Friday, 26 May 2017

Claire Khaw to replace Katie Hopkins at LBC?

Would you like Claire Khaw to take Katie Hopkins' place? 

  1. Why?
  2. Why not?
  3. I am not racist.
  4. I am not xenophobic.
  5. I am not an Islamoophobe
  6. I have the greatest respect for the Chosen People, especially Orthodox Jews. I am afraid I don't think much of Liberal and Reform Jews. The Jews I most admire are the Neturei Karta. 
  7. I am a civic nationalist with a wide range of ideas to solve the longstanding problems of the British people that are admittedly radical and controversial.
  8. I am job-hunting. 
  9. It is only right that I should be paid for my invaluable service to the British people.  
  10. I am enormously (perhaps dangerously) entertaining and the only reason why LBC might not wish to hire me is because they fear that their listeners might be in danger of being overstimulated.
I cannot find the LBC email, but those of  you wish to enjoy The Claire Khaw Show on LBC should consider printing this post and sending it to LBC with your name and address at

LBC Radio Ltd
30 Leicester Square

Is ritualising our grief after terrorist attacks with a minute's silence and candle-lit vigils a good thing?

The tragic events in Manchester have led to a flurry of public displays of grief. The tragedy was marked at the Europa League final last night - while buildings across the world have been lit up in British colours in solidarity. Author Anthony Clavane wrote A Yorkshire Tragedy and Susie Orbach is a psychotherapist.  From 2:52

John Humphrys:

There have been many public expressions of grief and sympathy after Manchester in this country and indeed other countries. Is there an argument that says it is perhaps a bit too easy? Have we ritualised grief? Let's talk about that to Anthony Clavane and to Susie Orbach. Susie Orbach, let's be quite clear that we are not talking about what Mrs Campbell did last night when she spoke at that vigil. She is a bereaved mother and speaks with huge power and authority and clearly we respect that, but it is somewhat different, isn't it, from when groups of people get together and want to show their grief though they have no connection, no direct connection with those who have been bereaved? 

Susie Orbach [gabbling incoherently]:

Is it? Wasn't she speaking to people who she didn't know as well as people she did know? Wasn't it a part of being, I mean, human beings are a social species and we want to do things together, we want to memorialise or pay respect or recognise difficulties, we need to do it publicly, but we need to do it privately, it's not one or the other.

John Humphrys [mysteriously]:

No, I was thinking really in terms of the bravery she showed in doing what she did.

Susie Orbach [irrelevantly]:

Yes, that's what she needed to do herself, but it will be a long journey, one assumes, for any of the families, or any of the people who knew any of the families and for the city of Manchester to grieve and to take on what's happened. That's so manifestly obvious I am not sure it needs saying. 

John Humphrys [irrelevantly]:

I am wondering about the notion of collective grief.

Susie Orbach [nonsensically];

Well, it a collective grief or a collective coming together? I think nobody grieves in exactly the same way because nobody has the same relationship or identification or imagination about what it is, so we are smooshing something together that isn't accurate. This is a collective coming together to express - it could be outrage, it could be grief, it could be support, it could be about being a nation, it could be about being a city. We need to look at it much more broadly so that we don't reduce it to one thing for everybody. 

John Humphrys:

Anthony Clavane, you're a football writer, you've written a book dealing with how football has helped people cope with tragedies in Hillsborough and Bradford of course. What's your experience of this? I use the expression of collective grief, what's your expression for what goes on on these occasions?

Anthony Clavane:

Yes, well, John, in an era when the link between football teams and their towns seems to be forgotten over a hermetically sealed world and the team is disconnected from its fan base, I think this is an excellent opportunity to show, you know, the connection between the grieving town and the team that is supposed to represent it - the strength, the spirit, the solidarity of Manchester was expressed in Stockholm last night in front of 50,000 people in the stadium but also around the world and Manchester United is often seen as a global brand - whether that's a good or a bad thing that we can discuss, but obviously grief is global and I think it is important for the grieving families in Manchester that last night this happened and that football can act as a healing thing, I mean, it is often divisive, we know that, it is tribalistic, but on these occasions, it performs a very special role and rises above the horror, it says "We won't be broken by terror, we will overcome."

John Humphrys:

So it is a showing not rivalry, but the exact opposite: solidarity?

Anthony Clavane:

Absolutely, but my only concern is that we show solidarity in a consistent way because very often like in the Ankara terror attacks in 2015 and 2016 the footballing authority UEFA said there shouldn't be a minute of silence before the game at Euro 2016 and I just think that these public mourning rituals as Susie has written very important articles about this over the years - these are important, but we should be consistent about this and I think we should see sport as a way of helping to overcome grief but at the same time I am a little wary of it becoming ritualistic. I've been going to football matches for 20 years, you know, as a reporter. Sometimes what happens is we crunch tragedies together. You know, you put three or four different causes parcelled up together in the same minute's silence and then people who go to matches have their half time cup of tea or their pre-match entertainment and have their minute's silence and therefore the absolute horror of what has just happened is diminished because it happens too often and it is ritualised.

