Translate

Friday, 18 March 2016

Laura Perrins should better interviewed me instead of the confused Peter Hitchens who has no solutions

Peter Hitchens says he is a feminist though he wants to emigrate to get away from the consequences of feminism

Trump to woo white Catholic men like Michael Voris in Colorado and Nevada



From 9:25. Hank Sheinkopf:
"Trump is going to firm up his core issues and target the Midwest - the heartland of this country - because that Nixon Coalition of Southern Protestants and Northern Catholics is what's going to carry him over the threshold - if he's the nominee - where Hillary cannot win - among white Catholic men in the Midwest."

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

Which about this speech by David Duke did Ian Katz find "chilling"?




Tuesday, 15 March 2016

In a matriarchy, older and wiser heterosexual men are lower in status to the bimbo and gay man


In a matriarchy, foolish young men women find attractive have more influence than wiser older men whom sluts don't want to fuck. This neatly explains why the entire liberal-feminist establishment of the West hates Trump: women don't want to fuck him because they think he is ugly as well as finding him threatening and offensive. 

Female preferences take over when men surrender to sluts.

Men surrender to sluts when they no longer support marriage.

They no longer support marriage because there is no need for them to marry in order to have sex, because fornicating sluts are a dime a dozen. (Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?)

Feminism bribes men with cheap slut sex to keep them quiescent.

Men will do anything for sex, including marry, and they no longer need to marry to get sex because sluts are everywhere.

Sluts are everywhere because feminism has turned women into sluts, children into bastards, men into Morally-Compromised Slut-Fuckers and our civilisation to shit.

We now have an Idiocracy.



Men no longer support marriage when they dare not uncompromisingly support marriage.

The only way to uncompromisingly support marriage is to forbid and punish extramarital sex.  


No man in the West is prepared to do this because all the men in the West have surrendered to sluts.

You may have heard of a book called The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide To Finding Intimacy, Passion And Peace With Your Man.  Someone should write a book about The Surrendered Man (also known as the Morally-Compromised Slut-Fucker).  

Is Donald Trump dropping hints about feminazis in power whenever he reads the snake poem?

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in and I'll take care of you"
"Take me in oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a curvature of silk
And then laid him by the fireside with some honey and some milk
Now she hurried home from work that night as soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she'd taking in had been revived
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you brought me in
"Take me in, oh tender woman
Take me in, for heaven's sake
Take me in oh tender woman," sighed the snake

Donald Trump compares immigrants to venomous snakes

I think he may well be dropping hints about feminazis in power.

"warmongering trouble-making women"



  1. Victoria Nuland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
  2. Security Adviser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice
  3. UN Adviser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power
American men represent the woman who harboured a viper in their bosom, warmongering trouble-making women represent the snake?



Christina Hoff Sommers - who still calls herself a feminist but of the "equitable" kind - is *not* a Trump supporter.

Cathy Young is another untrustworthy "equity" feminist falling between two stools. You can't expect a risk-averse hypocrite like that to support Trump.

Michelle Fields - another trouble-causing woman trying to cause trouble for Trump. Would a male journalist complain about an lickle ickle bruise? Is Ben Shapiro screwing her?





A vote for Trump is a vote against feminazis!

1:23 Michelle Fields claims violence was inflicted on her by Trump's campaign manager that was worse than her own father's death


Monday, 14 March 2016

The problem of the Far Right with Feminism

The problem of the Far Right is that their men are perceived as repulsively unmarriageable.

The middle class women who control the media take one look at lower class racists and collectively shudder with revulsion.

They imagine having to be married to any of these lower class beta males and shudder again.

Then they resolve to save lower class women from having to marry lower class racists just to have children.

The female urban proletariat know that if they want to marry and have legitimate offspring they would have to find a Muslim husband. White proletarian women who care about being properly married and having legitimate offspring are already voting with their feet ie converting to Islam in order to increase their chances of finding a decent Muslim husband who will respect his marriage vows and be a good father.

White middle class women think they have time to play with and expect to meet their boyfriend and husband at university.

