Tuesday, 29 December 2009
1. I exist (Axiom).
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)
is mere sophistry.
The fact is that an imperfect being can easily imagine and has imagined a perfect being who is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal, being capable of doing things we cannot do and knowing things we cannot know.
It is very easy indeed. We have been doing so since Abrahamic times.
My theory more easily explains the world.
God was created by Man for his political purposes. God is indeed the most powerful being imaginable by Man and Man has found Him very useful indeed. In a way, because of Man's imagination, Man is in some ways God-like, since he conjured God into existence by the simple exercise of his imagination and by the exercise of his will through man-made laws, myths and governments to maintain this fiction.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Conservative Party not fit for purpose as either a party of opposition or promoter of Conservative principles
Most of these Tories do not even know what Conservative principles are. They think it is all about being good to be gay, being compassionate (ie liberal), being progressive (ie liberal), being pro-NHS, being nice to single mums, having all-women shortlists, not having a referendum on the EU and the usual claptrap. They would even govern as New Labour but claim they would pursue New Labour policies more competently than New Labour itself.
Remain loyal to such an organisation if you must, out of habit, but, for others, when something is not fit for purpose they dump it. The Conservative Party deserves to be dumped. It is a ship of fools that cares more about being in office than in good government. Those who are stay silent or remain loyal acquiesce in its vacuity and purposelessness as well as the destruction of their nation.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Up to 1813, it was a crime to deny the trinity in public.
While we are appalled by the Muslims and their penchant for beheading as a form of execution, Christians got up to much worse when they were in charge: hanging, drawing and quartering as well as burning at the stake.
Beheading, being swiftly over, was comparatively humane. However, in England this form of humanity was reserved only for its aristocracy. Commoners would be hanged to die of slow strangulation to prolong the crowd's pleasure. The last beheading in England was in 1747.
The need for blasphemy laws in Christianity was simply because that while people were happy enough to believe in God, they really could not bring themselves to believe that Jesus is a 3-in-1 deity.
But if one believed in a unitarian God, the Church authorities thought, then one is not much different to being a Jew or a Muslim, whom Christians loathe and fear.
Unitarian Christians - those who thought like Jews and Muslims that Christ was a man and not divine - were persecuted as badly as Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition.
Arabs and Jews are a Semitic people and anti-Semitism is peculiar to European Christians. It is not so much a race thing as an ideological thing. "We must be different to the people we oppress and despise" was always the "Christian" position.
It continues to this day: but under a different guise: one hates the people whom one has wronged. There were the Crusades of course, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and, most recently, the robbing of Peter to pay Paul that occurred when the State of Israel was established.
Monday, 14 December 2009
"The law is like the wind and the people the grass. When the wind blows, the grass will bend."
The most evil are those who suffer it to be done in the name of liberal ideology, which permits only inaction or flabby gestures in the name of tolerance and compassion. In short, it is our government and our political establishment which is evil in permitting evil, not discouraging it or pretending that it is not in fact an evil.
Evil is committed when educated middle class campaigners of for traditional education dare not state the obvious for fear of ostracisation and denunciation.
The obvious is of course that society and family values are vulnerable to the depredations of female promiscuity, illegitimacy and ever lower standards of behaviour and education.
But female promiscuity sanctioned by feminism is the Sacred Cow that the British worship. To blaspheme against the slag and slapper and the unmarried single mum will result in social death or a life worse than death, apparently.
That is why emasculated men in fear of the feminazis remain silent. Nothing will change if the silence is not broken, but still the fearful silent men remain fearful and silent.
Our convictions must surely be in accordance with Truth, Reason and Reality or they will not withstand the wear and tear of Truth, Reason and Reality.
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unique, then He must surely also incorporate Truth, Reason and Reality.
On this point perhaps atheists and monotheists can agree: that whether we believe in God or not, we must inevitably submit to Truth, Reason and Reality.
Which might conceivably make us all Muslim originally, without realising it ...
A disturbing thought for some, no doubt.
Bishop Venner is a courageous man. Tony Blair is a madman, for thinking he could get away with telling us the truth: that he would would have found any reason to invade Iraq, and expect us to admire him for it. Who does he think he is? Sally Bercow?
Saturday, 12 December 2009
It should be noted that the Old Testament solution to unmarried ex-virgins was death by stoning. Just because we disapprove of the harshness of Old Testament solutions does not mean that the behaviour that harsh measure was intended to discourage has lost its power to destroy our civilisation, societies and lives.
