Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Two anthropologists in Arizona appear to share my extinction hypothesis for Neanderthal man



The reason why Neanderthal man died out was because Homo Sapiens discovered marriage before they did.   There, I have said it, and you have read it here FIRST.

I believe that for PC reasons that the division of labour hypothesis was ignored because it would inevitably lead to awkward questions being asked about feminism, which it would be HERESY to question.

Why Neanderthal Man died out is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-neanderthals-died-out.html

Neanderthal man lived in a matriarchy (a society that condones female promiscuity eg feminism) while Homo Sapiens lived in a patriarchy (a society that condones male promiscuity and supports the institution of Marriage).

The feminist doctrine of gender equality inevitably makes it promote the idea that women have the right to be as promiscuous as men, ignoring the fact that it is women who get pregnant and are the ones left holding the baby and expected to look after their babies.  Now feminist orthodoxy (which is Communistic in nature and application) decrees that  taxpayers (who are mostly male) are to bail out these Slut Single Mums who have fucked up their lives.  Eventually, this will drag everyone else down to their slut and bastard level.

Indeed, Slut Single Women who have fucked up their lives are currently being glamorised.

Mary F Pols, who allowed a penniless and jobless loser to impregnate her in ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE wrote a book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Accidentally-Purpose-one-night-unplanned-pregnancy/dp/0141038403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328012408&sr=8-1 which is now a US sitcom
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/accidentally_on_purpose/.  You gotta hand it to the Americans for having the knack of making depravity wholesome.  Another example is COUGAR TOWN.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_Town

It would not be fair to call Neanderthal women "sluts" because a matriarchy - as the Neanderthal society must have been because they had not yet discovered the institution of marriage - would not be familiar with the concepts of sluttery AKA fornication AKA adultery precisely they operated a kind of sexual communism or a free for all fuck fest that we in the West would be all too familiar with.

Patriarchal Homo Sapiens who created the institution of Marriage had men who would take more of an interest in their offspring, stay with the women who bore their children thereby producing progressively better offspring that also retained the culture of their ancestors.   (This made them culturally more sophisticated as well as facilitating social cohesion.)  The patriarchs operated a kind of sexual meritocracy and efficient labour division between male and female roles, which would have been the beginning of Eugenics (an ideology that concerns itself with improving or at the very least maintaining the quality of the generation for that society), while Neanderthal man became progressively more degenerate.  In the end, they died out after the matriarchy (who were slut and bastard people) was easily defeated by the patriarchy (who respected the institution of marriage).

There are lessons to be learnt from this by the slut and bastard governments of the 21st century West, I would have thought, but they are probably too slut and bastard to listen to reason now.

Monday, 30 January 2012

Woman's Hour on Marine Le Pen


Marine Le Pen

The French presidential elections are in April and early polls indicate it may not be a straight contest between incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Francois Hollande. Marine Le Pen, the current leader of the National Front – is in a strong third position. In 2002 France was shocked when her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, then leader of the same party, reached the final round for the Presidential elections. So, is Marine Le Pen a serious contender for the presidency and has she steered her party away from its neo-Nazi roots to a new kind of respectability?

Sophie Pedder, Chief French Correspondent for The Economist, joins Jane to explain the rise and rise of Marine Le Pen.

"Woman's Hour really should have run a more sympathetic piece on Marine Le Pen. Isn't she a woman too? There was no-one from the right to counterbalance Sophie Peder's hostile comments," said a male BNP Facebook friend.

Why is feminism invariably Leftist and anti-nationalist?  Perhaps this is a question that nationalists should increasingly ask themselves.  Perhaps I should have been invited to comment on this on Woman's Hour, for the sake of balance, but Woman's Hour, Jane Garvey and Dame Jenni Murray have all blocked me from following their tweets, which is most sinister ...

