Wednesday, 7 March 2018

Nick Griffin's advice to white men: go to the same school and university he did, marry as he did, become Catholic and worship virgin mothers, and all will be well again! has a discussion on this.


IBB said...

This little cuckboy has no clue. His talk is a litany of lies and myths about marriage, relationship dynamics, female psychology, male psychology, Islamic law and practice regarding gender and marriage, Marxism, European historical tradition, and about the motives and behavior of his fellow far right men.

This weak little boy has no business being a "far right" leader as all his views are gynocentric cuckservative White Knight fairy tales.

It would literally take a book to explain all the myths he peddles. Not worth the time it would take, as he is an irrelevant nobody pretending to be some sort of "leader" without a significant following

IBB said...

In most elections, he has won between 1% to 7% of the vote. In his most successful runs of all time, he got:

(2005 UK General Election, Keighley Parliament constituency)

(2010 UK General Election, Banking Parliament constituency)

(2001 UK General Election, Oldham West and Royton Parliament constituency)

His crowning achievement was the 2009 European Parliament Election, in which his party ran to represent North West England and won

(943,598 votes)

They got two seats, of which he got one.

So he never even managed to get 1 million votes at any time, and soon after, he was expelled by his party for "deliberately fabricating a crisis" and leaking "damaging and defamatory allegations" according to BNP party members.

This is very small time stuff. Compare his BNP to other far right parties, such as:

The Alternative for Germany Party who won 25% of the vote in the 2016 election, second only to Merkel's Party, and hold 92 seats in the Budestag, and 158 seats in local State Parliaments.

Or Marine Le Pen's National Front in France. They hold 17 seats in the European Parliament, 7 Seats in the French National Assembly, and 2 seats in the Senate. They got 10 million votes (33%) in the last Presidential Election.

Globally, this Nick Griffin is an irrelevant footnote. In the UK, he is a small-time curiosity.

IZ said...

No point making European comparisons. You need to compare the BNP's record with similar parties in the UK.

IBB said...

I don't need to do anything. The little gerbil is addressing the world in his essay, not just England. He mentions the USA, Russia, Serbia, Poland and Britain. He is arguing against American proponents of White Sharia and claims it is wrong for Britain, Europe, and Russia.

If he wants to persuade the world, he needs to think outside his comfy little English middle class filter bubble.

I call him a gerbil not only because he looks like a small, round, and silly gerbil, but because his ideas are small-minded, cowardly, and ignorant, and because he failed to get even a million to back his ideas, despite his boasts that he understans how the public thinks and how to gain a mainstream following.

He is presented on the page as "Britain’s most successful ever ‘far-right’ leader" in the linked page. That's not saying much. By the standards of Western Liberals, "far right" nationalist leaders include Xi of China (who is arresting feminists, suppressing the #MeToo movement, rolling back feminist divorce law, and moving Chinese culture back to traditional patriarchal Confucianism), Trump of the USA (who has been compromised by the Deep State, but is still rolling back some feminist and nutso-liberal policies), Putin of Russia (who is bringing back Orthodox Christianity and having feminist agitators whipped and jailed and rolling back multiculturalism and the transgender/pedophile agenda), Duterte of the Philippines, and other national-level leaders of huge countries who win majoriies of the vote in nations numbering hundreds of millions. These other anti-multicultural nationalist leaders are giants compared to this little Griffin. Why should anyone pay attention to him, especially if he gets so many basic things wrong?

He does not understand:

▶The move to the right, to nationalism, to conservative social values, away from Liberalism, away from globalism, away from weird sex/gender norms, away from feminism, away from multiculturalism is GLOBAL, and not just Western. His biggest potential foreign allies are ouside of Britain and outside of Western Europe. He wants to push away potential American supporters.

▶MGTOW is a spontaneous phenomenon. A grass roots reaction by men to laws and social mores which punish men. It's the same thing that happened in the Roman Empire--men would not marry because marriage became a bad deal for men. It's not an elite-sponsored cult like feminism.

▶Feminism itself has been harmful from its very beginnings. It's not just the latest wave that's bad. He seems to endorse most feminist ideas, such as "no slut shaming"

▶female psychology (what motivates women's behavior)

▶male psychology (the difference between an alpha and beta male, the experiemce of the average man)

▶Marriage laws and relationship dynamics. (What behavior makes a marriage last. How marriage and gender laws affect marriage.)

