Translate

Showing posts with label Anders Breivik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anders Breivik. Show all posts

Thursday, 8 November 2018

We are destroying ourselves because we live in a matriarchy where no one is in charge

We are a matriarchy and this means no one is really in charge. The model patriarchy would be led by an alpha male in control of his family and served by loyal beta males who follow his orders. A matriarchy basically has a leader appointed by immoral women while the preferences of the beta males are ignored and marginalised. This explains why a feature of white nationalism is that it is peopled by unprepossessing lower class beta males who are repulsive to women. In the US, they are called rednecks, in the UK they are called gammon. These men no longer have a leader to represent their interests, which is why they are getting uglier, more marginalised , angrier and more violent, particularly after they have exhausted all the usual channels of having their grievances addressed while what they object to - uncontrolled immigration - continues unabated while Brexit is being blatantly sabotaged in front of their eyes.

Robert Bowers is another Anders Breivik, judging from his demeanour in court when he was being indicted for his murders.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46062277

He posted antisemitic material on social media presumably to demand answers, but was dismissed as an antisemite and then ignored.

How many times do you think it happened to him?

Once, when I received no answer to a question and complained, I was told by my uncle "No answer is an answer."

When you have urgent questions and receive no answers, you can deduce the indifference and motives of the people who give you no answers, especially if they denounce and traduce you for even asking them.

Liberals are actually too stupid to formulate arguments or counter-arguments. Therefore their only way of dealing with awkward questions is to traduce and abuse you for asking them. If you use the wrong word or ask the wrong question, your goose is cooked and the shutters come down because no one who is a sexist, racist, antisemite, Islamophobe, Fascist, Nazi or whatever they decided to call you should be engaged with.

When this happens often enough, some people may well feel driven to deal with this non-response in a violent and lethal way, if they are not the type to just forget about it.

After the many lives lost to Breivik in Norway, the Norwegian government decided to dismiss him as insane. Clearly, the Norwegian matriarchy simply decided decided that they would rather just forget about it after declaring him insane. Denial is a feminine vice.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/29/anders-behring-breivik-declared-insane

Bowers is now waiting for his day in court.

I imagine that the questions Bowers was asking were asking was along the lines of:

1) Why must there be so much immigration if our government knows we hate it?

2) Why doesn't our government care about us?

3) Are the Jews behind this?

4) When will this stop?

5) How could it be stopped?

6) Why are the Jews paying to get more migrants in when they already know gentiles hate it?

7) Why are the Jews still paying to settle more migrants into our country even when they already know that these migrants are mostly antisemitic?

8) Is the reason why these Jews who keep getting more Muslims migrants into our country despite knowing they are antisemitic because they actually want to destroy our civilisation because they hate us so much? (There is HIAS in the US which enraged Robert Bowers into mass murder. In Germany, there are Jews who want the German government to give Muslim migrants special classes on how not to be antisemitic, doubtless at the expense of the gentile German taxpayer.)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/hias-tree-of-life-shooting-immigration.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46095808

What I imagine they fail to understand is that a matriarchy that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers won't care about the concerns of these men and don't care how they show it. Any man who takes their side, like Trump, would be ruthlessly attacked using foulest means and the dirtiest tricks.

There is a reason why the Democrats are behaving like immoral women and the men like the illegitimate sons of these immoral women.

These women think that men of their race who cannot keep out migrants or compete against them successfully do not deserve reproductive rights.

I often wonder how clueless childless European leaders would answer what I imagine are the questions of Breivik or Bowers. There are quite a few of them too:

Germany’s Angela Merkel
France’s Emmanuel Macron
Britain’s Theresa May
Italy’s Paolo Gentilon
Holland’s Mark Rutte
Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon
Sweden’s Stefan Lofven
Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel (a homosexual)
Switzerland’s Simonetta Sommaruga
Ireland’s Leo Varadkar (a homosexual)

Obviously the youngest and sexiest of these immoral women who are female voters would be the most indifferent to the concerns and interests of the beta male. The most powerful of them would be the female undergraduates of the elite universities who command the support of thirsty male undergraduates called SJWs. The young and foolish predictably go too far and abuse their power, but their reign is short. The trouble is that they keep being replaced by those even more foolish, ignorant and immoral than they. Even worse, the matriarchy are unaccountable. They will never ever take responsibility for anything and even if you could make them confess to every wrong thing they ever did in their lives, they would say "Well, all right then, but you shouldn't have put us in charge and left us in charge, should you?"

All matriarchies without exception are extinct or about to become extinct. Even if everything I recommend were implemented today, Western civilisation as we know it would end.

Western civilisation is therefore a dead man walking.

Saturday, 10 June 2017

Not only should there be Muslim Space Spaces, there should be Terrorist Safe Spaces too


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40198145

This is such an excellent idea! 

I would suggest we go further and have Terrorist Safe Spaces so people contemplating committing acts of terrorism because they are convinced that their government is evil, insane or are really "pod people" can be soothed by trained politicians and psychiatrists.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers

The apprehension that we are being governed by imbeciles, lunatics and knaves or just incompetent women promoted beyond their ability is not confined only to Muslims, I'm sure. Remember, not all terrorists are Muslims. Some terrorists are Islamophobes and nationalists eg Anders Breivik, Thomas Mair.

Tucker Carlson should think again and invite Ann Coulter to discuss this.  

Monday, 5 June 2017

When violence is inevitable

Violence is inevitable when someone who has a grievance looking for the solution by negotiating with the cause of the grievance or pleading with her realises that the one causing the grievance has no intention of acknowledging the validity of the grievance at all, let alone resolving it.

