Translate

Showing posts with label female promiscuity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label female promiscuity. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 March 2017

Swedish woman is now Western woman, therefore Swedish man is now Western man

Sweden is dying because it is a matriarchy.
To discover that your society is a matriarchy is to discover it has a terminal illness.





























https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

The corruption of language is the corruption of thought.

The corruption of thought is the corruption of the law.

The corruption of the law is the corruption of morality.

The moral corruption of a society is the destruction of social cohesion.

Social cohesion is necessary for shared values, national identity and the continued existence of a nation.

Only through respecting the rules of marriage is it possible for a society to keep and maintain what it has so far acquired in the way of possessions and knowledge.

All societies need the protection of social conservatism to protect themselves from their internal and external enemies.

The eternal enemies of society are sluts and socialists. 

Everything about female promiscuity undermines marriage.

Everything about feminism destroys civilisation.

Not a single feminist is prepared to discuss any of this.

What all feminists will conspire to do is ignore, marginalise and smear anyone who asks any of the questions I have asked, proving that they are indeed the totalitarian enemies of free speech and civilisation. 

History first enacts itself as tragedy, then repeats itself as farce.

The ancient Chinese idea of Yin and Yang acknowledges this eternal battle of the sexes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage#Marriages_in_early_societies

In traditional Chinese thinking, people in "primitive" societies did not marry, but had sexual relationships with one another indiscriminately. Such people were thought to live like animals, and they did not have the precise concept of motherhood, fatherhood, sibling, husband and wife, and gender, not to mention match-making and marriage ceremony. Part of the Confucian "civilizing mission" was to define what it meant to be a Father or a Husband, and to teach people to respect the proper relationship between family members and regulate sexual behavior.

God was created by Man to make the laws that protect his civilisation from the Slut, because Man  knows he cannot trust himself to say no to the Slut. This is why a theocracy is both logical and necessary, even to me, an agnostic.

In a matriarchy where there is no alpha male, there is only the weaker sex and the even weaker sex, to be invaded, raped, pillaged, and conquered.

Why don't women care about men's civilisation?

Because they didn't create it and know they will be OK whatever happens, in just the way a lion's harem never come to his assistance when they know if he loses the fight against his potential usurper he has to leave the pride and his cubs will be killed by the usurper. If their cubs are killed, that's just fine with the lionesses, because they will be impregnated again by the victor, who won't have a loser's genes.

Helen was a slut, Paris was an MCSF and Troy fell because it protected them. The West is Troy.
Nothing much happened to Helen. Menelaus just took her back to Sparta as his wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahab
Rahab was honoured for letting the invaders into Jericho.

In short, feminism is a shit test to test the fitness of men and their civilisation to survive.

Strangely and surprisingly, Western man prefers merely to complain weakly and weekly about being exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and assorted foreigners. He prefers merely to complain than actually having to marry a woman of his own race and bringing up her children, apparently. If he does not think women of his own race are worth marrying because they are all feminists, he does not seem able to get up the courage to denounce feminism and propose the repeal of its laws viz:

  • the law that says it is OK to have premarital sex
  • the Equal Pay Act 1970
  • the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
  • the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  • the Equality Act 2010
This means that the next generation will be even more slut and bastard and more full of morally compromised slut-fuckers than previous generations, entrenching the idiocracy.



Catch 22:

The only way Western civilisation can be saved is if it became Islamic. But if it became Islamic, then Western civilisation as we know it - sexually promiscuous, hedonist, feminist, consumerist, still fucking around with elections under a multi-party system of indiscriminate universal suffrage falling over themselves to pander to feminine preferences - would have to end.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html






https://www.thelocal.se/jobs/article/why-these-swedish-trade-union-bosses-wore-pink-pussyhats-for-gender-equality

http://www.returnofkings.com/70400/all-swedes-will-be-forced-to-fund-female-promiscuity

The Muslim Brotherhood is creating a 'parallel social structure' in Sweden, aided by 'political elites' making it impossible to criticise Islam, government report admits

“Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Sweden’s current problems. If anything, he understated them.” - Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, in Wall Street Journal op-ed

Stereotype of Swedish women as promiscuous

“We have strange drinking habits and we copulate assiduously, before we commit suicide on a large scale, after we have paid a terrible amount of taxes,” is how the actor Erland Josephson ironically summarized the foreigner’s image of Sweden in 1987 (30).

Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft, who actually went to Sweden, complained about promiscuity at length. In her famous travel book of 1796, Letters written during a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (already translated into German in 1800) she wrote of “the total want of chastity in the lower class of women” (Wollstonecraft 1989:258) in Sweden, for whom love is “merely an appetite, to fulfil the main design of nature, never enlivened by either affection or sentiments” (314).

The about-turn in the (West) German perception of Swedish sexuality first becomes apparent in the fifties, as the Swedish film industry achieved great success abroad with, for that period, very permissive films such as Arne Mattsson’s Hon dansade en sommar (1951; English One Summer of Happiness) and Ingmar Bergman’s Sommaren med Monika (1952; English Summer with Monika) and became “the initiator of cinematic aphrodisiacs” (Der Spiegel 1964:96) – to some extent involuntarily. For example a second version of Sommaren med Monika was also shown in the USA; cut from 97 to 65 minutes, dubbed and with new film music as Monika, the Story of a Bad Girl (Stevenson 1995:19–22). “Stockholm produces cultivated films with good photographic technique, with preaching pastors and naked women” is how the cinema researcher Georges Sadoul summarized the “Swedish film” in 1957 (394). Or even shorter: “naked swimming plus social criticism” (Der Spiegel 1964:96). But if one examines the reception of, for example, Hon dansade en sommar in German-speaking countries (see Beindorf 1995 and 1996), it is noticeable that the “immoral” is still not attributed to the country and its inhabitants. The stereotype only arose in the course of the following twenty years. Der Spiegel (1969:132) summarized as follows under the headline “Free from taboos”:

Drugs and pornography, prisons without doors and girls without morals, boredom and short skirts, hot love and cool people – that is the average German’s image of Sweden.

 there is no shortage of arguments to confirm that the heterostereotype really is referential. Historians and ethnologists argue that a specific Scandinavian or Swedish development with regard to sexual practice has existed for centuries. Two historical phenomena are held primarily responsible for the tradition of premarital relationships in Scandinavian countries; “night courtship”, ritualized visiting by young men in unmarried women’s bedrooms, and the specific function of engagement in old Nordic law, which counted as permission to commence a sexual relationship (Hertoft 1970:61–69; Löfgren 1972; Frykman 1977). Wollstonecraft wrote as an eyewitness about the sexual activities of young couples subject to the conflicting forces of secular engagement custom and religious marriage law:

