Discussion on feminism and liberty hosted by the Oxford Hayek Society on Wednesday 9 May 2018

https://www.facebook.com/events/164816147538893/?active_tab=discussion

Join us for our first discussion of term on the topic of feminism and its relationship to freedom. We will also be discussing whether issues of liberty remain more problematic for women than men in the 21st century west.

All our events are open to everyone and free of charge!

We would love to see you there.

9 May at 19:00–20:00

Magdalen College

High St, OX1 4AU Oxford

For all those attending tonight, we will be in the Daubeny Laboratory, which is the big building across the road from Magdalen. The entrance to the building is the glass door in the centre of the building. If you struggle to find it, either ask the Porters to point you there or send a message to us. Looking forward to seeing you there!

I fear this "discussion" will be predictably rigged. The best that could happen is that you dare ask the questions below, but it will be accompanied by a horrified silence and the feminists there look daggers at you while they think about what historic sexual offence they might accuse you of and the verisimilitude they might use to make their malicious and false accusations ring true to a jury. 

If there is a response, you will be told that it is a "complex question", beyond the intended parameters of the evening's discussion. 

But perhaps the clever young men who are perhaps also idealistic young men will meet each other, and discuss my ideas with each other, and something come out of this, before they too become young professionals with a career they do not want destroyed when some immoral woman accuses them of a historic sexual offence, before they have a wife who will divorce them using the rules of no fault divorce the moment she becomes bored and irritated, take half their stuff and deprive them of their children whom they will badly parent in the former matrimonial homes of their former husbands with a series of live-in lovers who might sexually abuse the children.   

On the real differences between the minds of men and women by J McGrigor Allan

Feminism survives because men allow it.

Men allow it because they are:

1) in denial that feminism is a problem

2) being cowed by the belief that even if they fought they would not win

3) not going about things the right way because of the catastrophic loss of male solidarity

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 3, 2018

MALE SOLIDARITY

What is male solidarity? You won't be able to find anything decent online because all the good articles have been hidden by the algorithms of our matriarchal search engines, so let me give you my definition:

Male solidarity is the ability of men to trust and co-operate with each other, which no immoral woman can tear asunder.

Male solidarity is crucial to any society's ability to deal with its eternal enemies, and sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society.

You have male solidarity if you can think of a trusted man in your life with whom you feel able to discuss the contents of this post.

Imagine how things would be if every man who reads it can immediately think of another man with whom he can discuss the contents of this post without fearing ridicule or betrayal. Do most young men now even have fathers they can discuss this with?

And if all men reading this can discuss it with their fathers and brothers and best friends, they would not be putting up with degeneracy of the matriarchy for a moment longer, and wouldn't have to.

http://www.aish.com/h/9av/aas/Why_Do_Bad_Things_Happen_to_Good_People.html

We are living in a very complex world and in a complex world, God doesn't only deal with individuals, he also deals with nations. 

When God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorra, Abraham complained. He asked God, "If I can find 50 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorra, will you spare the cities?" God said, "No problem, I won't destroy it." Abraham bargained with God until he got down to 10 righteous people and God said, "Okay, if you can find 10 righteous people I won't destroy it." 

Why did Abraham stop at 10? Why didn't he go down to one? 

Because Abraham knew if there's a group of people who are righteous, then society might turn around – you can't destroy them. Ten is still a group, under 10 is just individuals. A few righteous individuals is not enough to save Sodom and Gomorra.

Clearly, men who are content to endure a social status that is in effect lower than sluts in their degenerate matriarchy without seeing it worthwhile to attempt to challenge the system obviously deserve extinction. They certainly don't deserve to marry marriageable women who will properly parent their legitimate children. Such marriageable women that they do have will be impregnated and married by foreign men. You don't even have to be God to agree with this. 

SOME QUESTIONS THAT OCCUR TO ME

Does feminism undermine our traditional liberties?

How many thoughtcrimes does the Equality Act 2010 contain?

Does everything about feminism undermine marriage and therefore patriarchy and civilisation itself?

But for the welfare state, could feminism have survived?

