Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Nominate Claire Khaw for the Contrarian Prize by 31 December 2016

Introduction of new ideas into the public realm and an impact on the public debate

She believes a one-party theocracy governed under the principles of would cure the British malaise caused by decades of degenerate feminism and over 100 years of bad foreign and domestic policy. (For the avoidance of doubt, the imposition of Secular Koranism does not mean the end of freedom of worship. Synagogues, churches, mosques and temples would stay open and continue to compete with each other to attract adherents. Only the law of the land - which everyone has to obey - would be different.)

Independence of thought and judgement

She is guided only by truth, logic and morality with an almost godlike capacity for impartial analysis, speaking without fear or favour.

Courage and conviction in his/her actions

She has been saying the same thing for about a decade and has not wavered in her message because she knows she is right.

Sacrifice by putting principle above personal advancement

Friendships have been sacrificed as well as membership of a number of political parties who do not see the point of defending free speech. She was once told by Hugh Muir of The Guardian that she could be working for the BBC if only she would renounce her views, but this she steadfastly refuses to do.

Saturday, 26 November 2016

What have George Osborne, Theresa May and Tom Holland got in common?

George Osborne

Theresa May

Tom Holland, cricket bore and classical historian

My, hasn't Donald Trump - not standing with his legs apart - got large hands!

Future social historians will ask themselves why the political classes of a degenerate liberal democracy are standing with their legs apart.

Can you imagine a real man like Donald Trump resorting to such a pathetic attempt to convey masculinity and command?

We now talk of fake news. There is now fake masculinity, fake femininity and fake displays of leadership and authority.

The less you have of something you want, the more you want to pretend you have it by adopting ridiculous positions of display.

I'm warning Michael Gove not to adopt that stance if he is still hoping to salvage his political career. It is pathetic that he's trying to get people to like him by appearing to angle for a gig on Strictly Come Dancing. It's only for retired and fallen politicians who need something to top up their income, rather like footballers whose careers have come to an end wanting compo from the Football Association for being sexually abused as a child when they never complained at the time, not even to their parents. If he wants to angle for a position, he should be up to challenging and discussing my ideas, or even more daringly, agreeing with them.

Friday, 25 November 2016

The only man who said anything sensible on #Article50 on #BBCQT was an African

The reality is that none of the three of you [on the panel] and our own civil servants really understand how the European Union works: it is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship by European Civil Servants. The MEPs are just cosmetic fronts. My solution to our problem now if I were Prime Minister - which I am not, but if I were - is to give 90 days' notice to European Union that we are going to declare a UDI - a Unilateral Declaration of Independence - and then revoke the European Communities Act of 1972.

This man must be a Zimbabwean and my experience of Zimbabewans both white and black is that they are very clever and well-educated people unlike criminally stupid and spineless British politicians.

This is because President Mugabe believes in education. I was once told by a proud Zimbabwean that he actually has seven degrees and they are not honorary degrees. Mugabe actually studied and passed examinations in them.'s_Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

How nationalism should be defined

Nationalism should be defined as a political and philosophical ideology of promoting the long term national interest.

It has only been demonised because WW1 and WW2 was blamed on nationalism and is now associated with racism and xenophobia in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Actually, nationalism was a reaction against imperialism.

WW1 occurred because the Austrian Empire was weakening and breaking up. Understandably, when this was happening, peoples that used to be under the Austrian Empire aspired to become independent, and that was why the Serbian terrorist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points after WW1 articulated and affirmed the principles of national self-determination, which described the principles of nationhood.

WW2 occurred because Britain and France - both empires - wanted to contain Germany's imperial ambitions.

America is an empire, the EU is an empire, Islamic State wants to become a nation state and then an empire with global domination in mind, but Western nations just want their country back again from whoever is pulling the strings of their leaders who keep foisting more and more immigration on a weary and increasingly anxious populace.

Nationalism does not have to mean war, any more than looking after your own interests must mean you will always be fighting and killing other people, if you are not a gangster.

In reality, well-led nations use a mixture of war and diplomacy as an instrument of policy. We just want wise leaders leading our respective nations, and for this to be done, we have to reform our political process.

Nationhood is indispensable because there seems no other way of organising human society. A nation is a piece of territory with borders with its own government. It is the only group we can join that is small enough to care, but big enough to matter.

