Tuesday, 22 August 2017

Can We Eliminate Identity Politics? Should We?

Sunday, 20 August 2017

Richard Spencer says he loves Jesse Lee Peterson

Melanie Phillips: The West's Auto-Immune Disease

Melanie Phillips:

What I've been describing in terms of what Western culture has been doing to itself is Western culture turning on itself, undermining its own core values and replacing them by values previously thought to be transgressive or destructive: replacing truth with ideology, replacing the idea of a nation state by rival groups jostling for power, replacing morality by amorality and I would suggest nihilism, expressed in various ways. Behind all of that is the Western nation based on the share culture of tradition, law, history, language, religion, is somehow illegitimate and need to be remade altogether. This is very pronounced in Europe. In Britain there is historical guilt of empire, in mainland continental Europe you have the guilt of the Holocaust, you have a collective guilt undermining not just the nation, but the very idea of Western progress. The Holocaust had the terrible effect on Europe, from the cradle of civilisation of Goethe and Mozart and this has demoralised the West and not properly understood and this has fragmented Europe.

European and Western civilisation has had this tremendous crisis of confidence, in itself, in the nation and in the project of modernity itself. So that's why I call it an auto-immune disease. An auto-immune disease in medical terms is caused, as I understand it, by a failure of the central nervous system, and this political auto-immune disease of the West, I would suggest, is caused by, not by the failure of the central nervous system, but by a failure of nerve - cultural nerve. It is an astonishing situation and almost unbelievable, but we have to believe it. It is a situation brought about by cultural exhaustion, guilt, moral exhaustion.

The real threat is not to Israel, but to America, to the United Kingdom and to Europe. The West's enemies understand this very well. They understand the West's weakness. They understand that the West no longer has a sense of purpose because it has lost its belief in what it is, but they have a sense of purpose. They have a sense of purpose infused by religious belief. They are doing God's work, but this is the paradox: this Islamic world that is infused by this sense of purpose, this jihadi fanaticism, this Islamic world is extreme because it feels itself under threat from modernity. The essence of its extremism is that it understands modernity is coming at it through the internet, through social media, through the globalisation movement. Its women are at risk of believing they have a future of freedom, they understand that that is something they have to stop, and that is what they are trying to do: they are trying to stop modernity. It is essentially a defensive movement because they understand at some level that their culture is dying, and it is true, it is dying. However, the paradox is that it's a dying dragon: as its tail thrashes in its death throes, it can kill us, unless we actually understand what it is and fight it,  and we can only fight it by rediscovering our own core values. So this is the terrible paradox and problem that we face in the West, but my final concluding thought is this: you have two civilisations as it were, in a terrible spiral of decline and in their death throes, fighting each other.

Melanie Phillips psychoanalyses the British anti-Semite has the transcript to this very interesting speech on British anti-Semitism.

Britain’s changing perception of its own national interest in the region led it to appease the Arabs by restricting the Jewish immigration it had promised to facilitate – thus swelling the death toll of the Holocaust -- while turning a blind eye to illegal Arab immigration and suggesting a further division of the remaining fragment of Palestine, most of which it had already given away to the Hashemite dynasty in 1921 to create Transjordan, into a state for the Jews and a state for the Arabs. Eventually, Britain abstained in the 1947 UN vote to bring Israel into being; and the anger at Jewish terrorism, the perception that Britain had been humiliated in Palestine and the belief that Britain had been embroiled in an unnecessary and damaging project left a reservoir of deep and lasting public resentment.

The impact of the Holocaust, however, buried that resentment along with conventional anti-Jewish feeling which went underground. In its early years, Israel basked in Britain’s approval because it fitted the spirit of the age. As Europe emerged from the horrors of the war, Israel was in effect hope reborn, a young idealistic country run on socialist principles and making the desert bloom. But when the skies darkened and Israel became embroiled in an apparently never-ending messy new kind of warfare in which the Arabs could pain Israelis as brutal occupiers and themselves as victims, the mood sharply changed. The resentful memory of the Mandate and the belief formed during that time that a Jewish state would only bring trouble was given new and virulent life. And the reasons for that could not be more profound. They relate to what has happened to Britain itself.  

Since 1945, Britain has fundamentally changed. The Palestine debacle was an important milestone in the collapse of the British empire, which in turn helped bring about  a collapse of belief in Britain itself and what it stood for. During the past six decades, Britain has been systematically hollowing out its own culture, for two intimately related reasons: a loss of its national identity and purpose, and the crumbling of religious belief that underpinned its moral codes. 

With the loss of Britain’s imperial role, together with its near bankruptcy after the Second World War and its reliance on American money to bale it out, the country’s elite class was profoundly demoralised -- a state of mind which culminated in the shattering humiliation of the Suez crisis of 1956, when a secret plot by Britain, France and Israel to invade Egypt after Nasser seized the Suez Canal was aborted when America’s President Eisenhower pulled the financial plug on the operation.

This demoralisation left Britain’s elites intensely vulnerable to ideas suggesting the emergence of a new kind of world altogether – the new Jerusalem. And this was to be an utter repudiation of the old Jerusalem -- a secular onslaught against Biblical morality and its replacement by the religion of the self: hyper-individualism fuelled by rampant consumerism. 

This secularism has eroded the principles which underpin western civilisation. Chief among these is the concept of truth or objectivity, which western intellectuals have now declared defunct in favour of the subjective notion of moral relativism, or truth-for-me --otherwise known as ‘anything goes’.

As a result, people are increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behaviour. This erasing of the difference between right and wrong has meant in turn that people who do wrong -- if they tick certain boxes -- may be viewed with sympathy while their actual victims are held responsible for their offence.  

This march of secularism has opened the door to the British and European left, which demonises America and western capitalism and lionises the third world and all liberation movements. With the fall of communism, the left’s focus shifted from economics to issues of culture, race, ethnic identity and the nation state. It was Antonin Gramsci, the Marxist thinker who became the guru of the former sixties radicals who now run western society, who promoted the idea that western society could be overturned by capturing the citadels of the culture – the universities, schools, churches, media, civil service, professions – and subverting its values. 