Young people, who are attached to each other, with the consent of their friends, exchange rings, and are permitted to enjoy a degree of liberty together, which I have never noticed in any other country. The days of courtship are therefore prolonged, till it be perfectly convenient to marry: the intimacy often becomes very tender: and if the lover obtains the privilege of a husband, it can only be termed half by stealth, because the family is wilfully blind. (326)

In Stockholm around 1850 almost half of all children were born to single mothers; in general the proportion of extramarital children in Sweden in the nineteenth century was about 10% (Frykman 1977; Frykman 1993:189f.; cf. also Hertoft 1970:68). This is not to mention the marriages entered into after conception but before birth. The assertion was that the nexus between sexuality and religious sexual norms had actually always been undermined – a development which continued with the great morality debate in the Modern Breakthrough and in the cultural debate of the 1930s, which was in many respects a struggle for self-determination in sexuality (Bergström-Walan 1970:11–58; Linnér 1967; above all Lennerhed 1994 and 1991). In the thirties a new functionalist physical consciousness, modernism, and the construction of discursive-collective identities such as national identity were combined to great effect (Frykman 1993:161ff.). In 1938 information on contraception was legalized and the first abortion law was passed (although without permitting social grounds). Sex education was made obligatory in all schools in 1955, an event which attracted worldwide attention; “the Swedish sin” became a catch-phrase (Lennerhed 1991; Frykman 1993:189ff.). The sexual liberalism debate conducted with great enthusiasm between 1962 and 1965, and also the Swedish sense of being the international standard-bearers of modernism influenced foreign opinion. Western conservatives were convinced that the Swedes had sacrificed the secret of sexuality to profane functionalism, functionalizing sexuality as a hedonistic principle. On the other hand, liberals praised Sweden as the model for progressive sexual policy and asked “whether it would be worth creating ‘many Swedens’ of sexual policy” (Giese 1970:9).

a comparative analysis of illegitimate birth rates in Sweden and elsewhere3 shows that premarital sexual intercourse was common in Europe and North America, a consequence of the “European Marriage Pattern” (early sexual maturity, high marriage age) (Mitterauer 1983:23– 30). Scandinavia is one of the regions with traditionally high illegitimacy rates, but the figures for the Eastern Alps region are significantly higher. For example, in Vienna in the second half of the nineteenth century, the proportion of births out of wedlock was over 50% (Mitterauer 1983:25). In Bavaria in the nineteenth century the figure was around 20% (Nipperdey 1991:127). The particular function of engagement existed into modern times, not just in Scandinavia but also in England, North America, France, Portugal, etc. (Mitterauer 1983:14). And night courtship was widespread in Central Europe, the Baltic region, Wales, Western France, etc., under a variety of names (Kiltgang in Switzerland, Fensterln in Austria, Nachtfreien etc.) (Mitterauer 1983:57).

As a central discourse of modernization, sexuality was progressively socialized by it4 and thus inseparably interlinked with the entire social system:

Because important cultural systems (religion/ theology/church; state/law; family/marriage; science; art; economics), lay claim to and realize love, its control, shaping and functionalization, its domestication, classification, or simply representation, alterations in one or more of these systems lead to alterations in the attitude to sexuality. And vice versa; alterations in the attitude to sexuality lead to alterations in one or more cultural systems (Beutin 1993:92).

At the latest since Foucault’s research it has become a platitude that discourses on sexuality always develop where the power in society is located, and are an instrument of power (Foucault 1978). There is an inseparable relationship between supposedly “merely” interpersonal sexual behaviour and the overall organization of society (Giddens 1992:3).

Sexuality is capable of representing the modernization project not only in synecdochic, but also in metaphoric terms. Modernization research, long committed to linear models, has in recent years emphasized that modernization is a paradoxical process which unites apparently contradictory developments (e.g. individualization and pluralization) (van der Loo & van Reijen 1992). At least in Western cultures sexuality has a similar paradoxical character. It is viewed ambivalently, on the one hand with fascination, on the other with fear and caution. My main point is that the promiscuity stereotypically attributed to the Swedes is primarily an expression of the ambivalent stance taken on the best-known project of Swedish modernity, namely, the welfare state.

As late as 1963, in the context of a long Spiegel interview with the Swedish prime minister Tage Erlander, Sweden was presented as the “perfect” welfare state under the headline “Everyone is entitled to a pension”. The journalist’s critical questions were directed solely at the affordability of the welfare state, and its relationship to the private economy, and no reference was made to sexuality either in the journalist’s questions or in the illustrations for the interview (Der Spiegel 1963:60–67). It was not until the end of the sixties, when critical voices were increasingly heard, that the stereotype received prominence in West Germany. Examples are the Spiegel quote already mentioned or Huntford’s book on the Swedish welfare state, published in 1971 and translated into German in 1973. Huntford “crowned” his polemical criticism of the Swedish new totalitarians with a chapter on the promiscuous behaviour of the Swedes, stating that the freedom of copulation has led to an obsession which permeates all of Swedish life (Huntford 1971). Lennerhed, who has investigated “the Swedish sin” above all in Anglo-American regions, summarizes:

In the context, however, it appears important that the negative post-war image of Sweden is so extremely focused on Swedish sexual policy. The rational, pragmatic and reform-oriented sexual policy was seen as typical of the Swedish state and possibly of the welfare state in general (Lennerhed 1994:97).

The German heterostereotype of Swedish promiscuity implies the same connection between sexuality and welfare state, but it interprets it differently. It is more differentiated, because it does not only express criticism of the Swedish welfare state “model”, but articulates ambivalence towards it. This is because Swedish sexual behaviour came into use as a stereotype in the Federal Republic of Germany at precisely the moment when the image of Sweden became ambiguous,5 as criticism and fascination became paradoxically fused in public consciousness. The following question was asked in a representative West German opinion poll in August 1970: “Which country is the best example to us in terms of social matters, or is no country a model to us in terms of social matters?” For 44% of those questioned there was no country which was superior in social matters, but Sweden was in second place with 36%, with Switzerland at 7% and Denmark at 3% far behind. Even amongst CDU/CSU supporters, whose party leaderships presented Sweden as a socialist horror state, one in three thought that Sweden was a good example (Der Spiegel 1970:79f.). The attraction of the “model” was by no means gone (see also Der Spiegel 1972:122–145).

Finally, it is noticeable that the stereotype normally refers to female sexual behaviour. But this is only surprising if the stereotype is understood as referential in relation to the Swedish sex debate, where other subjects such as sex education, the abortion question, equal rights for homosexuals, and censorship played an important role (Lennerhed 1994) – a series of things which are ignored by the stereotype. Because, unlike tempting-threatening female sexuality, they do not offer the (male) groups which dominate public debate the opportunity to articulate ambivalence towards the welfare state project.6 An additional factor is certainly rhetorical identification of the Swedish welfare state as woman, emphasizing “female” characteristics (care, unagressiveness, warmth) (cf. Ehn 1993:279).

