Sunday, 26 June 2011

Two schools of thought in the BNP

It seems the BNP are divided into two groups:

(1) The Matriarchal Feminist School of Free Love who think that they can get keep all the wonderful things that the liberals have given us but WITHOUT THE ETHNICS and think in their hopeful woolly way that we can have Family Values without Marriage, just like the LibLabCon.

(2) The Patriarchal Social Conservative Realist School who believe that the institutions of Marriage and Family should be firmly re-established to cure the deep-rooted malaise that afflicts the white race.

A female BNP member Chez Dunn said:

"I am a single parent, through non fault of my own because my partner and the father of my children was abusive and is now in prison for his actions."

My response:

"Why is it not your fault if you got knocked up by a criminal you were not married to?" 

to which I have not yet had an answer.

Frankly, the thought of party policy being dictated to by the likes of Chez Dunn appalls and disgusts me, and no prizes for guessing to which School of Thought she belongs.

The BNP now needs to decide whether it is going to promote family values supported by marriage, OR pretend to believe, just like the LibLabCon, that family values can be promoted WITHOUT supporting marriage and WITHOUT reintroducing fault into divorce.

If so, this means that they too believe in the need to undergo the process of male self-abnegation that entails pursuing the fickle female vote.  It appears to me that women don't know what the hell they want anyway, most of the time, and now expect the taxpayer to pick up the pieces when they have messed up their lives, just because they are single mothers, or single mothers with disabled children, or, disabled single mothers with disabled children ...

I can understand it if people are afraid of a Tyrant or the Secret Police but most male politicians these days are afraid of the unwed single mother, which is disgusting, pathetic and contemptible.  They are afraid of these feckless promiscuous women because too many of them now have the vote, and the female vote is what the other parties are also chasing. It would be tragic indeed if those who oppose the LibLabCon are doing the same thing too, because it would just be allowing the problem that they are complaining about to continue.

Single mothers who tend to be bad mothers produce badly brought up children who spoil it for others at school, dumbing down education, making British school-leavers less attractive as employees, causing British employers to hanker after foreign labour and twist the arm of the government to let more immigrant labour in.

The BNP would have to grovel at the feet of the over-burdened taxpayer, the small businessman and independent trader and also at the feet of Common Sense to get anywhere now.

As for the female vote, the only thing the BNP ought to offer women is an economic and social environment in which there will be one man who wants to be a husband and a father (and is also capable and prepared to do what it takes to support a wife and family) for every woman who wants to be a housewife and mother.

To grovel at the feet of a feminist will just get you a poke in the eye with her stiletto steel.  

Thursday, 23 June 2011

Cheating at Monopoly

Conversation with me and another about the behaviour of the cheater and cheatee of Monopoly

Those who cheat and then dismissively claim "it's only a game" miss the point.

Games are SUPPOSED to have rules, for that is how we have agreed to compete.

By contrast in life we are sometimes allowed to make up rules as we go along, but cheating in sports and games is always deeply immoral.

I am myself very straitlaced about the rules. It just would not occur to me to cheat, but if I landed on your hotel and you did not notice, I wouldn't feel obliged to tell you.

"if I landed on your hotel and you did not notice, I wouldn't feel obliged to tell you."

I ought to be paying attention, so this is quite justified.

"Rules are meant to be broken." Discuss.

What happens when we break the rules? If it remains undiscovered then nothing at all. If our infractions are found out, then we must accept the consequences. Personally I wouldn't continue to play with someone who flouted the rules.

No, I wouldn't either. Perhaps it depends on how we used to play Monopoly when we were children. Or even our gender and our age.

Let me give you a situation then.

Dinner party. Female dinner guest tells male dinner guest that she and her ex-boyfriend always cheated when they played Monopoly with each other.

Later, it was decided to play Monopoly. (Probably not a good idea as it was about 10 pm and a deal of alcohol was consumed.)

Female guest deliberately moves male dinner guest's piece and tells him she has done so.

Male dinner guest - who really wanted to play the game properly - rounds on her and tells her that rules are meant to be followed and that it meant anarchy not to do so. He proceeds to tell female dinner guest that she "has no decency" and described what she did as "despicable".

What should the hostess have done?

Clearly, the female guest should not have cheated or even pretended to cheat. It was a silly thing for an adult woman to cheat or pretend to cheat at Monopoly.

