A Few Harsh Facts About Feminism

from

Women, for their part, are always complaining that we raise them only to be vain and coquettish, that we keep them amused with trifles so that we may more easily remain their masters; they blame us for the faults we attribute to them. What stupidity! And since when is it men who concern themselves with the education of girls? Who is preventing the mothers from raising them as they please? There are no schools for girlswhat a tragedy! Would God, there were none for boys! They would be raised more sensibly and more straightforwardly. Is anyone forcing your daughters to waste their time on foolish trifles? Are they forced against their will to spend half their lives on their appearance, following your example? Are you prevented from instructing them, or having them instructed according to your wishes? Is it our fault if they please us when they are beautiful, if their airs and graces seduce us, if the art they learn from you attracts and flatters us, if we like to see them tastefully attired, if we let them display at leisure the weapons with which they subjugate us? Well then, decide to raise them like men; the men will gladly agree; the more women want to resemble them, the less women will govern them, and then men will truly be the masters. —Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Woman cannot be superior except as woman, but from the moment in which she desires to emulate man she is nothing but a monkey. —Julius Evola, quoting Joseph de Maistre

     Feminism has become part of the new western religion, the new paradigm for explaining reality, especially on the political and cultural left. In the modern west we started with Christianity as our official explanation for What’s What, then moved on to science and scientism; and now we appear to be in danger of moving away from empiricism, let alone traditional morality and values, and towards what is essentially ideological neo-Marxism. Feminism, especially in its latest manifestations, has become part of the cultural Marxist and neo-Marxist New World Order, despite the fact that most people are too indoctrinated, ignorant, or block-headedly conformist to notice it. So people in the west, especially leftist people in the west, are more and more seeing doctrines of radical feminism as a simple aspect of reality, and do not see that it is to some degree a fashion trend and also a tool exploited by socialists to gain control of western civilization without having to rely on the working class rising up in a glorious people’s revolution. Thus people on the left especially may be oblivious to some harsh truths about feminism, and about women in general. What follows, with all due respects to femininity, are a few of these harsh truths.
Women have privilege, and get away with bad behavior, because men are instinctively addicted to them and, more specifically, to pussy. As I say again and again, human beings are a species of animal, and we are veritably loaded down with animal instincts, also known as “human nature.” And one of those instincts is that men tend to feel protective towards women in general, and let them pull stunts that they wouldn’t accept coming from other men, largely because men instinctively want to mate with women and therefore want to keep them in good humor. So women in the west are “empowered” largely because men indulgently allow them to be empowered, not because women could simply take their rights and empowerment on their own regardless of how men felt about it all. This is a point to which I’ll return before I’m done.
The primary social power of a woman is her power over men. As just stated above, men are instinctively more indulgent towards females than they are towards fellow males; and it is also true that, on average, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and more assertive than women, thereby giving them greater individual power within society. Women are not completely powerless in these respects of course, and there are unusually big, strong, aggressive, and assertive females; but their main power is their power to get their way with indulgent men. A beautiful woman in particular can have any number of hormone-laden males wrapped around her little finger. I’m reminded of a scene in Dostoevsky’s The Idiot in which a young woman sees a picture of a magnificently gorgeous female (Nastasya Filippovna) and exclaims, “What power!” then, a little later, “Beauty like that is power. With beauty like that one could turn the world upside down!” But even ugly women have some of that power. The power of a man includes a great deal of power over his environment, including women and other men, with that power conditioned and enhanced by testosterone; whereas the primary power of a woman is the power to influence the power of men in her favor.
Men and women are not only physically different, they are also psychologically different. As I’ve already suggested, male animal instincts and female animal instincts are not exactly the same, though there is plenty of overlap; and this difference is emphatically not just cultural conditioning. Probably even most of the psychological differences between men and women are conditioned by sex hormones, including the aforementioned testosterone. And even hormone injections administered to transsexuals in childhood or adulthood cannot undo this difference, since a significant cause of psychological sexual dimorphism in humans results from prenatal hormones, especially a dose of prenatal testosterone received by unborn males throughout the class Mammalia. I’ve written about this plenty elsewhere, so I won’t belabor the point here, but nevertheless this is a crucial point to understand because of course it debunks much of the nonsense promulgated by feminists and neo-Marxists about “victim groups” (including women) being discriminated against as an excuse for their inability to compete with white males in certain respects. Women are less self-confident on average, less aggressive, less inclined to obsess on a career at the expense of all else, less willing to work long hours, less willing to work at dangerous occupations like oil-drilling or crab fishing…and, significantly, less objective and technically oriented on average, which helps to explain why fewer women work as surgeons, engineers, mechanics, and computer programmers. James Damore wrote a very mild, sane, and factual article on this subject back in July of 2017, and he was promptly attacked and expelled by radical feminized leftists. In fact, the very fact that feminism has become as hysterical and intolerant as it has is indicative of another aspect of sexual dimorphism in our species: females are also less rational than men, and more identified with their feelings. Which may as well fall under its own heading.
