Translate

Showing posts with label Peter Hitchens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Hitchens. Show all posts

Monday, 19 February 2018

Simon Sheppard says our justice system is now feminine and men should now be very very afraid

How women are now in the key positions of state. Few women have a developed sense of justice, even those in the legal profession.

Theresa May is our female Prime Minister, Amber Rudd is our female Home Secretary, Alison Saunders is our female Director of Public Prosecutions, Chantal Aimee Doerries is Madam Chairman of the Bar Council

Middle class men are too afraid to challenge feminism because they are afraid of being accused of a historic sexual offence or of their wives divorcing them and then taking half their stuff and depriving them of their children.

Philip Davies MP who used to make a stand against feminism is now too cucked and afraid to challenge feminism. Can anyone tell me when it was he last made an anti-feminist comment? You can be sure that the feminazi MPs have put the frighteners on him. He also knows that there is no such thing as male solidarity amongst male Tory MPs so if the feminazis get him, there will no masculine call to rally to his aid. Atomised Western men are invariably atheist, unprincipled and cannot think beyond the next election or sexual encounter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3736022/Tory-MP-slams-militant-feminists-men-pander-nonsense.html

Roger Scruton, Conservative philosopher, is now so old and doddery that he must know that his wife will soon be his nurse so he will understandably refrain from criticising feminism for the sake of domestic harmony. He has already told me his views on feminism is exactly that of Christina Hoff Sommers', no more and no less. (It is a bit like an anti-Semite saying exactly 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, no more and no less, wouldn't you say?) He also has a son to put through Eton, that school for unprincipled public school cucks. Don't expect him to risk any of that on your behalf, O Oppressed Men of the Matriarchy! Old men lose their testosterone and become old women, afraid to say too much in case their teeth fall out, or if saying anything should make their nurse angry at them and treat them roughly.

Isn't it a delicious irony that I, a female and a foreigner, should presume to care more about oppressed white men oppressed by feminism who are not my father, husband nor son? It must be because I am that rare female with a sense of justice, I suppose. It is probably because I was not born here and had part of my education abroad that made me retain some kind of decency, principle and fighting spirit, for which I only have my parents to thank. I like to think of myself as the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, doing it only because there is no one else around to do it.

https://drboli.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/the-little-dutch-boy-who-saved-holland/

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/roger-scruton-conservative-philosopher.html

Peter Hitchens: "I'm a feminist, of course I am!"

http://www.radioaryan.com/2018/02/the-daily-nationalist-standing-up-to.html


According to Simon, the subliminal message being promoted by the liberal media is that it is OK for justice to be withheld from people you dislike and even hurt and kill them, especially if you think they are racists.  

Will the West go the way of the Qing Dynasty during the Boxer Rebellion if its massive matriarchal mistakes remain uncorrected?

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/my-afternoon-in-york-with-simon.html

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=8

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Why does the Mail pay Peter Hitchens to sneer at British Conservatism?

For relentless negativity, no one can better that lifelong depressive Peter Hitchens. Isn't the Mail ready for another Conservative writer - such as myself - that won't drive its younger male readers with still some fight left in them straight into the arms of Islam if not ISIS?

It would appear that Hitchens favours a constitutional dictatorship. He should know that a Caliph is also dictator whose powers are limited by the Koran. He surely cannot be proposing that Charles or William become absolute monarchs unless he really has gone bonkers.

Personally, as I examine the record of ‘democratically-elected’ rulers across the world,  my Cromwellian head begins to be ruled by my Royalist heart, and I start to see the point of giving the headship of the state to the Lord’s Anointed, provided it can be combined with the rule of law, an adversarial parliament, the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Jury Trial and Habeas Corpus (in short, the 1689 settlement rightly known as the Glorious Revolution). 

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/06/what-is-so-good-about-democracy-whats-wrong-with-libertarianism-and-who-has-the-right-to-review-what.html

If it is Hitchens' plan to drive British Conservatives to suicide, he should do the decent thing himself first so a vacancy arises in the Mail and a more optimistic Conservative such as myself can nimbly and cheerfully step into his shoes.

Tweets of paralysing morbidity, despair and gloom, perhaps carefully crafted to induce suicide or acts of suicidal terrorism ...

