The state of what’s left of the nation


10 June 2007

Why England is rotting


This superb article from a Canadian news site, lamenting the state of England, covers a broad spectrum of things, but although it doesn’t mention the ‘f’ word, it specifically points out the damage caused by feminism’s results (and objectives) of family breakdown. The various statistics relating to the welfare state, the bloated civil service (900,000 new civil service jobs since Labour came to power), more and more laws and regulations, and the state becoming a surrogate parent to children makes it clear that, despite Blair and Brown’s fancy ‘Trendy Cool-Britannia New Labour’ hype, we’re living in a Socialist state.

A good read, albeit rather depressing. Know wonder tens of thousands of people are emigrating from the UK.

It’s a fairly long article so here’s a few highlights:

The welfare bill is becoming unmanageable. In 1971, only eight per cent of the working population was on benefits. Today the figure is 18 per cent, and some economic think tanks estimate that one-third of British households rely on benefits for at least half their income.

The central government’s policies, extending to the ballooning public sector and expanding welfare provision, have rendered large parts of the populace reliant on redistributionist state largesse. Added to this is the government’s fondness for legislation and intervention in many aspects of its citizens’ affairs.

For instance, the Home Office, which handles crime, immigration and security, has put no less than 3,000 new offences on the statute book since 1997 — on issues from detention without trial to the correct use of cellphones in cars. Myriads of new laws affecting personal liberty have been introduced, from religious hatred legislation to a national identity card scheme. Bible tracts are seized as evidence of hate literature at homosexual rights rallies, Catholic childrens’ agencies are required to place foster children with gay couples, and protests are banned in the vicinity of Parliament.

A few weeks ago, for instance, a mother, a grandmother and two aunts of a pair of toddlers were spared jail for filming a fight between the children in which they were goaded to viciously assault each other. On the same day, a man was sent to jail for four months for dogfighting. Similar inconsistencies are everywhere increasingly apparent. Tony Blair recently announced a plan to provide pregnant problem mothers with state “super-nannies” to teach them good child-rearing practices. At the same time, local government authorities employ nurses to provide underage girls with morning-after contraception services — the most notorious example of this was when a nurse met a girl at a McDonald’s and administered the dose in the restroom. Another girl of 14 had an abortion after counselling from school health workers. In both cases, parents were not informed because of the child’s right to privacy.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits, social and economic, of marriage to society, Gordon Brown in one of his first acts as chancellor abolished the married couples allowance, which gave tax breaks to a husband and wife who stayed together.

A Conservative party policy paper last year revealed that three-quarters of family breakdowns affecting young children now involve unmarried parents, and that cohabiting parents were more than twice as likely to break up than married couples. Government figures show that by 2031 there will be four million cohabiting couples. Over the past 20 years the proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from 12 per cent to 42 per cent.

Labour’s highly complicated tax credit system, born partly from a need to reduce child poverty, made welfare benefits for lone parents far more generous and, perversely, rendered a poor family headed by a single parent better off than a poor family headed by a couple. An out-of-work couple with children would thus be better off by between 27 and 35 per cent if they broke up, and a couple earning minimum wage with children would see their income rise by 12 per cent if the father moved out.

Britain leads Europe — and most of the world — in terms of single-mother households. Commentators and politicians are increasingly linking this to the fact that the country offers the most generous benefits in Europe to those same households.

The message [from Gordon Brown] is clear: wealth cannot stay with the earner, who, arguably, is better able to make decisions about their personal financial circumstances. Wealth instead belongs first to the state, which sets itself up as the sole axis and arbiter of redistribution.

In Britain, poor families crumble, male role models are encouraged to depart, and children of broken unions soon lapse into delinquency and social ostracization.

Government is doing everything it can to keep growing numbers of Britain’s youth from becoming feckless. It has plans to force young people not in training to stay in school until they are 18, but for many, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Conservatives say it is the decline of the family unit, the fiscal and practical challenges to good parenting, poor education and the nanny state, that is the root of so many of Britain’s social and cultural problems.