It occurs to me that the female dinner guest, if she has been a male dinner guest would have either played properly or not played at all.

However, since the dinner guest was female she behaved in a way that could perhaps be described as schoolgirlish.

The male dinner guest might have been expected to make allowances, but he did not.

However, in an age of gender equality, should a man be morally obliged to make these allowances?

‎"Female guest deliberately moves male dinner guest's piece and tells him she has done so."

This is not quite what happened. In fact female guest repeatedly took the male dinner guest's turn while he was acting as banker for another player.

She did NOT say she had done so.

She only commented – as though it were an amusing observation - that the 'order of play keeps changing'.

Male dinner guest could see no reason why the order of play should change, since this matter had been decided at the start.

Eventually female dinner guest was caught red-handed and denounced.

Today the male dinner guest happened to be listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio Four in which an academic (female) guest (in collusion with the liberal-minded presenter of the show) seemed delighted at the outcomes of certain American trials in which female murderers - although they had been definitively found guilty - managed to avoid being sentenced.
The Politics of Sleep - Women Who Kill

This was especially celebrated when a woman had managed to pull off the trick of killing a man and getting away with it.

Murder & Monopoly - yes, I can imagine you sneering at this!

However we either live in an age of gender equality or we don't.

If we don't, then allowances need to be made for women – or some women – because they are childlike.

If they refuse to be thought of as childlike then they must behave like adults.

Yes, if female dinner guest had been male dinner guest, or even pretending to be a male dinner guest, she would not have done such a thing.

Women tend to have allowances made for them and very often, they are. Therefore they can claim to be simultaneously equal yet childlike yet also morally superior to men.

In an age of gender equality there ought to be no special pleading on grounds of sex.

I imagine other men would probably condemn the male dinner guest for not behaving like a gentleman, and making allowances for the frivolous and erratic behaviour of female dinner guests.

I can imagine that it would quite difficult for a typical male to negotiate so many twists of think and double-think in our age of equality and hypocrisy.

I think chivalry can only come naturally if one feels one is in a superior position, not when one already feels put upon and under siege.

I am reminded of this story about Sun Tzu.

One of the more well-known stories about Sun Tzu, taken from the Shiji, illustrates Sun Tzu's temperament as follows: Before hiring Sun Tzu, the King of Wu tested Sun Tzu's skills by commanding him to train a harem of 180 concubines into soldiers. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, appointing the two concubines most favored by the king as the company commanders. When Sun Tzu first ordered the concubines to face right, they giggled. In response, Sun Tzu said that the general, in this case himself, was responsible for ensuring that soldiers understood the commands given to them. Then, he reiterated the command, and again the concubines giggled. Sun Tzu then ordered the execution of the king's two favored concubines, to the king's protests. He explained that if the general's soldiers understood their commands but did not obey, it was the fault of the officers. Sun Tzu also said that once a general was appointed, it was their duty to carry out their mission, even if the king protested. After both concubines were killed, new officers were chosen to replace them. Afterwards, both companies performed their maneuvers flawlessly.

[FURTHER THOUGHTS:  Both dinner party guests are in fact older than the hostess who is no spring chicken herself.

The hostess consulted an older male friend who at once declared that the male guest was a churl, a boor, a cad, not a gentleman and should be horsewhipped forthwith.  But the hostess wonders why a man should be expected to behave like a gentleman (even if he is from an age when such things were taught to boys) when women are no longer taught how to behave like ladies or indeed expected to.

The female guest withdrew gracefully and in a lady-like manner, not making a fuss or protesting that she had never been so insulted in her entire life, or anything like that.]

You are invited to comment on the behaviour of the male and female guest. 

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Neglect and Abuse of the Elderly caused by Feminism

Why doesn't the government just admit that they really want people to die as soon as they start claiming their pensions? Let them drink!

I can imagine a future government having a death squad working in NHS hospitals to finish off any OAP seeking medical treatment.

Let them (the young) live and let them love. Let them (the old) drink and let them die, if they are so unwise as to drink themselves silly.

"Let them drink and let them die." (with apologies to Catullus)

Old people are failed when their care is left to the state. Lesson: have enough children who will look after you.

Have enough children who will look after you in your old age who want to have and be full-time wives and mothers.

A liberal and feminist society would have no respect for the elderly and treat them as disposable rubbish. Their daughters (if any) would be too busy at work to look after them. Their sons (if any) would be divorced and impoverished by the time they start becoming frail.