Why does no lawyer in our overcrowded legal profession ever thinks to invoke https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+19%3A15&version=NKJV when acting for his client accused of a historic sexual offence when to be accused is to be convicted in the kangaroo courts of public opinion. No mention of the burden of proof being on the Prosecution or the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt being required to prove the guilt of an accused.

The DPP, Alison Saunders, was of course a campaigning feminist.

Did the Crown Prosecution Service exceed its powers as John Humphrys was suggesting to Alison Saunders?

Keir Starmer's "victim's law" has undermined the requirement for a criminal standard of proof to convict

Chantal Aimee Doerries QC, chairman of the Bar, proposes free child witness coaching against men they accuse of sexual offences

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/why-it-is-hopeless.html

Why is Alison Saunders of the *gender imbalanced* London CPS "disappointed" that John Terry was acquitted of a racially aggravated offence?

How to dramatically lower the number of rape complaints without changing the law

Simon Sheppard on the evil of feminism

How do you prove that you didn't have sex with a lying schoolgirl who said you did?

Why the alpha male no longer exists in Western society

Has feminism blocked social mobility for men?

David Willetts blames feminism over lack of jobs for working men

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties

Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline

On those who keep wittering on about the British constitution as if they knew what they were on about

We have a Bill of Rights 1688/9. Common Law since Alfred the Great. Justice is not a fashion statement, it is an emerging shield for us all.

— Godfrey Bloom (@goddersbloom) May 11, 2015

@goddersbloom An important primer to watch: http://t.co/ng788J0FaG

— eddie coke (@eddiecoke) May 11, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom If we were a 1-party state, its constitution would really be the party constitution protecting its members' rights.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom There is nothing special about the idea of putting promises down in writing hoping it will be a binding contract.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Many constitutionalists do not understand that our politicians' rights need to be protected.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Because politicians are so despised, nobody cares that they have no right to free speech.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Those who admire Enoch Powell should reflect on what happened to him for telling what he thought to be the truth.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Those who think politicians should speak the truth more should reflect on what happened to Keith Joseph in 1974.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph#1974

“A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world.... Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness…. They are producing problem children…. The balance of our human stock, is threatened….”

The response was outrage that despite his repeated apologies sharply undercut Joseph's campaign to replace Heath as party leader. The speech was largely written by Alfred Sherman but the most controversial sentence was inserted by Joseph himself.

It has now 41 years since a male politician dared to criticise Slut Single Mothers who are bad mothers to their bastard offspring. Expecting this lot to start doing it now would be like expecting a drug-addict who only cares about his next fix to call the cops on his drug-dealer. Ain't gonna happen. Only Secular Koranism is strong enough to cleanse this country of so many decades of sluttery, bastardy and degeneracy as well as five generations of feckless fuckers. 

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Talking about limiting the power of the monarch is now irrelevant as talking about the divine right to rule.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom If politicians fear to express what they believe to be the truth then they are not fit for purpose.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The point I am making about the free speech of MPs can be found at http://t.co/e5TDEO9iul

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

If members of the Conservative Party have no rights and can have their membership cancelled at the absolute discretion of the Secretary of the Board of the  Conservative Party, then this must also mean that the Prime Minister himself is vulnerable to being expelled from the Conservative Party without ceremony.

Claire Khaw's membership of the Conservative Party cancelled

The Conservative Party has no principles and its members have no rights

The Conservative Party pretends it has principles

Why the Conservative Party is a public body whose administrative decisions should be subject to judicial review

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A political establishment that has no principles or morals is no different to a psychopath.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A psychopath is a person who has no conscience and no moral principles and does not care if he hurts people.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom It used to be the case that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the conscience of the monarch or government.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E was created precisely to serve the monarch as a Creature of the State.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E is now a creature of the PC Liberal State and the PC Liberal State believes in gay marriage.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E is stuffed to its rafters with feminists, Reds, LGBTs n those who don't give a damn about Xtian teaching

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom C of E is stuffed to its rafters with parasites living off it whose raison d'etre is to subvert Biblical teaching.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A constitution is basically a rule book n the best rule book is short, clear and IN ONE BOOK not all over the place

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The old debate was about preventing monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right from abusing their power.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The current debate ought to be about drafting a constitution that would bring about good government.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The best constitution is a rule book that is clear, short n in one book whose words and meaning are not in dispute.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Liberty is what we ought to have after all the necessary laws are in place. What are the necessary laws?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Talking about "repealing the rule of law" is nonsensical. The rule of law is just means following the law.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The debate on Legal Positivism and Natural Law should be revived now that Islamists are proposing a theocracy.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom It would be helpful to have the principles of good government articulated and explained, would it not?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Is good government synonymous with democracy? Only if most voters are wise but they are patently fools and knaves.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Is good government synonymous with the majority view of MPs? But they too are mostly fools and knaves.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The speaker is not classically educated or he would know Ancient Rome and Greece would elect tyrants and dictators.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

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

The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character, bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. 

