Translate

Showing posts with label lesbians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lesbians. Show all posts

Sunday, 10 January 2016

Yasser Al Jassem, Syrian migrant, becomes pet of Englishwoman living in or near Hebden Bridge, Lesbian Capital of Britain





https://twitter.com/helenpidd/status/686148095336398848 shows all the messages of support come either from women or beta male mangina libtards.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/female-journalists-pro-migrant-coverage.html

Female judge grants asylum to Sudanenese migrant Abdul Rahman Haroun, 3 women greet him at prison gates

Justin Webb interviewing two women from Germany about Cologne attacks on New Year's Day 2016

Advice to men affected by migrants white middle class women keep welcoming in
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: , , ,

Monday, 16 June 2014

Can you tell if Clare Balding is pleased with her leaving present?

If it is not, what do you think is an appropriate gift to a departing lesbian?

I prefer bottles of wine myself and what I never ever want to receive are FLOWERS. Ugh.

I can't tell if Balding is pleased or hopping mad with him and intent on ritually humiliating him online by drawing attention to his presents and using the worst photo of him she could find. He does look a little like a demented dwarf in that photo. What do you think, dear reader?

A bottle of wine would have been the best thing, probably, in my opinion. However cheap and nasty it was, she would not have taken a photograph of it and tweeted it to the world.


at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

The economics of Feminism AKA Why it is uneconomic and a BAD IDEA for most women in your society to be sluts

Rafal Pruszyn-ski
When you don’t get the basic principles of economics, you get hurt. It happens when you elect a president who thinks money can be printed off without a shred of harm. And it also happens when you don’t understand the basic premise of supply-and-demand. What women never got was that the most valuable bargaining card they were holding – their sexuality – does indeed conform to the laws of supply-and-demand (as well as to monetary principles); and that by making supply (of their sexuality) in essence never-ending, they were destroying the value of their sexuality on the market.

We can also put this proposition in monetary terms with female sexuality being like the dollar. When both the supply and the velocity of sexuality increase, the value of each woman’s sexuality takes a nose-dive. Now, if you think of each woman’s sexuality as a currency with which she acquires a unit of Stability (under this we can include things like the value of the male, his faithfulness, his ability to take care of the woman and her children, etc) then we can better show what is happening using Fisher’s equation for the quantity of money:

MV = PT, where:
M = Money Supply
V = Velocity of Circulation (the number of times money changes hands)
P = Average Price Level
T = Volume of Transactions of Goods and Services

Which we can alter a bit
SV = PT (where S = Supply of female sexuality)
What do we find? If we reorder to solve for P:

P= SV/T
Not only has M (number of women ready to have premarital sex) incrased radically, but so has V (the number of times or the number of males with whom those women are ready to have premarital sex). The equation shows that the P for Stability has increased which means what? It means that the inherent value of a woman’s sexuality has been inflated into worthlessness. She can no longer afford to buy Stability, or, to put it differently, her bargaining position is now much weaker and can only obtain a much lower quality of Stability.

I am all for freedom and liberation, but freedom that goes against your long-term self-interest needs to be seen as foolhardy. Women have given away their most valued commodity and that will never be regained. The ship has sailed and the genie is himself fornicating and has no desire to get back in the bottle.

The sexual revolution that started off in the 1960s was an unmitigated disaster to every woman, except maybe lesbians.

http://therightstuff.biz/2013/12/16/free-milk-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side/

A piece of ass, a dime a dozen.

With thanks and acknowledgement to my Facebook friend Rafal Pruszyn-ski

 If you enjoyed this, you will probably enjoy http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/what-is-feminism-libertarian-facebook.html also by Rafal.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding'.html

Male Priests' Civil Partnership Blessed in Church by Rector

This could never happen in a mosque because the Koran specifically states that homosexuality is a sin to be punished, in rather the same manner as adultery.

HOW EXTRA-MARITAL RECREATIONAL SEX IS PUNISHED IN ISLAM

4 witnesses would be required in the case of gay and lesbian lewdness as well as adulterous wives.The relevant verses in the Koran are:

4:15 (lewd acts between women)
4:16 (lewd acts between men)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

24:1 (adultery - punishable by 100 lashes)

Those that defame honourable women and cannot produce 4 witnesses shall be given 80 lashes. If a husband accuses his wife but has no witnesses but himself except himself, he must swear 4 times by God that his charge is true, calling down upon himself the curse of God if he is lying. But if his wife swears 4 times by God that his charge is false and calls down His curse upon himself if it be true, she shall receive no punishment.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable horribly. In practice, under a liberal interpretation, acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

If we now have sharia-compliant investments, then I see nothing haram in organising sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies, whilst adding to the gaiety of the nation and the umma. It is a shame the Christians didn't quite got round to articulating this sort of thing in a Word of God Book coming from one source, ie Muhammad. Instead, their moral code comes from the Old and New Testament, written by different people over the ages. No wonder schism is endemic and inevitable when Christian ideology is so messily articulated.

Old Testament: Leviticus
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=18&verse=22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=20&verse=13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

"New Testament: Romans 1:26, 27
http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Romans%201:26-31

It does after all say in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination, but some New Testamenters seem to think this does not apply to them.

Perhaps it is because New Testamenters like to think that the Old Testament cannot apply to them in any of its literal and illiberal entirety, when so many transgressions we now regard as minor to trifling could lead to the death penalty?

For an impressively long list of sins which Old Testamenters regard as deserving of the death penalty, see http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Bible.html

In contrast, under a liberal interpretation, the Koran is a model of mercy and clemency.

The Koran restates the Ten Commandments and adds a few more of its own. No rational Muslim would argue that an act specifically stated to be a sin in the Koran could possibly deserve the blessing of any Islamic clergy! The most that could be argued in an Islamic context is the "ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies" principle, which would be the perfect compromise between puritanical censoriousness and the libertarian ideal.

In these circumstances, homosexuality would be tolerated, provided it is not flaunted. How can anyone reasonable, whether religious or atheist (like me) deny that this is the perfect compromise? Or that the Islam of the Koran is structurally sounder, better-drafted, more coherent and sexually liberated than Judaism or Christianity?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

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

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

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

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




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

Little Boy: Mother, who was my father?

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, an Euthanasia Bill for the self-righteous, interfering, wasteful and dim, who think that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is a productive use of Parliamentary time, would have my enthusiastic support ...
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...