Questions Christian men of the West are too afraid to ask each other

I am very disappointed that none of my questions I hoped Andy Nowicki would be asked in the chat were either asked or answered.

1) Pogroms can be avoided by good laws under good government. Perhaps you and Andy can discuss what good laws might be. The law under a patriarchy is fairer than under a matriarchy, I would suggest. ​Would you ask Andy what laws he would change if he could and whether he is in favour of a one party state?

2) ​Could you ask Andy what is the most radical change of law he would contemplate publicly advocating?

3) Would Andy agree that the West is now a matriarchy?

4) How would Andy feel about restoring the patriarchy and if he were to go about restoring the patriarchy, which laws would be the most necessary to effect this restoration?

5) How does Andy feel about slut-shaming?

6) ​Does Andy think there are too many female undergraduates?

7) ​Does Andy think SJWs are male undergraduates thirsty for sexual access to entitled middle class female undergraduates?

8) ​Is masculinity negatively affected by female promiscuity?

9) Has Andy warned his children about presenting him with any surprise illegitimate grandchildren?

10) ​Would Andy disown or disinherit his offspring if either of them presented him with surprise illegitimate grandchildren?

11) ​Would Andy support the abolition of no fault divorce?

12) ​Has Andy noticed any notable developments in the alt-right recently?

13) ​Would Andy agree that masculinity is a state of mind prepared to and capable of defending patriarchal moral values?

14) ​What does Andy consider to be masculine values?

15) Has anyone told Andy that ambiguity is a feminine trait and a feminine stratagem that I have noticed he is using?

From 1:28:00

I confront these Christian men about their failure to discuss restoring the patriarchy and am told that  Andy Nowicki actually refuses to acknowledge the existence of the patriarchy. 

The dysgenic feminist state that oppresses men and destroys the civilisation their male ancestors built

Women who want to become mothers should understand that they owe it to themselves to choose the father of their offspring carefully. This means that women should not be having babies until they are married because it is always easier to get a man to have sex with you than to get him to marry you.

What governments should be doing is to make marriage a good bargain for men again. quran.com/24/2 would be the most effective way of making women choose their sex partners who must also be their husbands in a more careful and eugenic way.

Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers with illegitimate offspring.

Male solidarity, co-operation and leadership accountability is facilitated by a chain of command in a hierarchical patriarchal society while co-operation amongst men is next to impossible in a matriarchy because there is no clear leader and even the appointed leader is obviously not in control. This is certainly the case in liberal democracies.

In a matriarchy, all men are lower than the fornicating immoral woman because in a matriarchy even the women get to choose their alpha male leader.

Once women get to choose their leader, they will inevitably choose the male leader they find most physically attractive without much listening to rational arguments or caring much about the long term national interest because it is not in the nature of females to trouble their pretty little heads about such things.

You will find that the national interest just does not compute with the average feminist and if you try to explain it to her she will accuse you of being racist, sexist, antisemitic and Islamophobic just to shame you, threaten you and shut you up.

Once males with leadership ambitions realise the importance of female support, they will pander to the female preference in order to become leader and marginalise and even ignore the male preference.

Men who pander to the female preference must logically and necessarily think, speak and behave like a woman.

When men begin to behave like women, they become incapable of defending any moral principle at all and this encourages their enemies who rightly suppose that a nation of men who submit to the female preference without the desire or ability to fight back are ripe for invasion.

This has clearly happened to the West.

Men *must* win the battle of the sexes for the sake of their civilisation

Spree Killers: The Forefront of Knowledge Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer

Simon Sheppard, political activist, in court again over the right to use certain words as an indigenous white male  https://t.co/SXJysOQ1Q6

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018

rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/

https://quran.com/24/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Claire Khaw makes enquiries about being slut-shamed in Indonesia in a bid to promote slut-shaming in the West to save Western civilisation

I have been making my support for marriage and slut shaming quite clear.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 23 January 2018

Common sense is very rare in our degenerate matriarchy.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 23 January 2018

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption. moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption. The left now hate the right for pointing out the obvious because intellectual corruption means rejecting truth, logic and morality.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 23 January 2018

Sexual corruption = extramarital sex

Moral corruption = condoning extramarital sex

Intellectual corruption = rejecting truth, logic and morality as a means of solving problems

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 23 January 2018

It is a form of teshuvah.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 January 2018

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-teshuvah-2076801

For putting things right, of course. Tikkun olam and all that.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 January 2018

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/satan

I am trying to arrange a visit to Aceh province with @KBRILondon with this purpose in mind.

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 January 2018

I am trying to arrange a visit to Aceh province with @KBRILondon with the purpose of promoting the practice of slut-shaming in the West as prescribed by https://t.co/3K8zKsPjZt  https://t.co/CtTxenRXgR https://t.co/Nz5mrgmldv

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 January 2018

Because that would drive the point home better. Please support me on Patreon so I can get to Indonesia.  @GenZMGTOW

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 January 2018

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/auberon-waugh-and-me.html

Auberon Waugh, now the Editor of the Literary Review, has gained a reputation as a controversial journalist. In conversation with Michael Parkinson, he talks about his father Evelyn Waugh, his childhood and his writing, which has included seven novels and his diary Private Eye. [Taken from the original programme material for this archive edition of Desert Island Discs] Favourite track: Don Giovanni Act 1 by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Book: Other Men's Flowers by Lord A P Wavell Luxury: Vine

Belinda Brown on the societal benefits of slut-shaming

"FEMALE SEXUAL WITHHOLDING

Because sex is more highly valued by men and their access depends on the willingness of women to supply it, it can be seen as a valued good where women act as sellers and men as buyers, By withholding sex, women increase its value and render it a scarce resource, scarcity ratchets up the price men are willing to pay for it and this means pressure is put by women on other women not to undercut them, because if other women give sex away too cheaply, it reduces what women can ask from men. Monogamy is socially encouraged and enforced. A man is encouraged to stay with a woman because he is less likely to have opportunities to reproduce elsewhere. You will only get sex if you hang around and commit to that woman and, because all women are behaving like that, you are not going to have many opportunties for mating outside your mate.

