The Battlefield of Love

Sir Nicholas Wall - another liberal  tosser who says he believes in marriage while flushing  it down the toilet like a used condom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17522726 What we have now is in fact no-fault divorce in practice, even if the parties to the marriage go through the motions of citing a reason for the break-up. "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is the catch-all reason for anything to boredom and wanting a bit of space to grow and spread one's wings. Therein already lies the no-fault in divorce that we already have. Behaviour is never taken into account when deciding the divorce settlement. We already have de facto no-fault divorce, but the liberal extremists now want de jure no-fault. Compare the "fuck off out the home you bought for us" kind of no-fault divorce you get now to the more old fashioned kind of marriage ceremony that emphasises the sanctity of marriage, solemn promise, not to be entered into lightly, unadvisedly, to ho

Strindberg developed a theory that sexual warfare was not motivated by carnal desire but by relentless human will. The winner was the one who had the strongest and most unscrupulous mind, someone who, like a hypnotist, could coerce a more impressionable psyche to submission. His view on psychological power struggles may be seen in works such as  Creditors  (1889),  The Stronger  (1889), and  Pariah  (1889). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Strindberg

Compare my ten submissions at  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/my-submission-for-2012-orwell-prize-for.html to the bland Liberal Left approved stuff at   http://theorwellprize.co.uk/longlists/filter/type-Blog%20Prize/year-2012/ Both Hopi Sen and Suzanne Moore - this year's judges for blogging - have Labour Party associations, so they are bound to want to marginalise me for my nationalist associations.   Indeed, Suzanne Moore even started an online campaign to get people to block me from following them on Twitter. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/orwell-prize-left-wing-cabal-who-are.html

I am rather nonplussed at this since I never tweet at him and have never gone out of my way to annoy him.  I don't even write on his Facebook page. I guess it is a way of showing his disapproval of me.   This discovery was made yesterday evening. I guess he is in good company with all the liberals who have taken a dislike to me.    

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2120999/Fabrice-Muamba-Twitter-troll-Liam-Stacey-jailed-abusing-Bolton-midfielder.html Would a MALE Crown Prosecutor have asked for that? We know who is in power by whom we cannot criticise, do we not, gentleman?   I can hear you pissing in your trousers, mate.     If I went to prison for the white man because the white man is too shit scared to even think of doing time to  make a point, would the BNP support me?  Would it fuck. But I wouldn't dream of claiming racial discrimination because anyone who has been in the BNP would know that the BNP regularly shits on its own white activists. Have you looked at Nick Griffin's Facebook page? https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNickGriffin Not a word, not a fucking word about anything political except how well the BNP are doing which you would only believe if you have shit for brains, which these days most white men do.  They have shit for brains and piss for guts and are

1. Anyone of legal capacity can devise their own contract. 2. Gay people can have their own contract which can resemble marriage but cannot call their contract "marriage". 3. Straight people who contract with each other will have their contract treated like a marriage when offspring is produced, whatever they called their contract to begin with. 4. No marriage may take place without a marriage contract. 5. The purpose of a marriage contract is so that FAULT can be apportioned when a party to the contract is accused of not fulfilling the terms of the contract by the other. 6. Any divorce settlement will reflect the fault apportioned on the party considered by the court to be in the wrong. Lawyers should support this idea as this would be a regular source of income for them.  Too bad they are mostly PC extremist feminists now so they won't get what I am on about. My idea would actually have them associated with weddings,domestic partnerships, house-warming p

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/19/80mph-girl-blonde-stereotype-video_n_1361469.html?ref=mostpopular&just_reloaded=1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2117453/Dennis-Waterman-admits-I-punched-ex-wife-Rula-Lenska.html Of course there is a world of difference between punched once or twice and being a battered wife.  Why is saying this considered controversial? There is indeed a world of difference between being punched and being beaten up.  Ask any boxer or street brawler. I suppose women being women will pretend not to know the difference.   I suppose it also depends on where he hit her.  Did she get a black eye or lose any teeth?  Did he punch her in the arm?   Or was it a slap across the face?  In response to what? OK for a woman to hit a man, not OK for man to hit a woman. Whither gender equality? Give up feminism and  a man may feel worse about hitting a woman? A real man would never slap the face of another man in anger, would he? Slapping is a form of physical chastisement specially reserved for women because that is usually enough to shut her up. Let's hear all the

http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/893217-wonderful-role-model-katie-price-wins-mum-of-the-year-for-second-time Scummy British mums who have no pride and feel no shame vote for scummy British slut single mum of the year. If you are married and have children by the same husband and they are not disabled and who are actually doing well at school, you are just a piece of SHIT in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland. If you want to be mum of the year, you would be some shit hot great grandmother with generations of slut and bastard descendants all on welfare. SHITTY PISSY PUSSY British men think this is OK. Or they have had their dicks cut off and stuffed in their mouths so hard they are now mute in their emasculation. They are fucking beyond help now. Will there be a single British man saying anything about this? Will they FUCK. They will be going around with their dicks hanging out in parks begging children to give them blowjobs, probably.  Or jerking themselves off to porn at

