Wow, that's a lot to unpack in one tweet.— FSSoF Sin ✊🏽 (@quollhorreur) June 24, 2017
Hands up if you're a fornicating slut soldier of feminism, tho? pic.twitter.com/gC1a4AbSn5
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Showing posts with label sluts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sluts. Show all posts
Friday, 30 June 2017
Sluts are the Soldiers of Feminism
Wednesday, 3 May 2017
Women want sexual liberation when young, husbands when they want babies, and sluts shamed when they have husbands.
“If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all,” wrote Schlafly. “The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.”
http://news.trust.org/item/20140501035055-l7yzt/
Men want their women to be sweet-natured and loyal all through their lives.
Men's requirements are at least consistent and sustainable.
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
The neoconservative and neoliberal model of perpetuating the New World Order
1) Invite immigration, especially Muslim immigration.
2) Create hatred and resentment against Muslims by giving Muslims privileges unavailable to non-Muslims and non-Jews as well as unemployment at home so the indigenous and uneducated plebs become so stupid and desperate they join the armed forces to fight and kill Muslims in neocon wars abroad.
3) Keep them stupid by tolerating sluts and bastards and denying them free and decent selective education.
4) Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until your civilisation collapses.
2) Create hatred and resentment against Muslims by giving Muslims privileges unavailable to non-Muslims and non-Jews as well as unemployment at home so the indigenous and uneducated plebs become so stupid and desperate they join the armed forces to fight and kill Muslims in neocon wars abroad.
3) Keep them stupid by tolerating sluts and bastards and denying them free and decent selective education.
4) Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until your civilisation collapses.
Saturday, 17 December 2016
Kant's principle of universalisability applied to fornicating sluts [Fornicating sluts are a pleonasm, like tuna fish.]
A slut is a woman who makes a bad bargain with regard to giving sex for whatever she wanted to get in exchange.
What do women give sex to get in exchange? If they strike a good bargain, they get status, wealth, legitimate children that are a credit to them and a husband they love.
What are examples of a bad deal a woman can make in exchange for sex? Being murdered, having deformed offspring with a learning disability, catching an incurable and very nasty sexually transmitted disease come to mind.
Sluts are worse than non-human animals because non-human females choose the father of their offspring more carefully than sluts.
If non-human females choose the father of their offspring more carefully than sluts, then sluts are obviously the agents of degeneracy.
Sluts are not even ashamed that their reproductive choices are poorer than those of non-human females who choose more carefully their mate. This is because sluts are degenerate and degenerates are shameless.
If sluts are allowed to practise their sluttery unchecked humans would degenerate till they regress into the culture and practices of humans that existed before marriage was invented.
If all women fucked any male no matter how criminal/deformed/mentally ill/diseased, just for fun, and were too stupid and incompetent to practise effective contraception, which sluts often are, what do you think would happen to the next generation?
So now you know why feminism is evil: because it regards recreational fornication as an inalienable human right, and expects everyone else, including your descendants, to pick up the bill.
What do women give sex to get in exchange? If they strike a good bargain, they get status, wealth, legitimate children that are a credit to them and a husband they love.
What are examples of a bad deal a woman can make in exchange for sex? Being murdered, having deformed offspring with a learning disability, catching an incurable and very nasty sexually transmitted disease come to mind.
Sluts are worse than non-human animals because non-human females choose the father of their offspring more carefully than sluts.
If non-human females choose the father of their offspring more carefully than sluts, then sluts are obviously the agents of degeneracy.
Sluts are not even ashamed that their reproductive choices are poorer than those of non-human females who choose more carefully their mate. This is because sluts are degenerate and degenerates are shameless.
If sluts are allowed to practise their sluttery unchecked humans would degenerate till they regress into the culture and practices of humans that existed before marriage was invented.
If all women fucked any male no matter how criminal/deformed/mentally ill/diseased, just for fun, and were too stupid and incompetent to practise effective contraception, which sluts often are, what do you think would happen to the next generation?
So now you know why feminism is evil: because it regards recreational fornication as an inalienable human right, and expects everyone else, including your descendants, to pick up the bill.
Thursday, 15 December 2016
They psychology of social workers
What is what one thing you would say about women with a degree in psychology?
Why do so many women do psychology? It is like someone whose first language is French doing a GCSE in French - a doddle and an extra GCSE.
Psychology is therefore an easy degree together with the social sciences which are especially favoured by women who want to feel safe doing the subjects they think suits their interests and inclinations.
What do female graduates of psychology do after they graduate? They become a social worker with a degree in a related field.
What do social workers who are predominantly female do? They support the creation of social problems they know is their bread and butter.
What are the social problems social workers support? The criminal consequences of immoral women being bad parents to their illegitimate offspring supplies them with endless work.
The great thing about this work which immoral women create which the female worker will never criticise is that it makes men look bad. Men when angry become aggressive, violent and criminal easily making them seem to be the problem.
The women who were the original cause of this anger by opening their legs to some man who pumped and dumped them, and who are undeniably fornicating sluts who brought their illegitimate misbegotten sons into being do not get blamed, even if they were such bad mothers they abandoned their children into care homes and their abandoned children became the victims of child sex predators. Instead, they get sympathy and understanding from the social worker.
When Enoch Powell talked about this country piling up its own funeral pyre in relation to immigration, this was not the worst of it. Indeed, the funeral pyre is being heaped higher and more quickly now with more female undergraduates taking over university life and demanding that male undergraduates comply with their whims. Their latest thing is the use of gender neutral pronouns to encourage more men into transgenderism with the purpose of destroying their masculinity at university, if it has not already been destroyed at school or infancy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/bbc-childrens-director-says-she-is-proud-of-transgender-programm/
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/oxford-university-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-peter-tatchell-student-union-ze-xe-a7470196.html
If daughters of these immoral women become violent, aggressive and themselves immoral, they are already armed with the excuses that are always given to women.
The female social worker either consciously knows this, or is at least subconsciously aware of the operation of cause and effect which she will of course never admit to herself, let alone out loud to another human being.
So, while she complains about the state of the nation, about immigrants, especially Muslims, she will never ever consider the real cause of social problems: immoral women who are fornicating sluts with variously fathered illegitimate offspring, or say anything that might suggest she is criticising these immoral women.
Why, she is probably one herself.
Why do so many women do psychology? It is like someone whose first language is French doing a GCSE in French - a doddle and an extra GCSE.
Psychology is therefore an easy degree together with the social sciences which are especially favoured by women who want to feel safe doing the subjects they think suits their interests and inclinations.
What do female graduates of psychology do after they graduate? They become a social worker with a degree in a related field.
