Saturday, 31 March 2012

Evil Mad Silly Liberal Judge Sir Nicholas Wall wants to desecrate the institution of marriage even more

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 honour and obey, for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and health till boredom do us part?

 http://www.foreverwed2.com/Religious_Ceremonies/Book%20of%20Common%20Prayer.htm

I would have thought that marriage is the most important contract you could ever hope to make in your life because it could make you or break you.

Now, we are to treat it as casually as saying "sorry" when someone bumps into us.

What a nation of mugs, sluts and bastards the British are, to treat the institution of marriage like a used condom they would flush down their toilets.

First, they propose that we use Marriage as a sex toy so that same-sex couples can use it to say they love each other, until they no longer do.

Now, they propose that this LGBT sex toy that is called Marriage is to be treated as instantly disposable without apportioning fault.

Marriage, the most important contract you could ever hope to make in your life, is not even treated as a proper contract by these demented liberal judges of the matriarchy.

If you bought something and it didn't work you could at least take it back to the shop to get a replacement or your money back.

If you hired someone, you would have thought that - in a free society - you could terminate the contract if you no longer required his or her services, or it was performed so badly that you want nothing further to do with him or her.

Not so marriage though.

I have suggested to a number of lawyers before that no one in this country should be allowed to marry without a marriage contract with terms and conditions that could be performed or broken.  You would have thought that these clever lawyers would like this idea because it is work for them, but they just looked at me with dumb incomprehension and started wittering on about the pre-nup.

(The Muslims however operate a system under their Sharia law which treats marriage as a contract and apportion blame when its terms are breached by the parties to the marriage, to be reflected in the divorce settlement, which was what this country did in its saner pre-feminist days.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Marriage_Contract

Now, of course, everything is just divided in half because lazy liberal judges like Sir Nicholas Wall don't like the idea of blame being apportioned because that would be - shock horror - JUDGEMENTAL.

And we all know how much the typical good liberal hates to use his judgement, don't we?

Sir Nicholas Wall, the most senior law judge in England and Wales said he could see "no good reasons against no-fault divorce".  Yet another liberal tosser that the judiciary is so full of these days.  Because he was born in 1945 you would have thought he would have known better.   But perhaps if he had he would not have been appointed.

WARNING FOR THE WEALTHIER PARTNER: For any same-sex couples thinking of entering into a civil partnership, the wealthier partner should take great care and take legal advice or find himself or herself having to support his or her poorer and usually younger ex-partner when the poorer and younger ex-partner tires of them and asks for a no-fault divorce.  

Marriage, or civil partnership, or "gay marriage" will not be worth the paper it is written on.   It is just there to encourage gold-diggers of all sorts and all sexual orientations in Paedo Bastard Britain No Fault No Responsibility Slutland, because the liberals now have a collective death wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_High_Court

High Court Judges may be removed only by a procedure requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament. 

Can anyone tell me how long would this take, assuming the removal of Sir Nicholas is rubber stamped?

Surely something must be done about this evil man who knows to pays lip service towards marriage but in fact wants to smear the sacred institution of marriage in the faeces of  liberal non-judgementalism?   

Friday, 30 March 2012

August Strindberg: The sex war is not about sex but about the Will to Power

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

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Bloggers longlisted for Orwell Prize for blogging 2012 deemed to be better than Claire Khaw by Liberal Left cabal running it


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

Nick Griffin MEP has blocked me from following him on Twitter



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.    

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Vindictive bitch of a Crown Prosecutor Louise Barron wants Liam Stacey imprisoned for longer than 56 days

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 afraid of their women, who are the worst of mothers and the worst of employees, all busily breeding their bastards, not bringing them up properly, dragging the British nation into the sewer and pissing on their men.

That is why we no longer have free speech in this country, by the way.

Nick Griffin is staying safe, people.  He knows all he needs to do is tread water and he can stay leader of the BNP until he retires in favour of his daughter.

He ain't sticking his neck out for any of you lot.  

I will though, just because I can't stand watching white men eat any more stinky demented feminist shit.   If I go to jail, I go to jail.

BRING.  IT.  ON.




Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Marriage in the Khavian Age of Rational Nationalism


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 parties and happy events, but it seems they prefer in their PC extremist feminist way to be hated as blood-sucking shits and associated with divorce, disappointment and degeneracy.    

