Why feminist egalitarianism damages male solidarity and social cohesion

In a patriarchy, the alpha male is a leader of beta males. This means that the beta males choose their leader ie the alpha male.

In a patriarchy the status of the female is derived from the status of her father or husband.

The command structure of an army is very simple and accountable. Orders are given from above, and is passed downwards. When someone disobeys the order or fails to perform his duty, you can find the weak link in the chain of command.

In a matriarchy the male leader is chosen by the females whose interests and preferences are different from and in opposition to male interests. Because they are potentially half the vote in any liberal democracy, female votes will always be chased and the male preferences marginalised. Therefore in a matriarchy the male leader is always mainly chosen by females and this means the marginalisation of male interests.

Because the idea of feminism is egalitarian, everyone in an egalitarian society in which feminism flourishes will think they are equal, when in reality they are not. The wise and strong should lead the foolish and weak, not the other way round. This is precisely what intersectional feminism is all about though: it basically inverts the pyramid structure of the class system at the expense of everyone in the middle. Worse, it encourages undesirable behaviour and discourages moral behaviour ie discouraging chastity, thrift, prudence and industry putting the path of your society on the road to perdition since it is a political system that is in effect a systematic cultivation of failure.

In an egalitarian society, everyone will think they are just as good as everyone else, and this means no one can be corrected. If any attempt is made, the person attempting the correction will be asked "Who are you to tell me what to do?" The person attempt to make the correction will be insulted, lied about, accused, threatened with violence or even suffer violence.

This means leaders dare not correct their followers, and things go wrong.

Also, in a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried single mother with illegitimate offspring which she often badly parents. This must be so because not even the US President - supposedly the most powerful man in the world - dares not criticise unmarried single mothers or propose the abolition of no fault divorce.

If men in the West are in effect slaves to the female preference, then it means that they have to think and talk in a way that women like, and this turns them into women.

Men mind about immigration much more than women and these men are beta males ie low status men who have to compete for jobs and resources and who are most likely to say racist things or do not have the social graces or education to say what they feel to be true without avoiding denunciations of racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or sexism.

When Ken Livingstone of all people ends up having to resign from the Labour Party for antisemitism, you know the game is up as regards impartial news-reporting or a Labour leader with any leadership qualities in control of his party. When a Labour leader cannot protect his oldest ally who is clearly innocent of a non-existent offence, you know the game is up as regards getting a decent leader for your country even if the current childless clueless woman's government falls.



As I was saying, lower class men do not have the best of appearances or manners likely to appeal to white middle class feminists who run the show and who will instinctively despise them and find them viscerally repulsive.

Men, when women think this of you, they more or less think you do not deserve to live, let alone enjoy reproductive rights with a member of their sex.They would rather fuck foreign men and invite them into your country by voting for governments that support mass immigration, and not even realise that this is what they are doing because they will have been indoctrinated into thinking that being called racist - as you surely will be if you protest about uncontrolled mass immigration - is the worst crime you can ever be guilty of.

As regards the hierarchy of a matriarchy, there is none. This means no one is really in charge. It is basically run on fear, lust and ever faster buck-passing. Insofar as a hierarchy exists, it is represented by the Cult of Youth. The most powerful members of society are the young, sexy and foolish, who will of course abuse whatever power they have, destroying themselves, others and their own civilisation in the process. These would be mostly the over-entitled female undergraduates with their Guardianista ideas who wrap pussy-hungry male graduates round their little finger at universities, destroying their education and often their reputations if these male undergraduates end up being falsely and maliciously accused of regret rape.

These female undergraduates will soon become graduates and acquire positions of influence and status in the professions. If men protest, they will be falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence to keep them quiet.

The wages of feminism and egalitarianism is the death of your civilisation.

O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.https://t.co/y8xWBI1Fwp

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) May 22, 2018

Restoring patriarchy and the real purpose of marriage

On the necessity of hierarchy and the men who have a problem with authority

Does anyone else get it that logically and necessarily we must have hierarchy if we are to have patriarchy, and that marriage is the best way of ordering the rank of individuals in society?

The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy, and in a matriarchy it is impossible to establish your rank or indeed to pull rank on anyone at all.

This is because matriarchies are egalitarian. Women tend to be feminists and feminists are socialists, and socialists are egalitarian. Socialism means a nanny state without which feminism cannot exist. Feminism cannot exist outside an overbearing nanny state because a society of men with male solidarity simply wouldn't put up with feminism.

