Translate

Showing posts with label Woman's Hour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Woman's Hour. Show all posts

Thursday, 21 January 2016

Julie Bindel and Belinda Brooks-Gordon discuss decriminalising prostitution and my Koranic solution

If the listeners of Woman's Hour were criminalised, would the crime rate go down and evil and sin diminish significantly in the West? I rather think it would.

The confusing discussion between decriminalising prostitution,whether for both men and women or only women begins at the 33rd minute.

Julie Bindel wants the supply of sex to be controlled by fornicating sluts who pretend it is for free but load the service they provide with all kinds of expensive hidden charges for men eg CSA. Belinda Brooks-Gordon believes in protecting honest prostitutes (ie women who sell sex by giving an up-front price before the service is provided) by decriminalising prostitution for both men and women in designated areas believing that doing so would result in fewer prostitutes being murdered by their punters. Bindel basically doesn't care if more prostitutes are murdered by their punters as long as fornicating sluts control the supply of sex.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

On a scale of 1 to 100, how likely are you to get justice in the matriarchal UK Family Courts if you are a father/husband?


Yet when the matter of custody arises, she shocks herself by invoking that which she most disparages, "the primitivism of the mother, her innate superiority, that voodoo in the face of which the mechanism of equal rights breaks down". She says: "They're my children. They belong to me."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)

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

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

The neurosis of the Western male politician and the migrant crisis


Simon Sheppard on Neurotic Suspension

A much simpler, and thus better, example of ‘Bystander Apathy’ occurred at a Rotterdam boating lake on 21 August 1993 (the incident features in The Tyranny of Ambiguity; 1st ed. fn. p. 250, 2nd ed. p. 395). A Moroccan girl, Naima Quaghmiri, 9 years old, fell out of a boat in the middle of the shallow lake and noisily drowned. The other girl in the boat, a year or two older, tried to hold her above the water but failed, while approximately two hundred spectators watched. One of the crowd even made a video recording of it. As in the Kitty Genovese case, subsequent newspaper articles discussed whether witnesses should be legally obliged to act, or punished for failing to do so.
The essential mechanism operating here is Neurotic Suspension: being suspended or frozen in a state of neurotic confusion. (Neurosis is here defined in Pavlovian terms as the stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more distinct responses.) Neurotic Suspension appears to be particularly strong when collectively expressed, in common with much other crowd behaviour.

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

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

BBC Woman's Hour should be prosecuted for conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public but the DPP is a feminazi


BBC Woman's Hour starts glorifying sluts from the 16th minute. 

I am not going to get a proper answer from this woman, am I?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29#Conspiracy_to_corrupt_public_morals_or_to_outrage_public_decency

The Feminazi Agenda of DPP Alison Saunders - interview by John Humphrys

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Alison+Saunders

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson: Greatest mistake was allowing women to vote

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

Would the morals of this country improve if Dame Jenni Murray were charged with conspiring to corrupt the morals of the public?

 Is BBC Woman's Hour as bad as porn?
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Woman's Hour encourages wives to inflict disabled offspring on their husbands and then blame them when they walk away


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwife#Early_historical_perspective

After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed.

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

"Only a Roman citizen held the status of pater familias and there could only be one holder of the office within a household. He was responsible for its well-being, reputation and legal and moral propriety. The entire familia was expected to adhere to the core principles and laws of the Twelve Tables, which the pater familias had a duty to exemplify, enjoin and if necessary enforce, so within the familia Republican law and tradition (mos maiorum) allowed him powers of life and death (vitae necisque potestas).

The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death." 

These selfish evil feminists want to encourage stupid women to waste their lives, ruin their marriages while burdening the taxpayer even  more so they can feel all warm and compassionate inside while expecting other women to suffer the consequences of their evil and misguided beliefs. Ignore these women and, if you dare, denounce these evil bitches.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/tania-clarence-pleads-guilty-manslaughter-three-children-new-malden is what  happens to you when you snap and can no longer cope with your disabled children. This is what the evil evil evil women on Woman's Hour want to happen to you, probably.