The real controversy is not that nation states should exist, but how they should be run, who should participate in their decision-making processes and what rules they should follow. The real controversy is therefore between patriarchy and matriarchy ie whether we return to social conservatism and the practice of marriage as a means of reviving the patriarchy run on the clear rules of healthy competition and low taxes, or carry on as we are, being a degenerate matriarchy in which the preferences of immoral women are always prioritised in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage, where men are lower in status to women.

It is precisely because the West is a matriarchy that makes us a post-truth society operating post-truth politics. Because we are no longer moved by facts and logic, we will be moved by something worse: threats, intimidation and violence.

It is a shame no one will discuss this.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

The wise man does at once what the fool does finally. Theresa May is indulging in the feminine vice of denial

‘Western laws now clash with moral nature of man’ – Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill

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.

The West is a degenerate matriarchy where the preferences of fornicating parasitic sluts are prioritised over and above those of the working men. Unskilled manual labour is completely unrepresented in Britain, except by the BNP and UKIP while all the political parties continue to chase the female vote, all afraid to alienate it and ignoring the concerns, welfare and preferences of men.

Indeed, it is feminazis like Helen Goodman at the top of the Labour Party who calls the shots. People who think there is a Jewish conspiracy should reflect on the political careers of good principled Jewish men destroyed by feminazis when they tried to stand up for gentile men: Keith Joseph's in the Conservative Party and Lord Glasman's in Labour.

In a matriarchy, no one can hear you scream the truth.

Howard Flight echoes Keith Joseph's 1974 warning that 'our human stock is threatened' 
Asked by the Daily Telegraph's Mary Riddell whether he would support a total ban on immigration, even if just for a temporary period, Lord Glasman replied, "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

Friday, 18 November 2016

A documentary in two parts on why America's in the mess it's in

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils

'The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.'


But how can you exercise this supreme function of statesmanship in a post-truth society? A post-truth society is a matriarchy, and a matriarchy is dominated by stupid immoral women and the male politicians who pander to them in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage, terrified of alienating the female vote and accused of "mansplaining". These immoral and irresponsible women will not be moved by truth, logic or morality, only by false promises, threats and lies. They respond only to fear of punishment, prospect of gain and are bribed with legislation to protect and privilege them, giving them more rights on the public purse that only increase the voracity of their parasitism.

People deserve the government they get. Please, God, let us no longer be the stinking degenerate matriarchy that we already are.

Deuteronomy 28: Curses for Disobedience

15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.
20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.
25 The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will come at them from one direction but flee from them in seven, and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. 28 The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. 29 At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you.
30 You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. 32 Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand. 33 A people that you do not know will eat what your land and labor produce, and you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. 34 The sights you see will drive you mad. 35 The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head.
36 The Lord will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your ancestors. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. 37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you.
38 You will sow much seed in the field but you will harvest little, because locusts will devour it. 39 You will plant vineyards and cultivate them but you will not drink the wine or gather the grapes, because worms will eat them. 40 You will have olive trees throughout your country but you will not use the oil, because the olives will drop off. 41 You will have sons and daughters but you will not keep them, because they will go into captivity. 42 Swarms of locusts will take over all your trees and the crops of your land.
43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.
45 All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. 46 They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the Lord your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, 48 therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the Lord sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you.
49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.
53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.
58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God. 63 Just as it pleased the Lord to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.
64 Then the Lord will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your ancestors have known. 65 Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot. There the Lord will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart. 66 You will live in constant suspense, filled with dread both night and day, never sure of your life. 67 In the morning you will say, “If only it were evening!” and in the evening, “If only it were morning!”—because of the terror that will fill your hearts and the sights that your eyes will see. 68 The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

"God does not change the lot of a people unless they change what is in their hearts." Koran 13:11

"O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Koran 64:14

"Cursed are the unmerciful, fornicators, and adulterers, covetous persons, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and extortioners." The Book of Common Prayer

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man is of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again."  George Bernard Shaw

"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 Bhagavad Gita

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

Listen to the superb intellectual sparring between Frost and Powell in 1969. It couldn't happen now, could it? The British in 1969 had Frost. In 2016 they have Evan Davis, who is gaily married, pretending Donald Trump has incestuous intentions towards his daughter, who was then ticked off by an American woman for taking things literally. I still remember Weekend World on LWT when it was presented by Brian Walden and Matthew Parris - an hour-long programme during which issues could be properly thrashed out instead of the pap we now have. The short interviews we now have is intended to cover up the fact that our politicians these days are clueless unprincipled twerps who prefer to be told what to do, and to do it without being questioned too much.