▶Basic economics (why "slut" single mothers are the biggest net drain on the economy, and women in general have become a drain on the economy under current welfare state laws--only a minority of women are a net positive these days)

IBB said...

I get the Impression his whole schtick is hate for Jews and brown people. He has a White Knight of the KKK mentality--elevate white women on a pedestal, and if a brown man or a Jew shows any interest in a white woman, he wants to ride in on his white horse and rescue the white damsel in distress. What if the white woman then "thanks" him by spending all his money. sleeping around with all his taller, better looking friends, then divorcing him after he runs out of money to spend, taking their kids, and landing him in jail with false accusations? Or worse, gets rid of him by putting poison in his drink? I guess in his mind, that's OK, because women are bad only towards men who deserve it. He can't imagine a white woman behaving badly on her owm, without provocation from a man. He sees white women as pure as snow.

"White Sharia" is an intentionally provocative name for brining back the sex and marriage laws of Europe from before 1800. Why is going back to conservative European tradition so "bad" to a supposedly far-right-wing conservative? Why does he want to keep the geneder laws imposed on us by modern liberal feminists? Either because he doesn't know what he's talking about, or because he is "far right" only on race/immigration/nationalism, and a modern liberal on other issues.

IZ said...

Pre-1800 sounds too big a cultural leap. In the realm of practical politics there isn't much point in advocating a return to the morals of a pre-industrial age. The 1950s would do well enough.

IBB said...

The 1950's were unnatural, and were not as good as people think. They were too sanitized, homogenized, and boring. There's a reason 1950's saccharine "vanilla" culture inspired mass rebellion.

The natural state of people is to live in small groups of a few hundred nomadic hunter-gatherers or farmers in a village. The extended family is as important as the nuclear family: grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins living close by and helping with raising children, household crises, and so on.

By the 1950's most people in the Anglosphere were already living in urban or suburban environments, isolated from each other and from extended family in apartments and randomly scattertex suburban houses. Some people still lived in small towns and villages like in the 1700's but those were already a minority by the 50's.

I think to truly solve our social problems we will have to redesign cities and suburbs more along local mini-communities, even in cities. Build houses and apartment buildings in clusters centered on some kind of community park/courtyard/social/entertainment hall or center. Arrange it so peopke naturally wind up interacting with neighbors and create incentives to encourage extended families to live close to each other in a naturally interconnected local community.

In the 1950's the sexual promiscuity revolution was already quietly underway, and divorce rates were much higher than historic norms.

IBB said...

The divorce upward trends started slowly in the late 1800's, rose a little faster in the 1900's, made the first big jump in the 1940's (WW2 and countless millions of men drafted and sent overseas for years) and made a bigger jump in the late 1960's and 1970's (after the launch of 2nd wave feminism)

The three sexual promiscuity revolutions happened

1) Late 1910's & 1920's
(WW1 took millions of men far from home for years, then the first "flapper" wave of female sexual liberation in the 1920's)

2) 1940's
(tens of millions of men sent overseas for years during WW2, and a few million women entered the workforce to make up for missing men and got used to the single working woman lifestyle)

3) 1960's-1970's
(The Free Love Hippie Movement, Flower Children, and 2nd Wave Women's Liberation and the most famous Sexu

Claire Khaw said...

The "mainstream" alt-right are all in denial. How can you produce the next generation and maintain the quality of the national or racial gene pool? By making sure only the marriageable get to marry and by making the laws of the land support the practice of marriage. The purpose of marriage is of course the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions. There is no other purpose to marriage, really.

What I find so utterly despicable is the lies the white working classes are being told by both the government and those who say they are anti-immigration who pretend to care about them. Women will go to the men who control the resources and shun the ones who don't. It was always ever thus.