How is male solidarity achieved? It can only be achieved when men agree amongst themselves that sluts have to be shamed. Since most men are atheists and only think in the short term, they are incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes or immediate prospect of pleasure. Since this life is the only life they expect to have, any threat or bribe would work with them. This means they are incapable of making any sacrifice or showing any courage because they fear loss of status, income and employment and most certainly sexual access to women which they think is a badge of their virility.

In an egalitarian society, individuals will not receive constructive criticism gracefully. Everyone is asking anyone else who tries to correct their behaviour "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?"

If the person attempting to do the correcting says "Well, it is true that you do X and X is wrong" you would be told mulishly "Even if what you say is true, I still won't do what you say and you can't do anything about it, so fuck off."

This could be said to the person supposedly higher in rank to the mule, or lower in rank.

Why would any aspiring male with leadership qualities who is also atheist, cowardly and not prepared to make any sacrifice for any principle wish to lead a herd of mules? Far better to trick, bribe or threaten them than appeal to their reason and good nature which is mostly eclipsed by their massive egos.

The British used to be known for their rules of fair play. The 21st century British male if he is working class is usually someone who has problems with authority, said to be something commonly suffered by delinquent black youth who underachieve in life.

If you have a problem with authority, you will only want to be the leader. If you only want to be the leader, you will not be prepared to obey orders, follow rules or observe the boundaries of correct behaviour.

If you are defiant, rebellious and rude, then people who do actually have something to teach you will reject and avoid you, and this will stop you from making the most of your opportunities.

People who have problem with authority are of course atheists. Their ultimate authority is themselves guided only by their ego, appetites and emotions. Such people would hate the idea of having their behaviour restricted by anything as banal as rules, which they think is for losers, little realising that they are themselves the losers.

What rules should we obey?

From the standpoint of survival, we should always acknowledge truth, logic and morality. However, we all know people who are so egotistical and stubborn that they will never admit that they lost the argument. We might have at some in our own lives be guilty of this trait ourselves and already know that a majority of the households in the land does not have a responsible adult capable of making their offspring acknowledge the error of their ways. Most children are badly parented by their irresponsible single mothers and even married fathers are often weak or allow themselves to be undermined by their wives. This is a great shame because people who never admit they are wrong are condemned to repeat their mistakes again and again and again.

In a matriarchy, all males are beta males. This is unhealthy and dangerous because no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male.

This means beta males will have no one to represent their interests. In a matriarchy, there are at best only beta males with alpha male qualities, but they tend to be flawed characters who have a problem with authority, unable to either obey or lead properly or be guided by religious or moral principles, since they are overwhelmingly atheist, and atheists only worship the False Idol of Expediency.

If they claim to be religious, this really means nothing more than a vague belief in some higher power. If you suggest to them that this higher power might be the Abrahamic God who has taken the trouble of making laws for humanity, they will immediately say that they don't subscribe to that kind of religious fanaticism.

Such people tend to prefer the religions with the vaguest possible rules so they can interpret these principles in any way they like, to suit themselves. Such people are always on the lookout to enjoy spiritual experiences while being disinclined to obey anything as pedestrian as rules, which they think are for losers and uncool people.

To be an alpha male, you must be a leader of beta males and be chosen as leader by beta males without females interfering with their choice of leader. Otherwise, such a leader will end up being chosen by the worst kind of promiscuous and irresponsible female who is a bad mother to her variously fathered illegitimate offspring.

A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers while a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.

We know what we are, don't we?

The average voter in the UK is a 40 year white single mother who hates white men. Sadly, the plebeians of the West overwhelmingly have a problem with authority while the patricians are terrified of being divorced by their feminist wives under the rules of no fault divorce with the consequence of being deprived of their matrimonial home and children for no good reason at all. They are also terrified of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a female and feminist Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am just here to record the fall of the West and explain it to future generations since there is really not much more I can do other than explain and chronicle this process. After all, no one ever listens to me.

I am not really complaining, because men don't listen to each other either. In a matriarchy, all men are beta males and no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. Leaderless beta males think and behave exactly like women and the most telling way that this manifests itself is that these men, like women, cannot ever grasp the principles of truth, logic and morality, however often, clearly and loudly you explain it to them.

