Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Why Feminism Makes Both Men and Women Unhappy

Feminism makes middle class women with jobs and careers delay childbirth. A careerwoman also wants a better grade of spouse and will want someone at least equal to her. Basically, feminism makes a woman fussier while lowering the quality of men. That is why it is so insidious and pernicious.

Why Stupid Women are Cleverer than Clever Women

The Best Truth is a Paradox. 

So Cameron is now officially a promoter of Mumsnet? His take on children with SENs

Well, at least he is making noises to the effect that he is not too happy about these older mothers with their Down's Syndrome and autistic children (which they like boasting about) shoving their children in mainstream schools, suing the school for their very own special adult to pick up after them and follow them around, slowing things down for everyone.  If your kind is a retard then just send it to a School for Children with SENs, even if you think this might "stigmatise" it rather than drag us all down, you selfish bitches. 

The teachers hate it too, because they are not trained to deal with your retard with its behavioural problems when there are already so many "normal" kids with behavioural problems. shows that suing your school to give your specially needier child a special carer and special privileges has now become a legal specialisation.  Yes, parasites do hire parasites to do their dirty work.  And parasites are not just lower class unmarried single mums, but can also be middle class professional women with husbands. 

If your child is autistic and retarded, make your arrangements rather than shoving it on us, please, parasitic mothers of special needs children, even if you have a husband.  We don't want to pay for your retard, or have our children forced to go slower because your kid can't keep up, so that you and your child lower the educational standards of our children, get all the attention and claim all the sympathy.

You can fuck off too.

Feminism the Reason Why the Middle Classes Are Not Breeding

Feminism makes middle class women with jobs and careers delay childbirth. A careerwoman also wants a better quality of spouse, ie someone at least equal to her or superior to her in wealth. Basically, feminism makes a woman fussier while lowering the quality of men. That is why it is so insidious and pernicious.

Tuesday, 29 June 2010

David Norris of Wadhurst exemplifies the worst of British effeminacy

because he thinks it is clever to be cowardly and displays other examples of twisted reasoning. He does not even have the excuse of youth, inexperience and the lack of a decent education, I am afraid, for he is a man with a white beard and his sentences indicate that he has had the benefit of a good education.  My contempt for this NeoCon knows no bounds.

Armed Forces minister: Cameron "is trying to avoid the
confusion in some people's minds that it will be over in a matter of months".

Helen Avery
But we're going to pull out in the next couple of years according to Cameron, so civil war will come whenever we leave, surely?
David Norris
Helen - that is the irony - if the Taleban wanted us to leave they would stop fighting and lie low, giving us no reason to stay. Then we we left they would re-emerge and take over again. But at present they like us there as they can kill us without this difficult business of terrorism in foreign countries. And while we are there it helps them raise recruits and garner support from other radical and often not very radical groups across the world as we are seen as occupying forces.

So we are there and have to stay because we have put ourselves in a trap with no exit.
Claire Khaw
So David Norris, you want the Afghans to play dead so the British can withdraw? Wow, that is a bit twisted even for a Neo-Con. Unlike the most emasculated and effeminate British men, Afghan men feel they must display some semblance of martial courage when a foreign enemy has invaded.

How interesting to learn that if a foreign enemy invaded this country, "men" like David Norris would roll over,  play dead and no doubt allow the women to be raped and their children taken away as slaves.

If a burglar were to enter his home, I suppose he would bury his head under the duvet and hope the burglars do their job quickly and go, even as any woman he is likely to have under his roof and in his bed is opportunistically raped by the burglar in the same bed.

I hope no woman is foolish enough to think someone like him would protect and provide for them.

The trouble with British men of course is that they don't even know they are not supposed to say things like that to avoid the visceral contempt that would be aroused in any rational female, who are also increasingly rare in this benighted country.

Still, what can one expect now in Britain's degenerate matriarchy in its last stages of terminal dementia?

David Norris is also sentimental about foxes and wishes the ban on hunting to remain.  David Norris is a middle-aged Labour-supporting man who thinks like a girl, which, to most right-thinking members of society, deserves hatred, ridicule and contempt.  Not that there are many right-thinking members of society these days, however.  

Monday, 28 June 2010

"Progressive" Generational Degradation caused by Female Promiscuity

Feminism + Consumerism + Female Promiscuity + Fatherlessness = Bloody Useless Illegitimate Children who are drug-addicted, under-achieving, promiscuous, obese, neurotic, unbiddable and full of STIs.

You can imagine the quality of the next generation, and the generation after that etc .... 