Enacting Gramsci's precepts to the letter, morality and culture have indeed been turned upside down. The values of marginalised or transgressive groups have been substituted for the values of the majority and their historic culture. The authority of the Bible has been repudiated for a culture of rights, leading Britain’s intelligentsia to embrace post-modernism, anti-racism, feminism and gay rights. The crucial point is  that these are all part of a victim culture which does not seek to extend tolerance to marginalised groups, but instead to transfer power to such groups to destroy the very idea of a normative majority culture rooted in the morality of Christianity and the Hebrew Bible. 

Christians are now targeted as bigots if they uphold Christian beliefs about sexuality. An elderly evangelical Christian who was attacked after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality, was convicted in 2002 of a public order offence – while his attackers were not prosecuted on the grounds that they were the victims of the offence.

 A Christian registrar was threatened with the sack after asking to be excused from conducting civil partnerships for same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs, although she later won the right to do so.

And the Catholic church was forced to cut its ties with three large adoption agencies because equality law forces such agencies to place children for adoption with gay couples.

With western culture deemed illegitimate because it is intrinsically oppressive, only multiculturalism is a legitimate basis for national identity. This holds that all minority values must have equal status to those of the majority. Any attempt to uphold majority values over minorities is a form of prejudice. That turns minorities into a cultural battering ram to destroy the very idea of majority culture at all. 

With racism defined on Marxist principles as prejudice with power, it follows that minorities or the third world can never be anything other than victims, while the west or those with power can only ever be the victimiser. That’s why the Jews, who are seen as running western capitalism, and Israel, which has nuclear weapons, are not seen as victims. Since suicide bombings are carried out by the powerless Palestinians, these must instead be the fault of their all-powerful Israeli targets. So when Muslims and Arabs invert right and wrong, truth and lies, victim and victimiser in their story about the Middle East, instead of challenging this as a big lie the British intelligentsia endorses, absorbs and reproduces it.

Britain has not only lost belief in itself as a nation, but European liberals have turned against the very idea of the nation itself. Rooted in the particulars of history, religion, law, language and tradition, the nation is seen as the cause of all the ills of the world, from prejudice to war. That’s why supra-national institutions such as the UN, EU, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and the international and human rights law which they have invented, are held to be more legitimate than the structures of individual democracies.  
So for these transnational progressives, the very idea of a Jewish state is double anathema. Britain’s part in creating it is seen as an example of a wholly discredited colonialism, part of Britain’s original sin which has to be expiated through the creation of a transnational and multicultural world. It is surely no accident that the Jews find themselves at the centre of this convulsion. It was the Jews who first gave the west those moral codes that underpin its civilisation and which are now under siege. 

Jews have always found themselves in difficulties whenever their host country loses confidence in itself. That is what has happened in Britain, which has upturned its founding values based on Christianity and the Hebrew Bible and no longer knows its own identity or purpose. The upsurge in anti-Jewish feeling centred upon the State of Israel is intimately connected to this cultural confusion.

Melanie Phillips Islam in Europe

Thursday, 10 August 2017

Tara McCarthy and Millennial Woes have a cosy little chat about conducting a pogrom. 90 - 100% white ethno-states discussed

It doesn't matter even if immigrants are exactly like white people inside their heads, they are not wanted and that's that, they say.

They discuss conducting a pogrom and how couples and families will be split up, with white women who have had the babies of black men being forced to move to Africa to be with them after the pogrom.

Oh, and forcible sterilisation.

Wansee Conference Protocol

"Race and Settlement Main Office"

"Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed bloodonce and for all. Such sterilization will be voluntary. But it is required to remain in the Reich. The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected."

Roaming Millennial will have to go too, Millennial Woes says.

Indians, Jews, Chinese are high IQ races with higher IQ than whites are a problem that will have to be dealt with.

"Jews operate in a unique way that arouse the ire of the native population", says Millennial Woes.

"Remember, I'm not saying Jews aren't a problem", says Tara McCarthy, reassuring her audience.

Rotheram discussed.

White people should be even angrier that the sex predators are another race to the white girls who were the victims of Muslim sex predators, and should see themselves as under siege, says Millennial Woes.

Muslims are currently 4% of UK population, what's going to happen when it doubles and quadruples, asks Tara McCarthy.

They are currently 3% in Rotheram.

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

The Temptation of Eve and why men must always pay for sex

I deplore this attempt to blame women for all the ills of mankind and will address it now, once and for all.

If men now blame all their problems on women, they should also remember that most of their pleasures also come from women.

The Chinese word for GOOD consists of the an amalgam of the word FEMALE and CHILD. I only wish I could have been there when Chinese scholars were debating how to represent the concept of GOOD with which words.

Now that this was the compound word arrived at, one must logically ask if this hypothetical Chinese female would be a slut or this hypothetical Chinese child a bastard. NO, is my answer. If most of your women are sluts and most of your children bastards, then it means the men have lost control, and this is BAD and you should be doing something about this, if there are any moral men left in your society.

Women are indeed temptation for men, but imagine a world in which there are no temptations you could be tempted by. In that case you might as well be dead, or a Buddhist.

Love them or hate them, you can't live without them. By this I mean whether you are a man or woman and hate the opposite sex, you must know that your civilisation cannot continue without the opposite sex.

If the military without women is the exemplar of a hierarchical patriarchy, then the bee colony is the exemplar of an apparently egalitarian matriarchy.

If you asked a wise Chinese person such as myself what feminism represents, I would say it represents the eternal temptation of heterosexual men: fornication. You will not be able to find a single feminist who supports slut-shaming because the secret agenda of feminism is to empower sluts who become the mothers of bastards.

Yin and Yang came from the Ancient Chinese asserting the rather Newtonian principle that every action causes a reaction, and this represents the eternal battle of the sexes.