If you cannot give them immediate gratification eg sex, success etc, they are not interested. Such men will never be able to make sacrifices for the principle of the thing. In fact, they would openly sneer at anyone prepared to do such a thing as a fool or a fanatic. Not only will they lie to you, they will lie to themselves, even worse and even more. The most bemusing thing about them is that they will always be doing the equivalent of saying "No, thank you" when you offer them something while reaching out a paw to take it. They genuinely don't even know they are doing it, and when you point it out to them, they will be puzzled and offended. Principles are of course the key to moral reasoning so that one knows what one's principles are, and will notice when they are being broken. British men are entirely bereft of the ability to use moral reasoning to check themselves, and instead rely on their emotions and caprice, just as women do.

http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/20-struggles-of-having-issues-with-authority

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

Only patriarchal moral values count as morality

Matriarchy - the antithesis of the above. (Some might call it legal positivism which allow such ideas as Transnational Progressivism to contaminate the body politic. Transnational Progressivism can only be pushed on a society that has already been corrupted by feminism.)

What is the purpose of patriarchal moral values? Group solidarity and social cohesion.

What is the nature of matriarchy? Degeneracy and then the defeat of the group by a group practising patriarchal moral values.

What is the essence of patriarchy? Moral restraint.

What is the essence of matriarchy? Sexual liberation.

Feminazis and their Final Solution

What is the purpose of social cohesion? To get beta males who are most men to risk and sacrifice life and limb to defend their society. The feminazification of society destroys this motivation altogether.

What are feminazis trying to achieve? Are they evil or just stupid? Why do men keep letting them get away with it? Are they hooked on some drug or hypnotised by the seductive gyrations of the slut dancing some macabre dance of death that renders them quite unable to notice or care?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)

The agenda of feminazis appear to be to destroy the masculinity of their own race, invite men of other races and nations to replace them, and then in turn destroy the masculinity of these newcomers.

Perhaps they will not rest until all the women of the world are sluts, all the mothers of the world are Slut Single Mothers, all of the next generation bastards and all the men of the world are Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage and patriarchy.

Surely women cannot really be so evil, you ask yourself.

There is evil everywhere under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 6:1

There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy upon humankind.

Ecclesiastes 6:2

those to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that they lack nothing of all that they desire, yet God does not enable them to enjoy these things, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grievous ill.

Do not ask why parasites are parasitical, for that is what they were created to be.

Perhaps these things are sent to try us.

We are being tested for our fitness to survive, and this we may now be lacking.

Feminism is dementia, then death.

Having been castrated and had his spine surgically removed by feminazis, Western Man only now wishes to be allowed to die, it seems. This is because he knows himself to be mortally sick in mind and spirit.  He is certainly too fearful and enfeebled to upset his nurses who are also the feminazis ...

God, marriage, division of labour, specialisation and social cohesion

I am perfectly ready to accept that what are said to be God's laws are merely the accumulated wisdom of Man attributed to God because saying these laws came from an omnipotent and perfectly moral God is the only way of making the stupid, venal and unprincipled - who would only do good if rewarded and refrain from evil only if punished, in this life and the next - obey these rules generation after generation. The strictures of Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc are only obeyed for as long as the government promoting Communism, Nazism, Liberalism etc does not fall. There are some laws that are eternal and universal, and the rules of marriage comes to mind. For as long as there are men and women on earth, they will need to make bargains with each other based on the buying and selling of sexual services as well as services men are specially good at providing eg soldiering and labouring, and of course services that women are specially good at providing eg childcare, housekeeping and sexual services.

Sex and marriage is clearly pivotal to this bargain and traditional marriage is the pivot upon which true gender balance rests.

Feminists, in their spite and eagerness to destroy the patriarchy which runs on marriage, have been demolishing this institution. All patriarchies are established on the principle of marriage and all matriarchies are established in the absence of traditional marriage. All patriarchies are advanced societies and all matriarchies are declining and primitive societies. To discover that you live in a matriarchy is the equivalent of discovering that your society has cancer. Once you have accepted this diagnosis and prognosis, you will know what the cure must logically and necessarily be: to surgically remove feminism from every major organ of the state.