We are at the third generation now.  The fifth generation will probably only be fit for being sold as meat if we are not careful.   Look at that obese single mum you see waddling down your street.  What could she be fit for, apart from being a guest on the Jeremy Kyle Show?

The easy and cheap availability of British women

A conversation this morning with a Chinese girlfriend of mine reveals her shock and horror at how cheap and easy British women are, and how spoilt British men are. Chinese women  really cannot compete.

Chinese men know they would have woo a girl with hospitality, entertainment, gifts and good times, while British men know they can expect a blowjob on the first date (or should I say encounter?) without even buying her dinner.

Monica Lewinsky didn't even expect anything from The Man Who Denied Having Sex With That Woman.

I suppose it is a bit like unionised labour aghast at being dumped into and then finding itself drowning in a Sea of Scabs.

Sunday, 27 June 2010

Friday, 18 June 2010

That verse in the Koran saying men are superior to women only means ....

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. 

All this means, people, is that if a man provides and protects his wife, she should defer to him.

The Christian version is "love, honour and obey".

If he does not, then she shouldn't and wouldn't.

Why would a man provide and protect a woman who is bossing him around?

Doesn't sound like a good deal for him.

That's why men aren't getting married these days.  Are the ladies getting it at last?

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Sex In The City


Mumsnet demographics

I have asked Carrie Longton of Mumsnet to conduct the following survey, because I think it would be quite revealing.

1.  How many mothers on Mumsnet are working mothers

2.  How many of them are divorced

3.  How many of them were the ones who initiated their divorce

4.  How many of them are never-married mothers

It is now 29 June.  What a shame she cannot bring herself to answer my question.  Perhaps an honest answer would be too embarrassingly revealing of the kind of motherhood the next generation of British children are obliged to suffer, as well as the customary fatherlessness of the typical British child?

The Trade Between a Man and a Woman

"The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman illustrates how men and women relate. We all know that a woman can open a door herself. But when a man does it, he is affirming her femininity, beauty and charm. When she graciously accepts, she is validating his masculine power. This trade, a woman surrendering physical power in exchange for a man's protection (i.e. love) is the essence of heterosexuality.

In order to develop emotionally, men and women need this mutual validation as much as sex itself. Sex is an expression of this exclusive contract. Under the toxic influence of feminism, women open their own doors. Neither sexual identity is validated; neither sex matures emotionally. Men feel redundant and impotent; women feel rejected and unloved."

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

My interpretation of that wife-beating verse 4:34

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

This is always problematical when people who have read the Koran bring it up.

If your wife is doing something really bad and annoying, eg permanently intoxicated, going out clubbing every night, obviously having an affair etc, you can deal with this by:

1. scolding her first.

If that doesn't work

2. making her sleep in the spare bedroom or sofa

If that doesn't work

3. you send out invitations to friends and family to witness a wife-beating in the matrimonial home. Ask them to come so that they can see to it that you don't beat her too hard, hurt her and get done for ABH or GBH.

How should the Speaker John Bercow chastise his wife?

Sample wording to the invitation:


It is with regret that I, Husband, am inviting you as a member of Wife's Family/Friends to witness a Wife-Beating. 

She has been told not to do X which is unIslamic  and unreasonable but she has not heeded my admonitions. 

I then banished her from the matrimonial bed but that has not worked either.  The next step is a beating according to 4:34, but I would not wish to inflict such a thing on Wife without witnesses for fear of getting carried away and committing  ABH, GBH or even homicide.  

May I therefore remind you of your Islamic duty to see to it that Wife comes to no harm and I do not end up in the dock. 

No doubt she will want to give her side of things too before commencement of the beating, so it promises to be interesting!  Do come. 

Refreshments provided.

If that doesn't her make her fall in with your wishes you can proceed straight to divorce (but skipping the procedure of beating).  

I suppose you could give her a slap on the wrist in front of the assembled guests, for form's sake. 


In defence of that wife-beating verse in the Koran

How about this win-win idea to bring about world peace and honour the world's oldest profession?

Past atrocities committed by one group to another can be symbolically paid for by allowing a member of the wronged group to choose a female member of the perpetrator group for sex.  This would probably be a famous actress or pop star.

This woman would name her price.  This would be paid for by the perpetrator group

The transaction would be carried out at an appointed time and place.

The world would be a more peaceful place and the woman who prostituted herself a much richer woman.

Does anyone have any exotic combinations they would like to suggest to show they understand the concept?  (I can think of Osama bin Laden asking for Lady Gaga, or perhaps Nick Griffin asking for Mishal Husain, the renowned Pakistani beauty capable of reducing men into wobbling jellies of lust by a mere flash of her eyes.)

