Saturday, 30 June 2012

Supporting the traditional family by David Jones

The "traditional" family! Does it remind you of your mother walking around in dress and petty coat or dad driving a car from the "fifties."? Why is everyone so afraid of being labelled "old fashioned?"

Though in many respects we are better off materially, we all know there is something amiss, and just because things are new and progressive doesn't automatically mean they are right. Not that there was ever a “golden age” as there was never a time when everything was perfect but rather when things were more right with how people acted in society in general. It was a time when:

~ People taught their children how to behave in public and at home.  Children did not rule the house, they were given clearly understood directions as to what is acceptable and what is not.

~ Children were taught the meaning of money and hard work.  If something gets broken there isn't always money to buy another's a life lesson all children must to learn.

 ~We people still dressed decently and modestly.  Most people you meet in the street look like they just rolled out of bed.

~ Children were taught children self-control.  That rules and moral standards governed everything we do.

~ When families eat together at the table, it was a standing appointment unless you were sick.

~ Children were taught proper manners like "please, thank you and may I be excused."

~ We all fulfil our roles... The father leads, the mother supports and the children follows. Nobody questioned why, things just worked smoothly that way.

~ Girls were raised to be ladies and boys were trained to be a men so that they someday can lead a family . Women did not dress like sluts and boys did not act effeminate.

~A husband could be expected to be faithful, love his children and work hard for his family.

Do you want all this back again?

Feminism says NO.

Daryll Christopher on the husband who committed suicide on holiday over his adulterous wife

‘She had two previous affairs and even got pregnant, but Alun took her back.’

Says Daryll Christopher:

"Men are weak. A woman with problems can always run to her friends, another man or the state, a man has fewer choices, this is why they should always look out for themselves first.

The man was simply weak, a disgrace to mankind.

This is a calibre of men we create today, very tragic really. Their Mothers talk down to them at home, Women talk down to them in nursery school, women talk down to them in Primary school, women talk down to them in secondary school, women talk down to them in the hospitals, there is probably an absent father, they probably have no males at hand to give them good advice. All they have ever known, is a dominant female figure who is always in charge.

When they become adults, they are so brow beaten, the come to see women as their masters/leaders, someone to plan and direct their lives. When they loose this structure, they simply can't cope. This is what I think."

Says I:

That wife should have been lashed 100 times the first time she was discovered.  Then none of this would have happened.  

Friday, 29 June 2012

Daryll Christopher on how straight women undermine straight men by saying they prefer gay men

"Many men feel that by being sympathetic to gays and female issues, they are displaying there sensitive side and this will make them more attractive to women, leading to more bed time. I watch Come Dine With Me quite often. The trend there is to have many camp men on the program, or to have women saying that they hope one of the guests will be gay, because they find gay men more interesting. Knocking real men and supporting gays and women is being drummed into our minds from all angles."

The difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy

Matriarchy = Words mean exactly what I want them to mean.

Patriarchy = My word is my bond.

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Harriet and the Hoods

I wonder if Harriet Sergeant can even begin to say why she would not dream of doing any of these things with a member of a WHITE gang.   She must be even now shuddering at the thought.

Maybe white gangs are not so cool?  Maybe they are not so cuddly?

Why do white women hate white working class men so much?  I am sure there are white gangs in London which Harriet has disdained to notice.

Perhaps the photos would not be quite so eye-catching?

Perhaps if photographed with them she would only end up looking like their mother or grandmother on a bad hair day?  Perhaps the whole exercise was an exercise in vanity?  On the other hand, photographed with a black gang, she would look so cool and so brave and so sexy ....

Black gangstas have people like David Lammy MP and Dr Tony Sewell of Generating Genius looking out for them.  Yes, black males have men of their own race actually caring enough to look out for them.   It was Tony Sewell who said that the most indigenised are the most disadvantaged, but Harriet doesn't care because they are not cuddly and eye-catching enough for her.  Besides, what would her friends (liberal, female, singly mothering, Guardian-reading and Guardian-writing) say about her?

White gang members have no one really to look after them except perhaps the EDL, NF and BNP looking after them, I suppose, and perhaps that is why Harriet disdains to give them the time of day, because they must by definition be racist CHAV scum who deserve to rot and die, eh Harriet?

Anyway, it is not like she is really helping even black youth, because she has not criticised Slut Single Mums who bring them into this world and then abandon them to uncaring care homes or who keep them and abuse them.

Most black people are illegitimate.

Mind you, these days, most white babies are also illegitimate.

This is why blacks have now become white, as David Starkey says.

What will happen when white people turn black?  Will they be treated the way white people used to treat black people?

Not a pretty thought, is it?