0817 The prime minister recently referred to Britain as a Christian country, yet on numerous issues, the latest being gay marriage, the state appears to be at odds with the Church. Religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott looks back at relationship between the two institutions while the Right Reverend Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, and former lord chancellor Lord Falconer, discuss the future of the relationship of the church and state.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9706000/9706273.stm   Because the government knows the Archbishop of Cant and his bishops would be a bunch of pushovers in frocks.    Yes, time to disestablish the Church and burn those useless fuckers at the stake.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4&feature=uploademail  

Dear Slavoj Zizek I notice you never mention FEMINISM.  Is it out of fear or ignorance, I wonder. You never debate with anyone either.   I am sure you would never dare debate with me.    I have observed how you are really quite right-wing but continue to pretend that you are a Marxist, in the hope that no one would notice.   I just watched  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8LPn4irao  and saw that you ended by saying the Left would eventually triumph, rather than the Populist Right, for reasons I would suggest are incoherent and facile.    However, I quite understand, because if you had said the opposite then your income and your invitations to speak would dry up instantly.    Still , as you say you are a Marxist philosopher, I suppose it is worth asking if you are prepared to debate with a nationalist philosopher.   I do not anticipate an acceptance, because I would expect even a philosophical fraud to to know on which side his bread is buttered. Claire K

Pushing through the penis of gay marriage into the reluctant anal passage of heterosexual marriage will only intensify homophobia which is currently a caged and angry beast, making the inevitable backlash nastier, when that beast later escapes, or is released. A wiser government would refrain from poking it with a stick just so liberal degenerates from whom it derives its support can jeer at its helpless rage.

Marriage cannot be for gay people because, when marriage was first created, it was for created people who wanted to get married and have children. Marriage was created with the purpose of making couples stay together for the sake of the children. Gay people don't have children so it doesn't apply to them, just as a man has no need for a maternity bra and a woman has no need for that flap in a pair of boxer shorts. The liberals are just being STUPID .... again .... It makes people even more homophobic and does nothing at all to make heterosexual marriage more stable and rewarding for men. Indeed, it turns marriage into something of a mug's game for men and drags it through the poo of sodomy. To have a Conservative Prime Minister saying he supports gay marriage  because  he is a Conservative clearly demonstrates that  tolerating  homosexuality in the first place has led us to this pretty pass. It just shows that if you give the gay lobby an inch of anal, you will end

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php  

When an SSM has a child out of wedlock it means: 1.  the child has a mother who is an SSM and all this implies at  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-slut-single-mum-aka-never.html  (Half of the child is already full of SSM genes!) 2.  its father doesn't care enough about it and its mother to marry its mother (Its father was probably a cad and a bounder.) 3.  its maternal grandparents did not see fit to tell its mother not to become an SSM which implies stupidity, cowardice, hypocrisy, neglect, immorality and tolerance of low standards of behaviour 4.  the family and friends of its mother think becoming an SSM is OK 5.  it will have a hell of a legacy - both environmental and heredity - to transcend Imagine if most people in your society were worse rather than better. Oh dear, I think we are already there.   Oops.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572446/Most-British-babies-now-born-outside-marriage.html  

http://www.channel4.com/news/armed-conflict-justifiable-for-1-in-10-bnp-supporters Apocalyptic predictions of social breakdown are not confined to the "Far Right". Should such a situation occur, why would anyone of any race say it would be wrong to fight whoever is threatening your life, loved ones and property? It is the job of government to prevent the breakdown of law and order by encouraging policies that create social cohesion. Why then is the government continuing to desecrate the institutions of Marriage and the Family? Totalitarian laws against free speech are not the way to create social and racial harmony. Why is the government creating the problem by its demented policies and then blaming what they like to call "the Far Right"? Immigration exacerbates more divisions in an already fragmented and atomised society that has lost its pride and moral compass. Why is immigration encouraged even as successive governments know how much it upsets the white

by inviting feminists to visit and read all I have to say about feminism. Welcome, welcome!  Do come in and have a cup of tea and a piece of cake. Stay as long as you like and tell all your feminist friends to come too!