In the film The Producers mentioned at the start, the Swedish secretary Ulla, characterized as a “Swedish sexpot” in the secondary literature (Yacowar 1981:76), has long lost all specific “Swedish” qualities. She has become an icon for (heterosexual)7 sexuality itself.

The blonde woman became the sensual dream woman, her hair no longer an indication of shyness and chastity, but an erotic allure.

The Swedish Woman is now the Western Woman.  

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  

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

Friday, 7 October 2016

Abortion and how it may affect the success of Trump's Presidential campaign

It is very predictably overwhelmingly fornicating sluts who find themselves in need of an abortion. If Trump does not become POTUS, it could well be because of these women who will be voting for Hillary Clinton for no other reason than to continue to have abortion on demand and who do not want its availability to be remotely threatened in any way, or women with all the qualities I have cited, who are also fat.

It is truly horrible to imagine that the 2016 Battle for America will hinge on the voting preferences of immoral and obese women and the morally compromised men who want to have sex with them.

Whatever America does, the rest of the degenerate West will follow in its wake as well as the rest of the degenerate East. If only the American political class formally acknowledged their imperial status and the responsibilities of power, which would include the sacrifice of showing the rest of the world a good example. Noblesse oblige, and all that.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/inside-planned-parenthoods-huge-ground-war-to-stop-trump-w443404

The Planned Parenthood ground war is designed to dovetail with the Democratic campaign to take back the Senate, which will hinge on tight races in many of the same swing states. "These elections are so close. These Senate races are within one point. The presidential campaign in many of these states is within the margin of error," Schifeling says. "We think these three million voters are going to make the difference. In a lot of these states, they are going to be the margin of victory."
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

How likely am I to get a substantive response from Nic Dakin MP to any of the points I raised?




at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Protect our children from paedos by protecting them from feminism


The writer and former England rugby international Brian Moore says he isn’t at all surprised the DJ’s victims didn’t speak up earlier. As long as victims live in fear of not being listened to, they won’t talk.





Every child deserves to have a responsible adult parent who is not an abuser that it can go to should something like this happen.

The standard of parenting of the average child has gone down, while the opportunities for abuse has increased.

That is because the British are now DEGENERATE.

Degeneracy means being inferior to your parents in intellect, education, morals and physical attributes.

The British are now degenerate because they tolerate female promiscuity which  is an essential pillar of feminism.

The working mum became the norm, then the divorced mum and then the Slut Single Mum.

Feminism turns your women into sluts, and then SSMs.  When most of your people are sluts and bastards then your civilisation will DIE, after being exploited by the rest of the world,  of course.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Irreversible decline happens when your society no longer respects the institution of marriage


‎Daryll Christopher:

"The more a woman pays her bills, the more I will love her. Occidental males are too preoccupied or trained to act as gentlemen. We should see women as our enemies and competitors, this is who they are, we should never love our enemies, nor should we shower them with gifts."

Most black men think like Daryll. This is why blacks in America have an 80% illegitimacy rate.

That is why female promiscuity is so destructive to your society and civilisation in the long term.

Feminism and female promiscuity, having destroyed the attractiveness of women to men and vice versa, your women become rotten, and so do your men, and then your children.  The next generation is noticeably degenerate and worse, rotting rotting rotting away ....

While this process of putrefaction takes place, no one will say anything. The men who know about feminism will complain but that is all they will do.

Even if they said anything, no one would listen to them.  Have you noticed a single political party in the land supporting marriage?   Even the nationalist ones?  Of course not.

To make marriage attractive to men, you will have to make it attractive to selfish cautious suspicious men  like Daryll who don't really like women and don't really want to help others and will only look after Number One.

Daryll will not be marrying any woman because, under the system of no-fault divorce that we have, any wife of his can divorce him for any reason and take half his stuff.

Like any man who wishes to preserve his property, he understandably does not want to find a woman he hates and then give her his house.

Denouncing men like Daryll will not change their behaviour, however.

Daryll will tell any male offspring of his son noo get married and he will spread the cancer of SSMs in his own little way.  He thinks having one child is enough and it is in any case all he can afford.

Therefore the demographic time-bomb of the West will mirror the demographic time bomb of China, where they have a one-child policy.

The smarter men with money will behave like Daryll and only the stupid ones with no money will get married because they have nothing to lose. Or they are men who are happy with the idea of marrying an older woman for her money while forfeiting their opportunity to be a father and a husband.

And so racial and national degeneracy entrenches itself further.

Nothing short of a Cultural Revolution will change things. The die is cast and the spiral is downwards.

So now we know the importance of this thing so many people call "just a piece of paper" You won't miss it till it's gone and when it's gone your nation will just die of the slow poison of feminism.

Onwards, to barbarism. Onwards to decline. Onwards to becoming slut and bastard members of a Third World Third Rate nation.

With a bit of luck we can look forward to becoming a nation like Liberia or Sierra Leone or Haiti.
at 19 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 25 June 2012

Harriet Sergeant does not condemn the causes of crime and gang culture - SLUT SINGLE MUMS



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163396/A-middle-class-mother-hoodies.html



Titillating photograph of Harriet Sergeant and her boys from the hood gives publicity to her potboiler that does NOT condemn illegitimacy


http://harrietsergeant.com/articles/fixing-broken-britain/

Below is what she says about illegitimacy:


Despite the huge amount of evidence of the harm this causes children (mothers of children on the “at risk” register, for example, are five times more likely to be single teenage mothers), the Labour government made single motherhood an attractive proposition.

Since 1997 a single mother of two children has seen her benefits increase by 85%. We watched the effects of that policy play out on our streets every night last week.

To accuse these young girls of being feckless is unjust. They are merely responding to the economics of the situation. They are as much victims of the crisis in our schools and the perverse influence of benefits as teenage boys. What future is there for a girl who leaves school without a qualification? Whereas boys take to crime, girls get pregnant.

Ministers talk of family breakdown, but there is no family to break down. More than half of single mothers have never lived with a boyfriend. The state has taken over the role of both husband and employer.

Take just one example: single mothers. Mash’s older sister, a single mother of 22, admitted she would love to get married: “But all the men I know are in prison or deal drugs. I don’t know one man with a job.”

Like all the people and organisations she complains about, Harriet Sergeant only proposes to deal with the SYMPTOMS but not the causes, probably because she a dirty rotten feminist IN DENIAL about the causes of crime and gang culture - stupid sluts opening their legs at the drop of a pair of trousers and disdaining to practice effective contraception because they want to progress on the slut ladder of becoming a welfare mum with variously fathered feral bastards which the taxpaying men of Paedo Bastard Britain Fatso Slutland are too limp-dicked to protest.

