THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label Sir Paul Coleridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sir Paul Coleridge. Show all posts
https://t.co/a2B8bwIN5P "We believe that couples should be encouraged to make careful decisions about their future together before they *cohabit*." Is this the problem, Belinda?
No. By creating a range of options - civil partnership, legal statuses to cohabitation, legalizing pre-nups; marriage is even less likely to happen. I think this article puts the case well: https://t.co/Y6mgpRavFN
Not only is the government so cucked and corrupt male MPs cannot collectively assert the principle that marriage is for the purpose of having legitimate children, neither can Sir Paul Coleridge of the @MarriageF. It is the latter that is even more shameful and cucked. @rabbisacks
Clearly, our government is so cucked and corrupt that no senior male MP even if married with legitimate children can even discuss the real eugenic purpose of marriage.
Not only is the government so cucked and corrupt male MPs cannot collectively assert the principle that marriage is for the purpose of having legitimate children, neither can Sir Paul Coleridge of the @MarriageF. It is the latter that is even more shameful and cucked. @rabbisacks
It really does appear that feminism has filleted the spine out of the gentile Western male so completely that he is now unable to even defend the twin foundation of all civilisations: the institutions of marriage and the family.
The essence of a patriarchy is that the married parent is privileged over the unmarried in that only couples married to each other should have the privilege of having recreational sex with each other. This subject can no longer be discussed without causing distress and alarm.
Since most of the West is nominally Christian and only Christian in the sense that a human skeleton is human, it can be seen that the gentile non-Muslim has no moral or religious principles that he cares to defend, however fundamental they are to the health of his society.
If a defence is made of any fundamental principle against the squatting giantess of the matriarchy above his head, the gentile non-Muslim man will only do so in a token fashion, weakly n ineffectually, making defeat inevitable. Coleridge will soon be apologising for daring to try
The feminazi is the Amalekite Jews have a religious duty to exterminate or at the very least denounce. Will they do their religious duty? https://t.co/dBpfXmqgAd
Facts and reason won't work on the degenerate, only fear and shame. Shame would only work on those capable of feeling shame, and the degenerate are not capable of feeling shame. Enslaved by their appetites and governed only by their emotions, the degenerate are of course easy to bribe and threaten.
What we see in the West is the wholesale abandonment of Truth, Reason and Morality as guiding principles and the total abasement of men before the pedestal on which the promiscuous woman commands him to do her bidding.
Strangely and sadly, the oppressed Western Man refuses to blame the morals of Western Woman and has convinced himself that it is the fault of a Jewish conspiracy and a Muslim invasion.
In a matriarchy, all men are lower than the fornicating slut.
In a matriarchy, no senior politician will criticise the morals of the fornicating slut.
If he does, there will be consequences.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself what happened to these Jewish men in senior positions of influence when they criticised the morals of fornicating sluts.
What happened to Keith Joseph, Prime Minister in-waiting after his Edgbaston speech in 1974? He was no longer Prime Minister in-waiting.
What happened to Maurice Glasman of Blue Labour when he said immigration should be stopped in 2011? Helen Goodman sorted him out good and proper, didn't she?
Even the Jewess Melanie Phillips frets about the degeneracy and dementia of the gentile, wanting Western Man to run his country properly, bewailing as I do the fact that he is now appears beyond reason.
Does Rabbi Sacks who helped set up the Marriage Foundation with Sir Paul Coleridge even mention the morals of the unmarried mother who casually conceives and casually abandons her variously fathered illegitimate offspring?
No, of course not. Even the privileged Jew is below the immoral woman in our degenerate matriarchy.
The penny has dropped for Alan Dershowitz on the nature and purpose of feminist intersectionality.
What is the attitude of the alt-right to the fornicating slut? Are they more afraid of her than they are of being exploited by Jews, invaded by Muslims, becoming the crime victims of blacks and other assorted non-white undesirables? One cannot escape the conclusion that they must be very afraid of her indeed, since she is their only source of apparently free sex if they cannot afford a wife, and most of them cannot afford a wife. Even they could afford one, they would become terrified of her right to divorce them under the rules of no fault divorce giving her the right to confiscate half their property and deprive them of their children.
What a shame then that these alt-right YouTubers are not up to discussing how the economy and society could be rejigged to make marriage a good bargain for men again.
To do this would upset the feminists and the fornicating sluts, and this would never do!
@RobbieGibb Sir Paul has been punished by the matriarchy whose purpose is to undermine marriage because it is synonymous with the patriarchy
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it Sir Paul Coleridge that it is now time to stop being polite about the matriarchy who r irrational, selfish n evil.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Put it to Sir Paul that marriage is eugenic n bastardy dysgenic: most ppl r sluts n bastards in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul that the world is basically divided between 2 groups of ppl: people who respect marriage n ppl who don't.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul feminism keeps men quiescent by stuffing their mouths with free slut sex: the only thing it has men want.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that it is feminism that encourages women to be sluts ie to have extramarital sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul "The moment men say it is OK for women to be sluts their civilisation goes down the toilet."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that feminists NEVER EVER address their minds to promoting the long term national interest.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that feminism is only about privileging women at the expense of men, the elderly n the next generation
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that only repealing the Equality Act 2010 and abolishing no fault divorce would destroy #feminism.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that the way to apportion blame in divorce is to require engaged couples to agree a marriage contract.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that the lower the standards of sexual morality in women the lower the standards of general morality.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that the only logical way of properly respecting marriage is to forbid extramarital sex.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that the British regard as more sacred their right to have extramarital sex than marriage itself.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that representative democracy is fatally flawed if it cannot make itself respect marriage again.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb While I know Sir Paul is not a constitutional lawyer, he must see that the current system cannot be reformed, only overthrown.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul that no leader of a UK political party will uncompromisingly support marriage cos they know no one cares.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul that the only way of drawing attention to himself n his cause is to take the cow of feminism by her horns
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that at the very least, he must be prepared to say what needs to be done in order to get what he wants
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that he will get nowhere at all if he fears to offend feminists and his friends and family who are.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that it is shameful for supposedly alpha males to be afraid of offending omega females - SSMs.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it 2 Sir Paul that ower standard of proof 4 men accused of sex crimes n women in Cabinet = matriarchy entrenching itself
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul: patriarchy = a society condoning male promiscuity; matriarchy = a society condoning female promiscuity
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that all patriarchies are advanced civilisations and all matriarchies are declining and primitive ones
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul that women in power will tend to conspire to lower standards of sexual morality, for biological reasons.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Please put it to Sir Paul that there is no point giving up his job to campaign for marriage if he does not do it successfully.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it 2 Sir Paul that all that is needed for men 2 win this battle is thru men being prepared to say what needs to be said.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@RobbieGibb Pls put it to Sir Paul that women do think differently and think in a lefty libtard way while men tend to recognise reality more
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@ntfem Well, I can honestly say that those are not views I have previously encountered. Nor am I likely to engage with them further.
— Sara Batts (@DrBattyTowers) July 15, 2014
@DrBattyTowers I thought that would be the reaction of the typical female: ignore, censor and smear. Thank u 4 engaging thus far, however.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
@DrBattyTowers You should really be writing essay style answers to those questions I asked, if you had any intellectual integrity.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) July 15, 2014
June 5, 2014 at 1:54 pm Why don’t you ask Sir Paul Coleridge if he thinks marriage contracts would be a good idea? Making the agreement of a marriage contract compulsory would make it easier to apportion fault when things go wrong, so we will know which party is the one in breach of a term of the marriage contract and in this way apportion blame. Blame always starts at 50/50 in any divorce.
No fault divorce should also be abolished. Is this too radical because it sounds like it might just work? Is that the reason why you would reject this solution out of hand? But of course. Men in Britain are pathologically afraid of criticising sluts, SSMs and bad mothers, are they not? The reason why is to be wondered at. Perhaps it is just a given that the more promiscuous the women, the more frightened of them the men are, and the women of Britain are very promiscuous indeed, which totally explains the utter gutlessness and emasculation of British men.
June 5, 2014 at 1:47 pm “My sister is a brilliant single mum who depends on them for occasional childcare so that she can work away from home for a few days.”
In what way is she “brilliant”?
So your sister is a single mum, and that is why you will not stigmatise these disgusting women who have illegitimate offspring, and who are a cancer of society. What a disgusting moral coward you are.
This means ALL the political parties are afraid of alienating the female vote in a society where most mothers are SSMs and most women are sluts who become SSMs.
You could narrow the franchise to taxpayers only, and this would instantly disenfranchise SSMs and their variously-fathered feral bastards who only grow up to be jobless criminal losers, but you don’t dare say such things, do you?
June 5, 2014 at 2:32 pm “in the end, the evidence will win through.” Really? How are you going to win through without even a proposal to change the law and are too liberal and soft to even contemplate the shaming of sluts?
June 5, 2014 at 2:39 pm The Islamic rule is that the mother gets to look after her offspring until she is 7 and thereafter the offspring go to live with their father leaving the divorced mother without any “baggage” so she can marry again if anyone else will have her. What’s wrong with that?
The Marriage Foundation which he established will be turned into a campaigning organisation proposing that SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts be lashed 100 times per illegitimate offspring, providing training for Administrators and Administratrix of Corporal Punishment. (Clearly, men will lash MCSFs http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html and women will lash sluts. It will also propose that the Child Support Agency be abolished without being replaced. Homes for Fallen Women will be established to see that these stupid sluts do not starve on our streets, which will have the option of becoming discreet brothels, which will probably be the only means they have for supporting themselves after the Equality Act 2010 is repealed in its entirety. The illegitimate children of SSMs who enter Homes For Fallen Women recruited into state brothels will be placed in state orphanages where they will receive education and training appropriate to their abilities.)
Sir Paul recruited as head of the Matrimonial Disputes Tribunal
High Court judge who spoke out in favour of marriage says he would have been 'publicly hanged' http://t.co/4QDmeylSLw
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@balchinlawyer@MarriageF The Muslims have the right idea agreeing a marriage contract. Work for lawyers too drafting all those contracts.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@balchinlawyer@MarriageF Sir Paul shd hv a word with me. I am legally-trained with superb communication skills n already known to the media
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
http://t.co/yMHZEZeG2e Former judge: MPs “afraid” to speak up for marriage. We already know MPs are cowardly scum anyway.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@BBCRadio2@MarriageF Maybe we should have a compulsory intelligence and morality check before people are allowed to marry.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@BBCRadio2@MarriageF Feminazism is directly related to the lack of respect for marriage. The matriarchy destroyed Sir Paul's career.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@MarriageF@theJeremyVine Did Sir Paul make the point that indiscriminate universal suffrage was a grave and tragic error?
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@MarriageF@theJeremyVine I fear that Sir Paul is not making his points forcefully enough. The average voter is a moral retard, after all.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@MarriageF@marcfairclough I propose that Matrimonial Disputes Tribunals be set up all over the land to deal with matrimonial disputes.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
@MarriageF@marcfairclough Divorce must be stigmatised when there r children. The divorced shd be pilloried in the town square/village green
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
Is the person tweeting for @MarriageF and who blocked me @HarryBenson6 the smarmy risk-averse moral coward? I already know what he is like.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014
Do you think these lawyers are more interested in preventing divorce or making money out of it?
Harry Benson is not a lawyer, but if you speak to him you will find him keener to sell you his courses and his books than in reintroducing the element of fault into divorce. The reason may be guessed at.
If they are really interested in preventing divorce, they should do what is the most logical thing to do, which is to reintroduce the element of fault back into divorce. The best way of apportioning fault is to make it compulsory for those who wish to get married to agree a marriage contract. The party in breach of a term of the marriage contract would then be deemed to be at fault.
Why do educated legally-trained men and women find difficulty in understanding this laughably simple idea?
Is it because they want to continue making money out of the misery divorce causes while only pretending to be concerned about the long-term social consequences?
