Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline

1. The moment men say it is in order for their women to be fornicating sluts they will become lower than sluts.
2. Men are lower than sluts if they dare not criticise them.
3. We know who is in power by those whom we dare not criticise.
4. Even the US President dares not criticise sluts and he is supposed to be the world's most powerful man.  
5. The current US President dares not criticise sluts because he knows Slut Single Mothers (SSMs) mostly vote Democrat. http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/10/04/coulter-if-we-took-away-womens-right-to-vote-we/140037
6. The failure of the Republican candidate Mitt Romney to be elected US President was because female voters realised he was referring to them in his 47% comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#47.25_comment
7. Mitt Romney either did not read or decided not to take on board the advice I gave him at http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/too-many-women-have-vote-and-solution.html
8. The patriarchy runs on marriage the way cars run on petrol.
9. Properly supporting marriage - not just paying lip service to it - means you have to forbid extramarital sex officially and unambiguously by say proposing that Slut Single Mothers be lashed 100 times per bastard. http://quran.com/24/2
10. Proposing to lash Slut Single Mothers 100 times per bastard would of course make the Slut Single Mothers and their running dogs (MCSFs which are explained at http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html) have fits of the vapours, and this is what Mike Buchanan, leader of the West's only antifeminist party is not prepared to do, because he is only a beta male, easily frightened. 
11. Failing to practise marriage means that the matriarchy establishes itself by peopling your society with sluts and bastards, who will be genetically, morally, culturally and economically inferior to married couples and their legitimate offspring.  
12. Feminism causes immigration because working mothers cause women to not have enough children, fail to parent them properly and probably deprive them of their fathers when they divorce their husbands. 
13. Feminism causes paedophilia because single mothers neglect and/or abandon their offspring to care homes.
14. A patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity.
15. A matriarchy is a society that condones and even rewards female promiscuity.
16. It is easier to be a matriarchy than a patriarchy because it is easier for men to let women fuck whoever they like in the name of sexual liberation hoping one of the men these sluts fancy fucking will be them than to say there should be enforceable rules about who they get knocked up by or see to it that these rules are enforced by law or social disapproval. 
17. All patriarchies are advanced civilisations and all matriarchies are declining and primitive societies. It has been taboo to criticise the Slut Single Mother since 1974, as Keith Joseph discovered after he made his speech. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101830 The crisis of masculinity began in 1974 when a putative alpha male who did so - a Prime Minister in waiting no less - lost his position to a woman, Margaret Thatcher.
18. If you are an attractive male with charisma and charm you would do OK in a  matriarchy because you would have worked out the unspoken rules and the sluts would be queuing up to suck your cock anyway. (Someone who has probably worked out the rules is Chuka Umunna, tipped to be the next Labour leader after Ed Miliband loses the next General Election.)
19. The greatest victims of feminism are beta males whom women despise because they find them the opposite of attractive and charming. (This means they find them repulsive and intensely irritating as I am sure many feminists find Mike Buchanan.)
20. In the days of the patriarchy women would have to settle for a beta male if they can't get themselves an alpha male but want legitimate offspring. (These days they say things like "A few minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta.")
21. A woman who settles for a beta male will always look upon him as a reminder of her failure when she perceives that he is not as clever, not as adventurous and not as attractive and wealthy as she would like him to be, or worse, perceives that he is not as clever and not as adventurous or wealthy as she is. (This is probably why beta males looking for wives prefer women to be stupider than they are and why Western men find dumb blonds so attractive. Blondness is a sign of childhood and immaturity, which is why emotionally and intellectually insecure men prefer to deal with women who are childlike and won't question them too much.) 
22. In the days of the patriarchy a married woman would be regarded to have a higher status than a mere spinster.
23. The current leader of the only antifeminist political party in the West is beta male Mike Buchanan.
24. Beta males need the protection of alpha males, but there are no alpha males in the West any more because even the US President - the nominal alpha male of the West - is afraid of criticising sluts who have the vote. 
25. Indeed, beta males cannot even choose their leader without the interference of women who have the vote. Why do women vote differently from men?
26. As for the males with alpha qualities, they are doing fine and getting all the pussy they want. If they are even seen to be challenging feminism they would lose access to pussy as well as their status, and perhaps even their matrimonial home and their children, because wives can now divorce their husbands for no good reason at all under the rules of no fault divorce and get half their husband's property and pension. 
27. What is the problem with Mike Buchanan being a beta male? No beta male will accept the authority of another beta male and Mike Buchanan cannot generate the charisma, charm, confidence and courage to be an alpha male because his personality and narrow outlook and intellect does not allow for the development of charisma, charm, confidence and courage. 
28. Claire Khaw is female with alpha male qualities, which would be much more useful to antifeminists than a mere beta male like Mike Buchanan too afraid to even ask for what he needs and wants to re-establish the patriarchy.
29. An alpha male would not feel threatened by me or my ideas and would find them useful, but beta male Mike Buchanan is too intellectually insecure to even discuss my ideas, let alone challenge them, because he already knows what I say is so obviously true and none of my claims can be challenged or undermined.  All he knows is that he must not be seen to be endorsing my views because he is terrified of alienating his female supporters. 
30. Why do men of other cultures hate and fear the slut? Because they don't want to become like Western men in collective denial over their thraldom to the slut and unable to get out of the fix they are in because every exit out of the matriarchy is now blocked by sluts they are terrified of offending.

Chuka Umunna - a male with alpha qualities  heterosexual female members of the Labour Party will find irresistibly attractive and vote for after Ed Miliband loses the General Election on 7 May 2015. 

The Labour Party should record and publish the percentage of female party members who vote for him and the percentage of male party members who vote for him in the next Labour Party leadership election after Ed Miliband loses the election because he is just not sexy enough.

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males by Simon Sheppard

Mike Buchanan, beta male with the political party dedicated to challenging feminism too intellectually insecure to discuss my ideas or accept my help for his General Election campaign

Mike Buchanan the beta male in his beta male van

Mike Buchanan displays his beta male qualities in his beta male vehicle. 

Janusz Korwin-Mikke, outspoken leader of Poland’s Congress of the New Right.  Part of his distaste for modern Europe is driven by the position of women, who he says have replaced “privileges” with “equal rights”, a phrase Korwin-Mikke spat out as if it was an insult. Most want to stay at home to raise families, and can’t be trusted to vote, said the twice-married father of six. They are also, he claims, “less tall, less heavy, less intelligent, on the average”. And he adds: “Women usually vote for the more handsome man.” http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke

Why do women vote differently from men?

83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this say about feminism?

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

The self-evident truth that feminism denies

Some things are easy for men but hard for women and vice versa. Most women are easily offended and find it hard to think logically, for example.

Most men find it easy to talk about sports and politics endlessly which would bore women silly.

If we acknowledge these differences, then we would have to acknowledge that men find it harder to say no to no-strings sex while women have more offers of sex than they would like to accept.

The problem with feminism is that it denies this self-evident truth, and uses all its legislative power to suppress the pointing out of this self-evident truth: that men are the weaker sex at saying no to no-strings sex.

For most women, sex is a chore while for most men it is a physical and all-consuming imperative.

If sex were a drug then men would be the user and women the dealer. The cancer of feminism is now so bone-deep that expecting the Western man to denounce feminism is like expecting a drug-addict to call the cops on his dealer. Ain't gonna happen.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet and just voting UKIP is not going to be enough because UKIP are too afraid even to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

What does the elephant in the room consist of?

1. indiscriminate universal suffrage
2. representative democracy when we should have a one-party state that protects the rights of its members operating under the principles of Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
3. anti-discrimination legislation
4. no-fault divorce
5. gay marriage
6. the civil partnership
7. the consecration of our right to have extramarital sex (which is dysgenic) and the desecration of the institution of marriage (which is eugenic)
8. the powerlessness of our politicians hence their despicable cowardice and hypocrisy
9. the existence of the welfare state - another sacred cow - which supports all of the above making governments borrow recklessly to keep the whole shebang going

The operation of democracy prevents these tragic and continuing errors from being corrected and we are heading towards the edge of the cliff like lemmings.  

Please help me save Western civilisation by discussing this with any woman intelligent enough to understand this, even if you think she will disagree, become offended and never speak to you again.  

This would be your wife who will divorce you under the ruinous terms of no fault divorce, your daughter who will never speak to you again, and your slut girlfriend who will dump you, right?  

Ain't gonna happen, I know.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet.  

Any civilisation in which the overwhelming majority of men are afraid of women and husbands afraid of wives to even discuss politics cannot survive, let alone prosper. 

Can you imagine David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg discussing any of this with their wives? Or even Barack Obama?

I rest my case and my case is not based on a conspiracy theory. Men really are stupid and women really are crazy. Women are crazy because men become stupid the moment they say it is OK for women to be sluts, and women go crazy when they get the go ahead to be sluts.

We are all to blame if we do not work up the courage to confront the perniciousness of feminism.

Remember: once upon a time, a Wise Man created God to protect himself from feminism and his susceptibility to sluts.

When Aristotle said that the greatest injustice was to treat unequal things equally, he meant feminism would be the greatest injustice, and feminism is a cancer, waiting in the wings for its cue, for the right conditions to makes its entrance, to thrive and flourish. and then eventually kill its host ...

Athens did not become successful despite its alleged misogyny but because of it, but you won't hear classical historians like Mary Beard saying this, even if she agreed, cos she would be out of her job and out on her ear.

Feminazis have been victimising Camille Paglia for decades for speaking the truth.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Why Claire Khaw does what she does

John Cantlie's third critique of Western foreign policy

"Hello, I am John Cantlie, the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

President Obama's address on the 13th anniversay of the 9/11 finally stopped all the ninnying around as he laid down his four-stage strategy for confronting the Islamic State. There were no big surprises: US aircraft would provide the airpower, while a mix of Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard (not yet formed), Peshmurga fighters and Iranians (not mentioned) will do the ground operations. The border between Iraq and Syria will be open and Syrian Rebels will be armed. and all of this with only 475 extra US advisory personnel doing the job, and not a single US soldier with his boots on the ground.

"We will lead a broad coalition to roll back the Islamic State," said Obama. We are hitting ground targets while Iraqi forces go on the offence.  "I will not hesitate to take action against the Islamic State in Syria", he said.

Now, exactly when Gulf War 3 will start and how long it will take isn't covered. The US advisers working with the Iraqi Army have described their performance as "consistently grim", for arming and training an effective National Guard of Sunni fighters in Western Iraq will take months to achieve.  The Free Syrian Army are proven to be an undisciplined, corrupt and largely ineffective fighting force.

As recently as 7 September a senior US intelligence official  said, "Our intelligence assessment has no serious consideration to work with the FSA. Giving the FSA 500 million now is a completely pointless exercise, never mind that the FSA sells the weapons to the arms dealers and gives them to smugglers and much of them ends up with Islamic State.

Air power is good at taking out specific targets but it is not much good at taking and holding ground.  For that you need effective and disciplined troops, and it is hard to see how this hotch-potch army with its history of under-performing is going to be any form of credible infantry.

After the speech, Peter Baker of the New York Times observed that "Obama is plunging the United States into one of the bloodiest, most vicious conflicts now in existence.  He will pass his successor a volatile and incomplete war, much as his predecessor left one for him. Mr Baker goes on to comment that while previous Presidents enjoyed a surge of public support when they took the nation to war, the public is not rallying behind Obama this time round. Now, polls indicate that while the American public support action against the Islamic State, they do not think Obama is the man for the job, which goes a long way in explaining the simplistic language used in his last speech.  Obama was at pains to point out that groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11 and remains today. If this reality wasn't changed by two arrogant wars before, why would a third change it now?

Obama described the Islamic State as "not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents and a vast number of their victims have been Muslim.  The Islamic State has no vision other than a slaughter of all who stand in its way."

Now, if by innocents he means women and children, the Islamic State did not kill the Christian Yazidi women of Mosul and Sinja. This is an undeniable fact, and they do not regard the Shia as Muslims at all. In fact, according to them the Shia are considered worse than Americans, as they are apostates claiming to be Muslims while worshiping the dead. And the Islamic State does have a vision: they have created an autonomous and functioning Caliphate.  But expanding on the complex social and political issues of the region isn't going to work when it is war you want.  And so the speech was full of hyperbole about how America would save the innocent men, woman and children. "This is American leadership at its best," said Obama. "We stand with people who fight for their own freedom," he said, before the speech descended into prideful chest-beating about how the USA always saves the world, singlehandedly.  It was all disappointingly predictable: America is good, the Islamic State is bad, and they will be defeated using aircraft and a motley collection of fighters on the ground.

For their part, the Islamic State say they welcome meeting Obama's under construction army.

Join me again for the next programme.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=daf_1412022071


I am disgusted by the comments from my Facebook friends who variously said:

"Probably one episode maybe two. Hasnt he said all there is to say by now?"

"He bored me to tears with his droning on. I tuned him out after about the third quote from some U.S. official."

Claire Khaw: Wow. People just don't care about foreign policy no matter how many times or how hard it bites them in the bum!

"No they don't care at all unless it starts to affect their everyday lives."

"If you asked, most people would say that they do support British foreign policy as they give every year to Red Nose Day and Children in Need."

"Lol what can I say? People nowadays have short attention spans! They need to make it interesting as they did some of their other videos. No one wants to just hear this guy talking, just going on and on. It's BORING."

Claire Khaw: I thought you would be different.

"They need to chop a couple of fingers off or an ear in the middle of his broadcast, just to make us 'sit up & listen'.........I didn't get to the end of part three either. Whatever the intention was it's now lost."

Claire it's not a case of being different, there's just no point to it now.

"Maybe it's his voice, Claire. Even *he* sounded (and looked) bored with it all! So how do you expect anyone else to be engaged?"

Claire Khaw: YouTube thought it was interesting enough to have removed links to the video.



Hint to ISIS:

If you have dancing girls behind him, people might watch to the end.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774174/BREAKING-NEWS-New-video-released-British-hostage-John-Cantlie-talks-Obama-s-disappointingly-predictable-strategy-Isis.html
The Mail was the only British newspaper to give a full transcript of the talk, with the best analysis.  

Transcript of John Cantlie's critique of Western foreign policy

Released on 23 September 2014

IGNORED AND CENSORED BY THE WESTERN MEDIA

@MagpieLee "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 24, 2014

Hello there.  I am the British citizen abandoned by my government and a long-term prisoner of the Islamic State.

In this program, we’ll see how the Western governments are hastily marching towards all-out war in Iraq and Syria without paying any heed to the lessons of the recent past, and how they are using the persuasive approach to lure the public back into the conflict.  

So, let’s get straight to the point with a quote from former- C.I.A.-chief-turned-vigorous anti- intervention-campaigner Michael Scheuer: ‘President Obama does not have the slightest intention of defeating the Islamic State, which would require the aerial slaughter and boots in on the ground and the demolishing of the mujahedin' - Michael Scheur whose knowledge of the Muslim Nation and the complexity of their society is considerable adds "18 years into our war with the Islamists our government has given no public sign that it has the slightest awareness of what its enemies are fighting for.  

Now, there are two solid points here. 

The Obama Administration is so perplexed as they marched back into Iraq that they tap-dancing on the issue in a "we're getting involved but we're not really getting involved" kind of way.  You know, air strikes but no troops on the ground, limited operation time, no mission creep, all those pre-combat agreements that tend to get forgotten after the first six months of nasty tough stuff.

The pre-9/11 Afghans are already back in control of large areas of Afghanistan while the full might of the American war machine couldn't destroy the Islamic State in Iraq before.

So, now the State is far stronger now than ever it was.

What is this latest ill-advised foray really supposed to achieve? And Scheur's point is aptly made. As ever, the entire reason why we are at war with the Islamists and what they are fighting for is brilliantly avoided by all.

Senior US politicians seem content to call the Islamic State nasty names: "awful", "vile", "a cancer", "an insult to our values", but such petty insults don't really do much harm to the most powerful jihadist movement seen in recent history. That the Western governments were caught napping by the sheer speed of the Islamic State growth is now a given.  "Intelligence officers failed to anticipate the emergence of the Islamic State", says Tom Kean, the former New Jersey Governor.  "We certainly didn't anticipate them going across the border into Iraq and declaring themselves a Caliphate."

Obama and his allies were well and truly caught by surprise.  [Photos of Obama and his allies being caught by surprise.]

The President once called George Bush's Iraq conflict "a dumb war" and couldn't want to distance America from it when he came into power.  Now he is being inexorably drawn back in. But he is at pains to point out that this not the equivalent of the Iraq War.  In fact, it is far more complicated and prone to failure.  There is a newly-elected pro-American Iranian regime in Iran. They wait eagerly for further American intervention to strengthen the Iranian Crescent in the Middle East.

But the appointment of a new puppet is an important piece of the puzzle in America's Gulf War Free[?] as it allows them to get involved quickly via a proxy.  Iraq's leaders should know that "America will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis as they implement their National Plan", gushed John Kerry on the 9th of September - meaning our National Plan to tackle the Islamic State.  Everyone now is getting involved.  Denmark and France have sent air power. Britain is arming the Kurds. Iran is sending troops. Contracts are being sought in Iraq and even Bashar Al Assad until earlier this year - the most hated and villainised tyrant in the Arab world - is being approached for permission to enter Syria.

"Can the Islamic State be defeated without addressing that part of their organisation that resides in Syria?" asked General Martin Dempsey.

The answer is NO.

It's all quite a circus - air strikes, the creation of last-minute puppet governments, advisory teams of the ground, wooing previous enemies to join in and trans-border incursions into a country that has been in a state of civil war for three years - all the while completely underestimating the strength and fighting zeal of the opponent. Not since Vietnam have we witnessed such a potential mess in the making. 

Current estimates of 15,000 troops needed to fight the Islamic State are laughably low. The State has more mujahideen than this. This is not some undisciplined outfit with a few Kalashnikovs.

We started with Michael Scheuer, so let us give him the final word for now: "Think what you will of the Islamists and their brand of war-making," he says, "but they have been in the field fighting since 1979 and their movement has never been larger, more popular or as well-armed as it is today.

Join me again for the next program.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15b_1411463830

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_perpetual_war_in_Orwell_1984

https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Gore%20Vidal%20-%202002%20-%20Perpetual%20War%20For%20Perpetual%20Peace%20-%20How%20we%20got%20to%20be%20so%20hated.pdf

http://www.enotes.com/topics/perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace

Danish woman leads British Prime Minister and US President astray at Memorial Service

Not bad looking.  Did this woman lead two men astray?

Danish PM leads astray UK PM and US President

http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/10/selfies-at-funerals-david-cameron-and-barack-obama-pose-at-memorial-for-nelson-mandela-4225495/?ITO=facebook

Eve The Temptress. 

"Is President Obama doomed to failure?" asks the Today Programme on Facebook

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8975000/8975039.stm

0853
President Obama has largely achieved what he said he would, yet some observers regard him as a failure and he is facing the prospect of significant electoral losses in the forthcoming mid-term elections. Former editor of the Economist, Bill Emmott and Bill Barnard of Democrats Abroad discuss the achievements and failures of the US president.

Obama embodies

1. the loss of confidence of the white race
2. the end of liberal hegemony
3. the decline of the USA

as surely as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand came to embody the beginning of WW1.

The Obama Administration is really a signal that America is about to make way for another superpower, and the beginning of the end for liberalism as a respectable political orthodoxy. Shallower historians will see it in racial terms, unfortunately.

Obama got in because, in the whole of America, there was no clearly better candidate that the rotten US political system was capable of producing.

Obama, with his way with words and his ability to cry on cue, touched every liberal heart-string drinking in the last chance saloon.

Liberalism AKA feminism AKA the desecration of family values is an aberration that has delighted us for quite long enough. 

Obama and the incorrect choice of promises he should have kept and broken

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8466995.stm

Obama should have broken his promise to give the Americans free health care and kept his promise to end the war.

It would have been fiscally more responsible.

500 extra UK troops are heading to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5guteTYhjoaHJd6cgXC55iKnNTVCA

and all this before Obama has even announced how many troops he is prepared to commit.

Why did Brown announce that Afghanistan is going to get 500 troops before Obama shows his hand? What if Obama suddenly said, "Nah, f*ck this for a laugh, we're pulling out tomorrow." Wouldn't that make the British look, not to put too fine a point on it, rather foolish?

If Obama decided not to commit any more troops, then Brown would have committed 500 British soldiers' lives to be sacrificed for nothing.

Is British diplomacy missing a trick or two in showing such unquestioning eagerness?

Personally, I find it embarrassing that the British have a prime minister that shows such dog like devotion, such unthinking support. Did Obama say "walkies" to the Brown Dog? Or did he just say "Let us get more of our soldiers killed in the name of the stupid people who thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea?

For Blair and for Bush! Into the valley of death! For the land which values the career and hurt feelings of a single possibly lesbian Yeowoman to be worth more than the careers of two Yeomen with dependents. That is what British soldiers are dying for.

When are they going to say "F*ck that for a laugh"?

Not too late to start the PM for PM campaign

In 1993, Canada's ruling party went from government to having just two MPs, after scoring just 16% in the general election. After Labour's electoral drubbing in June, could it face a similar fate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8226525.stm


If the Labour Party chooses either Millie Band or Alan Johnson as their leader they might as well not bother.

But not if it is Peter Mandelson - Lord of the Labour Party and First Lord of the Treasury to be!

If only someone would give me the opportunity of explaining my proposed project, called The Obama-isation of Mandelson ....

Nick Griffin roots for Obama - truth stranger than fiction?

By SARA NELSON
Published: 24 Sep 2008

BNP leader Nick Griffin cuts an unlikely figure as a Barack Obama fan – but that did not stop him wearing a hat supporting the presidential hopeful.

The controversial politician was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1998 for denying the Holocaust but has repeatedly insisted the BNP is not a racist group.
The far right party is opposed to non-white immigration and all for returning Britain to a white nation.

But as this snap shows, it looks like Griffin is not averse to seeing a black man become the next American president.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/the_real_american_idol/article1729367.ece