If you want to protect your civilisation and culture you need to religion as a protective cover. The very least your religion should be doing is support marriage. Christianity no longer supports marriage and that is why we are where we are. Nick Griffin appears to be saying Catholicism is the answer, but it is only because he has seen some form of resistance to immigration in Catholic countries like Hungary and Poland. That ain't gonna last because we know the Pope is liberal and most Catholic clergy are gay. Even if we had a Christian dictator who could compel church attendance on Sundays, the morals of the people would not improve without laws punishing undesirable behaviour and rewarding desirable behaviour. And if you could change laws to support marriage, why bother forcing people into church on Sundays? The only laws that would support marriage would be laws outlawing marriage substitutes ie extramarital sex eg fornication, adultery, sodomy, incest, bestiality as well as the abolition of no fault divorce. Nick Griffin says not a word about these matters because he already knows that white nationalists as a whole have no hope of marrying because they are mostly unmarriageable.

To control their women, men must first control themselves. To control themselves, they must first support slut-shaming.

But to support slut-shaming would be to raise the cost of sex for men.

You will find that even the most racist racist cannot bring himself to make this sacrifice either for his race or nation, so egregiously low are moral standards now.

So we come back to the question of religion, whose purpose is to impose and raise the moral standards of its adherents.

I have a utilitarian approach to religion because I treat it as a boiler. When it breaks down irreparably, you must replace it, or you will have no hot water or central heating. If you keep the broken one hanging around, you won't have room for the new one and you are wasting time and space.

Countries have been known to change their religion for political reasons thereby improving their fortunes.

IBB said...

Exactly. To keep European populations from shrinking, as they are now in many European countries, they must bring back traditional marriage laws, customs, and culture. To be attracted to a man, and to stay happily married to him, the average woman must be able to look up to him with a bit of awe.

Keeping modern feminist laws and culture of "equality"(in slogans) and female superiority (in practice) causes women to look at most men with contempt, and makes them WANT to divorce them or cheat on them with the few men left who have some prestige, money, and power. It's not a conscious choice. Emascualting men, taking their money away through taxes then giving the money to women for free, giving women the power to jail men on a whim, or legally rob them on a whim through no-fault divorce makes it difficult even for good women to respect most men.

These laws have the same effect on women as the new feminist trend to get "prophylactic" double mastectomies and ovariectomies at a young age (e.g. Angelina Jolie) has on men. It kills attraction and desire. Agelina Jolie's husbamd divorced her soon after she defeminized herself by cutting off her tits, cutting out her ovaries, and starving herself into a matchstick. With no feminine physical assets left, her man lost his desire to stay with her and left her.

She cut her tits off in 2013, cut her ovaries out in 2015, and dieted down to 79 pounds. By the end of 2016 they separated.

Why would a Hollywood Hunk stay faithful to a woman with no tits, no ovaries, and a bony Auschwitz ass, no matter how pretty her face is? Of course he started cheating on her. It's hard for a heterosexual man to get an erection with a bony, flat-chested woman who looks like a skinny prepubescent boy. Likewise, women have trouble getting wet for a man who is powerless, wealthless, and submissively respectful to her all the time.

IBB said...

White Sharia proposes letting men keep the money and power they earn, and to weild it over their women, as was done for thousands of years of civilized history. No more artificially elevatimg women on a legal/financial pedestal above men. No more forcing men to fund female supremacy with their taxes. No more police and courts favoring the woman over the man in any legal dispute. Let men be men, and the women will follow.

Nick Griffin wants to keep elevating women on pedestals above men:

"Women are the great weapon in a demographic war. A good weapon needs to be looked after. If it’s an assault rifle it must be cleaned, kept safe, and become an extension of the soldier. Women, mothers, must also be treated with reverence. They should not be mocked, but put on a pedestal."
--Nick Griffin

But a good assault rifle works every time the soldier pulls the trigger. It does not get moody and say "I'm not in the mood right now"

Imagine a future army with sophisticated weapons equipped with Artificial Intelligence which disagree all the time with the soldiers? With "robot rights" and a capricious character? Weapons which routinely threaten the soldiers with calling the police to report the soldiers for "martial abuse" and have to be bribed and cajoled to work as needed? Such an army would lose to a primitive enemy armed with simple weapons which work every time they are needed.

Nick Griffin is also against slut shaming:

"Which means that women are not ‘sluts’ or ‘thots’ to be despised, but the only totally indispensable factor in securing a future for our people. Mothers are more important than everything else put together, and they need to be recognised and honoured as such."

Right, so what about the single mother on welfare with 3 kids from 3 different absent fathers? We have to respect her just because she is white? What about her kids and their future prospects in life as a result of her decisions? The rest of society must clean up her mess with no complaints?