Alison Saunders the Directrix of Public Prosecutions who presides over the English court system presides over a major organ of the state purporting to dispense criminal justice for victims (genuine and alleged) and perpetrators (genuine and alleged). Her campaign to increase the number of convictions against men accused of rape suggests that she does not much care whether they are in fact guilty or not. In a patriarchy every woman is potentially a slut to be shamed if she has extramarital sex. In a matriarchy every man is a potential rapist if he has sex with a slut who regrets giving him the impression that she consented to sex. A woman is most likely to regret having had sex with a beta male.

All men are lower than sluts in a matriarchy. In a patriarchy, however, beta males choose an alpha male to protect their interests. An alpha male would not hesitate to denounce a slut in the same way that the lower orders these days happily denounce each other as racists and paedophiles.  In a matriarchy all men including the putative alpha male such as the British Prime Minister and US President are afraid to offend sluts because they all have the vote.

Even if you were female, do you not finding it deeply shaming that all the men in your society are in fact lower than sluts and indeed the slaves of sluts?

Beta males are the ones whose interests are most damaged by feminism in a matriarchy. Why should we protect the beta male? Because they do all the work of labouring and soldiering, protecting and providing. What happens if they are so demoralised they withdraw their labour? Then your society will decline and fall, to be invaded and conquered by those who run their society along rational and patriarchal lines. When the enemy invades, men will be killed, captured, enslaved and sold together with the women. If you wish to avoid this, then you must support the patriarchy by supporting the principle of traditional marriage which implicitly excludes gay marriage. This would mean forbidding extramarital sex in all its heterosexual and homosexual varieties.

"Is all this really necessary?" I hear you all ask yourselves. Yes, it  is. If the problem is not addressed it will only get worse, and if it is bad enough then the sluts and socialists - the internal enemies of every society - will eventually take over, and, when they have finally exhausted all the resources of society, our external enemies will invade.

Is this really so hard to see and imagine?

Remember: WW3 was declared on 9/11. 

The purpose of compassion in a nation state

It has been said that the state is the most organised form of criminal enterprise.

As citizens of a state, we can only as members suggest ways of running this criminal enterprise more efficiently.

If we want it to be run more humanely, this too can be accomplished, provided humanity is not inconsistent with efficiency and tends to increase group solidarity, or in the case of nation states, social cohesion within that state.

While men tend to see mercy as a means to an end and would use it rationally, women on the other hand tend to see the expression of compassion as an end in itself, for compassion is a feminine virtue and as women they would wish to express themselves in this way, even at the expense of men or the long term national interest.  

That is why women must not be given too much power.  

When you are strong, be good and you will become great.

When you are great but cease to be good you will become weak again.  

Being good has everything to do with accepting the Truth and not denying it.  

Denial, as we know, is a feminine vice.  

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_when_America_ceases_to_be_good_she_ceases_to_be_great

The purpose of politics

1. Politics is the art of imposing on others your idea of what is right.  
2. Politics is about changing laws.
3. Politics is about passing and repealing laws.
4. When you have passed or repealed enough laws you will have in fact changed the ideology that governs your nation and its moral environment.  
5. This state ideology referred to is in fact religion.  
6. It is perfectly possible to have a state ideology that does not refer or involve a supernatural deity eg Liberalism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Feminism.
7. Judaism (originally the ideology of a tribe), Christianity, Islam, Fascism, Nazism, Apartheid, Communism, Liberalism, Socialism etc are all state ideologies if they have been adopted by a nation state. 
8. It is a mistake to think that Communism, Liberalism, Fascism etc is not a religion.
9. The word religion comes from the Latin "religare", which means "to bind".
10. The thing that religion is meant to bind is society, hence the term "social cohesion". 
11. The purpose of social cohesion is to make the members of a society behave well towards each other, feel a sense of comradeship so as to better be able to defend that society against potential enemies who may invade, exploit and abuse them as well as its internal enemies whose ideas and practices would dilute whatever social cohesion that currently remains.  
12. Religion, through instilling morality, brings about social cohesion through making members of a society behave better towards each other than they otherwise might.  
13. Religion is a restraining influence on the natural inclinations of people.  
14. Liberalism liberates people from their natural inclinations.  
15. Liberalism has created the social problems that is the result of liberating people from their natural inclinations.  
16. Liberalism cannot solve the problems that it has created without drawing attention to its flaws and fundamental errors the most grave of which is the idea that sex between consenting adults does society no harm.  
17. Responsible and moral politicians must have the courage to acknowledge that liberalism is fundamentally flawed.
18. Any state ideology that fails to bring about social cohesion through imposing morality will die a natural death.  
19. Feminism has destroyed social cohesion by desecrating the institution of marriage, practised universally in advanced civilisations.  
20. The purpose of marriage is to regulate sexual relations.  
21. The most urgent debate that we are not having is whether sexual relations should be regulated and the long term consequences for our society if this is not done.
22. The purpose of responsible and moral politicians in Britain can only be to make the British respect marriage again, but it does not appear that any of the leaders of the political parties of Britain are responsible and moral or recognise or wish to discuss this question.  
23. The are four ways of respecting the institution of marriage: (i) The prohibition of extramarital and premarital sex. (ii) The exclusion of same-sex couples from the privilege of marriage.  (iii)  The stigmatisation of never married mothers. (iv)  The reintroduction of fault in any divorce settlement.   