Muslims have God, but Conservative Anglicans only have Peter Hitchens to mock their imminent extinction. 

           
           
    























at No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, 28 May 2016

The evil and dementia of feminism unopposed by Peter Hitchens, Britain's foremost Conservative writer, who calls himself a feminist

Sussex Police have caused anger on social media and from anti-rape groups for publishing a poster which appears to blame victims for being attacked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32219357/can-anti-rape-poster-campaigns-help-prevent-attacks












This childless 41 year old woman who now wants to be a mother and wife won't find a decent man to marry her, but she is concerned about the number of other women who will turn out like her. Not looking good for the next generation, is it?




@ClarkeMicah is Peter Hitchens, supposedly Britain's most well-known journalist promoting British Conservatism. He however has nothing to offer the youth of today. It seems he already knows the limits of his appeal (to elderly men and women who have failed to pass on their Conservative values to their offspring assuming they have even bothered to have any) and is only waiting for death, while being relentlessly negative about every development that could be construed as positive. He won't support UKIP, the leave EU campaign nor will he write in positive terms about Donald Trump. What is he trying to do? Demoralise social conservatives, turn them into Muslims so they join ISIS in despair at his political nihilism? Who knows, but he is currently top dog of British Conservatism in the pay of the Daily Mail, who are too risk-averse to hire me instead.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 27 May 2016

Realpolitik and territorial disputes

Who really owns which piece of land? On what is his claim based? Why are some permitted to declare independence from large countries, and others not? And if there is no consistent legal or moral answer to any of these questions, what lessons should we learn from that?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/a-not-so-brief-history-of-crimea.html

Peter Hitchens' questions

Q.  Who really owns which piece of land?

A.  The person with most claim.

Q.  On what is this claim based?

A.   Possession is nine points of the law.

Q.   Why are some permitted to declare independence from large countries, and others not?

A.   It depends on the mood and the military readiness of the large countries concerned as well as the determination and military readiness of those who wish to become independent.

Q.   And if there is no consistent legal or moral answer to any of these questions, what lessons should we learn from that?"

A.  That there is everything to play for when claim to a piece of land is being disputed, by the parties disputing each other's claim to this land and those seeking to gain something from the disputing parties.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Why do Christians lack the confidence to prevent the death of Christianity?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/12/goodbye-christianity-hello-multicultural-wasteland.html

I accept that Christianity is dying fast in this country. I know that many schools teach religion badly, if at all, and that ignorance is everywhere. But there is more than one response to this. You could say, as this ‘report’ does, that we should accept that this isn’t a Christian country any more, and adapt it to become a sort of religious salad of all faiths and none.

You could give up trying to teach Christianity as a living faith, and instead get children to study it as a quaint, eccentric curiosity. Or – and the weeks around Christmas are a good time to say this – we could say that we still have a chance to rebuild and restore what has been lost.

Why do we so lack the confidence to do this, and readily abandon a heritage of such power and beauty, which has brought us so much good, for a multicultural wasteland in which a dozen competing faiths squabble in the ruins, and everyone else bows to the neon gods of consumerism?

Because even Christians don't really believe that Christ is the begotten Son of God. Poor old Peter Hitchens. Fancy not knowing that if you don't believe that Jesus is simultaneously God Himself and His Son, you ain't Christian, and only Christians get to heaven.

Even Christians don't believe in this themselves.

Worse, Peter Hitchens doesn't seem to know that he is supposed to believe it. Christianity is more than motets in cathedrals and hymns in churches. The living Christian faith consists of real people who believe in all the nonsense of the Trinity in all its inglorious absurdity, or who are prepared to pretend that they believe it, by constantly repeating "Jesus is Lord," to anyone who will listen.  

These days, even the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't even know he is supposed to believe in the Trinity.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/what-is-point-of-having-archbishop-of.html

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/the-archbishop-of-canterbury-doubts-existence-of-god-but-hes-certain-about-jesus/

Peter Hitchens and his ilk eg Roger Scruton , Adrian Hilton, Tim Stanley and other Conservative Christians are to be pitied for the following reasons.

