Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Taking a Stand, as a Man

Claire Khaw's Faustian Pact - to be made - with White Nationalists

And this is why most women should be disenfranchised. Is any nationalist prepared to discuss this? Probably not if he has a girlfriend or a wife. I am prepared to do this on their behalf though. I have neither a wife nor a girlfriend to upset.

Curt Doolittle
6 hrs
Someone the other day said that women never admit they're wrong, or that they've screwed up. And that's been bothering me, because I didn't realize that I subconsciously recognize that when I'm dealing with a woman, that unless she's asking me a question, she will never admit anything. And so I just don't work that hard and dismiss her.
This is not true of all women, but it's true of the kind of woman that can't exit her solipsism (emotionalism) and rationally determine the truth or falsehood of an argument independent of her feelings about it.
it must be very hard for women to manage their emotions. I can only for a millisecond a few times a year imagine what it is like to think like a woman and it terrifies me. I would feel totally out of control.

My offer to white nationalists about speaking on their behalf on feminism

Why white people are suffering an existential crisis

There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes

Why men will never get back their country again as long as democratic politicians keep chasing the female vote

In a matriarchy, older and wiser heterosexual men are lower in status to the bimbo and gay man

Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline

MGTOW IS FREEDOM is the man with the alpha male leadership qualities I find most impressive.
In the face of feminist threats to his job from his ex-wife, ex-girlfriends, ex-female friends and ex-male friends, he is doubling down and not backing down, and is instead threatening to sue the feminist bitches.
Like, subscribe and donate.

Yes, John/MGTOWisFreedom, you should get better at social media.

Wouldn't it be great if he became the next President of the United States?

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

My offer to white nationalists about speaking on their behalf on feminism

I am basically offering to speak for white nationalists to represent them in fact as a lawyer would. 

They will predictably reject my offer on grounds of sex and race. 

And I will say to them "What do you have to lose? If I crash and burn, you can always say to yourselves you knew I'd crash and burn, but if I get the publicity, then it will have paid off, wouldn't it?"

My theory is that if the problem of feminism is solved, then so will everything else. 

White nationalists just concentrating on feminism alone for now will be enough to get them what they want, eventually. 

But I have to be the one doing it. 

And I must have some sign that they are aware that I am doing it on their behalves, and want their interest and attention. 

Also, I am prepared to go to jail for stating my beliefs.

I just know white nationalists are going to be crap at making the case against feminism. I am therefore offering to do it for them.

"The average man is superior to the average woman, but the superior woman is superior to the superior man."

Confucius said this, apparently. I am claiming to be that superior woman. I am particularly well placed to make all the arguments against feminism on their behalf, without fear or favour, because I do not have a wife to upset nor will I be dismayed if feminists won't have sex with me.

This is something white nationalist men should bear in mind, when they ask themselves why they should allow me, a female and a foreigner, to make their case for them.

I am really the best placed person in the world to make the case for nationalism and give them the most publicity.

They should look upon my offer as a lawyer acting pro bono. I shall not be charging them by the hour or at all.


More and more people are increasingly coming round to the conclusion that the consequence of universal suffrage is that the female preference is always prioritised.

The adverse effects of so doing can be explained.

The only problem is that no one in the political establishment or media will be listening.

However, we must go through the motions of speaking to them as if they would listen, to build up our case.

In short, we must state the case for nationalism and why it is desirable and in the long term national interest.

And then we come to the problem of nationalism. Some people think it is racist and therefore evil.

But there are plenty of non-white people in the West who are also getting disturbed and alarmed about immigration.

Trump managed to get many non-whites to vote for him because he showed no racism. This is something to bear in mind.

In any case you need to agree to shut the door FIRST, before you can decide later who within the house you might want to throw out. We can say illegal immigrants, which is fair enough.

If you are going to say you are going to throw out non-white citizens just because they are non-white, that would be problematic.

Even if your intention is to throw out all non-white citizens ultimately, it would be politic to keep quiet about it for mow to gain their support so they can help you with the business of shutting the door. One step at a time.

The problem with Muslims is more nuanced. While there were laws forbidding the incitement of racial hatred, Muslims were in the only group people were allowed to insult until The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 forbidding Muslims from being targeted because of their religion.

Muslims are therefore resented as

1) immigrants

2) people whose beliefs and practices are incompatible with liberalism

3) people whom the West bombs as well as those most likely to commit acts of terrorism

They are most resented because in them is combined all that is hateful and fearful about the enemy alien who are increasing in number and getting stronger, while the host nation is decreasing in number and getting weaker and more fearful. Muslims are no more than the symptom of the disease of feminism. It was feminism that caused immigration, and it is the female voter's preference for social spending and indifference to immigration and foreign policy that allows the deep state to continue pulling the strings of every single US President.

I would say that our problem is a problem of democracy. It worked before, and people were reasonably happy, but it is now breaking down because democracy has allowed the left to take over after political parties have identified winning the female vote as a way of getting elected.

The female voter is always seduced by promising to have more laws that protect women from men, so we lose our liberties.

The female voter will always vote for more public spending in the way people who don't pay taxes will always vote for higher public spending.