Women like her will not criticise the morals of British women, no matter how despicably promiscuous, because that would be to doubt the morality and sanity of feminism, and Harriet, like most women in this country, is a feminist.  A feminist is a woman who would rather die than give up the privileges she has tricked out of men who are suckers for a pretty face, even if the future of this country is at stake, even if she has a son.

There is a theory that white women fuss over black men to show their contempt for white men, and even their sons.  It is a badge of the matriarchy that these women do these things because they can. should be of interest to white bleeding heart middle class liberal women who think black gangs are more fun, cute, cuddly and cool than white gangs.

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

The Bhagavad Gita

If this gangsta had been white would Harriet be hugging him and stroking his cheek or  breathing the same air as him?  If not, why not?  
"When we got to Tuggy’s room, I showed him how to floss his teeth. For the first time, I stroked his cheek and gave him a hug." 

Read more:

Harriet and the Hoods

Monday, 25 June 2012

Higher rate of illegitimacy in the UK linked to crap England team

In football, England is behind Portugal, Spain and Italy.

This is due to the higher rates of illegitimacy in Britain.   That is why we are such useless sluts and bastards who will never amount to anything, and having nothing to look forward to but decline and fall, extinction and death, criminality and barbarism, in a vicious circle of ever lowering standards of education and sport and ever lowering standards of morality ....

But most Britons these days are too stupid to care or too frightened to challenge the feminists.

Harriet Sergeant does not condemn the causes of crime and gang culture - SLUT SINGLE MUMS

Titillating photograph of Harriet Sergeant and her boys from the hood gives publicity to her potboiler that does NOT condemn illegitimacy

Below is what she says about illegitimacy:

Despite the huge amount of evidence of the harm this causes children (mothers of children on the “at risk” register, for example, are five times more likely to be single teenage mothers), the Labour government made single motherhood an attractive proposition.

Since 1997 a single mother of two children has seen her benefits increase by 85%. We watched the effects of that policy play out on our streets every night last week.

To accuse these young girls of being feckless is unjust. They are merely responding to the economics of the situation. They are as much victims of the crisis in our schools and the perverse influence of benefits as teenage boys. What future is there for a girl who leaves school without a qualification? Whereas boys take to crime, girls get pregnant.

Ministers talk of family breakdown, but there is no family to break down. More than half of single mothers have never lived with a boyfriend. The state has taken over the role of both husband and employer.

Take just one example: single mothers. Mash’s older sister, a single mother of 22, admitted she would love to get married: “But all the men I know are in prison or deal drugs. I don’t know one man with a job.”

Like all the people and organisations she complains about, Harriet Sergeant only proposes to deal with the SYMPTOMS but not the causes, probably because she a dirty rotten feminist IN DENIAL about the causes of crime and gang culture - stupid sluts opening their legs at the drop of a pair of trousers and disdaining to practice effective contraception because they want to progress on the slut ladder of becoming a welfare mum with variously fathered feral bastards which the taxpaying men of Paedo Bastard Britain Fatso Slutland are too limp-dicked to protest.

Harriet Sergeant - tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?  Not bloody likely.   She is a woman after all, and will probably defend to the death the right of sluts to have babies at the expense of the taxpayer because she is a woman herself.  She has a son, but does she care enough about him to denounce feminism?

Nope, nothing here either about what to do with scummy slut single mums who breed their verminous spawn who will become the criminals of the next generation.  Not a dicky bird.

Maybe the next one, eh?

Her book is now being serialised in the Mail, so give her a chance.  She may possibly get round to mentioning SLUT SINGLE MUMS which I suspect her feminine feminist sympathies will probably prevent her from criticising.  She probably has quite a few friends who are also slut single mums and she doesn't want to hurt their feelings.  Girls stick together at the expense of boys, even mothers who have sons want to keep all the feminist privileges they have acquired at the expense of men, even if that will fuck up their sons' futures and the future of their own country.

That's shitty stinking fucking evil feminist ideology for you, eh?

If nothing about criticising slut single mums come out in the other parts of her serialised book, perhaps some might think she deserves the fate of Marie Antoinette whom she so strikingly resembles.

Harriet says there is a whole chapter devoted to the subject of single mums in her book, out 12 July.   I will make a point of popping into Waterstone's to see if there is anything at all constructive being proposed about dealing with the causes and consequences of state-sponsored slut single mummery. has a book written by Harriet with a chapter devoted to single mums, from page 19.   Nothing was proposed however, about stigmatising these women or even endorsing the Just Say No recommendation of Nadine Dorries MP.

Let us hope the chapter on single mums in her new book is rather more constructive.  Then I will happily eat my words and hat about Harriet being an evil feminist who refuses to criticise the morals of British women just because she is one herself.