  1. They haven't noticed that Britain is as Christian as  skeleton used to be human.
  2. They cannot distinguish between the form and substance of their faith. (The form consists of church buildings, hymns, candles, motets, incense, communion wine, wafer etc and the substance is the belief one is supposed to hold by dint of being Christian. Does Peter Hitchens even believe in the Trinity ie that Jesus is Lord? Who knows? He is just whingeing about shrinking congregations from what I can tell.)
  3. They are right out of ideas and their strategy for survival is to die before the shit hits the fan. 
  4. They expect Muslims to convert to Islam and to believe in a lie they themselves don't even believe in or seem to be aware of.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Trinity
  5. They still call themselves feminists. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/why-peter-hitchens-is-all-talk-and-no.html
  6. They are too frightened to even discuss my ideas in unflattering terms, ie challenging feminism, electoral reform and a change of religion as a means of regenerating a clearly degenerate society.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 18 March 2016

Laura Perrins should better interviewed me instead of the confused Peter Hitchens who has no solutions

Peter Hitchens says he is a feminist though he wants to emigrate to get away from the consequences of feminism
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 18 January 2016

Why gay men will always be the most effortlessly successful MGTOWs

https://www.mgtow.com/

The reason why MGTOWs keep talking about women is because they still want to fuck them.


The principle idea about being a MGTOW is heterosexual men having sex with sluts and never marrying them.

A slut is a woman who will fornicate with any man not her husband, and that is now most women in the West.

Even if no fault divorce were abolished, MGTOWs still wouldn't be interested in marriage or in having legitimate children.

They would change their behaviour and consider marriage again if

- no-fault divorce were abolished

- fornicating sluts were shamed and lashed 100 times as 24:2 of the Koran prescribes, noticeably and drastically reducing the supply of sluts for MGTOWs. Then these heterosexual men would find themselves faced with the stark choice of having to take a wife or hiring prostitutes for sex, or going gay, which is the cheapest form of sex.

MGTOWs are mainly unmarriageable men and a social phenomenon with a high rate of beta male participation. This social phenomenon is a reaction to feminism and no fault divorce; in essence, it is beta males waking up to the fact that marriage does not give them a good deal if they can still have sex outside marriage. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" sums up their attitude towards women.

The most successful MGTOWs remain gay men, because they don't need to have any sexual dealings with women at all since they don't want to have sex with them, but with each other. Straight women still respect gay men for their lifestyle choice because gay men tend to look better than heterosexual beta males.

What women despise is low status sub-alpha males they find repellent with no dress sense who want to have sex with them.

The Koran also punishes gay men in 4:16, and I believe it is for this reason: because gay men make no biological contribution towards the gene pool for the next generation. Fornicating MGTOWs are punishable under 24:2 because they lower its quality by siring bastards.

Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

004.016YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

024.002YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.PICKTHAL: The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.SHAKIR: (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

MGTOW Sandman wants to have sex with sex dolls instead of having sex with women. Surrogacy is his preferred route if he wants to have offspring. How dysgenic are his proposals on a scale of 1 to 10?


MARRIAGE, ITS ABSENCE IN THE WEST AND THE PROBLEM THIS CAUSES


1.  Marriage is for the purpose of having legitimate children.



2.  Marriage is the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions.



3.  The institution of marriage is what distinguishes humans from lower animals. 


4.  Marriage is a delicate mechanism that man tampers with at his peril.

5.  Marriage was never intended for couples who are not contemplating sexual reproduction or do not have the theoretical possibility of sexual reproduction. (It is a sign of alarming degeneracy that leaders of so many democracies cannot and refuse to see this.)

6.  Monogamy is the pivot upon which true gender justice rests. 

7.  Monogamy was created to protect the beta male, who do the work and fight the wars.

8.  Monogamy was created to keep up the morale of the beta male because, if demoralised, he will cease to work, cease to marry and cease to sire more workers and soldiers for society and your civilisation will decline, become a degenerate matriarchy and eventually be overwhelmed by immigrants or threatened with invasion by Islamic State, as is now the case in the West.

9.  Wives were required to promise to be obedient to husbands not because it was considered that they were inferior, but because the arduous undertaking that is marriage had to be somehow sweetened for the man by such promises.  