Alison Saunders, *Head of the CPS*, wants more men to be convicted of rape on the accusation of drunken slags who were up for a shag anyway


Prosecution of Rape Cases
The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in London says that the demonization of young women in the media, especially those who’ve been out drinking, is contributing to the low conviction rate in rape cases. Alison Saunders believes victims are deterred from coming forward because they fear being vilified. And jurors come to court with preconceptions about women that affect how they see the evidence. With only around half of all cases that currently make it to court resulting in a conviction; Alison Saunders joins Jane to talk about what needs to be done to tackle myths about rape.

Jurors don't like convicting men of rape on the accusation of drunken slags who were up for a shag when they go clubbing, because it sits uneasily on their conscience.

Fair enough, I would have thought, but not as far as Alison Saunders is concerned.  She wants more men prosecuted and convicted of rape on the accusation of drunken SLAGS.


Sunday, 29 January 2012

Scott's Last Expedition at the Natural History Museum


An ultimately dishonest exhibition with nothing mentioned about the long catalogue of bungling by Scott as compared to Amundsen's common sense and efficiency.


  1. was sentimental about eating the dogs in his typical English way when it was quite obvious that they were the best way of having self-transporting fresh meat,
  2. allowed the engineer (who was the only one who could have have fixed those fragile-looking polar exploration vehicles) to be prevented from joining that polar expedition by one of his team for reasons of rank, 
  3. set his base camp in just the wrong place to reach the South Pole because that was the best place for the scientific expedition (Mixed objectives meant a loss of focus on the main objective, which was that of getting there first and coming back alive.)
  4. lugged around 30lb of rock specimens etc etc etc

Why are the English celebrating the life of a bungler? Have they run out of heroes to celebrate? 

It would have been a better exhibition if it had compared Amundsen with Scott more and went into more detail about how Scott fucked up, instead of trying to big up the scientific success of it. 

Maybe the English are now so sad and demented they celebrate bunglers, thinking that would make them feel better. 

Why do they celebrate fools and knaves, especially failed fools and knaves?

Whose damn fool idea was this anyway?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jan/20/scotts-last-expedition-natural-history-museum reveals that the Exhibition Curator, one Elin Simonssen, is female and is more interested in the DOMESTIC ARRANGEMENTS of Scott's Hut, rather than his mistakes, which I would have thought would be the most important lessons to be learnt from this sad story.   

If you like the idea of walking around what is a model of the hut, looking at the dinner table, looking at where they all slept, what they ate, the design of food containers, crockery, cutlery etc, then this exhibition is for you.   If you just want to know EXACTLY WHAT WENT WRONG, you will find this exhibition of Scott's Domestic Arrangements for Girls certainly NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.   

Why the fuck do the feminazis have to girlify EVERYTHING when there are actually profound moral and logistical lessons to be learnt from this doomed expedition?   

Scott is English amateurism at its worst.  If the English had any pride at all they would be ashamed of Scott, and see his style of leadership - a toxic form of incompetence, stupidity, weakness, arrogance and sentimentality - as dangerously still very much alive and well in 21st century Britain.

Why would they choose to celebrate failure?  Because they are degenerate, demented and depraved, probably, or have allowed women to do their thinking for them.  After all, he was a handsome sort of chap, was he not?

Go, but go only if you are a girl or a girly sort of guy.  If you want to know what went wrong then you might just as well read the excellent Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_amundsen

Current legislation makes it safer for parents of dark-skinned children to smack their children than parents of fair-skinned children


Current legislation, enforced under The Children Act of 2004, says parents are allowed to smack their offspring without causing the "reddening of the skin".

Previously they could use "reasonable chastisement" with a judge deciding if they had over-stepped the mark. However, since the 2004 amendments the decision has been left to social workers.

Mr Lammy said a lot of parents in his constituency have been left confused by the changes and were reluctant to physically discipline their children in case they were contacted by social workers.

He added: "The law used to allow 'reasonable chastisement', but current legislation stops actions that lead to a reddening of the skin - which for a lot of my non-white residents isn't really an issue."