What do social workers who are predominantly female do? They support the creation of social problems they know is their bread and butter.
What are the social problems social workers support? The criminal consequences of immoral women being bad parents to their illegitimate offspring supplies them with endless work.
The great thing about this work which immoral women create which the female worker will never criticise is that it makes men look bad. Men when angry become aggressive, violent and criminal easily making them seem to be the problem.
The women who were the original cause of this anger by opening their legs to some man who pumped and dumped them, and who are undeniably fornicating sluts who brought their illegitimate misbegotten sons into being do not get blamed, even if they were such bad mothers they abandoned their children into care homes and their abandoned children became the victims of child sex predators. Instead, they get sympathy and understanding from the social worker.
When Enoch Powell talked about this country piling up its own funeral pyre in relation to immigration, this was not the worst of it. Indeed, the funeral pyre is being heaped higher and more quickly now with more female undergraduates taking over university life and demanding that male undergraduates comply with their whims. Their latest thing is the use of gender neutral pronouns to encourage more men into transgenderism with the purpose of destroying their masculinity at university, if it has not already been destroyed at school or infancy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/01/bbc-childrens-director-says-she-is-proud-of-transgender-programm/
 |
| Cambridge University Student Union Officers |
 |
| Plymouth University Student Union Officers - how many of these female student union officers are doing psychology? |
 |
| Oxford University Student Union Officers |
If daughters of these immoral women become violent, aggressive and themselves immoral, they are already armed with the excuses that are always given to women.
The female social worker either consciously knows this, or is at least subconsciously aware of the operation of cause and effect which she will of course never admit to herself, let alone out loud to another human being.
So, while she complains about the state of the nation, about immigrants, especially Muslims, she will never ever consider the real cause of social problems: immoral women who are fornicating sluts with variously fathered illegitimate offspring, or say anything that might suggest she is criticising these immoral women.
Why, she is probably one herself.
Friday, 23 September 2016
The true status of men in the West
In a welfare state of voting sluts, male taxpayers are the slaves of sluts.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 22, 2016
Female Volunteers At Calais Jungle 'Having Sex With Multiple Refugees A Day'. https://t.co/ficpftIfaX— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 23, 2016
Calais aid workers are regularly having SEX with Jungle migrants https://t.co/pMRktGLpvh via @MailOnline— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 23, 2016
Feminism causes immigration and turns women into sluts.
How long are British men going to put up with this disgusting treachery from their immoral women? Have they no sense of shame? Don't they even care what other nations think of them?
If I am taken away by the agents of the Big Sister State for my heresy against their sacred religion of feminism and their sacrament of sluttery, I expect British men to defend me, because no one else has gone out his way to say what I have said and done what I have done to warn them of their folly of worshiping sluts. I am not even a white or male, but just want to live in a country where the men are not afraid of immoral women whose morals are lower than that of even a common prostitute. Is that really too much to ask?
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
Why some female teachers have sex with schoolboys
http://theothermccain.com/2016/09/13/teacher-had-sex-with-12-year-old-boy/
http://news3lv.com/news/local/former-teachernicole-willfinger-charged-with-sex-with-student-to-face-stricter-penalties
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/female-teacher-admits-having-sex-8383454
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549878/Female-teacher-27-sex-16-year-old-boy-faces-jail-admitting-six-month-relationship-child.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10578951/Female-history-teacher-who-shared-bed-with-two-schoolboys-banned-from-classroom-for-sexual-misconduct.html
Not only are men lower than sluts, sluts are now corrupting the morals of boys.
The best way of corrupting boys is to give them sex before they even ask for it, so they will always yearn to be taken by a woman the way a woman is taken by a man.
Men now yearn to be dominated by women, to be disciplined and punished. It turns them on.
The more power men give to women, the more they will take, and to be weak is to invite exploitation.
It is clearly the intention of these immoral female teachers to corrupt the morals of adolescent schoolboys in their charge in order to destroy their masculinity as adult men. You won't have much masculinity to display if all the while you are seeking a woman who is older than you who will dominate you and boss you around. Give such a man who has been got at by an older woman a submissive woman, and he won't know what to do with her.
Men who are submissive to women and addicted to sex with sluts are easy to control. Such men would never be able to recognise a principle, much less stand up and fight for it. Such men would be spiritually incapable of standing up for the patriarchy and incapable of even desiring a patriarchy because patriarchy supports marriage and this by definition means it would forbid and punish extramarital sex, which is the very thing they are constantly craving for.
Sex addicted men are not interested in marrying and having progeny, but in merely continuing to enjoy sex with women they are not married to. Most men in the West are MCSFs - Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage.
Such men would be spiritually incapable of protecting their women from invaders. Men with no wives and offspring are not going to risk anything to protect sluts or random women from invaders. They can't even get it together to challenge the status quo - feminism- after all.
Talking to Western men about this is like talking to drug-addicted and intoxicated men who are incapable of focusing on the matter at hand, much less being persuaded by the case I have put to them for supporting marriage.
All they will be capable of doing is denying that things are as bad as they say they are and then changing the subject to something they would much rather talk and think about, probably the next fix of extramarital sex they hope to get.
I guess we women in the West will be taken as slaves and sex slaves by invaders because our men are too weak, gay and old to defend us.
The invaders will be predictably Muslim, and Western women will have no choice.
Perhaps surrender will be sweet, precisely because it is inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_a_Scandal_(film)
http://news3lv.com/news/local/former-teachernicole-willfinger-charged-with-sex-with-student-to-face-stricter-penalties
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/female-teacher-admits-having-sex-8383454
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549878/Female-teacher-27-sex-16-year-old-boy-faces-jail-admitting-six-month-relationship-child.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10578951/Female-history-teacher-who-shared-bed-with-two-schoolboys-banned-from-classroom-for-sexual-misconduct.html
Not only are men lower than sluts, sluts are now corrupting the morals of boys.
The best way of corrupting boys is to give them sex before they even ask for it, so they will always yearn to be taken by a woman the way a woman is taken by a man.
Men now yearn to be dominated by women, to be disciplined and punished. It turns them on.
The more power men give to women, the more they will take, and to be weak is to invite exploitation.
It is clearly the intention of these immoral female teachers to corrupt the morals of adolescent schoolboys in their charge in order to destroy their masculinity as adult men. You won't have much masculinity to display if all the while you are seeking a woman who is older than you who will dominate you and boss you around. Give such a man who has been got at by an older woman a submissive woman, and he won't know what to do with her.
Men who are submissive to women and addicted to sex with sluts are easy to control. Such men would never be able to recognise a principle, much less stand up and fight for it. Such men would be spiritually incapable of standing up for the patriarchy and incapable of even desiring a patriarchy because patriarchy supports marriage and this by definition means it would forbid and punish extramarital sex, which is the very thing they are constantly craving for.
