How who we are allowed to have sex with affects the quality of our government

Which version do you prefer?

VERSION A:

Why sluts are bad for your race, nation and civilisation, whatever your race
Because it is OK for women to be sluts these days, women these days choose the alpha male. The alpha male is therefore the male who gets the most offers of sex from females.

The beta males who observe this then ape the behaviour of this male to whom sluts have conferred alpha status.

Sluts are stupid irresponsible and immoral women, so they are bound to choose badly and for bad reasons.

By saying it is OK for women to be sluts the characters and morals of men are ruined, precipitating a vicious cycle of degeneracy and decline.

To correct this parlous state of affairs, the practice of slut-shamiing should be re-established so that the alpha male is again chosen by beta male.

Sluts can still offer themselves to alpha males but if they get knocked up they will be given 100 lashes per illegitimate offspring. This is the only way beta males can see to it that they control who becomes the alpha male, and prevent stupid sluts from choosing bad leaders for them.

VERSION B:

Why fornicatresses are bad for your race, nation and civilisation, whatever your race

Because it is OK for women to *fornicate* these days, women these days choose the alpha male. The alpha male is therefore the male who gets the most offers of sex from fornicatresses.

The beta males who observe this then ape the behaviour of this male to whom *fornicatresses* have conferred alpha status.

*Fornicatresses* are stupid irresponsible and immoral women, so they are bound to choose badly and for bad reasons.

By saying it is OK for women to *fornicate* the characters and morals of men with whom these women fornicate are ruined, precipitating a vicious cycle of moral degeneracy as well as political, economic and social decline.

To correct this parlous state of affairs, the practice of "slut-shamiing" should be re-established so that the alpha male is again chosen by beta male.

Women can still offer themselves to alpha males but if they get knocked up they will be given 100 lashes per illegitimate offspring. This is the only way beta males can see to it that they control who becomes the alpha male, and prevent *fornicatresses* from choosing bad leaders for them.

Why is Western civilisation declining? Because

• women do not have enough power
• all women have the vote, most women are sluts and sluts choose the alpha male

Who should choose the alpha male of any human society?

• The beta males whom he leads
• Sluts

Which group do you think deserves the most political representation to keep our government small and rational?

• SSMs and the men who impregnated them
• Spinsters, bachelors and LGBT people
• Married couples with children
• Divorced men and women

To respect marriage, we have would logically have to forbid extramarital sex.

• Disagree
• Agree

Why are male British nationalists not interested in discussing marriage as a means of improving racial and national hygiene? Because

• they have not been raised with the view that marriage is important
• most of their mothers are SSMs
• nobody else is either in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland
• they know no one wants to marry them.
• most of them are illegitimate
• most of them have illegitimate offspring
• they are only motivated by sex and they sex with sluts is easier and cheaper than getting married
• they want sex to be cheap so they want there to be lots of sluts
• they know discussing marriage would offend sluts and are so morally degraded and effeminate that they don't mind admitting they are lower than sluts

When do you know that democracy will continue to fail?

• When no party will criticise sluts and SSMs
• When slut and bastard voters outnumber married voters
• When no party will propose to narrow the franchise

Which group do you think is in the majority?

• SSMs and the men who impregnated them
• Married couples with children
• Spinsters, bachelors and LGBT people
• Divorced men and women

Atheists tend not to see the point in respecting marriage.

• Agree
• Disagree

Atheists tend not to think of the long term national interest and are more interested in filling their boots and using up all the stuff they can use up before they die, without caring too much about the mess they leave behind because they will be dead.

• Disagree
• Agree

In which party do you think is the percentage of married men with legitimate children the lowest?

• The BNP
• The Conservative Party
• UKIP
• The Labour Party
• The LibDems

In which party do you think is the percentage of married men with legitimate children the highest?

• The Conservative Party
• UKIP
• The BNP
• The Labour Party
• The LibDems

Which group do you think is in the minority?

• Married couples with children
• Bachelors, spinsters and LGBT people
• SSMs and the men who impregnated them
• Divorced men and women

Which group do you think would be most likely to vote in the long term national interest?

• Married couples with children
• SSMs and the men who impregnated them
• Spinsters, bacehlors and LGBT people
• Divorced men and women

Is the clearest sign of the sex difference between men and women the way they would react when you tell them that their sex organ is enormous?

• Yes
• No

Do you think a gay men, confirmed bachelors, SSMs or spinsters would have different priorities to married men with children and would vote differently?