The sad fact is that sex must never be free for Man because, if it ever did, his civilisation would decline and fall. He must always pay for sex, and this is why the prostitute should always be treated as above the fornicating slut in any rational and well-ordered patriarchy.

There is a reason why our matriarchy have more or less criminalised prostitution: because feminist sluts want to retain their stranglehold monopoly on the supply of extramarital sex to heterosexual men. This is how the matriarchy bribes men who could become fathers of legitimate children into accepting the oppression of the matriarchy.

Marx once said religion is the opium of the people in a patriarchy.

In a matriarchy, fornication is the opium of the people.

We are a matriarchy hooked on fornication.

All it takes is any group, however barbaric, to practise the rules of marriage better than we do, and it will be the end of our civilisation.

Tuesday, 8 August 2017

Feminists fucked with Judaism, then they fucked with Christianity, and now they are fucking with Islam From 30th minute

The engineer says that truth about male/female differences can no longer be uttered, because of “our shaming culture” that feminists and Identity Politics have created. We are obliged to ignore all factual evidence, because the evidence does not support the ideology.
The engineer, so far undiscovered and not yet fired, was denounced by Google’s new vice president for Diversity, Integrity and Governance, Danielle Brown—a woman of course—for advancing “incorect assumptions about gender.” There is no known scientific evidence attesting to the incorrectness of the engineer’s exposition, and even if there were there is nothing unusual about Americans having incorrect opinions. What Danielle Brown means is that what we all know to be true is inconsistent with the feminist ideology and therefore impermissible.
The unasked and unanswered question remains. How does a culture, or merely ordinary competence, survive when propaganda is elevated over fact? 

My proposed rules for admission into the alt-right

I don't think open homosexuals should be admitted into the alt-right, actually.

My point is that nationalism cannot be practised with patriarchy, patriarchy cannot exist without social conservatism, social conservatism cannot exist without obeying the most important rule of marriage - the forbidding and punishment of extramarital sex.

Without patriarchy, masculine men will not be produced in sufficient numbers and strength to defend the national interest so we can have rationally small and good government instead of an out of control neurotic nanny state.

You can be admitted only if you go back into the closet and are not caught cottaging.

Nor can you be admitted if you are the parent of illegitimate offspring unless you have been lashed 100 times per illegitimate offspring.

You can however be admitted if you are yourself illegitimate, because it is not your fault your mother was a fornicating slut.

I hope these rules are reasonably clear.

To control women, men must first control themselves.

This means shaming sluts.

Shaming sluts means there will be fewer of them to fuck.

But this is the sacrifice men must be prepared to make if they are going to call themselves nationalists who really really really want their country back from the Feminazi Deep State practising Transnational Progressivism, Sexual Liberation, Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism.

You can have sex with your wife or with prostitutes, but not with fornicating sluts and certainly not with each other.

Remember, gay sex is cheap sex. It is probably the cheapest form of sex you can have with another adult human being. Don't be a cheapskate.

But it is not at the moment safe to marry.

It will not be safe to marry until and unless no fault divorce is abolished and equality legislation is repealed.

This means you will have to campaign for the legalisation of brothels if you want to avoid having sex from women who withdraw their consent after sex in order to accuse you of rape if they feel a bit of a stupid slut for having been pumped and dumped by an unmarriageable man who didn't even want to marry them anyway.

Livestream with Claire Khaw: Feminism and Western Decline

Islam was meant to be an improvement on Christianity the way Christianity was meant to be an improvement on Judaism for gentiles

If Judaism is for Jews only, then Islam must be the religion gentiles must have in order to accommodate Jews and Christians without subjecting them to persecution and injustice. The Koran calls Jews and Christians "People of the Book" and acknowledges Judaism and Christianity as the foundation of Islam.

The Koran recognises that insisting on belief in Christ's divinity as a tenet of Christianity does not help Christians lead a moral life, and dispenses with it, but at the same time allowing Christians to think what they want in the matter of their Trinitarian God. The only purpose of the Christian Trinitarian God is of course to make Christians feel special, different and better to Jews and Muslims. Now Christianity has weakened and is indistinguishable from Liberalism, it must be time for Christians to question the efficacy of their faith in even promoting the Biblical principles of traditional marriage, family values and patriarchy. The West is currently beating eaten alive by the degenerate and insane policies of our feminist and parasitic matriarchy that Christianity can no longer protect the West against.

The objective truth must surely be that Christianity was based on Judaism and that Islam is a synthesis of both Judaism and Christianity, but with their vulnerabilities patched.

Sunday, 6 August 2017

@MGTOWisFREEDOM deliberately misunderstands me, won't let me explain so he can rant and rave on YouTube about the treachery and stupidity of women

End of discussion

Obviously, if you want more than the required number of times, you do what is called waive the breach if both parties agree.

When will your Marriage Bureau and Brokerage be up and running?

There will be an after sales service, so to speak, if things go wrong afterwards. It would be a bit like a sharia court deciding on the divorce settlement, which will be based on fault apportioned to the parties for its breakdown. Fault always starts at 50/50.

There will of course also be a Matrimonial Disputes Tribunal which I shall also set up. These will be a bit like a marriage counselling service with the express intention of discouraging a divorce and preventing family breakdown.

Do you know many women who could be good wives then?

My message to the alt-right

I have a very simple message and if heeded would result in a much-needed correction.

I know exactly why it is not being heeded: because you think you can ignore me, not engage and not keep your word, pretending you are far too busy when all you're doing is just the same old crap anyway. You know I am right, but you think you could just ignore me and not pass the message on, simply because you can. Pride? Anger? Envy?

Fear that I might rival you as a political activist? Greed.

Dislike of my message because it would mean the end of sexual liberation? Lust.
Just can't be bothered. Sloth.

Technological incompetence? That would be sloth too.

Don't feel too bad about it though. I know exactly who you all are, and some of you I even regard as friends, even friends who are supposed to be interested in politics and who are supposed to care about what happens to your country.