Harriet Sergeant - tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?  Not bloody likely.   She is a woman after all, and will probably defend to the death the right of sluts to have babies at the expense of the taxpayer because she is a woman herself.  She has a son, but does she care enough about him to denounce feminism?  


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164185/The-day-Kray-gang-robber-taught-hoodie-crime-doesnt-pay-The-middle-class-mother-befriended-teenage-thugs-dressed-suit-encounter-shocked-core.html

Nope, nothing here either about what to do with scummy slut single mums who breed their verminous spawn who will become the criminals of the next generation.  Not a dicky bird.

Maybe the next one, eh?

Her book is now being serialised in the Mail, so give her a chance.  She may possibly get round to mentioning SLUT SINGLE MUMS which I suspect her feminine feminist sympathies will probably prevent her from criticising.  She probably has quite a few friends who are also slut single mums and she doesn't want to hurt their feelings.  Girls stick together at the expense of boys, even mothers who have sons want to keep all the feminist privileges they have acquired at the expense of men, even if that will fuck up their sons' futures and the future of their own country.

That's shitty stinking fucking evil feminist ideology for you, eh?

If nothing about criticising slut single mums come out in the other parts of her serialised book, perhaps some might think she deserves the fate of Marie Antoinette whom she so strikingly resembles.

Harriet says there is a whole chapter devoted to the subject of single mums in her book, out 12 July.   I will make a point of popping into Waterstone's to see if there is anything at all constructive being proposed about dealing with the causes and consequences of state-sponsored slut single mummery.

http://www.teachit.so/index_htm_files/Wasted.pdf has a book written by Harriet with a chapter devoted to single mums, from page 19.   Nothing was proposed however, about stigmatising these women or even endorsing the Just Say No recommendation of Nadine Dorries MP.

Let us hope the chapter on single mums in her new book is rather more constructive.  Then I will happily eat my words and hat about Harriet being an evil feminist who refuses to criticise the morals of British women just because she is one herself.

I may even attend the book launch, if I am not escorted off the premises by her minders who may consist of members the gang she has been hanging out with.   If so, I may even buy a copy and ask her to to dedicate it 'To Claire "Robespierre" Khaw, With love and best wishes from Harriet "Marie Antoinette" Sergeant'

When Enoch Powell talked about a nation busily engaged in heaping up their own funeral pyre, he didn't know the half of it.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Two anthropologists in Arizona appear to share my extinction hypothesis for Neanderthal man




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/science/05nean.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypothesis#Division_of_labor

The reason why Neanderthal man died out was because Homo Sapiens discovered marriage before they did.   There, I have said it, and you have read it here FIRST.

I believe that for PC reasons that the division of labour hypothesis was ignored because it would inevitably lead to awkward questions being asked about feminism, which it would be HERESY to question.

Why Neanderthal Man died out is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-neanderthals-died-out.html

Neanderthal man lived in a matriarchy (a society that condones female promiscuity eg feminism) while Homo Sapiens lived in a patriarchy (a society that condones male promiscuity and supports the institution of Marriage).

The feminist doctrine of gender equality inevitably makes it promote the idea that women have the right to be as promiscuous as men, ignoring the fact that it is women who get pregnant and are the ones left holding the baby and expected to look after their babies.  Now feminist orthodoxy (which is Communistic in nature and application) decrees that  taxpayers (who are mostly male) are to bail out these Slut Single Mums who have fucked up their lives.  Eventually, this will drag everyone else down to their slut and bastard level.

Indeed, Slut Single Women who have fucked up their lives are currently being glamorised.

Mary F Pols, who allowed a penniless and jobless loser to impregnate her in ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE wrote a book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Accidentally-Purpose-one-night-unplanned-pregnancy/dp/0141038403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328012408&sr=8-1 which is now a US sitcom http://www.cbs.com/primetime/accidentally_on_purpose/.  You gotta hand it to the Americans for having the knack of making depravity wholesome.  Another example is COUGAR TOWN.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Town

It would not be fair to call Neanderthal women "sluts" because a matriarchy - as the Neanderthal society must have been because they had not yet discovered the institution of marriage - would not be familiar with the concepts of sluttery AKA fornication AKA adultery precisely they operated a kind of sexual communism or a free for all fuck fest that we in the West would be all too familiar with.

Patriarchal Homo Sapiens who created the institution of Marriage had men who would take more of an interest in their offspring, stay with the women who bore their children thereby producing progressively better offspring that also retained the culture of their ancestors.   (This made them culturally more sophisticated as well as facilitating social cohesion.)  The patriarchs operated a kind of sexual meritocracy and efficient labour division between male and female roles, which would have been the beginning of Eugenics (an ideology that concerns itself with improving or at the very least maintaining the quality of the generation for that society), while Neanderthal man became progressively more degenerate.  In the end, they died out after the matriarchy (who were slut and bastard people) was easily defeated by the patriarchy (who respected the institution of marriage).

There are lessons to be learnt from this by the slut and bastard governments of the 21st century West, I would have thought, but they are probably too slut and bastard to listen to reason now.


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

Monday, 28 November 2011

Why the white working class is like the man in The Beach who got bitten by a shark



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/28/joseph-rowntree-white-working-class_n_1115060.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beach_(film)

So the white working classes think the government is shutting them up by calling them racist every time they complain about immigration.

This is of course common knowledge in nationalist circles.   Remember how ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown described Mrs Gillian Duffy, a life-long Labour supporter as "that bigoted woman" when she complained about immigration?

Those who complain about immigration are the party poopers of liberalism.  They are rather like the man who got bitten by the shark in The Beach.  The story is about a hippy community on a paradise island led by an Sal, an older woman, whose purpose is to keep the community undiscovered by the outside world.

When the unfortunate Christo got bitten, he did not recover but instead moaned and groaned so demoralisingly and piteously that this community that was supposed to be based on love and mutual respect for each other could not bear his cries of pain any more and took him to the middle of the jungle to die.

And then they partied on.

His life could have been saved by calling for medical assistance but that would have spoiled their fun, so Sal (played by Tilda Swinton) would rather this dispensable man die to avoid inconvenience to herself and her hippy paradise island community.

Sal represents the matriarchy and Christo, the dispensable beta male whom she thinks is not worth curing, certainly not at her expense and inconvenience, is analogous to the white no longer working classes.

White Man! Know thyself and know thine enemy.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, 24 March 2011

Male Western politicians assert their masculinity by starting wars

Which option do you feel more corresponds to Truth and Reality?

Option A

The Liberal West is Good and Great, not economically and morally bankrupt, not warmongers, not hypocrites, not cowards, pursuing a rational, beneficent yet self-interested foreign policy of supporting Israel and spreading liberty, democracy and good government all over the world.