Gordon Brown is possibly even more of an arch-Socialist than Tony Blair, and in case you weren’t aware, Brown will be the Prime Minister of Britain on June 27th when Blair leaves office.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:56 PM


At 8:40 PM, Anonymous said…

The article stated: “Over the past 20 years, the proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from 12% to 42% (in Britain).”

Here in the USA, it is about the same.

69% of black children are born out of wedlock (YIKES!).
50% of hispanic.
33% of white.

Because of the disparity in gross population between blacks, hispanics and whites, the overall total is 39% of all kids born in the USA are out of wedlock births.
(Likewise, our marriage rates have declined significantly).

Our 39% is quite similar to Britain’s 42%.

The long term implications are not good for either country. Some of those negative implications have already come “home to roost.”

I feel fortunate to have lived my life when I did as opposed to in the future. Both Britain and the USA will eventually go the way of ancient Rome …… rot from within.


At 12:02 AM, Big Boss said…

Until the general population is willing to face the cancer from within, they will continue to rot and fail.


At 1:43 AM, Anonymous said…

America is experiencing a counter-revolution against Big Government in the form of Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is elected, he will be our first Libertarian president even though he is running as a Republican. Fight socialism and support Ron Paul.


At 5:13 AM, Anonymous said…

It is well known in America and Canada, because the statistics are tracked, that there is a hierarchy among various subcultures/ethnic groups pertaining to achievement in education.

Asians are the best, followed by whites, then latinos, and finally blacks.

It’s not a racial thing, it’s cultural. And notice the rates of family dissolution within those groups.

Asians stay together the most, followed by whites, then hispanics, and lastly blacks.

Not that you would ever hear about any of this in officialdom. The elites’ solution is always this: Hire fewer white males, hire more women and visible minorities.

Women and minorities!
Women and minorities!
Women and minorities!

This way of operating won’t last much longer. But what follows will be even worse.


At 8:10 AM, Anonymous said…

I agree the system is on it’s way down in the UK.Sad to say!
I have hopes that intervention will eventually occur as we live in different times to ancient Rome.That was a really violent and cruel era but today policies can easily be reversed.
ID cards neutered to become ‘admin tools’ only.
Marriage tax breaks re-instated.
Abortion under review at the moment.
Women dropping the illusion of their ‘powers’ (only good enough to fuel the consumer bandwagon which will be limited by ‘peak oil’- sooner rather than later).
I could go on…
I hope the turn around is soon !! Men will take some time to reformulate a concensus on the social modes to come -I warrant.
We won’t forget whats gone on.
Feminazm’s a modern south sea bubble effect- and it just can’t sustain IMO- far too destructive.5k


At 1:47 PM, Field Marshall Watkins said…

As do all Matriarchies, anon 8:40pm.

Good article. Somehow I don’t see something like this getting much airtime over here. Funny that.

It’s a good summary of the shit this Socialist-Marxist-Feminist Government has put everyone in. By the way, Gordon Brown is a Marxist. So things are going to get alot worse unless this country has a revolution. This is not longer something that can just be avoided I feel, as it will only spread and spread, as the feminists are trying to destroy India, OZ has fallen, Sweden etc.

On top of all this, the women of this country are so busy being consumers, stabbing men in the back and blindly following whatever ‘that guy in the nice suit’ says, that they’ll never care (as it doesn’t affect them. Indeed, change would involve women/ single mothers etc getting less hand-outs so they’ll hate it, even if it means the whole of society will be better. Just goes to show the destructive selfishness of the modern female.’ And also men are constantly under attack, denigrated from childhood in schools, universities, workplaces, media, Govt policy making, women, stressed out, being ripped off as their hard earned wealth is transferred from men to women via the divorce industry, ‘traditional’ courting (funny how women want things traditional when it suits them eh?) and taxes.

Men also work harder, work more hours, die on the job more (95%) die earlier (5-7 years earlier) have less health care, abuses are ignored (just be a man about it!) and have to constantly fight back just to keep their sanity.

