Translate

Showing posts with label feminists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminists. Show all posts

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

Defining the participants of the Culture War

POTENTIAL SUPPORTERS OF RESTORING THE PATRIARCHY

1) Marriageable men

2) Men who want to be considered marriageable so they can one day have legitimate children to properly parent

3) Unmarriageable men prepared to say that promoting marriage is in the national interest because it is a child protection scheme for rearing the next generation in optimum conditions to prevent national degeneracy

POTENTIAL OPPONENTS OF PATRIARCHY

4) Feminists wishing to destroy the patriarchy who know that feminism bribes men with fornication which distracts them from marriage and becoming fathers of legitimate children and their running dogs AKA men who pander to these women in order to fornicate with them AKA Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers (MCSFs)

5) Unmarried parents not prepared to admit the error of their ways

6) Those have no intention or prospect of getting married or becoming parents of legitimate offspring because they are LGBT or in some other way unmarriageable not prepared to pay lip service to marriage AKA unmarriageable childless men and women

Which category are you?

TO RESTORE THE PATRIARCHY YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO

a) criminalise extramarital sex

b) abolish no fault divorce

c) repeal anti-discrimination legislation eg the Equality Act 2010

d) dismantle the welfare state
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

The group most treacherous to white men appear to be the white women they are married to

Antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist Western men however prefer to blame Jews and Muslims even though it is their scripture that actually warms men to keep their women under control.

The women cannot really be blamed in the same way that children cannot be blamed if you give them charge of your household after abdicating responsibility. You cannot blame your children if you leave home for months and return to find it not in the state you would wish. Men have basically allowed feminists to run riot because they were so eager to accept the bribe of feminism: extramarital sex and fornication in particular. The chickens have come home to roost, but the men seem reluctant to acknowledge the mistake they made.

It is probably a problem of upbringing. How many of these anti-feminist anti-Semitic and Islamophobic nationalists or libtards were even parented properly, let alone told to admit their mistakes?

Remember, most nationalists have marinated in the filth of feminism all their lives. These people think extramarital sex is their human right and are simply not prepared to make the sacrifice of marriage for the next generation of white people. That is why alt-right YouTubers have been calling Nick Griffin a "dinosaur" for pointing out that they are mostly sexual deviants and he would rather his grandchildren live in a country ruled by the Koran than one ruled by openly gay alt-right YouTubers whom he described as "deviants.




Nick Griffin says he would rather have his grandchildren grow up "in a land ruled by the Koran" than by gay alt-right "deviants"

Teshuvah - Fixing Mistakes



64:14:

O you who have believed, indeed, among your wives and your children are enemies to you, so beware of them. But if you pardon and overlook and forgive - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, 16 January 2016

Judgy Bitch wonders why feminists won't challenge Radical Islam

Feminists are largely spoiled, middle-class white girls unaccustomed to concepts like accountability or responsibility, and courage is a rare sight with this lot. 

http://judgybitch.com/2015/06/09/feminists-dont-challenge-radical-islam-because-real-misogynists-are-terrifying/

‘Well, we don’t know that migrants did it,’ said a former Oxford graduate. I said we did know, and it hadn’t been reported for five days. ‘Well the greater good of the community is more important than the rights of the individual,’ she said. I asked her to repeat that so we could really hear what she’d said and was it was OK then, for migrant men to attack women and get away with it?

‘Yes, there was an argument for that,’ she said quite seriously. Another neighbour, from Romania, opined that on no account should the ethnicity of criminals ever be mentioned because it might stigmatise a community. ‘That is far too dangerous,’ he said.

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/jane-kelly-feminist-bbc-would-rather-canonise-bowie-than-admit-the-ugly-truth-of-cologne/

These women probably fantasise about being gang-raped by these migrant Muslim marauders because they are so sick and tired of weak and watery white men who are afraid of them eg the male German politicians who are too afraid to punish Angela Merkel for opening the floodgates.

Who are these feminists who are still going out of their way to be pro-migrant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy
The most frequently cited hypothesis for why women fantasize of being forced and coerced into some sexual activity is that the fantasy avoids societally induced guilt—the woman does not have to admit responsibility for her sexual desires and behavior.
Infantilised and indulged women would fit the bill ie Feminist-Sluts who take no responsibility for their egregiously low standards of sexual morality and who have probably watched too much free online porn.

