Translate

Thursday, 24 May 2018

Restoring patriarchy and the real purpose of marriage


Marriage is the only way of regulating the sexual urges of women so that they do not destroy whatever civilisation men and their ancestors have built. The worst of these women will be immoral, in denial and indifferent to the interests of men they do not want to have sex with as well as callously indifferent to their illegitimate children whom they casually conceived.

Being creatures with a defective sense of courage and justice, few women will agree with me about the restoration of the patriarchy. The advantage of their defective courage for those who would challenge them is that, faced with overwhelming odds, they will capitulate quickly.

For the Restoration to take place, men must decide that a leader is required and promise him the loyalty he needs to get things done. I have in mind Captains of industry who are already part of the Deep State examining their consciences, who are perhaps tired of being constantly henpecked, but also afraid of a divorce settlement that will be extracted from them under the rules of no fault divorce.

The Captains of Industry must have sons and daughters too that they do not want to be turned gay or transgender or have their heterosexual children present them with bastard grandchildren. However, if they do not care about this, and all will be lost, I suppose.

It is a mistake for the wealthy to think they will be protected in a failing state. This is probably because these days even educated Westerners have no idea of their own traditions and do not know about the proscriptions of the late Roman Republic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/proscription

Even if you leave the country as refugees, you will be treated like shit as the people men who allowed their women to run their country and were too afraid to take back control form them because you were afraid of being falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence.

What is the sex of your Prime Minister?

What is the sex of your Home Secretary?

What is the sex of your Director of Public Prosecutions?

What is the sex of your Chief Commissioner of Police?

Was not the wedding of Harry the Bastard to that woman with her dreadful family an event widely associated with feminist and black triumphalism over the British monarchy?

And the feminazis want even more feminism?


Oxford University has apologised to David Lammy after retweeting a post labelling his criticism "bitter". Oxford University involved in Twitter row with David Lammy

Black students are right to want to see black therapists

Have you no shame?

Have you no pride?

Clearly not.

The story of Abraham of bargaining with God about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind.

He knows he is speaking with the Almighty who is about to show his wrath and while he may not wish the city to be destroyed, he seems afraid to show sympathy for the city as a whole. So instead of mercy for the city—which he might just as easily have asked for—he says let justice be done, but that it wouldn't be just to destroy righteous men along with wicked ones (Genesis 18:23-25). 
But Abraham's courage has been holding out. He's asked God to save the city for the sake of fifty, forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, and ten people—standing up to God six times. Would he have been able to ask for more, perhaps even bring up the idea of redeeming the city, if he had asked a seventh[!] time? After the third plea, Abraham had been asking for ten less each time; the next in the series would be '0'. 
Did, perhaps, his courage fail him? Or, according to the explanation I usually hear, did Abraham decide that surely there were ten righteous there, and that he didn't need to ask for more? We can only speculate. But it may not have been up to Abraham at all. It seems that as soon as God answers that he will not destroy the city for ten people, God leaves (Gen 18:32-33): 
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home. 
Would God have destroyed Sodom if only one righteous person was found? 
God did find one righteous person in Sodom and showed mercy on him, but not the whole city—instead of destroying Lot with the others, he allowed Lot and his family an opportunity to escape the city's destruction

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

Let the overthrow of the matriarchy and its replacement by the patriarchy be swift and smooth. We must however be prepared to face some inconvenience and expense.

If not even ten good men can be found in the entire West, then we know what will happen and what we in fact deserve.

Pass this message upwards to the most high status male you know and ask him to do the same until a leader is finally found, in the hope that it will get to the people who matter and the movers and shakers, before it is too late.

And do not behave like bitching back-stabbing women to undermine his authority or he will fail and you also suffer defeat. Impose a Code of Honourable Comradely Behaviour and stick to it.

http://www.jewfaq.org/speech.htm

Do not bother with the women who will come round soon enough, but only if you win this ideological battle, if the Restoration takes place, when you control the resources again. Otherwise, be prepared to continue to watch your women give it away for free to those who will only feel contempt for you as they trash and destroy your institutions your male ancestors created.

at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

The Founding Fathers: what did they really say by Mat Clark

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Founding-Fathers-Evidence-Christian-Principles/dp/1979939470 Christian principles are not "freedom for everyon...