Monday, 14 June 2010

Not reds under beds, but reds lying seductively *on* beds (or Why Lust IS a Deadly Sin)

Most women are Nanny Statists.

There were not reds under the beds but the reds lying seductively on beds.

And so Western civilisation has been seduced by these sirens.

The devastation to its morals, society and economy are everywhere to be seen, like mulched up confetti on the pavement after the rain ....

Why we will never have small government unless most women are disenfranchised

Most women want a nanny state, most women are "liberal", most women are censorious, most women are easily offended, interfering, micromanaging, attention-seeking, vindictive, petty-minded, neurotic, self-obsessed, indiscriminately compassionate and masochistically tolerant.

Does this sound familiar? Have these feminine vices manifested itself in our society?

Women are half the electorate after all, and the political classes are now too emasculated and gutless to say boo to these nanny-statists. 

Is anyone else thinking of regime change?

I suggest we do this by indirectly discriminating against women by making it a requirement that only taxpayers can have the vote.  That would automatically exclude most whingeing parasitical women who want higher taxes and more regulation to protect them from themselves and their unwanted pregnancies of illegitimate children.

This also explains why, although most people agree with BNP policies, they are somehow prevented from voting for them because denial, prevarication, dishonesty, hypocrisy and cowardice - all of them feminine vices - will in the end predominate.  This is because women now have too much power.  

Mumsnet - are you reading this?  Good.

Sir Stuart and my Domestic Partnership Proposal

My letter should reach him today.

I am eagerly awaiting his response.

Mumsnet deletion of my comments indicates irrational totalitarian traits of Mumsnetters (ie most mothers)

Mumsnet users are gloating that I have been banned from their Facebook group and my comments deleted.  You will no longer be able to read my pertinent and incisive comments about Mumsnet whingeing for free nappies for their disabled children (Special needs and nappy provision: click here to pester the PM - 10 June 2010) or why women are so critical of feminism (10 June 2010). 

Someone asked me what Mumsnet was and this is my answer:

A website for parasitical mothers who are always asking for more handouts from the state because they have messed up their lives. They are usually working, divorced or unmarried mothers, like most mothers in this country. 

They embody what is wrong with British motherhood and are the reason why this country cannot have lower taxes and smaller government: because women are always whingeing for more state benefit and regulation.  They constitute half the electorate, whom the political classes are only too frightened of alienating.  

It is time women like that are told where and how to go fuck themselves, for the good of the nation.  

What is the point of this country being in thrall to the worst sort of people: bad mothers and bad employees?

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

And now we have Rule by Mumsnet AKA Matriarchal Degeneracy and Matriarchal Dementia.

Give me a Libertarian Patriarchal Caliphate any time.

Sunday, 13 June 2010

Beach Blanket Babylon, Notting Hill

Guys, this is a good place to go if you want to pick up a classy-looking bird. When my girlfriend asked for a Proseco I thought I would have one too: £18. Girls, don't even bother going there. You will be completely out-numbered by the other pretty girls, but go if you are looking to pick up a girl too.

Saturday, 12 June 2010

Mumsnet and Woman's Hour attitudes responsible for the Fall of Western Civilisation

I realised this when I find the male political establishment deferring to these harridans and then be found wanting anyway.

I mean, talking about the kind of underwear you wear just to satisfy the curiosity of these women was pretty low, wasn't it?

Imagine a male politician asking a woman what sort of knickers she wears. 

Only when these women are disenfranchised will we ever have a hope of getting small government, lower taxes and lighter regulations.

These bitches are forever aggressively shaking their begging bowls in the faces of the male political establishment, who are too gutless and stupid to tell them how and where to go fuck themselves.

"Working mums are bad mothers and bad workers."

What a pity then employers are forced to employ these women instead of giving the work to men.

Freedom of contract, anyone?

Repealing the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pact Acts will soon sort these bitches out. 

Friday, 11 June 2010

Feminine Rationalism and Family Values

It's Catholics reinventing the wheel!

The religion most capable of  promoting family values now is Islam.

The ideology most poisonous to family values is liberalism and feminism.

The religion most conducive to family values is Islam.  It acknowledges the right of wives to divorce their husbands.

Catholics have to annul their marriages, ie pretend it never happened.

Wives of Orthodox Jews need to apply for a divorce whose consent may be withheld by the husband. 

Which is the more female-friendly religion?