This is a Socialist State. A Matriarchy. Inspired by the Marxist ideals of private bankers and Bilderburgers in order to destroy traditional Britain, with all it’s cultures and values, so it can be merged into the EU and on into the Globalist superstate. Also known as the New World Order.

This cannot be allowed to pass. For so many reasons I’ll leave it for my website to state.


At 3:51 PM, Boxcutters TV Podcast said…

Decline of the west same old story. Funny how Michael Moore is about to paint the British health service as the best thing ever…in his new movie.

ALSO you guys should note I recommend this weekly podcast from some TV critics in Australia.

Follow the link to it, and they are just a small non profit volunteer community radio outfit who really know their stuff when it comes to quality tv, thanks.


At 4:09 PM, Off Centre View said…

Keep the people stupefied through non-judgemental education, fat through crap food and brainwashed with constant “celebrity” drivel, and you will suppress more revolutions and stop the ordinary person from seeing the troubles going on.

And yet, there are stirrings of such things underway: A marriage strike in progress; men’s rights being raised in the media, albeit in an attempt by the mainstream to quell increasing tensions; issues of welfare prices; a highly possible property price crash, and all that would result in the financial chaos; a growing underclass who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). All these things are markers of something changing in society, something coming that will challenge the political consensus.

I’m not saying such stirrings are good, just that things are changing. A lot of men are waking up to the apparent truth and starting to question what has been going on. Websites like this have been responsible for the opening of many eyes.

That Canadian article hit the bullseye.

Off Centre View


At 4:24 PM, tba said…

There are SOME sane judges out there. One piece of good news:

Judge: No 10-year sentence for teen sex

ATLANTA – A judge on Monday voided a 10-year sentence for a man accused of having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. He instead gave Genarlow Wilson a 12-month misdemeanor sentence with credit for time already served.

read rest of story here.


At 9:48 PM, phoenix said…


What? It’s illegal for a 17 year old to have oral sex with a 15 year old? I thought neither could give consent, so they’ve both been raped or something?

I guess it’s a good thing I ignored younger girls when I was in HS, I could very easily have been that 17 year old. Generally girls like older guys, and guys like younger women. The feminatrix programs men and women to seek the same age, but women while claiming to tow the company line will always do what they want, so men wind up listening to it, and punishing other men for it (rather, the beta males punish the alpha males when they catch them, and the rest of the time just continue their circle beta male jerk).

Personally I think feminism is great. I hate stupid people, and the majority of men are clearly much too stupid to deserve rights on par with the rest of society. I think the laws should somehow differentiate between stupid males and normal males, and then we’d be fine. Punish the stupid ones harder actually, marriage is a great way to weed out stupidity. If you get married, you failed the test, so you should be an indentured servant to your chosen female master. Get rid of whimsical sexual harassment charges, women in the workplace, and women’s benefits, or rather, make smarter men immune to those, and we’d be set.

I think I’m going to turn into a misandrist myself soon.


At 10:08 PM, Anonymous said…

You haven’t heard the latest. The results of the cohabitation consultation was leaked to the Times yesterday.

They’re even worse than the original proposals! You have to prove you suffered or would suffer financially as a result of the split, you don’t have to prove the disadvantage was a result of a joint decision, there’s no time limit before a relationship becomes eligible, same powers (lump-sum payment; property; maintenance; share pension) available as divorce.


At 12:31 AM, Anonymous said…

“It is well known in America and Canada, because the statistics are tracked, that there is a hierarchy among various subcultures/ethnic groups pertaining to achievement in education.

Asians are the best, followed by whites, then latinos, and finally blacks.

It’s not a racial thing, it’s cultural.”

Why do you assume these differences are entirely cultural? What drives culture if not innate differences? Do you really believe natural selection functioned in the same manner for all human populations, over hundreds of thousands of years?

It is likely that these differences in performance between the aforementioned groups are mostly fixed. If they could be changed, why has not government policy and individual effort changed them already?