None of the lawyers I have explained this to get it, but I think they are just pretending not to get it, in their cowardly pissy shitty way.   

Would a blond white man have answered this question better?

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

The difference between being punched once or twice and being a battered wife

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 gory details now, Rula and Den!  

Friday, 16 March 2012

Katie Price is Slut Single Mum of the Year for two years running

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 home or at work ...  

They certainly won't be saying anything about their disgusting women who are bringing up the next generation of paedo slut bastards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Price 

Why is the government so keen to push the penis of gay marriage up the anal passage of marriage?




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.   


Thursday, 15 March 2012

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?

Open Letter to Slavoj Zizek


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 Khaw

Why gay marriage is wrong

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.

Why gay marriage is just wrong and will do Cameron no favours

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 up having a large hefty cock shoved up through your skull.   This will result in the death of you and your civilisation, of course.

Perhaps it is really the intention of the feminists and the liberals, whose intention appears to be to bring about the destruction of Western civilisation.

Why does David Cameron wish to destroy Western civilisation?  Does he think pandering to the gay vote is more likely to win him the next election than it is likely to alienate Conservative voters?

Perhaps he feels he will get away with it, the way someone may prod at a caged and dangerous beast with a stick and taunt it, and throw objects at it to enrage and infuriate it, because he thinks he will get away with it.

One day soon however, his enemies may set it free so that it may seek him out and wreak its terrible vengeance ...

2015 is really not that far away.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Why widespread illegitimacy leads eventually to degeneracy


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 

Friday, 9 March 2012

C4 demonises Far Right for saying they are prepared to use violence to defend themselves when society breaks down under the weight and insanity of liberal policies


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 working classes?

Because the country needs a labour force which the feminazis who are busily doing men's work badly and neglecting to do their own work - ie caring for their young and elderly - are failing to provide.

Why won't the government question feminism then?  The only way it continues to survive to wreak its destructive power is because of the existence of  the Unholy Trinity of the Matriarchy consisting of:

(1) totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation that favours women in employment at the expense of men;

(2) anti-male legislation which allows wives to divorce their husbands on a whim, get half their property and deprive them of their children;

(3) the welfare state that allows women to fuck whom they like without fear of the consequences because it is the mostly the male taxpayer who picks up the tab of their child benefit and their council accommodation and the cost of their ill-bred underachieving unproductive criminal and illegitimate feral children.

Why is the liberal establishment blaming the Far Right when we already know that the lunatics and the evil and the extremists took over the asylum a long long time ago?

Let us see how long it takes Nick Griffin to respond to this on the BNP website.   Feminism is an issue he stays well clear of, because he hopes to attract the female vote.

I on the other hand prefer to attract the rational male vote, because when you do eventually get them onside they tend to be more loyal and reliable than women.   No offence to women, but I have in my past found women to be less reliable as friends than men, and  more totalitarian and censorious.  Men are far more forgiving, honest and tolerant, generally speaking.

Politicians who wish to attract the female vote are mostly dishonest, unprincipled and hoping to persuade the most parasitical and most irrational of voters to vote for them by bribing them with taxpayers' money.

Nick Griffin seems happy for nationalists to think that nationalism is about promising to give the worst and weakest and most parasitical and most gullible and the most disabled of white people exactly what they want  and expelling anyone (such as yours truly) who questions this practice of unthinking and slavish deference being exhibited to these perversely privileged but unproductive groups of people.

Should I set up a rival nationalist party the voter I would wish to attract would be the lower middle classes of any race who have the will and the ability to work, think independently and rationally.  This would include the owner of the local corner shop as well as any white working class grafter who wants fewer laws and lower taxes and effective protection from crime and chaos.   All my policies would be geared towards encouraging those who are hard-working and enterprising and discouraging those who are sexually promiscuous and irresponsible as well as the shiftless and feckless.  

I therefore argue that nationalism should perhaps be more about deferring to Truth, Reason and Reality - even if these are unpopular in a nation of people who were suckled by liberal lies - in order to promote the long-term national interest and the greater good.  I reject and denounce the kind of soft liberal nationalism that Nick Griffin has seen fit to promote, the kind that is too gutless to discuss any of the urgent problems that is affecting this nation just because it might upset someone in this easily upset and morbidly over-feminised nation.   

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Battlefield of Love celebrates International Women's Day

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!