Sex addicted men are not interested in marrying and having progeny, but in merely continuing to enjoy sex with women they are not married to. Most men in the West are MCSFs - Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage.
Such men would be spiritually incapable of protecting their women from invaders. Men with no wives and offspring are not going to risk anything to protect sluts or random women from invaders. They can't even get it together to challenge the status quo - feminism- after all.
Talking to Western men about this is like talking to drug-addicted and intoxicated men who are incapable of focusing on the matter at hand, much less being persuaded by the case I have put to them for supporting marriage.
All they will be capable of doing is denying that things are as bad as they say they are and then changing the subject to something they would much rather talk and think about, probably the next fix of extramarital sex they hope to get.
I guess we women in the West will be taken as slaves and sex slaves by invaders because our men are too weak, gay and old to defend us.
The invaders will be predictably Muslim, and Western women will have no choice.
Perhaps surrender will be sweet, precisely because it is inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_on_a_Scandal_(film)
Saturday, 16 April 2016
A message to Monica Lewinsky: not all women are sluts like you
Monica Lewinsky:
"Women are not immune to misogyny.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/16/monica-lewinsky-shame-sticks-like-tar-jon-ronson?CMP=share_btn_fb
Shaming sluts is now called misogyny, but how can it be misogynistic for a chaste woman to criticise sluts?
The nature and purpose of slut-shaming is explained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
It would only be so if all women were sluts. The feminist presumption seems to be that all women are sluts, when it is in fact perfectly possible to be a woman and not a slut.
The false conflation of women and sluts serves a feminist purpose, of course, which to protect sluts from criticism, allowing them to hide behind a screen of general womanhood. This conflation is also also apparently and partially true, because most Western women are indeed sluts.
Lewinsky is of course America's most infamous slut, and Americans both men and women are very angry and ashamed of her. Respectable men who have a reputation to lose dare not be in the same room alone with her, and her name is enough to make any Presidential candidate leave the room.
Men know that women like her are everywhere, lurking behind every corner ready to make a man an offer he cannot refuse, like this slut who then wreaked vengeance on this taxi driver when he did indeed refuse.
Men of average firmness of mind already know that they would be suckers for an attractive woman offering to suck their cocks. They just would not be able to refuse, and they know it. Even thinking of it now results in an unwelcome tumescence, doesn't it, guys? The idea of having your cock sucked by an attractive woman against your will is somehow irresistibly arousing and must be the male equivalent of the female rape fantasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_fantasy
If women are the weaker sex, then Western men are the even weaker sex, in thrall to the cock-sucking slut round every corner whom they both welcome and dread in equal measure.
Basically, sluts get men into trouble. Lots of sluts get lots of men into trouble and then their civilisation is in trouble.
Would a virgin suck off a man she didn't even have vaginal intercourse with?
Would a virgin suck off a man not her husband and then boast about it to a colleague?
Lewinsky was a SLUT.
Or does anyone think Lewinsky a virgin when she sucked off the President?
In 1992, she allegedly began a five-year affair with Andy Bleiler, her married former high school drama instructor.
quran.com/24/2 would solve men's problems with sluts and allow them to gain a semblance of masculinity. Did I hear someone yell "Over our dead bodies?"
Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar’ https://t.co/7FGsiKzzFt A cautionary tale to sluts: DON'T SUCK THE PRESIDENT'S COCK.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar’ https://t.co/7FGsiKzzFt Unless you are the First Lady, DON'T SUCK THE PRESIDENT'S COCK.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar’ https://t.co/7FGsiKzzFt Are there any nunneries for her to join? She could still do porn— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
Apart from becoming a porn actress, what else could Mon… — She could convert to Islam as a sign of remorse for her… https://t.co/VsN20ySdZK— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
Apart from becoming a nun, porn actress and converting … — You are testing my ingenuity. Perhaps she could find a … https://t.co/jbahGTdTf8— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
I have heard that American women sell kisses at fairs. Perhaps Monica Lewinsky could auction blo… — Excellent idea! https://t.co/jO6EIbKp41— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 16, 2016
Friday, 18 March 2016
Laura Perrins should better interviewed me instead of the confused Peter Hitchens who has no solutions
(UK) Peter Hitchens: Interview w/ Laura Perrins of @TheConWomhttps://t.co/fm8ohKlnMt— OverTheMoonbat (@OverTheMoonbat) 9 March 2016
| #tcot #PJNET pic.twitter.com/oQVSw6jPGk
@OverTheMoonbat @TheConWom More whingeing from @ClarkeMicah, but no solutions. Why did @LPerrins bother with such a pointless interview?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom The only useful thing about the interview is the reminder that libertarians are imbeciles. @LPerrins @ClarkeMicah— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom Only a theocracy would bring about the minimal government that libertarians want. @ClarkeMicah @LPerrins— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom Minimal state doesn't mean law of the jungle, but the fewest laws consistent with human flourishing. @ClarkeMicah— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom The truth is paradoxical eg a theocracy is the best vehicle to a minimal state. @ClarkeMicah @LPerrins— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom https://t.co/2HKPKUbYSZ Secular Koranism is a species of divine/natural/sharia law. @ClarkeMicah @LPerrins— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom Only way to make people respect marriage: forbid/punish extramarital sex and shame sluts. @LPerrins @ClarkeMicah— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom The best way of shaming sluts: https://t.co/TtXp14fd4t @LPerrins @ClarkeMicah— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom Feminism turns women into sluts/children into bastards/ur civilisation to shit. @ClarkeMicah says he's feminist.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
@holly_hambleak @TheConWom After all that whingeing and despairing, at the end of the day @ClarkeMicah still says he's a feminist. #dementia— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
Peter Hitchens says he is a feminist though he wants to emigrate to get away from the consequences of feminism@holly_hambleak @TheConWom Not only does @ClarkeMicah say he's a feminist, he actually *refuses* to criticise feminism. Cowardice? @LPerrins— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) 17 March 2016
Friday, 11 March 2016
Guess which religious minority is keeping up standards in London?