Option B

The PC Liberal Extremist West is Evil and full of pygmy politicians who are morally and financially bankrupt.  They have taken to gambling on unprofitable foreign wars in the hope of distracting themselves from their troubles at home, too intractable for those without moral courage to solve.  Generations of white people have had stupidity and fecklessness bred into them through their welfare state that supports the unnatural ideology of feminism, which is the systematic cultivation of failure and the turning of men into women.   Western male politicians need to go around proving that they are men because the knowledge they have of themselves - that they are afraid of their female voters who are the worst of people because they are parasites, bad mothers, bad employees who promiscuous, stupid, feckless single mothers who are a burden on the state and/or the harridans you find on Mumsnet http://www.mumsnet.com/ - is too humiliating to acknowledge.   They feel compelled to use overwhelming force to bomb and invade other countries to take their minds off from the fact that they are all hopelessly and humiliatingly pussy-whipped by their dreadful women whom they fear with their effeminate cowardice.

Bombing Muslim countries, is just displacement activity to take their minds off the fact that they are afraid of their women. Bombing Libya is a COMPULSION, not a foreign policy objective. Western men feel they have to prove their masculinity because they know they are afraid of their women but too afraid to admit this, even to themselves.

Forgive them, for they know not what they do?

But now they do.  

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7666.shtml Louis Farrakhan tells it like it is. Superb oratory.   
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 21 March 2011

Are you stupid enough to think that a no-fly zone is NOT an act of war?

If you are stupid enough to think that a no-fly zone is NOT an act of war, are you stupid enough to admit this?

Are you looking forward to listening to the top echelons of the UK political establishment admitting this, one by one, in radio and TV interviews.

Britain really is the Stupid Country.

Bet they haven't heard that all is fair in love and war either.  But this ain't fair and it ain't war, as far as politicians of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland are concerned.  Just a crummy no-fly zone ...

Notice, please, how excrementally stupid they are.  Is it anything to do with the infamous promiscuity of their women and the fact that most babies born in Britain these days are bastards?  I think there is a definite connection there.


The lower the morals of women, the lower the educational and moral standards of a society.  

res ipsa loquitur.  Blame it on the slut, slag and slapper women of Britain, America and France.  I do.  It is well-known that men who live in a demented matriarchy cannot think straight in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.   All they are fit to do is finding ways of fucking themselves and jerking themselves off on the international stage in front of your face, oblivious to your disgust, hatred and contempt.   
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 11 March 2011

Why representative democracy is mad and silly and must be RADICALLY reformed

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

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


Which state of the cycle are we at now, boys and girls?

Why are we apathetic and dependent?  Because we are now governed by a morbidly over-feminised government and politicians who have hypocrisy, cowardice and lies oozing out of their every orifice.

They think it is clever to be cowardly and they are cowardly because they know they have messed things up so much that there are more people now in this country who are dependent and unproductive than there are who are independent and productive.


That is why they keep inviting more immigrants in to do the work because the working classes are no longer fit for purpose.  The working classes are no longer fit for purpose because the quality of their education is so atrocious and the the values they have been made to absorb so toxic.


Why do they not fix the education system?


They do not even try because a single five year term is not enough to sort out the mess that is the international scandal of British "education".

Who are most of these dependent and unproductive parasites?

Why, they are women, slut, slag and slapper single mothers who do not wish to work, who are bad mothers, bad employees whom no one employer in his right mind would want to hire and who breed bastards whom no one wants to hire either.


Why are politicians afraid of challenging them?

Because even the Conservative Party is now single-mum friendly.  Indeed, it has been single-mum friendly since in 2002 when Theresa May made her infamous announcement that the Tory Party would no longer be the nasty party.

Now, every other baby born in Britain is born out of wedlock.  There are too many of them with the vote now, and Cunt Cameron and his Cunservatives dare not offend them.


Imagine, the alpha male of a nation - the Prime Minister no less - afraid of offending promiscuous females who are single mothers, bad parents and bad employees, if they work at all.

If we lived under a dictatorship one would understand a fear of the Secret Police etc, but David Cameron and his cunts of convictionless Conservatism are afraid of the weakest, stupidest, worst sort of people: the sluts, slags and slappers of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland who are even now merrily multiplying at taxpayers' expense.

It is beggars belief that Cameron and other Western leaders appear to think that they have the moral authority to lead the rest of the world and tell them what to do about Libya.  Would the rest of the world really wish to listen to a collection of paupers, degenerates, lepers and paedophiles telling them what to do while masturbating and sucking their thumb for comfort?

You would have thought Brazil, Russia, India and China would be thinking to themselves: "Surely now is the time to kick the West in the place where its goolies are supposed to be, and kick HARD?"  or just tell them "enough is enough."

Yet they do not. What are they waiting for?

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.  




at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 14 May 2010

Academics afraid of fighting for Academic Freedom ...

They prefer instead to attend futile and long-winded seminars run by Dennis Hayes rather than avail themselves of the simple expedient of asserting it.

They are, it appears, too thick to realise that freedom of expression is something you ASSERT, rather than await to have conferred upon you.

Still, such is the spinelessness of these middle class academics.

http://afaf.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

is the website of this august and principled body.

Dennis Hayes, my former Facebook friend, is one of the spokesmen for AFAF. This is rather curious since he is the one most known for skirting around issues and beating around the bush and shushing people when they get to the heart of the matter.

Yesterday, on Facebook, I initiated a discussion on what the vague references to be found at

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=72034301491&ref=ts

could possibly be about. I tagged him and Rania Hafez at the Cass School of Education so that they could contribute to the discussion. They were not obliged to do so, of course. It was a mere invitation they both had the option of declining.

Firstly, Dennis refused to even discuss the subject when I asked for details and clarification.

He then begged me to delete the entire status on my wall, just because it mentioned his name. I was just about to decided not to because someone had responded and the discussion was getting heated.

Here it is below, in case anyone's interested:

Claire Khaw
Can anyone tell me what this is about? Do you get the impression that these academics are so scared that they hardly dare tell us what they are complaining about? I tried asking what sort of "odious opinions" and "toxic topics" they must avoid expressing and received a deafening silence. It seems they are too afraid even to answer my question! Wow. Dennis Hayes Rania Hafez

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=72034301491&ref=mf

Shaun Pilkington
It's going to be about Israel, Jews and anti-semitism...

Claire Khaw
I bet it's a whole host of other stuff as well. Feminism and the girlification of science come to mind. You would have thought that some academic could prove that single motherhood is bad for society or that we live in a matriarchy which means the end of our civilisation unless we do something about it, but no .... they are too scared.