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Gay "Marriage"


  1. 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".
  2. 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.
  3. 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.   
  4. 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.   
  5. Marriage was not created for the purpose of couples of any kind to say they love each other.  It was a sacred contract (whether or not you believe in God) created for men and women for the purposes of procreation and social stability.   Marriage was conceived of and practised by Homo Sapiens.  Neanderthal Man, who lived in a matriarchy, eventually became extinct when the superior social cohesion of Homo Sapiens comprehensively defeated and conquered him.   
  6. Marriage is an institution.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution  "An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given human community. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior."
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names  "Confucius believed that social disorder often stemmed from failure to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. Fundamentally, then, social disorder can stem from the failure to call things by their proper names, and his solution to this was the rectification of names."  In short, we should call a spade a spade when it is a spade.  Calling a spade a spatula would only cause confusion and distress when a workmen is given a spatula and the cook is presented with a spade. 
  8. It is the intention of the atheist liberal elite to rub the faces of Jews, Christians and Jews in the poo of sodomy, because they think people who believe in God are stupid and wish to demonstrate their contempt for their religious feelings by turning the institution of marriage into a sex toy for same-sex couples.
  9. The tolerance of homosexuals and the equalisation of homosexual relationships with marriage means that that society is already degenerate and suffering from the advanced stages of civilisational dementia.   It is analogous to being a miner with a dead canary on his hands and is an omen that things are not well in your society and your civilisation, and that you should change course.   It is yet another conclusive sign that you are living in a matriarchy, and the only good matriarchy is a dead matriarchy.

Feminism is a cancer.  Gay marriage is a tumour.

Monday, 5 March 2012

Femocalypse NOW already!

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 few matriarchies that existed were small, poor, isolated and pretty much disappeared when they came into contact with their neighbours.

Forced marriage of men to sluts mentioned.

Women are mostly PARASITICAL.

If he defaults on his obligations to the SSM he will be imprisoned, which costs the US taxpayer $60k. This means the taxpayer is paying money to make a man a burden on the state and to make him less likely to get a job afterwards. That's the matriarchy for you.

The cost of divorce: running two households rather than one. Spending instead of saving.

Women control 80% of consumer spending.

This means that that goes on retail therapy which goes to the bonuses of CEOs.

It looks great on paper because a divorce actually *boosts* GDP because money changing hands does so. A multiple collision would boost GDP by the money going to and from insurance companies, hospitals, accident investigators, funeral directors etc.

Wages have gone down since easy divorce because there are more men and women desperately competitive because they want to earn more.

People are even more desperate for consumer goods to comfort themselves after family breakup.

0% of men in the UK now are considered unemployable. The UK riots were blamed on fatherlessness AKA slut single mums. Women FORCE fatherhood on men.

 This discourages rewarding long term partnerships and generates misogyny.

"What about the children?" is the war cry of the feminists that dismisses people's objections to the policies of feminism.

No fault divorce now a legal norm. 70% of divorces initiated by women. The cause is .... "DISSATISFACTION". Not abuse, not adultery, not even irreconcilable differences, just ... "I am not 100% content."

How come 60% of mothers are now SSMs when they now should by rights have total control of their fertility?

Even when women are 100% in control of their fertility, ie having an abortion in demand, no feminist is suggesting that these women take 100% responsibility for their reproductive decisions.

Abortions should be free and child support automatic demand the feminists, so the taxpayer (who are mostly men) pays.

Feminists have skewed education in favour of girls to the disadvantage of both ultimately.

Men now minority of high school graduates and university degrees, and women earn more through affirmative action.

Male doctors work harder and earn more. Female doctors take maternity leave and then leave the profession altogether. Their training paid for by the taxpayer whose money is wasted at this highly inefficient way of using up the nation's resources.

Marriage has become a risk for men that even a compulsive gambler would avoid.

This has affected Japanese men too, apparently. Such a society runs on huge and unsustainable budget deficits.

Government now 100 times bigger than it was before female suffrage.

But don't take my word for it, view the video yourself.  

"Clare's law"

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 stupid promiscuous women should just be left to face the consequences of their stupid promiscuous lifestyle choices and the maniacs they find so arousing.  

But hey, this Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland is just stuffed with stupid scared men, so you won't be alone.  You are actually in the majority, so you're OK.    

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Rachel Cusk gets her fingers burnt by feminism

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!  

A question for men who were born out of wedlock and who had no father figure

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

A message to my readers who were born out of wedlock


I want to thank you for your understanding that, even though I have taken a position critical of SSMs,


  1. I do not hate those born out of wedlock or wish them ill
  2. 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 have friends and neiigbours who do this sort of thing.

I am saying that it is a very bad thing and therefore go against the conventions of your sexually liberated society and incur the wrath of the increasing numbers who are now born out of wedlock.

I am also saying that if you could choose, you would choose parents who are married to each other, wouldn't you?

If you accept my reasoning that never married mothers are bad for your society, then I hope you will accept that it is time to say something about this, rather than keep quiet for fear of giving offence, because the future of your race, nation and civilisation is at stake.

You may be all right and your mum may be all right, but that is not the point, because countless others are not, and it is time to think about morality, public policy and the future in a way that is detached, dispassionate and objective, especially if you think you are capable of taking an intelligent interest in politics.

If you cannot accept that there is a problem, out of loyalty to your mother, then you arguably become part of the problem because you cannot transcend your origins.

I like to think that people can do this.

Policeman commits suicide after being blinded and divorced

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 press in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.  Proud of ourselves, are we?

We mustn't be judgemental, of course, especially when a woman is involved, unless she is racist or an antisemite, perhaps ...

There was a suggestion that the blind David Rathband was suspected of being domestically violent, but, in a society where the term "violence" is apparently being redefined by the matriarchy as "behaviour likely to be found critical,  challenging and offensive by your wife",  we should perhaps take this with a pinch of salt, especially as the late and blinded David Rathband is no longer around to defend himself against posthumous accusations of domestic violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062055/PC-David-Rathband-blinded-Raoul-Moat-announces-divorce-wife-Twitter.html


It is bad enough to be blinded by a murderous maniac, but to have a 19 year old son who cannot deal with an aggressive blind man and had to call the cops is shameful indeed.

And then your wife divorces you because she can't stand you moping about the house not able to come to terms with being blind for the rest of your life.

Why on earth does a man get married?  To be looked after when bad things happen to him, but these days a wife doesn't even think she is supposed to stay around when things get iffy.

You might hope to have decent children too, and if you had a son you would think he isn't some big girl's blouse who calls the coppers when you - a blind man - start getting aggressive with him.

You would have thought that your wife would have tried to stop him, but NO.

Family life in the UK, eh?

Perhaps it is now time to ask ourselves if feminism has now gone too far and when will men will begin to come to terms with their oppression and do something about it..  Perhaps they have turned into women with penises complete with all the feminine vices of hypocrisy, cowardice and denial.

None of PC David Rathband's colleagues saw fit to criticise his wife Kath Rathband, who has deleted her Twitter account.  I think he would have wanted someone to point the finger at the person who most betrayed him in his hour of need, the one who said she just "wants to be friends" and let him come back to a home empty of his family that made his despair and desolation complete.   With friends, wives or sons like this, who needs enemies or murderous maniacs who shoot you in the face, eh?  

"RIP PC Rathband", they tweet in their inane way.  No, he is not resting in peace.  Actually, I think he would rather like it if  a few questions were asked and a few fingers pointed.  This much I know about him, even if I never knew the man.   This is not the time to point the finger, they say.

But suicides don't want to rest in peace.   Suicides want their revenge upon the living who let them down, and there is no denying that PC Rathband was let down.

When is the time to discuss it, anyway?

After the funeral?

Then the people who most betrayed him - his wife and his weakling son - would have got away with it.

NOW is the time to ask why a man would get married in this God-forsaken country that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland, where every woman has the prerogative of a whore - power but no responsibility, where women have the right to do everything but the obligation to do nothing, and the men are either too stupid to notice or too scared to say or do anything.

Their guts have turned to piss, their brains to shit and their balls to mince.   Pity them for they don't even notice their own degradation and the contempt in which they are held.

They think like women, deny their degradation because they prefer not to have to do anything about it.

But this is for all of you who are husbands and fathers.

This is intended to send a chill down your spine.   I write this because it seems no one else in the land dares criticise the morals of your women, including yourselves.

I wonder what Kath Rathband would have got in her divorce settlement if it had ever got to that stage, or indeed what she was asking for.  Would David Rathband have found himself evicted from his own home?   Looks she is going to get everything now, because I rather think he may have been too distressed to get round to changing his will before he topped himself.   Of course, Kath Rathband deserves every penny for being such a loyal and dutiful wife, does she not?