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

The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency.

There is much talk of a Caliphate, which I believe means Regent of God. It is basically a dictator who is bound by Koranic principles. Better government by a rightly-guided Caliph, I would have thought, than government by a psychopathic political establishment suffering from dementia not bound by any principles, not even their own, which they will not or cannot state. When you start breaking your own rules and lying about what they were and why you break them, I think it is time you called it a day.

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom How do we know when we have good government? When politicians are not widely held in hatred, ridicule and contempt.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom You can have any kind of rule in your rule book but a rule is only as good as its interpreter and enforcer.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom EC of Human Rights affirms freedom of belief but in EU countries Holocaust Denial is an imprisonable offence.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The Equality Act 2010 is clearly Orwellian thought-crime legislation but libertarians pretend not to notice.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but we are all suffering from narcolepsy, it seems.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015

The importance of understanding abstract ideas

1. Marriage 
2. Morality
3. Tradition
4. Principle 
5. Justice
6. Liberty
7. Faith
8. Honour
9. Reason
10. the long term national interest

Imagine Cameron and his advisers and cronies attempting to write a decent essay about each of these topics, explaining what they are, what they are for, and what they have done to promote it.   

Do you think they would pass this test with flying colours or would they fail to even write a coherent paragraph?

Sunday Sermon: On Liberty

Previous generations enjoyed more freedom of speech, contract and association than we do.

This means our freedoms have in fact been eroded but most of us are too dumb to notice or too apathetic to care.

The strongest statement I can make as a libertarian is to join the BNP, in order to stand up for their right to say what they believe to be the truth - ie that they do not like immigration and utterly fail to see how it has benefited people like them - without being smeared as evil Nazi Fascist Racist extremists.
 
Only those who assert their rights deserve liberty. The views of the ones who wait to be allowed to speak come from an inferior source.

Most of our MPs and those in the political establishment do not deserve to be in government and should not be trusted to represent anyone, because they can be so easily cowed into apologising and resigning for speaking what they think is the truth when asked by someone who is a traitor to their cause to do so.  That traitor to their cause is, tragically and ironically, their own leader.

David Cameron does not mean Conservatism well.  He is like a cushion who bears the imprint of the person who last sat on him - in this case New Labour, who started two unprofitable and unwinnable wars in the name of the British people, who legalised "marriage" for same-sex couples, who are the enemy of selective traditional education and who are too frightened to criticise single mothers who are going forth and multiplying,  increasing the burden of the taxpayer while lowering standards of education and morality with every little bastard that is born in this country every minute of every day.  

These days around 50% of babies are born out of wedlock and 70% of the UK prison population were singly-parented. 

The constitution of the Conservative Party allows David Cameron to say that Conservatism is whatever he says Conservatism is.  If he says Conservatism is Socialism, then it is.  If he says the Big Society is smaller government, then it is, even if it is a lie. If he says he supports marriage while refusing to condemn single mummery because Theresa May has forbidden Tories to be nasty to them, then that policy cannot be questioned, derided or challenged. 

Tories have shit for brains and piss for guts, just like New Labour.  Destination Third World hellhole remains on course.

Where else can you expect our political establishment to lead us to if the supposed alpha male of the British nation - our Prime Minister David Cameron no less -  is too cowardly and hypocritical to even condemn the sluts, slags and slapper single mums who are a burden on the state and who are even now in the process of multiplying themselves?

As I said, the Tories are shit for brains piss for guts limp-dicks, all of them - even the ones who call themselves Libertarians.

We will never return to rationally small government while British  men are afraid of losing the votes of slut and slapper British women.