Non-white parents could get away with smacking their children more than parents of fair-skinned children, but they still do not.  I think these parents scared of smacking their children must be SSMs.

What to say to your child when it threatens to ring ChildLine


The first courageous thing David Lammy Labour MP has ever said, I was going to say, and then I thought, why is stating the obvious in early 21st century Britain considered "courageous"?

Because we are ruled by a totalitarian and demented matriarchy, is the answer.

If your children threaten to report you to ChildLine tell the little fuckers to go right ahead.  When Social Services come to take them away, they can look forward to a life in care where they will be sexually abused by their carers in their care homes, under-achieve, become drug addicts and be groomed for sex by sex predators of all races, after which they will lead a life of a drug-addicted prostitute, rent boy and porn actor with a goodly admixture of crime.

Tell them to GO RIGHT AHEAD and make your day.   Little fuckers.

Something tells me that non-white British citizens are getting very fed up indeed with the loony Left Liberalism being exhibited by so many dementedly virulent Feminazis who pussywhip their men until they are flaccid jellies of emasculated submission.  There is therefore a niche in the market if the "Right" offer a non-racist but coherent and socially cohesive ideology that stops this shit right in its tracks.   

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

The Fisherman and His Wife

The ills of Western civilisation can be chiefly attributed to feminists refusing to give up their legal privileges while demanding yet more in ever shriller tones, and the subjugated male politicians who submit to their demands.  


Why the liberals hate me (and it is not because of my views on race)

More mothers should be housewives married to their husbands and politicians should not be afraid of saying so, is basically my message. This is of course HERESY to the prime orthodoxy of our times - FEMINISM. It is really for this reason when I am reviled and called a Nazi by the liberals.

I have nowhere and never expressed a belief that any race is inherently better or worse than any other, and have always believed that CULTURE, formed by state ideology - RELIGION in other words - is responsible for the perceived success or failure of any race.

The religion that has failed the British is the cancerous ideology of Liberalism that promotes Feminism. Nothing will change for the British if Feminism is not confronted HEAD-ON. Only when this is done will its poisonous myths be finally exposed and debunked. This the reason the liberal media conspire to ignore me, in order to avoid being drawn on this.

Friday, 20 January 2012

Libertarians disdain to discourage teen mums from breeding bastards


So Sean Gabb the Director of the Libertarian Alliance thinks schoolgirls should be allowed to get on with becoming teen mums?

Perhaps these despicable libertarians think teen mums to be should be should be expressly encouraged to have sex with libertarians, particularly if they are under-aged?

Oh wait, these teen sluts are already known for sucking off anyone who asks them nicely and dropping their knickers for any passing fucker.  That is why white girls are considered "easy meat" by Pakistani-origin British men, as Jack Straw was saying.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/02/easy-meat-white-girls.html

So what is the problem? I think these libertarian FUCKERS just don't want to miss out on all this free fucking going on and they don't want Nadine Dorries to tell stupid teen sluts not to fuck libertarians who might knock them up in her Sex Education (Required Consent) Bill.

And this is what is known as "respectable" opinion in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.

It is the policy of libertarians is to let their dicks hang out in the hope that teen sluts are going to suck them for free, I think, insofar as I can make out a policy from these confused arrogant depraved little sods who call themselves libertarians.

Referring to Nadine Dorries' affair with a married man, the Libertarian Alliance asks in its supercilious way:

"we do look forward to her denunciation of women who, in late middle age, get into bed with married men. Surely, at this time in a person's life, abstinence is both easier and more reasonable to expect?"

As far as I am concerned, Nadine Dorries need only be ashamed if she got herself knocked up and has a child out of wedlock.  Even so, it is mostly unlikely, if not actually impossible for her now to end up being a teen mum.

£6m lab to study inherited diseases. If you have a genetic disorder you have a moral duty NOT to have genetically disordered offspring who will be a burden on the state.