My message to the beta male supporters of the BNP: social conservatism, which protects you and the integrity of your society and your people, can only be promoted and maintained by religion

Women of any race despise men of a lower class whom they don't fancy.  How can they fancy men whom they regard as inferior to them? When they don't fancy you, you really are useless to them. If you don't even have a job, then you might as well be dead to them.

Guardian-reading feminists know deep down that it was their liberal social and educational policies that caused so many NEET males to come into existence.

It is after all human nature to hate those whom we have injured.

Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris

They find it hard to forgive you for reminding them of what their crap policies have turned you into.

It was Simon Sheppard who said that men were instinctively more racist than women because they need to protect themselves from males of other races.

While both men and women fancy a bit of the other from time to time, women think foreign men in their midst are somehow cleverer and stronger than their own men if they manage to penetrate into their society and will find them attractive for this very reason.

The fact that women these days can legally and socially forbid men from expressing views they dislike is conclusive evidence of female supremacy and male submission.

Every now and then these women like to throw their weight around and remind you who is boss. This is probably why that female teacher mentioned at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2361932/Teachers-denied-schoolboy-10-water-hottest-day-year-avoid-upsetting-Muslim-pupils-Ramadan.html - and I am pretty confident that the teacher was white and female and non-Muslim - chose to humiliate a boy of her own race.

Who is an alpha and who a beta? An alpha is a man who is sexually attractive to women without even noticing them.

All societies need their betas because someone has to do the work. When your betas are replaced by foreigners, then the betas have lost the reason for their very existence. That is why they are treated with such contempt by their women and their government, and of course men of other races who notice their degradation.

The Muslims I talk to hardly ever even mention the BNP. They already know you are not even worth worrying about because you will never get anywhere and will get weaker and more effeminate with each generation.

Nationalists are overwhelmingly beta males. This means they are naturally followers but not leaders. Most of them know they have not the status, education, wealth or charisma to lead anything, and they are afraid of the ridicule of their fellow betas who no longer have male codes of honour capable of promoting male solidarity.

For any movement to be successful it needs to be led by an alpha male. Nick Griffin is an alpha male, being a public schoolboy and having some of the charm that goes with it, but sadly for you all, he lacks moral courage and has no principles.

Since the leader of the BNP holds a virtual monopoly in nationalism and he is not interested in helping nationalists except to profit from their grievance, nothing much is going to happen.

If he wanted the movement to prosper, he would turn it into an exclusively civic nationalist movement as Jean Marie Le Pen was urging him to do so way back in 2004, but that is more than his job's worth since he knows how many of you will not see why you should and will hate him for even proposing it.

Anyone who seems like he could be a successful leadership contender - ie who is posh, personable, good-looking etc - will be ruthlessly removed from the party.

The person who fits this description most that I knew of was Andrew Moffatt, but he didn't really want the job anyway.   http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/%E2%80%9Ci-want-my-country-back%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-former-leading-ukip-man-explains-why-he-joined-british-national-part

As Nick once said at an East London meeting , "Those of you who want my job can't do it, and those of you who can do my job don't want it."

All Nick has to do is to just give you people exactly what you want, to ensure the failure of nationalism. It really is as simple as that.

You don't want to go civic nationalist, he won't make you go civic nationalist.

You want to join the EDL on their marches, he will lift the proscription against the EDL.

You want your anti-Muslim marches, he will give you your anti-Muslim marches.

You don't want to talk about foreign or education policy then he won't talk about foreign or education policy and just go on and on and on about Muslim grooming and Muslim sex predators.