I am not saying same sex couples should not commit the sex acts they want to commit with each other over a long period of time while living together.   All I am saying is that they should not call it "marriage". Children often talk about marrying each other when they have decided that they like each other.  It seems that the Prime Minister's understanding of marriage has now degenerated into this infantile misapprehension. A same-sex couple wanting to marry each other is as absurd as a man wanting to wear a bra or a woman wanting to wear a codpiece.    A same-sex couple (or even an unmarried heterosexual couple) should accept that there is no obligation to stay together if just one of them decides it is over.   They would not need rights against each other in the same way that an abandoned wife with children would deserve support from her errant and faithless husband.    Marriage was not created for the purpose of couples of any kind to say they love each other.  I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w__PJ8ymliw&feature=youtu.be Feminism is a cause of prosperity or a consequence of prosperity? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Marriage is an ECONOMIC partnership. Feminists are only capable of speaking in half truths. While it is true that females had their sexuality "owned" by their husbands and their fathers, it is also true that men were beasts of burden who had their labour "owned" by their females. Monkeys took to prostitution very quickly, apparently, when the concept of money was introduced. The duty of women is to bear healthy children to maintain the labour force. Men would want to earn more when their wives produced offspring. Men who don't have offspring are just happy to SUBSIST. Listen to what she says about the Neanderthals having an egalitarian distribution of labour while homo sapiens adopted specialisation and division of labour. Neanderthals were FEMINISTS. This is at the 12th minute. The

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110249/Clares-Law-let-ask-police-partner-history-violence.html?ITO=1490 As I thought, Clare Wood was a Slut Single Mum. This means she was promiscuous. And stupid, because she fucked a murderous maniac who killed her. (How many dates did she wait before she fucked him?  Is she the sort of woman who would fuck a man on the first date?  Most British women would these days, and then discover, too late, that they have fucked a murderous maniac.)   Now, it is being proposed that men be easily checked up on by any of their female partner's family and friends who don't like the look of you, including possibly her ex. As long as you are OK about having your privacy intruded upon to protect stupid promiscuous women like her who are stupid enough to fuck maniacs who kill them, then you would be OK about this.  In other words, only if you are stupid and are inclined to lick the boots that kick your stupid ugly arse. To be honest, I think s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/9084309/Rachel-Cusk-on-the-end-of-a-marriage.html Rachel Cusk questions feminism when her ex-house husband takes her to the cleaners.   Listen to her at  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ckmgb  on Woman's Hour being interviewed by Dame Jenni.  Talk about being inarticulate, incoherent and confused.  That is because she is still clinging on the shitty coat-tails of feminism even though her it has turned round and bitten her in the bum.  Give it up, Rachel!  

Can you imagine yourself saying to your mother, who bore you out of wedlock, "Mum, you have been like a dad to me"?

I want to thank you for your understanding that, even though I have taken a position critical of SSMs, I do not hate those born out of wedlock or wish them ill I do not hate their mothers or wish them ill. I am trying to highlight what I believe is the cause of the British malaise that the liberals dare not tackle because they worship the Goddess of Free Love and Sexual Liberation. I am really trying to say that there are consequences for society, ie your race, your nation and your civilisation, when your women do not make rational reproductive choices and are beyond criticism. It matters because men, women and children pay the consequences for a more chaotic, atomised and criminal society. The mothers of the murderers of Jamie Bulger were single mothers and bad mothers. I cast no aspersions on your mother because I do not know your mother.  I am sure many women even now do not accept that being a never married  mother is a particularly bad thing.  I know because I h

Beyond criticism?  Kath Rathband who divorced her husband after he was blinded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9114927/PC-David-Rathband-policeman-blinded-by-gunman-Raoul-Moat-found-dead-at-his-home.html Notice how no one is saying anything about the worth of the kind of wife who would divorce you after you are blinded. Perhaps that is just typically British, for the British have no pride and no longer feel any shame, as long as they get their way. Will any newspaper question the morality of the behaviour of such a wife?  Or are they too afraid of the stinking shitting pissing demented matriarchy? We know who is in power by those whom we cannot criticise: shit women with shit morals - sluts who breed the next generation of fatherless criminal looting bastards.  Now it would appear that shit wives who divorce their blinded husbands who are going through a difficult time coming to terms with being blind are also beyond criticism even by the tabloid pr