I expect libtards to ignore me, of course, but it bemuses me that even the alt-right cannot bring themselves to discuss the solutions. This is what I mean when I say the culture is rotten: when even the people who complain about lies cannot bring themselves to facilitate the expression of truth, simply because they have it in their power to suppress it.

Alt-right YouTubers are afraid of losing their audience the way MPs are afraid of losing votes if they say the wrong thing or losing access to pussy if they complain about feminism too much and propose solutions that would actually work. (Now, which Coke-swigging alt-right YouTuber could I possibly have in mind? Yep, I might be a different race, but I can read your mind.)

There is yet another sin: DENIAL OF THE TRUTH, because you just don't want to be inconvenienced by the moral imperative of the correction that would take place if the message were acted on.

In any case the Global Matriarchy has indeed succeeded in its aim of turning most humans into brain dead phone-fiddling consumers who eat and shit like so many fungible pieces of walking human meat.

But you know what? I don't care. I will have done what I was supposed to do while you, well, you know what you are if you know the saying about Aristotle and pigs. is where you can ask me questions. 

Friday, 4 August 2017

Should Millennial Woes censor discussion of White Sharia on Millenniyule?

Eli Harman and I do not exactly see eye to eye on certain matters. He has even declared war on me on the subject of Islam, but he and I are agreed that White Sharia should be discussed, and I like to think I am man enough to just concentrate on the positive

Eli Harman and I are also agreed that the views of women don't matter because if the men who want patriarchy and nationalism triumph over the Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers who dare not denounce feminism because they are frightened of feminists, have no principles they care to defend and only care about filling their boots before they die, the women will just take their pussies to the men who command the resources and allow themselves to be impregnated by them, just like the lionesses of a lion's harem.

Time and energy is being wasted by hungry alt-right male YouTubers trying to please these pretty but intellectually mediocre alt-right female YouTubers.

Important topics such as White Sharia and MGTOW are being deliberately not discussed in order to protect the feelings of pretty pretty alt-right female YouTubers from getting all butthurt and ruffled.

This one here is very upset about White Sharia and wants White Men to shut up about it because discussing these subjects make them feel threatened, uncomfortable, anxious, nervous and generally "triggered".

She is complaining about the podcast below which complains about feminists.

'I think the men that counter-signal white rape gangs and white sharia, they're doing very basic beta shit. They're sitting there saying "They're so bad, they're so mean, they're so evil. I would never do that to you. Will you reward me with sex?" They're just being beta trying to be white knights and they're never going to fucking get laid doing that shit.'
I found much of this laugh out loud funny but I know many will find it wildly triggering. Be warned: obscene satirical scatological man talk. But I took it to bed for a listen before a nap and found myself chuckling periodically before dozing off.  

The vague and subjective selection criteria imposed by Millennial Woes:

+ effort/- laziness
+ good taste/- low audibility
+ intelligence/- boring
+ enjoyability/- white sharia, nihilism etc
+ politeness/- crassness, crudity etc

was clearly intended to exclude people like me and The War Room.

What would be your criteria for selection if you were Millennial Woes being Mistress of Ceremonies and Chat Show Hostess for Millenniyule?

The War Room on White Sharia

"... Feminists disguised as White Nationalists ..."
"We basically had Western European Sharia ... "

I hope these guys will be OK. I can tell they are just joking, but will alt-right female YouTubers forgive them and refrain from reporting them for their white rape gang joke, which is obviously satirical?

The enemy, as always, is within.

Muslims already recognise that the Greater Jihad is the struggle with oneself.

'I think the men that counter-signal white rape gangs and white sharia, they're doing very basic beta shit. They're sitting there saying "They're so bad, they're so mean, they're so evil. I would never do that to you. Will you reward me with sex?" They're just being beta trying to be white knights and they're never going to fucking get laid doing that shit.'

The vague and subjective selection criteria imposed by Millennial Woes:

+ effort/- laziness
+ good taste/- low audibility
+ intelligence/- boring
+ enjoyability/- white sharia, nihilism etc
+ politeness/- crassness, crudity etc

is of course directed at alt-right YouTubers who accept the logic of their position that feminism is the cock blocker of nationalism while Millennial Woes pretends feminism is now even being "dismantled" when it is in fact doubling down, upping the ante after being turbo-charged by female leaders of political parties and Western nations. 

A Woman of Destiny and a Product of the British Empire

Speaking to a British nationalist the other day, the conversation turned to our respective origins, as these discussions often do. I declared that I was a product of the British Empire, while he merely happened to be born in Britain.

I am now reflecting on what was said. Of course it was a competition for status. He was dismissively saying that my views did not matter and I could never understand the beating heart of the true Englishman with English blood running through his veins or some such bunkum.

He was saying I should be grateful for the British Empire for otherwise I wouldn't be here. He has also previously suggested that I wished Britons ill because my country had been colonised by the British, but I have never ever denounced empire. Empire is after all an objective measure of human achievement, measured by its expanse and duration. So, no, I do not wish the British ill at all, but am concerned and anxious about them and their future since I now live here and share it.

How does being a product of the British Empire give me a status above him though?

The British Empire is no longer in existence being absent-mindedly acquired and carelessly lost. I washed up on these shores as a result of wanting to examine the English at closer quarters. I could have gone to other parts of the Anglosphere, to Australia, New Zealand, Canada or America, but I chose England. I say England with particularity because I know I was not that interested in the Scots or the Welsh, though they turn out to be quite interesting and engaging in the way they have reacted to their English overlords with their ancestral hatreds.

If I have a status over this British nationalist because I was a product of the British Empire and he merely a native Briton, on what basis is this a higher status? Well, the idea of a world empire upon which the sun never sets because no Englishman can be trusted in the dark is by definition a bigger and stronger idea than being a mere native of Britain. The idea that I represent - of a fallen empire - is still bigger than that of being born here by a mere accident of birth.

I suppose the point is that I do not have to be here, but chose to be here. Having seen the trajectory that this country is currently headed, why do I remain? Why do I stay here if I do not have to be here? Because on the whole this country has become my home and I know it better than my own country of origin.

Also, the problems that afflict this country also afflicts other countries who are similarly the vassal states of America. If the Global Matriarchy is to be toppled, it must be defeated at where it is most obviously present in the form of gay marriage and where patriarchy is most notably absent, for Britain is the opposite of a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers. The Cabinet is more a coven of incompetent witches and cucked men serving sorceresses at sea than a team of senior ministers governing the country rationally and well.

I do not have to be here, but am here. I do not have to stay here but remain here. Some sense of destiny must therefore impel me, and then it dawned on me that it is always a sense of destiny that impels a people or a person to act on principle.

The principles I follow are not particularly grandiose. I wish to live in a country where I can speak the truth as I see it, using logic and moral principles to back my claims and proposals. I had thought it was this country, but this is clearly no longer the case.

It was with horror that I realised that what we are undergoing now - a 21st century process of Reformation from an irrational and degenerate matriarchy into rational patriarchy implementing good government will take about as long as the English Reformation, which was over hundred years. Even if successful, I will not live to see it.

All I can do now is to see to it that the more obvious mistakes are avoided and plan the quickest and easiest route for those who will come after me.

Thursday, 3 August 2017

It doesn't matter what women say they think they want.

White Woman @Philosophi_Cat angry about White Sharia and wants White Men to shut up about it

@Philosophi_Cat is clearly offended by Offensive White Man who said:

There is no bigger traitor in the history of the world than white women. 

Very offensive and very funny, especially about helicopter moms. 

She does not deconstruct this statement at all and goes on to introduce the new word of "counter-signalling" to us, quite unnecessarily, since we already have the word "disagree" and there is nothing clever about inventing a new word when an existing one serves the purpose perfectly well.

She says the white sharia meme is not funny. So what? Who cares what she finds funny or not funny? "It's just putting off women", she says. Putting women off what?

From being in the alt-right? Other than myself, I don't know of a single alt-right female YouTuber with a single original idea in her head. The only thing they have going for them is that they are easy on the eye. This means they will just end up distracting the men with their looks while inflicting on them the mediocrity of their thinking and the sheer banality of their views.

I cannot prove this, but it is perfectly possible that the White Sharia meme came from my idea of Secular Koranism.

I have been saying for a while now that the women should just be silent instead of competing against men and distracting them, even from the work of nationalism.

But what about me, you ask.

Am I not a woman?

I am the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman, conscious of my feminine privilege.

@Philosophi_Cat complains that offensive white men cannot make up their mind whether White Sharia is a joke or whether it is something they really really want.

She clearly fears they are not joking and might really really want it, and wants to censor debate on it. Typical female.

White Sharia represents a threat to white women, so I think we have every reason to get upset with it when it is promoting violence against us and it's really not done in a joking way.

Cut to the two offensive white men salivating at the idea of Patriarchy 2.0 without the Chivalry Edition talking about "Administrative Beatings" and "Punishment Beatings". They briefly discuss FGM and decide that on the whole it would be better if women were permitted to keep their clitorises because this would facilitate orgasm and facilitating orgasm would make women more likely to be impregnated, thereby pushing them closer to the state of being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, which is apparently the state of subjection white nationalist men dream of imposing on white women.

Nevertheless, if white feminist voters are preventing white male voters from getting their country back, then feminism is the cock blocker of nationalism and must be dealt with accordingly if you are a nationalist not easily put off when treacherous women throw their unfounded objections your way, must it not?

The subject must still be discussed, not just censored by alt-right female YouTubers, mustn't it?

When the offensive white men say that White Sharia is not Muslim Sharia but Traditional Christianity, she says there's very little that's Christian in what these offensive white men are saying, and says she doesn't think they are religious.

"Sharia is a lot more than putting women in their place," she says sternly. "It is cold cruel law governing every aspect of a person's life and it's incredibly harsh and brutal," she warns. "While Christianity did take away some of the freedoms pagan women enjoyed, it was never as controlling as Islam. Even under Christianity, European women still had to give their consent to marriage. They did have rights, and the idea that Christianity was ever as repressive as Islam is a lie that comes from feminists and Marxists to turn people away from religion. "

I have news for you, woman,

The Koran allows divorce and has a whole chapter on it.

 It was Jesus who forbade divorce.


19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

"Islam literally means submission and it has a very black history of erasing peoples and cultures that it conquers."

Really? What is this building? Can you tell me what it is, boys and girls?

Wagging her finger at us, she says: "Don't think for a second that introducing White Sharia for white people is going to save European culture. You don't save your culture by adopting an alien culture."

Actually, what passes for Western morality (which she confuses with Western "culture") is rotten through and through and can no longer be saved. However, white people and their descendants still could in theory be saved from deepening and accelerating degeneracy, especially if they admit to the grave errors of liberalism, feminism, the sex revolution, indiscriminate universal suffrage, gay marriage, pluck up the courage to tell fornicating feminists to fuck off and pass a law shaming sluts as prescribed by

 "I am not entirely sure why these people think sharia is a good idea. Are they obviously too dumb to figure out how their own culture works so they think Arabs with a double digit IQ have a better idea?"

How well is our idiocracy working?

Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century

Isn't it funny how they've introduced a foreign idea like sharia and suddenly there's discord on the right? Why sow division among your own? How retarded are these people? If we want to save our culture, we need to venerate it, not to adopt the enemy's culture. This plays right into the hands of Muslims trying to take over our country. If I were a Saudi Wahhabist, I'd be quite pleased about the subversion of the right. At best these guys are uncreative and at worst they're completely compromised by Arabs. Why not actually use a term that is actually relevant to European culture if you want to promote such ideas? Why use the language of the invaders? You may as well wave the white flag of surrender because it is going to be the only white thing left soon. These guys sound like crypto-Muslims. They're promoting female genital mutilation, which has never been part of European culture, wanting to rape women as a means of control, talking about harems. It's kind of hard to believe their line about traditional Christianity.