Isn't it disgusting and contemptible that Western men defer to these sluts just because they have the vote?

What is worse than being a stupid slut?

Being a man who is afraid of stupid sluts.

What is even worse than being a man who is afraid of stupid sluts?

Discovering that all the men in your society are afraid of stupid sluts, including Peter Hitchens and Roger Scruton, Britain's only Conservative thinkers that anyone will have heard of.

How do I know they are afraid?

Because Roger Scruton refuses to discuss feminism and says he agrees with everything Christina Hoff Somers says, and she has refused to denounce feminism.

Because Peter Hitchens said he supports feminism.

Why Peter Hitchens is all talk and no trousers

Middle class feminazis who welcome migrants

Female journalists who are pro-migrant

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males

Now what was the name of that woman who ran an inn and who may have been a prostitute in Jericho who let all the invaders in?

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

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3691920&partId=1&searchText=cross+lampedusa&page=1

What do you think of this man who praises this "journalism"? Do you think he is a mangina who fancies Emma Jane Kirby?


Below are the words of a civilly-partnered gay man.


There is no information on this male tweeter's profile, but I don't think he is what you might call the average bloke.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Feminist cannot answer my question about why feminists won't stop promoting degeneracy

Perhaps they are stupid or evil or cannot  help themselves because they are congenitally incapable of logical thought. Well, in that case, they need to be controlled.




I don't expect an answer from this dim woman, but if I do, I will post it here.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 16 January 2015

The malaise afflicting Western civilisation



The America he knew is gone now.
Women should never have been given the vote.
A few logical women, but most aren't.
Women are now in positions of power.
Women don't know how to wield power wisely.
Real men, now extinct, knew this.
Men are now afraid of women.
Women vote for evil leaders.
Gay marriage is evil.
Only an act of God will save us now.

Perhaps Islamic State will save us from our evil matriarchy?

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 12 September 2014

‘Fat shaming’ doesn’t encourage weight loss, says female who conducted research and female who funded research

Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women:

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."


The Koran is more liberal than Schopenhauer and definite allows women to be witnesses to loan agreements, however.  http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/2-282.html



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/fat-shaming-slim-sanctimonious-cause-obesity-crisis?CMP=twt_gu
Discrimination against overweight and obese people does not help them to lose weight, finds new UCL research funded by Cancer Research UK.


https://twitter.com/nickdmorris/status/510427034204774400 has the exchange between Nick Morris and Gaby Hinsliff

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0914/110914-Fat-shaming-does-not-encourage-weight-loss

Do please note that this research has been conducted by two women who are very probably feminists.

Feminists believe in privileging women simply for being women and are infamous for their belief that while women should be in charge of everything, they can never be held responsible for anything. That would be the prerogative of the whore, by the way: power without responsibility.

It seems women are so utterly devoid of freewill and responsibility that they are no longer even responsible for what they put into their mouths.

Why do men put up with this rubbish? Because feminism has turned them into a shadow of their former selves after bribing them with cheap slut sex for decades.


Dr Sarah Jackson:
“There is no justification for discriminating against people because of their weight,” says lead author Dr Sarah Jackson (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health). “Our results show that weight discrimination does not encourage weight loss, and suggest that it may even exacerbate weight gain.

Professor Jane Wardle:

Senior author Professor Jane Wardle, director of the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Centre at UCL, says: “Our study clearly shows that weight discrimination is part of the obesity problem and not the solution. Weight bias has been documented not only among the general public but also among health professionals; and many obese patients report being treated disrespectfully by doctors because of their weight. Everyone, including doctors, should stop blaming and shaming people for their weight and offer support, and where appropriate, treatment.”

 I think everyone should take this research with a huge pinch of salt, eat less and exercise more. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Feminists declare war against Farage, Farage can declare war against Feminazis

https://twitter.com/FeministPics/status/459026141635162112/photo/1


How to destroy Feminazism:


  1. repeal Equality Act 2010
  2. abolish no fault divorce
  3. abolish welfare state
  4. stigmatise SSMs  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Storm Quora, that bastion of PC Libtardery on this St George's Day! Besiege their foul feminist ranks, for Khaw Ra, England and Saint George!