Only stupid feckless women get knocked up by men who are not their husbands or get knocked up to trap stupid men into marrying them. And only cads and bounders knock up stupid women. The next generation are even more likely to breed bastards and so on until so many people are bastards that one cannot talk about doing anything about bastards any more. This means the problem remains unaddressed because one does not wish to offend the friends and family who are singly-parented or single parents.
This is precisely the situation here in the UK. 46% of babies are now born out of wedlock. 70% of the prison population were singly parented.
It is not a race thing, it is a family values thing but there are certain values that certain groups practice.
The effortless superiority of the White African is very noticeable compared to the average Briton, white or non-white. This is because White Africans still regard illegitimacy as a stigma, while the average Briton's social and family circle is infested by illegitimacy, and they are the ones who, without realising it, have embraced black values.
Bush once remarked that The Simpsons behaved like a black family. Toxic liberal values therefore which have the power to turn white black.
Only stupid weak leaders in charge of a stupid weak people puts up with this sort of thing without doing anything about it. There probably is some genetic correlation in this, but only in the sense that we are trapped and influenced by our environment and the culture we live in.
Most of us will do what most other people are doing be it drinking, drug-taking, easy sex, tolerance of illegitimacy etc.
Personally, I believe it has always been 50% nature and 50% nurture, with all of us in theory capable of changing the balance simply by the exercise of the will.
Sadly, not many people nominally in charge of the ship of state are up to even the thought-processes required to come to such a conclusion, let alone the courage to do anything about it.
It will not therefore be long before Britons shall be slaves.
Friday, 11 December 2009
It was nothing like Question Time. The audience were politely invited to to take their seats. Many knew each other, and chatted before the debate started, 15 minutes late. CNN, Channel 4 and BBC Arabic were there, apparently. The Moderator Paul Williams stressed the importance of free speech and civility as well as that of not rambling on off topic.
The first to speak was Jeffrey Marshall of the BNP who sat between Alan Craig of the Christian Alliance Party and Robin Tillbrook of the English Democrats. Polite applause.
Jeffrey Marshall began by saying that it was a privilege to be invited and a honour to be there. He spoke of the undeniable Islamification of parts of London and other parts of the country that are clearly Muslim-majority and of brown on white violence, with particular reference to the assault of a priest in the East End, whom Muslims called "a fucking priest". Though apparently inflammatory, he ended up by saying that perhaps the Muslims and the BNP do have a number of things in common:
1. their opposition to the invasion of Muslim lands
2. disapproval of homosexuality and
3. support of family values
"Finally, I would like to re-emphasise what Nick Griffin referred to recently on Question Time as a truce with Muslims. I would remind you that the Labour government has colluded in the murder of some 800,000 Muslims in its wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. The Conservatives also support the war. Why Muslims would vote for either of these parties I simply cannot understand.
The BNP has always been against the war and we intend to withdraw our troops immediately from Afghanistan.
The BNP and Muslims were right all along about not invading Muslim lands.
We have other things in common too. The BNP and Muslims both support family values.
According to a survey carried out this year, 63% of British Muslims thought that the death penalty was morally acceptable. 77% said they strongly identify with the UK and numbers of Muslims who thought that homosexuality was morally acceptable was 0%."
It seems to me that Muslims could do a lot worse than vote BNP."
It would seem that the BNP is now soliciting the ethnic vote.
This was in direct contrast to the studio audience at White City during the filming of Question Time were on the hand whipped up to a frenzy of anti-rightism that they booed at a black man for daring to express socially conservative views, I was told by someone who was there.
Alan Craig, an eloquent speaker, craggy and distinguished, was the Christian Liberal who wanted to ban the niqab, because he felt it was "anti-social". When he complained that if he felt he "could not have a relationship with woman in niqab" when an outraged woman in a niqab took him to task for saying he would ban it, we all fell about laughing at the unintentional suggestiveness of his remark.
Most surprising of all was the question and statement of a Nationalist (a euphemism for BNP), who made an eloquent speech to the effect that it was the "LibLabContrick" who were dividing and ruling those it sought to control, who criminalised both Muslims and Nationalists from saying what they regard as the truth. He at any rate knew that the enemy was not Islam, but the "LibLabContrick" who started wars and then used paranoid thoughtcrime legislation to silence dissent. "We know Muslims are not our enemy," he declared. The Muslim holding the mike for him smiled with the surprise of this declaration of non-hostility from a party whose Chairman once called Islam "an evil and vicious faith".
An angry large man seethed with rage when Abdullah Al Andalusi (representing Islam on the panel) - an attractive, bearded and engaging young man of Portuguese extraction who is an ex-Christian - appeared to have all the answers. The gist of it was:
"How dare these foreigners come to our country and just sweep our traditions and our religion away, telling us they know what is better for us? How dare they think they know better? Worse, how dare they appear to know our religion better than we do by quoting the Bible at us? Especially that bit in Timothy which proves that Christians also oppress their women, like all other religions? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12&version=NIV Grrrrr!"