John Humphrys:

Susie Orbach, just a sentence about that, if you would. Ritualistic?

Susie Orbach [nonsensically again]:

Could be, but I think in this case what you're seeing is spontaneous responses and that's very profound. 

The question that I would have asked if I had been interviewing Anthony Clavane and Susie Orbach:

Should the minute's silence at football matches be standardised and ritualised?

How John Humphrys should have framed the question:

Is the ritualising of grief by having a minute's silence and the holding of candle lit vigils a good thing?

How I would have answered the question if the Today Programme had asked me

That was the long answer.

My short answer would have been:

The purpose of ritual is to commemorate an important event or propagate an idea that is necessary to our identity, survival and health as a tribe or nation. This is why so much of religion is about conducting rituals. To weep and wail when we become victims of the terrorism our government provoked because our politicians do exactly what the Americans tell us to do does not fall into this category. This means we should not be having this ritual and should instead ask our government what's in it for us every time we do whatever the Americans tell us to do and bomb whoever they tell us to bomb just because we are members of NATO.

Vote Labour.

An asinine suggestion I received on Facebook

This was what I just received:

"At 6pm UK time tonight, let Facebook fall silent for 22 minutes. No posts, no status updates, no uploads. Just still and silent for the 22 victims lost."

All this wailing and ritual mourning only encourages our enemies. Do ISIS have minutes and days of mourning when they get killed? Of course not. They just carry on plotting the fall of the West. It seems our matriarchy prefers to give ISIS the pleasure of watching Western women wailing and Western men and politicians politicians deferring to them. We really are nauseatingly weak and stupid. It is not just them killing us and our children that gives them satisfaction, it is the effeminate way in which we respond that reinforces our stupidity and helplessness and the perception that we are indeed stupid and helpless, encouraging our enemies all the more.

We are like those coins arranged in a way that is about to fall in those amusement arcades in seaside towns, and ISIS are those who are impelled to put in more coins, in the hope of causing a cascade of coins. How much longer can we last, when we are so stupid and weak, with our weak and stupid government that always always prioritises the female preference to win votes?

Yesterday there was a discussion on The Today Programme about ritualised mourning with John Humphrys interviewing Anthony Lavane and Susie Orbach. There was just a hint that such displays did nothing for the national spirit or our national standing. I know exactly what my mother thinks about these ritualistic displays of grief and about Westerners and Western foreign policy when she is in Europe on holiday inconvenienced by yet another Day of Mourning. I shall not repeat them here.

Do listen to it and try to discover who makes the most sense: the man Clavane or the woman Orbach. Listen from 8:52 a part of which is transcribed at If you listen carefully you will discern from this exchange that it is the man Clavane who wants the ritual of grief to be standardised, while the woman Orbach says it should be whatever people spontaneously feel at the time, or words to that effect, illustrating again the capriciousness of women and their collective determination not to be bound by any rule or any principle.

What I know is that these rituals are hated by men because they are displays of grief, defeat and weakness. But what does our stinking degenerate matriarchy care about the male preference?

The preference of the stupid female who cares nothing about neocon foreign policy is the Queen of Liberal Democracy. It only makes us hate ourselves more for having such an incompetent government whose policies are enough to propitiate the stupidest of foreign policy ignorant, sentimental truth-denying voters. It will certainly radicalise more young men (and not all of them will be Muslims either), filled with self-loathing and disgust at their platitudinous matriarchy.

I like to think Labour will do better than expected because Corbyn has finally decided to point out the link between Muslim terrorism and the British government unquestioningly doing whatever the Americans tell them to do ie invade Iraq, invade Afghanistan, topple Gaddafi and Assad, and stand by for further orders.

Time to make the connection between the cause of neocon Western foreign policy and the effect of Muslim terrorism in the West.

Nothing is really obvious until it is pointed out again and again and again, is it, especially to voters with the memory of a goldfish coupled with the ignorance of pigs.

So well done, Jeremy Corbyn, for arriving at this corker of a campaigning message. You may get me to vote Labour yet.

Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy

Thursday, 25 May 2017

Infantilised Beta Male Victims of Feminism (BMVOF) not doing it for themselves

Cassie Jaye asks these Beta Male Victims of Feminism to close their eyes like little children, and they do, willingly infantilising themselves to please her, giggling at all her weak jokes while she reads her speech. Nuff said. 

What would a Real Man - now extinct in the Western world - have done?

He would have put her in her place by asking her why she was talking to them like children.