Men are more inclined to identify with their thoughts, and women are more inclined to identify with their feelings—which is resulting in feminism degenerating into a kind of hysterical cult. I remember being somewhat mystified by Eckhart Tolle’s claim that men identify with their thoughts, whereas women identify with their “pain body.” I’d never heard of a pain body before, so how could half the world’s population identify with it? But seeing the direction the feminized left has taken over the past several years, and the complaint, protest, raging unhappiness, and overall negativity that characterize it, it is more understandable now. The female-dominated political and cultural left have taken identification with feelings to such an extreme that now it’s the left who are rejecting empirical reality in favor of their unrealistic ideological ideals. (Science denial used to be associated primarily with conservative Christians railing against evolution, plus some mercenary conservative capitalists denying the harmful effects of overpopulation, pollution, deforestation, etc., but now it has become a leftist phenomenon also.) The trouble is that any society that flatly rejects empirical reality, especially fundamental aspects of it, is simply not going to survive, especially if it has to compete against people who are actually relatively still sane. A classic example of the feminine mind rejecting objectivity and demanding the reign of feelings is the new idea that maleness and femaleness are arbitrary and interchangeable. It used to be that males and females had different genitalia and different sex chromosomes, but now it’s a matter of, that’s right, feelings. And as I’ve said before, any civilization in which even medical professionals can’t tell the difference between boys and girls is just not going to survive for very long. It just isn’t. Also as I’ve said before, the rise of eunuchs into social prominence is historically a telltale sign that a civilization is in serious decline; though now the eunuchs are called trans. So an emphatically feminine national ideology is doomed, and the question is whether it will be allowed to take western civilization down with it when it falls.
The female psyche is evolved, designed by nature, to raise children, after first attracting and “hooking” a man. Over the course of the existence of the human race, extending way back into the Stone Age, women traditionally have also participated in such behavior as tending the sick, picking berries, catching frogs, and occasional peacemaking between hyperaggressive males; and of course everybody is born with instincts for simple survival—liking good food, seeking comfort, fearing death, etc. But nevertheless, for literally millions of years our ancestors were evolved in such a way that a primary duty of females has been to raise children and rely on adult males to protect the family and tribe, and that is built right into human nature. So it’s no wonder that women are more feelings-oriented than men are, less violent, more fearful, and more compassionate, on average. Also it’s no wonder that women are more attracted to babies and small children, and more concerned with their own sexual attractiveness (skin, hair, fingernails, clothes, etc.), especially when young and single, and also slaves to fashion chronically concerned with what their social peers (and the neighbors) think. Men on the other hand are evolved in large part to be fighters, hunters, and protectors; and to pit nurturing berry-pickers against aggressive hunters is a fight the outcome of which is easy to predict. The primary reason why feminists have progressed as far as they have in their fight against men, and have (I almost said “enjoy”) the privileges they have is, again, the male addiction to female flesh and men’s natural instinctive urge to tolerate or even indulge feminine irrationality, because it’s feminine.
White men created western civilization, and it stands to reason that they would be best at maintaining it and running it. Feminists do not hesitate to blame white men for most of the badness to be found in human society, as though no social evils ever existed independent of western civilization. It is true that the civilization invented by European men is not perfect, and has its shortcomings—just as every other civilization is imperfect, because every civilization is composed of imperfect people—but the opposite side of the same coin is that white men are responsible also for practically all of the good stuff too. Just look around you, and unless you’re in a wilderness or maybe in a rural non-western bamboo hut, pretty much everything you see around you has been invented by western men, aside from potted plants and other people. Hell, even the domesticated animals look the way they do because of white men selectively breeding them. Women (and brown people) are less competent to keep this invention of white males going, and are very likely to run it into the ground, as they’ve already managed to do in parts of Europe on the part of women, and in any number of third world former colonies on the part of brown men. One peculiar aspect of women is that for most of human existence they have been required to live up to a higher moral standard than men, especially with regard to sensual indulgence; and one upshot of that is that women have a less “robust” conscience, and less skill at navigating moral freedom. To some degree women with socially acceptable immorality or “empowerment” are like native Americans with tuberculosis or alcoholism—they have little evolved tolerance, and thus we see women going full-blast slutty in mainstream western culture and doing much to destroy the moral fiber of society. Hell, feminized leftists have even had to redefine morality so that debauchery and sexual irresponsibility are dissociated from the very idea of morals. The result is that “empowered” women are less happy, on average, than their grandmothers were (because, as Buddhism asserts, morality is directly related to happiness), and feminist-run societies like Sweden are degenerating into the ironic predicament of women being afraid to go outdoors for fear of being raped or murdered by the nice migrants who are viewed as morally superior to liberal, indulgent, relatively nonviolent European men. Sweden, the first feminist nation in modern times, is now the rape capital of the western world…with silly feminists trying to conceal the fact that brown men are perpetrating most of the rapes, because that goes against the feminist dogma of White Man Bad.