Most people are snobs or are subliminally affected by class perceptions. They hear a politician in a good suit speaking in an educated accent and are assured. They see some beta male slob who doesn't know how to dress properly speaking in a regional or plebeian accent ranting and raving about Jews, Muslims and immigrants and know they don't want to share his views on anything.

The trouble with the so-called Far Right - is that they have no leader capable of commanding respect in the political establishment because they are either plebs or charmless charisma-free zones like Eddy Butler. Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin broke that mould being public schoolboys, but that was still not enough to get things moving, because they don't have the strength of character and leadership skills necessary to do what must be done to change the political orthodoxy of the day. They are always on the defensive and dare not even say what is necessary to be said.

What is necessary to be said is that feminism is bad for the long term national interest because it makes the birth rate decline and creates the need for immigrant labour.

What is also necessary to be said is that the welfare state raises the cost of labour.

It is also necessary to say that if racist plebs don't want immigration they must be prepared to work harder for less.

Finally, what is necessary to be said is that the operation of democracy makes the continuation of the current system inevitable and predictable because all political parties chase the female vote which they must not alienate in order to remain in office or be voted into office.

No one not in the "Far Right" would trust its plebeian leaders to run the country properly, particularly if they won't admit that the only way to stop immigration is to make women have more legitimate babies and marry at a younger age or make employees give up employment protection legislation ie repeal the Equality Act 2010, as well as abolish maternity and equal pay.

Employers would know that if all immigrant workers were sent packing we would be back to the three-day week and wildcat strikes of the 1970s.

The key to the solution is to reconsecrate marriage, which would give women something to do once they are mostly kept out of the workplace. However, if most British men are obviously unmarriageable, then this understandably rouses feelings of hatred and revulsion in the female populace. Probably, many would say they would rather die than marry, obey and then bear the children of some beta male loser they had no choice but to marry.

The problem as I see it is that the sufferers of the disease of feminism have not the intellectual honesty to admit that they are suffering from it or the strength of character to propose its cure. Indeed, Eddy Butler has himself said to me that the cure I propose is worse than the disease.
If the patient refuses to admit he is sick, then he will not be disposed to take the bitter medicine necessary to cure it. If the bitter medicine is necessary to cure his life-endangering disease, then he will die if he will not take it.

The "Far Right", being mostly uneducated plebs, will not be disposed to take my advice. Not being white and male, they will say, as Eddy Butler does, that I am foreign and female and cannot possibly have the solution to their problems.

What is necessary is that some white male leader use my ideas, but no white male leader will say what needs to be said because he will be afraid not only of alienating his supporters, but also his wife, daughters and female seniors. Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage both come into this category. Indeed, all white male politicians suffer from this disability to speak what is necessary for them to say to solve the problem of immigration and national degeneracy.

Therefore NOTHING WILL BE DONE LET ALONE SAID about what is necessary to solve the problem.

If you will not admit you are in error then you will not deviate from the path of error, and most degenerate Westerners are so morally corrupted that they will not submit to the rules of truth and logic if they dislike its conclusions. I cannot correct them because they are immune to the rules of logic and reject truth and will simply reject and suppress what I say, knowing that I will be helpless to make them agree with me. After all, I am only one woman with no conquering army to help me achieve my aims, ignored by the media and politically isolated because my ideas will be perceived as anathema to Western liberalism and democracy.

No man in the "Far Right" will be prepared to say what I say, which is why they all say I am mad or refuse to endorse or even discuss my ideas, just like the liberal media.

Why do I keep putting "Far Right" in quotes? Because to call them the Far Right would be to dignify the thoughts and deeds of uneducated and unskilled manual labour by implying that their views amount to something as sophisticated as a political ideology when all they consist of is a collection of hatreds and prejudices.

My thoughts do deserve to be dignified as an ideology, but theirs don't because I have identified the cause of Western malaise and proposed practicable even if unpopular solutions, while their modus operandi is merely to turn up the hate and hope for civil disorder, violence and revolution while the white race still outnumber the Jews, Muslims and other races they hate and fear.