The angry large man said he was a Christian with a small "c". This to my mind meant not really Christian, but from a Christian background - a Cultural Christian who does not really believe that Christ is Son of God, who finds hymns and churches reassuring and only goes at Christmas or Easter, who might attend more regularly if this meant the difference between his children going to a decent church school rather than a sink comp or going private. But such a person will have formed no view on the Holy Trinity and is agnostic about the divinity of Christ, or prefers not to discuss it because that would be opening a can of worms.
Angry large man was mocked by Alan Craig who said he did not know what "Christian with a small c" meant, though it was clear to me that he wanted spires and churches to be in his landscape, rather than mosques and minarets. Alan Craig himself campaigned vigorously against the Olympics mega mosque but said he didn't mind smaller ones more befitting the religion of a minority faith. (Personally, I wanted it to go ahead because it looked nothing like a traditional mosque and looked like one of those impossibly curvy ultra modern buildings the Chinese were madly building in Beijing in the run-up to the Olympics. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1853589.ece)
Even if there were no Muslims beetling around in black to annoy, alienate and alarm Christians committed or merely cultural, no mosques and minarets to clutter up the British landscape, we would all be faced with changes we find unwelcome.
"O tempora! O mores!" was surely a complaint as old as the hills even when the Romans themselves uttered it.
Another in the audience, was outraged by the Reverend Frank Gelli's story about the ladybirds. (It is spring. Here they come. What can you do? Moral of the story: You bring yourself to love ladybirds and all will be well. But I wondered: "What if they are not ladybirds but cockcroaches? Or fleas carrying the bubonic plague?") "It means," an distinguished-looking elderly man hissed to me later after the debate, in horror and disgust, "that we have no choice but to get used to this, this ... infestation!"
At one point the meeting was disrupted by the BNP's most persistent "followers". A UAF man upstairs shouted something about "Nazi scum on the panel". There was a collective groan of exasperation. Did someone say "Oh, get a life"? At any rate, he was swiftly removed.
The leader of the English Democrats, Robin Tillbrook, received the least attention, simply because he did not address the question on Islamification but merely took the opportunity of setting out his stall and proclaiming the virtues of his party, with a membership of just over 3200. (The BNP have over 10,000 last time I heard and may have considerably more now.) They too had impeccable Islamophobic credentials but weren't racists like the BNP. And they are English and did not visit Libya in the hope of getting a bit of money from Colonel Gadaffi like Nick Griffin did in 1986. Vote for the English Democrats who are just as Islamophobic but English and not racist. Er, that's it (as Private Eye would put it).
When Jeffrey Marshall declared that the BNP would ban the niqab and not allow any old foreign to just come here and do as they pleased, because the niqab was simply an affront to the English, in opposition to our cultural traditions and frankly just annoying, the woman in front of me sitting with the English Democrat contingent spontaneously burst into applause, which others joined in, accompanied by protests of indignation from some Muslims.
The pleasure of that evening for me was that I found myself applauding in turn everyone on the panel for making really quite good points, with the exception of Robin Tillbrook, who didn't really get a chance to speak after his opening speech because no one had any question to ask him about the English Democrats, or sought his opinion about Islamification since he used the time allocated to him to talk exclusively about his party.
The views expressed were diverse, at times strident, and the emotions and intellect were engaged. Good speeches were made from the panel and the floor and the evening was entertaining, informative and civil.
I believe the position on the niqab was this: Alan Craig, Jeffrey Marshall in favour of banning it and Abdullah, Reverend Frank Gelli and Andrew Copson of the Humanist Associaton against banning it. I cannot remember Robin Tillbrook's view or indeed whether he was asked.
It seems clear to me that Islam - because it is holistic, coherent and "faith-lite", because it does not require Muslims to believe in the impossible, ie the divinity of their prophet, because their religion is framed in legalistic principles and drafted like a contract between God and Man - will now trump Christianity, especially now when the West is out of money, out of ideas and the Catholic Church with its celibate priests tragically associated with paedophilia, the Anglican Church with openly gay priests and female bishops but worst of all, the fundamentalist Christians insisting that believing in Creationism is a badge of Christianity. (The Koran's theory on the Creation would have no quarrel with current scientific theory. http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/science_01.html)
What is however most attractive about Islam, for those who do not wish to persecute homosexuals but want to show disapproval, is that it is abundantly clear that the Koran would tolerate them, while judiciously denying their relationships from ever acquiring equality with marriage.