In the UK, in 2014, 59.4% of births were extramarital in North East of England, 58.9% in Wales, 54.2% in North West England, 52.4% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 52% in East Midlands, 50.8% in Scotland, 50.4% in West Midlands, 48.5% in South West England, 45.5% in East of England, 43.2% in Northern Ireland, 42.9% in South East England, and 35.7% in London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
A way of shaming sluts: quran.com/24/2
Why the White Race is Declining in Numbers and Quality
Friday, 4 March 2016
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/
Saturday, 23 January 2016
Institutions cannot be banned, only regulated
@ntfem @BBCWomansHour No of course not, criminalising punters puts crime up. Logic— Dr Bel Brooks-Gordon (@BelindaBG) January 21, 2016
@BelindaBG I was talking about your proposal to criminalise the *listeners* of @BBCWomansHour!— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG If you criminalised the listeners of @BBCWomansHour, they would stop listening, and @whjm and @janegarvey1 would be out of a job.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG If the listeners of @BBCWomansHour were criminalised, then British feminism would be seen to have been challenged and defeated.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour If feminism in Britain were defeated other Western countries would follow suit and Western civilisation rise again— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Everything about feminism undermines the institution of marriage and the family and by extension our society.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Because feminism condones extramarital sex, it tolerates unmarried mothers and bastardy, which are causes of crime— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Julie Bindel doesnt want prostitution decriminalised cos she wants supply of sex 2b controlled by fornic8ing sluts— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Feminism keeps men quiescent by bribing them with slut sex, so they think they don't have to marry or hire whores.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour A patriarchy runs on traditional marriage the way cars run on petrol, forbidding and punishing extramarital sex.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Patriarchies are advanced civilisations and matriarchies declining and primitive societies.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour There should be certain things no govt can criminalise, perhaps. Imagine if a govt criminalised good deeds.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Don't you think the Koran is to be saying that prostitution and slavery are institutions like marriage? 24:33— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
"Don't you think the Koran seems to be saying that prostitution and slavery are institutions like marriage? 24:33"
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour It would be logical to conclude that a practice that has become an institution must *never* criminalised.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour I would define an institution as a practice that is common to all human societies eg slavery, war, prostitution.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour No point criminalising war, for example, unless there exists a supra-national power capable of keeping peace.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour While the British may have thought that they abolished slavery, it has popped up again. https://t.co/PyhTNW0VEp— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour https://t.co/PyhTNW0VEp is authority for the proposition that there is no point abolishing slavery.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour The best thing to do about institutions is to regulate it ie make rules and punish those who break them.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Regulating a practice is the lesser evil than than pretending it doesn't exist at all.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Greater evil of banning an institution is it ultimately causes more suffering eg prostitutes murdered by punters.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Marriage is practised by most people in patriarchies. This means supply of sex controlled by married women.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Sluts/bastards are tolerated in matriarchies. This means supply of sex controlled by promiscuous fornicating sluts— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Patriarchies tend to tolerate prostitution but not sluts because prostitutes have the virtue of making punters pay— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Feminists like Julie Bindel are even more intolerant of prostitution than the Koran. Why?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour How feminism works: keeping men quiescent with slut sex. Men love the idea of not having to pay for sex at all.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Most men *love* the idea of being able to have sex without having to marry or hire a prostitute.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Nowadays schoolboys grow up with the expectation of having sex with a fornicatress.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour The idea men now have that it is their *right* to have sex with a fornicating slut is immensely corrupting.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour The rules of the patriarchy on how a man could obtain sex were far more honest and transparent: wife or whore.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Faced with how she could sell sex - as a wife or a whore - a rational woman would choose to be a wife.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour In a patriarchy, women who end up prostitutes would be sluts who made a bad transaction and became unmarriageable.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour An example of a bad transaction making a woman unmarriageable: getting pregnant without a marriage certificate.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour In a patriarchy most parents married/children legitimate. In a matriarchy most parents unmarried/children bastards— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Imagine a patriarchy engaging a matriarchy in warfare: who will win eventually? It seems obvious to me.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour You may know that Islam declared war on the West on 9/11. We are actually fighting WW3 *now* and losing.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour The West can only defeat Islam by giving up feminism and when it does Islam will already have won the argument.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour When Islamophobic Americans talk of giving up 1st Amendment to defeat Islam, they have already lost the argument.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
@BelindaBG @BBCWomansHour Sacred cows of the West: inalienable human right to have extramarital sex, usury, gambling, gay marriage.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 22, 2016
Julie Bindel and Belinda Brooks-Gordon discuss decriminalising prostitution and my Koranic solutionl@Brian_Whit @Zayed17 Sigh. @BelindaBG has now blocked me before even attempting to address any of the issues I raised.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 23, 2016
Friday, 11 September 2015
Women and Civilisation
Male politicians in Europe are now so emasculated they cannot now deal with national affairs without being in fear of being thought a nasty brute by stupid sentimental infantile female voters who don’t give a damn about the future of their civilisation.
Because very few women contribute to civilisation, they are not interested in anything that is not about them. This is why they applaud when invaders arrive in their cities as they did in Munich and collectively conspire to undermine the rules of traditional marriage with feminism, which they know is the oxygen of the patriarchy.
Treacherous women with bastard offspring, sluts and socialists say such things as “All children are legitimate, even if they are bastards.” By denying bastardy they of course deny marriage. They will only be happy when all children are bastards, all women sluts so that their bastard offspring will be adjudged the same in status as everyone else’s.
Islam at least acknowledges that extramarital sex deserves and requires corporal punishment in order to prevent a situation in which most of your women are sluts, most of your children bastards and most of your men MCSFs (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers) incapable of standing up for any principle, certainly not the one of speaking the truth as they see and understand it, much less defending European cities against invasion by migrant swarms.
BBC sends only pro-migrant female journalists to report on migrant swarms
Because very few women contribute to civilisation, they are not interested in anything that is not about them. This is why they applaud when invaders arrive in their cities as they did in Munich and collectively conspire to undermine the rules of traditional marriage with feminism, which they know is the oxygen of the patriarchy.
Treacherous women with bastard offspring, sluts and socialists say such things as “All children are legitimate, even if they are bastards.” By denying bastardy they of course deny marriage. They will only be happy when all children are bastards, all women sluts so that their bastard offspring will be adjudged the same in status as everyone else’s.
Islam at least acknowledges that extramarital sex deserves and requires corporal punishment in order to prevent a situation in which most of your women are sluts, most of your children bastards and most of your men MCSFs (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers) incapable of standing up for any principle, certainly not the one of speaking the truth as they see and understand it, much less defending European cities against invasion by migrant swarms.
Simpering BBC female journalists who coo and simper at migrant swarms: @annaholligan @ManveenRana @BethanyBellBB @wburema #migrantcrisis
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 14, 2015
BBC sends only pro-migrant female journalists to report on migrant swarms
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Claire Khaw's analysis of David Cameron's Extremism Speech
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-extremism-speech-read-the-transcript-in-full-10401948.html
Can anyone define what extremism is, without looking it up?
Can a government be extremist without knowing it?