This neatly explains the violence being committed by Muslim terrorists as well as the violence that was committed by anti-immigration Islamophobes such as Anders Breivik and the murderer of Jo Cox who called himself 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain' when asked to state his name at his murder trial. They are both manifestations of male rage at the consequences and conditions of living in a degenerate matriarchy.

The Forefront of Knowledge Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary in the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males

If their behaviour is unlimited, females are capable of firstly, making their own males into an underclass, for example by their wholesale preference for alien males, as can readily be observed in areas with high immigrant populations. Secondly, they are capable of taking their race to the brink of, if not beyond, extinction. These are critical flaws for which accommodation cannot be countenanced.





Sunday, 19 June 2016

Remainders have capitalised on the death of Jo Cox, leavers can do so too

I suggest using the tactic of "Look what you made me do."

Jo Cox and her ilk would not have hesitated to call anyone who dared complain about immigration a racist. That was always how polarised the debate has been. How long has the immigration debate has been simmering? I would say since Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech in 20 April 1968. The killing of Cox on 16 June 2016 represented the multicultural and multiracial melting pot boiling over. Of course, there have been inner city riots since 1968, but this is the first time an MP actually suffered directly as a result of ignoring the concerns of voters.

Apparently, Breivik murdering 69 summer campers wasn't sufficient warning in 2011 because no politicians were harmed, only the youth members of the Workers' Youth League. This should have been taken as a warning to anyone who has ever thought they could just carry on denouncing anyone who ever dares to complain as racist dinosaurs to shut them up, but still they carried on employing that tactic.


Mr Cox’s wife, Jo, is a Labour MP and former aide to Mr Brown’s wife Sarah. Mrs Cox also runs the Labour Women’s Network where she is ‘equalities and discrimination’ adviser.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298572/New-charity-scandal-Save-Children-executive-quits-women-s-complaints-inappropriate-behaviour.html#ixzz4C3OIalmv

An imaginary conversation between a recipient of Save the Children charity and its former CEO Justin Forsyth

It was probably Jo Cox who put it into Gordon Brown's head to call anyone who dared complain about immigration "bigoted", as he called called Mrs Gillian Duffy, a Labour member.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-gillian-duffy-transcript

Her plea for her constituents to vote remain still has no solutions or words of comfort whatsoever. It is still "Put up and shut up, you plebs. They will keep coming whether you like it or not, whether we're in or out. You have no choice, and you know it. Now shut it."

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jo-cox-brexit-is-no-answer-to-real-concerns-on-immigration-1-7956822#ixzz4BA42bFd8http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jo-cox-brexit-is-no-answer-to-real-concerns-on-immigration-1-7956822

Just like IRA terrorism, politicians only responded when they perceived themselves to be directly threatened eg after the Brighton Bomb in 1984. When was the Anglo-Irish Agreement signed? 1985.

Leavers should point this out rather than be intimidated into silence and pulling their punches. Whatever the result, there's going to be trouble anyway.

It is time for the British to gird their loins, grit their teeth and bite the bullet.

Monday, 12 October 2015

Degrees of radicalisation


One then has to consider whether state-sponsored terrorism is always evil, if it is indeed the case that one man's terrorist is another man' freedom-fighter.


All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists.
All sluts are women, not not all women are sluts.

It is possible to be a man without being a rapist.
It is possible to be a woman without being a slut.
It is possible to be radicalised without going on to become a terrorist.
It is possible to be a terrorist without being Muslim.

Questions for MPs:


  1. Does radicalisation only apply to Muslims?
  2. Would you say that Anders Breivik was radicalised?
  3. If your answer is NO, is it because he is not Muslim?
  4. Have you considered changing UK foreign policy to deal with the problem of terrorism? 
  5. Have you considered why Muslims might get upset, angry and violent if you bomb, invade and impose regime-change on Muslim countries for no good reason that they can see?
  6. Have you considered having an honest debate about UK foreign policy?
  7. Is the reason why you refuse to have a full and frank debate about UK foreign policy is because the UK does not have an independent foreign policy and/or that it is in fact indefensible?
  8. Is the reason why the UK does not have an independent foreign policy because it is a vassal state of the US?
  9. Have you considered whether now might be the time to leave NATO so as to break it up and make the Americans withdraw into isolationism, leaving the world a more peaceful place?
  10. Have you considered that the possibility that US foreign policy is actually insane?
  11. Have you made the link between destroying Muslim countries at the behest of Washington for no good reason and the migrant swarms heading your way?
  12. Have you heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
  13. Have you considered that the victims of the Wolfowitz Doctrine ie Muslim countries toppled by the West might wish to object to it in the strongest possible terms and use terrorism to do so?
  14. If you are an MP and have not heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, should you be whipped by your party into voting to bomb Syria?
  15. If you are a Labour MP, are you grateful that Jeremy Corbyn is allowing you a free vote on whether to bomb Syria?
  16. If you are a Tory MP, dare you demand a free vote for Tory MPs over voting on whether to bomb Syria if Labour MPs are getting a free vote?
  17. If not, why not?
  18. Is it cos you are too scared or stupid to challenge UK foreign policy of "bomb first and wring our hands later"?
  19. Does UK foreign policy promote the British national interest?
  20. How would you define the national interest?
  21. What is the point of supporting a foreign policy that provokes terrorism that you cannot explain to your constituents?
  22. Does it make sense to support a foreign policy that provokes terrorism and responding to the terrorism you provoke with increasing restrictions on the liberties of your citizens?
  23. Do you know why so many citizens in NATO member states like, admire and support Putin, as Iain Dale said on the Sky Press Review?
  24. Do you know why non-establishment politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump admire and like Putin?