So, this is the woman whose hand the beta male victims of feminism are eagerly and hungrily eating out of: Cassie Jaye - saviouress of white men - who made The Red Pill. How nauseating to watch grown men abase themselves before her because they think she is so sexy, pretty and young and reminds them of Mary Poppins. They are so grateful to her for condescending to help them and for making so many sacrifices on their behalves.

Look at these pathetic beta male victims of feminism laughing at her every joke and hanging on to her every word, ready to lick her feet like the pathetic self-abnegating dogs they are, hiding under her skirts and enjoying being exactly where they are.

While Muslim terrorists go on suicide missions, beta male victims of feminism in the West are too afraid to challenge feminism as men and men alone.

Men against feminism should tell women against feminism their views don't and won't matter because they can defeat the matriarchy without their support. but if they can't they deserve to lose

Make no mistake, the beta male victims of feminism in the West are so cucked they dare not complain and challenge feminism on their own, but rely on women like Erin Pizzey and Cassie Jaye to be their protectoresses.

Even now these men without masculine pride refuse to take my advice to refuse all the help of these women who condescend to help them, and doing it for themselves WITHOUT ANY WOMEN AT ALL IN THEIR MOVEMENT. Only when these men kick out all the women from MRA and say they will do it for themselves will they get some respect, but this concept is all but incomprehensible to them.

These BMVOF appear to think they can find for themselves in men's rights activism a woman just for them who wants some sort of talking pet prepared to perform the occasional sexual service and take out the rubbish when asked to do so, grateful for a roof over his head and food his belly as well as a special place for him in her bed.

It would appear that women in men's rights activism do so to enjoy being in a position to pity men and thereby elevate their own status in relation to men in general and perhaps over their own husbands. "Look at me helping men!" they might say to their husbands.  "This is my charity work, look at me virtue signal at the expense of your sex. Aren't I clever and virtuous compared to you and your sex? Aren't you and your sex weak, pathetic and pitiable? You better do as I say then."

There is probably a reason why Western women are clamouring for their governments to admit more Muslim migrants. They would rather copulate with migrants who are at least real men prepared to strive and take what they want, than be forced to mate with these milquetoast beta male victims of feminism who do not even have any masculinity to insult.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Civic nationalism is enough to get ethno-nationalists what they want: a dominant culture

Judaism is ethno-nationalist because Jews regards themselves as a tribe. If your mother is a Jewess, then you are a racially Jew whether or not you practice Judaism. If you want to convert to Orthodox Judaism, you need to be sponsored by one of their number to be shown how to cook, live and worship as a member of that community which goes beyond just going to the synagogue on Saturdays.

Islam is civic nationalist because it has a much lower entry threshold, requiring only a declaration of belief ie "There is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet" to become Muslim.

Millennial Woes is confusing white people with the nation. Supposing white people died of some mysterious and fatal disease that only affected white people. Britain as a nation would still exist, but it would be a nation of non-white people. You may well think that only white people represent the nation, but I have demonstrated by positing this hypothetical situation that this is not necessarily so since Britain would continue to be populated in the event that all white people disappeared for some reason. The non-white peoples would just move into the vacuum in the same way that the original Britons who got swamped by the other white peoples who invaded Britain moved to Cornwall and Wales - yes, those white people who have always been here for practical purposes but who really really hate the English.

It is absolutely imperative that there is a dominant culture, however, to give the nation its distinctive identity. This dominant culture must not be perceived to be degenerate by the newcomers, because that would make them reject and despise it.

You will find that all empires are civic nationalist proclaiming that all citizens have equal rights and are not to be discriminated on grounds of caste, race etc because it is a polite fiction that causes least resentment and obtains the most national unity. It is up to the dominant race and the dominant culture to perpetuate itself and maintain its dominance. I say this is a civic nationalist who is not white but does not wish to see the white race dominated by any other race. The dominant culture is not what it ought to be, and this is a matter for the dominant race to sort out, if it wishes to preserve its dominance.

As Andrew Breiitbart said, "Politics is downstream of culture."

If this is so, culture is downstream of law.

If this is so, law is downstream of morality.

If this is so, morality is downstream of religion.

Christianity has failed.

Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?

This is a no-brainer of a question, especially so if Ideology B already contains this principle that Ideology A has given up in order to fight it.

Was freedom of worship a principle that originated from the Koran or from the Bible? In the Koran it this verse at

Can you find any reference in the Bible at all to the principle of freedom of worship?

The First Amendment was derived from the Koran

This is post is addressed to Islamophobes who want to ban Islam and want to close down all mosques in Europe and who probably want to intern and expel all Muslims until the problem of Muslim terrorism is solved.

That suicide bombing in Manchester yesterday probably wasn't planned in a mosque, I don't think.

Do you think the government has the political will to intern and then expel them as you are clearly hoping will happen?

This a problem for all NATO countries. Leaving NATO would be a revolutionary act and once European countries start leaving NATO, the incidence of Muslim terrorism would abate, since NATO military aggression is directed at Muslim countries provoking Muslim terrorism.