In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Aung San Suu Kyi, the neglectful wife

After getting grilled by the BBC presenter, Suu Kyi considered a symbol of virtuousness in the West, angrily muttered off-air: ‘No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.’

Exterminating troublesome minorities seems an obvious solution in times of anger, lawlessness, national insecurity and mob rule.

We expect our government to prevent times of anger, lawlessness, national insecurity and mob rule.

She only got where she did because British men are such suckers for exotic Orientals.

My mother loathes that woman.

She was a shit wife to her late husband too. He died alone in another country while she was busy doing her politicking even when she was free to return to him.

She could have returned to England to look after him, and the Burmese junta imagined she would be shamed into returning to look after her husband, but she was having none of it.

The Wikipedia entry of Mr Aung San Suu Kyi states:

The Burmese government would not grant him a visa to visit Burma, saying that they did not have the facilities to care for him, and instead urged Aung San Suu Kyi to leave the country to visit him. She was at that time temporarily free from house arrest but was unwilling to depart, fearing that she would be refused re-entry if she left, as she did not trust the junta's assurance that she could return.

Aris died of prostate cancer on his 53rd birthday in 1999, in Oxford. After 1989, when his wife was first placed under house arrest, he had seen her only five times, the last of which was for Christmas in 1995, after Suu Kyi had been released for the first time.

British men worshipped this Oriental woman because they fancied her and forgave her everything because libtardism has retarded their ability to even look after their own interests or come to obvious conclusions deduced from undisputed facts.

Even when they knew they could never hope to have sex with her themselves they were still prepared to forgive her everything and worship her, because feminism has made them stupid.

It is astonishing how gallant men are even to obviously bad wives and ambitious women who want power for the sake of it, as long as they are attractive women, even when they must know they would never share the same room with her, let alone the same bed.

This hagiography of her in The Mail was of course written by female journalists.

Are there any anti-feminist men and neglected husbands who dare criticise her?  Even if they were feeling neglected these pathetic creatures would just be grateful that they have not been divorced, thrown out of the matrimonial home and have half their pension confiscated.

How I would argue the case if I were defence counsel for these British men accused of rape in UAE by a British woman

The woman shared a drink with the men before going to their hotel where they raped her in a "brutal and violent" manner while filming it

What was this woman doing in the hotel room of a man she has just met over drinks who was then allegedly raped by him and his friend?

Theory of Case

She must have been up for it.

While she was having consensual sexual intercourse with the second man she noticed that the the first one she was recording her. 

She objected, but he did not stop recording her with his mobile.

She asked the one copulating with her to stop, but he didn't or perhaps he did.

She then wished she hadn't agreed to sex with both of them.

That would be my defence if I were defence counsel. It was just a case of regret rape.

It would only be revenge porn if they posted it online, but so far they have not, and I doubt they would risk it now.

That's how I would get them off, unless she had bruises or showed signs of having been brutally attacked. Because she did not, the UAE coppers and prosecutors put two and two together and charged her with fornication, a sexual offence in the UAE.

Yes, it would mean that fewer women would be prepared to fornicate for fun, but that would be a good thing in the long run for men because that would bring about the return of patriarchy, and overthrow the matriarchy.

By the way, I define rape culture as "feminazis trying to prevent defence lawyers from asking the accuser obvious questions that could easily exonerate their client".

It cannot be denied that the nation which has women known to be the most promiscuous in the world has the highest number of rape complaints.

Promiscuity is linked to mental illness.

The mental health of a witness surely goes to his or her credibility.

Like it or not, the accuser's sexual history is logically and necessarily relevant to rape complaints because it is probative as to her character and certainly relevant to the nature of the accusation. Imagine someone accused of child sexual abuse and it was found that his computer mainly consisted of kiddy porn and a browsing history of kiddy porn websites. Are you going to say this evidence is irrelevant?

The more promiscuous a woman, the more likely she is to make false rape accusations. (This is probably because promiscuous women find themselves feeling used by men, get angry and bitter about this and are more likely to make a false rape accusation to revenge themselves on men in general.