The most conclusive evidence that feminism is evil is that it has caused the decline of the West and the loss of its reason through the desecration of the institution of marriage.

If you want to make your feelings known to most powerful woman in the land the matriarch Dame Jenni Murray, just send her a message at https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb/contact telling her you want me as a guest on Woman's Hour to explain exactly why I think her disgusting show is worse than kiddyporn in that it corrupts even more people than kiddyporn and is on air daily corrupting the morals of its impressionable and sheep-like listeners: the educated middle class women of Britain.
at 3 comments:
Labels: , , ,

The pornocratic political hierarchy of Britain

Feminazis, Slut Single Mothers, Mumsnet, Women's Hour listeners etc make up the PORNOCRACY > Pussywhipped Prime Minister and pussywhipped MPs > Pussywhipped Archbishop of Canterbury whose Church is stuffed with Commie Pinko Homo Feminazis > social conservatives who are badly represented by moral cowards Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin whose pariah political parties will never ever win an election because they are stuffed with unmarriageable and unfanciable beta-omega males who are the victims of and afraid of Feminazis, Slut Single Mothers, Mumsnet, Women's Hour listeners etc who make up the PORNOCRACY

Only a Secular Koranist Movement can break this deadlock.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

Claire Khaw to be on Mumsnet webchat after Woman's Hour


at No comments:
Labels: , ,

When will Claire Khaw appear on Woman's Hour?


at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, 22 February 2014

Catholicism will now become as rotten the Anglican Church under a Liberal Pope. Islam now the only source of social conservatism in the West

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Teach-Yourself-Catholicism-Peter-Stanford/dp/034096880X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393063621&sr=8-1&keywords=teach+yourself+catholicism
by Peter Stanford and with an introduction by Cherie Blair!

 The history of Catholicism demonstrates perfectly why Islam is quite right to dispense with a corrupt priesthood.

The corrupt priesthood now are only interested in smelly bums on their rotten pews, not in in maintaining morality.  Catholic priests are terrified of being accused of being paedo priests, and so will avoid discussing sexual morality like the plague.  It is more than their job's worth to do more than perform their Catholic rituals when expected and required.

The history of Catholicism also demonstrates the fundamental error of denying that the truth of this proposition: that the difference between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

If religion is state ideology, then state ideology must be supported by legislation.

The religion of the West is not Christianity, as so many people mistakenly think. The religion of the West is PC Liberalism. This is so because government supports PC Liberalism and elevates this ideology as supreme over all other competing ideologies.

PC Liberalism is the opposite of patriarchal and the opposite of social conservatism.

It is obvious that to implement Islam we have to abide by its principles, and the only way to abide by its principles is to legislate according to Koranic principles.  Why else do you think the Muslims are so keen on their Sharia law?

Sadly, it is a truth not universally acknowledged that the the only way of bringing back the patriarchy is to respect marriage, and this means invoking God and practising social conservatism.

If you refuse to invoke God or impose a theocracy, you would be relying on UKIP or the BNP to bring it back, and believe me, they are too morally-compromised and afraid of women to do anything like that.

Only last week Nigel Farage was boasting on Woman's Hour that UKIP has been taken over by women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulhs7CghURw

As for the BNP, who is going to listen to a bunch of lower class CHAV bastards and sluts, even if they could bring themselves to support marriage? Nick Griffin will never raise the subject because he knows most BNP men are unmarriageable or do not want to get married and that most BNP mothers are SSMs. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379

No, the answer is a theocracy based on Koranic principles but without a priesthood ie Secular Koranism.  A properly trained judiciary who are not required to be Muslim is enough to interpret and apply such laws.

Secular Koranism is a legal system and not a religion, and is in fact no different to living under a government whose every law you do not agree with. Not that different to what we do now, except that it will be socially conservative instead of PC Liberal.

If you find yourself objecting to this idea, then kindly let me know which verse you find  most objectionable. At this point you will of course say that you cannot bring yourself to read that "filthy book" and that will be the end of this debate.

Understand this, right-wingers:

Your currently helplessness and impotence is directly related to indiscriminate suffrage in which women exercise a disproportionate influence.