IZ said...

I think you're missing the point of Griffin's 'pedestal' remark. He's not suggesting women should be worshipped however badly they behave but afforded respect insofar as they properly fulfil their traditional roles as wives and mothers. He's well aware that white people can behave badly. Whiteness is not an end in itself.

IBB said...

I think you're missing the point. Putting a woman on a pedestal is putting her above the man--if both the man and the woman behave properly, the default assumption is that the woman is better than and more valuable than the man. It is an old gynocentric assumption which dates to the late Middle Ages in the West. But back then laws were more gender balanced. Life was hard for both men and women. Under modern feminist pro-woman, anti-man laws, the assumption is quite feminist. The laws make it much easier to be a woman today, yet the womam is rewarded as if her part is more difficult.

Griffin makes it clear he thinks women can do no wrong. He condemns slut shaming. So he operates under the assumption that if a man's wife or daughter fucks 10 Chads a month, it's somehow the man's fault, even though the laws punish him for any attempt to control her behavior (they call it "abuse" by "controlling" her.) Somehow, she can't be a slut, even though the laws and the culture promote slutty bahavior by women.

IZ said...

In that case, you're missing Griffin's intended point - as I understand it - which is not that he's raising women above men, but honouring women in their traditional roles. It is something of an abstraction: motherhood, rather than mothers; virginity, as opposed to virgins. An idealised view of women, if you like, but it didn't start with Griffin.

Where exactly does Griffin say he thinks slutty behaviour is OK? And where does Griffin make it clear he thinks women can do no wrong?

It's true that in the West women are allowed certain rights and no doubt Griffin supports those - a generalised sense of equality between men and women.

But your view appears to be that the West should adopt the repressive standards of third world countries since - after all - you've argued for a pre-1800, pre-industrial set of rules governing relations between men and women.

IBB said...

Yep. That's where the world is moving, away from "general equality" between men and women, because no country actually has that, in practice. It is not a move towards "third world repression" but a move towards traditional family, where fathers are heads of families. It's the system which has worked in every successful civilization. Did you notice the British Empire rose before feminism, peaked when feminism was starting, then rapidly declined after women were given the right to vote without any obligations? The US was on a nonstop upwards trajectory until women got the vote, then a few decades later the US peaked, and right after Gloria Steinem launched 2nd wave feminism, the US started to decline in the 1970's.

Men are the driving force of civilization. Men are the vast majority of inventors, engineers, builders, maintenance men, soldiers, policemen, etc. Men build civilization, keep it from falling apart, and expand it. Men need rewards to motivate them to strive for excellence--prizes to win, loving and lovable women to inspire them and thank them for a job well done. Feminism takes away most of that. Women's best value is as mothers, nurturers, and assistants to men--feminism brainwashes women into abortion instead of childbirth, hostility instead of nurturance, and competing and bickering with men instead if assisting them.

IBB said...

"When pressed on this, some of the advocates of White Sharia say that it’s “just a meme” or “it’s dark humour”. Dark indeed, when such ‘humour’ will lead to an untold number of young men having a bleak, lonely and sterile future, with no female company except prostitutes or mail-order Asian brides."
--Nick Griffin

That's bullshit. Western women find Muslim and black men so sexy precisely because they have the balls to say what they think and do what they want. That kind of confidence in a man is sexy to most women. Here, Griffin gets male and female pathology backwards

It is precisely men like Griffin who have trouble finding a mate because they are too subservient and respectful to women. Nick lucked out at a young age--he was one of only 2 men at an all girls school, so he was shooting fish in a barrell, and even then he "robbed the cradle" meeting his 15 year old wife when he was 19. Hmmmm... underaged wife? Seems like White Sharia to me!

So Nick Griffin does not even practice what he preaches.

"As a shy, inexperienced 16-year-old I won a scholarship to become one of only two boys spending two six-form years at an exclusive upper class girls’ school. I met my future wife when I was 19 and she was 15. We’ve been married for more than 30 years"
--Nick Griffin

IZ said...

"As a shy, inexperienced etc". It's called British understatement. Foreigners usually don't get it. It's no small achievement to remain married for 30 years.

It's true that white Western women find black and Muslim men superficially exciting. This usually lasts until they find the men in question are trying to get passports or the men in question start hitting them.