He doesn't care as long as you are coughing up your money often enough to keep him in his job.

Anyway, the only person in the land who can do his job and would like to give it a go is me, but I am a Muslim-loving female and a foreigner in your eyes, so I will never get anywhere and Nick will just stay on till he hands the job to his daughter Jennifer.

That is the reality of the nationalist position.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-omega-male-must-eventually-make-way.html is something I prepared earlier on the same theme.

Islam, because it promotes social conservatism and moral restraint, makes Muslims more cohesive than BNP supporters who wonder where their people and their country have gone.

If you don't watch out, enough smart white working class women who want legitimate children will convert to Islam just to get a decent husband.

And then you will find yourselves converting to Islam just to get a decent wife.

It won't be the Asian Muslims who did it to you, but you allowing your women to do this to you, and all because you refuse to confront them now about their morals.

It is a can of worms though, isn't it?

Your women do what they do - have their variously-fathered feral bastards on the state - because the welfare state allows sluts to have bastards all over the place.

It stands to reason that if most of the women in Britain are sluts, then eventually, most of the babies in Britain will be bastards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360084/Most-babies-born-wedlock-2016-marriage-falls-fashion.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

There is a reason why the word bastard is a derogatory word, and it is common to most cultures.   The Chinese have their own version - "ma te" which means literally "It is the mother's".  The mother's what, you ask?  The mother's fault for bringing the bastard into existence and not bringing it up properly.

If you want to abolish the welfare state then you have to abolish it for yourselves too.

Sluts and the Welfare State are your sacred cows, so you are left with complaining about Jews, Muslims and immigration.

While Jews and Muslims believe that their God is moral and omnipotent the people who hate Jews and Muslims - like you-  are known chiefly for your fear of offending your women.  While men of most races will even sympathise with you if you are afraid of a tyrant who is smarter, stronger and richer than you, he will feel only contempt for a race whose men are afraid of the worst of their women ie sluts.

If most of the women are sluts, they reason, then most of the men must be morally-compromised slut-fuckers (MCSFs) afraid of criticising the morals of their women, and they would be right, wouldn't they?

In the sense of Western men having shared values, I suppose it could be said that they all share the idea that sluts must not be criticised and that feminism is their Queen who has given them all that free and cheap slut sex that they have so far managed to enjoy.

But why they would accept such a pernicious ideology that weakens them with every degenerate generation is beyond me.

I suppose it is because most of these men don't have children and just want to go to their graves keeping the beliefs they were brought up with, ie that feminism is good because it turned women into sluts, and most men love to fuck sluts.

They think, perhaps, that the Feminist Slut Show will continue to run for a bit longer, and will continue in their lifetimes at least. By the time the tide of Islam is in, they will be dead, they think.

If they had children they would be concerned about the future, but since most of them do not, or if they did had lost touch with them, life for the beta male is all about filling his boots as much as he can with cheap slut sex till he can no longer get it up and he dies.

This is how the typical atheist British male thinks, and there really is no hope for him.

Social conservatism is the means through which you preserve your civilisation and traditions, or all that your ancestors have acquired and learnt will be forgotten and lost in a few generations.

The only viable force for social conservatism in Britain now is Islam.

You could say the BNP is one of the forces for social conservatism, but we already know that they are regarded with hatred and contempt.

Very few voters would wish to identify themselves with a pariah group consisting of low status, low income plebeian males that no sane woman would want to fuck let alone marry.

In any case, beyond saying no to gay marriage, the BNP have done nothing to promote marriage, because its leader already knows most of its members are incapable of ever being seen as marriageable by sane white women.

Jews and Muslims are the living demonstration of the power of the institutions of marriage and family. Just by respecting those institutions they effortlessly rise while you sink like a stone.

Social conservatism protects the integrity of your nation, but that means moral restraint in the form of respecting marriage. This actually means prohibiting extramarital sex, but I already know that most atheist white Britons who regard extramarital sex as their birth right will find my remedies detestable.

Because I have blasphemed against the Trinity of the Sacred Cows that the British worship - Feminism, the Welfare State and the SSM https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379 - it is unlikely that I will be admitted as a member of any political party.

Because the Conservative Party is a fraud on its supporters and no longer promotes social conservatism, nothing much will change for the beta males who support the BNP.   Their leader will not tell them what is really the problem with them for fear of offending them and perhaps causing them to join a rival nationalist party, and why should they listen to someone like me - a female and a foreigner - who tells them things they do not want to hear?