For some curious reason, Islamphobes of the West cannot bring themselves to believe that Western foreign policy towards Muslim countries is in any way defective.

Over the years I have tried to point out again and again that all terrorism throughout the ages is provoked by bad government policy, without exception, but no one seems able to engage on this point substantively or at all.

It is ironic that while Muslims believe in the existence of an omnipotent and morally perfect Abrahamic God that Jews and Christians are also supposed to believe in, Western atheists apparently believe that Western foreign policy is perfect and in no way defective, even as they have been complaining about the stupidity and corruption of their own politicians and governments for decades, if not centuries.

Which belief is more absurd?

a) the belief that an omnipotent and morally perfect God exists

b) the belief that Western foreign policy towards Muslim countries is morally perfect and no Muslim anywhere in the world could possibly have a valid grievance against its practitioners and supporters or wish to harm a single hair on their head

Make no mistake, the sclerotic and demented leaders of European governments are about as likely to summon up the political will to intern and expel Muslims as they are likely to consider leaving NATO.

If Britain left NATO, would the Americans start bombing Britain? If they did, that really would be the end of NATO. Worth the risk and sacrifice for this demonstration of naked American imperialism, I would suggest.

Once NATO goes, the EU would go. Once European countries are free from the shackles of NATO and the EU, the European peoples would get their countries back from the globalists and Muslims. There is work to be done however: words to be said and positions taken.

None of our contemptible and spineless politicians show any signs of doing so, not even those who oppose the mainstream political parties whose leaders unofficially but slavishly follow whatever orders the American give us, because they are all in the pocket of the Military Industrial Security Complex.

Who will be first to start the race?

Which European nation will be the first to leave NATO and which the last?

Will Britain win for both races to leave the EU and NATO?

I like to think so.

Which would you choose: for you and your children to be murdered for religious or political reasons?

Which would you choose: for you and your children to be murdered for religious or political reasons?

I have always said it was a distinction without a difference.

The only reason we should consider is which is more effective, but they are the same.

The enemies of feminism and liberal democracy are perceived to be Islam. The former represents the matriarchy and the latter the patriarchy.

Does it matter to your victims if you kill them for political or religious reasons?

Does it matter that your victims take revenge on you for political or religious reasons, by murdering you and your children?

If it does, what is the difference between being murdered for political reasons and being murdered for religious reasons, in practice and in theory?

If God is an instrument of government, isn't He more effective for this purpose than effeminate liberalism and immoral feminism, ignorant and indifferent to economic and foreign policy, interested only in choosing which bribe to accept at General Elections, eager to believe that it is both possible to have higher government spending and lower taxes and that uncontrolled immigration is good for the economy and should long continue?

The Iranians in their one party theocracy at least had a choice in the kind of foreign policy their country pursues and whether they wanted the hardline Raisi or the moderate Rouhani to pursue it. The Iranians had a more meaningful choice in their elections than the West. In the West, no voter ever votes on foreign policy. If you even ask your MP about this, you are treated as an oddball, or even an extremist who may possibly be a terrorist, probably.

Let us face facts: we are a declining and degenerate matriarchy and we distrust and despise our leaders. There is no evil we would not suspect them of committing. The most surprising thing about the Manchester attack was not that it happened, but the people who cynically observed that Theresa May would benefit from it and win the General Election by more of a margin because of it.

The Ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang is now in play. In its Newtonian way it states that for every action there will be a reaction. We and the terrorists who want to kill us and our children are now reacting against the stinking matriarchy we now find ourselves in, wondering which way to head for the shortest way out of the swamp.

The so-called enemies of the West have rational and principled men leading their countries while the West has only incompetent female leaders and a US President the deep state wants to topple and whose wife slaps away his hand when he reaches out for it in public.

The most notable thing about the Muslim terrorists is that they are adhering to their religious principles by terrorising us until they get what they want from us. Do we have any religious or political principle for invading and destroying Muslim countries in the way the US military industrial complex deep state wants us to keep doing? The nearest thing we have is that of the neocon goal of full spectrum global dominance that it does not appear Western voters are even aware of. Presumably, this goal is hidden away from the infantilised and feminised voters of NATO member states who don't like thinking of themselves as ruthless imperialists with blood-soaked hands.

Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep

Yin and Yang and Newton's Third Law

Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War

Ideology A gives up its principles in order to fight Ideology B. Which ideology has won?