Claire Khaw
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/05/girlifying-of-science.html
Yesterday at 3:18pm

Claire Khaw
The BBC refused to discuss this at http://www.facebook.com/pages/BBC-So-You-Want-to-Be-a-Scientist/116570741697536?ref=ts after a female producer grandly pronounced that science can also be psychology.

I pointed out that it is surely not a good idea to dumb down science since this would put this country at a disadvantage with other countries that did not, but they ignored that.

I also suggested that the BBC could make a documentary about why there are never any matriarchies we hear about, perhaps with the pretty and engaging anthropologist Dr Alice Roberts, but I was told by the female producer that she could not possibly have a rational debate with me because of my known views.
Yesterday at 3:31pm

Claire Khaw
People are under the impression that a matriarchy has to be headed by a female leader. Not so. The important thing to note is that a matriarchy is a society where female promiscuity is condoned.

A patriarchy is of course a society where male promiscuity is condoned. Margaret Thatcher was part of the patriarchy.

My point is that the British are in decline because their government has decided to embrace feminine and proletarian vices when previously they at least played lip service to aristocratic and masculine virtue. I don't suppose there is much any of us can do about it except convert to Islam en masse, but it is as well to know where we are heading, even if no academic dares raise the subject.
Yesterday at 3:38pm

Shaun Pilkington
I do feel you are making a category error, mistaking those who are in charge for those who are free to fuck. Yesterday at 3:42pm

Claire Khaw
Please elaborate your point.
Yesterday at 3:45pm

Shaun Pilkington
Being free to fuck who you like, when you like, is not indicative of being in charge of a civilisation. Read 1984. Yesterday at 3:50pm

Shaun Pilkington
Or Brave New World.
Yesterday at 3:55pm

Claire Khaw
I have read 1984.
Yesterday at 3:55pm

Claire Khaw
No one is talking about being in charge of a civilisastion, Shaun. We are talking about whether certain practices help or hinder the health of a civilisation.
Yesterday at 3:56pm

Shaun Pilkington
And did you understand that 1) It's not an instruction manual, and 2) It shows how alcohol and sex can be used to control the lower orders?
Yesterday at 3:57pm

Shaun Pilkington
Consequently your argument vis-a-vis female sexuality is without basis.
Yesterday at 3:58pm

Claire Khaw
I haven't read Brave New World. I still don't get your point. Mine is very simple: always choose the lesser evil.

The matriarchy is the greater evil.

The patriarchy is the lesser evil.
Yesterday at 3:58pm

Claire Khaw
What isn't an instruction manual?
Yesterday at 4:00pm

Shaun Pilkington
1984.

As for your proclamations of evil, I can only say 'proof or STFU' as the online vernacular has it. I can show you plenty of evidence that female promiscuity is NOT linked to matriarchy (rule by women). Sorry.
Yesterday at 4:08pm

Claire Khaw
You don't quite understand, Shaun. Female promiscuity will always occur, whether in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

You know you are living in a matriarchy when female promiscuity is condoned.
Yesterday at 4:16pm

Shaun Pilkington
Again, I ask you for proof of your assertion, so that I may better examine your purported evidence.
Yesterday at 4:20pm

Claire Khaw
Do you agree that in a patriarchy it is male promiscuity that is condoned?
Yesterday at 4:22pm

Shaun Pilkington
No. In a Patriarchy *all* power and privilege is retained by males. Matriarchy is the female reflection of that.

You have a strange hangup about people having sex without your permission or blessing.
Yesterday at 4:27pm

Shaun Pilkington
To me, being more libertarian than you, I believe that it's up to individuals who, when and how they have sex. You oppose that liberty and prefer some bizarre system of 'sanction' and are thus fundamentally anti-freedom.
Yesterday at 4:28pm

Claire Khaw
No, they are free to fuck, as long as they don't expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer. I would abolish child benefit for all.
Yesterday at 4:38pm

Shaun Pilkington
Then it's not female promiscuity that you have a problem with, but female reproduction. Since, you say, you are okay with fucking.
Yesterday at 4:39pm

Claire Khaw
Of course. A whore can be technically not promiscuous by my definition, if she escapes unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

On the other hand a girl who just had sex for the first time could suffer from both.
Yesterday at 4:45pm

Shaun Pilkington
And yes. I did see your earlier deleted comment about 'whores'. Carry on!
Yesterday at 4:46pm

Claire Khaw
Which one?
Yesterday at 4:52pm

Claire Khaw
I have deleted nothing.
Yesterday at 4:52pm

Shaun Pilkington
Ah okay - it's just that the notification mail for your 'whore' comment arrived twice which is usually a sign that the original comment was quickly deleted and then reposted. Apologies.
Yesterday at 4:55pm

Claire Khaw
So, do you agree with me that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, Shaun?
Yesterday at 5:14pm

Shaun Pilkington
No, I don't. You still haven't shown me any evidence for your 'female promiscuity' proposition, so why should I take any of these claims seriously when then are all unsupported by evidence. If I wanted faith to trump fact, I'd have voted Labour, after all...
Yesterday at 5:19pm

David Toube
In answer to your first question: this appears to be run by a group that used to be called the Revolutionary Communist Party (from about 1990 onwards, it was neither), which is now Spiked Online.
Yesterday at 5:42pm

Salman Khattak
Is this one of clair's famous vile views /? More freedom the better we are being controlled by not nice ppl . Yesterday at 6:31pm

Claire Khaw
Shaun, I am just asking for a simple YES or NO answer.

Would you say that a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity?

Yes or No will do. There is no need for evidence.
Yesterday at 7:19pm

Claire Khaw
AFAF is run by Commies??
Yesterday at 7:19pm

Shaun Pilkington
Since you can provide, or rather, refuse to provide, any evidence for your assertion, I have no choice but to say 'no'.

Prove to me the link between female, and not male, promiscuity and matriarchy and perhaps we'd have something to talk about but your inability to produce any evidence whatsoever tends to render your assertions valueless.
Yesterday at 7:21pm

Claire Khaw
Why don't you just confine yourself to answering the question, which is only about how you would identify a patriarchy. It is very simple:

Do you think that, in a patriarchal society, the tendency is to condone male promiscuity?

Yes or no?...

I think you are refusing to answer this very obvious question because you already know where this will lead.
Yesterday at 7:25pm

Shaun Pilkington
Because, Claire, you question (as usual) is loaded with assumptions that you cannot, or more likely, will not prove.

Show me the proof of a connection between Matriarchy and female, but not male, promiscuity. Then show me a link between that and poor civilisational outcomes. I bet you can't because this is just another idea you've had lazing on your sofa, with no reference to reality at all.
Yesterday at 7:27pm

Claire Khaw
Just answer the question instead of avoiding it. You don't need loadsa evidence. Logical inference will get you there.
Yesterday at 7:28pm

Claire Khaw
Since Shaun is determined to avoid the question, I am hoping David and Salman will answer.
Yesterday at 7:36pm

Shaun Pilkington
So you say, Claire, and yet it is you who refuses, repeatedly, to provide any evidence for your own question's operating assumption. So once again, I challenge you to show me evidence connecting Matriarchy with female promiscuity, let alone poor outcomes. Show me the evidence or else admit that you're just spouting your usual bigoted ideas.
Yesterday at 7:59pm


The exchange ended there.

