Suicide Bombing, Sex and Single Mummery

I wonder what the BNP will say about single mummery in their manifesto. Perhaps they will not even address the question in their manifesto for fear of alienating their own potential supporters, knowing of the tendency of the white proletariat to be illegitimate and their women to be single mums.

The white urban proletariat do not value education because the welfare state always provides and so don't mind sending their children to crap schools, which teach them nothing that would make them employable.

MPs and the liberal establishment, who do not have to send their children to crap comps, do not care about these people and will do nothing to address their education and training because it is more trouble than their job's worth.

Not only do the white urban proletariat suffer the problems of promiscuity, intoxication, single mummery, illegitimacy, pornography, divorce, paedophilia, low-achievement and whingeing victimhood, they find themselves on the receiving end of the contempt expressed for them by Muslims who despise this aspect of the host culture and don't want to be part of it.

If the government of such a depraved and degraded people invades Muslim lands for clearly spurious reasons, I imagine young Muslim hotheads might want to blow themselves up to express disapproval and to distance themselves from the British government under whom they live. Blowing yourself up to kill voters who keep voting unthinkingly for the same old crap parties with the same old crap policies is the strongest possible message a terrorist can possibly send, you would have thought. That, I imagine, would be the rationale behind suicide bombing by Muslims in this country.

But even they underestimate the stupidity of the British public.

Even now they rail about the numbers and powers of Muslims which their government has allowed in while doing nothing to address why they cannot stop immigration. This is because rich white people hate poor white people so much they would rather hire foreigners than poor white people.

Why are poor white people hated by rich white people? Because they are mostly illegitimate, illiterate, innumerate, intoxicated, criminal and unemployable.

The two parties who could combine to become the Third Political Party of Britain, ie BNP and UKIP, dislike and distrust each other.

The fools in Labour and the Tory Party who want an EU referendum (and thereby control immigration) but dare not vote UKIP or BNP because they fear to be associated with extremism, prefer to believe the lies and false promises their leaders tell them to keep them quiescent.

There is just a suggestion that the National Interest and Islam could form an alliance in order to more effectively destroy the arguments of totalitarian liberalism. They should first unite, and then fight each other later - after they have defeated the forces of liberalism, if they still want to fight each other.

The BNP and Muslims have more in common with each other than they would care to admit: both are feared and hated, both speak what they sincerely believe to be the truth, both are derided as extremists, both want the death penalty and corporal punishment and both are right about the folly of invading Muslim lands.

And both support family values.

Perhaps the groups we hate and fear are even now proving themselves to be extremely consistent and correct about the important things that concern us, and it would appear that the liberal establishment have been proving themselves to be extremely mistaken about many many many things for a very very long time.

Nationalists who admire Hitler should note that he found Islam a more attractive faith than Christianity.

He once remarked:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”

Is not the refusal of the flabby liberal establishment to actively discourage the numbers of a burgeoning underclass, of bastards and the obese, paedophiles and single mums, of the illiterate, ignorant and innumerate, their refusal to tackle the problem of education and training, indeed a systematic cultivation of human failure?

It should be noted that the Church of England overwhelmingly voted to ban BNP clergy, so we all know where the ideological loyalties of these Anglicans lie: with a failing government and a failed ideology of indiscriminate compassion, whose greatest God is Moral Relativism and whose greatest goddess is Sexual Liberation.

Do we really want any more of this crap?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/10/general-synod-bnp-vote

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/01/hitler-wished-he-was-muslim-apparently.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-unveils-its-election-weapon-shy-women-563309.html

Peace the problem and war the answer? Or a revolution at least.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20091103i1.html shows that the Japanese are declining too, even though they have a vastly different culture, are quite authoritarian and have virtually no immigrants. Becoming a single mum there would turn you into a social pariah - and quite right too - so instead of having a problem of illegitimacy as we do in the West, they have a problem of not having enough children.

Well, the Chinese, when the current lot ages, will be having the same problem too, but in spades and shovelfuls. Perhaps the Japanese need a spot of immigration to refresh their society. Or perhaps war will make men men and women women again, who seek partnerships with each other for sex, protection and provision and invest in their future by having biddable high-achieving children.

Perhaps a bit of adversity is what is required and more than a bit of adversity is on its way, not just for the Japanese, but for all of us.

What does not kill us makes us stronger.

Humpback whales cleverer than promiscuous human females living in a welfare state

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8318000/8318182.stm

The female whale basically gets the males to pursue her. The ones who keep up with her get to mate with her, because he would be swiftest and strongest and most likely to have healthy offspring than the slower ones who couldn't keep up with her. At the very least a male should be able to keep up with a female in property, intellect or strength, or there is just no point.