Why are all the political parties chasing the female vote?  Because they are mad, stupid and immoral, of course.  The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, as Oscar Wilde would say.

Why do Muslims refuse to integrate?  Because they don't want their sisters, daughters, nieces and grand-daughters turning into White Dee. However much of an Islamophobe you are, can you really really really blame them?

Feminism causes immigration.  Feminism is so filthy, stupid and rotten that it will allow in the very people with the religion that will destroy Feminism.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565121/So-White-Dee-does-feel-poster-girl-thats-wrong-Britain.html


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html
83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this mean for feminism?
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Should rape be treated as a personal injury for which damages are payable?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547727/Women-drunk-men-risk-rape-says-agony-aunt-Irma-Kurtz-faces-backlash-latest-advice.html

and for which contributory negligence is also attributable?

How typical of Jane Garvey of Woman's Hour to imply that women must always right, even when they are clearly wrong.  That programme does more to lower and corrupt the morals of this nation than any kind of pornography.

A quantum of damages could be established.

How should damages be calculated and assessed?

It should always be enough to make the woman half hope that the rapist would do it again.

Should all rape victims be compensated at the same rate?  Surely it is insulting to award a rape victim who is a virgin the same amount as a prostitute? It is after all the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally.

Many interesting questions are raised by this proposal and I am sure lawyers will have fun discussing and solving this problem.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

My advice to Muslims in the West about how to become less hated: by not fearing to be hated even more

https://www.facebook.com/notes/yamin-zakaria/write-to-your-mp-and-others-regarding-the-potential-threat-from-the-far-right/238362692862747


Write to your MP and others regarding the potential threat from the far-right
by Yamin Zakaria (Notes) on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 at 18:17
Below is a copy of the letter that I sent to my local and European MPs, maybe you can alter it and send it to your local MPs (http://www.writetothem.com/)  and create a certain level of public opinion.

------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam

In light of recent events in Norway, and the subsequent revelations of Anders Breivik’s link with the far-right movement (EDL), we are naturally worried about a potential terrorist act in the United Kingdom.

We would urge the government to take pre-emptive measures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and curtail the activities of movements like the EDL. This is an excellent opportunity to show that such legislation (PTA) was not construed to be applied selectively against Muslims in the UK. This will help to build bridges and marginalise the radicals on both sides.

The government should look for signs of radicalisation and its sources; hence, those who are particularly violent and vocal in the EDL should be detained in Belmarsh. It might be better to hand them over to the Americans who have acquired a certain level of expertise in interrogation (‘torture’); water-boarding may indeed prove to be useful in saving innocent British lives.

This would send a message that any terrorist or potential terrorist would be subjected to these sorts of preventative measures. In addition, it would be prudent to take measures against the conveyor belt of far-right terrorism by monitoring the voices of BNP, UKIP and other commentators who stoke hate towards the Muslim community. For example, Melanie Phillips is well-known for her venomous comments, and such hate will eventually translate into violence. Would nasty comments towards the black community be tolerated? Hence, why are the Muslims selectively subjected to this kind of treatment?

In this recent case in Norway as well as the Oklahoma bombings, the media initially speculated that the act was the work of the Muslims, tarring the entire community, creating suspicion and doubt. Therefore, the media should also be given clear directives how to deal with sensitive topics so that communities are not divided and ethnic minorities are not marginalised and subjected to verbal assault; the need for this has become self-evident in the light of the recent scandals (hack-gate).

 Yours sincerely

Yamin Zakaria (www.radicalviews.org) 


Below is my response to this Muslim proposal to put the Far Right under observation as stringent as Muslims are currently being subjected to.


Breivik was a loner concerned about immigration, knowing that it would irretrievably change Norway. He did it all himself after he decided that participating in the political process was futile. Writing to your MP or even monitoring the activities of the Far Right won't help either, since Breivik did it ALL BY HIMSELF as did the others who joined a political party, left it, and then went on to plan and commit acts of terrorism ALL BY THEMSELVES.

We are not even allowed to ask what else he could have done to make his point, are we?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/controversial-new-group-for.html


I created a Facebook group asking precisely that question and it was deleted. 