IBB said...

Marrying a virgin when she is young is one secret. Studies show every premarital sex partner a woman has increases chances of divorce. There is a significant difference in divorce rates between women who married as virgins and those who had just one other premarital partner. There is also a significant difference between 1 premarital partner and 2. Just 1 premarital hookup doubles chances of divorce. 2 hookup partners triple chances of divorce.

Also, very young women are in awe of older men. Any adult is somewhat impressive to a teen girl.

So Griffin did 3 things right; married a teen, a vrigin, and gained social status as a political leader. His party is tiny and barely significant, but even a little bit of power or status is an aphrodisiac, as I learned when I got my first promotion at work.

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac"
--Henry Kissinger
(He may be a scumbag, but he understands power very well.)

IZ said...

Good idea to marry as virgins then. This used to be understood in the West and a young woman's honour was protected by her family. The more sexually-experienced she becomes, the harder she'll find it to marry satisfactorily.

Griffin was relatively successful for a while. The BNP gained lots of councillors and Griffin became a Euro MP. The party had influence way beyond its actual numbers. Success of the BNP in the 10 years prior to 2010 provided a space for UKIP afterwards, which led us to Brexit. Griffin begat Farage.

IBB said...

I don't know that much about UK internal politics. What, exactly, did Griffin introduce, in terms of new ideas? In what way is he "far right" besides his right leaning views on monoculturalism over multiculturaliam and nationalism over internationalism?

On gender, he seems an Old School 1st Wave gynocentric feminist like Christina Hoff Summers--a "conservative feminist" who thinks feminism was good for its first two hundred years, and only went bad shortly after he was born.

(It's funny to look back at history and see generation after generation of antifeminists say the same--feminism was good before I born, but started going bad in my time. Most people give feminism credit for being good at some point in its mythical past, but nobody can name the exact date it went bad. The earliest antifeminists called it bad the moment it began.)

IZ said...

He would call himself a nationalist rather than 'far right', which is the term the left uses. The main plank of BNP party policy was anti-immigration. 'Multiculturalism' is an effect of immigration, but the main point would be to keep them out altogether. They deplete wages and use up resources which should be for British people. There was an appeal to disillusioned Labour and Conservative voters in BNP policies.

In social and cultural terms, the tone was conservative - certainly no defence of ultra-liberalism or feminism, as you're implying. Such a defence exists in some of the European parties, especially in Holland.

Generally speaking, the more anti-Muslim they are, the more likely they are to be defending liberalism. You see this in the newer smaller parties in Britain - Britain First, For Britain. They try and appeal to homosexuals, feminists, and treat Muslims as bogeymen. The BNP (which these days is finished) was simply old-style nationalism by comparison. Griffin has analysed this situation quite correctly, in my opinion.

Feminism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Second-generation feminists were probably as extreme as third-generation feminists. It's just that feminism had made less impact on society generally in those days.

Feminists themselves seem to enter a conservative phase as they grow older. Germaine Greer now openly hostile to gender reassignment, and Fay Weldon who became more sympathetic to the difficulties men face, as no doubt she had family and children of her own.

IBB said...

A brief history of 1st wave feminist reforms and law changes in England:

1824 Pimping made illegal, but prostitution remains legal, unless she is a public nuisance.

1839 After divorce, default child custory went to the woman if child under 7

1849 First College for Women

1853 Punishment for domestic violence against women increased (violence against men was not acknowldeged)

1857 Divorce was made easier by making it a civil matter, taking the Church of England out of the picture

1873 Default child custody to the woman for children under 17

1874 First Medical School for women

1875 Age of consent raised from 12 to 13

1878 First University to admit both men and women

1878 A woman could accuse her husband of domestic violence to get a divorce

1883 First woman to earn a Doctorate degree

1885 Age of consent raised from 13 to 16

1908 First woman to become a full professor

1917 Age of consent almost raised from 16 to 17 (law failed to pass by only 1 vote)

1918 Vote granted to women over 30 who met a property qualification.

1923 Divorce made easier after adultery

1928 Vote granted to all women over 21 (voting rights equal to men, but military duty only for men and not for women)

1937 Divorce made easier for drunkenness, insanity, cruelty, and desertion.

1956 Brothel-keeping made illegal. Independent prostitution remains legal id she is not a public nuisance.

1969 No fault divorce-on-a-whim

1971 Erin Pizzey opens the first Domestic Violence shelter for women. When she tries to open one for men, feminists threaten her life, kill her dog, and prompt her to flee the country.

