Immigration is caused by feminism

Immigration is caused by feminism causing women to have fewer babies and become working mothers. Normalising working mothers leads to normalising divorced mothers, and normalising divorced mothers leads to normalising never married mothers who are known for their bad parenting skills. Schools attended by these badly-parented children inevitably have to lower standards with the result that school-leavers are not fit to be employed. This makes local labour unattractive compared to foreign labour.

How wife-beating and divorce would work under Secular Koranism

1. No fault divorce would be abolished.
2. Blame starts at 50/50.  At the very least both parties married the wrong person.
3. A couple shall be required to agree a marriage contract before being allowed to marry. The purpose of this is to make fault easier to apportion in the event of a divorce.
4. Only people of legal capacity can make contracts and be held to them. This means you cannot marry till you are 18.  
5. Matrimonial Disputes Tribunals could be set up in every community to deal with the stage when the husband is so angry and dissatisfied with his recalcitrant wife that he wants to strike her, as prescribed in the wife-beating verse 4:34. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php The point is that this beating can never be done in private, but in public before the Tribunal as a formal and physical sign of rebuke. It need not amount to anything more than a slap on the wrist. Before being allowed to do so, the Tribunal would ask that he declare that he has formally admonished her and slept separately from her. 
6. If the recalcitrant wife does not improve after this formally and publicly administered "beating", he can proceed to divorce.  http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/065-qmt.php

Oh, come on, ladies!  This is fair enough, isn't it?

If you are the wife and want a divorce, all you have to do is prove that he breached the terms of the marriage contract and proceed straight to divorce. There is no need to hit him either in private or public, so it is actually easier for the wives.    

"Unconscious uncoupling" is but a celebrity euphemism for "failed marriage"

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/26/conscious-uncoupling-gwyneth-paltrow-chris-martin

It is easy for celebrities to invent new words and new concepts with the purpose of making you look good for doing something that would make the average person look bad. Anyway, nobody's fooled.

Or are they?

The word this arrogant entitled woman is avoiding is DIVORCE.

Of course, lots of ordinary people will now be calling their FAILED MARRIAGES that and trivialising their FAILURE in that way.

Imagine that: morality subverted by airhead celebrity bimbos plebs worship in their millions. They won't even notice or care.

Perhaps you can you only use that term only if you are a celebrity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8475839/Gwyneth-Paltrow-insults-grandmother-in-television-interview.html
Does Paltrow, who called her own grandmother a cunt on TV, sound like a bit of CUNT to you?

I bet the Pope Francis is too scared to say anything about cunts like her. He will probably wash her feet and kiss it.

http://voices.yahoo.com/evolution-movie-star-hollywood-studio-system-502392.html?cat=37
How the studio system protected morality

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?

Why White Nationalism should demand the reconsecration of the institutions of Marriage and Family

I live in the West amongst white people. I therefore feel that what is good for white people would be good for me, and that civic nationalism is enough to give white nationalists a foot in the door, who should use any means available wisely to have the kind of society that they want that would give them the liberty to influence whom their offspring mate with.

This would be done by reconsecrating the desecrated institutions of Family and Marriage.

Just ask for this and everything else will follow.

This means, I'm afraid, challenging feminism, which some of you may not be quite up to.

Feminism means easy divorce and divorce settlements that usually cripple men. This means men are afraid of women. When men are afraid of their women the moral and educational standards of that society suffer.

Challenging feminism means you have to give up the benefits of feminism ie cheap sex and easy women.

Brothels would be legal again, but prostitutes who are not a burden on the state will be officially declared a degree above never married single mothers who are.


There is no need to for further acts of violence by the likes of Anders Breivik or pray for a race war or widespread civil disorder or anything like that. Just ask for what I suggest above, in reasonable tones, and there will be a gender war of ideas of the patriarchy adn the matriarchy. It is not that hard for men to win the argument, if you make the arguments in your favour widely available.

What you offer women to give up feminism is a better quality of white man who will be a good husband and father instead of the losers and paedophiles created by feminism.

The losers created by feminism are the illegitimate, criminal, under-achieving and singly-parented.  In other words, men who are skint, scared and stupid, some of them even middle class and professional, who have had their homes confiscated by their wives after she has become bored and irritated by them when they have grown old and boring, when she has decided it would be quite nice to live in his house without having the annoyance of him in it.  


I see no harm in saying, in response to the acts and words of the Anders Breivik, things like: 

"We told you so, it was all your fault for suppressing debate on immigration for so long. Why don't we have a referendum on immigration then if you are all so bloody democratic? Then you will find out whether the voters want more immigration or not. Go on, we dare you."

"Fascism" and "Nazism" these days is often really only genuine Conservatism demonised by liberals and feminists.

Another reason to convert to Islam?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

Another reason to be Muslim, according to Prince Charles.

Maybe the BNP should promise to disestablish the Church of England so he can convert to Islam?

Henry VIII would have been a happier husband and the English a happier reign if their king had been Muslim.

Islam allows divorce. Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism, hypocritically, does not.

Is sex political? Is feminism political? Is the Pope Catholic? Do bears poo in woods?

http://www.family-men.com/Summary%20of%20Divorce%20Law%20since%201970.htm

Read this, then feel your wallet and look fearfully at your wife ....

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama - two more reasons why America is doomed

McCain has chosen as his running mate a woman unable to pass on the traditional values that the Republican Party stands for, which I assume to include marriage. Sarah Palin's daughter is expecting and unmarried, yet this is somehow brushed aside as an irrelevance, even by Obama.