Males have a wider statistical distribution with regard to physical and mental traits, which results in most or even all super geniuses in the world being male. The wider variability of males over females is common throughout much of the animal kingdom, and it is related to evolutionary biology and our species’ primordial mating strategy of males competing for females (though females often do compete for males also). In species in which males may be polygamous, which has been common in non-western societies, the very best males get to mate more, whereas most females will find a mate even if they are part of a harem. So it is advantageous to a species that males who are outstanding in some way get to propagate their genes more efficiently, with less competitive “incels” or members of bachelor herds not mating at all, or very little. Thus the wider spread of the curve for males. Anyway, the result of this documented greater variability is that the most outstanding leaders of society—politicians, scientists, inventors, artists, writers, generals, whatever—are going to be mostly or entirely male. The fact that feminists can easily and smugly accept the flip side of this variability, i.e. the idea that most dysfunctional street people and imbeciles are male, while suddenly getting upset when the other end of the bell-shaped curve is mentioned, is simply another morsel of evidence that women are also less rationally inclined than their male peers, on average.
Women lack the power, physical and emotional, to take their rights and equalities against the will of masculine men. The only way women will gain social equality, assuming that they don’t have it already and then some, is if 1) men voluntarily let them have it, or 2) men are caused, or allowed, to degenerate into effete social eunuchs; and in this latter case, which obviously is happening to some extent, such a civilization is simply screwed. A feminized society in which masculinity is vilified and essentially abolished, is a doomed society, if only because some non-emasculated patriarchal society nearby will overpower and conquer it, socially and economically if not militarily. For various reasons, a feminist society will not be as strong as a more traditional one that accepts masculinity and femininity, regardless of all the hysterical propaganda and indoctrination generated by feminist activists and cultural Marxists. In fact the new feminists seem intent upon abolishing actual femininity also, producing a race of androgynous shemales, largely because they are too simple-minded to acknowledge that equality does not necessitate uniformity—though maybe deep down they realize that women can’t really compete against uncastrated males in many if not most fields of endeavor. So what will likely happen to a feminized society, if history is any indicator, is that the feminists, after vilifying and culturally castrating their own men, will willingly flop onto their back and spread their legs for the first wave of aggressive alpha males who decide to take over the civilization. Deep down, women, and even most feminists, have an intuitive, instinctive respect for men who have not renounced their own testicles and spine.
If women aren’t equal now, they never will be. Feminists and neo-Marxists in general may be able to engineer society enough that men are emasculated enough that women can actually compete with them in traditionally male fields of endeavor, but as I’ve said, this destruction of the natural balance will destabilize and wreck the civilization before long. The fact is, though, that women have always been the equals of men, though not following the same societal niches as men. True, men traditionally have had most of the political power, but they used that power largely for the sake of protecting the women. It has been men who have worked, fought, and died so that women and children could live safely and in relative prosperity. Feminists, going with the empirically false dogma that women and men are essentially identical in every way, mentally if not physically, may be able to bring about absolute equality of outcome, in accordance with socialist utopianism and social engineering, but doing so would require repressing men, or else indulging in such foolishness as requiring 50% of firefighters, police officers, and soldiers, for example, to be female—despite the plain fact that they aren’t as strong as, or run as fast as, or fight as well as males. If the most qualified person were always to get the job, or the position in school, then women simply won’t wind up exactly the same as men, nor will non-whites wind up the same as whites. There are inherent, genetically conditioned differences. But the point is that men and women have had a symbiosis going from the beginning, and both genders have their strengths and weaknesses, and their natural place in the family and in society. Women, for instance, have had the duty of raising the children, especially when they are small, helpless, and in their formative years. So women have had the huge responsibility of producing the next generation of people, and being their first and perhaps most important role models, and that is extremely important—certainly more important than rejecting family life for the sake of imitating men. Thus men and women have always had a natural balance, in accordance with male and female nature, and both are necessary for human existence. But if women want equality by becoming identical to men, then they will fail miserably, because they aren’t identical. And if they can’t be equal unless men allow them to be, then of course they will never be really equal because men are stronger and still in control, if only potentially. But I say women are already equal and always have been, especially in egalitarian societies like the western world. If feminists want to complain, they should perhaps complain about traditional Islamic culture—but of course they generally don’t because they’ve established the least misogynistic race of males on the planet to be the primary enemy.
     There are plenty more points I could make, but this is enough for now, if not more than enough. If any women read this and are offended by it, I would simply observe, again, that women really are equal to men, in my opinion, despite the plain fact that they are not the same as men, and not as good at all the same things, though better at some. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why the primordial male/female symbiosis has worked out as well as it has. Nature has designed our species in such a way that males and females are built differently and perceive the world somewhat differently, with males being the aggressive protectors and providers, and females being the nurturing emotional center of the family unit. There will always be individual variations, which is fine; but the traditional way is pretty much the natural way, and deviations from that are bound to be inferior as well as unnatural. Nature designed males and females to be different, and we reject that at our peril.
     To pervert the perennial male/female difference in temperament into a war in which men are viewed as an enemy to be defeated, which is what neo-Marxist radical feminism has degenerated into, is freakishly, grotesquely stupid, as well as an attempt at civilizational suicide. There should always be a symbiotic balance between masculine and feminine, just as ideally there should always be a symbiotic balance in society between conservatives and liberals. One side trying to defeat or destroy the other i
s insane. But then again, rational objectivity is a tool of white patriarchal oppression.
the most dangerous females aren’t “butch”