1972 I would put the start of 2nd Wave feminism here. This is when Gloria Steinem started publishing Ms. Magazine, the ranks of 2nd wave feminist groups started swelling and 1st Wave feminists started getting expelled from feminist organizatioms for not being explicitly anti-man. But my guess is Nick Griffin supports the following 2nd wave feminist reforms:

1975 Discrimination against women based on sex or marital status was made illegal (in practice, discrimination against men continues to be rampant indefinitely)

1980's The Duluth Domestic Violence model adopted in England--it includes the assumption DV is always the man's fault by default, and soon the man is arrested by default--even if the woman does not want him arrested.

1991 Marital Rape became a crime, but only the wife could be a victim, in practice. This change gave wives the right to withhold sex indefinitely, yet husbands still had the obligation to support wives, both during marriage and after divorce.

1996 Landmark case increased the amount of property and alinony given to the woman after divorce. Soon after women were often granted more than half the assets and property and extravagant monthly alimony/maintenance payments on top.

IZ said...

What discrimination against men continues to be 'rampant indefinitely'? (1975)

IBB said...

The entire law enforcement system discriminates against men. Men are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to get a longer sentence than women for the same crime, even after adjusting for criminal record and socioeconomic background. Men are sent to prison with harsher conditions and are less likely to get parole or early release. There is also a slight bias against black and brown people, but the bias against men is much greater, so black women get preferential treatment compared to white men.

Divorce court favors women. Family court favors women. Domestic Violence and rape/sex crime laws heavily favor women. The DV enforcement guidelines tell police to assume the man is guilty unless the women insists he is inncent. Men get arrested simply for raising a hand to block a womans blows to his face. Even if she does not press charges. On the other hand, women get off with a warming for attacking a man unless her violence is so extreme he is hospitalized, and then only if he presses charges. At work, women can touch men with impunity, even reach into their pants amd fondle their genitals. Men will get fired over a false harassment allegation with no proof.

The whole modern tax system effectively only taxes men as a group. On average, a woman takes over $150,000 more in government benefits tham she pays in taxes over her lifetime (the exact amount varies by country, but in every industrialized country it is equivalent tinseveral years' worth of average pay.) Men as a group essentially subsidize women as a group. Male tax parasites are a small minority while women tax parasites are the majority. Only a small percentage of women contribute more than they take out.

JB said...

"Make the opponents of mass immigration, Islamisation and the advance of cultural Marxism so ugly and dangerous-sounding that the public not only have no sympathy for them, but can easily be persuaded that their ruthless elimination is in the public good. Whether by accident or design, this is the first consequence of White Sharia."

To the extent "White Sharia" is "ugly and dangerous-sounding", it transposes that same reaction onto Sharia-observant Muslim invaders, "radical or otherwise" to speak.
To the extent it's attractive, it, as Osama bin Laden said, draws people, by nature, to the strong horse.

No surprise Griffin can't even get that much right since he's appealing to "Christian patriots", not "Christian nationalists (which don't really exist anyway)".

MS said...

White Sharia is a daft name and it is ironically coincidental to Claire's Secular Koranism- both of which would be rejected by Islamic scholars as pagan plagiarism or deliberately misconceiving the public of what Sharia and the Koran really are.

White "Sharia" advocates are indeed no different to ISIS. Why? They both subscribe to a warped deliberate misinterpretation of what Sharia Law and the idea behind it is to hate women and kill gays. White Sharia advocates are not even Muslims nor properly monotheists but just a bunch of Nazi atheists who copy and deviate a title of legality for their own deviant ends.

Sharia Law not only rejects homosexuality and feminism but fornication, alcohol and pork, idolatry, philosophical and economic materialism, atheism, usury, racism, abortion on demand, blasphemy and apostasy.

These White "Sharia" advocates are nothing more than blaspheming infidels who ignore the virtuous values of Islamic Sharia and mistake it for the primitive mistaken aspects for their own agenda.

Claire Khaw said...

The point is that they get it that their religion has to change for things to improve.

IBB said...