10.  It is a true sign of degeneracy that no Western man with sufficient status or seniority, not even the men who say they are Conservatives who say they care about defending their civilisation such as Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens can bear to discuss any of the above. This is because they fear persecution by feminazis from the state, from their place of employment and of course within their own family, especially their wives. 

Radical multicultural types will in the end destroy the things they claim to like, because they don't understand that liberty and reasonable equality are features of stable, free, conservative societies based on Christian ideas, which guard their borders and are proud of their civilisation.

The people who really want to defend our enlightened society, in the end, are dinosaurs like me.

This was two days after Peter Hitchens outed himself as a feminist.


11.  Only an alpha male will protect the interests of beta males, but Britain does not have even a single alpha male. David Cameron, who legalised gay marriage, is not an alpha male because he fears what alienating the female vote would do to him and his party. He would never criticise SSMs, because if he did they would go over to Labour at once, because the Left is stuffed with less affluent men who want the price of sex to be reassuringly low. The SSM explained

12.  An alpha male is a man who is not afraid to discuss any of the above because he would know that sluts are lower than him and wouldn't be afraid of them or would know not to show fear by discussing the above in public without fear or favour. The last man who had alpha male aspirations - Keith Joseph - gave a speech in Edgbaston that offended sluts in 1974; his career was destroyed, paving the way for Britain's First Female Prime Minister. 1974 was the year in which the alpha male became extinct in Britain. 

13.  Britain has been without an alpha male for at least 42 years. Can he be brought into existence by an act of will and the will to power, by a man of sufficient seniority and status prepared to discuss the above? Do note that Nigel Farage is planning his TV career after the EU Referendum. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382294/Nigel-Farage-s-car-wheels-sabotaged-assassination-attempt-Ukip-leader-lost-control-Volvo-wheel-fell-motorway-police-confirm-foul-play.html I rather doubt it because he would have too much to lose. Atheist libtards have no principles and no intention of making sacrifices for any principle they ever claimed to have. 

14.  The only men of sufficient seniority and status are without exception libtards or men like Nigel Farage, Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens professing to identify with Conservatism, but who have come to an accommodation with the matriarchy. That is why the West is doomed. Islamic State jihadis who have threatened to invade the West and imposing sharia on us are not afraid of offending sluts or of making sacrifices, are they? 

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Why no Western man will fight feminism

1. White middle class women are now in charge.

2. White middle class women despise beta males.

3. While middle class women have more power than white middle class men. No fault divorce financially cripples a divorced man. The historic sexual offence and the way the law operates against men must paralyse him with fear at the thought that some gold-digger could say just anything and be believed, especially if he is worth suing.

4. White middle class men have no desire to protect the beta male. They have enough troubles of their own.

5. Beta males are the backbone of society because they do all the work and fight all the wars.

6. There are no alpha males in the West and therefore no one to protect the interests of beta males, for only a real alpha male is in a position to protect the interests of beta males. A real alpha male would not be afraid of proposing slut-shaming because he would already have an alpha female or is certain that he could easily attract a partner. In short, a real alpha male must be seen to be eligible, if he is not already married with a loyal wife.

7. No beta male will accept the authority of another, therefore beta males who are victims of feminism are reduced to behaving like powerless bickering women. There are no safe spaces for men either, not even gentlemen's clubs. Only the mosque offers them a sanctuary but most Western men are neither Muslims nor Freemasons.

8. The men who appear to be alpha males are only taking orders from beta females ie white middle class feminists in positions of influence.

9. There are no longer alpha males in the West, but there are males who have alpha male qualities. These men pretend to be alpha males but in reality take orders from beta females and would never consider sacrificing their privileges to protect the interests of beta males.

10. Male solidarity is no longer cultivated because mos schools are co-ed and the competition for pussy makes them think nothing of betraying each other in their scramble for a bit of skirt.

11. The moment any male tries to say any of the above they will be traduced and mocked.

12. The only person prepared to say these things in the West is me, but I am only a female with alpha male qualities, already demonised by the Western establishment for being unnatural because of my ruthless and unfeminine use of incontrovertible logic.