RELATED POSTS:

In the previous post I featured my own complaint about the way supporters of the highly political climate change launch witch hunts against environmental and atmospheric academics who challenge the globalist WARMAGEDDON scaremongering, and dismiss the objections of non – scientific sceptics like myself, who – writing from an economic and sociological perspective – point out the sheer lunacy of committing the worlds few developed nations to a course of spending vast sums of money and committing infinte resources to  mitigating the deleterious effects of Carbon Dioxide emitted at a reasult of human activity on the planet’s ecosphere. That was backed up by an article poisted on Quora by a research physicist detailing some of the scientific theory of Anthopogenic Global Warming.

In this post, on these not for profit pages, I reproduce a long reply from another non – scientists, writing from a business perspective, about how from being a climate change believer he quickly became a sceptic after embarking on his own research project.

Chris Boyd
Response from

 

An Excellent Response From A Brexiteer

One thing that more than anything else has hardened attitudes of people who voted to leave is the way supporters of Remain have constantly attacked us, accusing those who wanted out of the authoritarian bureaucratic dictatorship the EU has become, of being stupid, bigoted, xenophobic, old idiots.

In spite of these accusations it has been mainly the Remain supporters who have not been able to argue their case, instead they simply repeat the insults and parrot the EU / Globalist propaganda. Leave supporters, however, tend to be more thoughtful and well informed.

I felt I had to reblog this question from Quora, and the excellent answer to it froman Oxford PhD:

UK citizens, how did you feel waking up to the news that you were out of the EU?

Answer from: Alun ap Rhisiart, D.Phil in Zoology from Oxford University

 

MACRON DISGRACED: French President drawn into new scandal by sacked bodyguard new job

Daily Express – 28 Dec 2018

EMMANUEL Macron has become embroiled in another scandal after his sacked security aide was accused of using his former diplomatic passport to carry out consultancy work in Africa.

Alexandre Benalla was sacked as the French President’s bodyguard after a video surfaced of him beating a May Day protester. But now questions have arisen about new consultancy work after allegedly using his a diplomatic passport for business trips to at least 10 African countries. The trips included Chad in December, where Mr Benalla met president Idriss deby ahead of Mr Macron’s visit to the country.

MORE>>>

 

Send Those Who Question Transgenderism to Gulags, Says Student LGBT Group

 

A leftist student group at Goldsmith’s Univerity, London, defended Stalin’s Gulag abour camps Tuesday, calling them more “compassionate” than the “western, capitalist notion of prison”.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus Society at London’s Goldsmiths University suggested people who question transgenderism are sent to such camps, for up to ten years, for “re-education”. The are of course currently outraged that a transgender chick-with-a-dick who was sent to a womens prison for politically correct reasons must now stand trial having raped and sexually assaulted several female inmates.

“The ideas of [Trans exclusive radical feminists] and anti-Trans bigots literally *kill* and must be eradicated through re-education,” the student group wrote on Twitter before deleting their account.