MS just jumped to conclusions about White Sharia based on the word Sharia alone.

White Sharia is different from Islamic Sharia just as West Germany's "Federal Republic" was different from East Germany's "Democratic Republic"

White Sharia has nothing to do with the Islamic religion. It is a deliberately provocative meme, but it is about returning to old European social and legal traditions, not converting to a different religion. Just as Sharia is a very traditional way of practicing Islam. Most Muslim countries today do not operate under Sharia law.

Claire Khaw said...

It is so obvious now that there is a reason why we can't just fuck whoever we fancy.

IBB said...

@MS "White Sharia"
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Claire Khaw said...

The point is that they understand that they have to raise the price of sex to improve the quality of the racial and national gene pool. It may be that these men do price themselves out of the market altogether, but they are on the right track. Sharia is about slut shaming and shaming sluts will raise the price of sex and force women to choose their sex partners more carefully. This will have the effect of encouraging marriage and improving the quality of life for most children if they have fathers.

IBB said...

Most women already choose their sex partners carefully--they only fuck "Chads" aka "fuckbois," "Studs," "Hunks," "ladykillers."--the confident, tall, manly, handsome guys, especially if they are rich. Preferably the top 2%, or at least top 8%, and maybe sometimes top 20% if they are persistent and offer free dinners and movies and weekend trips to Paris (according to dating and hookup studies)

They fuck a few dozen different Chads while young and pretty, so by the time they want to settle down and get married in their 30's, their emotional impression of an "average man" is skewed upwards. If top 20% or better is their average experience, they want someone at least that good for a husbamd, or they are unhappy. An average woman has an easy time getting a one-night stand with a top 2% Chad when she is young and pretty, but a much harder time getting one to marry her in her 30's--almost impossible, in fact. So the vast majority wind up "settling" for a man far below their previous hookup standards, and inevitably wind up dissatisfied with marriage and itching for divorce.

MS said...


East and West Germany were both republics because they did not have monarchs but presidents as their sovereign rulers. There is no ideology or religion where the name republic remains with as Sharia does with Islam.

That article you just showed from Vandal Void has proven my point about how misconceived Sharia has been in this context. Sharia means the way given to us from God through His Messenger Muhammad (P.B.U.H) in the form of the Koran and Muhammad's sayings. Sharia is not about barbarity or primitive violence to women and foreigners as that article suggests, it advocates a society based on natural moral law wherein what comes around goes around- to do good to avoid evil. Plus, it requires a shura - a council - of scholars on what laws need to discussed and implemented.

Sharia is used as it is perceived to bash women, as the article suggests, that could not be closer to true. Yes, Sharia does arrest women for behaving like sluts but also guarantees them inheritance rights and access to education and not to mention punishes men for abusing women too.

You are right that Sharia law countries are not very well guided due to them permitting alcohol, bikinis on the beach or swimming pools, ignorance towards abuse to women, disrespect to other faiths and the tolerance of financial usury.

IBB said...


It seems that you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand the point of "White Sharia"

Did you know that Rome was officially still called a Republic under the first 50+ Emperors? They still went rhrough the motions of the republican process, and venerated the constitution, even though the Emperors effectively ruled. Only three centuries after Julius Caesar did they drop the sharade. This period is called The Principate--a Republic for show, and a dictatorial Empire in fact.

The term "White Sharia" has even less to do with Islam than the Pricipate period Roman "Republic" had to do with Republicanism.

White Sharia just means a return to Westerm family and marriage rules as they were before feminism. The father is the head of the household. The wife has obligations to the husband, not just the husband to the wife (as it works today) Domestic Violence laws apply only in cases of serious violence--the way it works today if a man "furrows his brow" at his wife, she can have him punished for "emotional abuse" and "intimidation" If she starts punching him in the face, and he merely raises his hand to block her blows, HE is the abuser and goes to jail for touching her arm. Those are the instructions police get from their superiors in the US and UK.

Claire Khaw said...

Men who have no dealings with women cannot be expected to know, but what is so shocking is that Nick Griffin - now a grandfather - is pretending that if you can't find a good woman it is all your own fault. Such male on male treachery has to be read and heard to be believed. I would go so far as to say that it is not safe for good men to marry as long as feminist legislation is unrepealed and no fault divorce unabolished.

AW said...