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/269700.html

All you have to do is join Quora and

1.  follow my questions at http://www.quora.com/Claire-Khaw/questions

and

2.  upvote my comments at http://www.quora.com/Claire-Khaw/answers

One you are there downvote all comments that sound like libtardery.

If you are not clear, come back and ask me.

If keyboard activism were warfare, I am Field Marshal.  Do not forget this.  

We shall oust the libtards and defenestrate the feminists, and by doing so save Western Civilisation from Sluts and the Demented Matriarchy making our descendants stupider and stupider, sluttier and sluttier and more and more bastard, degenerate and retarded with their libtardery.

Once more unto the breach, my friends!


at 11 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

The principle the Conservative Party ought to have

It would appear that the major parties that form the governments of the West have no principles at all.

I have asked both the Republican and Democratic Parties what their principles are but have received nothing more than a confused and horrified silence.

The Conservative Party of Britain are threatening me with their costs if I do not succeed in application for permission to seek judicial review.

The purpose of doing so is to get them to publish a formal Statement of Principles, but I fear that no one understands or cares what this is all about.

The Labour Party started with the principle of nationalising everything in sight but abandoned them for the platitudinous confection that replaced their old clause iv in 1995, in order to get elected in 1997.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

If they are all going to be like that, then why not just agree to promote the long-term national interest - an equally vague concept?

Why not pretend that the long-term national interest is something that could be conserved by Conservatives, and laboured for by the Labour Party?

No one can possibly find anything in the new clause iv objectionable, not even a Conservative, not even me.  Why not scrap the lot, became just one party and agree collectively to promote the long-term national interest?

At least something said to be in the long-term national interest can stand and fall on those terms.  If it is arguably against the national interest to pursue a certain policy and it is successfully argued against, then it shall not be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote against it.

If it is arguably for the national interest to pursue a policy and successfully argued for, then it shall be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote for it.

Secular Koranism promotes Conservative values and nothing that it enjoins or forbids would be against the long term national interest.

Those who object will not have read the Koran.  In any case, when have liberals or feminists ever considered the long term national interest and instead based every decision on short termist expediency?

What possible objection would the Conservative Party have to saying that its principle is to promote the long-term national interest as well as to conserve it, and to exhort Labour to labour for it too?

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

Monday, 17 December 2012

Reds, trade unionists, feminists and the usual Marxist subversives found here

https://www.facebook.com/pages/BAN-the-group-Are-Single-Slut-Mothers-a-burden-on-the-state/171790226296454?ref=ts&fref=ts

Do give them a good troll when you have a moment, but don't like their page.

The ones you ought to like are below:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Does-feminism-cause-paedophilia/221315967999943?notif_t=page_new_likes

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Herbert-Spencer-Society/159074357571291?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Slut-Single-Mothers-a-burden-on-the-state/220271251432495

https://www.facebook.com/clairekhawantissm?fref=ts

https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Adam-Lanza-Victim-of-bad-mothering-and-feminism/257704144358446?fref=ts







HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!

They won't let me win, but you will succeed in annoying them if the nominations keep coming in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 25 June 2012

Higher rate of illegitimacy in the UK linked to crap England team


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/soccer/06/24/italy-england-euro-2012.ap/index.html?amp&amp&amp

In football, England is behind Portugal, Spain and Italy.




This is due to the higher rates of illegitimacy in Britain.   That is why we are such useless sluts and bastards who will never amount to anything, and having nothing to look forward to but decline and fall, extinction and death, criminality and barbarism, in a vicious circle of ever lowering standards of education and sport and ever lowering standards of morality ....

But most Britons these days are too stupid to care or too frightened to challenge the feminists.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/truth-about-pommy-bastards-most-births-will-soon-be-out-of-wedlock/2006/02/21/1140284069030.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 27 June 2010

Why Liberals and Feminists are not called extremists though everyone else who disagrees with them is.

Because they are in charge. 
at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Christians not solving the problem of evil

12:20 PM @teestrypzSOG #2 ​Someone did say the queen of the sciences is bout to be Theology 12:20 PM @OfficialSecularKoranism ​​@LIBERALARTS...