As for the parties you call Far Right, they cannot manage a piss-up in a brewery. Nick Griffin exists to make money out of the white working classes who dislike immigration and do not see why they cannot complain about it without being called evil racist Fascist Nazi extremists. 

If you were white working class and not very educated you might even be a member of the BNP because you wish to assert your right to complain about immigration. 

How would Muslims like their homelands to be full of immigrants while being forbidden to complain about them?

I have already come to the conclusion that the reason why Britain is full of immigrants is simply because if feminism resulting in white British women not having enough children who are brought up by their mothers or taught in their schools to become productive citizens and employees a sane employer might wish to hire. 

Instead of addressing the problems of education and widespread illegitimacy (which would mean

(1) dealing with the teaching unions and perhaps shooting them in front of their families, as Jeremy Clarkson once suggested
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8930717/Jeremy-Clarksons-execute-strikers-joke-sparks-21000-complaints-to-BBC.html 

(2) criticising the Feminazis such as Dame Jenni Murray (possibly the most evil woman in Britain) as well as her sidekick Jane Garvey at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qlvb as well as Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton of Mumsnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumsnet#History successive governments have in fact conspired to facilitate yet more immigration to appease their voters who are employers who need labour NOW. They cannot wait until after feminism is discredited, or when white British women decide to have enough children and bring them up properly, or when the education system is sorted out.  Michael Gove has been defeated on his proposals to raise standards of education, has he not?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-forced-into-humiliating-uturn-over-ebacc-8484074.html

The government already know that five years - which is the length of a term in office - is not enough to sort that mess out. So they continue to sweep the dust under the carpet.

The white working classes hate Muslims because Muslims are visible and obviously different, while it is not immediately obvious that one of their own is a promiscuous woman and a mother of illegitimate variously-fathered feral children who go to sink schools and leave without qualifications making them unemployable and only fit for a life of crime and welfare dependency.

It is feminism which has created the need for immigrant labour, by lowering the standards of mothering and education in our Culture of Excuses and Entitlement.

It is easier for the white working classes to hate Muslims than to hate their own women -  however promiscuous - because most men who are not in a position to support a wife or are too mean to pay a prostitute will always welcome a cheap source of sex from any promiscuous female minded to give it to them cheap or free.  Men are only after one thing, after all!

The BNP are not prepared to criticise SSMs because most of their membership are the sons of SSMs. 

It would of course help if Muslims are prepared to criticise SSMs, but I have a feeling most Muslims do not want to be even more disliked than they are already. In this way, Muslims are slowly becoming like Jews, who want to prove that they are superior to every race because they are the only ones who follow the commandments of a moral and omnipotent God. Those who do not follow what their God commands will soon find themselves becoming weak and degenerate, in just the same way that a bright student who is not studious will inevitably fall behind to even an average student who is studious.  In the same way, Muslims will also eventually lose their traditions in an environment that is so clearly hostile to social conservatism ie the institutions of marriage and the family, that British Muslims too will be mocked for coming from the land that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. 

While Muslims who now have the protection of their religion think gay marriage and being unmarried mothers will never happen to them, are they so sure it will not happen to their children and grandchildren? Most Muslims go to the same schools as the white non-Muslims  who are so gay, so promiscuous, so sexually liberated and welfare-dependent after all.

If Muslims want to be less disliked, they will have to demonstrate to the white working classes that it is their lack of religion and family values that makes them weaker than the newly-arrived Muslim immigrant. In short, they will have to warn the people whom they know hate and fear Muslims about the destructiveness of feminism to the institutions of marriage and the family.

However, I am sure no Muslim is prepared to do that. 

I am sure that the instinct of most Muslims is to say of the white non-Muslims whom they know  hate them: "Let them get weaker and more morally rotten, since they hate us so much. Nothing would please us more than to see them rot before our eyes in their stew of moral corruption of alcoholism, sexual liberation and gay marriage - all fueled by liberalism and feminism", while entirely forgetting their duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.  