Because sane people can understand what Putin is doing, why he is doing it and seeing that what he is doing works while explaining current government policy both domestic and foreign is like trying to explain the motivations of an imbecile or a lunatic, that's why we like Putin so much.


Paul Craig Roberts explains the evil of US foreign policy.



Thursday, 28 May 2015

What was the government response on being told in 2006 that Muslim terrorism caused by foreign policy? (Now 2015.)

Two Muslims discuss UK foreign policy in 2006.

Has there been any progress since then?

Are the media facilitating a discussion about UK foreign policy?

Of course not. Those who speak out of turn tend to lose their jobs and saying anything found to be objectionable by Jews will have you labelled as an antisemite, and antisemites are of course evil nasty Nazis whose views must either be suppressed or ignored.

This is why no one ever listens to Paul Craig Roberts, because he has been labelled as such, even if he is a wise old man and was once adviser to Ronald Reagan. In the West the young despise the old. Anyone who is not attractive enough for them to think of having sex with is automatically dismissed as worthless and even immoral. In any dispute a social conservative might have with a libtard the subject of how much sex one has had will arise as if the number of sex partners one has had in one's life is indicative of one's moral probity and intellectual respectability.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Britain never makes a decision without asking America."


Most people who consider themselves educated and well-informed in this country have never heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, as I discovered to my horror recently.

Which rules are more likely to discourage war - the Wolfowitz Doctrine or the Koranic rules of warfare?

Does the BBC have a moral and national responsibility to discuss UK foreign policy?

Is the BBC morally rotten because it no longer has any journalistic integrity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

I would say so. You would have thought the media would like to challenge my views but the collective consensus amongst libtards is not to give me the oxygen of publicity before they can think of any counter-arguments to my arguments. I am not even complaining about bad publicity being a sporting kind of woman and prepared to let them do their worst. My touted appearance on the Channel 5 hatchet job on UKIP suddenly came to nothing after filming me over two days for a total of six hours. It was probably because I did not seem to them to be mad and hate-filled enough to fit into the usual mould of what the left like to think of as UKIP supporters. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/why-i-was-omitted-from-channel-5-ukip.html

These people no longer play by the rules and will bend and break them if it suits, and they are so shameless they see nothing wrong with this.

I know what the problem is and I have the solution, but no one wants to hear it, even the people who are in government supposedly promoting the national interest and those who are expected to have a professional interest in reporting news with impartiality.

So, what we know now is that UK foreign policy is not about to be discussed because the government has no plans to change it at the behest of its citizens. They also know that virtually no voter will vote for any party on the basis of its foreign policy, and they think they can continue to get away with it.

Those who will not listen to reason are implicitly saying they will only be moved by force. Muslims who come to realise this are radicalised, creating a pool of radicalised people who will take the next leap of thinking: deciding to act logically on this conclusion in an extra-legal way ie become terrorists.

In the meantime both the government and the media continues to close its eyes and shut its ears, for this is now the way of the West.

In the meantime, Muslims will continue to be targeted by the police and security services while being told that only religious fanatics take what their scripture says literally.


It is laughable the way Western governments thinks they can stop radicalisation. Even if Anjem Choudary were forbidden to appear on TV or from using Twitter, there will be others who hold his views and others who will logically act on the conclusion they have formed.

The only way of peaceful protest I can think of is to form a group of Muslims and non-Muslims who make a point of refusing to condemn terrorism because condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy.

Condemning terrorism is condemning the symptoms while refusing to cure the disease that is government policy because, without exception, all terrorism is caused by bad government policy. Those who disagree with me about this are invited to think of just one act of terrorism that was not caused by bad government policy and to remind themselves that that late world statesman Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist offences.

Will the BBC facilitate an honest debate about Western foreign policy with SMS voting and will the government undertake to change it if enough people vote against it?

Can you imagine such a television event ever being broadcast?

If it were being proposed by anyone at all, it would soon be shelved after being put on the back burner. Britain is a vassal state of the EU and the US because our politicians simply have not got a visionary alternative. Only Muslims have an alternative vision.

THE PROCESS OF RADICALISATION
Radicalisation does not only happens to Muslims. Breivk was radicalised and he was an Islamophobe. Radicalisation is when you come to the conclusion that the democratic process is an exercise in futility because it will never give you what you sincerely believe is moral and what you ought to have.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RADICALISATION AND COMMITTING TERRORISM
The radicalised person knows that the democratic process is an exercise in futility as regards what he believes it is moral and just for him to have while the terrorist is someone who is radicalised and knows that only force will move those who have ignored and marginalised him, and is prepared to use violence. The more you antagonise someone, the more he is likely to use violence against you, even if the use of force turns out to be suicidal, if that is the only way he is ever going to get his revenge.

The state should remember what happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire when its response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand ended its existence.

As they say, it ain't what happens to you, it is how you deal with it.

Those who refuse to be moved by reason are by implication saying they will only be moved by force. When you implicitly transmit this message, you should not be surprised when war and terrorism and perhaps revolution and defeat will be the consequence.

Muslims worship and fear an omnipotent and morally perfect God whom they believe will come to their assistance if they obey His laws. What do Islamophobes believe in? They worship and fear the fornicating slut who is the embodiment of the sexual liberation they are addicted to.