Female sexual withholding is therefore key to paternal investment.  Paternal investment facilitates reproductive success."

The Temptation of Eve and why men must always pay for sex

I deplore this attempt to blame women for all the ills of mankind and will address it now, once and for all.

If men now blame all their problems on women, they should also remember that most of their pleasures also come from women.

The Chinese word for GOOD consists of the an amalgam of the word FEMALE and CHILD. I only wish I could have been there when Chinese scholars were debating how to represent the concept of GOOD with which words.

http://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-hao_good.htm

Now that this was the compound word arrived at, one must logically ask if this hypothetical Chinese female would be a slut or this hypothetical Chinese child a bastard. NO, is my answer. If most of your women are sluts and most of your children bastards, then it means the men have lost control, and this is BAD and you should be doing something about this, if there are any moral men left in your society.

Women are indeed temptation for men, but imagine a world in which there are no temptations you could be tempted by. In that case you might as well be dead, or a Buddhist.

Love them or hate them, you can't live without them. By this I mean whether you are a man or woman and hate the opposite sex, you must know that your civilisation cannot continue without the opposite sex.

If the military without women is the exemplar of a hierarchical patriarchy, then the bee colony is the exemplar of an apparently egalitarian matriarchy.

If you asked a wise Chinese person such as myself what feminism represents, I would say it represents the eternal temptation of heterosexual men: fornication. You will not be able to find a single feminist who supports slut-shaming because the secret agenda of feminism is to empower sluts who become the mothers of bastards.

Yin and Yang came from the Ancient Chinese asserting the rather Newtonian principle that every action causes a reaction, and this represents the eternal battle of the sexes.

The sad fact is that sex must never be free for Man because, if it ever did, his civilisation would decline and fall. He must always pay for sex, and this is why the prostitute should always be treated as above the fornicating slut in any rational and well-ordered patriarchy.

There is a reason why our matriarchy have more or less criminalised prostitution: because feminist sluts want to retain their stranglehold monopoly on the supply of extramarital sex to heterosexual men. This is how the matriarchy bribes men who could become fathers of legitimate children into accepting the oppression of the matriarchy.

Marx once said religion is the opium of the people in a patriarchy.

In a matriarchy, fornication is the opium of the people.

We are a matriarchy hooked on fornication.

All it takes is any group, however barbaric, to practise the rules of marriage better than we do, and it will be the end of our civilisation.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=65
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=8&verse=66
 

Brendan O'Neill may talk big on free speech, but he has blocked me on Facebook and won't discuss slut-shaming

Al the speakers are good, including Brendan O'Neill.

He says at the end:

If  you feel you are being treated like a heretic, then you should behave like a heretic. You should pull your socks up and get your guns out.

This was exactly what I did, and guess what? Brendan O'Neill blocked me on Facebook. Does that mean he is a coward and a hypocrite?

I don't think he wants to discuss slut-shaming either.

Dr Augusto Zimmermann: cometh the hour, cometh the man on Sunday 11 June 2017 in Gold Coast?

Dr Augusto Zimmermann: cometh the hour, cometh the man on Sunday 11 June 2017 in Gold Coast?

Dr Augusto Zimmerman, an academic lawyer, will be speaking on feminism at https://icmi.info/conference-information/conference-program on 11 June in Gold Coast, Australia.

The biggest men's issue of all in the Western world:

Gentile and non-Muslim beta male victims of feminism resent their ever-lowering status in relation to women, Jews, Muslims and immigrants.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 15, 2017

The topic he he will be speaking is TBA at the moment of writing, but I have just sent him an email with a suggestion.

Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2017, 13:06
Subject: Your talk on Sunday June 11 2017

Dear Dr Zimmerman

I understand you will be speaking on the subject of feminism at an event that another lawyer Ken Arenson who wrote http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2014/8.html will also be speaking.

I myself will neither be speaking nor attending because I am considered persona no grata by the men's right's movements.

If I were allowed to attend and speak, I would be making the point that if the problem is feminism and therefore matriarchy, then patriarchy must be the solution.

If patriarchy is the solution and patriarchy to be re-established, then the rules of marriage must be reimposed.

The rules of marriage are the prohibition and punishment of extramarital sex as well as the abolition of no fault divorce.

Patriarchy runs on marriage the way cars run on petrol.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage, because the stated aims of feminism are to undermine patriarchy.

Feminism operates by bribing me with premarital sex to distract them from marriage, and also to make marriage repugnant, difficult and unrewarding to them.

Even in a patriarchy, marriage is the most expensive form of sex.

Once men become accustomed to free love and sexual liberation, their morals will be corrupted. Marriage is after all an onerous undertaking , but most men, being primarily motivated by sex, will do anything for sex, including marry.

Feminism takes away that incentive.

Slut shaming is therefore anathema to feminism and it will not be long before feminists propose to criminalise such proposals as hate speech.

Slut shaming would indeed cut the legs off feminism.

But how would we get the poor specimens of manhood that Mike Buchanan and Paul Elam represent to support marriage when they already know they and their ilk and pitifully unmarriageable?

They cannot and will not.

But what male with alpha male qualities would sacrifice his status and access to sex to help these pitiable specimens of manhood?

They would not.

And so this is how Western civilisation will accelerate in its decline and degeneracy.

The only reliable source of social conservatism in the West is the Koran, because Christianity is know kaput and no longer fit for the purposes of maintaining morality.

Verses 4:15, 4:16 and 24:2 of the Koran would treat extramarital sex as a sexual offence.