• Yes
• No

National Culturalism won't work as a pillar of British nationalism

Nick Griffin and Jack Buckby, the proponent of "National Culturalism"

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/jack-buckby-is-proud-to-be-britains-next-nick-griffin

It won't work because it is not about anything, and no one can define British Culture, not even British Nationalists.

Culture is fluid, and to ask what British culture is becomes a philosophical question, and British nationalists are not especially equipped to ask and answer them.

What do the British do anyway?  More importantly, what is it about British culture that British nationalists wish to preserve?

I have asked Jack Buckby and he got rather angry with me when he could not answer this question, and disengaged.  He has probably been warned off me by the Chairman of the BNP, who might have told him to steer clear of me as I am a bit of a Nazi ....

Nationalism needs to be for and against something that people can understand.  The white proletarian whine  about immigration and Muslims is not enough to attract the votes of the middle and business classes, but it seems these people do not even care, or do not know of the scale of the work to be done to make nationalism electorally respectable.

To be a national movement, nationalism must be inclusive.   This will make many nationalists baulk, for to them nationalism is about excluding foreigners and other races.

It must not only be racially inclusive, it must also offer something for people of all classes, races and religions.  (Currently, it is a party that wants socialism for whites only.)

There is therefore more than a hint of ideological retardation amongst nationalists, who want it to stay proletarian, antisemitic and white and then wonder why they are universally despised.   This sort of thing is OK for a social or activity club, but won't do at all for a political party.

So here are the key points of nationalism, as I see it:

1. Nationalism is for all of the nation, regardless of class, religion or race.  It is one-nation nationalism.  Indeed, you could call it National Socialism without the racism, antisemitism or militarism.  It is racially neutral.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah  (Is this motherhood and apple pie enough for you?)
2. Nationalism is better able to endure and can best be promoted in a single party state and a taxpayer-only democracy.  (It need not be totalitarian if you have a constitution that protects the rights of its members from the leader and his cronies.)
3. It is socially conservative.
4. Its purpose is to serve the long-term national interest.  (The long term is defined as our children or grandchildren not yet born.)
5. Its promotes the greater good of the greater number.
6. It is libertarian in purpose for it is contended that it would be in the long term national interest to have fewer laws and lower taxes.  (Tacitus: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.")
7. It will derive its morality and legal principles from the Koran without compelling belief in anyone.   (2:256:  "There is no compulsion in belief, for truth stands clear from error.")  As you all throw your hands up in horror at the idea, may I just  point out that the Koran is actually a lot more lenient on criminals than the Old Testament?  How do you know it is horrible if you haven't read it?  Did you know that the Muslims have been perverting and distorting their religion for centuries with their ungodly Hadith that contradcits the Koran?  Now is the time for the white man to show he can do it better.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYeeUsZ4xc&feature=player_embedded

This is a recording of the speakers at the launch of the British Democratic Party on 9 February 2013 showing in spades they are still not getting the point about ideology.   Only Adrian Davies gets it about respectability, and it is not merely kowtowing to PC liberalism and pretending to go along with it, he says.   Only I can do RADICAL civic nationalism because it is my intention to challenge the view that feminism is as an ideology either viable or moral.  With the official support of nationalists, I can start the ball rolling by getting media attention, because their declared support for me would be a story in itself.  Without their declared support, I can do nothing for them, being merely a bullet without a gun ...  

It would be nice to get intelligent questions for a change.

You can discuss nationalist matters at https://www.facebook.com/groups/327008697419786/

You are cordially invited to challenge my ideas on nationalism too.

1. Civic Nationalism is the only way forward as Front Nationale have shown in France.

2. While ethno-nationalism may be what you really want and think, civic nationalism is what it is politic to say.

3. Civic Nationalism will get nationalists more of what they want than ethno-nationalism ever will.

4. Civic Nationalism will avoid nationalists having to wade through the swamp of racist accusations so other important matters eg feminism, can be discussed.

5. If you accept the above then my involvement would be essential to show you are serious about Civic Nationalism.

6. Civic Nationalism can be radical and thought-provoking, without falling foul of the usual liberal taboos.

7. Only I can promote Civic Nationalism in a way that is attractive and appealing to the media and voter

8. Showing you are prepared to try new ideas and people is the only way of forward.

"If all you do is all you ever did, then all you'll get is all you ever got."

Nationalists who reject civic nationalism are like a poor man saying he will hire a chauffeur when everyone knows he cannot even afford the bus fare. 

Should nationalists join the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea?

http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/time-for-a-party/#comment-35061

http://thednparty.org/

British Nationalism - do you prefer the Claire version or the Kim version?

Do you prefer Claire's anti-feminist and anti-slut libertarian version of British nationalism that promotes male and parental authority as well as fewer laws and lower taxes in a new remoralised Britain?