What Westerner can make the connection between respecting marriage and forbidding extramarital sex? No Western politician will speak up for marriage by denouncing those who allow and encourage extramarital sex. The almost universal practice of extramarital sex in the West is the sacrament of Westerners and what they would call their way of life and their liberty. That is really all they mean when they so grandiosely elevate fornication and widespread bastardy as their national identity and national tradition.

God if He exists sent Muslim terrorists to punish errant Christians and Jews, who really should know better, being the senior branches of the Abrahamic faith.


These days, just listening to the Today Programme, even when it does not mention Muslims or ISIS at all, is a radicalising act.

Every time you hear some stupid policy eg gay marraige, being proposed and turned into law, it is a radicalising act.

When the SNP have 56 seats with 4.7% of the vote while UKIP get only 1 seat with 12.6% of the vote, it is a radicalising act.

When your government bombs another country with no good reason at the behest of the Americans, it is a radicalising act.

You are radicalised when you know that your government and your media are the bad guys who will always ignore and smear you even if you have command of all the arguments.

You are radicalised when you hear Andy Burnham telling the Pope to accept gay marriage thinking this will make him more likely to become Labout leader.

I am sure I do not need to belabour the point.

Friday, 19 September 2014

Claire Khaw's top tips on how to deal with radicalisation, terrorism and IS









How easy it is to be "radicalised", just by discussing this video.  

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/claire-khaw-refuses-to-condemn.html
Condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy

Friday, 5 April 2013

Why Breivik and Western politicians are pro-Israel even though they dislike Jews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn


How disgusting that a philosopher who wishes to declare Breivik sane has to resort to this kind of impenetrable prose.

Zizek is a fraud anyway, though a clever and comedic one who has mastered the impenetrable prose Western philosophers like to inflict on the world.  He is really a right-wing philosopher pretending to be a left-wing philosopher because to call himself a right-wing philosopher would involve a certain sacrifice in status and income.

Why did Zizek go on and on and on about the Jews anyway?

It is clear to me that Breivik was pro-Israel because he hated Muslims and wanted Jews to continue kicking the shit out of Muslims whom he hated and feared and didn't want in his country.

Isn't that how the white atheist EDL member thinks anyway?

Israel represents the power of the West for it is a colonial outpost of the West surrounded by hostile Arab nations as an affront to Arab nationalism.

Israel represents to the West its former power when it was able to do this sort of thing  at will to subject peoples, when it was able to indulge in exercises of gunboat diplomacy.

It is not out of love for the Jew that the European gentile wishes to preserve Israel, but out of a nostalgia for a golden age of the White Man when he could invade and annex the lands of subject peoples at will.

The modern European gentile is not even Christian or religious, and wouldn't dream of ever visiting the Holy Land. He clings to Israel because he regards it as a family heirloom reminding him of the glory days of his ancestors, whose wealth and knowledge he knows he has already frittered away through his decades-long orgiastic self-indulgence of wine, women and song.  Israel is yet another Sacred Cow of the European male together with Feminism, Free Love and the dysgenic Welfare State.


Thursday, 4 April 2013

Feminist Jane Clare Jones cannot defend feminism against Breivik

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism#start-of-comments


Following much of the media's initial "fact-free conjecture" about the origins of the atrocity in Norway, we have since had to reckon with Anders Behring Breivik's own account of his motivations put forward in his 1518-page manifesto entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Overlooked, however, in the focus on Islamism and Islamophobia's culpability for Breivik's pathology is the way his gargantuan manifesto presents multiculturalism as just one form of the "ideology" which "now looms over western European society like a colossus". This ideology, most often known as political correctness, has, Breivik tells us, several other names. One of them is cultural Marxism, and the other is feminism.

Cultural Marxism is feminism.

Feminism is just another word for Cultural Marxism.

Feminism is the Sacred Cow of the West that is eating it out of house and home and pooping all over its carpet.

Breivik's introduction is entirely given over to a half-baked history of political correctness, "no aspect" of which, he tells us, is "more prominent … than feminist ideology". The PC-project is bent on "transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy" and "intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males". But more than that, it has succeeded. The "feminisation of European culture" has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an "emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies".

I can find nothing there to disagree with, except Jones' claim that Breivik's history of political correctness is "half-baked".  She does not say how or why it is half-baked.

The antipathy to feminism – and women – threaded throughout Breivik's document is more than just incidental. The text is peppered with references to the pernicious effects of the "Sex and the City lifestyle, the propagation of sexual immorality (indexed by women's promiscuity), and the "erotic capital" women use to manipulate men. The degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and "emotionalism". Indeed, the danger of women's "unnatural" demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that "the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism".

A whole web of reasons are given for this conclusion, but two familiar constellations stand out. The first concerns feminism's purported sundering of the nuclear family and responsibility for a demographic collapse that opens Europe to Muslim colonisation. Too distracted by "having it all", western women are failing to breed enough to repel the amassing hordes. But, in their feminine naivety, they fail to realise that their comeuppance is on its way, their freedoms snatched by the invasion of the genuine oppressor. Barely submerged in this narrative – as in much cultural conservatism – is a profound anxiety about who controls women's bodies and reproductive capacities. In his concern to save us from ourselves, Breivik wants to drag us back to the 50s, limiting access to reproductive technology and discouraging women from pursuing education beyond a bachelor's degree. Alternatively, he suggests, we could "outsource breeding", and pursue surrogacy in low-cost countries or the development of artificial wombs.