Islam does not confer a special privilege on those who do not have sex, ie a corrupt priesthood, and that is what lies at the heart of its appeal: it is for normal people who want to get married and have children, who run businesses and engage in commerce, and who even wage war with each other from time to time.
There was a brief moment of mass bemusement when a woman in the audience asked Abdullah about Martin Luther King, but he misheard and was just stopped by the Moderator from launching into a lecture about Lutheranism, Calvinism and the Reformation. This was probably what the large angry man found so infuriating: that Abdullah had trashed his impression that Muslims are mostly a backward race with a backward religion with not much knowledge about Christianity or much else.
Indeed, there were some in the party who warned against participating in the debate precisely because Muslims had all the answers and were capable of showing that. Abdullah repeated that Sharia law always takes into account human nature, implicitly suggesting that Christianity and other legal systems (eg liberal, Nazi, Communist, Socialist) do not, which is why they eventually fail.
Muslims are all fundamentalists, in the sense that the duties and prohibitions in the Koran are well-drafted enough to be safe to be taken literally, unlike Christianity, which requires judicious selection, excision and supplementation.
Christians repeat their mantra of the absolutely necessity for the separation of Church and State, because the flaws of their religion require this, or the Spanish Inquisition would begin all over again, when anyone who dared question the mysteries of the Trinity would find himself at risk of being tortured and burnt at the stake.
The Koran arguably contains no such flaws and is therefore safe to be taken literally. That has always been the contention of those who practice what they call the "perfect religion" whose God is the God of Politics, Government and Law, whose Koran contain the founding principles of running an economy that would discourage irresponsible borrowing and lending as well as that of consumer law and the Geneva Convention.
If only enough people would read it to argue for or against this contention. Perhaps that could be the subject of the next debate.http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/12/11/the-big-dawah-event/
Thursday, 10 December 2009
(1) what constitutes gentlemanly or ladylike behaviour;
(2) when one has fallen short.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
My solution would be to disestablish the Church of England and invite tenders from various religious organisations so that a new religion that is better for the long-term national interest of the British Nation can be established.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that people's mental health tend to improve when they think someone who is Omniscient, Eternal and Omnipotent is their Best Friend.
Perhaps even I could help by developing further the idea of Secular Koranism? It is a synthesis of philosophy and religion combined into a distinct and cohesive ideology. It asserts that the Koran is a good enough guide, even for those who do not believe in God.
The Cult of Reason and Supreme Being ("CORASB")
The practice of submitting to Truth, Reason and Reality (if that is what God is, if God exists) is capable of both being a philosophy and a religion.
To start a Cult of Reason and The Supreme Being that is mutually indivisible is therefore logically possible and politically desirable.
Imagine: a religion and philosophy capable of appealing to both atheists and monotheists ....
Thursday, 3 December 2009
But this would be the equivalent of a recession/depression, so the government would rather bail-out banks, make us borrow money we don't have to buy things we don't want, than get off the carousel of consumerism.
While we are doing as they want, they are going to tax us till the pips squeak in the name of the environment and make future generations pay for the folly of the banks and the uselessness of the government in failing to prevent this quite predictable folly.
Just as long as you understand:
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL OR MAN-MADE; WE SHOULD NOT BE PAYING TAX ON IT.
It would have been a good way of reintroducing slavery by necessity.
Sole women ex-home owners in negative equity unable to meet their payments could become prostitutes to work off their debt more quickly in the superbrothels that Lord Mandelson would establish, despite the objections of Harriet the Harridan.
The men could be asked to do useful work in the community or enter the trade of servicing women who desire the experience of their manhood.
Methinks a great opportunity was sadly missed.
What a shame I am not in charge!
"Mandelson said the Digital Britain bill would reform Ofcom by requiring it to take a "new forward role" in ensuring the media market has the "right mix of impartial and national and local news".
How can it be impartial when NUJ members are required by their union to always report the BNP unfavourably?
If that is not a duty to be biased, I don't know what is.
At last, an MP of courage and conviction who has said something controversial.
Non-retards (unfortunately a minority in our demented and declining civilisation) already know that governments love the concept of climate change because it gives us an excuse to tax us more, spy on us and penalise us in the name of saving us from ourselves.
Does anyone remember the story of Chicken Licken and how his friends who believed that the sky was falling in came to be eaten by Foxey Loxey?
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
and all this before Obama has even announced how many troops he is prepared to commit.
Why did Brown announce that Afghanistan is going to get 500 troops before Obama shows his hand? What if Obama suddenly said, "Nah, f*ck this for a laugh, we're pulling out tomorrow." Wouldn't that make the British look, not to put too fine a point on it, rather foolish?