Liberal dementia and the lie of "inalienable" human rights - origin USA

So-called inalienable human rights are very clearly and obviously alienable. That is why these idiot liberals have to declare an intention to protect them.

It is the stupid American constitution of course, which uses grandiose-sounding words that ultimately have no meaning or means the opposite of what it says.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights declares the US constitution, despite the fact that anyone can murder us at any time (and only get 10 years in prison or even less) and our liberty and pursuit of happiness is not defined.

Many of us are clearly not at liberty to park our cars in the street outside our homes, are we?

If we find we no longer love the person we married and resent having to look after our children whom we have not brought up properly and are now a nuisance and burden, are we at liberty to pursue our happiness away from these people?

Why are liberals such fools? Because they believe in lies and fairy tales, just like ignorant children. Most children want to grow up. Liberals want to remain children forever and force the rest of the world to be like them.

Are liberals evil, or just stupid?  

"Liberty" denies Philip Hollobone MP his liberty to withhold his services from sinister women in masks known to be religious zealots

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10750908

Damian Green is a cowardly piece of shit, but then he is a Tory MP and we can expect no better from the likes of him.  I do wonder what Philip Davies MP thinks.  I know he says he is a Libertarian but does not want a ban.  I am a Libertarian and want a ban on the grounds that:

1.  it brings Islam into hatred, ridicule and contempt

2.  it is in fact unIslamic - the Koran tells Muslims not to worship ostentatiously.  This means Muslims should not draw undue attention to themselves, but of course women riddled by feminine neuroses don't get this and want to indulge their neuroses while making an ostentatious show of piety.

It is for the prevention of crime and the protection of the reputation of Islam that feminine neurosis should not be indulged in this way. 

This practice after all brings Islam into hatred, ridicule and contempt by right-thinking members of society. 

007.205
YUSUFALI: And do thou (O reader!) Bring thy Lord to remembrance in thy (very) soul, with humility and in reverence, without loudness in words, in the mornings and evenings; and be not thou of those who are unheedful.
PICKTHAL: And do thou (O Muhammad) remember thy Lord within thyself humbly and with awe, below thy breath, at morn and evening. And be not thou of the neglectful.
SHAKIR: And remember your Lord within yourself humbly and fearing and in a voice not loud in the morning and the evening and be not of the heedless ones.

Good to be quoted at http://www.fontcraft.com/liberty/?p=25936

Gloating about the banning of Al Muhajiroun?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/10/david-mitchell-free-speech

Next time you propose a march that enough people find "offensive", and agree that terrorists might be angry with us because of our foreign policy of invading people's countries on the pretence that they have WMDs and may harbour terrorists, you could find your organisation banned.

Did we invade Eire to kill the IRA? Why not?

I propose the BNP now take the initiative and hold a mock funeral with empty coffins:

Coffin 1 - Freedom of Speech (Can't say "gollywog" now can we?)

Coffin 2 - Freedom of Belief (that British foreign policy encourages terrorism, anything that offends PC ideology and those who are against an Islamic state)

Coffin 3 - Freedom of Contract (all anti-discrimination legislation)

Coffin 4 - Freedom of Association (BNP, Jewish Free School judgment that said Orthodox Jews racist and/or sexist)

Coffin 5 - the right to property (high taxes infringe this)

It would be nice if the BNP could summon up the courage to invite Anjem Choudary and hold it in Wootton Bassett for maximum publicity.

Perhaps they will end up being banned. And then what will we do?

Civil disorder would be an option, but this is unlikely in a cowed and a apathetic populace, the majority of whom are sheeple.

What is civilisation?

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7314/

Civilisation is when the good are strong.

That is the only objective meaning I can distil from this stubbornly nebulous concept of "civilisation".

Everyone, after all, imagines that they are civilised.

The West is no longer strong because it is no longer good. It is no longer good because it has forgotten its traditions of liberty that once made it strong.

For the West has been corrupted by his welfare state, which promotes fecklessness, promiscuity, and tolerance of societally damaging behaviour in the name of indiscriminate compassion and equality.

Bribed by the promise of social security for so many generations, the Westerner and his leaders have forgotten Benjamin Franklin's warning: "Those who prefer safety to liberty deserve neither."