I invite feminists to disprove this statement. I am of course not saying that a promiscuous woman can never be raped in the traditional understanding of the word eg raped by a burglar when she was just minding her own business being asleep in her own bedroom, only of the probability of her lying because of her neurosis or malice, the possibility of which must surely be considered and examined to do justice to the accused.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Yvette Cooper's definitive definition of "Far Right"

Yvette Cooper:

On immigration [Trump] Far Right. My point is about the Far Right being divisive, inflaming division and people pitting themselves against each other and frankly I think it is also Far Right to talk about massive tax cuts for the richest people in the country and healthcare cuts or Obamacare cuts or NHS cuts as UKIP have done for the poorest people in the country. That, to me, is a Far Right agenda.

So, everything this feminazi dislikes is "Far Right." Gotcha. "Far Right" is a term of abuse libtards use on any proposal that smacks of common sense that they dislike. Now we get it.

I would only be too happy to give my definition if I am invited on air to do so.

In the months and years to come, a satisfactory definition of civic nationalism will be of crucial importance to the social cohesion in the West, if it is not to descend into naked racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

When MSM has got over its shock and hysteria, they might like to consider airing some of my ideas. 

Monday, 14 November 2016

Are we being too hard on white supremacists?

I think technically you have to say and believe that white people are better than other races of people just because they are white to be a white supremacist.

Is there a difference between being a white supremacist and a white nationalist? These terms are used as terms of abuse by liberals who them use interchangeably for anyone in America who objects to immigration.

Is any white American who says America First a white supremacist?

Is Ann Coulter an American Nationalist?

As she is white, does that make her a White Nationalist?

If she believes in America First, does that turn her into a White Supremacist?

I don't care. I still love her anyway and it gladdens my heart to see and hear my favourite American woman. 

What is the ideology of the White Nationalist and what are White Nationalist polices?

What is the ideology of the White Supremacist and what are White Supremacist policies?

Are there any fundamental differences between the two? If so, what? Extermination? Expulsion? Enslavement? Segregation?

My relations with white men who identify with nationalism have been on the whole perfectly cordial. If they feel infinitely superior to me because of their race, they have not been crass enough to show it in a way that I noticed while in their company.

I suppose it is technically true that white people as a race are more powerful than brown, black or yellow peoples whose nations are not superpowers.

But having the status of being top dog nation of the world come and go because being top dog nation is all about fighting and winning wars as well as hanging on to what you have. Eventually, your civilisation loses its mojo and others overtake you, especially if you don't maintain standards, have enough children that you bring up properly, or are more interested in wine, women and song than in maintaining standards.

Perhaps deep down we all like to think we are better than other people, but of course it would not be politic to say that. It would be terrible if you behaved as if you really did think you were better than other people and were rude and bossy as well as having a penchant for kicking their doors down, bombing their homes, raping their women and killing their children just for the sake of imposing regime change and advancing your neocon interests and arms sales.

The most powerful white people are American, but all empires rise and fall. If people want to think they are better than me, I cannot stop them. I believe they have the absolute right to think they are better than me even if I do not agree with them and find it offensive that they think they are better than me.

I give them this right because I too sometimes think I am better than other people, especially people who are obviously stupider, uglier, poorer with much much lower morals than me.

Sometimes, it is good for us to think we are better than others, because it motivates us to do things, rather than forever feel inferior and self-effacing with never enough confidence or self-belief to ever undertake risky and ambitious projects.

How British fathers have been deprived of parental authority and are now lower than women


Is this why so many men have now gone gay and prefer having chem sex rather than becoming husbands and fathers?

I would too if I were a bloke, either that or fight it to the death.

Why don't other men fight it though?

Because they are stupid, in denial and think they are going to lose because the system has been rigged against them for decades.

What may men not do these days in exercising parental authority and authority over their wives or else become a convicted criminal?

Types of behaviour that fall under the heading of coercive control under the Serious Crime Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) received royal assent on 3 March 2015. The Act creates a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or familial relationships (section 76).

The types of behaviour associated with coercion or control may or may not constitute a criminal offence in their own right. It is important to remember that the presence of controlling or coercive behaviour does not mean that no other offence has been committed or cannot be charged. However, the perpetrator  may limit space for action and exhibit a story of ownership and entitlement over the victim. Such behaviours might include:

 isolating a person from their friends and family;

 depriving them of their basic needs;

 monitoring their time;

 monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware;

 taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;

 depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services;

 repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;

 enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim;

 forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities;

 financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance;

 threats to hurt or kill;

 threats to a child;

 threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone).

 assault;

 criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);

 rape;

 preventing a person from having access to transport or from working.