The fact that Muslims treat marriage as a contract will implicitly and explicitly imply fault in divorce since divorce is only permissible if a term of the marriage contract has been breached.

Islam is hateful to the West, however.

But Western Man, should he acknowledge the grievous errors of the Sex Revolution and feminism, could rise again by striving for a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism, which is a legal system and not a belief system.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

I hope you will forward this to Ken Arenson and Greg Canning http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/doctor-greg-canning-quits-james-cook-university-teaching-pos.html if you have their email.

Regards

Claire Khaw

Men against feminism should tell women against feminism their views don't and won't matter because they can defeat the matriarchy without their support

What anti-feminist Erin Pizzey said about anti-feminist Claire Khaw. What will Iben Thranholm say?

There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes

Why men will never get back their country again as long as democratic politicians keep chasing the female vote

Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline

26:35:

Thomas Jefferson famously once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In the Western world these past few decades you would be hard pressed to describe the overriding attitude to freedom using the adjective vigilance.

David Hume once said: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. You lose it in all steps when well-meaning people reckon it is just not worth the effort to bother to defend something."

Cabinet ministers put their careers and chauffeur-driven cars and perhaps a core belief that they are so important that they can do more good by staying in cabinet and MPs more worried about the immigrant vote than with upholding the immigrant vote than upholding a core Western value. 

Hume's point is that once a one piece of freedom is taken away, the next piece of freedom becomes easier still. 

We came really close to that over Julia Gillard's proposed media laws. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/how-julia-gillard-was-ready-to-censor-our-free-media/news-story/c95cb7bb5280d56e9ed63698179f7a15

Social Services - jobs for the girls

What better way of showing how evil men are and how useful you are when you protect children and women from these monsters at taxpayers' expense in your role as Social Worker?

All these violent and abusive men who are also fathers and husbands and all those women to rescue!

What better way of making yourself feel good, useful and needed about "saving" children that you will never have as a spinster by removing them from their parents?

Of course, it would be in your interests to pretend all men are guilty and evil. In this way do you make yourself more important to the more gullible members of the public.

Of course you will never support laws that prevent women from having sex with men not their husbands because if all women made sensible choices about their sex partner who must also be their husband, you'd be out of a job!

That is why no social worker will support slut-shaming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Feminist Andrea Catherwood blocks me after these tweets

@acatherwoodnews Women are never content. The Fisherman and His Wife is the perfect expression of feminine discontent. #r4today

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews You can't be shocked yet not surprised.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews Women are never happy. They are made that way to keep men on their toes.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews You should take the pronouncements of a Conservative Prime Minister who legalised gay marriage with a lorryload of salt.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews Privileged and risk-averse middle class women who care nothing for national sovereignty are more likely to want to stay in.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews @hudzyboo @BBCWomansHour Feminism would not welcome women who are anti-feminists, would they?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews @hudzyboo @BBCWomansHour It is logically impossible to be both a feminist and a good Muslim.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews @hudzyboo @BBCWomansHour Feminism encourages women to be sluts while the Koran punishes sluts. https://t.co/TtXp14fd4t

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@acatherwoodnews @BBCWomansHour All the sex education that would be required in an Islamic State is https://t.co/TtXp14fd4t

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@ayeshak82 @acatherwoodnews The veil is intended to obscure a woman's beauty to diminish her power over men.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

@ayeshak82 @acatherwoodnews Fat is a feminist issue too, because men don't want to see too much superfluous flesh.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 4, 2016

Andrea Catherwood will be chairing The Gender Debate on Tuesday 8 March 2016 at the Old Vic.

http://www.oldvictheatre.com/old-vic-voices-off/the-gender-debate/

Claire Khaw offers to stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for Mike Buchanan's antifeminist party

@AnthonyLarme I am certainly prepared to help @MikeBuchanan11 in his election campaign but whether he will accept is another question.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 10, 2015

https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/2015-general-election-campaign-support-our-campaign-stand-as-a-candidate-for-j4mb-or-make-a-donation/

1.  Have you really offered to stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for Mike Buchanan's political party Justice For Men and Boys?

I have indeed.

2.  How likely do you think Mike Buchanan is to accept your offer to stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for his political party?

I would say 50/50. He could say yes, he could say no.

3.  Do you think Mike Buchanan is more likely to say YES or more likely to say NO to your becoming prospective parliamentary candidate for Justice for Men and Boys?

I really wouldn't like to say anything more beyond that than it is in theory 50/50.

4.  Why are you being so cagey about your prospects of being prospective parliamentary candidate for Mike Buchanan's antifeminist party?

Because beyond saying that it is in theory 50/50 it is pointless to speculate.

5.  Weren't you sneering at Mike Buchanan and his antifeminist party with the stupid long name not that long ago?

I have to put up my hands up to that but I now see that it could be an interesting experience and an opportunity to generate some publicity, if Mike Buchanan is prepared to accept my offer.

6.   Would you say you owe Mike Buchanan an apology?

For what exactly?

7.   Do you deny that you have been abusing Mike Buchanan?

I believe some of my remarks about him could be considered to be quite rude, yes, but then I am sure he has been rude about me too.

8.   Do you regret being rude about Mike Buchanan?

I was perfectly polite to him until he said I was a religious fanatic and refused to accept my denials. Did you expect me to shut up and forget about it all? I am fighter, not a quitter.

9.   Do you think Mike Buchanan fears that if he lets you stand as prospective parliamentary candidate you would become a member of his one-man party and if you became the other member of his one-man party you would take over as leader?

I don't see what the problem would be if I did take over, if I am indeed the better leader.

10.   How would people know whether you or Mike Buchanan is the better leader of antifeminism?

They won't know until they see us both in action and are in a position to make comparisons.

11.   If you were the one who established an antifeminist party, would you let someone like you join?

Of course, because the idea of a leadership contest would be newsworthy and generate much more interest in the party and antifeminism than just me going up and down the country moaning about feminism as sole leader and member of my party.

12.   Do you think Mike Buchanan might feel too threatened by you to let you stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for his antifeminist party?

It is possible that he may wish to protect his position at the expense of seizing the opportunity I present him with both hands to generate publicity. He may feel too insecure and risk-averse to have anything to do with me because he dislikes my ideas, but my proposed association and/or membership of Mike Buchanan's antifeminist party can only draw attention to the cause and generate interest, and I hope he is big enough to see that.

13.   What has Mike Buchanan to gain by letting you stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for his antifeminist party if you have already said you want to take over the party even before your proposal today? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/mike-buchanan-should-surrender-his.html

He would be credited with having the grace and humility to stand aside for someone who is clearly a better leader and with advancing the cause of antifeminism.

14.   How will you be popularising the cause of antifeminism by being the prospective parliamentary candidate of Mike Buchanan's antifeminist party when people will know you want to forbid extramarital sex and lash SSMs 100 times per illegitimate offspring?

I won't be popularising antifeminism at all, just letting men know what they have to do to regain the status they used to have.

15.   Do you not think that you would make people less likely to vote for Mike Buchanan's antifeminist party if you are its prospective parliamentary candidate and also known for wanting to establish a one-party theocracy in Britain as well as inflicting 100 lashes on people who have had extramarital sex?

I think he already accepts that he is not going to be the next MP for Ashfield, Nottingham. Indeed, he said the purpose of standing was to draw attention to the male victims of feminism. It is necessary for people to realise how deeply entrenched the matriarchy now is. Getting this message out is much more important than a few miserable votes that are not going to get anyone elected anyway.

16.   Why would Mike Buchanan allow you to join and stand as prospective parliamentary candidate for his antifeminist party if having you as a member and PPC would only make something already unpopular even more unpopular?

Because gaining popularity and votes is not the idea, getting the message punched through is.

17.   Do you really think Mike Buchanan wants to be associated with someone who wants to introduce sharia law in Britain and to inflict 100 lashes on anyone convicted of extramarital sex amongst your many many objectionable and detestable proposals?

That would certainly kick-start a discussion about what is necessary to re-establish the patriarchy and defenestrate the matriarchy, wouldn't it?

18.   Do you think male voters would want to give up extramarital sex in order to regain the former status they had in pre-feminist times?

They probably won't if you put it to them like that. Even if they are not persuaded at all, it should at least be put to them that forbidding extramarital sex is what they must do should they ever want to regain the status they used to have.

19.   So you are saying to an already unpopular man like Mike Buchanan that he should associate with you and become EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR?

He wouldn't be associating with me for the purpose of becoming even more unpopular, but for the purpose of punching the message through when so many people are wilfully deaf and blind.

If he cares about the transmission of the antifeminist message then there is only one correct answer.

If, however, what he wants to do is to TRY to be popular and pretend truly radical changes in our laws and social attitudes are not really required, then he really might as well not bother.

20.  What would you say is the difference between you and Mike Buchanan?

I am a visionary and he is a plodder.

21.   Will you continue to be dismissive of Mike Buchanan as you have been at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/126895480449 if he lets you join his party and allows you to become a prospective parliamentary candidate?

Of course not. I would be civility, co-operation, charm, sugar, spice and all thing nice.

22.  So you are saying you would be singing Mike Buchanan's praises if he allows you to be prospective parliamentary candidate for his antifeminist party after you have been so rude about him. Aren't you being enormously insincere?

There is nothing insincere about refraining from criticising him in public.

23.   Wouldn't Mike Buchanan be a laughing stock if he allowed you to become prospective parliamentary candidate for his antifeminist party after you have been so rude about him?

I could easily draft out a joint statement that would make everything all right between us.

24.   Would you like to give us the gist of the joint statement you had in mind that would allow you and Mike Buchanan to have a workable relationship being the only two members of his political party?

I am sure the other prospective parliamentary candidates are also be members. If I join and there is only one of me, he is not going to be exactly outnumbered by little old me.

The Joint Statement I had in mind would be along the lines below:

"Mike Buchanan and Claire Khaw have resolved to bury the hatchet and work together in the run-up to the 2015 General Election despite known public disagreements in the past. Although they are not in agreement on antifeminism ideologically, tactically and strategically, it has been decided that at this very early stage of our challenge to feminism that no harm can be caused by actively airing them and having a full and frank exchange of ideas as a way of drawing the public into this very important debate."

25.   Have you converted to Islam?

To convert to Islam would invalidate Secular Koranism and I have no intention of invalidating Secular Koranism - my biggest idea.

26.   Why have you been talking like a Muslim convert?

Have I? When and where?

27.    You talk like a Muslim at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/126896417153. Do you disagree?

In this HYPOTHETICAL situation, I imagined what a Muslim getting married would want and he or she wouldn't want to undergo a ceremony not recognised by the law of the land nor nor would anyone else who seriously wants to get married. Why go through a ceremony of marriage with no legal validity and end up having illegitimate offspring??

28.   You did not deny you were proposing Sharia law for Britain at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/126894845057, did you?

No, I did not, because Secular Koranism is based on the Koran - which I cannot deny - and is technically a form of Sharia Law, just one that has a different interpretation to theirs.

29.   Apart from not stoning adulterers to death and throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, what else is ideologically distinct about Secular Koranism to the kind of Sharia Law we all know and hate?

I am so delighted that you asked the question!!