Being beta male victims of feminism deprived of sex and hungry for sexual release, they already know the source of their oppression: women not respecting them, not finding them desirable sex partners or husbands and indeed even preferring Muslim men whom they perceive as their mortal enemies to them. Such men will be even more less likely to say what I say because their need to have sex with sluts will be more urgent and immediate than their desire to save their race from degeneracy or save their nation from Islamic domination.

As for those of them who are no longer sexually active, they are men of no influence or ambition with no desire to acquire influence. They would be moral and intellectual mediocrities fearing to risk alienation by their fellow "nationalists" through discussing my ideas.

Unprincipled men of no faith lacking in education cannot be expected to achieve a successful counter-revolution against the matriarchy, and no man with sufficient seniority in politics is prepared to risk losing his privileges to stand up for a bunch of lower class racist losers who will be unlikely to be either grateful or loyal to him for his efforts on their behalves.

Beta males will be even more unlikely to act according to principle, because most of them don't even know what it is. Also, no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. The best example of a beta male in politics is John Major who simply could not keep order even in his own cabinet because no other man in the cabinet respected him or saw him as an alpha male with leadership qualities worthy of leading them.

Beta males are like women who cannot be trusted to keep their promises. Indeed, they are given the same excuses as capricious women who don't know their own mind.

I already know that public schoolboys are also spineless cowards who regard having principles as giving hostages to fortune, and prefer to make up the rules as they go along, like conscienceless psychopaths who only act according to mood and opportunity.

Leaderless beta males who behave like women only whinge weakly weekly but become offended when you propose a solution. They are dimly aware of what the solution is because I have already told them my solutions ad nauseam, but believe that if they ignore me my ideas will not get the oxygen of publicity and eventually I will shut up and go away. This is exactly the same tactic of the liberal media.

I am sure that the more prominent members of the "Far Right" are already well aware of my ideas. They refuse to discuss it because they already know discussing my ideas would only upset their followers, who will already know that they are unmarriageable and despised by women of their class and the class above.

Such "leaders" only have the idea of turning up the hate, towards immigrants and towards Muslims, hoping that things will get so bad that it will provoke race riots and perhaps civil war in order that they can through violence achieve their ends as opposed to hope hopelessly for success in a system that is rigged against them from the beginning.

Turning up the hate serves the purpose of making people feel more certain of their position. Descartes said "I think therefore I am." He neglected to say also "I *feel* therefore I am." The educated reason with logic, the uneducated and women "reason" with their emotions. As Hitler once said, "The mob is feminine."

The more certain one feels about one's position, the more likely one is to fight the enemy, to the death, if need be. Those who reason with logic will be more likely to be correct in their certainty, and those who "reason" with their emotions will be more likely to be certain but in error.

The perceived low social class of the anti-immigration parties will forever earn them the hatred and contempt of the classes above them. There will always be the feeling that the poor are poor because they deserve to be: because they are lazy, stupid feckless people whom no rational employer would wish to hire as employees.

The solution would be to get a sufficiently charismatic, bold and ambitious man already in the political establishment or capable of entering it to propose my solutions in a convincing and persuasive way.

Perhaps one of the Eurosceptic Conservative politicians is up to it. The most likely candidate of these is Michael Gove, who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and easily the most intellectually accomplished politician in the establishment.

Beta males need to find a leader, and that leader has to be a man capable of being a part of the political establishment if he isn't already.

What have beta males to offer such a man though?

Their loyalty, of course.

But nationalists are infamous for treating each other like shit, playing dirty and ignoring their own rules when it suits them, just like members of the political establishment.

Gove would be an ambitious, brave and principled man to attempt such a thing with the odds so hugely stacked against him, but if successful he would go down in history as the man who eradicated feminism in Britain. He would and could only do it with the support of his wife, but the support of his wife is in doubt.

Who makes the rules between men and women?

Men and women exchange services with each other.

Women need to discuss masculinity and tell men what they want.

The trouble with women is that they don't know what they want from men.