At 3:21 AM, Anonymous said…

Read about this case… another reason to keep your wang in your pants… my god 2 years so far in prison for having consensual sex with a teenager, as a teenager.

I can’t believe this was a crime for the poor guy, what the hell!


At 6:37 AM, Anonymous said…

There’s NO FUTURE!!! And England’s DREAMING!!!! Nooooo future! Nooooo future!!


At 9:26 AM, Iwaya said…

y’all see: yet? 17 year old MAN sentenced to 10 years for consensual oral sex with 15 year old girl?


At 10:50 AM, Anonymous said…

USA is insane. 15 yo are marriageable and want sex.


At 11:05 AM, Anonymous said…

Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples under plans to be outlined next month, The Times has learnt.

Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.

The reforms are to be published by the Law Commission, the Government’s law reform body.It is expected to drop any proposal for a time stipulation, so that only couples who had lived together for, say, two years, could bring a claim; or any bar on childless couples.

Plans that would have made it harder for the partner who stays at home to lodge a claim have also been dropped. Courts will no longer have to be satisfied that the unmarried couple jointly decided that one of them should give up their career and stay at home and that the decision was not made just by one of them.

A cohabitee will still have to show that he or she has suffered or would suffer financially as a result of the split, so claims after short relationships are likely to fail, and those where there are children are most likely to succeed.

The Commission’s original idea was that people wanting to lodge a claim on the grounds of financial disadvantage must show that the couple had jointly decided that one would stay at home and give up a career. Someone who made an “imprudent, unilateral decision to give up work” should not be able to claim. But experts said that any agreement would be hard to prove and easy to deny.

It basically means that a woman can at any time give up her job, even if the man does not want it an d claim money.

Marriage is dead, cohabitation will die.


At 6:20 PM, nevo said…

One of the ugly facts any English government faces today is that the child tax credit, which the original idea was to support all mothers, is about to blow up in their faces because of the astronomical bill the country faces, supporting fatherless children.
The government has become a “de facto” father of a large population of English bastards.



At 8:02 PM, Anonymous said…

Genarlow Wilson is not an MRA, he is the same type of thug you rail against on this and other blogs.

Stop being a hypocrite, we dont need thugs like him.


At 10:50 PM, Anonymous said…

what your cupcake really thinks of you.


At 10:05 AM, Hmh said…

One word guys: BAIL.

Only problem is… where to??


At 1:27 PM, Anonymous said…

God save the Queen and God save the rotting carcass of the Kingdom. Gordon Brown looks a disheveled five foot tall wino fuck.

Another ten years of handouts for weak dog animal human scum.


At 3:43 PM, Link to ‘The confirmed Bachelor’ article I speak of… said…


I am here to ask your advice.

I don’t know what to do. I like to fuck, but I cannot stand women. I am heterosexual (normal) and naked women make me want to in and out my cock til I come.

Yet I cannot stand anything about women. I even hate the way they walk. I don’t intend on ever dating anyone again let alone marrying. I could not get through a single dinner with a woman. I cannot stand them. I don’t want my friends thinking I am a disgusting faggot if I never get another girl. What can I do?

Lift weights? Talk deep?


At 5:31 PM, Male Samizdat said…

To the gent who asked for advice:

First, do not worry about the opinions of others. I suspect you are young; such self-confidence comes with age, but it can be accelerated with information (see below).

Second, when someone asks you why you are not married, just point them to this blog first (if you are British) or to (if you are American). (I have a blog as well,

Not only will you have an easy time defending your position, but you may save some poor slob who is still willing to sign his life away to an entitlement-driven ungrateful skank.


At 6:11 PM, Anonymous said…

I don’t want my friends thinking I am a disgusting faggot if I never get another girl. What can I do?

Get better friends.

Lift weights? Talk deep?