Or do you prefer the Kim male-belittling, virulently Islamophobic  totalitarian version of British nationalism?  Most men are afraid of her but probably won't be able to say NO to an invitation to enter her "bat cave" her if she thrusts her very ample bosom into their faces.  Most male politicians are afraid of her, and women like her, because too many of them now have the vote, as do her singly-parenting female friends who have deprived their offspring of a father and who don't think it is any big deal to have illegitimate offspring or illegitimate grandchildren. These are the women who spread illegitimacy and degeneracy in YOUR society, gentlemen, while scorning the size of your genitalia and sneering at your erectile dysfunction.  Should she and women like her continue to have access to your taxes so they can continue to singly-parent and badly-parent the next generation to the detriment of this once great nation?

Does Kim Gandy embody British nationalism? Is not an image make-over for British nationalism now long overdue?

Kim Gandy -  the Grand Old Woman of British Euroscepticism or an impossibly vulgar and  aggressive woman who derides the size of the sex organ of any man who disagrees with her after claiming he suffers from erectile dysfunction?

I don't mind if she attacks me out of jealousy.  In a way, it is understandable that she should be rancorous with envy for I, a female and a foreigner, am a force for change now in British nationalism known to most active nationalists up and down the country, while she is precisely nowhere.

Perhaps one day I will be acknowledged as a force for good in the field of nationalist race relations.

I have big radical nation- and society-changing ideas while Kim Gandy admits that she has no policies.

I am happy to concede that she must have a better sex life than me with her younger male partner while I sublimate my desires for the greater good of this nation.  However many offers I get from eager nationalists of all ages and classes, I shall never compromise them by giving in to their ceaseless importuning for my sexual favours.  By this shall they know the great sacrifices I make on their behalves!

This poisonous woman now is claiming that a certain UKIP friend of mine (who is so inactive he has not attended a single meeting) is a "violent extremist with  UAF and Al Qaeda connections" merely because he is not full of hatred for Muslims and Islam.  I believe this spiteful woman is busily trying to get this young man expelled from UKIP by spreading outrageous lies about him.

She has also inveigled her more impressionable and easily-led female associates such as Maggie Chapman and Susan Lockwood to join forces with her.

Let these women do their worst at http://www.facebook.com/groups/111274988378/ for they only demonstrate what can happen to a country when too many immoral, promiscuous and irrational women wield too much power over men and have their claws dug into the genitalia of men who are in charge of the ship of state.

Perhaps Kim Gandy is the best reason why most women should, like children, be seen but not heard in the field of politics.

Kim is of course not prepared to discuss eugenics and calls me evil for daring to say that I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled child nor force any other taxpayer to pay for it.

Women are notoriously hypocritical about these matters, for they know that to agree with me on the matter of disabled offspring is to give up their femininity.  I on the other hand am happy to proclaim that I am the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman.  It is for this reason that I clam I am fit to lead men by showing them that I am prepared to stick my head above the parapet and speak on their behalves, rather than indulge in predictably partisan gynocentricism that most women in politics -  Louise Mensch being the worst example - unthinkingly fall into.

For saying what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html I was expelled from the BNP (at the behest of an SSM with disabled illegitimate offspring) which behaves these days like a frightened, timid, cowardly and hypocritical promiscuous single mother with a disabled and illegitimate offspring or at any rate like a man afraid of these stupid, immoral and promiscuous women because so many of them now have the vote.

They certainly showed no signs of defending free speech or even understanding the principle of it.  But how can they, if they are all in thrall to the SSMs who control the minds and opinions of nationalist men if they are lucky enough to have female partners at all?

I like to think I offer more to British nationalism more than the contemptible exercise of pandering to proletarian and feminine vices that all the parties seem to do now in our demented matriarchy.

My form of nationalism is infused with masculine and aristocratic virtues, I like to think, and is fundamentally libertarian, while Kim's ideas are just totalitarian and anti-rational.

My Facebook friends are also obviously so much nicer and more educated than hers.  My male friends have education and erudition while hers are merely men who hope she will pause to whip them and kick them if she notices them, for they are surely sex- and humiliation-hungry subs looking for crumbs from the table of their imperious mistress, who wields a ruler that she uses to chastise them and measure their penises.  They probably experience tumescence upon being told by her that they have a small sex organ which she will then come round to measure, while my male Facebook friends suffer from detumescence at the very thought of having to enter what has been called by one this woman's "bat cave".

If Britain is now run by a pornocracy then it could be said that our Kim is Queen of the Pornocrats.