Why is the government always assuming it can never be the one guilty of extremism? Surely that is in theory possible?
Is Cameron suggesting that "doing our country down" is a sign of extremism? And that Western government is perfect?
The only difference is Muslims who decide to stay in the West and keep their heads down, and those who choose to go to Syria and fight under the Caliphate or commit acts of terrorism in the West.
The Koran does state that Muslims have a duty to fight oppression and there is no doubt that Muslims will perceive that Muslims are being oppressed if Muslim countries are invaded and regime-change imposed on them by the West.
Any ideology that is diametrically opposed to yours would be logically "subversive".
Feminism is subversive to the patriarchy and marriage.
Muslims respect the institutions of marriage and the family, and have noticed that PC Liberalism is subversive to these institutions.
Muslim terrorists who object to Western foreign policy have worked out that Western foreign policy is the direct consequence of Western democracy and have therefore deduced that the only way to challenge Western foreign policy is to put the frighteners on the people who keep voting for the same shit parties who perpetuate the shit foreign policy they object to.
Was there a single BNP voter who was a victim of the 7/7 bombing? Statistically that would be unlikely. (The BNP were the only party in the land who offered an alternative non-Zionist foreign policy. Michael Adebalajo actually considered voting for them, and was said to have approached a BNP organiser running a paper sale in Woolwich and discussed UK foreign policy with him.) http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-end-problem-of-terrorism-without.html
As for Muslims killing Muslims, we already know Nazis kill other Nazis (Night of the Long Knives) and Commies also kill other Commies (Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin's secret police). Atrocities are often committed in war and revolution. The English had the English Civil War and the Americans their American Civil War.
Islamic State are doubtless purging their own ranks of whom they perceive as being subversives and traitors, as you would expect, really.
Democracy only lasted 180 years in Athens.
Freedom? Freedom to do WHAT? What is this sexual equality? Does he mean gay marriage?
Like ladies withdrawing after dinner? That would be sex segregation, I suppose, and having male and female toilets.
What sectarianism is he referring to?
PC Liberals and their protected groups are privileged by law over social conservatives, are they not?
Christians have no freedom of contract to refuse to bake sodomite cakes for LGBTs and no right to refuse to have them as guests in their B&Bs.
Cameron has never heard of the Israel Lobby or AIPAC, clearly.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/aipacs-lobbying-spending-spikes-as-group-pushes-hard-to-oppose-iran-deal/
The lobby has planned a multi-million dollar campaign against the president’s chief foreign policy achievement and seeks to peel off support from his own party.
Over 80% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are 'Conservative Friends of Israel', it has been said.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text
These views cannot be disproven, can they?
They cannot be disproven the way God's existence cannot be proven or disproven.
If you are Muslim and you care about other Muslims, you would be inclined to think that the NATO invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did not improve life for Muslims in these countries.
You may have noticed that the UK government has not given any convincing reasons to justify these invasions and may even have noticed that the Chilcot Enquiry's findings have had their publication delayed to protect the MPs who called for and voted for these invasions.
So there were 67 British victims in 9/11.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/10/september11.uk
The reasons for 9/11 have been given at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
They are still the operating reasons.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/balkans-report-blairs-liberal-intervention
Western interventionism does not exactly create for Westerners a fund of goodwill, does it?
Those inclined to go on jihad are unlikely to be persuaded by the elderly and the middle-aged telling them not to go.
The already know elderly risk-averse male relations reliant on the NHS would not wish to go on jihad, and their comfortable and complacent parents would not wish to go on jihad either.
As for the clerics who insist that all terrorism is by definition wrong, that is not what the Koran really says, does it?
Could Western foreign policy be described as "desisting"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3033069/Four-ten-British-Muslims-believe-MI5-police-partly-responsible-radicalisation-teenagers-join-Isis.html
If you were an Islamophobe, you would just love the idea of Muslims being targeted for being Muslim and expect them to like it or lump it or leave the country, wouldn't you?
Secretly or not so secretly, Islamophobes want Muslims all to be radicalised and become terrorists so they can just mow them down with their machine guns after they have locked them up in one big mosque and set fire to it if they try to escape ....
If you were Muslim, you would be quite likely to be radicalised once you are aware of the extent and depth of the Islamophobia against you.
I am sure even the terrorists knew they had forfeited their lives after they gunned down Charlie Hebdo.
I don't recall anyone saying that these gunmen should have been let off if they were caught alive or that gunning people down for whatever reason should not be allowed. The debate was whether Charlie Hebdo "had it coming".
What does he mean by allowing the extremists "to set the terms of the debate"?
If mainstream culture is perceived as dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco and paedo, then don't expect any sane person to want to integrate into it.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/uk-britain-motto-idUKL1256515520071112
"Instead of being a slut, SSM (Slut Single Mother) or a man afraid of sluts and SSMs, why not become a jihadi warrior?" is probably quite a seductive suggestion.
The West's strongest poison which it causes its own citizens to imbibe regularly is its own liberal values that produced the foreign policy complained of by Muslim terrorists - liberal interventionism or Western militarism, if you prefer.
Muslims living in the West inclined to become Muslim terrorists are also disgusted by the permissive sexual mores of the West, which has now plumbed new depths with gay marriage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/eastenders-funeral-parlour-gay-sex-scene-soap-defends-implied-and-not-explicit-moment-after-ofcom-complaints-10404758.html
Islam is about forbidding extramarital sex, liberal values is about having sex wherever, whenever with whomever. Those who regard sodomy as an abomination, as the Koran instructs them to, would regard gay marriage with as much disgust as a gourmet would experience if invited to eat shit.
So all the white British people who are descended from generations of white British people who disapproved of LGBTs were never British?
If we don't subscribe to the Cameronian view of Britishness then we are automatically no longer British?
What freedom is this? The freedom to fuck wherever, whenever with whomever? No thanks.
Must we all be glad to be gay? If not, will we be punished?
If we were all gay there wouldn't be much of a next generation to be British or be seen as degenerate Britons any more.
If people hate you enough they will willingly believe any lie about you, no matter how obviously ludicrous.
Muslims and Nazis are quite likely to denounce Israel, Jews, Zionists and Zionism, I imagine.
Islam is about social conservatism, degenerate PC Liberalism is about desecrating the institutions of marriage and the family.
Actually, the Far Right and Muslim radicals are agreed that democracy and Christianity is a dead duck. Interestingly, a Caliph is just a dictator who undertakes to govern using Koranic principles in a one-party theocracy.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
But if you are a brave jihadi warrior, they might reward you with sex slaves.
Jihadis are supposed to marry their sex slaves, I believe.
If it is perceived as HMG propaganda, it will be dismissed out of hand.
These Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds would refugees and their statements would be made under duress. The intelligent radical would know to dismiss whatever they say as government mouthpieces.
De-radicalisation programmes = brainwashing programmes
Will this mean preventing us from using deductive reasoning and coming to the natural and obvious conclusion with the available and undisputed facts?
How far have they gone already, and how much further does Cameron want them to go?
Sounds like Cameron wants internet companies to block certain websites from their customers. Which ones?
Sounds like the government proposes to interfere in the process of arbitration.
What would be the terms of these protection orders?
Will Muslims be expected to apologise for Muslim terrorism the moment an Islamophobe demands an apology from him?
This is going to be fun and so going to make Muslims stop wanting to blow us up!
It was only too predictable that the coppers were not going to take the complaints seriously.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/rochdale-ukip-liberal-left-race-sexual-abuse
Nobody cares about abandoned children who were carelessly conceived then carelessly abandoned by their unfit promiscuous irresponsible Slut Single Mothers (whom no MP will criticise) into care homes.
This decision is being appealed by the ex-Mayor of Tower Hamlet found guilty of a criminal offence by a clearly biased Election Court judge who thought he could find Lutfur Rahman guilty of a criminal offence without the involvement of the police charging and arresting him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32497980
http://www.theguardian.com/.../jan/22/immigration.terrorism
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/abu-qatada-cleared-terror-charges-jordan-court
All these parents wanted was keep their children's school environment Islamic ie without sex ed, which encourages British schoolgirls to be sluts.
Sounds like Cameron is proposing to ban them from Twitter and Facebook.
Which channels are these?
Fat bird to sort the Muslims out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33592323
Why not have a National Debating Society on Foreign and Domestic Policy with a large cash prize for secondary schoolchildren and adults with televised debates allowing viewers to vote by text on Saturday evenings instead of the usual crap?
Brighton Bomb - 1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing
Anglo-Irish Agreement - 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
Can anyone define what extremism is, without looking it up?
Can a government be extremist without knowing it?
Why is the government always assuming it can never be the one guilty of extremism? Surely that is in theory possible?
"So as we talk about the threat of extremism and the challenge of integration, we should not do our country down – we are, without a shadow of doubt, a beacon to the world."
Is Cameron suggesting that "doing our country down" is a sign of extremism? And that Western government is perfect?
"the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism – not Islam the religion"
The only difference is Muslims who decide to stay in the West and keep their heads down, and those who choose to go to Syria and fight under the Caliphate or commit acts of terrorism in the West.
The Koran does state that Muslims have a duty to fight oppression and there is no doubt that Muslims will perceive that Muslims are being oppressed if Muslim countries are invaded and regime-change imposed on them by the West.
"like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive."
Any ideology that is diametrically opposed to yours would be logically "subversive".
Feminism is subversive to the patriarchy and marriage.
Muslims respect the institutions of marriage and the family, and have noticed that PC Liberalism is subversive to these institutions.
"At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview."
Muslim terrorists who object to Western foreign policy have worked out that Western foreign policy is the direct consequence of Western democracy and have therefore deduced that the only way to challenge Western foreign policy is to put the frighteners on the people who keep voting for the same shit parties who perpetuate the shit foreign policy they object to.
Was there a single BNP voter who was a victim of the 7/7 bombing? Statistically that would be unlikely. (The BNP were the only party in the land who offered an alternative non-Zionist foreign policy. Michael Adebalajo actually considered voting for them, and was said to have approached a BNP organiser running a paper sale in Woolwich and discussed UK foreign policy with him.) http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-end-problem-of-terrorism-without.html
As for Muslims killing Muslims, we already know Nazis kill other Nazis (Night of the Long Knives) and Commies also kill other Commies (Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin's secret police). Atrocities are often committed in war and revolution. The English had the English Civil War and the Americans their American Civil War.
Islamic State are doubtless purging their own ranks of whom they perceive as being subversives and traitors, as you would expect, really.
"basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality."
Democracy only lasted 180 years in Athens.
Freedom? Freedom to do WHAT? What is this sexual equality? Does he mean gay marriage?
"Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation."
Like ladies withdrawing after dinner? That would be sex segregation, I suppose, and having male and female toilets.
What sectarianism is he referring to?
"Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others."
PC Liberals and their protected groups are privileged by law over social conservatives, are they not?
Christians have no freedom of contract to refuse to bake sodomite cakes for LGBTs and no right to refuse to have them as guests in their B&Bs.
"And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. "
Cameron has never heard of the Israel Lobby or AIPAC, clearly.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/aipacs-lobbying-spending-spikes-as-group-pushes-hard-to-oppose-iran-deal/
The lobby has planned a multi-million dollar campaign against the president’s chief foreign policy achievement and seeks to peel off support from his own party.
Over 80% of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are 'Conservative Friends of Israel', it has been said.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne-james-jones/pro-israel-lobby-in-britain-full-text
"In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash."
These views cannot be disproven, can they?
They cannot be disproven the way God's existence cannot be proven or disproven.
"And like so many ideologies that have existed before – whether fascist or communist – many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it. We need to understand why it is proving so attractive."
If you are Muslim and you care about other Muslims, you would be inclined to think that the NATO invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did not improve life for Muslims in these countries.
You may have noticed that the UK government has not given any convincing reasons to justify these invasions and may even have noticed that the Chilcot Enquiry's findings have had their publication delayed to protect the MPs who called for and voted for these invasions.
'So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.'
So there were 67 British victims in 9/11.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/10/september11.uk
The reasons for 9/11 have been given at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
They are still the operating reasons.
"When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/balkans-report-blairs-liberal-intervention
"Far from being Tony Blair's "good war", Nato's assault on Yugoslavia was in its own way as immoral as the assault on Iraq. But as the Iraq war has become discredited, so it is even more important for the supporters of "liberal interventionism" to promote the line that Kosovo was in some way a success. The Council of Europe's report on the KLA's crimes makes that position much harder to maintain. And if it plays its part in making people more sceptical about any future western "liberal interventions", it is to be warmly welcomed."
Western interventionism does not exactly create for Westerners a fund of goodwill, does it?
"the adherents of this ideology are overpowering other voices within Muslim debate, especially those trying to challenge it. There are so many strong, positive Muslim voices that are being drowned out."
Those inclined to go on jihad are unlikely to be persuaded by the elderly and the middle-aged telling them not to go.
The already know elderly risk-averse male relations reliant on the NHS would not wish to go on jihad, and their comfortable and complacent parents would not wish to go on jihad either.
As for the clerics who insist that all terrorism is by definition wrong, that is not what the Koran really says, does it?