It should be noted that Breivik has been identified as anti-feminist at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism  It is interesting that Muslims refuse to integrate into Western society because they don't want their children and grandchildren to end up as sexually liberated SSMs nor their sons gaily marrying each other nor ending up being divorced and homeless and having to return to live with their parents while deprived of access to their grandchildren by a spiteful ex-daughter-in-law.  The Far Right and Muslims face a common enemy: extremist feminism that desecrates the institutions of marriage and family.  It is the dead weight of feminism (which supports the right of women to be as promiscuous as men) that prevents frightened white men from criticising the worst of their women, who are promiscuous, parasitical and degenerate,even if they are in government and a member of the Cabinet.   The condition of the married white middle class liberal male politician is indeed pitiable and contemptible, for we now have politicians who are these days too afraid of discussing politics.   British Muslims may be forgiven, perhaps, for indulging in what the Germans would call  schadenfreude, and wishing to see the white man, who has bombed and invaded their countries and stolen their oil suffer just a little bit more.  However, what hurts the white man will eventually hurt them too, for they too live in the land of white people.    

I really do not think calling for more restrictions on the free speech of both Muslims and anyone who wishes to complain about immigration is going to help Muslims.  The white working classes need someone to hate for being overtaken and replaced by immigrants.  They need to hate someone whom their own government actually prefers to them.   After all, their own government cares so little about them that it refuses to even warn or advise them for their own good.   The political classes have so much contempt for the white working classes that they would rather throw money at them than tell them a few home truths or risk their careers by offending their slut and bastard voters whom no sane British employer would hire as an employee.

If Muslims want to improve things in Britain rather than merely have their revenge of the Far Right, they should point to the cause of Western malaise, instead of encouraging the government to impose more restrictions on all our freedoms - talk about going native!

Why should Muslims be afraid of offending the worst of women - the unmarried mothers of illegitimate offspring whose children are not a credit to them?  

They have gone native, or forgotten their Islamic duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, as the Koran commands.   Perhaps it is right that Muslims who neglect their duty to Allah do not prosper.  

Or they would go and like https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379?fref=ts

at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Dame Jenni Murray giggles when ex-wife says on air she used ex-husband's toothbrush to clean toilet


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qjjxs


Fleet Street Fox

Fleet Street Fox writes a popular anonymous blog revealing the workings, attitudes and shenanigans of a tabloid newsroom. Having used her blog to give her a way to voice her own opinions, journalist Susie Boniface finally confirmed her true identity just a few days ago.  She explains why she revealed who she is, and discusses her new book and what the future holds for Fleet Street Fox.
The Diaries of Fleet Street Fox, published by Constable on February 21 2013.



https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox
Fleet Street Fox blocked me ages ago from following her on Twitter, so you can guess what sort of a woman she is.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/tweeters-who-have-stopped-me-from.html has an un-updated list of tweeters who have blocked me on Twitter.

Who needs porn to corrupt the morals of the nation when we already have BBC Woman's Hour?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 2 November 2012

Feminism causes paedophilia and means DYING ALONE


Lonely UK: Number of middle-aged people living alone rises dramatically as marriage continues to decline


  • Almost 2.5m aged 45-64 have no spouse, partner or children living with them

  • Amount has grown 50% since the mid 1990s
  • Number of loners has pushed up demand for housing


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226138/Lonely-Britain-A-MILLION-people-live-1996.html#ixzz2B4tDYRQ2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Feminism also mean reporters in the Daily Mail use "amount" when they should use "number" cos the female-dominated teaching profession does not see fit to teach British school children grammar, cos most teachers are grammatically ignorant.

As Montaigne said, "Grammar is the logic of language," but what do these feminists - these selfish evil women who are determined to cling to their privileges at the expense of men, the young and the old - care about that, or the long-term national interest?

Isn't it time to tell feminism to fuck off, or challenge the matriarchy to a debate?

Go on then, ask Dame Jenni Murray if you can appear on Woman's Hour to question feminism and see what  happens.

You might even find yourself being accused of paedophilia, who knows.  This is what these women do.

Say or do anything they don't like or hurt their feelings and you will be accused of racism, extremism, sexism, paedophilia or whatever shit they can find to chuck at you.  