If Obama decided not to commit any more troops, then Brown would have committed 500 British soldiers' lives to be sacrificed for nothing.
Is British diplomacy missing a trick or two in showing such unquestioning eagerness?
Personally, I find it embarrassing that the British have a prime minister that shows such dog like devotion, such unthinking support. Did Obama say "walkies" to the Brown Dog? Or did he just say "Let us get more of our soldiers killed in the name of the stupid people who thought invading Afghanistan was a good idea?
For Blair and for Bush! Into the valley of death! For the land which values the career and hurt feelings of a single possibly lesbian Yeowoman to be worth more than the careers of two Yeomen with dependents. That is what British soldiers are dying for.
When are they going to say "F*ck that for a laugh"?
Sunday, 29 November 2009
The failure of Catholicism: time to look at another religion that does not require celibate priests?
When I was a naughty, disobedient, rude little girl living in a different country, I was told I should watch myself or else I would be sent to a home.
If I was ungrateful to my parents I would soon learn the fate of those who had no parents to be ungrateful to.
Of course, I did not know until now what exactly was meant by this.
I am not therefore very surprised that sadists and paedophiles would go to where the pickings and victims would be most plentiful and vulnerable - in care homes and orphanages. That is what I would do too, if I were a sadist and paedophile.
The Irish may now wish to examine a different religion other than one that demands celibacy from a corrupt priesthood.
Islam is a religion that does not give a special status to those who claim they have given up sex. It is a practical, worldly religion that enjoins its adherents to go forth and multiply within wedlock, amongst other things.
At such a low point of Christianity, it surely behoves a government to examine the uses of religion and what it might do for the state in terms of assisting citizens to be better people. If something tried and tested, such as Catholicism, is now broken in reputation and beyond repair, then it is time to look at a different religion.
(Of course, I do not expect the cowardly, hypocritical and demented UK political establishment to be doing anything of the sort. They will see it as their bounden duty not to discuss anything controversial to avoid the deadly sin of offending anyone at all. There is a general election coming up and their strategy will be not to do anything other than make promises to us that they are incapable of keeping.)
Islam, it has been said, is the middle way between capitalism and socialism, between feminism and female oppression.
It would certainly help if more people would read the Koran, but most will not, out of militant atheistical pride, sloth and simple swine-like unquestioning contentment with their lot.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Being a racist means you may have expressed dislike of someone on grounds of race, or said something that could be considered offensive by a hypothetical person of another race.
The same principles now appear to apply on bullying and harassment.
If we think we are being bullied and harassed then we are being bullied and harassed.
If we are offended, then the person who offended us must have been offensive.
If the other person was offensive, then they will have to pay!
This means there is no free speech, no freedom of association and no freedom of contract.
Soon there will be no right to property either and we will have become a communist country without even realising it! Financial socialism in the form of Quantitative Easing even now proceeds apace.
How does one go about inciting the 73 Yeoman of the Guard to go on strike in protest at the policy of allowing people like Moira Cameron in to grass up her colleagues and get them sacked because they didn't like her?
Visit http://twitter.com/1party4all for more on the subject.
Ruth Howlett the Tower spokeswoman was the one who conducted the investigation, apparently. Was she also the one who hired her? If so, should we doubt her judgment, integrity and impartiality?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=136859.html for the thread on the Army Rumour Service - THE British Army's unofficial community.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
A fatwa has been issued to Muslims in India that the Indian national song Vande Mataram is unIslamic.
It is a very interesting debate. Nationalists say that the members of a nation should worship the nation.
The infamous German nationalist Hitler himself said that the Germans should worship Germany.
Muslims are told not to worship anything but God, so there is a clear conflict.
Methinks there is room for manoeuvre here.
What these Hindu Nationalists want is the assurance that Muslims Indians would give up their life for their country if called upon to do so, like any other loyal Indian citizen.
They just have to say yes because that is all that is required of a loyal citizen. If there are Indian Muslims in the Armed Forces and Indian Muslims who have died while serving in the Indian Armed Forces, then that requirement of being prepared to lay down one's life for one's country, is certainly already satisfied.
It would certainly help inter-communal relations if the Indian government said words to this effect.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Friday, 20 November 2009
A voter has very small chance of influencing policy. Therefore, the vote he casts is of little consequence to him. There is no incentive for a voter to invest time and energy analyzing the consequences of a policy. However, a voter derives some benefits from voting. It allows him to signal the kind of person he is, who he associates with. If there are no consequences in being mistaken about the effect of a policy, it becomes "rational" to hold the most pleasant opinion, or the one most conducive to socialization.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"
To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
Visit http://apps.facebook.com/causes/397594 if you have a Facebook account.