This is obviously not rocket science, but tragically beyond the comprehension of the average unmarried single mum, who has never heard of evolutionary psychology before getting herself knocked up.

Something lacking, then, in their sex education classes where they hand out contraceptives like sweets to eager children.

All the more reason to abolish the welfare state, because it is even now lowering the quality of the next generation's genetic inheritance.

In case you didn't know, the average Briton is infamous for his/her stupidity, self-pity, promiscuity, paedophilia, victimhood and illegitimacy. These traits have now been elevated into a British National Characteristic for which we are internationally known.

Proud of ourselves, are we?

Marital Rape

I am now addressing my mind to the question of marital rape now that I have discovered this is a question that is exercising Singaporeans.

While it is only humane to formally proclaim that a wife is not her husband's to treat as his sex slave, surely she must also be obliged to give him reasonable access?

It is therefore arguably unnecessary to have such a law, because if he rapes her regularly she would divorce him or run away, and if she gives him no sexual access whatseover he will seek sex elsewhere, thus jeopardising if not actually terminating the marriage.

In practice it is hardly ever invoked and was always meant as a sop to the feminists.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_405235.html

What drives the feminist revolution: stupid promiscuous men and stupid promiscuous women

"The feminist revolution has been powered by male greed - for sex, money, and irresponsibility", says an anti-feminist.

I would add that the feminist revolution has also been driven by the stupidity of and promiscuity of women. Stupid because they have been persuaded that being promiscuous would be good for them. Some of them probably behave promiscuously, not because they even want to, but because they must to fit in and be one of the girls.

Typically, those who are now single mums can only whinge on about how hard it is to find another man and make ends meet.

Instead of bailing these women out with yet more benefits, why don't we let them sink under their own weight of stupidity and promiscuity. It would be cheaper and far more effective.

It is the only language they understand, or they will carry on getting knocked up by their low-life men and then whinge when they have to lie in their own badly-made beds.

Marry in haste repent at leisure.

Become an unmarried single mum, and you will ruin your life and subject your offspring to a life of disadvantage, under-achievement, delinquency and crime. You should also resign yourself to having illegitimate grandchildren and jump on the slide of generational decline. This is what in fact happens anyway, but most women appear to have difficulties acknowledging this and taking responsibility for their behaviour.

Typically, they look around for some man or government department to blame or bail them out, because they cannot look after themselves.

They are clearly having difficulties understanding the concept of moral hazard or think it does not apply to them because they are women. Either they cannot understand or they will not understand, because grasping and acting on the logic of this conclusion would mean sounding a bit like me, ie uncompassionate, intolerant and judgemental.

Being women, they think these qualities are unwomanly, so they continue to whinge, but continue to reject any solution that might work.

I wouldn't put these women in Homes for Fallen Women (or Foyers as Gordon Brown calls them), I would stop their child benefit and open Homes for Abandoned Children.

Prostitutes smarter and more societally beneficial than unmarried single mothers

Prostitutes at least have the virtue of making men know that if they cannot get sex from a girlfriend or a wife they must pay for it, and that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The truth is that these men cannot get it for "free" from a woman because they are basically low-status men who are obviously not good husband and father material. Or if they are already married, they are unfortunate in not finding what they have sexually adequate or are insatiably depraved.

Paying for a prostitute reinforces the lower status of these men and sends a message to other men that they must up their game if they want their own woman in their own home.

I would also like to make unmarried mothers acknowledged to be of a lower status than prostitutes, because they are too stupid to even ask for payment. Allowing a man who cares nothing for you to impregnate you and then leave you holding the baby suggests just a bit of culpable stupidity, does it not?

A prostitute at least has the sense to ask for payment and is therefore both more useful to society (because her services have commercial value) and less culpably stupid.

The Literary Love of Men and Women

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/04/2009_43_fri.shtml

Love letters by women to men: pleading, planning, warning, bargaining and ultimately disappointingly banal.

As for poetry, I am afraid the awful truth, gentlemen, is that women are more likely to write love poems to each other than to a man. A man would be embarrassed to receive one and wouldn't know how to respond, particularly if it was very good. The woman would be perceived to have demeaned herself in taking so much trouble over a mere man, and so it would be better for her if she could pass it off as a doggerel written in jest in an idle moment.

When a man writes poetry for a woman, and means it, it is invariably suffused with heroic metaphors, either that, or written in the tone of a conqueror enslaved.

"Do love letters written by men differ in style, sentiment and sincerity to those written by women?" You betcha. Much as I love Peter Mandelson, I have never felt the urge to express it in poetry.

My love poems to women however are real corkers and will one day become as famous as Sappho's fragments ....


http://www.poemofquotes.com/sappho