When the G7 heads of state arrive in Taormina, Sicily, for the G7 meeting on May 26, they will find themselves in an embellished, picture-postcard version of European reality. Italy, the host of the G7 meeting, has announced that it will close all harbors on the island to ships that arrive with migrants ( mainly from Libya) for the duration of the two-day meeting. The reason for the closure of the Italian island to migrants is to protect the G7 meeting from potential terrorist attacks. According to Italian reports, "the Department of Public Safety believes that the boats with illegal immigrants could be hiding an Islamist threat".
G7 meetings are, of course, always subject to a host of high-level security measures. However, shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy. Literally altering reality in order to present a whitewashed picture of the influx of migrants into Europe, which happens largely through Italy, is a Potemkin measure, regardless of terror risks. Heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Italy seeks to protect from a terrorist risk, seem not to care particularly about the very real terrorist risks that European citizens are forced to live with daily thanks to the migrant policies of these heads of state.

A meme I found on Facebook

Another meme I found on Facebook

Monday, 22 May 2017

Men who deserve patriarchy

1. Men who want legitimate offspring

2. Men prepared to call for the abolition of no fault divorce

3. Men who are marriageable ie capable of attracting marriageable women

4. Men prepared to risk liberty and reputation to challenge and defeat the stinking matriarchy

What is the percentage of adult men prepared to do this?

Do you think this figure is over or under 50%?

Are Western men hopelessly cucked?

If they are really hopelessly cucked and not prepared to fight for this because they are so hopelessly cucked, then it means they don't deserve a patriarchy.

When their civilisation and cities fall to invaders who slay them and take their women, these contemptibly degenerate men will be exterminated and extinct, and the problem of men who do not deserve patriarchy will solve itself.

Cucked Western men protest against feminism by calling themselves non-feminists instead of anti-feminists

Logically, the option is not choosing between being NEUTRAL about something and being FOR it.

It must be between being AGAINST something and FOR it.

An attribute of feminisation in men is poor reasoning abilities and denial, a feminine vice.

If you are afraid of your enemy, you understandably refrain from making overt declarations of hostility.

Beta male victims of feminism, like women, only have the power to withhold, for they no longer have the power to strive and obtain.

This contemptible trait in cucked Western men is precisely what Muslim radicals despise.

They reasonably conclude that allowing their male offspring to marinate in the degenerate values and practices of the matriarchy would eventually result in their male descendants becoming cucked beta male victims of feminism and their female descendants becoming promiscuous women and unmarried mothers, submitting to the stinking degenerate matriarchy rather than to truth, logic and morality.

To cultures known for practising the civilising traditions of marriage and family values, the very idea that their descendants will be born illegitimate of unmarried mothers who casually conceived them and who will parent them badly is a prospect dreadful and disgraceful.

I am very much aware that what I am proposing is blasphemy in our matriarchy. There was once a time when heretics were burned. Even if this penalty is not these days inflicted, men have all sorts of considerations to take into account, eg their sex partner's wrath and their probable withdrawal of sexual access thus making domestic life uncomfortable if not insufferable.

Not having a wife or potential sex partners whom I fear will withdraw sexual access if I offend her or their political sensibilities, I am probably the best placed person in the entire West to lead the campaign to re-establish the patriarchy.

Sadly, Western Man is now so cucked he won't consider availing himself of this unmissable opportunity because he is afraid of being associated with me and my idea of imposing a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism.

Wishing to wound but afraid to strike: this is a very much a feminine predicament.

The men vanquished by women would inevitably take on the mindset of their conquerors and become themselves feminised in their thinking and behaviour. Very sad. This means men really just become women with penis extensions, effectively becoming incapable of defending either a principle much less their nation. This will embolden and encourage our enemies.

Men need a safe space to discuss this amongst yourselves. Women will always want standards of sexual morality to be comfortably low because it is women who get knocked up and are left holding the baby.

Only men actually prepared to make the sacrifices of being an ANTIFEMINIST and uncompromisingly calling for the return of patriarchy through obeying the rules of marriage (ie no extramarital sex) will have the will to power.

The cucks of the West will have no concept of the heroic ideal. These days most Western men are unprincipled and spineless worms with no masculinity to insult, easily cowed by threats or persuaded by bribes, but fungible units of consumption cucked by their atheism and their indifference to principle and posterity.

They will make weak complaining noises and eventually fade away and expire without issue.

Come to think of it, men are now too cucked to even dare ask for a safe space for themselves.

If any of their number should even dare to propose this, they will be shot in the back by the cucks.

What I have described above is the reality of how cucked Western men are, is it not?

Even now  they are hiding under the skirts of woman instead of doing it for yourselves.

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

Feminism has utterly destroyed the quality of masculinity of Western Man.

The reason why feminists demand that their countries take in migrant Muslim men is because they instinctively know they would be rather raped by them than willingly fuck or breed with such a sorry bunch of self-abnegating cucks.

Who are these European women in effect asking for Muslim migrant men to enter their countries and penetrate their vaginas? They would be the female voters of child-bearing age who voted for Macron and will be voting for Merkel this September.