"This is not an exhaustive list."

Having rigged the rules in favour of women, feminazis put us on notice that they reserve the right to rig the system even further as and when required.  Ya gotta larf, aincha?

Social Services - jobs for the girls

What better way of showing how evil men are and how useful you are when you protect children and women from these monsters at taxpayers' expense in your role as Social Worker?

All these violent and abusive men who are also fathers and husbands and all those women to rescue!

What better way of making yourself feel good, useful and needed about "saving" children that you will never have as a spinster by removing them from their parents?

Of course, it would be in your interests to pretend all men are guilty and evil. In this way do you make yourself more important to the more gullible members of the public.

Of course you will never support laws that prevent women from having sex with men not their husbands because if all women made sensible choices about their sex partner who must also be their husband, you'd be out of a job!

That is why no social worker will support slut-shaming.

Feminazi Chantal Aimee Doerries QC, chairman of the Bar, proposes free child witness coaching against men they accuse of sexual offences


A training course is being launched today to ensure vulnerable witnesses, including children and people with learning difficulties, won’t be subjected to unnecessarily harsh questioning in court. Chantal Aimee Doerries QC is chairman of the Bar.

John Humphrys:

Giving evidence in court can be a traumatic experience especially if you've been sexually assaulted, even more so if you're a child, so traumatic it can affect the outcome of the case. This young woman was only a little girl when her stepfather began abusing her.

Child's voice [or was it the voice of an actress ?]:

"The police listened, but the barrister made it look like I was a liar as I couldn't remember dates. I was a child! No one stopped his barrister bullying me and making it look like I had instigated it."
[Why was no mention made of her age when she was allegedly sexually assaulted and her age when she decided to make the complaint? No mention was made as to whether she managed to convict her stepfather and whether he is still married to her mother.]

John Humphrys:

As from today child and other vulnerable witnesses will get help on how to prepare themselves [ie coached] the order from barristers - trained barristers free of charge. Chantal Doerries is a QC herself and chairs the Bar. What's the idea of this? Is it simply to prepare witnesses for what they can expect or does it go slightly further than that?

Feminazi :

The training really focuses on the advoacy which barristers perform in court and over the last few years we have seen a sea change in the attitude of the courts both in terms of procedure and in terms of pilot schemes being run [such as?] as to how vulnerable witnesses are being treated in the court process the aim being obviously to ensure that those witnesses give the best evidence which they can, to ensure that in any court case justice is done so that witnesses understand the questions that they're asked and there is an early identification of the vulnerability of witnesses [eg mental health issues? common or garden feminine neurosis?]. This training is specifically focused on ensuring that advocates and in my case barristers understand the changes which have been implemented recently ..

John Humphrys:

So you're training the barristers as well as schooling the children? [He should have said coaching, shouldn't he? Barristers know that they are not supposed to do this, don't they? Does this feminazi know that? Is any male member of the legal profession challenging her on this? Or are they probably too pussywhipped by this very commanding bluestocking  who went to Roedean, read History at Cambridge and whom they secretly fantasise about being their dominatrix?]


Our focus is on barristers. Our focus is on ensuring that those from the Bar who ask those questions in cases and our commitment is that barristers involved in serious sexual offence cases, publicly funded cases will by the end of 2018 will have undergone this training [She mean feminazi indoctrination, folks!], and the training focuses on ensuring that the skills are there to allow the type of questioning that is appropriate for vulnerable witnesses [treat them with kid's gloves and never challenge them in case they get upset and you get done for professional misconduct or some such crap like that when you're defending your client to the best of your ability by asking some obvious question] and so recognises the changes in the court process whereby vulnerabilities are recognised early on in a court case where you have a specific hearing which sets the ground rules which looks at the vulnerabilities in some cases there may be more than one vulnerability present in a witness [Don't these "vulnerabilities" go to the credibility of the witness?] and which sets ground rules as to how the question should be carried out.

John Humphrys:

Terribly difficult though, isn't it, to find that line between defending somebody who may well be innocent and protecting the witness?