Blame feminism.

Monday, 20 June 2011

Cameron the Warmonger, the one who sent orders that kill innocent civilians in Libya is afraid of teen slut single mums
PM David Cameron says 'runaway dads' should be 'shamed'

Abolish child benefit and the CSA, stigmatise never married single mums and these bitch-cunt sluts will stop having their variously-fathered children at public expense. But Cameron is afraid of offending the slut schoolgirl mum and she hasn't even got the vote!

Imagine that: the warmonger and killer of Libyan civilians is afraid of slut schoolgirl mums! God, if He exists, would preserve Colonel Gaddafi (even in the face of overwhelming odds) and destroy Cameron (preferably by spontaneous combustion) just to show us He exists.

Friday, 17 June 2011

Yet another sign that we live in a demented matriarchy: woman who falsely accused Andrew Bridgen's of rape easily puts it behind her

"The accuser, a larger-than life character in Westminster, cannot be named for legal reasons but appears to have put her alleged ordeal behind her very quickly.

Earlier this week, she posted a picture of herself happily preparing to go to Royal Ascot on a social networking website."

Men are understandably reluctant to admit their own oppression, which would be shameful indeed.  So they continue to suffer it like women in denial.  

Thursday, 16 June 2011

One Guardian journalist now prepared to question feminism

But equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement, and not all of this is the fault of continuing chauvinism. Women bear the children and, far more often than not, they wish to be the primary carer for those children. At its most strident, feminism can be mistaken for an ideology designed to make women feel they are wrong to want that.

Worse, feminism has accidentally promoted the idea that it's pretty easy to work and have children, with the right support in place. On even an average income, it's never easy, even once children are at secondary school (though it's certainly easier then). Your priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate.

For many women, that's a self-evident truth. But feminism forbids women from admitting too many self-evident truths, for fear that the utterance of them will encourage discrimination. Feminism is paranoid about its most-feared enemy, the wedge, with its bayonet-thin edge. (This can be best seen in the abortion debate. Pro-choice minds have to be closed to the idea that science can alter the age of foetal viability, because such acknowledgement, even in theory, might offer succour to pro-lifers.)

Feminism is – or can be – so paranoid that it cannot acknowledge that there is a difficulty with being less than forthright about the genuine and intractable dichotomies in the lives of many woman. This itself perpetuates the most damaging wedge of all – between those willing to sign up for feminism, and those who have their reasonable doubts. There needs to be a bit less "tut-tutting" about failure to avow, and a bit more examination of the probable advantages in addressing the concerns of the uncommitted. Among whose number, I'm afraid, I ashamedly count myself.

Thank you, Deborah Orr, for your refreshing honesty.   

First a slut, then a single mum.

An OFFICIAL Marriage Strike by Men and an OFFICIAL Sex Strike by Women

You already know that your ex-wife can take you to the cleaners and get more or less half your stuff whenever she fancies a divorce, for no good reason. All she has to be is bored and irritated with you and fancy a change.

If she is really malicious, she can accuse you of paedophilia and deprive you of your children, while still compelling you to pay for them.

You can be assured of breath-taking injustice in the Family Courts whose judges are mostly men-hating female judges.

Family courts sit in camera, which means no journalist can report on any injustice meted out to you. This is justified on the grounds of the children's privacy.

When you declare an official marriage strike, the idea is to induce the smarter, self-respecting kind of women to declare a sex strike.

If this state of affairs persists then national extinction will be the consequence, since only stupid sluts, slags and slappers will happily get knocked up by low-life losers and become the "wives" of the taxpayer, who have been the victims of this kind of forced marriage.

Don't look to the government to do anything. They are too scared and spineless. Somebody might get upset or offended and they might - shock horror! - lose precious votes.

To recap the battle plans of this Gender War:

PHASE 1 - Marriage Strike by Men

PHASE 2 - Sex Strike by Women

PHASE 3 - negotiation of the marriage contract resulting in

1. the reintroduction of fault in divorce.

2. the presumption of children staying with their mother until 7

3. the presumption of children being in the care of their fathers after 7, so that their children are not abused (sexually, emotionally or physically) by any unsuitable new male partner of their ex-wife

You know it makes sense.

Do it to show you know what it means to be a man.

Do it to get a Decent Wife.

Do it for the next generation.

Do it for your country.