Actually, these offensive white men said they women should keep their clitorises in order to facilitate pregnancy.

While women have rape fantasies of being raped, men also have rape fantasies of raping women. No rational patriarchy would allow men to go round raping other men's wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, would they? Obviously not, so there is no need for women to get unduly alarmed by hordes of men in a patriarchy going around raping other men's women.

Violence against women is normalised in Africa and Arab cultures where Islam is rampant. It has never been part of European culture and is not the kind of behaviour white men should aspire to. White Sharia comes across as a cover for their misogyny and sexual aggression. For all their talk of being alpha, they have not mastered their emotions and basic urges. Sexual aggression is not an alpha behaviour. It is the behaviour of someone who is uncontrolled and impulsive. There is a lot of self contradiction in these men and I am not sure they are the kind of people who would ever be capable of saving Western civilisation and are far too busy thinking about sex and not even honest about it. How are you a real man if you are going to be coy and manipulative with your intentions just like the women you complain about, in which case are women actually that bad or are you just projecting your emotional baggage on to women as a scapegoat? I am not actually all that worried about White Sharia becoming a real thing because the majority of men won't even go for it. The only men who support women being raped or forcibly impregnated are men who aren't capable of providing a safe, secure and loving environment for women in which she would willingly want to have children. Most white men don't have the insatiable blood lust that some other races do. They don't get off on the kind of stuff these guys are on about. Most white women would be horrified by it and the thought of raping a women would be a huge turn off. A lot of men would find it emasculating to be reduced to beating up a woman just to get sex. Making two-hour long podcasts about all the ways in which you want to abuse women is really creepy. White men are better than that. It's what sets them apart from the others. If you've got mummy issues and you have bad relationships, go get some therapy for your sick revenge fantasies because you're not normal and you're not helpful. They say they only want to rape women who didn't have good fathers and that somehow by raping them they are going to correct the raising that those girls didn't have so their attempts to prey on women who had terrible childhoods and are already traumatised and abuse them further although telling themselves that they are somehow doing the right thing by her and we're supposed to believe that is alpha behaviour. I don't think so. It's just disgusting.

Audio clip of offensive white men joking about raping fatherless sluts.

In the Koranic theocracy that I envisage, immoral fatherless sluts would end up working a brothel, and they would be given the option of refusing sexual services to any man whom they didn't fancy providing sexual services for.

In the Koranic theocracy that I envisage, brothel-keeping would be legal, government-inspected and licensed.

She rants on about the White Sharia meme being as degenerate as Hollywood. She calls it "a Trojan Horse for misogynistic men to push their agenda."

They aren't nationalists. Nationalism is about love. You can't call yourself a nationalist when you have such contempt for half your race. They talk about women like we aren't also suffering because of feminism. Feminism has gone out of its way to denigrate women claiming we have to act like men in every aspect of our lives or feel ashamed of ourselves. Feminism tells us we have to meet impossible standards of self-acceptance just so it can demoralise us and humiliate us further. White women are suffering just as much as white men in this disturbing propaganda of self-hatred. Why are these guys acting like women aren't being attacked too? Why are these men merely twisting the vice from the other end to crush women completely? If this meme can't produce positives that outweigh its negatives and the people who advocate for it can't produce an argument for it other than some unnecessary emotional outburst, then it needs to be counter-signalled till it dies and the guys promoting it cannot be considered thought-leaders of any kind. After all, would you like to be ruled by a group of men who only got a wife and kids because they kidnapped and raped her or would you like to be ruled by men who have a wife and kids because they earned it?

Has Philosophi_Cat in any way dealt with any of the issues @MGTOWisFREEDOM raised? NOPE.

 From 11th minute: @MGTOWisFREEDOM: Women want traditional marriage again without forfeiting their civil rights or having to put up with patriarchy. He would let Lauren Southern make him dinner. 

From 17th minute: @MGTOWisFREEDOM to women who want to be his wife: "Forfeit all your rights, and it needs to be legally binding: no right to divorce, no right to own my property, no right to my retirement, no right to anything, no right to alimony: NOTHING. You will serve me. Me man, you woman, my cave, get the fuck out. When I say shut the fuck up, I mean it and it happens. That is traditionalism. The Lauren Southern traditionalism is a house full of appliances the man busts his ass to take care of ... "

Feminism is a subject that needs desperately to be discussed by nationalists, but it seems even the fiercest of white nationalists are too afraid of touching this subject of using Islam to subjugate feminism. The young alt-right male YouTuber prefer to go complain about Jews exploiting them and Muslims invading them rather than discuss the thorny subject of White Sharia.
Any further questions posted to me about Claire Khaw will result in blocking.

Millennial Woes has exercised a draconian act of censorship by threatening to block his followers from even asking him about my ideas, intended  to save Western civilisation.  

I suspect the Young Ones will always be reluctant to discuss White Sharia, MGTOW and feminism precisely because they want to remain sexually active with attractive and blond female alt-right YouTubers whom they dare not offend because they want to have sex with them. 

All nationalists must watch this to understand the totalitarian nature of the female mind and understand how they are all dictated to by it, whether they know it or not. The Young Ones are completely transfixed by their sexual urges and in denial about how they suppress and repress their emotions and reason to deal with their pussywhippedness.
I do hope Millennial Woes and Mark Collett will be discussing MGTOW matters on Millenniyule. If either of them have girlfriends, they will not be discussing this at all, I predict!

The Jewish Role in the Refugee Crisis

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

Prominent alt-right YouTuber Millennial Woes exercises ferocious censorship on aspiring alt-right YouTubers

The vague and subjective selection criteria imposed by Millennial Woes:

+ effort/- laziness
+ good taste/- low audibility
+ intelligence/- boring
+ enjoyability/- white sharia, nihilism etc
+ politeness/- crassness, crudity etc

One Man's Chorus:
Eli Harman. Everyone ought to subscribe to his Youtube channel. 

