as a busy immigration lawyer and several homes to run.

There are certain men who feel a certain delicacy and inhibition about asking their wife for the kind of the sex they would really like to have. They probably have an inkling that this is not something they could constructively suggest to their wife. If she already has a full time professional job one is likely to get short shrift and suffer a lifetime of funny looks. The result of being too open with one's wife about one's deepest darkest desires is that one could lose her respect, which would be disastrous to a good marriage. I entirely sympathise with Keith Vaz for not broaching the subject to his wife and would have done the same thing too if I were a man wanting to have sex with two male prostitutes one after the other.

I think people just want to punish Keith Vaz just because he is an MP and an opportunity has presented itself for them to punish him. That's all it is really.

MPs should therefore reflect on why they are so hated and consider closing ranks by defending the human right of Keith Vaz and any other MP to hire prostitutes.

If their constituents object to MPs having a right to hire prostitutes without losing position and status, then they should be told in no uncertain terms that what they hope for - that MPs would one day pass a law allowing everyone else in the land to hire prostitutes but not themselves - ain't gonna happen.

If these hypocritical and hate-filled constituents want to change the law in order to criminalise MPs for hiring prostitutes, then let them become MPs and do it themselves. That should shut them up good and proper.