008.038
YUSUFALI: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
SHAKIR: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.
008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
008.040
YUSUFALI: If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.
PICKTHAL: And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!
SHAKIR: And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper.
008.041
YUSUFALI: And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.
PICKTHAL: And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met. And Allah is Able to do all things.
SHAKIR: And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things.
Could Western foreign policy be described as "desisting"?
"Ask yourself, how is it possible that when young teenagers leave their London homes to fight for ISIL, the debate all too often focuses on whether the security services are to blame?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3033069/Four-ten-British-Muslims-believe-MI5-police-partly-responsible-radicalisation-teenagers-join-Isis.html
If you were an Islamophobe, you would just love the idea of Muslims being targeted for being Muslim and expect them to like it or lump it or leave the country, wouldn't you?
Secretly or not so secretly, Islamophobes want Muslims all to be radicalised and become terrorists so they can just mow them down with their machine guns after they have locked them up in one big mosque and set fire to it if they try to escape ....
If you were Muslim, you would be quite likely to be radicalised once you are aware of the extent and depth of the Islamophobia against you.
"And how can it be that after the tragic events at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, weeks were spent discussing the limits of free speech and satire, rather than whether terrorists should be executing people full stop?"
I am sure even the terrorists knew they had forfeited their lives after they gunned down Charlie Hebdo.
I don't recall anyone saying that these gunmen should have been let off if they were caught alive or that gunning people down for whatever reason should not be allowed. The debate was whether Charlie Hebdo "had it coming".
"When we allow the extremists to set the terms of the debate in this way, is it any wonder that people are attracted to this ideology?"
What does he mean by allowing the extremists "to set the terms of the debate"?
"For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds."
If mainstream culture is perceived as dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco and paedo, then don't expect any sane person to want to integrate into it.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/uk-britain-motto-idUKL1256515520071112
"So when groups like ISIL seek to rally our young people to their poisonous cause, it can offer them a sense of belonging that they can lack here at home, leaving them more susceptible to radicalisation and even violence against other British people to whom they feel no real allegiance."
"Instead of being a slut, SSM (Slut Single Mother) or a man afraid of sluts and SSMs, why not become a jihadi warrior?" is probably quite a seductive suggestion.
"let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values."
The West's strongest poison which it causes its own citizens to imbibe regularly is its own liberal values that produced the foreign policy complained of by Muslim terrorists - liberal interventionism or Western militarism, if you prefer.
Muslims living in the West inclined to become Muslim terrorists are also disgusted by the permissive sexual mores of the West, which has now plumbed new depths with gay marriage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/eastenders-funeral-parlour-gay-sex-scene-soap-defends-implied-and-not-explicit-moment-after-ofcom-complaints-10404758.html
 |
| Two gay men get it on with each other in a funeral parlour. East Enders is shown at 7.30 pm. |
Two men kissing each other in broad daylight in a public place.
East Enders is shown at 7.30 pm.
"We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together."
Islam is about forbidding extramarital sex, liberal values is about having sex wherever, whenever with whomever. Those who regard sodomy as an abomination, as the Koran instructs them to, would regard gay marriage with as much disgust as a gourmet would experience if invited to eat shit.
"We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith."
So all the white British people who are descended from generations of white British people who disapproved of LGBTs were never British?
If we don't subscribe to the Cameronian view of Britishness then we are automatically no longer British?
"We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together."
What freedom is this? The freedom to fuck wherever, whenever with whomever? No thanks.
"Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride."
Must we all be glad to be gay? If not, will we be punished?
If we were all gay there wouldn't be much of a next generation to be British or be seen as degenerate Britons any more.
"And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services aren't behind terrorist attacks; our new Prevent duty for schools is not about criminalising or spying on Muslim children. This is paranoia in the extreme."
If people hate you enough they will willingly believe any lie about you, no matter how obviously ludicrous.
"In fact that duty will empower parents and teachers to protect children from all forms of extremism – whether Islamist or neo-Nazi."
Muslims and Nazis are quite likely to denounce Israel, Jews, Zionists and Zionism, I imagine.
"We must stand up to those who try to suggest that there is some kind of secret Muslim conspiracy to take over our government, or that Islam and Britain are somehow incompatible."
Islam is about social conservatism, degenerate PC Liberalism is about desecrating the institutions of marriage and the family.
"People who say these things are trying to undermine our shared values and make Muslims feel like they don’t belong here, and we will not let these conspiracy theorists win."
Actually, the Far Right and Muslim radicals are agreed that democracy and Christianity is a dead duck. Interestingly, a Caliph is just a dictator who undertakes to govern using Koranic principles in a one-party theocracy.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
"And here’s my message to any young person here in Britain thinking of going out there:
You won’t be some valued member of a movement. You are cannon fodder for them. They will use you.
If you are a boy, they will brainwash you, strap bombs to your body and blow you up."
But if you are a brave jihadi warrior, they might reward you with sex slaves.
"If you are a girl, they will enslave and abuse you."
Jihadis are supposed to marry their sex slaves, I believe.
"using people who really understand the true nature of what life is like under ISIL to communicate to young and vulnerable people the brutal reality of this ideology"
If it is perceived as HMG propaganda, it will be dismissed out of hand.
"empowering the UK’s Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish communities, so they can have platforms from which to speak out against the carnage ISIL is conducting in their countries"
These Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds would refugees and their statements would be made under duress. The intelligent radical would know to dismiss whatever they say as government mouthpieces.
"countering this ideology better on the ground through specific de-radicalisation programmes"
De-radicalisation programmes = brainwashing programmes
Will this mean preventing us from using deductive reasoning and coming to the natural and obvious conclusion with the available and undisputed facts?
"we need our internet companies to go further in helping us identify potential terrorists online."
How far have they gone already, and how much further does Cameron want them to go?
"They – the internet companies - have shown with the vital work they are doing in clamping down on child abuse images that they can step up when there is a moral imperative to act. And it’s now time for them to do the same to protect their users from the scourge of radicalisation."
Sounds like Cameron wants internet companies to block certain websites from their customers. Which ones?
"the Home Secretary has already announced a review of sharia courts."
Sounds like the government proposes to interfere in the process of arbitration.
"new protection orders which came into force last Friday and were used immediately by Bedfordshire police to prevent two girls being taken to Africa."
What would be the terms of these protection orders?
"passive tolerance of practices running totally contrary to our values."
Will Muslims be expected to apologise for Muslim terrorism the moment an Islamophobe demands an apology from him?
This is going to be fun and so going to make Muslims stop wanting to blow us up!
"The failure of social services, the police and local authorities, to deal with child sex abuse in places like Rotherham was frankly unforgiveable."