@MGTOWisFREEDOM's idea of White Sharia: women would have no right to own property and no right to divorce while the Koran has a chapter on divorce. The Muslim marriage contract implicitly excludes no fault divorce making marriage once again a good bargain for men who want legitimate children.

Me to One Man's Chorus
Eli does provide thoughtful content but is guilty of having already discussed White Sharia, which means he will be disqualified by MW.

One Man's Chorus
It would be a shame if this year's Millenniyule featured idiotic bimbos like Blonde in the Belly of the Beast and Dreamy Diglot rather than quality content producers like Eli. My two cents.  

Me to One Man's Chorus
Although MW said on 11 April 2017 "I'll have you on for this year's Millenniyule season", he has subsequently withdrawn this offer.  I agree with you about the bimbos who haven't an original idea in their head and can only poodle along behind the men. Both Eli and I are guilty of wanting to discuss White Sharia and have already been guilty of discussing this, so we won't be featured. How ironic that those who complain about censorship by MSM end up practising even more draconian censorship. MW has actually forbidden his followers to ask him questions about me!

At 8:45 he says "maybe if I were to listen to them I would change my tune or something but I really doubt it". I have sent him a message to see if he is maybe prepared to listen to me on this, having assured him that I am not Muslim, just an agnostic who sees the point of theocracy because it is the only way to have patriarchy without which not enough rational, masculine and principled men will be produced to defend the national interest. 

Here is my pathetic YouTube channel with only 28 subscribers and only three videos with a messed up recording of the first video I made with E Michael Jones who has certain views about Jews.

Millennial Woes says you cannot be alt-right if you are not antisemitic or racist. If you are neither, you are "alt-lite", he says. Interestingly, he won't discuss this with me. My definition of the alt-right is anyone who thinks mainstream Conservatism won't solve the problems Liberalism created. The alt-right can include ethno- and civic nationalists. You can have quite radical ideas that will attract accusations of extremism without being guilty of antisemitism, racism or Islamophobia.   

Surely no one would dream of calling me and my ideas "alt-lite"? I don't think even MW would put me in that category since he has gone to the trouble of banning even his followers from asking him questions about me. If I am alt anything, I imagine I would be "alt-extreme".

Another topic Millennial Woes won't discuss with me is whether civic nationalism can get ethno-nationalists what they want. 

Such a shame that not even the victims of censorship can themselves respect free speech.  

"Only me and my mates and people I like with ideas I like will stand a chance of being on Millenniyule so probably the pretty white women I won't feel threatened by because they haven't got a single original idea in their pretty little heads."

I am sure Millennial Woes will enjoy a cosy little fireside chat with someone who thinks it is very brave to say what the NF and the BNP have been saying about compulsory and voluntary repatriation since before they were born and, er, that's it ....

Sunday, 30 July 2017

The price of sex - Part 2

The sex instinct makes men strive to impress women, and it is through this that civilisation is advanced.

This is why it is so dangerous to your society and your nation to lower the price of sex or price it incorrectly, because men are primarily motivated by sex.

The Fall of Troy was exactly about the price of sex.

Paris, Prince of Troy, was asked to award the Golden Apple to one of these three goddesses:

1) Hera who offered him empire and wealth

2) Athena who offered him wisdom

3) Aphrodite who offered him the love of the most beautiful woman in the world

Why do men even bother to acquire the first two? To have the love of the most beautiful woman in the world, clearly.

Paris cut to the chase, didn't pass go, didn't collect £200 and went straight to pussy.

Troy fell because King Priam defended Paris's choice, but Paris was a morally-compromised slut-fucker who chose Helen, who was a slut.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

Jeffrey Marshall in conversation with Claire Khaw

Topics discussed:

  • Charlie Gard
  • Melanie Phillips
  • Scottish Widows
  • Professor Michio Hirano
  • funerals
  • brain damage
  • Crowdfunding
  • media
  • David Cameron
  • intersectionality
  • Gordon Brown
  • Millennial Woes
  • depression
  • victimhood
  • traditional values
  • alpha male
  • deep state
  • democracy 
  • conspiracy theories
  • Jews
  • scapegoat

Friday, 28 July 2017

Roger Scruton fails to denounce feminism again

Why are Conservatives derided and held in contempt? Because they are represented by dull doddery old coots like Scruton who refuses to criticise feminism and refuse to move aside for younger and bolder philosophers.

If Conservative principles are not defined, then how do people remain Conservative?

16th minute Scruton:

A market in sexual relations is the end of all social coherence.

This point was not picked up at all. How incredibly incompetent and sleepy of Peter Robinson who moved swiftly on to Brexit, who is probably gay.

23rd minute  Scruton on the indigenous working class:

In America as in Britain, the indigenous working class has been put out of mind, even overtly disparaged by the media and the political class. All attempts to give voice to their anxieties over immigration and over the impact on their lives of globalisation and the spread of liberal conceptions of sex, marriage and the family have been dismissed or silenced.
The old traditional working class no longer has that cohesion it had before and it is no longer an identifiable social mass. The liberal establishment has ceased to represent the interests of that class anyway. It represents the interests of the people who say they represented the interests of that class. It is a sell-serving ideology of people who want to appear virtuous without the cost of it. People in the media, the administration and so on who love the image of themselves as defenders of the people who recognise that when in the proximity of the people they feel nothing but repugnance.

Scruton says people are being asked to "deterritorialise" themselves by their own governments.

Peter Robinson:

The indigenous working class has no right to be upset about these liberal conceptions of sex and marriage because they are the one who have embraced them.

Scruton on the sexual morality:

This is the biggest area of temptation and a culture of resistance is needed for the protection of the working class and children who need a father at home who have lost that. Liberal propaganda has made it impossible to say these things unless you don't care what people say about you. The truth has been made unsayable by liberal censorship.

On Trump, Scruton says he won the election on the basis of things that were rightly said. One of the reasons why he was elected is for saying the unsayable. People have been living under a regime of liberal censorship which makes it very hard to say things without being accused of faults like racism, xenophobia which nobody wants to be accused of but those accusations are very easy to make because there is no criteria on which to make them other than the feelings involved."