These days you are called a Far Right extremist Nazi Fascist racist sexist if you express any view that puts you into the category of a social conservative.

Ask yourself this question:

Was there such a fear of paedophiles before feminism became our ruling orthodoxy?

FEMINISM CAUSES DEGENERACY, PAEDOPHILIA AND FUCKS UP YOUR CIVILISATION.   

 FEMINISM IS THE MATRIARCHY FUCKING UP THE FUTURE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND THE NEXT GENERATION, BECAUSE THEY CAN.

 WHEN WILL YOU GET IT TOGETHER TO TELL FEMINISM TO FUCK OFF?



at 15 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 29 March 2012

A most unorthodox Orthodox Rabbi commends civil partnerships to all!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dvw6w#p00qk799

40:41 is when the Rabbi Zvi Solomons speaks.

I was somewhat confused because people are very upset, particularly religious people about allowing same sex marriages and I think it would be much better if everyone got hitched, as it were, using civil partnerships and allowed the religions to decide for each religious group who is actually getting married because that would avoid some of the controversy over this particular issue.
Jenni Murray:

So are you suggesting that a Register Office joining should be for everybody regardless of whether they are gay or heterosexual be a civil partnership and then if you're religious you go and call it marriage?

Rabbi Solomons:

Yes, originally marriage was under religious auspices and it was only I think in the 19th century that it became a state matter and that's why one looks in the books of Registers of Marriage in churches going back hundreds of years ago, if your doing genealogical research.

Basically, Rabbi Solomons is saying that both same-sex and heterosexual couples should be civilly partnered and their civil partnership converted into marriage subsequently by a religious ceremony.

However, making the civil partnership the default option for everyone would be tantamount to making EVERYONE do the GAY THING.  After all, the civil partnership was once FOR GAY PEOPLE ONLY.

Let us hope that this is not the thin end of the wedge leading to the practice compulsory sodomy by all couples, including heterosexual couples at all times, that will lead inevitably to the extinction of the human race.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Judaism would indicate that Jews at one time stoned homosexuals to death and was the first Abrahamic faith to be what liberals these days would call homophobic, presumably to avoid becoming like us.

Perhaps stating views like this, for a rabbi - no less, is merely indicative of the fact that even Jews can "go native" and be corrupted by the prevailing ethos of atheist liberal feminist sexual licence, in a land where Slut Single Mums cannot be criticised and have taken the form of an unofficial but fearsome pagan deity.

I therefore think the Rabbi has been a very naughty and heretical rabbi indeed today. Just as well the Jews don't believe in hell.

I do hope that the Chief Rabbi keeps an eye on Rabbi Solomons or his congregation may well find themselves worshiping a Golden Calf before too long, if they're not careful!
at No 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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Middle class parents of children with "ADHD" will continue to be parted from their money

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8032532/ADHD-caused-by-genetic-faults.html

How to treat ADHD? Observe the parents for bad parenting and any signs of being middle class, then tell them to give it a good smack.


How to treat ADHD? Stigmatise it. The simplest and most responsible thing this government should do - but I know it won't - is to put any child who has ADHD into a special class of ADHD sufferers or even put them into an ADHD *school*. That would shut these parents up good and proper.



And, obviously, watch that kid for character defects, emotional instability, weirdness, intellectual impairment and remember to tell it again and again that it had better change its ways or IT. WILL. AMOUNT. TO. NOTHING and be a loser and a loner.

Whatever its causes, genetic or social, they should suppress its symptoms and stop being a burden to themselves and others.

Of course these child psychologists are going to milk it for what it's worth.

This piece will create confusion and encourage concerned parents to who can afford it to seek expert advice.

It is obviously not enough to just tell a child nicely to cease and desist and give up when they won't. You actually punish the child, but that may be considered a bit "extreme" to liberal parents to actually have to practise following through their ideas. They will of course just cave in at the first hurdle and seek "expert advice" who will have every interest in giving unnecessary treatment and prolonging it for as long as possible.

Boys suffer from it more than girls.

Everyone suffers from ADHD and autism from time to time. It is just a way of saying someone is

1. not paying attention
2. not seeing another's point of view
3. not able to control their emotions

but that it is not their fault.