Lord Mandelson reduced to flirting with Evan Davis to distract us from the vacuity of Labour's election pledges in the Queen's Speech. "With the greatest love and respect" indeed!
Who will be the scientist who discovers the most efficient way of turning corpses into fertiliser and fuel on an industrial scale?
Each locality will have a burial pit for the processing of dead bodies who will keep a record of the names of the deceased thus processed. These Dead Processing Centres would have cyber cafes for access to an Internet global cyber cemetery.
These would be joyous and sociable places where, as well as cyber cafes, there would be rooms for hire to celebrate the memory of the dead.
It would be extremely useful for researching one's family tree.
Details listed would be:
- Full name
- Date of Birth
- Date of Death
- Marital Status at time of death
- Civil partner(s)
- Children, both legitimate and illegitimate
I also propose facilities online for visitors to praise, criticise or defend the dead.
Lawyers and historians could be involved so there could be a living to be made out of the dead after crematoria and gravediggers pass into obsolescence.
Friday, 13 November 2009
Gordon Brown's leadership has been dictated by the war in Afghanistan. 232 British lives have been lost, the majority under his government. Public opinion is mounting against continued British presence in Afghanistan, and the Obama administration's position on the war is undecided. Gordon Brown discusses the future of his Afghanistan policy.
Brown is saying we will fight BUT at the same time make plans to hand over to the Taliban - the very people we are fighting and who are killing us.
Talk about mixed messages.
Anyone who believes in this incoherent mess of an argument deserves to be blown up.
No other country would be a fool enough now to get killed over this losing battle.
Even the Americans are dithering.
"End corruption in Afghanistan" when we can't even end corruption here??
"Give them good governance" when we don't even have it ourselves??
Brown should resign not only for sacrificing lives in pursuit of an incoherent strategy, but for the ineptitude with which he has presented it.
Perhaps there is no way of presenting such a mess of a strategy coherently anyway.
He should go anyway so we can draw a line under this period of failure and dishonour.
The Taliban are intent on taking over Pakistan and their nuclear weapons. When and if they do, they will tell us to go, or else. Why wait till then before withdrawing our troops?
Are we sending troops to Pakistan? No, because we do not dare and have wasted men's lives and national resources in Iraq and Afghanistan that we no longer have the stomach for sending troops to yet a third Muslim country.
Reading between the lines, Brown's message is this: "We will continue to to fight this war under-equipped and half-heartedly, get killed, whinge and get angry, and then pull out when we have all had enough and when they make us go."
In what country outside the West is this a legitimate military strategy fit for presentation, even to a nation of retards with their heads buried in the sand?
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”- Hermann Goering
Mrs Jacqui Janes has displayed all the qualities of being robust, rational, swift in action and swift in retribution.
She saw immediately, unlike most lily-livered illiterates, that the letter of condolence she received from the Prime Minister was not what it should be.
And she swiftly formulated her plan to destroy a Prime Minister, in memory of her son Jamie.
Her astounding grasp of the principles of blitzkrieg makes one imagine that she could be a brilliant general. I am sure she would do better than that Sir Mike Jackson who couldn't even turn off his own mobile phone after several attempts.
Her grasp of the importance of good spelling and writing shows that she is indeed a woman of some education, intelligence and refinement as well as an impressive grasp of military detail.
Sadly, her sort is now a dying breed, but let us celebrate and lionise her while we can, for showing peasant cunning and the kind of guerrilla tactics - of thinking on the hoof, despite her bereavement - that they probably no longer teach at Sandhurst, for "ethical" health and safety reasons, no doubt.
She displays that rare thing: that admirable toughness of mind that will get you your way if you plan it properly and execute it ruthlessly.
He criticised the Sun for suggesting that the government, not the Taliban, was the enemy of the British army.
Got it in one, Mandy!
Mediocre politicians are economical with the truth.
Great politicians, like Margaret Thatcher, tell the truth and are praised for doing so.
We should therefore praise Mandy for telling the truth, even if semi-inadvertently.
But my main point is this: if Brown were to resign on account of his bad writing and spelling (25 spelling mistakes, no less!) wouldn't that send a message to our liberal and progressive teaching establishment and do something towards raising standards in writing and spelling?
He would have the gratitude of the British Nation, after we have all calmed down a bit.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
We have yet again a Prime Minister officially in charge who makes Britons feel ashamed every time he puts his foot into his mouth (which is every time he speaks), spreading despair, embarrassment and helpless rage nationwide.