The female preference is feminist and this means being a working mother.

The more working mothers you have the more divorced mothers you have.

Working and divorced mothers have fewer children causing a labour shortage creating a demand for immigrant labour.

Once divorced single mothers became normalised, the unmarried single mother also became normalised whose children tend not grow up into good law abiding citizens who are good employees.

If we point the finger of blame at feminism and call it out, it would attract real attention, just as long as we don't mince our words and call it Cultural Marxism or Postmodernism as Jordan Peterson does.

Most people don't know what Cultural Marxism or Postmodernism is so they won't think it affects them.

We have to call a spade a spade, and the problem that afflicts all Western nations and indeed all nations practising democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage should be called by its proper name ie FEMINISM.

We haven't even got to this stage yet.

How hard can it be for men to do that?

If this is presented as a war between men and women, then the probability of men winning it must be greater, mustn't it?

So, instead of saying racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic things and getting into trouble over it, why not just concentrate on feminism alone? Tactically, it would be more effective because it would attract more attention ie feminists who will become alarmed and angry generating more publicity.

It is just a question of tactics and presentation.

We can talk about GENDER JUSTICE and denounce gender equality as a fundamental philosophical error.

It was Aristotle who said "It is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally."

If you present the problem as feminism, then you will have in effect chosen the battlefield on which to fight on the higher moral ground.

If you want to continue complaining about Jews, you are actually allowing them to dictate the terms of debate. Ditto on racial matters and Islam.

Just concentrate on one thing at a time.

Lions don't use a scattergun approach to their hunting. They actually choose an animal that is slower and weaker than the others in the herd and keep going for it.

Sometimes, less is more.

Time for men to declare war on feminism, but Jordan Peterson calls it "postmodernism"

Monday, 29 May 2017

Why white people are suffering an existential crisis

White people feel they are fading away because they are demoralised, godless and the victims of cultural appropriation. Their culture such as it is, consists of consumerism, sexual liberation and spectator sport. Indeed, you could even say that white culture consists of indulging in as many of the the Seven Deadly Sins as possible to their fullest possible extent, and white identity consists of being unable to list them.

Clearly, something more than a culture of consumption is needed to make white people feel good, safe and special like good little children who believe in Santa eagerly awaiting Xmas. Sadly for them, white people do not even have the appearance or perception of being governed well, for they despise and distrust their politicians, readily believing that there is no evil their politicians cannot be guilty of. They have also noticed that every time they vote in a general election, their governments get worse and their politicians progressively - pun intended - more corrupt and stupid.

The penny is beginning to drop that indiscriminate universal suffrage has been a grave error and it is the female voter who is always voting for more restrictions on liberty through more laws designed to protect promiscuous women from their own folly as well as higher public spending through higher taxes to fund their parasitic existence.

The penny is beginning to drop that feminism is the cock blocker of nationalism and rationally good government.

The penny is beginning to drop that the US President - supposedly the most powerful man in the world - is not really in charge of anything at all.

The penny is beginning to drop that the US is not governed by the people, but by an anonymous and unaccountable deep state who care nothing about the long term national interest or the American people at all.

The penny is beginning to drop that nothing short of a revolution - which does not necessarily have to be violent assuming we will be allowed to have an honest debate about the issues I have raised and an honest intention to correct past errors - is necessary to change things.

The solution to living in a degenerate matriarchy is obviously to regenerate it with a patriarchy capable of maintaining patriarchal moral values.

Sadly for white people, they know they are too degenerate to even want to be cured and just want to fade away as soon and as painlessly as possible.

As Livy said, "We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies for them."

So this has happened before.

To get better, white people have to at least want to be cured, but they are all just sitting around waiting for death or wondering why they are not dead already, and I am really not sure if anything more can be done for the patient.

Even if they were to be miraculously cured, Western civilisation as we know it would end, because they would have to change their system of government from a slut-worshipping democracy practising sexual liberation to a one-party theocracy sexually repressing extramarital sex. The shock would be too great for the patient, don't you think?

Why I am a white nationalist even though I am not white

I have met Jared Taylor and tried to tell him that feminism is the disease that is causing Western malaise, but he insists on going on about the low IQ and criminality of blacks. If this is so, the reason is simple: bad single parenting by never married black mothers.

Lex Dras - a black man - says It's All Mama's Fault

East Asians are smarter than whites, Taylor acknowledges. There is a reason for this. Our mothers are not mostly Slut Single Mothers and we practice family values, just like the Jews, while the whites have turned black. I have tried to say this to him a number of times after that time I met him in London, but he never acknowledged my communications.

While watching the video I was jumping up and down shouting "Don't even go there! Why don't you say this instead? Why haven't you mentioned that?"

At the end I just wanted to bang my head against my keyboard.


Is it cos I think I am white?  No, I am actually very racially aware and also conscious that I am a product of the British Empire. What I do is treat white people as if they were my people because over the years they have been very kind to me and I never felt as if I was not part of their society. Even British nationalists have been quite accepting once they got used to me, which made me think that acceptance is all about familiarity and trust.  Because I go on and on and on about the things I go on about, nationalists feel they know my brand and by extension what they imagine me to be, even if they have never met me or disagree with me about White Sharia (which I call Secular Koranism).

It is certainly ironic that out of all the political parties I have ever joined, the only party whose members I would call friends are from the BNP.

Why do I care about white people? Over the years they have been friends and lovers and family members. Also, I live in the land of white people and out of pure self interest want them and their government to sort their shit out. While some unpleasant and uneducated white people tell me to sling my hook and go back to where I came from, the fact remains that slinging my hook and going to back where I came from would be a sign of defeat. I am a fighter, not a quitter. My instinct - which I like to think is a very alpha male instinct - is to double down and stick to my guns because I just know I am right about what's wrong with Western civilisation: feminism.

Also, it would be real feather in my cap if I were to be credited with saving Western civilisation from feminism, particularly as a female and foreigner. It is after all in the West that the matriarchy is the strongest and the rottenness of the morals of the West plain to everyone else not of the West. It is in the dragon's den that the dragon is to be found, to be slain in its lair.

Why am I not famous already?

I would have my own TV chat show now if there were any justice in the West, or at the very least my own column in a national or international publication, but there is no justice in the West, is there?

This because the whole system is rigged. The only Conservative writers allowed to derive an income from their Conservatism in Britain are weak, neurotic writers like Peter Hitchens who refuses to critcise sluts for family reasons.  Roger Scruton, the only other Conservative thinker I can think of, is elderly and probably too doddery to offend and annoy his wife (who will soon be this nurse) by challenging feminism. I know some white people are angry about Katie Hopkins being sacked from LBC for suggesting that Muslims should be gassed like Jews were in Hitler's Final Solution , but she is hardly an intellectual or a philosopher, is she?

Other formerly successful white alpha males are being picked off one by one with probably false and exaggerated claims of sexual misconduct eg Max Clifford, Rolf Harris etc.

Ironically, I am actually the ideal person to lead the fight against feminism because I have no wife to offend and really don't mind if sluts won't have sex with me.

To lead the fight against feminism effectively and with authority, I need the acknowledgement and endorsement of nationalists. Only when this is done might MSM deign to acknowledge my existence. Currently, they don't even dare to mock me for fear of giving me the oxygen of publicity, because, according to them, someone like me is not supposed to exist. Because all Western journalists are libtard, they have dispensed with their journalistic integrity to report the newsworthy - and boy am I newsworthy! - and make a point of ignoring and not reporting any story that is not in harmony with their narrow libtard worldview. In short, MSM refuse to acknowledge my existence because I do not fit in with their narrative. I was nearly in a Channel 5 hatchet job on UKIP. They filmed me for 6 hours over two days, but I still ended up on the cutting room floor.

I don't think it was because I was so boring and stupid that they couldn't include me, do you? The whole idea of the UKIP hatchet job was to show UKIP supporters as social retards and weirdos, of course. They didn't want me in their documentary precisely because I did seem nice and normal, sane and articulate, capable of making my case in easy-to-remember soundbites.  That was the real reason why I was excluded.

Elevator pitch, thy name is Claire Khaw. 

But can I really be a better white nationalist than an actual white person?

I think so. I'd damn well like to try out my ideas at a really tough interview.

The trouble with white people is that they are scared of me. I have already offered to be interrogated by a panel of libtard intellectuals but my offer has been predictably ignored.  I can't even get a single white nationalist YouTuber to have a discussion with me.

Come on, white nationalist YouTubers! I really ain't that scary. I'm so stupid I can't even do my own YouTube channel to go on about White Nationalism and other related matters like feminism, slut-shaming, religion and politics and stuff.

Why don't I just have my own YouTube channel, you ask? Because I don't know how to and it would look like crap with me just droning on about this and that, taking much much longer to make my point than if you just read what I said in a tweet. I know instinctively that it would be far better if it were a dialogue.

I have been on Stefan Molyneux twice, but I suspect he didn't know who I was.

If you want to hear me wind up some libtards, you can do so at from the 26th minute

Why haven't I managed to get any nationalist to feature me on his channel?

So far I only have Mark Collett who says yes in principle, but he is too busy at the moment. Millennial Woes said he would feature me in Millenyule, his Xmas special, so that might be something to look forward to, if WW3 has not started and Western civilisation already fallen.

If you would like me on their channels, please get in touch with both of them to tell them so, so they get their skates on. There is no time to be lost, yet these youngish men behave as if they have all the time in the world for things to sort themselves out. On the one hand Millennial Woes says there will be civil war in the next ten years, on the other he is waiting till Xmas to have me on his show ...

As for the anti-feminist Liberty Belles, they want nothing to do with me believing me to be an extremist while at the same time refusing to discuss the subject of extremism with me. One of them has said she will do it with me in her own capacity, but I bet she never gets round to it. They are very boring anyway as you can see in the video below, but it is just the principle of the thing. This is the most interesting video they have ever done, interviewing Britain's only anti-feminist MP, and even that is really really boring. The trouble with women in general is their almost irredeemable mediocrity and censoriousness. The Queen Bee of the Liberty Belles is the academic Belinda Brown who is too much of a snooty Catholic to acknowledge my existence. It is she I would really like to defeat in debate about my alleged extremism, but I know is too busy pretending I don't exist.

As for the female nationalists, I imagine they are feeling intellectually intimidated and don't want to share their limelight with me. I am after all a competitor. They all talk too fast gabbling away, in most cases only having a following because they are perceived to be young and sexy by hungry and thirsty white men, not for anything they actually say or propose. Or they say they are mixed race but don't really look non-white at all. There is not a single original thinker amongst them. I have also been saying that male nationalists should not allow themselves to be distracted through fighting each other to obtain their sexual favours, for example, and must stop treating them as if their opinions mattered.

I am of course a different kettle of fish precisely I am not young and sexy and even if I were would be wearing a niqab on my YouTube channel to stop men from being distracted by my beauty to prevent them from fighting each other to win my sexual favours.

It is of course feminism that has heralded in our shallow Cult of Youth in which your opinions only matter if you are young and sexy and cool. This is why our politicians are always trying to get libtard and vacuous pop singers to endorse their idiocies.

I have no intention of showing myself because I don't want to have to do my hair or put on makeup every time I appear wondering what people will think of me for not being as young and sexy as they would like. It will just be my voice you will hear because that is what I want people to concentrate on.

When I am famous enough and MSM want to show me in my full glory, then you shall all behold me, glorious and resplendent. But you have to work to get me there.  

How feminism has rotted Western civilisation and why it must be eradicated and replaced

Nothing is forever.

All civilisations rise and fall, and all civilisations are empires consisting of different races.

To keep a multicultural and multiracial empire you need a dominant culture and race.

That dominant race will cease to be dominant if it adopts a toxic culture. Currently, Western culture is toxic because what they think is their culture is nothing to do with religion or tradition.

Tradition is what we do to please our fathers and currently, most Western children do not have a father who shares their home or their mother's bed whose word is the last word in the home.

Western culture such as it is, consists of consumption, sexual liberation and spectator sport.

As Jesus once said, man cannot live by bread and circuses alone, or words to that effect.

Judaism is the most high-maintenance religion of all the Abrahamic faiths. It would be impossible for Judaism to continue if Jewish men could not find Jewish wives prepared to do all the cooking and entertaining required to pass on their Jewish traditions to their Jewish children who will in turn marry Jewish spouses, have Jewish children and give their parents Jewish grandchildren.

I live in England and over the years have noticed that Englishmen have lost their tradition of the Sunday lunch. This is because most of them are now wifeless and deprived of their matrimonial home and children by the rules of no fault divorce. For those who are still married, it seems they cannot find a wife prepared to cook it on Sundays, and are afraid to insist on it for fear of being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce and being deprived of their matrimonial home and children.

Muslim men in Britain seem to have no trouble finding wives who are prepared to do the cooking, although increasingly they are finding themselves being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce too.

The problem is clear, as far as I am concerned, and it is feminism.

The measure of the effectiveness of any religion is how it protects its adherents against feminism.

That is why God has always been associated with patriarchy, and that is why feminists want to destroy it with atheism, sexual liberation and the worship of Mammon. There is even a genre of writing called "chick lit" and it is all about promoting a degenerate culture of sex and shopping, worse than porn.

The eternal battle of the sexes have always centred around how the rules of marriage are observed.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies.

The purest matriarchy is a society in which marriage is not practised whose members are all illegitimate.

The purest patriarchy is a society in which all members were born of two married parents living together.

You can't think of a matriarchy because they are, with a few rare exceptions, extinct. Rome became extinct because it became a matriarchy. Troy fell because King Priam decided to protect his son Paris who was an adulterer and then ignored the warning of Cassandra who was known for speaking the truth which no one ever believed ... 

Sunday, 28 May 2017

White Sharia and the International Conference on Men's Issues in Gold Coast, Australia

Instead, the beta male victims of feminism want women to speak on their behalves and want women in their men's rights activism.


To eradicate feminism first declare war on it.

I propose abolishing no fault divorce and repealing anti-discrimination legislation as well as the shaming of the immoral and promiscuous woman, especially if she has bastard offspring.

All I have to do at the moment is propose this to the beta male victims of feminism about to have their men's issues conference in Gold Coast, Australia in June 2017 and watch them throw up their hands in horror. When they reject this proposal, I mock them mercilessly until they cry for their mum, and then I will mock their mums.

International Conference on Men's Issues in June 2017

Beta Male leader of A Voice for Men , Paul Elam, who refuses to support marriage and has blocked me on Twitter

We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of sexual or romantic relationship.

These beta male victims of feminism are not prepared to shame sluts and refuse to discuss the subject at all. This is because they are overwhelminlgy MCSFs.

White Nationalist discusses White Sharia

Roosh on the female vote and the Manchester suicide bomber

Ann Coulter: my favourite White Nationalist, saying she is prepared to give up her right to vote to save White America

British nationalists discuss white sharia, but with clear reservations about its implications. I am sure I can help them iron out any difficulties and misconceptions. From the 15th minute

It would get the message through that nobody cares about the beta male victims of feminism except their mums and their mums should be ashamed of themselves for having sons who are losers.

Paul Elam and Mike Buchanan have blocked me on Twitter. They know exactly what I think of him and the other pathetic contemptible beta male losers who want women at their conference because they want their mummy or women who look like their mummy to be there to hold their hand. 

White nationalists are finally getting it that feminism is the cock blocker of nationalism.

White Sharia (which must have come from my idea of Secular Koranism which I conceived of to help British people with mental health problems) is now being discussed by nationalist YouTubers.

Friday, 26 May 2017

Claire Khaw to replace Katie Hopkins at LBC?

Would you like Claire Khaw to take Katie Hopkins' place? 

  1. Why?
  2. Why not?
  3. I am not racist.
  4. I am not xenophobic.
  5. I am not an Islamoophobe
  6. I have the greatest respect for the Chosen People, especially Orthodox Jews. I am afraid I don't think much of Liberal and Reform Jews. The Jews I most admire are the Neturei Karta. 
  7. I am a civic nationalist with a wide range of ideas to solve the longstanding problems of the British people that are admittedly radical and controversial.
  8. I am job-hunting. 
  9. It is only right that I should be paid for my invaluable service to the British people.  
  10. I am enormously (perhaps dangerously) entertaining and the only reason why LBC might not wish to hire me is because they fear that their listeners might be in danger of being overstimulated.
I cannot find the LBC email, but those of  you wish to enjoy The Claire Khaw Show on LBC should consider printing this post and sending it to LBC with your name and address at

LBC Radio Ltd
30 Leicester Square

Is ritualising our grief after terrorist attacks with a minute's silence and candle-lit vigils a good thing?

The tragic events in Manchester have led to a flurry of public displays of grief. The tragedy was marked at the Europa League final last night - while buildings across the world have been lit up in British colours in solidarity. Author Anthony Clavane wrote A Yorkshire Tragedy and Susie Orbach is a psychotherapist.  From 2:52

John Humphrys:

There have been many public expressions of grief and sympathy after Manchester in this country and indeed other countries. Is there an argument that says it is perhaps a bit too easy? Have we ritualised grief? Let's talk about that to Anthony Clavane and to Susie Orbach. Susie Orbach, let's be quite clear that we are not talking about what Mrs Campbell did last night when she spoke at that vigil. She is a bereaved mother and speaks with huge power and authority and clearly we respect that, but it is somewhat different, isn't it, from when groups of people get together and want to show their grief though they have no connection, no direct connection with those who have been bereaved? 

Susie Orbach [gabbling incoherently]:

Is it? Wasn't she speaking to people who she didn't know as well as people she did know? Wasn't it a part of being, I mean, human beings are a social species and we want to do things together, we want to memorialise or pay respect or recognise difficulties, we need to do it publicly, but we need to do it privately, it's not one or the other.

John Humphrys [mysteriously]:

No, I was thinking really in terms of the bravery she showed in doing what she did.

Susie Orbach [irrelevantly]:

Yes, that's what she needed to do herself, but it will be a long journey, one assumes, for any of the families, or any of the people who knew any of the families and for the city of Manchester to grieve and to take on what's happened. That's so manifestly obvious I am not sure it needs saying. 

John Humphrys [irrelevantly]:

I am wondering about the notion of collective grief.

Susie Orbach [nonsensically];

Well, it a collective grief or a collective coming together? I think nobody grieves in exactly the same way because nobody has the same relationship or identification or imagination about what it is, so we are smooshing something together that isn't accurate. This is a collective coming together to express - it could be outrage, it could be grief, it could be support, it could be about being a nation, it could be about being a city. We need to look at it much more broadly so that we don't reduce it to one thing for everybody. 

John Humphrys:

Anthony Clavane, you're a football writer, you've written a book dealing with how football has helped people cope with tragedies in Hillsborough and Bradford of course. What's your experience of this? I use the expression of collective grief, what's your expression for what goes on on these occasions?

Anthony Clavane:

Yes, well, John, in an era when the link between football teams and their towns seems to be forgotten over a hermetically sealed world and the team is disconnected from its fan base, I think this is an excellent opportunity to show, you know, the connection between the grieving town and the team that is supposed to represent it - the strength, the spirit, the solidarity of Manchester was expressed in Stockholm last night in front of 50,000 people in the stadium but also around the world and Manchester United is often seen as a global brand - whether that's a good or a bad thing that we can discuss, but obviously grief is global and I think it is important for the grieving families in Manchester that last night this happened and that football can act as a healing thing, I mean, it is often divisive, we know that, it is tribalistic, but on these occasions, it performs a very special role and rises above the horror, it says "We won't be broken by terror, we will overcome."

John Humphrys:

So it is a showing not rivalry, but the exact opposite: solidarity?

Anthony Clavane:

Absolutely, but my only concern is that we show solidarity in a consistent way because very often like in the Ankara terror attacks in 2015 and 2016 the footballing authority UEFA said there shouldn't be a minute of silence before the game at Euro 2016 and I just think that these public mourning rituals as Susie has written very important articles about this over the years - these are important, but we should be consistent about this and I think we should see sport as a way of helping to overcome grief but at the same time I am a little wary of it becoming ritualistic. I've been going to football matches for 20 years, you know, as a reporter. Sometimes what happens is we crunch tragedies together. You know, you put three or four different causes parcelled up together in the same minute's silence and then people who go to matches have their half time cup of tea or their pre-match entertainment and have their minute's silence and therefore the absolute horror of what has just happened is diminished because it happens too often and it is ritualised.

John Humphrys:

Susie Orbach, just a sentence about that, if you would. Ritualistic?

Susie Orbach [nonsensically again]:

Could be, but I think in this case what you're seeing is spontaneous responses and that's very profound. 

The question that I would have asked if I had been interviewing Anthony Clavane and Susie Orbach:

Should the minute's silence at football matches be standardised and ritualised?

How John Humphrys should have framed the question:

Is the ritualising of grief by having a minute's silence and the holding of candle lit vigils a good thing?

How I would have answered the question if the Today Programme had asked me

That was the long answer.

My short answer would have been:

The purpose of ritual is to commemorate an important event or propagate an idea that is necessary to our identity, survival and health as a tribe or nation. This is why so much of religion is about conducting rituals. To weep and wail when we become victims of the terrorism our government provoked because our politicians do exactly what the Americans tell us to do does not fall into this category. This means we should not be having this ritual and should instead ask our government what's in it for us every time we do whatever the Americans tell us to do and bomb whoever they tell us to bomb just because we are members of NATO.

Vote Labour.

An asinine suggestion I received on Facebook

This was what I just received:

"At 6pm UK time tonight, let Facebook fall silent for 22 minutes. No posts, no status updates, no uploads. Just still and silent for the 22 victims lost."

All this wailing and ritual mourning only encourages our enemies. Do ISIS have minutes and days of mourning when they get killed? Of course not. They just carry on plotting the fall of the West. It seems our matriarchy prefers to give ISIS the pleasure of watching Western women wailing and Western men and politicians politicians deferring to them. We really are nauseatingly weak and stupid. It is not just them killing us and our children that gives them satisfaction, it is the effeminate way in which we respond that reinforces our stupidity and helplessness and the perception that we are indeed stupid and helpless, encouraging our enemies all the more.

We are like those coins arranged in a way that is about to fall in those amusement arcades in seaside towns, and ISIS are those who are impelled to put in more coins, in the hope of causing a cascade of coins. How much longer can we last, when we are so stupid and weak, with our weak and stupid government that always always prioritises the female preference to win votes?

Yesterday there was a discussion on The Today Programme about ritualised mourning with John Humphrys interviewing Anthony Lavane and Susie Orbach. There was just a hint that such displays did nothing for the national spirit or our national standing. I know exactly what my mother thinks about these ritualistic displays of grief and about Westerners and Western foreign policy when she is in Europe on holiday inconvenienced by yet another Day of Mourning. I shall not repeat them here.

Do listen to it and try to discover who makes the most sense: the man Clavane or the woman Orbach. Listen from 8:52 a part of which is transcribed at If you listen carefully you will discern from this exchange that it is the man Clavane who wants the ritual of grief to be standardised, while the woman Orbach says it should be whatever people spontaneously feel at the time, or words to that effect, illustrating again the capriciousness of women and their collective determination not to be bound by any rule or any principle.

What I know is that these rituals are hated by men because they are displays of grief, defeat and weakness. But what does our stinking degenerate matriarchy care about the male preference?

The preference of the stupid female who cares nothing about neocon foreign policy is the Queen of Liberal Democracy. It only makes us hate ourselves more for having such an incompetent government whose policies are enough to propitiate the stupidest of foreign policy ignorant, sentimental truth-denying voters. It will certainly radicalise more young men (and not all of them will be Muslims either), filled with self-loathing and disgust at their platitudinous matriarchy.

I like to think Labour will do better than expected because Corbyn has finally decided to point out the link between Muslim terrorism and the British government unquestioningly doing whatever the Americans tell them to do ie invade Iraq, invade Afghanistan, topple Gaddafi and Assad, and stand by for further orders.

Time to make the connection between the cause of neocon Western foreign policy and the effect of Muslim terrorism in the West.

Nothing is really obvious until it is pointed out again and again and again, is it, especially to voters with the memory of a goldfish coupled with the ignorance of pigs.

So well done, Jeremy Corbyn, for arriving at this corker of a campaigning message. You may get me to vote Labour yet.

Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy

Thursday, 25 May 2017

Infantilised Beta Male Victims of Feminism (BMVOF) not doing it for themselves

Cassie Jaye asks these Beta Male Victims of Feminism to close their eyes like little children, and they do, willingly infantilising themselves to please her, giggling at all her weak jokes while she reads her speech. Nuff said. 

What would a Real Man - now extinct in the Western world - have done?

He would have put her in her place by asking her why she was talking to them like children.

So, this is the woman whose hand the beta male victims of feminism are eagerly and hungrily eating out of: Cassie Jaye - saviouress of white men - who made The Red Pill. How nauseating to watch grown men abase themselves before her because they think she is so sexy, pretty and young and reminds them of Mary Poppins. They are so grateful to her for condescending to help them and for making so many sacrifices on their behalves.

Look at these pathetic beta male victims of feminism laughing at her every joke and hanging on to her every word, ready to lick her feet like the pathetic self-abnegating dogs they are, hiding under her skirts and enjoying being exactly where they are.

While Muslim terrorists go on suicide missions, beta male victims of feminism in the West are too afraid to challenge feminism as men and men alone.

Men against feminism should tell women against feminism their views don't and won't matter because they can defeat the matriarchy without their support. but if they can't they deserve to lose

Make no mistake, the beta male victims of feminism in the West are so cucked they dare not complain and challenge feminism on their own, but rely on women like Erin Pizzey and Cassie Jaye to be their protectoresses.

Even now these men without masculine pride refuse to take my advice to refuse all the help of these women who condescend to help them, and doing it for themselves WITHOUT ANY WOMEN AT ALL IN THEIR MOVEMENT. Only when these men kick out all the women from MRA and say they will do it for themselves will they get some respect, but this concept is all but incomprehensible to them.

These BMVOF appear to think they can find for themselves in men's rights activism a woman just for them who wants some sort of talking pet prepared to perform the occasional sexual service and take out the rubbish when asked to do so, grateful for a roof over his head and food his belly as well as a special place for him in her bed.

It would appear that women in men's rights activism do so to enjoy being in a position to pity men and thereby elevate their own status in relation to men in general and perhaps over their own husbands. "Look at me helping men!" they might say to their husbands.  "This is my charity work, look at me virtue signal at the expense of your sex. Aren't I clever and virtuous compared to you and your sex? Aren't you and your sex weak, pathetic and pitiable? You better do as I say then."

There is probably a reason why Western women are clamouring for their governments to admit more Muslim migrants. They would rather copulate with migrants who are at least real men prepared to strive and take what they want, than be forced to mate with these milquetoast beta male victims of feminism who do not even have any masculinity to insult.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Civic nationalism is enough to get ethno-nationalists what they want: a dominant culture

Judaism is ethno-nationalist because Jews regards themselves as a tribe. If your mother is a Jewess, then you are a racially Jew whether or not you practice Judaism. If you want to convert to Orthodox Judaism, you need to be sponsored by one of their number to be shown how to cook, live and worship as a member of that community which goes beyond just going to the synagogue on Saturdays.

Islam is civic nationalist because it has a much lower entry threshold, requiring only a declaration of belief ie "There is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet" to become Muslim.

Millennial Woes is confusing white people with the nation. Supposing white people died of some mysterious and fatal disease that only affected white people. Britain as a nation would still exist, but it would be a nation of non-white people. You may well think that only white people represent the nation, but I have demonstrated by positing this hypothetical situation that this is not necessarily so since Britain would continue to be populated in the event that all white people disappeared for some reason. The non-white peoples would just move into the vacuum in the same way that the original Britons who got swamped by the other white peoples who invaded Britain moved to Cornwall and Wales - yes, those white people who have always been here for practical purposes but who really really hate the English.

It is absolutely imperative that there is a dominant culture, however, to give the nation its distinctive identity. This dominant culture must not be perceived to be degenerate by the newcomers, because that would make them reject and despise it.

You will find that all empires are civic nationalist proclaiming that all citizens have equal rights and are not to be discriminated on grounds of caste, race etc because it is a polite fiction that causes least resentment and obtains the most national unity. It is up to the dominant race and the dominant culture to perpetuate itself and maintain its dominance. I say this is a civic nationalist who is not white but does not wish to see the white race dominated by any other race. The dominant culture is not what it ought to be, and this is a matter for the dominant race to sort out, if it wishes to preserve its dominance.

As Andrew Breiitbart said, "Politics is downstream from culture."

If this is so, culture is downstream from law.

If this is so, law is downstream from morality.

If this is so, morality is downstream from religion.

Christianity has failed.

Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?

This is a no-brainer of a question, especially so if Ideology B already contains this principle that Ideology A has given up in order to fight it.

Was freedom of worship a principle that originated from the Koran or from the Bible? In the Koran it this verse at

Can you find any reference in the Bible at all to the principle of freedom of worship?

The First Amendment was derived from the Koran

This is post is addressed to Islamophobes who want to ban Islam and want to close down all mosques in Europe and who probably want to intern and expel all Muslims until the problem of Muslim terrorism is solved.

That suicide bombing in Manchester yesterday probably wasn't planned in a mosque, I don't think.

Do you think the government has the political will to intern and then expel them as you are clearly hoping will happen?

This a problem for all NATO countries. Leaving NATO would be a revolutionary act and once European countries start leaving NATO, the incidence of Muslim terrorism would abate, since NATO military aggression is directed at Muslim countries provoking Muslim terrorism.

For some curious reason, Islamphobes of the West cannot bring themselves to believe that Western foreign policy towards Muslim countries is in any way defective.

Over the years I have tried to point out again and again that all terrorism throughout the ages is provoked by bad government policy, without exception, but no one seems able to engage on this point substantively or at all.

It is ironic that while Muslims believe in the existence of an omnipotent and morally perfect Abrahamic God that Jews and Christians are also supposed to believe in, Western atheists apparently believe that Western foreign policy is perfect and in no way defective, even as they have been complaining about the stupidity and corruption of their own politicians and governments for decades, if not centuries.

Which belief is more absurd?

a) the belief that an omnipotent and morally perfect God exists

b) the belief that Western foreign policy towards Muslim countries is morally perfect and no Muslim anywhere in the world could possibly have a valid grievance against its practitioners and supporters or wish to harm a single hair on their head

Make no mistake, the sclerotic and demented leaders of European governments are about as likely to summon up the political will to intern and expel Muslims as they are likely to consider leaving NATO.

If Britain left NATO, would the Americans start bombing Britain? If they did, that really would be the end of NATO. Worth the risk and sacrifice for this demonstration of naked American imperialism, I would suggest.

Once NATO goes, the EU would go. Once European countries are free from the shackles of NATO and the EU, the European peoples would get their countries back from the globalists and Muslims. There is work to be done however: words to be said and positions taken.

None of our contemptible and spineless politicians show any signs of doing so, not even those who oppose the mainstream political parties whose leaders unofficially but slavishly follow whatever orders the American give us, because they are all in the pocket of the Military Industrial Security Complex.

Who will be first to start the race?

Which European nation will be the first to leave NATO and which the last?

Will Britain win for both races to leave the EU and NATO?

I like to think so.

Which would you choose: for you and your children to be murdered for religious or political reasons?

Which would you choose: for you and your children to be murdered for religious or political reasons?

I have always said it was a distinction without a difference.

The only reason we should consider is which is more effective, but they are the same.

The enemies of feminism and liberal democracy are perceived to be Islam. The former represents the matriarchy and the latter the patriarchy.

Does it matter to your victims if you kill them for political or religious reasons?

Does it matter that your victims take revenge on you for political or religious reasons, by murdering you and your children?

If it does, what is the difference between being murdered for political reasons and being murdered for religious reasons, in practice and in theory?

If God is an instrument of government, isn't He more effective for this purpose than effeminate liberalism and immoral feminism, ignorant and indifferent to economic and foreign policy, interested only in choosing which bribe to accept at General Elections, eager to believe that it is both possible to have higher government spending and lower taxes and that uncontrolled immigration is good for the economy and should long continue?

The Iranians in their one party theocracy at least had a choice in the kind of foreign policy their country pursues and whether they wanted the hardline Raisi or the moderate Rouhani to pursue it. The Iranians had a more meaningful choice in their elections than the West. In the West, no voter ever votes on foreign policy. If you even ask your MP about this, you are treated as an oddball, or even an extremist who may possibly be a terrorist, probably.

Let us face facts: we are a declining and degenerate matriarchy and we distrust and despise our leaders. There is no evil we would not suspect them of committing. The most surprising thing about the Manchester attack was not that it happened, but the people who cynically observed that Theresa May would benefit from it and win the General Election by more of a margin because of it.

The Ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is now in play. In its Newtonian way it states that for every action there will be a reaction. We and the terrorists who want to kill us and our children are now reacting against the stinking matriarchy we now find ourselves in, wondering which way to head for the shortest way out of the swamp.

The so-called enemies of the West have rational and principled men leading their countries while the West has only incompetent female leaders and a US President the deep state wants to topple and whose wife slaps away his hand when he reaches out for it in public.

The most notable thing about the Muslim terrorists is that they are adhering to their religious principles by terrorising us until they get what they want from us. Do we have any religious or political principle for invading and destroying Muslim countries in the way the US military industrial complex deep state wants us to keep doing? The nearest thing we have is that of the neocon goal of full spectrum global dominance that it does not appear Western voters are even aware of. Presumably, this goal is hidden away from the infantilised and feminised voters of NATO member states who don't like thinking of themselves as ruthless imperialists with blood-soaked hands.

Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep

Yin and Yang and Newton's Third Law

Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War

Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?

When the G7 heads of state arrive in Taormina, Sicily, for the G7 meeting on May 26, they will find themselves in an embellished, picture-postcard version of European reality. Italy, the host of the G7 meeting, has announced that it will close all harbors on the island to ships that arrive with migrants ( mainly from Libya) for the duration of the two-day meeting. The reason for the closure of the Italian island to migrants is to protect the G7 meeting from potential terrorist attacks. According to Italian reports, "the Department of Public Safety believes that the boats with illegal immigrants could be hiding an Islamist threat".
G7 meetings are, of course, always subject to a host of high-level security measures. However, shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy. Literally altering reality in order to present a whitewashed picture of the influx of migrants into Europe, which happens largely through Italy, is a Potemkin measure, regardless of terror risks. Heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Italy seeks to protect from a terrorist risk, seem not to care particularly about the very real terrorist risks that European citizens are forced to live with daily thanks to the migrant policies of these heads of state.

A meme I found on Facebook

Another meme I found on Facebook