Well, if they are annoying you and won't stop annoying you, then it is their bloody fault.


The reason why there are more middle class ADHD children now is because more mothers work. There is just hint that this happens more to working mothers, when these experts refer mysteriously to "early childhood experience" (which I believe is a euphemism for "leaving them in daycare") because they don't want to be shouted at by Jenni Murray or be sent to The Tower.  


Working class children who display ADHD-like behaviour whose parent(s) did not think to consult a child psychologist (or cannot afford to do so) are called something else, eg "thick out-of-control little shits"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9046000/9046613.stm


Oliver James was trying to suggest that working mothers leaving children in creches was not such a good idea. I still remember how Jenni Murray shouted at him on WOMAN'S HOUR for daring to criticise working mothers.

http://www.dailym...ail.co.uk/femail/article-1286113/OLIVER-JAMES-Why-did-broadcaster-Jenni-Murray-hard-time-Womans-Hour.html

"Sadly, there is now overwhelming evidence that daycare is bad for the mental health of at least one-third of under-threes (the evidence is in the appendix of my book).

Tragically, it is precisely the kind of mother (and politician) who is unresponsive in relating to under threes who is most likely to leave her child in daycare. The more unresponsive she is, the longer the hours she is likely to work and the lower the quality of daycare she is willing to settle for. Yet these are the very babies who most need one-on-one care (although all under-threes do)."

How to cure ADHD: http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/watch?v=-1ytqd4gqh8
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 2 July 2010

23 Reasons for repealing the Sex Discrimination Act 1975

because women

  1. have too much power
  2. are always asking for more state handouts
  3. want to mother everything, no matter how useless and costly, because it feeds their sense of self-important and purpose
  4. are the people who are stopping the rest of us from getting lower taxes and lighter regulation, because our male politicians take orders from these people who make up the membership of MUMSNET and listeners of WOMAN'S HOUR. (Notice how they are always whingeing,  asking for more state handouts, and more nannying health and safety legislation.  Can you imagine a man asking for smoking to be banned?)
  5. who are single mothers are parasitical on the taxpayer when they have no husband to provide for them
  6. are in thrall to feminism - an evil unnatural ideology that requires you to pretend that both sexes are capable of doing the same work with equal competence and effectiveness, when they are  clearly not
  7. are mostly more irrational than men
  8. are more censorious than men
  9. are less likely to forgive than men because they are the weaker sex and their feelings are more easily hurt, ie they are more vindictive
  10. and their feminine vices have started to infect men.  (Remember when David Milliband said he was "offended" by  the behaviour of Iran when he was Foreign Secretary?  Why does he imagine for a moment that the Iranians or anyone cares about his feelings?  He was talking like a girl and thinking like one too.)
  11. are the ones who want more nannying health and safety regulations
  12. are the ones who want to be bailed out when they have messed up their lives because they got knocked up by some low-life loser they didn't say no to
  13. are not very good at using contraception or deliberately get pregnant to trap the man or the taxpayer into paying for her and her child or children
  14. are interfering
  15. should do what they are best at and leave the thinking to men or rational women who want greater liberty, fewer laws and lower taxes
  16. are the reds on (rather than under) your bed
  17. are naturally parastical, as well as cowardly and hypocritical
  18. exercising matriarchal degeneracy will lead to terminal matriarchal dementia
  19. matriarchal dementia leads to civilisational extinction
  20. are only too good at exercising power without responsibility
  21. are corrupted by the power they do not deserve to have
  22. have emasculated men and forced them to ape the manners and morals of those who have conquered them
  23. with too much power are bad for themselves, men, children and the next generation
If you are BNP, you will realise that women are less likely to vote BNP than men, because they think voting BNP detracts from their identity of being compassionate and womanly.  Often, they forbid their husbands from joining the party and can make life very difficult for him.   They tend to reject men who can't compete against foreigners, thinking them low-status, low-income and not worth bothering with.  BNP activists know they have to out themselves very carefully with certain women or risk being rejected in love or at the very least, as sex partners. 
at 8 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.  ...