Next thing I knew Rania had defriended me.

I wrote to enquire the exact reason, convinced that Dennis had put her up to it. It turned out that quite a number of her friends had put her up to it too, namely one Salma Khan who works in PR and a friend of Rania's. Salma is divorced and cannot possibly have approved of the talk I gave below about single mums though she has defriended me ostensibly on the grounds that I am a member of the BNP.

This is how the unscrupulous Left and the spineless operate. They ostracise and then they isolate and denounce , as a lesson to others who might be thinking of asserting their freedom of expresson.

It appears that academics do not even have the freedom of association to have me as a Facebook friend. Can this really be true in our much-vaunted liberal democracy?

Not that long ago, Rania very kindly allowed me to give a talk on the subject of Islamic Principles in Education a transcript of which is below:

It is a great honour to be invited to address Muslims on the subject of education and Islam, especially as I am neither Muslim nor in the teaching profession. What, you may well ask, is a Secular Koranist, which is what I call myself? It is a new concept that I came up with, which I hope will be useful in bridging the distance between atheists and monotheists. A Secular Koranist basically believes that the Koran is a good enough guide, whether or not you believe in God or not. It is therefore an ideology that wishes to make the most of our agreement on morality and politics, where it can be found.


I asked Rania for some guidance of the Islamic principles she wanted me to talk about, but she told me that it was for ME AS A SECULARIST to tell you all what I understand by Islamic principles, and how these could be applied to the field of education. I shall do my best to articulate these principles, as I understand them. The Koran could be regarded as a contract between God and Man. If you agree with this view, what, you may well ask, was it that God wanted Man to contract to do for Him? The deal, if we can call it that, is that if we follow the Koran, we will be rewarded in this life and the next. If we examine the principles of all the Abrahamic faiths, a common thread can be discerned. It is about being kind to each other and telling the truth. The other thing is family values.


It means marriage of course and only having sex within marriage. Extra marital sex – another term for recreational sex with partners of either gender - is prohibited. It also means, logically, that illegitimacy is to be condemned, because that would be evidence of extra-marital sex.


Why are family values so important to social conservatives? After all, the Old Testament prescribes the penalty of death by stoning to pregnant unmarried ex-virgins. The quality of the next generation is of course dependent upon the parenting ability and resources of their parents. Even now, in the 21st century, after half a century of liberal policies, single parenthood has a negative effect on a child’s life by disadvantaging it socially, economically and educationally.


Here are two frightening statistics, ladies:


46% of babies born in Britain are born out of wedlock.


70% of our prison population were singly-parented.


However, because of the high proportion of illegitimacy and single mothers who make up our friends and family, we have all become very reluctant to discuss this, for fear of giving offence. In an earlier age, the phrase “single mums” and the phrase “who are a burden on the state” would go hand in hand. Now to criticize single motherhood is tantamount to criticizing every other friend of family member we have. Politicians, who are even more unwilling to give offence than the average person because of their great fear of losing, remain incorrigibly cowardly and refuse to condemn single motherhood.


A meeting I attended recently which Rania chaired concerned the unfortunate position of teachers who are overwhelmed by red tape and paperwork as well as the foul-mouthed indiscipline of their charges. This, I suggested, was because the government does not trust teachers to do their work properly because many children leave school with no firm grasp of the 3 Rs.


Employer bodies such as the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the British Chamber of Commerce frequently complain about the educational attainments of the state-school-leaver.


Indeed, so badly educated is the typical state-school-leaver that most employers have voted with their feet and now simply avoid hiring British employees. This would be the reason why the government is constantly micromanaging what teachers teach, and why they are fretting about the rise of the Far Right. In my opinion, they are only dealing with the symptom but not the cause. Teachers can’t teach as well as they could and should because authority and discipline are now dirty words in the liberal lexicon. The children that won’t sit still and won’t shut up tend to be the badly parented ones. The badly parented ones tend to be the singly parented ones. But since no one is prepared to condemn single parenthood in strong enough terms for anyone to take notice and change their behaviour, the problem will continue to get worse.

How do Islamic principles come in?

The most important Islamic principle of all, in my opinion, is the exhortation to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. Single motherhood has evil consequences for children, the next generation, society and our future as a nation and a civilization. Rising crime and ever-lowering educational standards will eventually affect us all. The government and its opposition have abdicated their duty, I’m afraid, because they don’t want offend anyone and lose votes. So the responsibility passed to teachers. It is they who must point to the cause of their ills, at the risk of sounding Politically Incorrect and judgmental of women who do not bother to get married before they have children and then fail to bring them up properly.

To continue to ignoring this problem would mean condemning yet another generation of children to illiteracy, innumeracy and a life of crime on benefits.

While it is not within the remit of the teaching profession to fix the problems of society caused by bad parents badly parenting their children they must at least be prepared to point to its causes, even if they fear the criticism they will receive for pointing out the obvious. But it appears they cannot even bring themselves to criticize single mums either, because it would be Politically Incorrect to do so. The fact is that children with two parents tend to be socially and spiritually advantaged compared to singly parented children.

Once we have acknowledged this truth then all the other Islamic principles which are in fact universal virtues, of civility, charity, the cultivation of an enquiring reasoning mind, will fall into place.

To solve the problem we must work out what it is.

Only when we have pointed out the problem to the person in a position to fix it can we expect there to be a beginning of the end of the problem.

Anything else is just fiddling while Rome burns, which is most certainly not an Islamic principle.

If neither the political nor the educational establishment is prepared to condemn single motherhood, then I am afraid that this unpleasant task now falls to Muslims, if they care for the future of the country they and their children now live in. There is really no one left to do it now, and I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.



It was even quite well-received at the time, but she may be having second thoughts now.

Oh dear. I hope that mere association with me has not ended both the academic careers of Dennis Hayes and Rania Hafez. I should also say that I am a member of the BNP and the Election Agent of Jeffrey Marshall, the BNP candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow.

The BNP is of course a legal political party. If they were banned, I would understand but they are perfectly legal.

Do academics have the right to associate with people like me without being demoted or sacked from their jobs?

I would like to think the answer is yes, but these days many would rather not test the law for fear of demotion and a termination of employment.

So we shall see, won't we, Dennis and Rania?