So nothing will happen to improve the lot of the beta male, who will become increasingly degenerate, effeminate and unattractive to the women of their race.

While I believe that even a beta can become an alpha, none of the nationalists I know are capable of challenging Nick Griffin for reasons of education, class, occupation and income.  After all, they are overwhelmingly beta and betas are conformists who do what they are told.

Betas are also potential alphas who continue to fear to do what they must do to become alpha.   

Betas are betas because they had no father around to show them how to be an alpha, because they were deprived of their fathers by their mothers who did not think their sons needed a father or that she needed to have a husband before having offspring.

Betas are betas because they were taught mostly by female teachers.

Being the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman and who understands what must be done to win the ideological battle, I believe I could do a lot for nationalists.  However, it is not likely that Nick Griffin, who is in thrall to female BNP supporters with disabled family members up North, would defy them, is it? After all, there are many more disabled illegitimate BNP members than there are of me, and he would not wish to alienate them.

He will just say I am seen as a Nazi Muslim-sympathiser who is a female and a foreigner, with a detestable message and detestable remedies, and he would be right.  

No, it is most unlikely that I will ever get anywhere in British politics and will continue to be seen as a lone voice, marginalised, ignored and derided by the LibLabCon as well as the parties who oppose them.

I am however heartened to see the mainstream media and mainstream politicians becoming increasingly critical of feminism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10173780/Boris-Johnson-wasnt-joking-work-is-becoming-a-womans-world.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/boys-struggling-conservatism-masculinity

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2013/07/feminism-vs-egalitarianism-my-response-to-the-guardians-ally-fogg/

I am a Nationalist, not a racist or an antisemite

What is a nationalist?

Someone who believes in a policy of acting in the National Interest.

What is a racist?

Someone who believes that race is a sufficient reason for the inclusion or exclusion of someone from a nation.

Is Claire Khaw a racist?

No, because I have been saying for some time now that a nationalist by definition cannot be a racist.

Why is racism incompatible with nationhood?

Because the idea of a nationhood logically transcends the idea of race and tribe.  A nation is by definition a collection of tribes who have decided to form themselves into a nation for reasons of self-preservation and self-advancement.

What is an antisemite?

Someone who hates Jews and Zionists because they are Jews and Zionists.

Is Claire Khaw an antisemite?

No, because I think Jews are the teacher's pet in a class of bullies and dunces who envy the teacher's pet but refuse to work hard while not being particularly clever.   Jews are perhaps just a global metaphor for "the rich and powerful who exploit the poor" even in countries where there are no significant numbers of Jews.  During the Cultural Revolution in Communist China, the "Jews" of China were the landlords, businessmen, middle classes, academics and people formerly in authority.

Is Claire Khaw attempting to redefine nationalism, which most nationalists seem to think is racial segregation?

Yes, because I think that definition is logically incorrect.  The idea of a greater nationhood transcribes the narrow and amoral considerations of race and tribe.   "Ummah" - the Muslim version of Christendom - is the perfect expression - a nation of shared values.   We can change our minds, but not the colour of our skin.   Also, if we sent everyone home to wherever we were supposed to come from, most Americans would end up back in Europe, which would clearly make it too crowded.

Is Claire Khaw a National Socialist?

Yes, she is a CIVIC National Socialist because a nationalist would want social cohesion, and social cohesion can only come with the Social Justice that comes with a Meritocracy.  A one-party state (which is the real essence of National Socialism) that protects the rights of its members by abolishing the office of the party whip as proposed by Peter Bone MP in the House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would be just the thing to balance Statist policies with Libertarian policies, allowing party members to vote according to their conscience rather than what is deemed by their amoral leaders to be in the short-term party interest, rather than the long-term National Interest.  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

What has Claire Khaw to say to White Nationalists?

Get real and ask yourselves if you really think you are in a position to say "It is all or nothing" and expect to get your all.   You can keep saying in your manifestos that you want to forcibly repatriate non-white British citizens, but you already know saying that has got you nowhere at all.   An enlightened member of the BNP once told me that, realistically, the only people even a BNP government can forcibly repatriate are illegal immigrants.

Is it time nationalists stopped being the Stupid, Angry, Bitter, Plebeian and Unable to Compete with Foreigners Party?

That question I will leave other nationalists to answer.