13. The only hope I have now is that a beta male with alpha male aspirations is persuaded by my ideas and takes this to the next step, knowing that he will have to sacrifice sex with sluts and, if he is married, harmonious relations with his wife and daughters if they are feminazis as well as loss of earnings and status, perhaps even his liberty.

14. Have you noticed that no male Conservative thinker or writer considered prominent or successful will even discuss the issues I raise? Certainly not Peter Hitchens or Roger Scruton. The former recently declared himself to be a feminist and the latter says his ideas mirror those of Christina H Sommers who refuses to denounce feminism. Men become like risk-averse women when they are old. Donald Trump - the last white hope - may also wish to give feminism a wide berth too as Mitt Romney did.

4:29 "Encouraged by women and feminists"


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/judgy-bitch-wonders-why-feminists-wont.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/how-german-men-can-use-migrants-to.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/yasser-al-jassem-syrian-migrant-becomes.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/when-merkel-falls-eu-will-disintegrate.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/justin-webb-interviewing-two-women-from.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, 16 January 2016

Why Feminist Peter Hitchens is all talk and no trousers


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06tvsx0

From 7th minute. Peter Hitchens admits to being a feminist in 18th minute.


Whom out of all you so regularly attack do you hate the most?
Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens. The people I most despise are the people who get what I say and won't discuss it - journalists. I don't even blame the sluts and bastards who didn't know any better, and certainly not the average MCSF who will only acknowledge that there is a problem when this is reported in mainstream media.
Why won't Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens discuss your ideas?
Because they are terrified of being associated with them, of course.
What did you want Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens to do for you?
Discuss my ideas. I don't even mind if they disagree, BUT THEY ARE TOO TERRIFIED EVEN TO DISCUSS THEM.
Why do you want Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens in particular to discuss your ideas?
Because they are the only two British Conservative thinkers that come to mind. Can you think of any other writers or philosophers who identify as Conservative?
Why do you want to be accepted by Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens?
Because they are the only Conservative writers I can think of.
In what way do you claim to identify with Conservatism when your ideas are so undeniably radical?
I define Conservatism as social conservatism and this fundamentally means practising traditional marriage ie forbidding and punishing extramarital sex.
Is a Conservative really a Fascist?
I think he would have to be a Fascist if he is really serious about maintaining morality and practising traditional marriage. He would certainly be accused of being a Fascist as he sets out his prospectus on how to keep on trucking as a Conservative. It is my belief that a one-party state is necessary under a narrowed franchise of taxpayers only for the political meritocracy that I envisage.
Do you think Roger Scruton and Peter Hitchens are anti-feminists?
I think they are, but dare not say or discuss why they dare not say. Despicable intellectual cowardice.
Peter Hitchens declared himself to be a feminist at https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/685478969995575296
Yes, I know. Truly and utterly despicable.
What question would you ask Peter Hitchens if given the opportunity?
I would ask him if he agreed with me that everything about feminism undermined marriage. Roger Scruton would be asked the same question too.

Feminists and Radical Islam
at 4 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 3 September 2015

Male politicians even more vulnerable to emotional manipulation than their voters




Women who are single and looking tend to make indiscriminate displays of compassion because they think men prefer women who are stupid and kind.

They don't really mean it, but they feel they have to do this because they know men would be put off by rational and ruthless women with a will of iron, like me, perhaps.

Imagine if you were trying to manipulate a powerful lunatic, imbecile or a capricious woman of low intelligence and morals. You would have to find out their preferences and pander to them. Indeed, you would have to change your behaviour and mirror their behaviour and thinking in order to appease and manipulate them.

However, the danger of this is that you end up becoming like the capricious irrational and immoral slut, lunatic or imbecile you are trying to manipulate.

What will happen to your society if the rest of the world knows that no one is in charge and that the nation's perceived alpha male is even more vulnerable to emotional manipulation than his voters?

Even Nigel Farage has softened his message against migrants as a result of the publication of that photo of that drowned boy.

What do you think happens to dementia sufferers, stupid sluts and imbeciles?

They would be exploited, cheated, used and abused.

This is what is happening to the West now, because no Western nation has an alpha male leading them because you cannot be an alpha male if you are afraid to criticise the worst of your women - SSMs, who are lower than prostitutes.

If there is no official alpha male who dares to criticise SSMs (Slut Single Mothers with illegitimate offspring) who are lower than prostitutes, then we live in a matriarchy, and all matriarchies without exception are primitive or declining societies. (SSMs are lower than prostitutes because prostitutes at least have the virtue of making men pay for sex and giving them a price up front, unlike sluts who pretend it is free but load it with all kinds of hidden charges for the man they are transacting with and society in general. Men must always be made to pay for sex because free slut sex corrupts their characters and turns them into men afraid of sluts in just the way a drug addict would be afraid of his drug dealer no longer selling him the drug to which he is addicted. Marriage for men is always the riskiest and most expensive form of sex, even in the days of the patriarchy.)

British politicians stopped criticising SSMs in 1974 when Keith Joseph's career was destroyed in 1974 after his Edgbaston speech for talking about them destroying "our human stock". http://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron Male MPs have not criticised SSMs for 41 years and they are not suddenly going to start now since they are even more castrated now than they were in 1974.

Even Peter Hitchens, Britain's foremost Conservative thinker, won't criticise sluts because his late mother was an adulterous suicide.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/peter-hitchens-wont-condemn-low-sexual.html If the sins of the fathers are visited on their sons, then so does the weight of a mother's adultery cripple her son's ability to denounce her sin and those of others like her.

Tom Harris the former MP for Labour, didn't get away with it either. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/mar/05/welfare-children

This is why male politicians are stupider and more vulnerable to emotional manipulation than their voters whom they presume to lead. These so called leaders are still pandering to the lowest, stupidest and most hypocritical of women still looking to trick a man into a relationship with them by pretending to be stupid and kind.

The trouble with democracy in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage is that the preferences of the beta male have been entirely marginalised. All political parties chase the female vote precisely because it is capricious but crucial to being elected and staying in office.

(Why are beta males important? They are important because they do most of the work and are the ones whose lives are sacrificed if there is a war. Beta males are still important even if sluts don't fancy them and will cheat on them at the first opportunity because those of them who think "A few minutes of alpha is better than a lifetime of beta" would still be maintained by the welfare state paid for out of the taxes of the beta male for making this "lifestyle choice". If beta males are demoralised and marginalised then very little work will be done and even defensive wars cannot be won. It is of course the beta male who objects to immigration.)  

So this is the basis on which our much-vaunted democracy rests - the preferences and unstated agenda of stupid, immoral and irresponsible sluts with the vote whom male politicians dare not criticise because they know they cannot be reasoned with. We live in a declining and morally degenerate matriarchy all right.


My review of Simon Sheppard's Sex and Power: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Power-Manual-Male-Female-Relations/dp/190124024X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377715983&sr=8-1&keywords=simon+sheppard+sex+and+power


BBC sends only pro-migrant female journalists to report on migrant swarms
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Ireland has gone gay, will the Mail go libtard when Geordie Greig takes over?

Eye 1351: 18-31 October 2013

Eye 1392: 15-28 May 2015

Eye 1393: 29 May - 11 June 2015  


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

Camille Paglia:


"Much violence against women originates in emotional territory that they already command. By midlife and early old age, as the hormones of both genders change, women are in total, despotic control of their marriages."





Is social conservatism to be even further marginalised just because the wife of the proprietor of the Mail dislikes having the views of her husband's newspaper mocked by her libtard friends?

Under the rules of no fault divorce she could divorce Lord Rothermere for this reason alone and take half his stuff or more. 

If you were Viscount Rothermere, would your most likely response to be obey She Who Must Be Obeyed if only for the sake of domestic harmony? After all, what is a journalistic principle, eh? 

Paul Dacre on Desert Island Discs

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain

Fleet Street rumour has it that Kay is being moved because he upset friends of Lady Rothermere, the proprietor’s wife, and that she is also behind the abrupt departure of the columnist Melanie Phillips, apparently on the grounds that her style – particularly during a June appearance on BBC1’s Question Time – is too shrill. Lady Rothermere, it is said, is desperately keen to oust Dacre in favour of Greig. Senior Mail sources pooh-pooh such tales, but they stop short of outright denials that Dacre is nearing the end of his days on the paper.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Which tweet made Peter Hitchens block me on Twitter?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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...