This sci-fi fantasy of finally abolishing men's dependence on women's generative abilities is revealing. On the one hand, Breivik indicts feminism with causing our alleged "cultural suicide", both by encouraging reproductive treachery and also because women are apparently more supportive of multiculturalism. However, in another sense, Breivik's thought betrays an analogy between his monocultural nationalism and his veneration of a certain type of "warrior" masculinity, an analogy that revolves – as his manifesto's title implies – around the ideal of masculine independence. The "feminisation" of the European male corresponds to the "feminisation" of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than "risk serious injuries while resisting". 

Jones appears to disapprove of Breivik's assumptions but does not or cannot say why.

Unlike Breivik, we must resist the urge to make easy causal connections. 

Jones appears to be accepting that feminism is causally connected to European weakness while resisting the urge to make this casual connection.  Talk about having your cake and eating it!

No account of this man's background or beliefs about nationality, religion or gender can serve to explain his actions.

Why not?  Breivik has already told us again and again why he did what he did.   Those reasons are rational, though ruthless.

His cool enumeration of technicalities about downloading the document, his careful inclusion of a press-pack of photos, the chilling reference to the sacrifices involved in its "marketing operation" – all this serves to exhibit an inhumanity which opens a chasm between ideas and action.  

What does Jones mean by "a chasm between ideas and action"?   There is no chasm at all as far as Breivik was concerned.  He saw what he thought had to be done, and he did it.

Nevertheless, while the behaviour of Breivik must, and can, only be understood as insanity, we would do our understanding a disservice by accepting it as only that.

What on earth does Jones mean?  Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no but ... ?  We must regard Breivik as insane even though he was also rational, this silly woman seems to be saying.

Why does is this stupid woman being paid to write her incoherent and timorous nonsense in The Guardian when I am not being paid at all, when it is I who already know what the problems and solutions are?  

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

My advice to Muslims in the West about how to become less hated: by not fearing to be hated even more

https://www.facebook.com/notes/yamin-zakaria/write-to-your-mp-and-others-regarding-the-potential-threat-from-the-far-right/238362692862747


Write to your MP and others regarding the potential threat from the far-right
by Yamin Zakaria (Notes) on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 18:17
Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to my local and European MPs, maybe you can alter it and send it to your local MPs (http://www.writetothem.com/)  and create a certain level of public opinion.

------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam

In light of recent events in Norway, and the subsequent revelations of Anders Breivik’s link with the far-right movement (EDL), we are naturally worried about a potential terrorist act in the United Kingdom.

We would urge the government to take pre-emptive measures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and curtail the activities of movements like the EDL. This is an excellent opportunity to show that such legislation (PTA) was not construed to be applied selectively against Muslims in the UK. This will help to build bridges and marginalise the radicals on both sides.

The government should look for signs of radicalisation and its sources; hence, those who are particularly violent and vocal in the EDL should be detained in Belmarsh. It might be better to hand them over to the Americans who have acquired a certain level of expertise in interrogation (‘torture’); water-boarding may indeed prove to be useful in saving innocent British lives.

This would send a message that any terrorist or potential terrorist would be subjected to these sorts of preventative measures. In addition, it would be prudent to take measures against the conveyor belt of far-right terrorism by monitoring the voices of BNP, UKIP and other commentators who stoke hate towards the Muslim community. For example, Melanie Phillips is well-known for her venomous comments, and such hate will eventually translate into violence. Would nasty comments towards the black community be tolerated? Hence, why are the Muslims selectively subjected to this kind of treatment?

In this recent case in Norway as well as the Oklahoma bombings, the media initially speculated that the act was the work of the Muslims, tarring the entire community, creating suspicion and doubt. Therefore, the media should also be given clear directives how to deal with sensitive topics so that communities are not divided and ethnic minorities are not marginalised and subjected to verbal assault; the need for this has become self-evident in the light of the recent scandals (hack-gate).

 Yours sincerely

Yamin Zakaria (www.radicalviews.org


Below is my response to this Muslim proposal to put the Far Right under observation as stringent as Muslims are currently being subjected to.


Breivik was a loner concerned about immigration, knowing that it would irretrievably change Norway. He did it all himself after he decided that participating in the political process was futile. Writing to your MP or even monitoring the activities of the Far Right won't help either, since Breivik did it ALL BY HIMSELF as did the others who joined a political party, left it, and then went on to plan and commit acts of terrorism ALL BY THEMSELVES.

We are not even allowed to ask what else he could have done to make his point, are we?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/controversial-new-group-for.html


I created a Facebook group asking precisely that question and it was deleted. 

As for the parties you call Far Right, they cannot manage a piss-up in a brewery. Nick Griffin exists to make money out of the white working classes who dislike immigration and do not see why they cannot complain about it without being called evil racist Fascist Nazi extremists. 

If you were white working class and not very educated you might even be a member of the BNP because you wish to assert your right to complain about immigration. 

How would Muslims like their homelands to be full of immigrants while being forbidden to complain about them?

I have already come to the conclusion that the reason why Britain is full of immigrants is simply because if feminism resulting in white British women not having enough children who are brought up by their mothers or taught in their schools to become productive citizens and employees a sane employer might wish to hire. 

Instead of addressing the problems of education and widespread illegitimacy (which would mean

(1) dealing with the teaching unions and perhaps shooting them in front of their families, as Jeremy Clarkson once suggested
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8930717/Jeremy-Clarksons-execute-strikers-joke-sparks-21000-complaints-to-BBC.html 

(2) criticising the Feminazis such as Dame Jenni Murray (possibly the most evil woman in Britain) as well as her sidekick Jane Garvey at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb as well as Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton of Mumsnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumsnet#History successive governments have in fact conspired to facilitate yet more immigration to appease their voters who are employers who need labour NOW. They cannot wait until after feminism is discredited, or when white British women decide to have enough children and bring them up properly, or when the education system is sorted out.  Michael Gove has been defeated on his proposals to raise standards of education, has he not?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-forced-into-humiliating-uturn-over-ebacc-8484074.html

The government already know that five years - which is the length of a term in office - is not enough to sort that mess out. So they continue to sweep the dust under the carpet.