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/muslims-once-prayed-in-direction-of.html would change the place of pilgrimage every 4 years like the World Cup and the Olympics and piss off the Saudis big time.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/my-interpretation-of-that-wife-beating.html mentions wife-beating witnessing ceremonies that will only end in a slap on the wrist instead of an arrest for domestic violence.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/male-priests-civil-partnership-blessed.html discusses sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies with your wives

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/feminists-want-prostitutes-dead-while.html says brothels would be legal under all governments run on the principles of Secular Koranism.

Finally, Secular Koranism is not a belief system but a LEGAL SYSTEM which can be administered by a non-Muslim judiciary after they have passed an exam in Koranic Knowledge, of course. It is just like being a Eurosceptic lawyer who specialises in EU law. You just have to know the system and its rules, not necessarily approve of it.

All you have to do to support Secular Koranism is be a social conservative. You can be a Jewish supporter of Secular Koranism, a Christian supporter of Secular Koranism and an agnostic, atheist and polytheist support of it, as well as a Hindu and Buddhist supporter of Secular Koranism.

30.   Apart from Secular Koranism, are there any other ideas you have which might be useful for antifeminists?

There is the ethology in my Slut Theory of Western decline. It basically says that even the President of the United States is lower than sluts because most women in the West are sluts, a significant proportion of mothers are SSMs/Slut Single Mothers (who are a cancer of society) and they all have the vote.

Mike Buchanan is probably shy of saying this, but then he is a beta male.

Actually, in a matriarchy all men are lower than omega females AKA Slut Single Mothers because all men are afraid to criticise them.

Keith Joseph - who was a Prime Minister in waiting - criticised them in 1974 http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/101830 and he never became Prime Minister. British men in politics have been TERRIFIED of criticising sluts for 41 years.

Only Claire Khaw dares to call a spade a spade and a slut a slut.

A properly ordered society would have an alpha male leader (with an alpha female who is his partner) and beneath him would be beta males (and their beta female partners) and beneath them would be the omega female (the Slut Single Mother who is the least desirable female partner for a male if he is looking for a wife and mother for his children).

In a matriarchy all this is inverted with the worst of women squatting over all men in society abusing the power they have got stupid men to give them. Time to tell feminism to fuck off GOOD, HARD AND LOUD.

Re-establishment of Patriarchy, End of Pornocracy.

This can be shortened to "ROP, EOP".

We can sell T-shirts and wrist bands for this too.

Oh, and to celebrate International Patriarchy Day on 3 August 2015. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-first-international-patriarchy-day.html

To: Mike Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2015, 11:04
Subject: My formal offer to assist you in your General Election campaign

          http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/claire-khaw-offers-to-stand-as.html

Hi Mike
I thought I would let you know that I am serious about this proposal and await your response.
Regards
Claire Khaw

@ntfem Have you heard/read anything yet from Mike Buchanan re: you joining his MRA party?
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) March 13, 2015

@AnthonyLarme Nope, not a dicky bird. I could just assist @MikeBuchanan11's election campaign if he doesn't want me to join or stand.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@AnthonyLarme It occurs to me that @MikeBuchanan11 could announce that Claire Khaw is tweeting on behalf of J4MB from now till 7 May 2015.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@AnthonyLarme Once it is announced by @MikeBuchanan11 that I shall be tweeting on behalf of J4MB, antifeminism in Britain would be launched.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@AnthonyLarme Once it is announced by @MikeBuchanan11 that Claire Khaw is tweeting on behalf of J4MB, feminazi mouths will start frothing.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

An invitation to meet with us tomorrow http://t.co/2rWRd9A20J
— Mike Buchanan (@MikeBuchanan11) March 13, 2015

@MikeBuchanan11 If you had invited Claire Khaw and she accepts then more supporters might come. Not too late for next time though!
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@MikeBuchanan11 Let us count how many supporters turn up tomorrow and how many turn up after you invite Claire Khaw and she agrees to come.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@MikeBuchanan11 This is a terrible way of asking people to help. My suggestion for a better way of doing this is in my next tweet.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

@MikeBuchanan11 "Come leafleting with J4MB n meet Claire Khaw, Britain First and Foremost Female Antifeminist whose views unblocks drains."
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 13, 2015

Deal with the problem of revenge porn AT SOURCE through slut-shaming

'Revenge porn' illegal under new law in England and Wales

The Koran has an excellent way of dealing with stupid sluts who photograph themselves performing lewd acts, send them to random men for the purpose of arousing them and then complain when the men  pass them on to other men or post them online.

004.015
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

In this case 4 people viewing the lewd image in question will constitute the 4 reliable witnesses and the slut's goose is as good as cooked. This will send a very strong message to other sluts so inclined to do the same to refrain from doing so.

Pornographic images of people sent to you willingly by people you know should become your property after you receive them, just as letters and messages sent to you become yours after you receive them.

Govt has rightly tightened law on revenge porn & today we've launched new helpline to support those who have been affected 0845 6000 459 #fb
— Jo Swinson (@joswinson) February 8, 2015

@joswinson Women who allow themselves to be filmed in pornographic poses should be prosecuted. That would stop solve the problem at source.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 8, 2015

@ntfem @joswinson er...no, just...no
— Nanny State Watch (@nannystatewatch) February 8, 2015

@nannystatewatch @joswinson Why not? Solve the problem AT SOURCE.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 8, 2015

@ntfem @joswinson because porn isn't illegal for one thing, and what you're doing there is blaming the victim
— Nanny State Watch (@nannystatewatch) February 8, 2015

@nannystatewatch @joswinson If women are not responsible for anything they do, then why the fuck do they have the vote?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 12, 2015

@nannystatewatch @joswinson The stupider we allow women 2b the stupider they will become n the more degenerate will be the next generation.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 12, 2015

How Claire Khaw would have dealt with the Roger Bird affair if she had been UKIP leader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30476383

The suspended UKIP general secretary Roger Bird was noticed to have been pushing candidate Natasha Bolter for every winnable seat including, you guessed it, South Basildon and East Thurrock.

http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/ukip-roger-bird-general-secretary-natasha-bolter-cleared-improper-sexual-behaviour/4693

"While the NEC is satisfied that Roger Bird is not guilty of sexual harassment, it cannot be denied that he was guilty of a grave error of judgement in allowing his brain to fall out of his head and letting his sex organ take over his better judgement, and that is why he is being asked to leave his post.


Contrary to what Michael Crick said, Lisa Duffy will not be replacing Roger Bird. Women wield a disproportionate amount of power in UKIP and it is now time that this problem be addressed by not appointing a woman to any important post unless she is truly suited for the job.  


UKIP is not to be the party of window dressing and tokenism but hopes to be the party of genuine political talent of genuine principle known for behaving honourably towards party members and to the voting public.  

Vulnerable men in public life who can't say no to no-strings sex with sluts must be protected from neurotic and malicious sluts and UKIP will propose whatever that is necessary to protect vulnerable men in public life from neurotic and malicious reputation-damaging sluts by adopting the policy of slut-shaming.  

UKIP proposes the following slut-shaming measures:

1. lashing Slut Single Mothers 100 times per illegitimate offspring
2. lashing any man convicted of impregnating any Slut Single Mother 100 times per illegitimate offspring
3. repealing the Equality Act 2010 in its entirety
4. abolishing no fault divorce  

All the great institutions of state have now been colonised and conquered by feminazis and it is now time to tell that they are not wanted and that their time would be better spent making their husbands think that marrying them was not the greatest mistake they made in their lives and seeing to it that their children are a credit to them.  

If these feminazis are now too old, ugly and bitter for marriage they could start working in brothels that UKIP propose to legalise. Not all women working in brothels need necessarily be prostitutes since cleaners, beauticians, security guards, book-keepers, childminders of prostitute mothers, interior designers and other work related to brothel-keeping will be needed for this line of business. 

It is UKIP's patriotic intention to make Britain the Bangkok of the West and to see to it that the services of British prostitutes will be internationally renowned for their excellence and value for money."

http://www.channel4.com/news/roger-bird-ukip-natasha-bolter-general-secretary-video

To be fair to UKIP, I think even Roger Bird himself would be the first to admit that he made an error of judgement to go out of his way to prefer that malicious ex-Labour flake. For that he should have been punished in some way, but UKIP have decided to say that his behaviour did not compromise its candidate selection procedure when it undeniably did.

UKIP could easily have said:

"We find you not guilty of sexual harassment but guilty of compromising our strict candidate selection procedures whose rules you went out of your way to relax in favour of the sexual favours of the woman who betrayed you publicly and for whom you so foolishly harboured amorous intentions. In short, we find that you have made an egregious error of judgement and what happens to you now should be a warning to other men."

So perhaps in reputational terms he got off lightly.

One hopes that he has learned his lesson, and it is a lesson that any man should learn well to avoid being compromised by accepting sex by an apparently stupid woman lower in position and wealth.

Politics is like wading through poo in the dark not knowing how wide or how deep the river is. UKIP is not exactly stuffed with political talent and Roger who is more than presentable and is not to be compared with the likes of Kerry Smith.

UKIP should protect and nurture what little talent it has, not hang them out to try the moment the howling mob starts howling a little louder. The mob will only respect you if you defy it.

I like to think it is possible that Roger could still stand as a UKIP  PPC in May 2015 even though he has been made to fall on his sword on this matter when he allowed his judgement to be swayed by lust for a stupid, neurotic and malicious woman whom he is magnanimous and well brought-up enough to say a prayer for.

At any rate, no one can now accuse Roger of being racist!

Statements of feminist ideology: are they incoherent crap even their writers cannot explain or justify?

“Sex-positive” feminism is doing the patriarchy’s work for it
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it
I really have no idea what "Glosswitch" is saying. What does she actually want women to do? Carry on screwing around being fornicating sluts but more thoughtfully?  If you asked her would she explain? Can she? http://glosswatch.com/contact/ Her Twitter account seems to have gone. Is that a sign of a nervous breakdown?

Janet Radcliffe Richards: Is this woman more dangerous than Jihadettes who join ISIS with her dangerous dysgenic proposals? (Or is Dame Jenni Murray of BBC Woman's Hour even more dangerous cos she squats on the airwaves like a big fat spider on her web?) You can tell Richards must have been a looker when she was young. Was that how she got to where she has?

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012
What are the appropriate aims of feminism?

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_1

"Patriarchal systems that regulate women’s sexuality, then, emerge because men want to correct the imbalance – ensure that a given child is theirs by imposing harsh punishments on women who sleep with anyone but their husband.  But the non-arbitrariness principle can show us how those systems, despite the initial power imbalance that favoured women, are unjustified.  In the first place, the punitive system arbitrarily assumes it is morally problematic for women to have children without being under the auspices of men.  And, moreover, it enforces the norm of monogamy by arbitrarily punishing women much more than men; chastity norms and laws would be significantly less objectionable if men were sanctioned as much as women."

If human sexuality is not regulated, your society will turn into Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. The demand for slut sex will always exist, so it would be practical to limit the supply of it, through slut-shaming. Also, men don't get pregnant so even if you punished men and women equally for the same offence of having had extramarital sex, for all sorts of inevitable biological reasons, men will find it easier to avoid the consequences while women, for all sorts of inevitable biological reasons, are the ones always left holding the baby. If you cannot legislate against the existence of the demand for no-strings sex, you can take steps to discourage the suppliers and facilitators of slut sex, through the policy of slut-shaming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

Also, if you shame the slut and condemn her to a life worse than death for getting knocked up and keeping the baby, you stop other women from following in her slutty footsteps. What I propose is lashing SSMs 100 times per bastard. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

If you punish men trapped into a kind of forced marriage by chasing them through the Child Support Agency, you are in fact validating the slut's lifestyle choice to have a baby as a single parent, and she will continue to make irrational and irresponsible reproductive choices at the expense of the taxpayer and continue to produce her variously-fathered feral bastards who grow up to be NEETs and sluts, like mother like daughter, and the number of social parasites will grow until they overwhelm the productive sections of society until they themselves will eventually be reduced to feeding on each other like cannibals ...

Punishing the slut is dealing with the problem at source, and this is in harmony with the principle of prevention being better than cure.

Pretending that a man who sired a bastard with a slut wanted to marry her rather than just pump and dump her is a legal fiction, and desecrates the institution of marriage. Of course, women like Richards would trample all over marriage with their stiletto heels if it ever got in their way, though, interestingly, she is still married to the philosopher Derek Parfit.

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_2

"Radcliffe Richards argues that Fitz-James Stephen’s position (that women are obviously mentally and physically inferior to men in a manner which should preclude them from various political, legal economic tasks) was based an understanding of the world as a harmonious whole with a pre-existing moral order, a view which draws on both Judaic and Aristotelian traditions."

Are women in general also MORALLY inferior? If they are not, how can the difference between 83% of female MPs voting for gay marriage compared to only 48% of male MPs voting for gay marriage be explained?  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/lectures/2012_3

"The potential finding that there are systematic differences between groups of people (like men vs. women) does not necessarily mean that we must not give them equal rights and opportunities."

I wonder if this woman would agree with that the following are indeed feminist principles.

The principles of feminism:

1. Men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant.
2. Because men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant, it is OK for men to have extramarital sex.
3. Women must be treated the same as men.
4. Women must be treated the same as men even if they are the ones who get pregnant after having extramarital sex.

Feminism is antithetical to libertarianism because its survival depends on totalitarian thought-crime legislation, ie The Equality Act 2010.  

This is of course what that moral coward Nigel Farage has already said he dare not touch. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people

He is now focusing on political gimmickry instead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27973093

Why no male politician in Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland will fight feminism

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/feminazi-labour-mp-jane-basham-has.html

Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of Oxford.
Nice looking bloke. I bet he is a real hit with the feminist philosophers of Oxford who run the intellectual void that is academic philosophy. 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/may/03/highereducation.medicalscience

"Julian Savulescu is a philosopher with the courage and unique expertise required to face up to them. His high international standing, and the generosity of the Uehiro Foundation, will make Oxford a world centre for the advancement of applied ethics."

The Uehiro chair of applied ethics is a new post funded by the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education (UFEE), a Japanese charitable fund that encourages research and public discussion about ethics and education and the inter-relationship between them.

I wonder if the Japanese are aware of how pernicious dysgenic and toxic feminism is in the West and whether they want to fund its propagation. Perhaps they should be told in no uncertain terms what Janet Radcliffe Richards is up to. Surely they don't want Japan, which already has enough problems of its own, to be become like Pussywhipped Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115512850561
Why is homosexuality immoral? It is exactly the same as heterosexuality as the two are based on love. Besides, you do not need hereto intercourse to have children, you can use IVF, AI or surrogacy. Get real, your homophobic bigot!

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513421185
Why would you ban surrogacy and IVF? Any technological advance that can make infertile people have children is eugenic. If technology means that gay couples can conceive in the future, we must support gay marriage too.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513560449
Why can't gays and lesbians have children? You do not need to have sex with the opposite gender to breed thanks to AI, IVF or surrogacy.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115513785473
As a bioethicist, I do indeed know the meaning of 'eugenic'. The idea that those who cannot naturally conceive but can through biomedical intervention would have genetically inferior offspring is arrant nonsense. These tech advances exist for precisely the opposite purpose.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115515624321
What proof is there that children born via AI, IVF and surrogacy to gays and lesbians do badly in life?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516222081
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516330113
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516316545
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516355969
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516365953
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516490881
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516430465

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516046977
"There is no way you can prove that the offspring of these LGBT parents are equal or better than the offspring of married couples." - Untrue. There are plenty of examples of research into this very subject.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516004481
"What proof is there that they don't do badly with their weird genetic mix and their weird family life?" - They don't have a weird genetic mix. There are plenty of sociological and psychological studies confirming that LGBTs' children do as well as otherwise.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115516084865
"that is why the whole process is dysgenic and a total waste of time, energy and money." - Untrue. Anything that can transcend natural, genetic boundaries with good result, e.g. pregnancy for the infertile, is by definition eugenic.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-are-gay-parents-better-than-straight-parents-67636/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/06/gay-marriage

Feminazi Labour MP Jane Basham has reported my tweet

@Jane_Basham @KarenBUoM Slut-shaming and the abolition of the welfare state would be the cheapest, quickest and most effective answer.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) June 24, 2014

@Jane_Basham Entirely predictable that a feminist and leftist would seek to censor free speech and rational discussion of important issues.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) June 24, 2014

@Jane_Basham It is very interesting that a Labour MP should report me to Twitter for proposing political change. @Ed_Miliband @HackneyAbbott
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) June 24, 2014

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-feminism-dangerous-to-free-speech/221315967999943?fref=ts

Ed Miliband pussywhipped by Luciana Berger and forced to apologise
http://www.lucianaberger.com/2014/06/ed-milibands-statement-on-the-sun/

Feminazis in Labour destroyed Lord Glasman's career
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/07/blue-labour-maurice-glasman

Let's face it, most men used to respect marriage ONLY BECAUSE it was the only respectable means of getting sex and having children.

Now that almost no one thinks it is necessary to marry before you have sex or children, marriage appears to have become redundant.

The more redundant marriage appears to be, the less likely it is to be respected, and more people will see it as stupid to respect it.

If most women are sluts and most mothers SSMs, then most children are bastards, and most men MCSFs or SPOSSMs.

SSM = Slut Single Mother https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

MCSF =  Morally-Compromised Slut-Fucker

SPOSSM = Sex Partner of Slut Single Mother

MOBFOB = Mother of Bastard still living with Father of Bastard

FOBMOB = Father of Bastard still living with Mother of Bastard

You can imagine the morals and government of people who are mostly SSMs, MCSFs, SPOSSMs, MOBFOBs and FOBMOBs, can't you?

Since most people in Britain are as I described, it is not surprising that no political party in the land will support marriage.

What happens if we do not support marriage? It means the loss of parental and masculine authority, and fornicating sluts taking over, establishing their pornocratic matriarchy and turning your civilisation into SHIT.

What does it mean for men in the long term?
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-role-of-the-drone-bee-in-a-hive.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326168/Secret-footage-shows-millions-British-chicks-killed-year.html

Our government will just turn into the government of Jamaica where the percentage of SSMs was already 85% in 2007.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html

The majority of Jamaicans clearly have no interest in the 'traditional' western married nuclear family lifestyle. Otherwise we would not have 85 per cent of babies born out of wedlock. 

So the West and its people and government are heading towards Jamaica, but will not enjoy its fine weather.

If male politicians fear to do the right thing because they already know most of their voters will punish them for it, and they are paralysed by the political imperative of only winning the next election, is there a fatal flaw in democracy that cannot be solved without correcting the grave and tragic error of indiscriminate universal suffrage?

Is the fatal flaw of democracy a government for sluts and bastards for sluts and bastards? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

Do people deserve the government they get?

Do politicians simply pander to the vices of their voters, fearing to give moral leadership because they know they will only be punished for it?

Are their manifestos nothing more than a list of bribes and promises they cannot keep?

Do politicians really know what is in the long term national interest it, or ever promote it?

Do feminists ever think of the national interest, or is it an alien concept for them?

Is feminism only about privileging women because they are women and nothing else?

Does feminism encourage women to be sluts and bribe men with cheap slut sex?

Are British men all the way up to the Prime Minister lower than sluts because they are terrified of offending them?

Are male politicians terrified of offending sluts because they are half their voters? (If most British women are sluts then most female voters are sluts.)

Do female MPs vote differently from male MPs?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

Should only taxpayers have the vote?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

Should bachelors be treated as second class citizens?
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html

How chasing the female vote increased our taxes and the size of the state while reducing our liberties
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html

Why not have a one-party state if it makes more sense?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677?fref=ts

Frank Field: "As debt levels soar, a national government [AKA one-party state] may be the only way we can pull through"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/thousands-of-mothers-have-multiple.html 

Helping Kenan Malik in his Quest for a Moral Compass

Moral Compass

@kenanmalik I'm reading the book right now & loving it :-)
— Joanne Payton (@GalloiseBlonde) May 19, 2014

@ntfem @kenanmalik Nope
— Joanne Payton (@GalloiseBlonde) May 19, 2014

@ntfem @kenanmalik Not one that uses language like 'To tolerate sluts means to tolerate bastards'
— Joanne Payton (@GalloiseBlonde) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik Not one to use logic then or to call a spade a spade rather than calling a shovel a spatula?
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik Sexual morality has a bearing on general standards of morality, does it not? Sluts, bastards and crime linked.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik The society that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland tolerates sluts and bastards and has no moral compass.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde I am just pointing out to @kenanmalik that he won't find his moral compass until men are prepared to shame sluts.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik If all British men are afraid to criticise sluts then it means all British men are lower than sluts.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik The alpha male of Britain is David Cameron and he is afraid to criticise sluts and their final result: SSMs.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik The SSM is explained at https://t.co/agqHjsU05V
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik The reason why the alpha male of Britain refuses to criticise SSMs is because they all have the vote.
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik To find our moral compass narrow the franchise to taxpayers only. @IanCowie http://t.co/r89x1ZTML4
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde r u sure your moral compass is working properly? Most women are feminists and feminists have no moral compass. @kenanmalik
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik How do British men feel about being lower than the omega female - the SSM? https://t.co/agqHjsU05V
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

@GalloiseBlonde @kenanmalik Secular Koranism lashes all known SSMs 100 times. https://t.co/CxV83Xw8jZ
— Claire Khaw Ra (@ntfem) May 19, 2014

http://centreformedicalhumanities.org/reviewer-needed-the-quest-for-a-moral-compass-by-kenan-malik/

If you are keen to review ‘The Quest for a Moral Compass’ (approximately 1,000-1,500 words maximum in length),  then please email our reviews editor with a short explanation of why you are well placed to review the book.

Sent: 19 May 2014 16:56

I refer to the invitation to apply to review Malik's book at http://centreformedicalhumanities.org/reviewer-needed-the-quest-for-a-moral-compass-by-kenan-malik/ giving a short explanation of why I am well-placed to review the book.

I have already been described in The Guardian as an "activist philosopher" at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/29/hugh-muir-diary-waterboarding-bbc and a "political commentator" by Peter Levy on his show.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/claire-khaw-on-peter-levy-show.html

I am also a political blogger and the creator of Secular Koranism.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

I already know he is a lefty who cares about where we are heading but feels he has to be careful to say things that will not jeopardise his status as a lefty while probably trying to hint at "right-wing" things such as the necessity for a general belief in God to impose a degree of morality on a degenerate populace.  

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/helping-kenan-malik-in-his-quest-for.html

Will this do?

Regards

Claire Khaw

Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014, 23:51

Subject: RE: Reviewing Kenan Malik's Moral Compass

Dear Claire,

Many thanks for your expression of interest in reviewing for the Centre for Medical Humanities at Durham University.

Unfortunately Malik's book was snapped up soon after the call for review went out. 

Best wishes,

Ben Kasstan