Men have no trouble articulating what they want from a woman: young, beautiful, loyal, fertile and forgiving. They will settle for less if they cannot get the full specification, and in return they will provide and protect.

Because women don't know what they want from men, they just confuse everyone including themselves.

If men know what they want from women, they should make the rules.

Since women don't know what they want, they shouldn't be allowed to make the rules.

Increasingly women are making the rules because men are allowing them to make the rules.

Because women are more sexually available to men, men allow women to make the rules, but the rules are opaque and confusing, allowing a woman to simultaneously insist that women are equal and also superior to men, but also have a right to their protection and financial support.

Women can now claim that men are wrong even when they are right, and that women are right even when they are wrong.

Previously, when women were not so sexually available to men, men made the rules and the rules were clearer and much much fairer.

Now that women are allowed to make the rules, English legal traditions (such as proof beyond reasonable doubt) and what used to be regarded as traditional English liberties (the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial) have become increasingly eroded. Soon they will be utterly forgotten in man's anxiety to appease the insatiable woman who will not stop demanding unreasonable things, like in the wife in the story of The Fisherman and His Wife, until they are both back in their squalid hut again.

Then perhaps women will wise up and decide that the rules should be crafted to suit men and women prepared to make the sacrifices of marriage to have legitimate offspring and rear the next generation in optimum conditions, not feminist sluts who won't know what they really really want in life until they are too old and ugly to be anyone's wife and mother.

Sunday, 13 March 2016

How liberals can make people hate Trump



Wow. I actually cried while listening to this.










Why the entire West is fucked by feminism

Muslims traveling from Sweden to the Middle East to commit mass murder and rape in the Islamic state, are "victims of violence", says the new Moderate leader Anna Kinberg Batra

The Liberal West is full of stupid women in positions of power and influence, yet men cower at the thought of challenging feminism, for fear of offending their wives, daughters, girlfriends and senior female colleagues.

Elderly men with younger wives do not want to risk domestic disharmony when they require nursing.

Middle aged men of property don't want to risk the financially crippling settlements of no fault divorce.

Thrusting young men don't want to be deprived of the pleasures of fornication.

This is how feminism stitches up your society.

Men who acknowledge the truth of what I say won't discuss it with anyone else because they are

1) men of no influence

2) men who have no hope of acquiring influence

3) men who would not use that influence even if they had it

They can only hope they die before the shit hits the fan.

These are the only kind of men I know.

In the entire West, these are the only kind of men I know.

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

Saturday, 5 March 2016

Tom Holland hates Islam so much he again denies the prophet of Islam existed


http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/02/LitFest20160227t1700vSZT.aspx


Tom Holland
There are other utopias fashioned by ancient empires or at least ideals of ancient utopias that continue to exert a profound influence to this day, and the most obvious one would be the state established by Muhammad supposedly in Medina which continues to inspire billions of people across the globe and to act as a geopolitical motor to this day. The question of whether Muhammad established a state in Medina is massively open to question, but what we can see when we trace the evolution, the process by which this state came to be enshrined, what we see is that there was an enormous amount of ideological programming going on by the empire of the Arabs that had been raised in the aftermath of Muhammad's career and which justified its imperial sway and justified its moral mission in terms of what the Caliphs and the lawyers and the scholars who lived in the Caliphate for two centuries after Muhammad existed looked back to this period and constructed a model of how Islam had come into being and how Muhammad had lived and functioned and the character of his prophetic inspiration that gave to the foundation of the Caliphate a literally God-given sense of identity. And Islam I think now that Marxism has essentially imploded as an ideology, Islam exists as the most potent illustration of how utopia can legitimise empires in the past but can continue to exert an influence to this day, so utopias, I think, and the re-writing of history, to illustrate that utopias actually did exist - it's an incredibly significant aspect of history.

This is rather a confusing use of words. Utopias by definition do not exist, so I interpret what Holland the raging seething Islamophobe to be saying is this: that the propaganda value of Islamic myths is powerful and. crucially, more powerful than everything else that has ever existed before, and is much much bigger than Judaism and Christianity, now that Marxism has imploded.