The white working classes hate Muslims because Muslims are visible and obviously different, while it is not immediately obvious that one of their own is a promiscuous woman and a mother of illegitimate variously-fathered feral children who go to sink schools and leave without qualifications making them unemployable and only fit for a life of crime and welfare dependency.

It is feminism which has created the need for immigrant labour, by lowering the standards of mothering and education in our Culture of Excuses and Entitlement.

It is easier for the white working classes to hate Muslims than to hate their own women -  however promiscuous - because most men who are not in a position to support a wife or are too mean to pay a prostitute will always welcome a cheap source of sex from any promiscuous female minded to give it to them cheap or free.  Men are only after one thing, after all!

The BNP are not prepared to criticise SSMs because most of their membership are the sons of SSMs. 

It would of course help if Muslims are prepared to criticise SSMs, but I have a feeling most Muslims do not want to be even more disliked than they are already. In this way, Muslims are slowly becoming like Jews, who want to prove that they are superior to every race because they are the only ones who follow the commandments of a moral and omnipotent God. Those who do not follow what their God commands will soon find themselves becoming weak and degenerate, in just the same way that a bright student who is not studious will inevitably fall behind to even an average student who is studious.  In the same way, Muslims will also eventually lose their traditions in an environment that is so clearly hostile to social conservatism ie the institutions of marriage and the family, that British Muslims too will be mocked for coming from the land that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. 

While Muslims who now have the protection of their religion think gay marriage and being unmarried mothers will never happen to them, are they so sure it will not happen to their children and grandchildren? Most Muslims go to the same schools as the white non-Muslims  who are so gay, so promiscuous, so sexually liberated and welfare-dependent after all.

If Muslims want to be less disliked, they will have to demonstrate to the white working classes that it is their lack of religion and family values that makes them weaker than the newly-arrived Muslim immigrant. In short, they will have to warn the people whom they know hate and fear Muslims about the destructiveness of feminism to the institutions of marriage and the family.

However, I am sure no Muslim is prepared to do that. 

I am sure that the instinct of most Muslims is to say of the white non-Muslims whom they know  hate them: "Let them get weaker and more morally rotten, since they hate us so much. Nothing would please us more than to see them rot before our eyes in their stew of moral corruption of alcoholism, sexual liberation and gay marriage - all fueled by liberalism and feminism", while entirely forgetting their duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.  

It should be noted that Breivik has been identified as anti-feminist at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism  It is interesting that Muslims refuse to integrate into Western society because they don't want their children and grandchildren to end up as sexually liberated SSMs nor their sons gaily marrying each other nor ending up being divorced and homeless and having to return to live with their parents while deprived of access to their grandchildren by a spiteful ex-daughter-in-law.  The Far Right and Muslims face a common enemy: extremist feminism that desecrates the institutions of marriage and family.  It is the dead weight of feminism (which supports the right of women to be as promiscuous as men) that prevents frightened white men from criticising the worst of their women, who are promiscuous, parasitical and degenerate,even if they are in government and a member of the Cabinet.   The condition of the married white middle class liberal male politician is indeed pitiable and contemptible, for we now have politicians who are these days too afraid of discussing politics.   British Muslims may be forgiven, perhaps, for indulging in what the Germans would call  schadenfreude, and wishing to see the white man, who has bombed and invaded their countries and stolen their oil suffer just a little bit more.  However, what hurts the white man will eventually hurt them too, for they too live in the land of white people.    

I really do not think calling for more restrictions on the free speech of both Muslims and anyone who wishes to complain about immigration is going to help Muslims.  The white working classes need someone to hate for being overtaken and replaced by immigrants.  They need to hate someone whom their own government actually prefers to them.   After all, their own government cares so little about them that it refuses to even warn or advise them for their own good.   The political classes have so much contempt for the white working classes that they would rather throw money at them than tell them a few home truths or risk their careers by offending their slut and bastard voters whom no sane British employer would hire as an employee.

If Muslims want to improve things in Britain rather than merely have their revenge of the Far Right, they should point to the cause of Western malaise, instead of encouraging the government to impose more restrictions on all our freedoms - talk about going native!

Why should Muslims be afraid of offending the worst of women - the unmarried mothers of illegitimate offspring whose children are not a credit to them?  

They have gone native, or forgotten their Islamic duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.   Perhaps it is right that Muslims who neglect their duty to Allah do not prosper.  

Or they would go and like https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379?fref=ts

Friday, 8 March 2013

UKIP too cowardly to defend free speech: that is why they will never amount to anything

It has come to my notice that Steve Moxon, who wrote The Woman Racket was to have stood as a candidate for UKIP but was removed because

"On his blog he said Norwegian killer Anders Breivik's thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131

What did Moxon say that was so contentious?

UKIP said that he

"made a number of remarks on subjects such as the Breivik manifesto and Islam that are at odds with UKIP policy and perspective."

What was it that Moxon actually said?


It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.



And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).


I fail to read anything in it that is anything to do with UKIP policy.  Anyway, the long and short of it was that UKIP preferred to play it safe rather than allow themselves to be embroiled in a discussion about Muslims and Islamophobia, and suspended Moxon pronto.  