Scruton on the cancer of our stinking Globalist Matriarchy that is destroying the middle class, the buffer class that functioning capitalist societies must have if capitalism is to survive: 

The expansion of the state to absorb more and more of civil society has happened everywhere, more outside the Anglosphere than inside the Anglosphere. You still have private education if you want it and can afford it. All that free association that made the English-speaking countries great still exist, but there is a tax on it of roughly speaking what you earn which goes to maintain a shadow community of parasites whose only justification is that the pretend to be governing. We belong to an organism that has a cancerous version of itself.

Sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society and civilisation.

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.

E Michael Jones says he would become Muslim if he thought Islam provided the solution

Thursday, 27 July 2017

My public letter to Lord Sacks

Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2017, 11:30
Subject: Questions for Rabbi Lord Sacks and a request for an interview

1) Nationalism cannot exist without patriarchy.

2) Patriarchy cannot exist without traditional marriage ie the enforcement of its most important rule: the forbidding and punishing of extramarital sex

3) Patriarchy cannot exist without theocracy ie the existence of laws that forbid and punish extramarital sex

4) Man created God for the above reasons.

5) Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

6) Matriarchy is a society that priorities the preferences of the never married single mother.

7) All advanced societies are patriarchies.

8) All primitive and declining societies are matriarchies.

9) Discovering that you live in a matriarchy is discovering that your society has terminal cancer.

10) If the problem is matriarchy, the solution must be patriarchy.

11) If the solution is patriarchy, the solution must also be theocracy.

12) If the solution is theocracy, the solution must also be Islam and an Islamic Revolution.

13) Christianity is now indistinguishable from liberalism and this must mean it is no longer fit for the purpose of maintaining morality and patriarchy.

14) Once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.

15) Islam is the most advanced version of the Abrahamic religions because it guarantees freedom of belief with

16) If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".

17) Because Christianity required its adherents to declare a belief in an absurdity as an article of faith, it was bound to fail when it became legal to deny the Trinity.

18) Because Christianity relies on a corruptible clergy to maintain morality, it was bound to fail in an environment of sexual liberation.

19) Because Islam assumes that law should conform with morality and morality conform with religion, it understands that it is the law that limits our immorality.

20) The Koran warns urges us to use reason and warns us against adhering to the religion of our ancestors just because it is the religion of our ancestors.

21) I am not Muslim but agnostic, but if it is really the case that Christianity is irreparable, hadn't we better replace it with Islam?

22) Wouldn't the Koranic prohibition against usury significantly curtail Jewish power?

23) Are gentiles in the West and their politicians more gullible and exploitable if they live in a matriarchy?

24) If Westerners lived in a one party theocracy promoting patriarchal moral values, wouldn't this mean that they and their government would not be so easily led into irrational and self-destructive policies?

I see from  that Rabbi Sacks is genuinely concerned about the degenerate morals of the formerly Christian Western political establishment.

He may remember our conversation after he gave his talk at   

Would it be possible to have answers in writing or in person or by Skype from Rabbi Sacks to these questions?

I have recently made two videos on my YouTube channel interviewing E Michael Jones which Rabbi Sacks should find of interest. I apologise for the quality of the first video at

The second video at records both our voices clearly.


Claire Khaw

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

Anne Marie Waters exposed - Atheist pro-LGBT Marxist Feminist hijacks UK...

Why not a theocracy?

Who was in charge in Eden - Adam or Eve? Eve was temptation, and Man is forever vulnerable to temptation because we are all prone to negligence and inattention. This why it is imperative that we choose our leaders, political system and laws very carefully indeed, if we are wise and wish our society to prosper.

If an omnipotent and morally perfect God exists and has taken the trouble to make laws for us, why not follow them, especially if we are afraid of an imminent Islamic invasion and takeover from those who already follow His laws?

If we adopt these laws, it is possible that we can interpret them more rationally and humanely than non-Western Muslims who have clearly misinterpreted their Holy Book, having closed the Gate of Interpretation many centuries ago.

Why not fight fire with fire?

Why not join them if you can't beat them?

What is the point of having nuclear weapons if you cannot even keep out the unarmed invader and dare not discuss the reasons why not?

Saturday, 22 July 2017

The moral imperative of theocracy

The purpose of morality is to maintain group solidarity and the existence of the group.

All the Abrahamic faiths promote patriarchal moral values which feminists wish to subvert because they want to destroy the patriarchy.

Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage, and nationalism cannot exist without patriarchy.

Nationalism cannot exist without patriarchy because a matriarchy by definition cannot produce enough strong moral men to challenge and overthrow the matriarchy. (Is Philip Davies MP alone enough to challenge and overthrow our degenerate matriarchy? Was Sir Keith Joseph and Lord Glasman? I rest my case.)

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the family.

The success of feminism is based on the success with which it bribes men with extramarital sex from immoral women.

A patriarchy is a society which prioritises the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy a society which prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers.

Feminist beliefs are based on gender equality in active defiance of Truth, Reason and Morality.

Feminism cannot be termed an alternative form of morality, and is in fact the antithesis of morality itself because its practices would lead to the disintegration of the group, nation or civilisation infected by this virus or cancer.

If what is Satanic is rebellion against God and His prescribed morality for us, then feminism can be said to be Satanic for this reason alone, because it undermines the eugenic practice of marriage through condoning the practice of dysgenic fornication that causes widespread bastardy.

You will not be able to find a single feminist who is not against the practice of slut-shaming and who does not regard fornication as a self-evident human right.

All the Abrahamic faiths treat fornication as a sexual offence. 

The purpose of religion is to maintain morality making the exercise of maintaining morality logically and necessarily a public matter. Therefore morality must by definition be a matter of state, because it can only be done through law and politics. The logic of theocracy beckons.



The people are the grass and the law the wind. When  the wind blows, the grass will bend.

Discussing whether feminism is evil with Stefan Molyneux

Should law conform to morality and if so what kind of morality should it conform to and why?