Do it for Western civilisation!

Women, don't even think about giving him sex if you want a husband and a father for your children until you get that ring on your finger!

Being easy meat only encourages men to think they don't need to commit to any woman to get sex. is the MARRIAGE CONTRACT CLUB which is also a Claire Khaw Group connected to this project to renegotiate the terms of male and female co-existence in the context of bringing up the next generation.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

OFFICIAL: Britain now an inferior nation; British now an inferior race

"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

 The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

The weak in body or mind refrain from marriage - probably because they are not perceived to be worth marrying, or do not have the will to get married or the skill to stay married, nor do they have a government prepared to promote family values supported by marriage.   

Monday, 13 June 2011

Expectant British women now hopelessly drunk and stupid

British women have to be told that drinking excessively while pregnant is bad for their foetus.

Stupid female Tory MPs like Margot James - blond, pretty and dim - think getting a drinks company to run a campaign like this is a good idea.

She tweeted yesterday:

margot james
Very good news that Diageo are to fund education re alcohol use during pregnancy, should not be opposed by the BMA

British women are mostly thick as shit these days.

I have been saying for a while now that too much extra marital sex makes you stupid, and about half the babies born in Britain are bastards these days.   We will soon be a country of stupid bastards governed by stupid bastards and destined to suffer the fate of stupid bastards.

Doom, doom, D O O O M !!!!!

Friday, 10 June 2011

More ostentatious displays of victimhood and disability to squeeze more money from taxpayers and bully PM

"That night on the news, the prime minister was forced to break off from talking about the Nordic Baltic summit he was hosting in London to answer questions about Riven."

Really?  Was the Riven Vincent story really such a fucking national emergency?  Is David Cameron our Prime Minister quite getting his priorities right, when he so obsequiously bows and scrapes for the female vote in such nauseating gestures of self-abnegation?

"Celyn's father, Mark Williams, makes sure he is home from work every day at the same time she returns from school. Riven has had multiple sclerosis for 13 years, and three years ago began using a wheelchair outside the house, and a stick to get around inside, making her doubly sensitive to changes in government policy that affect disabled people. As a result her husband does more than 50% of the caring for Celyn. A research scientist, he works part-time, fitting his hours around Celyn's school timetable."

Riven has had MS for 13 years.  Celyn is now 7.  I wouldn't be having more children if I knew I had MS.  Is Riven some sort of attention-seeker who likes to put the icing of disability on to her cake of illness for MAXIMUM VICTIMHOOD?

Does she not have friends and family who are prepared to give her sound advice that she might wish to heed?

"Look, Riven, why would you be having another baby when you already know you have MS?  Are you sure it is such a good idea?  Isn't this a bit unfair on your husband?  What are his views on this?" 

Perhaps they did, but Riven wasn't listening, because to both suffer from MS and have a severely disabled child would just send her straight to the top of the Victimhood All-Time Top 100 and that was always her dream.

I am just astonished that any self-respecting man would put up with the kind of life that Riven seems to have marked out for her husband without any consideration for his feelings or his wishes or any apparent consultation.

She, too, is now in a wheelchair!

If I were him I would be wondering how my life would be if both wife and severely disabled child were no longer around make my life a misery of nursing the physical disability of two members of my own family, and how nice it would be to get my life back, to have sex in my home that is not stuffed with medical equipment and to just go to the pub.  

Does this man even have any male friends left?

The fact that he puts up with everything so enthusiastically and uncomplainingly makes me suspect his motives, his character and his masculinity.

"A lot of children with cerebral palsy are found dead in the morning,"

said Riven, in a bid, perhaps, to milk more reluctant and exhausted sympathy out of us.  

"A lot of children with cerebral palsy are found dead in the morning,"

OK, Riven, I shall pray for you. I don't want anyone thinking I have no compassion after all.

Her appetite for campaigning is waning. "I don't like publicity. I would rather not have to go to the media to fight for them, and make people aware of the problems. I'd rather the awareness was there. I don't have the time for all this stuff. I just want to get on with living life with Celyn while she is still here." 

First sensible thing I have heard from her since we crossed swords.   Riven Vincent gives people with disabilities a bad name.  In fact, it could be argued that she by her actions incites hatred against the disabled.

I have nothing against the disabled provided they do not wish to take away my right to free speech and don't get above themselves and think they have a right not to be offended.

