Translate

Showing posts with label Phillip Blond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phillip Blond. Show all posts

Monday, 19 December 2016

Are British values feminine values? Are feminine values in fact feminine vices? Are all virtues masculine? Are all vices feminine?

 











BRITISH VALUES DEFINED BY A FEMINAZI

BRITISH VALUES IN PRACTICE


BRITISH CULTURE CAUSED BY BRITISH VALUES

BRITISH PARENTING CAUSED BY FEMINIST VALUES
  1. British values is the indispensable ingredient for British culture.  
  2. British values is a weasel word for British morality.
  3. British values is a sociological concept because the British men are too embarrassed about discussing morality, knowing they dare not discuss it in case they are accused of hate speech by a feminazi, their jobs lost and their career ended. 
  4. The British are degenerate, and the degenerate find it on the whole difficult to comprehend and define abstract philosophical ideas such as morality, much less discuss them rationally. 
  5. It was decades of unchecked feminism that produced our Idiocracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc
  6. Are British values Liberal values?
  7. Are Liberal values just policies that encourage sexual liberation?
  8. Are Liberal values feminine values?
  9. Are these feminine values really just feminine vices?
  10. Is the worst feminine vice promiscuity?
  11. Is promiscuity considered the worst feminine vice because it ultimately destroys civilisations? 
  12. Are civilisations destroyed by generations of bad parenting and progressively degenerate offspring?
  13. Are civilisations destroyed by the lowering of general standards of morality and ever lowering educational standards?
  14. Is the Culture of Victimhood a manifestation of another feminine vice?
  15. Is the elevation of victimhood a feminine strategy to prevent men from criticising the behaviour and beliefs of stupid and immoral women?
  16. Are Conservative values masculine values?
  17. Are British men who are Conservative content to let feminazis hijack the concept of British values and stuffing it full of their feminine values which are really feminine vices? 
  18. Have British men even noticed how much their women have feminazified their laws, culture and morality and progressively lowered their status until they are now nothing more than the slaves of sluts?
  19. If not, why not?
  20. Have British men been given some drug that stops them from noticing their lowly status and the high status of women who are mostly sluts?
  21. Have British been hypnotised by feminazis into not noticing what these evil women are doing to their society?
  22. Do British men know the purpose of social cohesion?
  23. The purpose of social cohesion is to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal internal and external enemies by making men prepared to sacrifice life and limb to protect their nation. 
  24. How can that be done when all high status British men are not even prepared to risk their status by discussing morality and how it is linked to widespread bastardy?
  25. British men are now too frightened of each other to discuss such matters with each other frankly and rationally, and this cowardice now extends to senior male British politicians, who must resent their Prime Minister stuffing her cabinet with her mediocre female cronies while marginalising men who are obviously more talented and senior.
  26. How likely are childless atheist transgender gay men to risk life and limb to protect their society compared to a father of legitimate children who loves his wife and family?
  27. How likely are bitter divorced men to defend their estranged ex-wife and children from invaders?
  28. How likely are bitter divorced men who have had his property confiscated and deprived of his children to enjoy the idea of their ex being raped, robbed and murdered by the illegal immigrants these feminazis have so enthusiastically invited in?
  29. Is it the purpose of feminazis to destroy masculinity in order to weaken men and make them even less likely to challenge the feminazification of their society?
  30. Masculinity is a state of mind to do with knowing what their principles are and sticking to them.
  31. Feminists want to make the rules vague and confusing in order to discombobulate men. 
  32. Most men no longer know what principles are, much less what they are for.  
  33. Is the ultimate purpose of feminazis world domination?
  34. Will feminazification only stop when all women are sluts, all mothers are Slut Single Mothers, all children are bastards and all men Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage?
  35. Is feminism evil?
  36. If so, why would anyone want to swear to uphold feminist values unless they are either evil too or stupid?
  37. Should law reflect morality and if so what morality should it reflect?
  38. Is there any other kind of morality other than patriarchal morality? 
  39. The antithesis of patriarchal morality - in essence practising the human tradition of marriage and abiding by its most important rule - is no sex outside marriage. 
  40. Anything that strays from the principle of no sex outside marriage weakens social cohesion. 
  41. Anything that weakens social cohesion must be immoral.
  42. It must be immoral to weaken social cohesion by lowering standards of morality because the purpose of morality is to obtain group solidarity to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal enemies. 
  43. The eternal enemies of society are sluts and socialists.  
  44. Why is feminism (also known as the religion of sluts) and socialism evil?
  45. Feminism and socialism require their adherents to ignore the truth in order to remain feminists or socialists.
  46. The undeniable truth that feminists and socialists are required to ignore is the fact that there are obvious differences between men and women and the way they think, speak and behave, and people are clearly not all equal. 
  47. Feminism and socialism requires its adherents to ignore the warning that the greatest injustice is to treat unequal things equally. 
  48. Egalitarianism -which both feminism and socialism encourage - is a denial of truth.
  49. Any ideology that requires you to deny truth will lead you into error and disaster.
  50. Will the media be discussing any of the points I raised?
  51. Will academia be discussing any of the points I raised?
  52. Will the House be discussing any of the points I raised?
  53. If they do not, does it mean that they are irredeemably corrupt and are now in effect the limbs of the matriarchy and already operated by feminazis and their running dogs?
  54. Is Justine Roberts, founder of Mumsnet and Gransnet, a feminazi?
  55. Is Ian Katz, her husband and editor of BBC Newsnight, a running dog of feminazis?
  56. Is the BBC in effect a mouthpiece of feminazis who both infest it and control it?
  57. Will UKIP leader Paul Nuttall propose the abolition of the licence fee in the UKIP manifesto of 2020?
  58. Will Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton discuss any of the above, or will he be too afraid of his wife - who will soon be his nurse - to do so?
  59. Are feminazis even more evil than neocons who also share their goal of  full spectrum global domination?  
  60. Are neocons and the CIA in effect the running dogs of feminazis?

Common decency saved Britain from falling into Fascism or Communism, according to Philip Blond. Is "common decency" sexual liberation to the extent of condoning underage sex, widespread bastardy, gay marriage, the emasculation of British men and the break-up of the family and no fault divorce as well as totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation compelling the white man to pay obeisance to all the groups protected by the matriarchy, who are now higher in status than him?

The matriarchy being female and hypergamous, consisting of white middle class feminazis, despise all men in the class below them while having successfully emasculated all them men of their own class and the class above them with feminist legislation reinforced by all the feminine tactics of argument and elevated victimhood.

Successful white men can now be easily accused of a historic sexual offence without the need to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. Indeed, the accused in such cases has to prove that he did not do it.

Any man who dares challenge the matriarchy can be easily accused. The Directrix of Public Prosecutions is a feminazi herself and so is the Justice Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Ministrix.

British society is breaking up because the Far Right cannot stand being governed by a matriarchy so contemptuous of the preferences of the very angry white beta male.  Radical Muslims cannot stand being governed by a government so clearly prioritising the preferences of the immoral woman and the Slut Single Mother who causes children to be born bastards and the children they have to be badly-parented and variously-fathered. It is really nothing to do with multiculturalism, though of course men always feel a greater hostility towards immigration than women because they feel that their interests are more directly threatened.

While of course the British must have a dominant culture, it must be a genuine that has evolved naturally and which they are all proud of, supported by the law. No one can be proud of their culture if their culture consists of nothing more than the following:

  1. The Culture of Entitlement
  2. The Culture of Excuses
  3. The Culture of Victimhood 
  4. Football culture
  5. Pub Culture
  6. Drug Culture
  7. Rape Culture ie Slut Culture (which includes the Culture of Regret Rape ie falsely accusing men of rape after regretting having had sex with them, sexting and being such a slut your ex exacts his revenge on you by posting revenge porn of you online)
Understandably, observant Jews, devout Christians and Muslims familiar with Koranic principles would know that totalitarian anti-discrimination feminazi legislation are fundamentally antithetical to their patriarchal religious principles. This proposal to make them swear to have their moral principles flouted and marginalised by an oppressive Big Sister government would only intensify the hatred of social conservatives against the feminazis now infesting British government and steel their resolve to defeat them.

Fat feminazi Louise Casey's report on social cohesion was the cause of Sajid Javid's proposal to humiliate migrants who are social conservatives by making them swear to uphold "British Values" as a condition of acquiring British citizenship. British values are in practice really no more than promoting policies of sexual liberation directly damaging to the institutions of marriage and the family. (It is of course the intention of feminists to destroy the Twin Pillars of Patriarchy.) In doing so they destroy Western civilisation, but evil feminazis now in charge of the ship of state don't care and won't be told. Imagine what English values would be like now if they were set in stone in Tudor times and all the subjects of Bloody Mary made to swear to uphold her Catholicism on pain of death, and you will see the fundamental philosophical objection against adopting this proposal. Can a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition be far behind if the matriarchy is not defenestrated before it does even more damage to society?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/18/communities-secretary-sajid-javiddrawn-british-values-loyalty/



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

Friday, 3 June 2011

There may be a plot by the disabled to assassinate me

In discussions in the Disabled People Against Claire Khaw Facebook group, the word "assassination" was used by a certain John Savage.

I fear that there is a plan being hatched by the #disabled for my #assassination. @riveninside @jwscullis11985 @Bocciasmithy

There are drive-by shootings and cycle-by shootings. Perhaps a wheelchair shooting for me? @riveninside @jwscullis11985 @Bocciasmithy
Facebook friend:

"I doubt it somehow. Mind you a wheelchair does make a raltively stable firing platform :)" 

There are drive-by and cycle-by shootings. Perhaps a #wheelchair shooting for me? #assassination @riveninside @jwscullis11985 @Bocciasmithy


Facebook friend 1:

"Watch out for those mutiles de guerre!"

Me:

"Yet more threats on my life. This is all rather worrying. But if anything happens to me, and you hear of a spectacular assassination by wheelchair in the news, please care enough to mention this to the police so that the ringleaders are rounded up and questioned. 

The disabled should not be above the law, although they seem to think they have the right not to be offended.

In order that they are not offended, I must be forced to bring up any severely disabled baby I have, ruin my marriage and suffer a lonely old age with no normal child to at least make arrangements to send me into a home, just to please them.  It is quite clear that they do not think I should be allowed to say I do not wish to bring up a severely disabled child because they find this to be offensive.    

Surely this is not quite right?
Free speech is worth dying for. I think so anyway."

Facebook friend 2:

"how embarrasing....on your obiturary.....run over by a wheel chair!!....." 

Facebook friend 1:

"I wonder if the police would dare to do more than issue a caution these days. Prosecuting a mob of militant cripples would be such bad PR and bring down the censure of the liberal establishment... 
...even if they didn't have a leg to stand on."



Should I die in suspicious circumstances, the following may be able to help the police with their enquiries:

http://twitter.com/#!/riveninside
http://twitter.com/#!/jwscullis11985
http://twitter.com/#!/Bocciasmithy
http://twitter.com/#!/Phillip_Blond

Yes, Philip Blond, think tanker and theologian, is privy to these discussions as he remains a member of the Disabled People Against Claire Khaw Facebook group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Blond


at 8 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 27 May 2011

Disabled People Against Claire Khaw


Disabled person in wheelchair giving the able-bodied the one-finger salute - used on Riven Vincent's Facebook profile.  Is she biting the hand that feeds her?


http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_173403759383478

For some reason Phillip Blond - the theologian and think tanker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Blond   @Phillip_Blond   http://twitter.com/#!/Phillip_Blond  - is a member of "Disabled People Against Claire Khaw", which I find rather bemusing.   I had no idea that he was suffering from a disability.

Claire Khaw is a Malaysian member of the BNP and a very dangerous woman, in 2009, when David Cameron lost his son, Ivan, Clair Blogged that it was a positive thing because keeping him alive was a waste of public money. She has a bizarre blog where she expresses her insane views, including "reintroduce slavery, make bastardy a disgrace, reintroduce public executions and reintroduce public floggings" ( see interview Here: http://alexlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/claire-khaw-uncovered.html) . Claire has built up a reputation online, Counting politician and journalists among her ‘friends” on face book. She has received a lot of hostility on-line from the public, but it is her views on disability which are the focus of this group on the 5th of March, 2011, 5live interviewed withy Rivern Vincent the mother of a disabled child, Ms Khaw rang up and wanted to ask a question , she then proceeded to argue that the it was fundamentally wrong for the state to0 support Mrs Vincent’s daughter, because it was not economically viable. When challenge about this by everyone including the presente Victoria Derbyshire , Mrs Vincent, another parent, and the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti (Con), she defended her posistion and went on to state openly that if she gave birth to a disabled child she would reject it and instruct the midwife to ‘get rid of it’. Now I have challenged her about her views and found her response immoral and upsetting,. Some of her replies were as follows: “Art has utility because it gives pleasure. A severely disabled baby cannot possibly give me any pleasure, though it may be very useful to you if you use it for begging money from the government and your friends and family or getting sympathy from everyone you meet.” Or “No one has said they agree with me, but there are others who do agree with me if you read my wall on that day, though they are not in the BNP. Disabled people are really getting above themselves these days.” 

According to blogs and forums, Claire is being touted as the BNP’s candidate for 2012 London Mayoral Elections. This means she will be NO. 1 on the Top-up list for the GLA for the BNP. This woman needs to be challenge. I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public lif., Iin calling for a united front against the evil bigotry of this ‘woman’ let’s challenge Claire rout her ‘views’ at every single opportunity . Invite everyone you know, because we will win.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html displays my reasoning in some detail, which I do not need to go into here.

It is tiresome to have to keep repeating that I have not advocated a policy of general extermination of the disabled by the government.

I do not believe that anyone has a right to demand that anyone else pick up the tab for their children, whether able-bodied or disabled.

Having been described as "a very dangerous woman" (as if I were really capable of breaking and entering your home and exterminating your severely disabled baby), I wish to reassure those who are easily frightened to please believe that I do not have the superhuman abilities sometimes attributed to me nor the athleticism of a cat burglar to break into your home to exterminate your disabled baby.

I am Libertarian, not Terminator.


"I don’t care what your politics are who you vote for, this is not a political cause, it is about what ideas are acceptable in public life."

This is of course an issue of CENSORSHIP, which is of course extremely political.   

I have blasphemed and now must be punished.  I have been repeatedly called a Nazi when infanticide is in fact common to many cultures and was around for a long time before Hitler had been heard of.

Predictably, it has been suggested that the BNP (who may or may not make me the 2012 London mayoral candidate) have members and policies that endorse what I have said.  Actually, many of them wished I had not said it because they have quite enough bad press already.  For the record I should make it clear that the BNP manifesto has no policy at all on the disabled as any search at http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf would reveal.  This is probably because, like all parties, the BNP do not regard the disabled to constitute a significantly large section of the electorate to come under the BNP radar.

There are many mothers who use their disabled children as an instrument of attention- and sympathy-seeking that makes them somehow beyond criticism.   It is also a way of sorting out the pecking order amongst mothers who do not work.  The more a martyr you are to your children (disabled or not), the higher you are in the pecking order at your coffee mornings.

"You have a disabled child?  Well, I have two!"   

Their disabled children are used as weapon to bully Prime Ministers like Cameron (who used his late son Ivan to show the voting public that the NHS was safe with him).

This mania to have more disabled children and therefore be more worthy of sympathy and respect is just what Mumsnet culture consists of  ie demanding yet more handouts from the government who are so pathetically eager to pander to the female voter.

Riven Vincent is of course Queen of Mumsnet.   http://www.mumsnet.com/special-needs/riven-vincent-statement-on-respite-care

Witness how willingly our so-called alpha males - David Davis and David Cameron - humiliated themselves on Woman's Hour (which is the radio version of Mumsnet) when they suffered Martha Kearney to ask them what kind of underwear they wore.  http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=34195&sectioncode=1

Can you imagine a female politician being asked this question??

So this is how low we have sunk, that our politicians are too afraid of telling the most demanding clients of the welfare state and the most rapacious consumers of welfare - mothers of disabled children - that they too will have to suffer their fair share of the cuts.  

Pandering to the Mothers of the Disabled vote is pretty idiotic anyway, since they are so electorally insignificant.

What a shame the government will not do the obvious and rational thing and pander to the over-burdened taxpayer.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 15 November 2010

Is Phillip Blond gay?

Is Philip Blond gay? Not that there is anything wrong in being gay at all of course, I hasten to add. It is just that cheesy, oily sub-Kenneth Williams accent that has put me on notice. 

I think we should be told as Cameron gets his social policy from him.

I am not saying that they are all promiscuous and irresponsible.  Peter Mandelson is after all very talented.  (Indeed he is the best available Prime Minister that we cannot have because he has been kicked upstairs.)  Nor are they all effeminate, for the Spartans were great warriors.  But I am just thinking that gay or even just people cannot help their lack of understanding for the concerns of ordinary people AKA hardworking families, being invariably DINKies if they are in a long-term relationship.  


Perhaps that is how he came up with the arse-achingly stupid idea of making parents run schools while a Tory government tells parents who want more grammar schools to go fuck themselves.  Just look at the way they have been pissing on Toby Young.  Poor lamb, he has to take it because he lives in Acton, can't afford to go private, doesn't want to send his four children to the local comp that is full of successful asylum seekers who are Muslim, and thinks being at university with Cameron is somehow going to help.  No, Toby, he is still going to stab you in the front and back while sending his children to a church school (thereby like Blair taking up a place a needy middle class child could have had).  At least Diane Abbot did the decent thing and had her son go private when she could afford it.  


If Cameron is serious about education he should send his precious children to the Peckham Academy and then take an interest in the running of that school.  





http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/09/toby-young-his-west-london-free-school.html


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6879280.ece
at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 27 September 2010

Big Society and what it means - Big Bollocks worn over Cameron's Little Ones

Bigging It Up
The Coalition claims its Big Society is more than a slogan and its ideas are shaping key policies. Anne McElvoy investigates the little-known genesis of David Cameron's big idea and examines what its roots reveal about how the government will go about doing less - and ensuring society does more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00txh29

Conservatives are supposed to want small government, but that cunt of convictionless Conservatism Cameron thought it might be unpopular with those ex- New Labour supporters who are addicted to the NHS and the nanny state.

The Big Society appeared to be a big idea that was also the compromise between New Labour and Thatcherism.

Cameron, being the convictionless cunt he is, dared not go back to Thatcherism. If he had he would have won by a landslide.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...