Gordon Brown should just resign, resign because he cannot spell and cannot write legibly. He should resign because he can no longer lead the country and command any confidence from anyone at all.
Who is working for? Osama bin Laden? Hired specially to make us feel like the bunch of losers we are? Government on behalf of losers by even bigger losers?
I suppose Mrs Janes will be temporarily distracted from her grief by her anger and outrage at the way this country is being run and the way the war is being conducted.
The fact is that Brown is incompetent and no longer commands the confidence of his party and the country.
Good politics is not clinging to your position at all costs. In fact, it is better for your reputation to know when to go, just as if you were a guest at a party. Overstay your welcome too long and too often and you will never be asked back again.
The Sun is behaving in the way that you would expect The Sun to behave. It is going in for the kill.
It is all a dirty business, but somebody has to do it.
Brown can do nothing right and his advisers have all but abandoned him. Nobody told him that writing and spelling such as his was unacceptable in a Prime Minister. Nobody suggested topping and tailing his letters of condolence. Nobody told him not to call Mrs Janes because he would only have got the bollocking he did.
If they did and he ignored them, then that is evidence of the quality of his judgment and for that alone he should go.
Why did he even call Mrs Janes? The outcome, ie a predictably humiliating exchange recorded and transcribed not just for us, but for all the world to read, was only too predictable. Why did he do it to himself and why was he not prevented from showing himself up yet again?
If this were a bullfight, we must surely be tercio de muerte ("the third of death"). The estocada cannot now be far off now. Let us hope it is administered quickly and cleanly, by a brave and skilled matador. The Sun can only butcher people's reputations, after all. Lord Mandelson hoves into view, resplendent and graceful in his suit of lights, strutting around the ring, turning his back on the exhausted bull, cheered hysterically by the crowd ....
Saturday, 7 November 2009
I well remember meeting an ex-teacher in a North Wales B&B who was having a rest cure after how her colleagues had victimised her for daring to think she could persuade them by rational argument and demonstration that traditional teaching methods were better than child-centred "progressive" methods.
A member of the NASUWT is terrified of having his identity discovered because it would never do if he became known for saying that corporal punishment might be a solution to classroom discipline.
Another is so terrified of guilt by association with someone who could be a BNP sympathiser, as he believes me to be, that he cannot debate or be seen to lose all his debates with me. (He was the one who also admitted to me that the NUT reject everything the government says out of hand. The NASUWT at least pretend to examine government proposals before rejecting them.)
I have had dealings with two members of the teaching profession who told me that my questioning of their teaching methods or any aspect of education policy was "offensive". They clearly thought this would be sufficient to end all discussion of the matter once and for all. (Weaker souls would have quailed, of course, but I am not one of those weaker souls.)
I find the terror that the teaching unions exert more vile and more toxic than anything the BNP are accused of being.
Well, they may just bribe me to go home as they say, or just make me go, like Idi Amin did to the Asians, or even have plans of turning me into soap or lampshade, but, for me, the terror these hysterical alarmists claim that non-whites would suffer at the hands of the BNP, is less immediate than the horrors of censorship, intimidation and threats that many white people (both working and middle class) are already currently subject to under the current government.
I prefer the blunt honesty of people telling me to go because I am not wanted than the "we will protect you only if you undertake never to disagree with us and our policies" method of political patronage the Left offer to non-whites. The latter is infinitely more sinister.
I know an active and quite well-known campaigner for traditional educational methods who is too frightened to say that single motherhood, and the kind of children they produce, and the kind of children state schools receive from these unmarried single mums, has a bearing on ever-lowering standards of discipline and ever lowering standards of education.
Where I come from, you are allowed to say these things with impunity, especially if they are incontrovertibly true. I only want the same rights for the British (of all races) with whom I have thrown in my lot.
Teachers will get the sack if they are members of the BNP. Some think sympathising would also get you the sack. Others think being FB friends with a sympathiser would be enough to get you the sack.
Thinking something is a thoughtcrime is also a thoughtcrime??
Here is what a teacher said about me after defriending me on Facebook.
"The main reason is that I am now getting more involved in real serious politics, and need to be a lot more circumspect about my political connections, and a BNP supporter would do me nothing but harm.
... I am also fed up with having my words twisted to fit in with someone elses delusions. I am also fed up with being accused of racism and having my profession attacked by someone who hasn't got the slightest idea what she's talking about. But there was no final straw, as I was not angry and am used to the abuse and irrationality."