Is it not time that mothers married to the fathers of their well-behaved children who are a credit to their parents be praised?  Yet instead the whole nation, including our politicians, kowtows to the likes of Riven Vincent in our Culture of Entitlement and the Ostentation of Victimhood.  In my opinion, Riven Vincent represents the rapacity and voracity for welfare of the female voter who has messed up her life and wants the taxpayer to bail her out.   

If we care for the future of this country, we should be prepared to speak out against people like her.

If we cannot get it together to fix this problem, then we should at least know what Western civilisation is dying of: the irresponsible and irrational reproductive choices of the female voter - voracious and welfare-dependent - who cannot be criticised.

We know who wields the power by the ones we cannot criticise.    

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

Birth Control Pill for Men: Would You Count On It?

Any woman dumb enough to rely on this method of contraception deserves to be spayed. 

The 30 second rapist

"Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time.

As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment."

"Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing.

Christine Elizabeth Watson a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail.

Mr Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars."


Tuesday, 7 June 2011

White male politicians in the West show yet more signs of sex-obsessed feeble-mindedness because their women are so cheap

Married sex-obsessed liberal politician

If a man wants to seduce me I would rather he waved his wallet and credit cards at me rather than his cock. Does this sort of thing work on white girls? I can hardly believe it. Are they so stupid, low and cheap that this sort of thing works with them? 

Sunday, 5 June 2011

Friday, 3 June 2011

The difficulty of living with authenticity if you are a white female non-Muslim in the West

I was discussing living with authenticity with a woman in a pub yesterday evening.

I suggested it was something to do with knowing what we want to do and being prepared to say what it is we want.

Women these days are sadly disadvantaged, however.   The ones who say they want to get married and have children are sneered at by their feminist peers, and so the middle class women feel obliged to say they want to have a career, when all they really want to do is get married and have children.

The working class ones either become single mothers of variously-fathered feral children or convert to Islam so they stand a fighting chance of finding a husband who is not a NEET and who is at least aware of his Islamic and husbandly duty to support a wife and children without sending her out to work.

It is well known that those who are graduates and have proper professional careers find a certain lack of interest in working after they have had their children. This is understandable.  After all, who would really want two jobs and the risk of doing both badly??  Apart from a feminist, of course.

Yet they would insist that jobs are kept open for them while they go on maternity leave while men are kept from competing against them by sex discrimination and equal pay legislation.

Of course, men who feel they want to be kept and be househusbands are looked at askance, especially a man who says quite openly that all his wants is marry a wealthy wife who will keep him in a manner to which he wishes to become accustomed.

Sadly, very sadly for most women, it is only when they are in their 30s that they realise that the best time for them to find husbands has come and gone:while they were busy chasing the careers they did not want.

They will then be condemned to a middle age of single parenthood, or if not an an old age of childless melancholy and pitiable loneliness, with no child to even send them into a nursing home when they become too frail to continue living alone.

Soon, the solution for us all will be Soylent Green, thanks to feminism.

Those of us who are not Soylent Greened will no doubt be daily abused and tortured by our foreign carers in our nursing homes, who will only have utter contempt for us because they will know we have been abandoned by our children and our feminist daughters - such as Joan Smith - who will be too busy working to care for us.

Joan Smith
@rossaverde Yes, and the assumption is that 'the family' ie women should look after them, as well as their other jobs. 

'Elderly people expect to be shunted off'

A A Gill:
I was asked by a Ghanaian woman once in a care home: 'What is it with you?   Why don't you look after your old people?' 

With the scandals and funding problems in elderly care, should we reconsider who should be looking after us in our old age?

AA Gill of the Sunday Times and Katharine Whitehorn, who is now agony aunt for Saga Magazine, debate why "we have to engage with old people."

That is because "people work". For this read "women work". A A Gill didn't quite say "women" in case his balls got ripped off. Interestingly, the fact that women now work and have no time for anyone was not mentioned at all.

Joan Smith
@rossaverde Yes, and the  assumption is that 'the family' ie women should look after them, as well as their other jobs.!/polblonde 

That about says it all, doesn't it?   If we're lucky, any children we might have might just about get it together to send us into a home.

Fuck feminism, fuck the cunting selfish stupid bitches who are doing everything wrong and won't be told, and fuck the cunting stupid hypocritical bastard men who are too scared to say boo to them.

Feminism destroys your society and civilisation, and don't you forget it.