I may even attend the book launch, if I am not escorted off the premises by her minders who may consist of members the gang she has been hanging out with.   If so, I may even buy a copy and ask her to to dedicate it 'To Claire "Robespierre" Khaw, With love and best wishes from Harriet "Marie Antoinette" Sergeant'

When Enoch Powell talked about a nation busily engaged in heaping up their own funeral pyre, he didn't know the half of it.   

Friday, 15 June 2012

Mediocre female teachers not worth their salt resent being paid by results

Men tend to be over-represented on the extreme ends of the scale, ie they are either really bad or really good.

It is the tendency of women to be mediocre.

I think it was Confucius who said

"The average man is better than the average woman, but the superior woman is superior to the superior man."   

I am a woman who thinks like a man but without a wife whom I fear will divorce me, take half my stuff and deprive me of my children.  It is possible that I am that superior woman.

My Facebook friend Daryl Christopher says:

This new revision of History to pass off women as playing a leading role does not surprise me. It just confirms the long, mad dash to Feminize society and pulverize men into being Second class citizens.

Their plan is to remove the man's traditional role as head of the home by claiming single mother is capable of raising well balanced, healthy children. They strip wealth away from men by ensuring that the vast majority of government jobs are allocated to women, they give women huge divorce settlements and spend lavishly on single mothers.

They seek to deliberately create an army of uneducated, pliable men by ensuring that the education system only produce successful girls. Even though women get the most and the best of everything, they still peddle the idea that women are discriminated against, downtrodden and victimized. If anyone wants to know why I am single, these are the reasons.

Once a man marries, he is sacrificing himself. Having a woman around the home might guarantee some sex, but that's it. They do very little and nag 24 hours per day. The deception that women spend hours cooking and doing housework is another of their plan, most modern women can't even cook.

I am talking about an education system that is beneficial to women. They make up 80% of the teachers and delivers success to female students. I am talking about a government that employs 80% women and forces companies to employ women and give them prominent positions. This is nothing to do with numbers. It is the government deliberately favouring one group over another. Why should men have to speak up to get help? 

The government knows the facts and choose to ignore them. Getting a job is not dependent on education alone. It is really pathetic to suggest that women are getting on merely because they are better educated. How can a good education help an incompetent police make an arrest?. It doesn't, it is just the system oiled to make men second class citizens.

Getting a job is not dependent on education alone. It is really pathetic to suggest that women are getting on merely because they are better educated. How can a good education help an incompetent police make an arrest?, it doesn't. Women are hidden from frontline duty, none of the risk, but they demand the same pay. Just try and tell me that for every female police officer, prison guard, fire person, garbage collector etc, that there are not a thousand better qualified men.

There was a time when they had the first pass the post system and girls were doing poorly. They system was changed to include course work into the final exam marks. It was only then that girls started to do well. This has been accompanied by a huge drop in standard and Britain plummeting down the education league table. 

Employers have to teach schools leavers basic maths and English. The fact is that when girls were doing poorly, there were many descenting voices and change followed. Now boys are doing poorly, not even a single cry for change, not even from their own mothers.

The only time the government is interested in boys, is when they are recruiting for the Military. They set up stalls in markets and fairs, send brain washers to schools to seduce the impressionable boys with tales of travel to foreign lands, tales of valour and tales of fame and Victoria Crosses. 

Why don't they show the same commitment to boys education?

The government's reaction to crap female teachers who fail boys: they do not want to fire them, they want to keep them and pay them less, so boys will continue to fail. Which entity in the Universe would deliberately recruit and keep crap staff?. The only reason would be because their plan is on course. I rest my case.

Men are such wimps too. A man will send me a private message agreeing with me, but he won't agree with me inn public because he is married or has a girlfriend, and she will get upset if he tells the truth.

This is why despite the evidence, the men are very quiet on the issue. Once married, they have to sacrifice themselves.

Andrew Hosken reports on London gangs without mentioning that virtually all gang members are SSM-parented

Mrs Andrew Hosken who is very likely to give her husband a hard time should he point out the effects of  allowing Slut Single Mums to breed at will and like vermin at the expense of the taxpayer.  Very likely, most of this woman's friends are single mothers of some sort, and she will be angry with her husband for offending them.  Women are very totalitarian and censorious, you see, and do not believe in free speech, especially when they are being criticised.!/Hoskea10

One should question Andrew Hosken's journalistic integrity and wonder if this poor man is the pitiable victim of self-censorship.  Perhaps he has sired illegitimate offspring?  Perhaps he knows the mother of his children would only divorce him and deprive of his children if he said anything about Slut Single Mums and he desperately wishes not to incur her wrath?  What else can explain his contemptible cowardice in not mentioning the role of Slut Single Mums in London gang culture?  We all know most back people are SSM-parented because Diane Abbot MP(a single mum) herself said so.