It's OK, Obama, to lay into Palin even though your mother was a much-divorced woman. It is the ones who don't even bother getting married before having babies who should be pelted with rotten vegetables and fruit.

Or perhaps it is those who still think it is OK to have a child outside wedlock who deserve the pillory and stocks, like you Obama?

Why is marriage desirable in the context of bringing up children?

If you are a Darwinian, you would understand.

When we have sex, it is for the pleasure of it. Babies are not an erotic goal - in fact the very opposite.

The male has to compete to win the hand of the female most likely to be a good mother and wife, ie the one most beautiful, sexy, clever, kind and fertile that he can hope to win.

It falls to the female to select the male most capable of protecting and providing and assume the role of being the prize of the male most worthy winner. To give of herself cheaply and too freely is to negate the role that is naturally hers. When enough females forget this important duty, the result is decline and disaster for the society they inhabit.

Women are prizes to be won by men. Whores are those who would give themselves to the highest bidder. The more astute reader will have noticed that there is not that much difference between being a whore and how a woman who desires marriage might behave - she would accept the most advantageous terms on offer.

Marriage is but prostitution approved by law but burdened with more onerous terms for both parties.

Prostitution is a series of short-term transactions while a marriage is a long-term relationship only capable of being achieved by a couple who have a minimum of mutual-respect and affection.

It is therefore those females who give of their favours too freely or cheaply and then give birth to children outside wedlock who are the ones who bring about eventual societal collapse, when enough generations have been economically, genetically and intellectually impoverished.

To be a "slut" is therefore for more harmful to society than to be a "whore".

Unplanned pregnancy and casual sex, ie the worship of Sexual Freedom, and the welfare state which protects these sluts from the consequences of failing to play by the rules of partner and natural selection, in the light of the above thesis, is therefore the main cause of Western decline.

Some blame foreigners, some blame the Jews, others the Muslims, but I blame the misuse of our sex organs as a thinking organ and the apathy of men in the face of totalitarian feminism, as well as those who refuse to condemn the perpetuation of illegitimacy as immoral and wicked - people such as Sarah Palin and her supporters and Obama, who thought he would sit on the fence in case it offended the rank and file of illegitimates supporting him.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

It is telling, is it not, that it is only on this ridiculous and unnecessary piece of legislation that MPs are indulged by being allowed to vote with their consciences?

Are there not enough people around that we need to artificially create humans to further desecrate the environment with their consumption, aspirations and carbon footprints?

Why is it, though, that our government is perpetually bent on sponsoring folly?

Is it that important that gays and lesbians be given the option of having a child (probably at taxpayers' expense) that will probably be having problems with its self-identity when it grows up, particularly when that couple have split up? (It is of course well-known that homosexual relationships are more unstable than marriage, even in these days of easy divorce.)




Below is an imagined conversation between an Irresponsible Lesbian Mother and her laboratory-created Half- Human Half-Animal "Son":

Little Boy: Mother, who was my father?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: You don't have one, dear. I had you created with my ex-girlfriend who has now gone off with another woman when she discovered that motherhood was not to her liking. We felt it was a lifestyle choice at the time, a bit like having a new kitchen or buying a pet together.

Little Boy: Am I a Freak of Nature, mum?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: I'm afraid so, darling.

Little Boy: Does this mean that if I grow up to be a psychotic serial murderer, because of my inability to come to terms with my biological origins, people will understand and empathise?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: That is perfectly possible, dear boy, if the fund of compassion has not been completely exhausted and Western civilisation still exists in any recognisable form.




If those who cannot reproduce normally feel a little left out, why is it the state's (and by extension the taxpayer's) role to look after these people?

If most women who put career before motherhood are too dim or career-focused not to realise that they are compromising their fertility and their marriage prospects by leaving it too late, then the obvious solution would be a change of behaviour, such as marrying younger, and getting an alpha male such as Tony Blair to propose to you because he likes the way you clean toilets without having to be asked (as related by Cherie Blair in her book Speaking for Myself), choosing men with incomes capable of supporting a housewife, rather than aiding and abetting these women in continuing in their fertility-challenged lifestyles.

What is worse is that quite a few of these women, suddenly becoming aware of their error in their mid-30s, intentionally get themselves pregnant by men to whom they have temporary sexual access but who are not husband-material. They then turn up on the doorsteps of their parents (if still together), who are expected to be grateful at the prospect of becoming the grandparents of an illegitimate grandchild.

This fact is proudly announced to neighbours, friends and family, who are expected to congratulate them.

The crime is complete when we do, because we do not wish to give offence.

As for the creation of "saviour siblings", my Darwinian instincts tell me that if you have a child that is not fit for life, then it is better to just have another one that is, rather than have another one to save the one that is unfit for life. If the unfit one continues, your limited resources of time and energy will be taken up in keeping alive a life that is unviable, sickly and unproductive, when your energies would be more profitably directed to supporting a child that is healthy and normal, and expecting the taxpayer to sponsor this humanitarian indulgence.

This is just what I mean when I talk about this cancer of compassion which has spread to every organ of national life.

Why, I ask again, is it the role of government (and by extension the taxpayer) to sponsor such folly?

Now, an Euthanasia Bill for the self-righteous, interfering, wasteful and dim, who think that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is a productive use of Parliamentary time, would have my enthusiastic support ...