A poem for our morbidly over-feminised times

Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861)
          The Latest Decalogue
    Thou shalt have one God only; who
    Would tax himself to worship two?
    God's image nowhere shalt thou see,
    Save haply in the currency:
    Swear not at all; since for thy curse
    Thine enemy is not the worse:
    At church on Sunday to attend
    Will help to keep the world thy friend:
    Honor thy parents; that is, all
    From whom promotion may befall:
    Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive
    Officiously to keep alive:
    Adultery it is not fit
    Or safe, for women, to commit:
    Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
    When 'tis so lucrative to cheat:
    False witness not to bear be strict;
    And cautious, ere you contradict.
    Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
    Sanctions the keenest competition.

My proposal to Sir Stuart on discovering he is single and looking

Sir Stuart Rose
Marks & Spencer
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
W2 1NW
11 June 2010

Dear Sir Stuart


“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

But I have something even better than that to offer you.

It is a contract of cohabitation with optional sex and optional fidelity. This means it is neither prohibited nor compulsory.

Such a contract cannot be entered into with the intention of having a physical relationship, nor can it be terminated on grounds relating to any physical relationship that may arise.

It is contracted purely for reasons of convenience, economy, companionship and security.

While I am aware you may not wish for such a limited contract, I do assure you that it has great potential and offers greater protection for the assets of the wealthier partner.

I am responsible for: - opinion-polling direct democracy - gender-relations and sexuality - politics explained

and can be found on Facebook.

No doubt you will be in touch if you wish to take this further.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Thursday, 10 June 2010

More Mumsnet shit

Mothers of disabled children are asking for nappies for their children to be provided at taxpayer expense.

If they want to have their disabled children they can pay for the damn nappies themselves.

If only Cameron would just tell them to go fuck themselves.

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Verse in Koran implicitly accepts the existence of brothels

YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

PICKTHAL: And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

It is only sinful if you compel your slave girls.

If you do not compel them then it is OK.

Prostitution should certainly not of course be forced. If it is a willing transaction between punter and prostitute, then it is OK.

If your slave girls desire manumission then prostitution is one of the ways of earning it, then you must allow them the ways and means to obtain their manumission.

Therefore an Islamic state would legalise brothel-keeping.

Interestingly, a liberal-feminist state wishes to outlaw it. Hypocrisy and irrationality, anyone?

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Four Facts of FemiNazism

1. Women are always right.

2. Men are always wrong

3. Women are right even when they are wrong.

4. Men are wrong even when they are right.

Monday, 7 June 2010

Why a Patriarchy is a sign of civilisation and a Matriarchy a sign of barbarism

In 19th century western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development — now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some "primitive" societies — enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as "merely" an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today.

Of course feminists would seek to deny that condoning female promiscuity will not result in barbarism when it is already clear that Free Love is the cause of the decline and fall of Western civilisation.

Being a feminist means you want the same rights as men. This inevitably means screwing around with men the way men screw around with women without being called sluts and whores.

Once you let women screw around they will start having their little bastards. Many of these sluts, slags and slappers will have no idea who the father is and thus descent will become matrilineal, ie if you don't know who your dad is, you would at least know who your mum is.

Why is the matriarchy toxic to civilised values? Because it makes men embrace all the short-termist feminine and proletarian vices of cowardice, dishonesty, hypocrisy, victimhood, emotionalism, irrationality and all the short-term pleasures of intoxication.

We know that workmen and women whinge and lie. Oh, they do, they do, they do.

The men who want women to remain be cheap sluts, slags and slappers they are do so because they know they can't afford to take a wife or even the occasional visit to a brothel. They would rather get it for "free", the cheap bastards, these days from children.

I mean, why do you think the Western world is full of paedophiles? Because men are now so scared of women they prefer children.

These couplings between the stupid and poor have now produced our lost generation of illegitimate and unemployed whingers, CHAVs, NEETs, never-married single mums and feral youth. And still the feminists ask why there are not enough women in Parliament.

Listen, girls, you don't need any more women in politics when the so-called men in Parliament are just a sad combo of homosexuals and limp-dicked men who think just like women, or do you? The men in politics are already your servants, doing your bidding. You, woman, are already the power behind the throne ...

Sunday, 6 June 2010

The Purpose of Marriage by George McAuley of UK Men's Movement

Chastity, followed by marriage, followed by fidelity, was a wing-ding of a social construction, because it controlled men by giving them a small market-share of carnality. Marriage was a trap all be it a honey-trap, for men, not women. It was devised by men, with but one goal—to provide the best possible template for successfully raising children, as many children as possible, in an under-populated world. Marriage is a triumph of man’s civil conscience over his instinct to rut with every nubile female that he can outrun over ten miles. The Feminazi were right, it was a patriarchal construct, but it was forced on men, by other men, with the carrot of regular, if limited, sex, and the big, vengeful stick of tribal exclusion or worse for those who demurred. It was pure patriarchal altruism, a triumph of civilised man over base instinct.

Marriage was constructed for one purpose only- the successful raising of children. It was a sacred covenant made between man and woman, sworn to in front of their family, friends, community and God. It imposed sensible restrictions on behaviour, with powerful sanctions against those who broke them. Society, recognising a good thing, still favoured it when they introduced a bad thing- . taxes - by sticking it to the unmarried with a vengeance, but easing the foot off the gas when a litter of kids came along. Socially, legally and culturally, marriage between a man and a woman was very powerfully protected. Even in Muslim countries, where, in strict legal terms it is easy for a man to divorce, there are huge social costs in peer and family disapproval for a man who divorces for anything other than very serious transgressions of the marriage vows. Old-style Christian marriage also existed to protect kids and women.

Politicians in thrall to minorities, issue their facile diktats on (so-called) equality: inclusion and discrimination are good and bad respectively, without ever pausing to consider what is wise to exclude, and what it is wise to discriminate against. The whores and pimps of the press, devoid of reasoned argument, harangue us with ludicrous labels like “homophobe” if we dare to question the new orthodoxy, likewise the vote-hungry or marker-paying politician. The arts are queer turf, and they don’t allow any straight dogs peeing on their lamppost The contrived deceptions of producers, scriptwriters, news-anchors and chat-show host compete daily to portray sympathetic depictions of GLBT strength, decency, cleverness and their all-round betterness compared to up-tight wierdo straights.

For the sake of all our children we should be underpinning traditional marriage with family laws that penalise misconduct, and with faith, with the arts, and not least, with benefits and tax relief favouring intact families. The unique, special nurturing that marriage between natural parents provide for children is under constant attack from the Feminazi, the homosexual lobby and a New World Order that wants to disconnect people from families, culture, and faith. It wants them wedded to Nissan, Adidas and Gap. They don't like faith, it makes people difficult for them to control. They don't like real fathers and real marriages either, because they make people stronger, practically and spiritually. Civil contracts are the thin edge of normalising queerness. If you say it’s harmless, you’re a dope, or worse.

Now, I’ve said some pretty harsh things about some of my fellow men and women tonight, no doubt causing offence, but my anger is not really directed at individuals, but at the homosexual lobby and their Feminazi fellow travellers. They are both key players in the New World Order that is being forced upon a somnolent, whipped and emasculated humanity. The Roman Empire controlled the masses through fear and with bread wine and circuses, but it collapsed under the weight of its own cruelty and degeneracy, and the courage of those unafraid of the Coliseum’s lions.

The New World Order has dole, drugs, network TV. and the PC thought police. They have in common the use of bribery and bullying to eliminate original thinking. You don’t have to go into the arena with the lion, you just need to vote. If you believe that homosexual union is harmful, if it strikes something visceral, that maybe can’t even begin to articulate, hold back on approval until you’ve doped it out. If you think that it’s against God’s word, decency and common sense, vote agin it. Vote agin it even if you are afraid of being thought prejudiced, bigoted, or politically incorrect - There are worse things than being thought uncool,; like bending with every ill wind that blows, kow-towing to superficially virtuous semantics, and leaving tomorrow’s children to suffer in the mess your weakness helped create.

[The above have been extracted from an essay by George McAuley.]

Women less likely to vote BNP than men according to Searchlight reporter Nick Lowles

From page 6 of the May 2010 issue of Searchlight.

His statements [ie Jeffrey Marshall's] are likely to go down badly especially amongst women, who are anyway much less likely to vote BNP than men.

Would anyone care to explain why women are less likely to vote BNP than men?

I think it may be something to do with the feminine vices of hypocrisy, cowardice, self-interest, obsession with status rather than with doing the right thing. Women are after all more censorious and easily offended than men. Being the weaker sex, they are less ready to forgive. Being the weaker sex they prefer, like children, to have the benefit of comforting lies. This makes them deny the truth.

The truth is of course that women have no use for lower class men who can't compete with foreigners and who are members of a pariah party.

Like Liberals, women would cling to their self-image of being tolerant and compassionate rather than deal effectively with any problem that needs dealing with. They get men to do the dirty work of crushing bugs, catching mice, fighting wars and protecting them from being robbed and raped by burglars etc while they stay helpless, compassionate, tolerant, feminine and pure with butter not melting in their mouths, as morally pure as someone who hires a hitman ...

The statements made by Jeffrey Marshall referred to can be found at