David Lammy MP is at least doing something active and practical to prevent the increase of fatherlessness.  The contemptible cowardice and hypocrisy of the white liberal male is simply nauseating.

However, expecting the British to deal with the scourge of slut single mummery is like expecting a patient with a gangrenous limb to saw it off himself, perhaps.   He really would rather die, or is just physically not capable of doing it himself.  But that is what needs to be done if the patient is to be saved.   Do I have the qualities of a ship's surgeon?   I believe he has to be swift, accurate and firm of mind.

The house-trained and domesticated Andrew Hosken (perhaps even more house-trained and domesticated than his wife?) being photographed with his son

The Mayor of London was interviewed on the Today Programme.  Did Boris Johnson mention Slut Single Mums even once?  No.   Did Sarah Montague ask him about Slut Single Mums?  No, she wouldn't, would she, probably because she is a feminist and determined to hide the truth about the link between feminism, sluts, bastardy, criminality and the decline and fall of your civilisation.  Are feminists selfish, socially irresponsible and evil?  I think we should be told.

When will the Bastard Broadcasting Corporation have a proper debate about feminism that is destroying Western civilisation?  

Thursday, 14 June 2012

Why David Lammy MP is my hero

David Lammy MP

David Lammy is a  black politician who sees the point of family values because he believes birth certificates of illegitimate babies should cite the name of *both* parents.  He at least knows SSMs are bad for black people as well as Britain and should be warmly commended for his campaign to to reduce fatherlessness. However, his campaign can only be successful if feminists are roundly denounced for promoting female promiscuity and widespread illegitimacy leading to degeneracy, decline and fall.

Diane Abbot

 Diane Abbott told a socially conservative black woman that she is didn't "do the black thing" because she believed in family values.  According to Ms Abbott, you are not properly black if you are not singly-parented, but why would any right-thinking female member of the black community want her offspring to be  illegitimate when  it can be illegitimate?  Or is Diane Abbott saying that most black men are not the marrying kind or not worth marrying?  If so, is that not racist?  If it is true that most black men are not the marrying kind nor worth marrying, what is the reason for this?  Is it because they were mostly SSM-parented?  Should white people worry that most white babies are now illegitimate?  Does it also mean that most white men are not the marrying kind and are not worth marrying either?  Is David Starkey right in saying that white people have become black?  Shouldn't the government be doing something?

Sunday, 10 June 2012

Degrees of Sluttery

Technically, a slut is a woman who has sex with a man not her husband.

In that case the overwhelming number of women must be guilty, including myself.

There are however DEGREES OF SLUTTERY, and that can be measured by the number of a slut's sex partners.

1-10       Ever so slightly slutty

11-20     Slightly slutty

21-30     Quite slutty

31-40     Very slutty

41-50     Super slutty

51-60     Ultra slutty

61-70     Hyper slutty

71-80     Super Ultra slutty

81-90     Super Ultra Hyper slutty

91+         You have missed your vocation as a prostitute and should monetise your nymphomaniacal compulsions.

Monday, 4 June 2012

The Menace of Triumphant Feminism


Veronica Shugg writing in issue 23 of Right NOW! Magazine says:

“And just who were these feminists, these beings with an apparently self-conferred sort of divine right to sit in judgment on the lives of all women en masse and declare them wanting?  They were women who, embittered by their own inadequacies, blamed the whole world in general and men in particular for their own shortcomings.”

“The feminists spent years promoting the sexual revolution and telling women that they must be like men in pursuit of ‘sex for the sake of it,” with the result that the natural respect that men used for women has been extinguished, and that any and every woman is now considered fair game by men who listen to what the feminists have been saying for so long.  Now, having achieved their goal of ‘equality of out come for all’, some of the feminists have decide that they don like the result – suddenly they want a return to the better days of the past when men were men and women were cherished and cared for by society.   Their answer, however, is yet more rules and regulations to stop ‘the enemy from indulging in the kind of behaviour they have themselves encouraged all these years.  And the changes they now want made to the changes they have already forced on society will only continue to make their Brave New World even more of a mess than it is already.  In that process of destruction, they have spawned the worst evil of all: political correctness – a modern form of thought control that makes any reasoned argument useless for the simple reason that reason itself is replaced by unthinking dogma and mindless rhetoric.”

Feminism has of course led to the feminisation of the white man.

White men are now so feminised that even supporters of a party that is supposed to care about the white race cannot now bring themselves to denounce feminism, which is plainly the cause of degeneracy in the West.