Moxon took it in good part, probably because he already knows, being a white man in an effeminate culture,  that the default position of the white man is that of expedient and repellent cowardice.   

At http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/on-happily-being-suspended-as-ukip.html#links you can read him taking it all so terribly well.

Sean Gabb the libertarian would also have been a feather in the cap of UKIP because he is something of an intellectual who appears in the media fairly regularly, but apparently, these days you are not allowed to suggest that people in possession of child porn should not necessarily be treated as criminals without being dropped as a UKIP candidate.

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/sean-gabb-banned-by-ukip/

How sad then that all those who have said nothing that is morally or intellectually indefensible and who could have defended themselves perfectly well against any hysterical accusations of racism, Islamophobia or whatever are always hung out to dry and then dropped like a hot potato by their party. 

If I were leader of a party and one of my members said something that he or she wished to defend publicly, I would make a point of letting them do so, to see how they acquit themselves.  It would be trial by media of course, but that is always so much fun to witness a baptism of fire even if it turns out later to be self-immolation.  

Something similar happened to me too when I thought I might have been the BNP London Mayoral Candidate in 2011 when I said or tried to say on Five Live that 

(a) I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby 

(b) no one should have to pay for another person's children whether able-bodied or disabled

(c) before the NHS came into existence, home births were the rule rather than the exception and any unviable disabled unwanted baby would be disposed of by the miswife
For just saying this, it was suggested to me that I might like to resign, but I refused, since what I said I felt was morally and intellectually defensible, though undeniably offensive to the easily offended people of this morbidly feminised country.  

How sad it is that no one in our liberal democracy seems to understand what a principle is, let alone show any willingness at all to defend the  principle of free speech.   

A principle is perhaps rather too abstract for dumbed-down degenerate emasculated effeminate white men who have no sense of honour to grasp, let alone practise, I suppose.   This is because most Britons these days are illegitimate and singly parented in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html and you cannot expect much from people like that who have been marinating in their Culture of Entitlement and Excuses for generations now..   

What Voltaire said about free speech is now but completely forgotten in the matriarchal dementia the West is now collectively suffering.  In case you have forgotten what he was supposed to have said, here is it:


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This leads me inexorably to one of my favourite quotes:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  The Bhagavad Gita

Monday, 14 January 2013

Marginalisation of the beta male more the cause of mass-murdering gunmen than lax firearm regulation?

Extracted from the psychologist Simon Sheppard's essay 
SPREE KILLERS: THE FOREFRONT OF KNOWLEDGE 
Heritage & Destiny January-February 2013

" ... it is clear that a significant proportion of spree killers possess some conscious racial awareness, as demonstrated by their known history, their comments at the time or their choice of targets.   Tellingly, the victims of the  few black spree killers to date have been overwhelmingly white."

"During his trial Breivik was declared sane.  What this means is that there was an absence of psychosis; technically psychosis involves detachment from reality.  So Breivik's actions were not just carefully and rationally planned: his scheme followed a logical, grim progression.

Britain has no equivalent of America's NRA, and what advocates of gun freedom there are consist of a few specialist sportsmen.  Notwithstanding, the point has been made that in practically every case, the weapons for use by spree killers have been licensed or otherwise legally in the possession of their owners.  They were not criminals; in a large number of cases they were normal law-abiding citizens, perhaps even less criminal than average."

"It is well to recall the position in earlier, more masculine times.  Hitler was able to stand and wave to adoring crowds as his procession passed along, this at a time when gun ownership was commonplace and limited only by the requirement that firearms be officially registered, a purely bureaucratic measure.   Similarly, in Britain at this time guns were widely available.  It was an era of greater social cohesion, during which spurious instincts, to the extent that they existed, were controlled.  Nowadays even the Pope rides behind bullet-proof glass.

Restricting gun ownership is no solution, because a means to kill will always be found by the determined.  Emphasising this, in October 2012, Matthew Tvrdon went on a hit-and-run spree in Cardiff using his vehicle and steering-wheel lock as weapons.  Tvrdron deliberately aimed his van at pedestrians, sometimes even reversing back over the mostly women and children he had mown down.   If we are to have any hope of preventing such killing sprees in the future, it is necessary first of all to understand the phenomenon.

The first question we need to ask is, how closely does Breivik fit the mould of the 'perfect' spree killer?  The answer to this is - pretty closely.  Breivik's only major deviation from the substandard pattern was to live to tell the tale, and in that at least he has done the world a service.  I have no doubt that he is aware of this aspect and that it was intentional.  Allowing his motivations to be examined subsequently was almost certainly his preferred outcome.

A distinguishable subset of spree killers includes psychotics and social outcasts ...  However even these cases may not be completely divorced from the general trend: psychosis is a disorder of the mind, or higher brain, while the instincts (motivations) which impel the spree killer, I would contend, derive from a lower level."

"Western societies have become highly feminised ... Due to female influence, all forms of violence were strongly discouraged and thus were generally inhibited by males.   Sometimes however sudden eruptions of disproportionate violence would occur, triggered by some relatively trivial incident.   These seemed completely unpredictable; there was no forewarning that a 'tipping point' had been reached.

In such an intensely female-friendly environment, a number of factors operate.   First, males see females unreservedly following their instincts and not unnaturally want to do the same.   Needless to say, he cannot.  Second, expression of those female instincts was usually to males' detriment: he could be, and was, manipulated, toyed-with and teased practically without limit.  Third, he could not avoid being influenced by that atmosphere of disinhibition, and the burden of restraining his own violent and other socially undesirable  instincts increased.