Develop a fabulous physique. Women of ALL AGES (even very young girls) will want to do you. They might even prefer a one-time physical quickie to anything more complicated. Women DO fantasize about uncomplicated sex with physically developed guys (racks of romance novels attest to that). Don’t waste time trying to psychoanalyze women. Nothing there. How do you psychoanalyze someone with the depth of a piece of paper? I AM NOT LYING OR EXAGGERATING. This TRUTH about women is very simple. Don’t need to work on pick up lines and other nonsense. Look hot and the girls will approach you. Look like a Greek God and they’ll be ripping their clothes off as soon as they see you. That’s it.

Talk deep? To women? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Other than maybe Ayn Rand not too many deep women thinkers.


At 8:03 PM, Anonymous said…

you can just beat your meat. or build a business. or beat your meant while building a business.


At 9:37 PM, Anonymous said…

I don’t know what to do. I like to fuck, but I cannot stand women. I am heterosexual (normal)

More men are starting to conclude the same thing about their relationships with Western Women.

Modern Western Women (WW) are like Windshield Wiper (WW) fluid. Look pretty. Smell nice. Drink . You die.

Your predicament is shared probably by millions of modern men. In more than a few cases it has driven men:

=> overseas in search of foreign women

=> underage. Young girls are authentically docile, sweet, and feminine until become teenagers (budding fembitches).

=> into the arms of other men (homosexuality)

=> permanent bachelorhood. Sexual desires satiated via porn or courtesans or diluted with other interests (hobbies, making money)

I don’t know how old you are but the male sex drive often shifts into a more controllable gear after 40 years old.


At 5:25 AM, Anonymous said…

“Talk deep? To women? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Other than maybe Ayn Rand not too many deep women thinkers.”

You think Ayn Rand is deep? Rand’s books are merely paraphrasing the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, among others. She stole must of her ideas and best lines from better (read: male) writers. There is nothing original about her work and it is not even very readable. She is a hack to the nth degree.


At 7:27 AM, anti-welfare said…

Over the years I have had several women tell me I was too nice. They put me in the friend zone while they dated and eventually had the babies of bad boys and thugz.

All of those women eventually became single mothers and 100% of them ended up on some form of welfare or another ranging from the earned income tax credit to free food, housing and money.

I am convinced that women’s shift in preference from the decent man to the bad boy as well as the single mother epidemic never could have happened without the welfare state.

I know a lot of good guys who would have made wonderful husbands and fathers in an earlier era, but women reject them for thugs who turn them into single moms.

I tell all my single male friends that there is nothing wrong with them, they don’t need to work on their “confidence” (what a crock that is!). It’s a very corrupt world due to welfare. Welfare is the root of all evil.


At 9:24 AM, Woman, 44, kills herself over wrinkles on face… said…

Talk deep? To women? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Other than maybe Ayn Rand not too many deep women thinkers.

Hahahaha!!!! So fucking true. So fucking true.

Click the link to have a laugh about some dumb cunt who put her family and mangina husband through ultimate hell just because the woman couldn’t live with the natural aging process.


At 6:15 PM, Anonymous said…

You think Ayn Rand is deep? Rand’s books are merely paraphrasing the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, among others. She stole must of her ideas and best lines from better (read: male) writers. There is nothing original about her work and it is not even very readable. She is a hack to the nth degree.

I know. She repackaged and remarketed the work of other philosophers. Agreed, male philosophers. What put her light years ahead of the other women of her era (Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, etc…), in my opinion, was that she put forth effort to advance a philosophy (Libertarianism) that was not centered on catering to female narcissism (Feminism). A philosophy that could actually improve things for the better rather than destroy Western Civ, like feminism has done. Plus she wrote some novels that are considered seminal and enduring works (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead). The same cannot be said for other females of her time. I realize she had plenty of problems (i.e., her meetings at her Greenwich Village apt turned into cult sessions, started excluding people that didn’t fanatically agree with her — putting her at odds with her own philosophy), but on balance her contribution was positive. Again, puts her light years ahead of the other ‘culturally celebrated’ toxic females of her era.


%d bloggers like this: