The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

The King is lost.

"Claims that Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed were murdered were unfounded, the official Scotland Yard inquiry said Thursday," Read story

Diana wasn't murdered, she was an out of control whore who acted exactly like the totally spoiled brat cunt she was. She had it all, she married the Prince who eventually would be King, and she would be Queen. All she had to do was to keep her legs together, raise her sons, and have a wonderful life. But can an irrational feminist female accomplish the amazing feat of enjoying a really wonderful life? Princess Diana could not. While she was supposed to be having a great time in wealth and palaces she started fucking the chauffeur, the gardener, and whatever manly man she could get her royal legs around. Then the adulterous bitch wanted more. Just living a wonderful life in royal riches and splendor and having manly servants serving her royal cunt wasn't enough for her. She couldn't stand the honor of being the future Queen. She got a divorce from her Prince and went partying and whoring across Europe. Admittedly, Prince Charles isn't the manliest Prince ever spawned. He hasn't had the balls to boot his pathetic mother off his throne. He hasn't taken real leadership of his country that still suffers badly from its losses in consecutive 20th century wars. But even pathetic Charles will eventually become King and his wife would have become Queen when the old bag dies. Princess Diana couldn't act like a decent wife and Princess. She left her palace, divorced her husband, and went whoring across Europe.

If England had a real King as she had for many centuries, he would have slapped the bitch into the tower, or had her hanged for crimes against the state. Unfortunately, England has been without a King since Charles's grandfather abdicated his throne to a cunt. His abdication was the outward act that represented the spiritual abdication of England to the females. For more than half a century England has been ruled by the cunts. Englishmen are dominated, their families are destroyed, and they are bound into slavery of servitude to serve emotionally irrational females. Prince Charles represents all Englishmen who serve females and don't have the balls to take back their country. Charles suffers from the same posttraumatic stress of the great wars and can not get over his guilt for being a man. That task will be left to the generation of young Prince William, the generation not damaged by the huge society wide trauma.

Ten years ago the adulterous whore Diana attended a drunken party with her latest fuck, a rich arab, Dodi Fayed. In a drunken stupor accompanied by a drunken bodyguard, driven by a drunken chauffeur, and hounded by paparazzi that England's Queen didn't have the balls to slap into irons, the drunken chauffeur hit an immovable object at over a hundred miles per hour. In a society where whores are revered by the feminists as "empowered" the feminist media has been having a feeding frenzy over the dead whore ever since. She has been honored instead of condemned. She committed unpardonable crimes against England and the crown prince. For the lust of her adulterous loins she destroyed the family of Princes William and Henry and deprived them of a mother. She should have been buried in a whore's grave in some civil cemetery and refused burial in the church yard or sacred ground. Any real man would give the fucking whore his condemnation, not respect. All the media fawning over the dead whore makes real men want to puke.

Will England be returned to it’s the honor of Englishmen as they were honored for many centuries? Perhaps, but not until they have the balls to boot the cunt off the throne and restore and honor their King. The mythical value of the King is badly needed to restore the confidence, the honor, and the respect that Englishmen deserve.


Anonymous Peter Charnley. said...


I take it you won't be attending the pop concert the Princes' William and Harry are organising to commemorate the 10th anniversary of their mother's death!!

The gist of your comments I agree with. Diana was a neurotic buffoon. This is not properly reflected by the media, here in the UK, because - as in the USA - they like to continually drool over the, more often than not, fictitious imagery of the hard done to 'damsel in distress'.

You are wrong about Prince Charles however. He is not a submissive drone - he is a fine man and will be a great King.

Peter C. (UK).

December 14, 2006 11:10 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to Peter: You may be right about Prince Charles. He works in a nation that is ruled by pansies, wusses, and females. The average Englishman has not had the balls to support a return to manly rule. Too many English would rather kiss Elizabeth's skirt than be men. We have the same problem here. Bob works to educate men of the problems with a feminine society and the value of reasserting manly leadership

December 14, 2006 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Charles was admittedly in love with Camilla when he became engaged to Diana. He should've staunchly refused any hint of meddling and royal matchmaking. Diana, who may well have been more enamored of the title than of Charles, should have given matrimony more serious long-term consideration.

If the two had been honest with themselves, hadn't bowed to royal matriarchal pressure, and had taken marriage more seriously, the public would've been spared the unnecessary saga of their marriage in the first place. Marrying Camilla, despite the grief heaped on his head, was a genuine move of masculinity for Charles.

December 14, 2006 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Days of Broken Arrows said...

What you say about England faltering under matriarchial rule should be heeded by those who would vote in Queen Hillary.

December 14, 2006 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Peter C. said...

"Too many English would rather kiss Elizabeth's skirt than be men. We have the same problem here".

The crime of feminism is certainly rife here in the UK. But I think the concept you have here as to the significance of the Royal family - its modern role as well as its history - in relation to this revolting creed is exaggerated and slightly skewed.

The gender of the monarch is determined by birth. And it is still the case that the crown goes to the first born male heir (I am sure you must be aware of this). So when Charles's son William marries and has children, if the first born is a daughter and the second a son - his successor, as things still stand, will be his son.

And fortunately, because of William's youth, when Elizabeth II dies, Britain is set to be, for many decades, once again a true Kingdom.

And by the time he dies and the throne passes on to his successor, assumimg Britain is still a monarchy rather than a republic (which I believe it always will be), I believe feminism - along with the rest of the deranged PC, leftist poison that presently soils all Western cultures - will be just a sordid chapter or two contained within our history books.

In short, the gender of our monarch is irrelevant to feminism - it certainly doesn't hinder it, but neither does it promote it.

And to a modern Briton, as is the case throughout the Western world - the whims, prejudices and actions of our politicians, academia and the media are infinately more significant to the quality of everyday life.

And these latter influences should certainly be curtailed - everywhere.

Peter C. (UK).

December 15, 2006 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that England has had female monarchs in ages past, when Englishmen behaved aggressively as conquerors. Colonial slavery, naval floggings, debtors' prisons, serfdom, child labor, even deadly floggings of schoolboys, etc., was part of English and European culture till the 20th c.

English law does allow for female monarchs if they are legitimately in line for the throne. You can't just "boot off" a Queen (i.e., Royal Cunt). To do that, you'd have to go through Parliament and change centuries-old English law to prohibit female sovereigns. (Short of doing things within the law, you have the "rule of man" or often chaos).

December 15, 2006 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Henry VIII should have been buried in a whoremonger's civil grave, not in sacred ground.

December 15, 2006 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Peter Charnley. said...

"Short of doing things within the law, you have the "rule of man" or often chaos".

And over the past 3-4 decades all nations, whose cultures have been darkened by the cloud of feminism, have experienced rapidly deteriorating standards within education, the dramatic breakdown of law and order, the virtual dissolution of the sanctity of marriage, family breakdown, the continuous redefinition and undermining of values to a degree that actually refutes objective truth, morality and personal accountability.

The above has realised the nightmarish reality of crimes against humanity such as the annihilation of millions of human beings whose only crime was that they had yet to take their first breath.

And amongst the young who did survive the censorship of their very existence by the malicious greed and the neglectful,childlike narcissism of many of their mother's generation, a hitherto unprecedented tidal wave of dreadful problems have befallen the young, directlty as a result of the delusions of their female elders - not least that of severe depression and the consequential huge rise in numbers of young people taking their owm lives. And to give the misery and confusion that abounds amongst the young true perspective - only a tiny minority of deeply unhappy people actually commit suicide.

That is real widespread chaos.

The distorted, cracked record jargon of anonymous's posting, synonymous of the drivel delivered in a 'women's studies' lecture given by a feminist with a two figure IQ who has recently received a parking ticket from a bearded warden, has nothing to do with the lives of the vast majority of citizens living in any past age.

Furthermore, although the consequences of feminism, to date, have been horrific enough - they will pale into insignificance with what all Western nations will eventually find themselves having to deal with as the chickens finally come home to roost for the women's movement as the modern world finally wakes up to the reality that perhaps the worst crime against humanity that has ever taken place - and I include Stalin's purges and Hitler's gas chambers in this equation - has been going on for years right under its very own supposedly 'enlightened nose.

Many of the full, nightmarish consequences of feminism, including innate population decline (particularly here in Europe) are still building up and up and up for an almightly grand finale.

Then you shall witness truly chaotic upheaval that will dwarf the reality of Europe in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

December 16, 2006 3:10 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Basically the corporate media firemen and associated lesbians put out the fire and totally glazed over this issue.

It is much more believable and logical what Bob has typed in his article on Diana.

December 18, 2006 11:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home