The confused and neurotic male is easy to manipulate.  In that super-feminine environment, and increasingly elsewhere, even innocuous male instincts (such as to place indiscriminate markers, just being friendly  or passing the time of day) are repressed.  This is because disinhibition serves to maintain males in a state of generalised neurosis and maximises female control.  The whole environment becomes arduous for males.

Humans are undeniably social animals, and arguably each race has a distinct collective unconscious.  Jung, who at least had the wisdom to dissociate himself from Freud, spoke of the 'race memory' - or, to quote Heisenberg, 'Every race has its soul and every soul its race.'   The next question we need to pose is, what is that strikes so deeply at this collective psyche to provoke an individual in a society to such casual atrocity?  Clearly something along these lines is taking place: spree killings are no longer isolated incidents but have become a social phenomenon by their repetition.  At least 75 spree killings have taken place since 1949.

A nationalist perspective would be that three obvious new features of Western societies are mass immigration, the promotion of miscegenation and miscegenation itself.   As always, we put our observations of behaviour in its evolutionary context.   What evolutionary scenario can be envisaged in which a male could see members of other races moving freely about, promoted to positions of authority over him, and occupying other prestigious roles?  Or when might he see his women parading through thoroughfares with a male of another race, transporting children sired by him, and obviously serving his domestic and personal needs, while his own remain untended?

It is that the tribe has been defeated and cast into servitude.  In this case, throughout history, the indigenous males would have been rapidly dispatched (put to the sword, or machete, or whatever) or quickly transported away to be sold as slaves.   In any event the vanquished males would be hastily got out of the way, for obvious reasons.   Their reaction at seeing their women expropriated, their families destroyed and their settlement exploited makes them dangerous to keep around.  With nothing left to lose a humiliated male would, given any opportunity at all, strike back with maximum force.  This would be without regard for his own future, for the simple reason that he has none.

In leading these social changes the media are probably the main offenders, so we would be naive to expect them to point the finger at themselves.  Not only do they encourage and mendaciously portray as normal the mass immigration and miscegenation which strikes deeply at the core of the male psyche, but non-whites are elevated to the positions of newsreaders and presenters.  This can only be a deliberate, finely calculated insult.  It is surely stretching credulity to believe otherwise - think of the millions of native British men who would eagerly take such a well-paid and prestigious job!"

" ... Putatively the defining characteristic of the serial killer is control, because ultimate control is power over the life of another person.  If he leaves some form of signature, this is an expression of his ego.  The male desires control; this is how his ego is expressed.  If powerful he issues orders and affects destinies.  A craving for control seems to be the essential characteristic of the serial killer.

In contrast, the essence of the spree killer is rebellion against his devaluation.  His protest at his derogation is expressed by the number of victims; his tally is a demonstration of his worth.   In most cases the spree killer has already decided to end his life, either because of events immediately beforehand or as part of a long-standing plan.  Circumstances have ceased to make  his life worthwhile, and he raises the cost of his demise with a final statement of his value.

We can now consider his choice of targets in light of this, particularly his emergence in modern, feminised, Western societies.   In the male-female 'game of opposites' I have referred to before, males value the old while females value the young.   Thus in the feminine mindset, children are valued more than men.  This has become especially manifest since the State has supplanted the husband as the female's protector and ultimate provider.   

Female largesse extends to the many groups with which she feels affinity or sympathy.  Yet practically everything that has ever been discovered or invented has arisen from white male ingenuity.  Although virtually all our modern amenities derive from the efforts of exceptional males, our society could not function without ordinary men performing mundane jobs.   Nevertheless in contemporary society he is constantly devalued and insulted; his concerns routinely dismissed.   What more profound insult can be delivered to a man than for a woman to advertise that she prefers a male of an alien race, even who a century or so ago was called a savage, to seed future generations of her line?  These are the provocations which can transform a normal, law-abiding and otherwise unexceptional man into a kind of Vulcan murder machine.

Thus in raising the cost of his demise, the spree killer can target the young, raising the cost according to the values of his opponent.  Breivik's choice of target was coldly logical - since the State, as in this country has defined 'the invaders' as a protected group, any action against them will only increase their guardianship and exacerbate the situation he is rebelling against.   Plus of course, information about where the blame really belongs is hard to come by.  Pointing the finger can land you a jail sentence.

Even moderate critics of the Establishment's suicidal immigration policies are marginalised and vehemently traduced as 'racists', 'xenophobes' and the like ....  Nationalists' concerns are ignored, or they are the theme of phony, stage-managed debate by a closed group of 'media darlings' who only repeat their stock agenda.   The spree killer arises out of repressed fury at the despoilation of everything he is, has or holds dear; indeed spree killing might be regarded as the ultimate displacement activity.

Under this analysis it becomes apparent that fathers who destroy their children and then themselves, usually after the mother has spurned the marriage, are another form of spree killing.  Including these personal tragedies adds significantly to the total number of spree killings already recorded."

" ... evolutionary psychology provides us with a reliable guide, and the tribal scenario above is consistent with phylogenetic (ie natural) principles and the gut instinct of many individual males.   It has always been, and will ever be, the male who fights to preserve the integrity of the tribe.

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary of the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance.  He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come."



Please "like" http://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Slut-Single-Mothers-a-burden-on-the-state/220271251432495
It tries to make the point that if men say it is OK for their women to be SSMs then they might as well hand over their manhood to the most stupid, irresponsible and promiscuous of their women.

Was Adam Lanza a victim of bad mothering and no-fault divorce?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Was-Adam-Lanza-a-victim-of-bad-mothering-and-no-fault-divorce/257704144358446

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...