Since neither of them are prepared to test the waters I shall have to test it for them, in the name of academic freedom, my friends!
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 10 April 2010

The addiction of the British to Welfare, Cheap Labour and Cheap Women

A nation that is addicted to welfare is also addicted to cheap foreign labour while being in denial of both. Those who point this out will have their motives traduced and be called "extremist", "insane", "Fascist" and "Nazi".

The welfare state while discouraging thrift, also encourages benefit scum mums to breed the next generation of benefit scum.

Suggesting and implementing the solution would be much like what would happen when you propose to take away the bottle of an aggressive drunk. The British Nation is this aggressive drunk.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 14 December 2009

Passive men in fear of aggressive women

Taoist saying:

"The law is like the wind and the people the grass. When the wind blows, the grass will bend."


The most evil are those who suffer it to be done in the name of liberal ideology, which permits only inaction or flabby gestures in the name of tolerance and compassion. In short, it is our government and our political establishment which is evil in permitting evil, not discouraging it or pretending that it is not in fact an evil.

Evil is committed when educated middle class campaigners of for traditional education dare not state the obvious for fear of ostracisation and denunciation.

The obvious is of course that society and family values are vulnerable to the depredations of female promiscuity, illegitimacy and ever lower standards of behaviour and education.

But female promiscuity sanctioned by feminism is the Sacred Cow that the British worship. To blaspheme against the slag and slapper and the unmarried single mum will result in social death or a life worse than death, apparently.

That is why emasculated men in fear of the feminazis remain silent. Nothing will change if the silence is not broken, but still the fearful silent men remain fearful and silent.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 11 September 2009

One small step for over-regulation, one giant step towards Big Brother

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Volunteer_parents_face_paedophile_check&in_article_id=736326&in_page_id=34

Someone with whom I am on friendly terms stated that he thought that if teachers had to have CRB checks, then school visitors such as writers should be subjected to the same indignity, in order to pursue his twisted idea of equal opportunities government persecution, for he is a very Politically Correct Man indeed.

The most important thing for him is that something must be seen to be done, even if it will do no one any good, for the sake of the kiddywinks.

I have a rather controversial theory that female promiscuity that is the result of feminism is in fact responsible for paedophilia, but women, because they are malicious as well as stupid, blame men.

Men, because they have allowed themselves to become as stupid as women, and are reluctant to give up their access to easy sex, take the blame.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/04/louis-theroux-place-for-paedophiles.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/05/feminism-promiscuity-and-paedophilia.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 1 September 2009

Yet another single mother with scummy boyfriend who kills her child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-531289/Sorry-I-blame-Scarlett-Keelings-mother.html

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6802106.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6117499/Girl-found-dead-in-lorry-drivers-cab-named-as-Stacey-Lawrence.html

No doubt the rest of the world thinks that the average Briton is some promiscuous single mother who will be entrusting her child to some scummy drug-addicted paedophile boyfriend who will kill it after sexually assaulting it.

Fiona McKeown was the first in this series of typical British mums now internationally infamous.

Then there was Baby P's mother.

Then the Dundee case.

Now the lorrydriver boyfriend with a history of domestic violence who hanged himself. (His girlfriend's 9 year old daughter was found strangled in his cab.)

While it is no skin off my nose that these people neglect their children, use their children as a means of acquiring more benefits from the state, hire them out to perform kiddy porn, turn them into sex slaves, let them get knocked up by some other CHAV at their local sink school comp, sell them for meat or whatever, it is actually very distressing to many people of a more sensitive disposition.

What I am concerned with is the lowering of Britain's already devalued reputation as a result of these stories.

Surely people abroad will soon be pointing at white trash types they see and jeer at them, saying:

"You're mostly paedophiles, aren't you? Bet you're bastard or a bastard-breeder. Bet you have a history of drug and drink problems and have never worked in your life. Have you had sex with your girlfriend's under-aged child yet? When are you going to kill it?" etc etc

How many more, I wonder, before the liberal elite will question the wisdom of unregulated female promiscuity whose practitioners are sponsored by the taxpayer?

Remember, dear reader, when you read of the next Baby P-type death, you should rejoice at the fact that we are in fact closer to getting the government to do something about this insanity.

But perhaps they will continue to ignore the problem until the underclasses have killed off all their own children, which would be no bad thing, I suppose, if they are all going to grow up into the next generation of Tracey Connelly-types if they are female and her boyfriends if they are male, or become one of those 11 year olds who tortured Jamie Bulger to death for fun.

I am assuming that the government may get round to doing something about it soon, but they may just prefer to sit back and let the problem solve itself.

After all, it wouldn't do to suggest that the unmarried and promiscuous mother is akin to a parasite or a cancer, would it?

It seems they fear losing votes if they sound too censorious, but do parasites and cancers vote? I rather think not.

The extreme timorousness of HMG and its opposition is therefore, to me anyway, a bit of a mystery.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 23 July 2009

The ever-lowering standards of the Church because it refuses to deal with female promiscuity or question feminism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/23/church-of-england-baptisms-weddings


http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php Rhidian Brook, writer, celebrity and Christian Friday, July 24, 2009, 08:30 AM
Rating 4 out of 5 (Highly platitudinous)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20090724.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198962/Yes-family-breakdown-IS-broken-Britain-Top-judge-says-national-tragedy-attacks-BBC-suppressing-debate.html

"44% of children are born to unmarried mothers"

The number 4 is considered unlucky by the Chinese because it sounds like death. Two 4s therefore would be considered doubly unlucky. It would appear that we are an unlucky nation in a doomed civilisation.

Do you hear anything being proposed by the government about discouraging women from becoming unmarried mothers? Well, do you?

Of course not, because they have shit for brains.

Do you hear anything from the Church about condemning family breakdown and female promiscuity? Other than to be "more relevant to modern life" and lowering their standards just to get more bums on seats?

Let the Church sink to the level of the degraded average Briton, it says.

No, because they have shit for brains too. What happens to civilisations whose people don't do anything about their shit-for-brains politicians?

They all die a natural death of course.

Our alotted time-span is now coming to an end.


028.058
YUSUFALI: And how many populations We destroyed, which exulted in their life (of ease and plenty)! now those habitations of theirs, after them, are deserted,- All but a (miserable) few! and We are their heirs!
PICKTHAL:
And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors.
SHAKIR: And how many a town have We destroyed which exulted in its means of subsistence, so these are their abodes, they have not been dwelt in after them except a little, and We are the inheritors,

028.059
YUSUFALI: Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its members practise iniquity.
PICKTHAL: And never did thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in their mother(-town) a messenger reciting unto them Our revelations. And never did We destroy the townships unless the folk thereof were evil-doers.
SHAKIR: And your Lord never destroyed the towns until He raised in their metropolis a messenger, reciting to them Our communications, and We never destroyed the towns except when their people were
unjust.

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

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...