Nearly half of young French voters backed Marine Le Pen, projections suggest Far-right candidate receives support from just 20 per cent of over-65s MORE ELDERLY FEMALE VOTERS THAN ELDERLY MALE VOTERS

French election: Emmanuel Macron's marriage to an older woman key to his appeal with voters MACRON: THE MOST HIGH STATUS CUB A COUGAR COULD HAVE

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

Migrant fucking sluts

Sunday, 21 May 2017

The most valuable things everyone following Jordan Peterson ought to know and ask him about

Beta males like Mike Buchanan cannot win the fight against feminism

Marginalised beta males complaining about feminazi oppression

Claire Khaw not speaking at London anti-feminist conference on 8-10 July 2016

Claire Khaw no-platformed from Bath University debate on feminism

If A Voice For Men in the US and Mike Buchanan in the UK can't fight feminism, they should stand aside for Claire Khaw

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

Today, I discovered White Sharia

Saturday, 20 May 2017

Egalitarianism is infantile and based on a polite fiction

Egalitarianism is infantile, but women tend to be sentimental and childish in many ways because it is nature's way of making them better equipped to look after children. Egalitarianism will always be found attractive by the majority of the people who would otherwise find themselves at the bottom of the heap. The twin pressure of the female and proletarian preference for egalitarianism would work to destroy your society if left unchecked, and their work is now almost complete.

The enemies of society are sluts and socialists, who walk hand in hand.

The stupid promiscuous woman and the hungry MCSF/SJW who are her running dogs will insist on her preference being prioritised with no thought for the long term national interest.

These are the gathering dark forces preparing to wreck Western civilisation, while senior politicians of the West remain in denial and heedless to these warnings.

There are not even elderly intellectuals prepared to discuss this. Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher refuses to discuss feminism because he fears his wife who will soon be his nurse. As for the media, they were taken over by the feminazis a long long time ago.

The obscenity of sex education at 4 will soon be compulsory.

The purpose of this is to entrench the stinking matriarchy, which will continue to bribe and corrupt men until we and our descendants will be the co-equals of bonobo monkeys after becoming the Amalekites the Jews have a religious duty to exterminate.

Muslims would call the struggle by men against the promiscuous fornicating slut a form of Greater Jihad.

We know that the hopelessly corrupt Western political establishment won't touch this subject with a barge pole, not even those who protest against the current incumbents. Even Paul Craig Roberts refuses to consider the role of feminism in the moral corruption and sheer moronic stupidity and the unbelievable insouciance of political life in America and the West.

No one gets it and no one will discuss it.

E Michael Jones in Libido Dominandi says sexual freedom replaces political freedom.

Whoever controls sexual behaviour controls the state. And he who controls the mores of women controls sexual behaviour. That is the first lesson of sexual politics. He who understands that law understands why pornography and sex education and abortion and the government funding of contraceptives are all non-negotiable conditions for the current regime. Without them, they could not rule.

Feminism rode into town on the coat-tails of egalitarianism. If they are not already extinct or too elderly, perhaps men of the West capable of defending patriarchal moral values will have the sense and courage to have Feminism metaphorically tarred and feathered before running her out of town.

The Bostonians Paying the Excise-Man, 1774 British propaganda print that depicts the tarring and feathering of Boston Commissioner of Customs John Malcolm. This was the second time that Malcolm had been tarred and feathered.

Women in the workplace

Regrettably, this has lowered standards in public life. Because women are entitled to the excuses and privileges of their sex, men now feel they are entitled to the excuses and privileges of the feminine sex in the name of gender equality and gender justice. This explains our Culture of Entitlement and Excuses and why fathers now have paternity leave, increasing labour costs and lowering further our international competitiveness.

Today, I discovered White Sharia

White Sharia is discussed from 15th minute

What happens to people who say we should return to Christian morality?

They are mercilessly mocked.

The late Mrs Whitehouse was mercilessly mocked.

No one takes Christianity seriously, and even if they did, it is hard to defend because of the requirement to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, which is controversial enough even amongst Christians.

Not only that, the Catholic Church, the most powerful church in the world, now has a liberal Pope and is hopelessly mired in the paedo priests scandal. It no longer has moral authority and clergy are afraid of discussing morality or anything controversial to do with standards of sexual morality.  If clergy got into trouble with the media over standing up for a principle, they would be hung out to dry and their career obstructed and ended.

Michael Voris and the Church Militant are now classified as extremist just for holding on the Catholic principles.

Catholics who take Catholicism seriously are on the whole middle aged to elderly with the young not much interested. No revolution ever was organised by the senescent and elderly.

There is no prospect of sedevacantism succeeding without armed force and no prospect of acquiring this armed force in a society that is overwhelmingly atheist.