When Claire Graham, a special education needs teacher, asked if their attempts to silence a list of academics who questioned transgenderism was “a bit fascist”, the account replied: “Na, we’ll just arrange to send you to the Gulag.”

Gulags were brutal labour camps used by Stalin’s Soviet dictatorship to lock up opponents and “enemies of the state”, resulting in the death of an estimated 1.05 million people.

Whenever I come across the particularly nasty version of fascism these people have embraced I am reminded of the words of CS Lewis on tyranny:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Which is why the stupid self – righteous followers of Corbyn and his sidekick, the Stalinist thug McDonnell should never be allowed to have even a sniff of power.

 

Browsing Medium.com I cam across  an article written by a pseudoscientist (he ‘identifies’ as ‘a scientist’ a lable which when self – applied is a sure sign the person using it is a charlatan or a clown.

The right reasons for mistrusting science

When and why should we do it?

“Global warming is based on faulty science and manipulated data which is proven by the emails that were leaked”

Alarming words from the most powerful man in the USA, don’t you think? Unfortunately, a Pew Research report revealed that the American public has increasingly echoed this sort of scientific mistrust over the last 5 years.

Some part of me balks at the idea of people so vehemently distrusting what I love. Yet as a scientist-in-training, I will readily admit that the scientific process isn’t perfect. However, there is a difference between reasonable mistrust of the scientific process and an outright rejection of all scientific findings that clash with personal beliefs. Too often, people spurn scientific conclusions because they contradict personal worldviews, perpetuating an unfounded mistrust in science and the spread of scientific misinformation.

The psychology of disbelief

The rejection of scientific evidence is largely a psychological phenomenon and is often selective rather than global. Consider these scenarios: vaccination critics quote Andrew Wakefield’s infamous study linking autism to vaccines to support their stand. Climate change skeptics cite a 1990 research paper by climatologists Roy Spencer and John Christy arguing for the lack of evidence for global warming. Paradoxically, quoting scientific journals demonstrates that these “anti-science” folks do actually trust scientific evidence, but probably only if it aligns with a mental model of the world they have built.

A perfect reply can be found in one of the books of C S Lewis, who while not addressing the rise of pseudoscience directly, does get to grips with the difference between what is proved and what is wished for …
(Screwtape is a senior demon, Wormwood a trainee he is mentoring .)

from The Screwtape Letters by C S Lewis

My dear Wormwood,

I note what you say about guiding your patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naïf? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy’s clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary”, “conventional” or “ruthless”. Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous–that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy’s own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient’s reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it “real life” and don’t let him ask what he means by “real”.

Remember, he is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (Oh that abominable advantage of the Enemy’s!) you don’t realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years’ work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said “Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning”, the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added “Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind”, he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man’s head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of “real life” (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all “that sort of thing” just couldn’t be true. He knew he’d had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about “that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere logic”. He is now safe in Our Father’s house.

You begin to see the point? Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes. Keep pressing home on him the ordinariness of things. Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity. They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can’t touch and see. There have been sad cases among the modern physicists. If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don’t let him get away from that invaluable “real life”. But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is “the results of modern investigation”. Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!

London’s Muslim Mayor Rejects Brexit Vote At Gay Pride Event

London Mayor Sadiq Khan told the crowd of thousands that Europeans in London are “our friends, our families and our neighbors.”

Khan says “I recognize the huge contribution you make to our city, you are welcome here. I make you this promise as your mayor. That won’t change.”

One of the Gay BLT revellers said of the atmosphere: “There’s this feeling of not knowing where you belong – and that’s to do with Brexit, not to do with being gay.” (The fact that he’s a smug, pretentious CUPID STUNT is everything to do with to do with being gay of course.)

Sadiq Kahn did not say whether he supported calls for a second referendum on British membership of the European Union, although many of the gays, lesbians, can’t make their minds ups and trannies made it clear they did.

Voters in London overwhelmingly supported staying in the EU, but a majority outside the capital voted to leave. However in the London Mayoral election only 25.8% of Londoners voted for Khan, while 37.6% of UK voted for Brexit. I don’t hear any clamour from the left (Gay BLT or otherwise) to re-run the London mayoral election.

RELATED POSTS:

Electoral Fraud Scandal In Peterborough By – election Being Covered Up?
Thanks to Politicalite’s groundbreaking exclusive coverage of the crooked Peterborough By-Election so far, the Daily Mail have picked up on our story and have revealed a fresh incident of alleged electoral fraud being investigated by the Police …

Extreme Right Wing Black Supremacist MP Calls On UK Parliament To Overturn Brexit Vote

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]