It was only too predictable that the coppers were not going to take the complaints seriously.
"police, already not caring enough about teenage girls being abused, could not be bothered with dealing with the flak of being accused of racism; it is not because they were being ultra-careful not to target an already maligned ethnic group.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/rochdale-ukip-liberal-left-race-sexual-abuse
The reason there was inaction and poor practice in tackling this crime early on is not political correctness but rather racist cowardice combined with a distaste for the victims. It is precisely because the liberal left has refused to tackle the thorny issues surrounding race and ethnicity that the likes of Ukip are able to colonise it so successfully."
Nobody cares about abandoned children who were carelessly conceived then carelessly abandoned by their unfit promiscuous irresponsible Slut Single Mothers (whom no MP will criticise) into care homes.
"And look what happened in Tower Hamlets, in the heart of our capital city. We had political corruption on an epic scale: with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century. As the judge said: those in authority were too afraid to ‘confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism’."
This decision is being appealed by the ex-Mayor of Tower Hamlet found guilty of a criminal offence by a clearly biased Election Court judge who thought he could find Lutfur Rahman guilty of a criminal offence without the involvement of the police charging and arresting him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32497980
http://www.theguardian.com/.../jan/22/immigration.terrorism
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/abu-qatada-cleared-terror-charges-jordan-court
"We undertook an immediate review when it became apparent that extremists had taken over some of our schools in the so-called Trojan Horse scandal here in Birmingham. But I have to be honest here – one year on, although we are making progress, it is not quick enough. It has taken too long to take action against the governors and teachers involved in the scandal and to support the schools affected to turn themselves around."
All these parents wanted was keep their children's school environment Islamic ie without sex ed, which encourages British schoolgirls to be sluts.
"So as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred."
Sounds like Cameron is proposing to ban them from Twitter and Facebook.
"And we will also work to strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels that broadcast hate preachers and extremist content."
Which channels are these?
"I have charged Louise Casey to carry out a review of how to boost opportunity and integration in these communities and bring Britain together as one nation. She will look at issues like how we can ensure people learn English; how we boost employment outcomes, especially for women; how state agencies can work with these communities to properly promote integration and opportunity but also learning lessons from past mistakes - when funding was simply handed over to self-appointed ‘community leaders’ who sometimes used the money in a divisive way.
Louise will provide an interim report early next year. And we will use this report to inform our plans for funding a new wider Cohesive Communities Programme next year, focusing resources on improving integration and extending opportunity in those communities that most need it."
Fat bird to sort the Muslims out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33592323
"Taking on extremism in all its forms – both violent and non-violent."
Why not have a National Debating Society on Foreign and Domestic Policy with a large cash prize for secondary schoolchildren and adults with televised debates allowing viewers to vote by text on Saturday evenings instead of the usual crap?
"Britain has never been cowed by fear or hatred or terror.
Our Great British resolve faced down Hitler; it defeated Communism; it saw off the IRA’s assaults on our way of life. Time and again we have stood up to aggression and tyranny."
Brighton Bomb - 1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing
Anglo-Irish Agreement - 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Agreement
Friday, 17 July 2015
The truth about knife crime you won't read anywhere else
These knives are wielded by bastards and used on other bastards.
Bastards are mainly responsible for the crime figures, but the British worship sluts and must therefore put up with bastards and their bastard criminal behaviour.
Monday, 27 April 2015
Henrik Ibsen's GHOSTS is a metaphor for the West destroying itself through LUST and SLUTS
Is GHOSTS a metaphor for the dying gasps of Western civilisation? http://t.co/Q5xbMk7Tne
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 26, 2015
Ibsen's GHOSTS reminds me a little of Oedipus Rex. http://t.co/Q5xbMk7Tne
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 26, 2015
When you don't know who your father is cos ur mother was a slut, u cd end up fucking your mother and then gouging out your eyes. #oedipus
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 27, 2015
How interesting that Ibsen knew as long ago as 1881 how the West will end: with the mother killing her son ... http://t.co/Q5xbMk7Tne
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 26, 2015
Degenerate feminism, gay adoption/marriage, IVF, 3-parent babies, lowering of the age of consent, bastardy and paedophilia go hand in hand.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 27, 2015
Degenerate feminism causes women to fuck anything on 2 legs because they are too stupid to say no, then become single mums and shit parents.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 27, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_%28play%29
@anthonypainter @sundersays Socialist parties have the most feminists; feminism encourages women to be sluts and parasitical single mothers.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 25, 2015
Saturday, 4 April 2015
Why people might want to run away from a feminised society and fight for ISIS
@ntfem http://t.co/ZGb8ffPBul = once again, so much here is true! You can often think like a man, esp. 1 w/- woman troubles.
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 3, 2015
@AnthonyLarme It is not that hard to think like a man if you have known real men in your life! I have added to that post.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 3, 2015
@ntfem Needless to say, men usually take break-ups a lot harder than most women...b/c perhaps they don't initiate them as much?
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 3, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Men have expended more energy and resources into the relationship than women, probably.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 3, 2015
@ntfem If male solidarity existed - as it did throughout history - men would take it less hard when their romantic relationships end.
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 4, 2015
@ntfem When you look back at all of human history, men associated w/- other men far more than women - kept women in perspective.
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 4, 2015
@ntfem Also, I believe women associated more w/- other women - undoubtedly keeping men in perspective.
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 4, 2015
@ntfem And unfortunately have invested more of their identity/worth/value as a human being into the relationship b/c lack of male solidarity
— Anthony Larme (@AnthonyLarme) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme There are men who give up their friends - if they have no outside interests - and are emotionally dependent on their wives.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Having a wife and family allows beta males to feel that they are a leader of SOMETHING, even if it is only a woman n children.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme A beta male over-dependent on his wife with no outside interests and male friends would be bereft if wife dies or leaves him.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme A slut offers the shallow sex-obsessed male a greater prospect of immediate pleasure than the company of other men.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme An insecure male with no male friends would be most likely to become over-dependent on his wife or his female friends.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme There is probably some defect in the character of a man with no male friends of his own background, class and status.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme A man with no associates his equal is probably socially isolated and a beta male with neither prospects nor ambition.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme Ah, what the hell ALL the men I know are beta males. Even the ones who appear not to be eg PM are all afraid of sluts.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme I wonder if the people who run away to join ISIS either consciously or subconsciously know what I know.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
@AnthonyLarme I often wonder if the people who run away to ISIS consciously decide not to be part of a society led by men afraid of sluts.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 4, 2015
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. ...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
-
I think having your child diagnosed as having Asperger's is a kind of insurance against people saying you are a bad parent or that your...