You're absolutely right. [Don't you hate people who keep saying that to disarm us into thinking that they take on board our concerns or even agree with us? I think it was Cameron who started this  crap and now it has been adopted by all the professionally glib.] That's what we see in our courts day in and day out.  Barristers having to carry out that very careful exercise between ensuring that they are able to defend their client and that the defendant is able to ask the questions that are necessary to protect themselves from within that process and equally that witnesses are able to give the best evidence that they can, and I suppose one of the challenges is recognising that fine line and ensuring that judges who ultimately have control of the court process are also aware of the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the witnesses.

John Humphrys:

Exactly, because if you push a child or a vulnerable person too far, presumably the judge will be able to draw the attention of the jury to that anyway in the summing up and you may be able to redress the balance. Can the judge redress the balance to some extent?


One of the shifts, I suppose, the greater awareness of the vulnerability of witnesses is that judges are of course able to involve themselves in the sense of stopping questioning that is inappropriate ...

John Humphrys:

Intervene early?


Intervene early, yes, so it need not be addressed at a later stage [Ah yes. Prevent the obvious question from being asked at all so he can never even make that point in the first place, so the jury are just left to focus on the fact that the defendant is a man  and must therefore be guilty because he is a man. Got it!] the same way that the Bar and the judges are undergoing training on focusing on the vulnerability of witnesses. But, ultimately, the most important aspect for us is ensuring that the court process allows, as you said earlier, that careful line to be drawn, ensuring that witnesses understand the questions, are able to truthfully answer the questions. Those are issues specifically to with vulnerable witnesses - real challenges around that - and also at the same time making sure that the defendant is able to properly defend himself and put his case. That is after all the heart of our justice system.

John Humphrys:

And it's being done for free?


Indeed! Pro bono. [Actually, funded by the taxpayer - the male taxpayer.]

If they don't put you in jail on the word of a child whose testimony your defence counsel is not allowed to robustly challenge, they will get you convicted of domestic abuse which doesn't even have to involve force the way these feminazis interpret these words.

Time to go gay and die of chem sex than marry or shack up with these bitches and become their slaves, eh? It's either that or commit an act of terrorism to make your point because, as I have already demonstrated, the process has already been rigged against you by the feminazis.

What is going to happen now? Do you think the feminazis will invite me on TV or radio to discuss this or challenge any of the points I have made? Will they, hell! They'll just continue to ignore me and stay in denial until it blows up in their faces. Denial is after all a feminine vice. The feminazi libtards at The New York Times stayed in denial till they could no longer deny that Trump won the election.

Did you know that one of the feminazis - a brunette - at The Today Programme actually blocked me from following them on Twitter as a way of showing her disapproval as well as deleting all my comments on their Facebook page? There is no point in complaining because I have tried. They just laugh at you and spit in your face.

Will one of these feminazis sue me for defamation? Hope so!

Will one of these feminazis call the cops and prosecute me for hate speech? Hope so!

I invite them to do so.

Look at these feminazis and their running dog: thinking of new ways to rig the system against the men while whingeing about the patriarchy.

Feminazi Directrix of Public Prosecutions - Alison Saunders

Feminazi Our Lady Chancellor Liz

Feminazi Madam Chairman of the Bar Council: Chantal Aimee Doerries 

Feminazi Prime Minister May and her male minions who still don't get it about Trump

Can it unfuck itself, ever?

Trump and Farage - working together to unfuck Western civilisation

Marine Le Pen: the Trump Revolution is a global revolution

George Bernard Shaw:

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man is of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again."


How interesting that the BBC report of this interview does not mention Le Pen's views on NATO and her intention to leave it ASAP.

Why do these idiots get jobs at the BBC while I remain unhired?

We know the reason why, don't we?

It is time to purge the BBC of its stinking libtard feminazis incapable of independent thought, censoring, obscuring and ignoring important issues.

You would have thought a potential President of France openly talking about leaving NATO would get a mention to someone who was listening to this interview and reporting on it, wouldn't you? Fuck the filthy dishonest incompetent libtards at the BBC who deserve to have giant loads of journalistic integrity shoved up their collective arses.

Instead of covering the story properly, the non-BBC British media concentrate on whether Andrew Marr should have conducted the interview at all!

Fuck the feminazi libtard turd-brains to fucking hell.