Liberal-Feminism has no comparable mythologies that engage our emotions, moral convictions or romantic destiny.

Holland has seen the writing on the wall, and is obviously very very afraid: the Whig Interpretation of History is not a patch on Islamic eschatology promising divine purpose and human destiny.

It is interesting that Holland's verbiage consists mostly of abstractions that only the educated few who take the trouble can understand, and will mean nothing at all to the man in the street.


If Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1914, WW1 would have just stayed a European war.


Tom Holland:
ISIS are clearly the most utopianist organisation operating in geopolitics at the moment. I think we should take what they say about wanting to usher in the end of days literally. I think lots of them do want to do that and I think they are not talking in a Marxist sense about material culture  or what would be the material basis for utopia. The are talking about utopia in a divine sense. They are attempting to usher in heaven on earth and to cast themselves as people who will inherit heaven when they die. Their vision of the future is absolutely grounded in a particular understanding of a particular moment in the past because for Islam probably more than any other religious or cultural ideology that existed, what Islam has succeeded in doing is kind of dropping a sheet anchor to a particular moment to a particular time and establishing that as a mirror into which humanity has to look to understand what the will of God is, what the nature of a utopia should be. So in essence the desire to recreate that moment is hardwired into Islamic Utopianism even more than it is in any analogous tradition within Christianity. 

Under this verbiage we may deduce that Holland is saying that the story of Jesus as an executed revolutionary can in no way compare to the power and glory of Muhammad winning wars and establishing the world's first Islamic State.

The Council of Nicea tried to jazz up Christ's sacrifice by saying he was simultaneously God Himself and His son, but people in the 21st century tend not to be taken in by such absurdities. If most are already atheists, then all the more would they be in difficulty believing that a mere man is also God Himself and His son.

But what if Christians dumped the Trinity?

Then they would be no different to Jews and Muslims. It is the Trinity that makes Christians feel special and better than Jews and Muslims.

What would a rational Christian - if such a person exists - believe in if he could no longer even bring himself to pay lip service to the absurdity of the Trinity?  He could be a Jew, but the Old Testament is so harsh with stoning for every little infraction and doesn't even allow divorce. The Koran on the other hand has a whole chapter on divorce and even its harshest punishment - crucifixion - gives the state the option of clemency. http://quran.com/5/33

Judaism is an exclusive golf club, Islam is an inclusive political party in a single party theocracy, like Iran, which seems to be doing OK these days, all things considering.

Margaret MacMillan:

I think there are two kinds of utopias: ones that exist in the imagination or exist out of time or in another alternative reality, but those who talk about utopias often talk about a Golden Age in the past and also something that will come again so they are locating them in human history. We may see their reasoning as absolutely wrong and the utopias they project into the past or claim to know from the past are not real at all, but they are nevertheless arguing that they are there in the past and saying we have proof. They were there. We know that there was that world that existed in time and we are going to have another such world that will exist in a future time. So I think they are very much woven into history. 

Instead of utopia, why don't the panel talk about propaganda?

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7

Tom Holland:


The prime difference of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity is apolitical. Jesus dies a political failure. He does not draw his sword, he does not establish a state. His kingdom is in heaven and that means there has always been this suspicion of political orders within Christianity that you do not have within Islam, that Muhammad supposedly establishes a state that serves as a model for how God wants humans to live.  The fact that it is almost certainly a fiction doesn't alter the fact that  lots and lots of Muslims throughout history and certainly in the current time believe in that and believe that what God wants is for the state that existed in early 7th century Medina to be established [contemptuous laughter] in whatever way it can be in the present. 

Because Holland hates and fears Islam, his stratagem is to pretend that not only does God not exist, neither did His prophet Muhammad. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/tom-hollands-untold-history-of-islam.html
What would be even more insulting to Muslims even more than bad scatological drawings of Muhammad than pretending that not only does their God not exist, neither did Muhammad?

Then Muslims would feel so stupid for believing in lies whose liar didn't even exist.

That would soon put those pesky Muslims in their place.

Or would it?