If you wanted to use religion as a basis of effecting a revolution, it would not be Christianity, simply because it is perceived as stale, tried and failed. It is perceived to be the the religion of the senescent and is certainly not in the ascendant. If Catholicism is a moon, it is waning, not waxing. We also know that the reason why Catholic clergy are so supine is because they know that the only choice left to them in the face of accusations of paedo priests is simply to surrender and submit to the prevailing matriarchy and hope they get to keep their position and pensions while they live.

There  is only one religion that causes consternation and controversy in the political establishment, and it is the one Islamophobes hate and fear.

Oderint dum metuant.

Like it or not, the Koran is the only reliable source of social conservatism, and social conservatism is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy and nationalism.

Without leadership and without being encouraged or exhorted to do so, people will not voluntarily and naturally turn from vice to virtue.  If Europeans spontaneously and suddenly felt an overwhelming desire for religion and social conservatism, they would not be turning to the tired, stale and failed religion of the elders.  The church has been completely rotted by feminism and it stinks to high heaven. The old may cling to Christianity, but the young know it is not for them if they want a future for themselves, their children, their descendants and their nation.

The young already despise the old for the way they have frittered away their inheritance, or they would when they think about it.  Baby boomers have been identified as the ones most liberal and most irresponsible, socially and fiscally. They are the ones now in charge and therefore the ones in denial while they continue to fuck things up.

If we think we are on our way out, we just do what we are comfortable with: go to church and pray the way we used to, and hope the church and the clergyman we are used to continues to exist until we ourselves are no longer in need of it.

Christianity is not going to inspire anyone capable of effecting a change. Only the young are capable of doing so. The young will have no time or patience for the platitudes of the elderly about to fade away who are not thinking about the future of the next generation, only about staying well within their own comfort zone and pretending to themselves and to next generation that they did nothing wrong.

Michael Voris of Church Militant is fighting a losing battle because he will never get enough Catholics to join his cause to make Catholicism both powerful or viable without a counter-revolution. Even if Voris were already Pope now, he would still be compromised and cucked the way Trump is, with the deep state gunning for him. Whatever populist ideology the people would back at the risk of life, limb and property to effect a counter-revolution against the sex revolution and matriarchy cannot be done on the back of Catholicism or any other established church for all the obvious reasons of being perceived to be old, tired, weak, corrupt, effeminate and fatally feminised.

Even the Greek Orthodox Church is compromised.

Presumably this is why the Greeks are in the state they're in: in debt and for all practical purposes enslaved.

13:11 Koran:

God does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts. 

Secular Koranism

Overhauling Islam: Representation, Construction, and Cooption of “Moderate Islam” in Western Europe

How to stop undermining the patriarchy and re-establish it

It is really only fornicating sluts that men cannot say no to that undermine the patriarchy. Notice how our feminist matriarchy treats proposals to shame sluts as akin to blasphemy? That is because feminism operates on bribing and distracting men with premarital sex. If men can get sex before marriage, they are less likely to marry or defend marriage. Being primarily motivated by sex, men will do anything for sex, including marry. Men must acknowledge that they are the weaker sex in saying no to no-strings sex and treat any attempt by sluts to offer them premarital sex as an attempt to undermine the patriarchy and nation, if not human civilisation itself.

"Get thee away from me, thou fornicating temptress!" could be a useful form of words for Western Man to use against any loose woman eagerly pressing him to accept her sexual favours and services.

It is to be doubted that Western Man is actually capable of refusing sex from women eager to have sex with him: it would be like expecting a starving man to refuse free delicious hot food. Unless there are laws to protect Western Man from shameless sluts, I fear the project to sanctify marriage again in the West will fail. All is not lost, for would publicly humiliate sluts. Once this is implemented, the number of fornicating sluts would be significantly reduced, making marriage again an attractive bargain to men who want legitimate children and social respectability. No fault divorce would have to be abolished before marriage again becomes an attractive bargain to men, however.

Advice to young people holding Conservative and Nationalist views considering university

I remember my law student days and the mockery that came with it. The memory that comes to mind is one of students reading out the Riot Act in my presence, which I took in good part. How about proposing and organising a group to protect the interests and rights of students and employees holding Conservative and Nationalist views? Remember, what does not kill you makes you stronger!

Why we are now an Idiocracy

Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic. 

The most important rule of marriage - now absolutely forgotten in the West - is that our sex partner must be our spouse and we can only have one at a time (unless we are a Muslim man and even then only if we can afford to have more than one up to a maximum of four and have the patience and time to make a good show of being fair to them). Not only must our spouse be fuckable, s/he must be a good for a long term relationship and have the characteristics of a good parent such as patience and a caring nature. Marriage is therefore an additional filter for the people we find fuckable because it tells us that it is wrong to fuck people just because we find them fuckable for they must also be good for a long term relationship with children. Even if we don't find them that fuckable, as women we should still prefer someone whom we think is a good prospect as a long term partner and parent than someone we find merely fuckable. If we ignore these rules, our race gets stupider and stupider and our government more and more corrupt until we are now where we are in the West with our morals in the toilet like a turd about to be flushed away.

Women should bear in mind that men are not that fussy, according MGTOW Is Freedom. According to him, men who are single and looking just want their spouse to be good enough, and want every woman they meet to be The One, so they can stop looking. 

From the 9th minute:

Friday, 19 May 2017

the BELL Curve - f¤cking funny - one of my favourite MGTOWs being true and funny

How the British Welfare System Favours Muslims

Anything A Man Can Do - MGTOW

A warning against the amoral tribalism of identity politics

This means the West is closer to civil war if disagreements cannot be resolved peacefully.

The left allies itself with women's interests, the right with men's.

Once battle is joined and we all know who our enemies and their running dogs are, the outcome seems inevitable. 

Is rape culture a feminist racket to discourage men from going to university?

Is this to make them even lower in status to the promiscuous woman?

This will make them angry, bitter, violent and criminal. 

Feminists will use this fact to call for ever more repressive measures against men, causing them to become even more angry, bitter, violent and criminal and so the vicious circle will continue, until the parasites overwhelm the host and resort to cannibalism ... 

Notice how no feminist will discuss any of these issues or answer any questions you might reasonably ask?

Well, they already control the media. Even the men are feminazi appointees and already castrated, especially BBC male presenters with girly haircuts and glasses on Sunday who call themselves Nicky.  

You can fight back risking your liberty, or let the acid bath of feminism wash all over you and everything you hold dear. 

Time for Western men to realise that the burden of proof in a rape case is for the accused to prove his innocence ie a negative and the standard of proof required for the prosecution to convict the accused of rape is no longer the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt.

Why don't male criminal lawyers say something about this? Because they are already cucked and afraid of their female colleagues in the legal profession falsely accusing them of rape, probably. In Britain, the Director of Public Prosecutions is female, so male lawyers practising in the field of criminal law dare not even be seen to be discussing ideas with someone who uses the word "feminazi" ie me. 
has my tweets to Luke Gittos. He has deleted all his tweets to me after blocking me, presumably for using the word "feminazi" in case any of his female colleagues report him to the Directrix of Public Prosecutions and ruin his career. 

Be afraid. Be very very afraid, not just for yourself, but for the future of your civilisation.

When men are so morally corrupt they let every principle slide for the sake of expediency because they no longer believe in God and no longer care to defend truth, logic and morality, you know your civilisation is fucked. Even the women know this intuitively. That is why they want migrant men to come to the West and prefer to be raped by them rather than breed with contemptible cucks who are so spineless they wouldn't know what a principle is, let alone what it is for, even when it comes up and kicks them in the place where their balls should be. 

A warning to men who are BMVOF*: things will get much worse very quickly if you continue to ignore the problem of feminism 

Our matriarchy does not care about BMVOF. Being a matriarchy, they will always prioritise the concerns of female voters whose support is crucial to winning any election.

The more men become BMVOF, the more feminists will use these men as evidence that men are inferior to women, and claim more privileges against men, creating even more BMVOF creating more evidence men are inferior to women, increasing the female demand for more privileges against men etc etc. Feminists don't care about male mental health. The more neurotic he is, the more vulnerable to feminine manipulation he is. Eventually the few men allowed to live will be drones for the purpose of mating with the queen and the only female allowed to mate is the queen. Male chicks and bulls are routinely destroyed, for obvious reasons.

Other than the few bulls needed for breeding, the vast majority of male cattle are slaughtered for meat before the age of three years, except where they are needed (castrated) as work oxen for haulage.

Points to bear in mind about the imperative of defeating feminism:

1. Men who want legitimate male offspring must campaign ruthlessly to abolish no fault divorce to clear the decks for themselves, or else be financially ruined by the rules of no fault divorce which will in addition deprive of them of access to their children by their malicious and vengeful ex-wives.

2. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of sexual access before the horse of re-establishing the patriarchy.

3. Men who want to defeat feminism must not put the cart of marriage before the horse of abolishing no fault divorce.

4. Men unprepared to defend marriage who do not send the vile baggage of feminism packing really do not deserve to have offspring.

5. A nation that has no senior and honourable men prepared to acknowledge the need to re-establish patriarchy through uncompromisingly supporting marriage does not deserve to survive.

6. A nation whose senior male politicians are too morally degenerate and intellectually dishonest they cannot acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

7. A nation in which no  respectable or honourable men of talent or political ambition can publicly acknowledge that marriage is the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

8. A nation in which no men of talent or political ambition can acknowledge that nationhood cannot exist without the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy does not deserve to survive.

9. A nation in which no men of talent, leadership or political ambition can be bestir themselves to challenge and defeat the matriarchy because they are atheists and do not care what happens to their country after they are dead does not deserve to survive.

*BMVOF - Beta Male Victims of Feminism