What if after spending all that money there are still genetically disordered people?  Then more public money will be required to look after these genetically disordered people when it is just so much easier to tell genetically disordered adults not to have offspring.  

Is the government STOOPID or something??

"Making a rod for your own back" is a saying that comes to mind.

It is like making a hole of the hole of the hole in your pocket.

Feminism is anti-eugenic.  Time to tell them to shut up, fuck off and stop wasting time and resources making the world a worst place and Britain a stupider, poorer and more disabled and promiscuous nation.

Time for feminism to fuck off.   

Thursday, 19 January 2012

Autism caused by CRAP mothers?


How much do these fucking robot toys for autistic children cost?

Why should we subsidise crap mothering because British mothers are too useless to bring up their children properly?

I bet their autistic kids will start ripping the robots into fucking little pieces the moment their crappy mothers' backs are turned and they get bored of hugging their new toy.


Is the reason why there are so many children with behavioural problems is because their mothers are so crap and their children are bastards?  Are these autistic children the illegitimate offspring of Slut Single Mums who don't know how to bring up their children properly?

Maybe they just need a good smack from time to time and a good ticking off.

Or maybe they will just grow out of it without wasting any more taxpayers' money.

What is autism anyway?  If it is just the inability to control one's own emotions and see another person's point of view because we are in denial, then, hey, we are all guilty, aren't we?

Maybe feminists are all autistic.  Why don't we do some research into that?

Poor self-image cannot explain maths gender gap

But lack of evidence is not the only problem, according to Stoet and Geary. Strategies aimed at tackling stereotype threat are actually doing more harm than good because vital resources are being dedicated to a problem that does not exist, they conclude.




Questions to ask ourselves:

  1. Why do we care that there are not enough girls doing maths if there are enough boys doing maths?
  2. Why do we care about making more girls do maths if they don't want to do maths?
  3. Isn't the reason why girls don't want to do maths even though some of them are good at it is because they don't want to be the odd one out and be teased and laughed at by the kind of girls who would sneer at someone who is good at maths, which is most girls who are not good at maths?
  4. Isn't this a problem of the kind of culture we live in, where the swot is mocked and victimised and there is tremendous pressure to conform or face bullying by bitchy classmates?
  5. Instead of improving maths teaching for all children, why are the British wasting time and resources trying to discover why girls don't do maths (when we already know, really) and making them do maths when they have neither the talent nor the inclination, just to appease the Feminist Fanatics?  (They will course insist that the reason why girls do not do maths and are not apparently much good at it is because of persistent gender discrimination, which demand state resources to tackle.)
  6. Haven't they wasted enough taxpayers' money already?
  7. Haven't they messed up society enough?
  8. Haven't they delighted Western civilisation for long enough already?
  9. When are the men going to tell them to fuck off and shut up?
  10. When is the government going to tell them to fuck off and shut up?

Sunday, 15 January 2012

The 9 Principles of Libertarian Eugenics

  1. Women who do not find a husband before getting married will be treated as lower in status compared to women who are married when they have children.
  2. No parent may be prosecuted for infanticide if the victim is their offspring.   
  3. Home births will be the rule rather than the exception.   
  4. Feminism (because it condones the poor reproductive choices of women and makes them beyond criticism) is anti-eugenic, immoral and must be destroyed.
  5. Eugenics, if practised by individuals only and not by the state, is moral and must be practised.
  6. No person may be married without a legally enforceable Marriage Contract.  
  7. No person may be divorced without fault being attributed and quantified and damages paid to the wronged party.
  8. Same-sex couples may not "marry" or "civilly partner" each other.
  9. All drugs will be legalised so that the weak-willed, depraved and stupid who succumb to addiction will perish sooner rather than later.  

Eugenics is the practice of improving the genetic composition of the population.  

Marriage is therefore Eugenic because requiring a woman to find a husband before she has children will make her choose a long-term sex partner more carefully and wisely.

If she were rational, she would choose a male partner with good  prospects who seems to her to have the potential to be good husband and father (thus improving the quality and increasing the numbers of men who wish to have good quality offspring with the best kind of women, because most men will do anything for sex).

Not requiring a woman to be married before she has children makes her careless, selfish, unwise and promiscuous.

Tolerating the existence of never-married mothers and suffering their numbers to increase without taking strong radical action against to discourage them will eventually lead to a populace with the morals of a sexually incontinent, irrational and tyrannical woman leading, eventually, to the decline and fall of your civilisation.  

If Marriage (which is considered sacred by those who believe in God or at the very least necessary to ensure a cohesive and civilised society) is Eugenic, then the practice of Eugenics as outlined above is inescapably and undeniably moral, because the practice of it is necessary to the social cohesion of your nation if it is to continue to exist and flourish.

Feminism is very obviously Anti-Eugenic and immoral, because there is no need for women to enjoy all the privileges they now do, at the expense of men and other women who are quite happy to be mothers and housewives, because that will harm the next generation and with that the National Interest.

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Why do Jews not exhort the goyim about family values and warn them against FEMINISM? Because they are under no religious duty to do so, unlike Muslims


Points arising in this video:

  1. The desecration of the Institution of Marriage is a Bad Thing, for any race.
  2. Feminism has caused the Institution of Marriage to be desecrated.
  3. The Jews do not discourage this.
  4. Why do they not discourage this?
  5. The kindest interpretation of their failure to discourage this is because they think it is more than their job's worth to warn and remind the goyim who will will resent being criticised, and may well turn nasty, like they did in the Inquisition.
  6. Muslims are under a religious duty to enjoin good and forbid evil, even if they do not always obey it.

Having viewed this video, I am sure no Jew, Christian or Muslim would find anything Pierce says objectionable unless they are liberal feminist HYPOCRITES.

What Pierce says applies just as much to the Chinese, Indians and especially the blacks (if they knew what is good for them) he was always complaining about. This is nothing more than an affirmation of family values and the clear explication of the sacrifices both men and women need to make to make family values THE NORM again.

But the Jews who regularly denounce me will sneer at this.

And when they do sneer at the late William Pierce, they will know that they are in fact the ones who should have been speaking out against feminism and free love which their religion in fact forbids but which they felt it was more than their job's worth to warn the goyim against, for they are under no religious duty to help others.

Only the Muslims have a duty to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil.

But if they do that in the West now, the Jews will sneer and denounce them.

The Koran is a superior rule book than what the Jews have, for it contains the PRIMARY SOURCE of the Word of God (allegedly) which has unity of origin and supremacy of authority, unlike the Jewish holy books which are a scattered mish-mash. Anyone who is legally-trained would know the advantages of having everything in one relatively short, clear and memorable source.  Anyone who is legally trained surely cannot help but agree that the Koran is analogous to a contract between God and Man. But still the chauvinistic Jews sneer, because nothing could be better than what they have always been brought up to think is the ORIGINAL AND THE BEST monotheist religion

Indeed, the Jews I have been discussing this with readily admit that many parts of their holy books are now clearly rather DATED as well as much harsher than the Koran.

The reason why the world is in such a mess is that the Jews, instead of enjoining good and forbidding evil, did not do so where the goyim were concerned because their religion put them under no religious duty to do so, so it was always more than their job's worth.

Also, Jews are horrified when I point out that the state that is the proper homeland for the Jews would have to be a THEOCRACY.  A SECULAR state of Israel is clearly a fraud and can only take on the characteristics of their former Christian oppressors who are even more astray than they are.  (Ask my Facebook friend Ruth Dudley Edwards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards about gay-friendly Tel Aviv if you don't believe me.)

Indeed, a secular state of Israel is just a COLONY of the West, and this explains why the current state of Israel is now such an affront to Arab nationalism and Muslim sensitivities.

If Israel became a THEOCRACY however, it would end up an Islamic theocracy because a Koranic theocracy would not be as harsh as an Old Testament theocracy (for it is from the Jews that the Muslims who now stone adulterers to death got their idea of stoning adulterers to death - the Koran does not mention stoning AT ALL), but this would only happen when the Jews cast off their deadly sin of Pride, which is what sustains their Jewish chauvinism and their ideas of racial superiority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Judaism demonstrates that crimes incurring the penalty of being stoned to death are much more numerous and harsher if you are a Jew, compared to the model of humanity and reasonableness that is the Koran, which only prescribes death, where just.

A THEOCRACY in Israel would of course be the MODEL for all future Koranic theocracies in the world.

Here endeth my proposal for Peace in the Middle East leading Peace in the World.

Oh, and I do not claim to be the Jewish Messiah, merely a Messiah for the Jews.  I do hope they are not going to be racist and sexist about it.   Once they sort themselves out, especially about Israel, everything and everyone else will follow.


The Secular Israelis will want nothing to do with a THEOCRACY and so there will be an EXODUS of Jews from Israel, after which there will be enough land to share with the Palestinian Arabs without even going anywhere near a two-state solution.

The logic of this is inescapable.

I am of course suggesting that living under a Koranic THEOCRACY would make Jews better Jews and Christians better Christians.   This is because the Koran is a better warning and reminder than the Bible because all the exhortations and prohibitions are expressed so much more clearly and simply.

Read it if you don't believe me.   

Because the Koran already acknowledges its debt to the two previous monotheist religions, Jews and Christians who practice family values should have nothing to fear from Muslims.  Liberals, socialists, feminists, adulterers, fornicators as well as cottaging and cruising gay people would though, unless they keep it strictly indoors on private property where no more more than 3 witnesses will see what they get up to with each other.

While I am aware of the reputation of William Pierce, I really have no problem at all in defending what he says in the video I have linked.

The party I used to be a member of praised him very highly, but they have now been corrupted and are now too degenerate and afraid of the feminists to support family values ever again.  That is why the white race is doomed, getting stupider and more degenerate with every  passing bastard and singly-parented generation.  They are also too afraid to discuss eugenics because their brains, balls and guts have now been scooped up by the feminists, which was why they expelled me for saying that I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby nor pass the cost and care of it to the British taxpayer.

In short, the expulsion of Claire Khaw by BNP is conclusive evidence of degeneracy of the White Race which is such that even a party claiming to promote the interests of the white race is now afraid to uncompromisingly state that widespread illegitimacy is bad for any race.   Indeed, it refuses to discuss this and expels anyone who criticises women like Riven Vincent who make bad reproductive choices and then expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Friday, 13 January 2012

Why is an undistinguished lesbian leader of the Scottish Conservatives instead of a white middle aged man with gravitas, experience and good looks?

The former leader of the Scottish Conservative Party - Annabel Goldie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Goldie - is female.

The current leader of the Scottish Conservative Party is female.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Davidson

It would appear at first glance that the Scottish Conservative Party has now turned into some corrupt matriarchal dynasty to be passed down from woman to woman, which does not portend well for the Scottish Tories, and by extension Scotland.

Annabel Goldie resigned because she was so crap, and it seems that because of crap women leadership, the Scotties now need to be saved from Shrek by the English, as if they did not already have enough problems of their own to be getting on with!

The person who should be leader because he is so handsome and courageous and well-qualified and clever is of course Murdo Fraser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdo_Fraser who is absolutely right in saying that the Scottish Conservative Party is not a name that is going to attract swing voters.

A bonnie Scottie Tory

Unfortunately for him, Murdo did not have a new name he had prepared earlier that was acceptable to the party and Lord Forsyth rather took against the idea.  Alex Salmond had  already beaten Murdo to the best possible name ie the Scottish National Party (which sounds right-wing but is really stuffed with policies of the totalitarian Liberal Left and is nothing at all like the British National Party).

What a pity the next most obvious name - the Scottish National Socialist Party - cannot be used because of its associations with the Nazi Party of Germany.

But what about the Scottish Civic National Socialist Party ("CNSP")?

"Am pàrtaidh cathaireach nàiseanta sòisealach" would be the Gaelic translation.

Perhaps my proposal to turn the UK into a one party state would help get round this problem of finding another name that will never ever have the same resonance as the Scottish National Party.

The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (English Branch)
The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (Scottish Branch)
The Civic National Socialist Party of Britain (Welsh Branch)

seems to me to neatly solve the problem of naming names.


Monday, 9 January 2012

How to DESTROY feminism in 7 easy steps

  1. abolish child benefit
  2. repeal the Sex Discrimination Act
  3. repeal the Equal Pay Act
  4. introduce compulsory marriage contracts
  5. reintroduce fault into divorce
  6. withdraw from the EU
  7. abolish the welfare state

Feminism not inherently leftwing, Anna Bird of the Fawcett Society *lies*


"There's nothing inherently leftwing or rightwing about feminism as we would define it: it's about women having equal power and influence over the course of their lives," says Anna Bird, acting chief executive of the pressure group the Fawcett Society

If you believe that, then you will believe in anything.

Feminism turns your nation into a bunch of dumbed-down unemployable emasculated gullible degenerate sluts and bastards.  

Did you know that?

If you can't destroy a society by revolution or war you subvert it by lowering their resistance to shite toxic ideas by force-feeding them feminism AKA cheap sex by easy women to undermine their institutions of family and marriage.  And then they will be properly fucked after the collapse of parental and masculine authority to be replaced by a sex and shopping culture that will ravenously feed on the Seven Deadly Sins until insanity and extinction.

Feminism = The Matriarchy,

and the only good matriarchy is a dead matriarchy.     

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

Sir Paul Coleridge's anti-divorce drive

Promoting marriage and discouraging divorce, but with  no stick


This is too little too late and he must know it.

All Sir Paul has to do is criticise Slut Single Mums and talk about reintroducing fault into divorce and talk about them being a cancer of society, but the old fraud and coward is too frit to say that in case the feminists chop off his cock and stick it into mouth to shut him up.  Pathetic and contemptible.   

Sunday, 1 January 2012

The murderous consequences of liberal parenting

Costa Rican police detain the suspect


Alfred Alexandros Mill Saunders, 20, was arrested in Costa Rica after allegedly being found emerging from a tent where a Czech woman had been subjected to a knife attack. He is understood to be the son of a leading London psychoanalyst.

Local police said Mr Saunders, thought to be from west London, had blood stains on his face and clothes when he was detained by the manager of the isolated eco-farm, who heard screams coming from the victim’s tent late on Wednesday night. Alexandra Drbohlavova, 20, from the Czech Republic, died after receiving up to 15 stab wounds to her face, chest and neck, police said.

Police chief Johnny Fernandez Morales said detectives believed the attack may have been sexually motivated. “Mr Mill told us he can’t remember anything about what happened,” said Mr Morales.


20 year-old Alfred Saunders son of 56 year-old Dr. Catia Galatariotou a psychoanalyst  who is an expert in expert on the sexual development of children and his father is 54 year-old Max Saunders an English teacher at King’s College London, they are separated now. 


‘He lives with his mother, an expert on the sexual development of children…’

I wonder how this woman, an expert on the sexual development of children, brought him up.  


Liberal parenting, eh?

If the victim had been your daughter, what would you like to happen to this pervert who lived with his mother, who is a single mother and an expert on the sexual development of children?

Did she study her own son's sexual development?  How was this done? Did she "develop" his sexuality?  If so, how was this done?

What kind of a mother was she?  What kind of a mother could she have been?  How did she bring up her son?