I think the best way a British nationalist or any other traditionalist could find a partner nowadays is going on one of these dating sites for finding catholic women, as there are sites out there. Traditional wives would come few and far between, be very difficult nowadays to find one locally that you meet out in public.

Claire Khaw said...

But these supposedly Catholic women no longer believe in traditional Catholicism.

AW said...

Guess that would be the case with some of them, while some others would still practice what they preach. Still though the best chances someone would get of finding a traditional wife would be on some dating site like that.

Claire Khaw said...

I have heard a Catholic nationalist complain about the shocking promiscuity of his ex, who was supposed to be Catholic. You must know that the Catholic Church, like the Anglican Church, no longer discusses sin.

AW said...

Blimey. That does sound bad. I guess another factor could be it depends on the family a person comes from and where they grew up. If they were from a "catholic" family in Salford then it would be best to stay away from them, as they will be more prone to degeneracy. However if they are fro a catholic family from lets say the Outer Hebrides where they are very strict in their religion they still observe the sabbath, then finding a traditional wife in an area like that would be more worth taking your chances. Have to be street wise and know the areas and what people from that area are generally like.

Claire Khaw said...

The Philippines - a Catholic country - is full of unmarried mothers.

"Data from the National Statistics Office indicate that more than 37 percent of the 1.8 million babies born in the Philippines in 2008—at least 666,000—had unmarried mothers, representing a worrying increase of over 12 percent from the previous year and an upswing that has become a trend in recent times."

The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans don't put up with this sort of thing.

AW said...

It also depends on how high in calibre that ethnic group is morally, that comes first then the religion in terma of moral predestination. If you look at muslim countries as well, the ones that are morally best will have more monogamous relationships, while the worst ones will have more polygamous relationships and will allow men to practice adultery. In many areas of the world the degenerates have taken over, including the majority of Britain. Dysgenics is a problem, and many sinners infiltrate religion sadly.

Claire Khaw said...

It is not even what your religion is, but what happens to you when you transgress.

Ancient Chinese saying:

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

IBB said...

But the Catholic Philippines have very little divorce--one of the lowest rates in the world. For some reason, communist Vietnam also has one of world's lowest divorce rates. (both are in the top 10 countries for lowest ratios of divorce to marriage)

In the end, local culture matters far more than officially proclaimed religion or ideology. Soviet Russia had one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Catholic France and Communist Cuba both have 55 divorces for every hundred marriages while Catholic Guatemala and Communist Vietnam both have only 5 divorces for every 100 marriages, more than 10 times better than France and Cuba. Muslim Qatar has 33 divorces per 100 marriages while Muslim Tajikistan has only 6 divorces per 100 marriages.

It's not a question of If you have Catholicism, Communism, or Islam, but how it is practiced.

My advice in the first world: find a young, shy girl in a small town or village who is from a good family with no divorce history and she still lives with her parents. Befriend the parents and let them know you are serious about marriage. Once you marry her, do not take her out of the small town. Find a home as close to her family as possible and live with her there. It will be worth it. The small town will have few temptations, and her family nearby will keep an eye on her for you when you are away from home.

Do NOT seek a wife online, as social media spoils young women and gives them a false sense of millions of options in men. Social media is the #1 modern enemy of fidelity.

If you can find a woman who does not use social media, it's a BIG PLUS

Claire Khaw said...

Ah, but where in the world would you find such a virgin bride?! Even Prince Harry has to make do with Meghan Markle!

IBB said...

Prince Harry is a cool guy for a prince, but his easy success in life has kept him from maturing as a man. He still has the mentality of a party going college student. Chronological age 33 Emotional age 22. No idea why he would marry an older woman at the end of her fertility. I see him cheating on her within a few years.

Paul Walker the late Hollywood star was much smarter. He would find shy girlfriends in their mid teens (15-16) living with married parents in small town America and they would be completely devoted to him. He knew he could never get that from any woman in LA, despite his looks, fame, and millions.

Many of his fans speculate he faked his death to escape the spotlight and settle down. I have no idea if there's any truth to that, but it would have been a smart move.

Arguments for disestablishing the Church of England after the adoption of Secular Koranism and why Charles might secretly support this

I have no idea and cannot possibly know, but I do believe that the Koran is the best available guide to humanity. Since nobody really bel...