I happen to think racists are people too, and should have their intolerance tolerated, provided they do not actively injure my interests beyond choosing to not associate with me or contract with me. They should certainly be allowed to say why they dislike me and people like me. I was under the impression that it is actually genuinely liberal of me to allow people to express unflattering views about me and people like me without wishing to sack them, expel them or demote them, silence them, imprison them or destroy their reputations for daring to express such views.
I know only too well what passes for education these days, but then this ex-FB friend of mine is also in the Labour Party too. He insists that standards are rising even as he tells me that his boys occasionally tell him to f*ck off. He would never consider corporal punishment because it is "brutal". When I point out that Sir Terry Leahy of Tesco is not happy with British education, he lapses into silence. When I ask him when he would prefer to teach, now or in the days when he was a schoolboy, he also lapses into silence.
The accusations of racism he refers to are my good-natured jokes to his suggestions that I should go "home" if I don't like it here. I pointed out that it is always the Lefties who tell me to sling my hook when they discover that I am not prepared to be treated like a pet, patronised and protected because I do not hide under my bed at the thought of the BNP coming to take me away to an extermination camp. There seems to be a general assumption that anyone who is non-white must think in a certain way, ie not be in opposition to Liberal Leftism. I argued that expecting people to think in a certain way or saying they cannot contradict a set of received ideas because of their skin colour is in fact racist.
Every argument I put forward only elicits the response of "You don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you become a teacher yourself and see what we have to go through everyday?"
However, he automatically rejects any measure that might succeed in reintroducing discipline and rigour back into British education.
Single mums must never be blamed, because that would be intolerant, uncompassionate and judgemental.
It is clearly too awful for him to admit that he has been failing children consistently for decades with teaching methods thought up by the insane and the evil.
Any solution that might work he is ideologically prevented from recommending because the Far Lefties in his union would crucify him.
I at first thought that he defriended me because he anticipated that I would have a few things to say about the abysmal standard of science teaching and the laughably easy questions found in exam papers, but it was really because he thought even having me as a Facebook friend would harm his chances in his "real serious politics".
If only people like him who toe the party line, Boxer-like, are engaged in "serious politics", then it explains why politics is full of fools and knaves.
This is probably ad hominem, but he actually supported the paedophile tax, ie the £64 you would have to pay to prove that you are not a convicted paedophile, even while he admitted that it would do nothing to prevent really determined and unconvicted ones.
This means, unfortunately, that he is stupid and a bit like Boxer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm: Boxer is a loyal, kind, dedicated, and respectful worker. He is physically the strongest animal on the farm, but naive and slow, which leaves him constantly stating "I will work harder" and "Napoleon is always right" despite the corruption.)
Friday, 6 November 2009
Science exams with no mathematical content. More sex education at ever younger ages. More cookery lessons. Is the government trying to turn us into a country of maids or prostitutes and people stupid enough to keep voting for them again and again?
Will single mothers have their variously-fathered children exported abroad as pets for rich Africans who want to adopt a white baby because they are so cute, with their blond hair and blue eyes? I think we should be told.
Perhaps they will soon be having lap dancing lessons at schools or acting lessons for those who want to train for a career in porn. Soon the women of this country will be using their vaginas to shoot peas out of shooters, just as they do in Thai sex shows.
Dumbing-down and teaching them cookery, and turning our boys into cooking catamites and our girls into maids and sex workers is surely cheaper and easier than teaching them anything as inconvenient as science and maths, or languages and literature.
If our boys tried drug-dealing they might have difficulty working out the change and the quantities to be sold, and then they will get upset and cry and have to be comforted. Better not then.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
- Punch your leader in the kisser and loosen his teeth a bit. (It was the fault of all three party leaders who stopped you from voting for a pay rise anyway.)
- Or you could do something on Ides of March lines. Just imagine, it will all be on BBC Parliament! This is bound to delight any constituent of any constituency and is bound to make you more popular. MPs of all parties unite! You have nothing to lose but your seats! (And that is surely not worth having any more with the pittance they pay you!)
- Join the BNP or UKIP.
- Get into government again.
- Vote yourselves an index-linked salary.
After the next British Revolution, we can always repudiate the Lisbon Treaty in its entirety, and all the others leading to it. Tear them up, throw the pieces in their faces, walk out the door and slam it, hard.
And if they fight us we will fight them, won't we?
"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo [EU] and all the odious apparatus of Nazi [Brussels] rule, we shall not flag or fail.We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France [Folkestone?],
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender"
But perhaps not, because we are now but a weak and feeble-minded people, unprincipled and cravenly. We prefer security to liberty and therefore deserve neither.
"Wrong [and Justice] is one of those concepts that depends on witnesses."
It is analogous to the difference between a reported crime and a solved crime.
The journey to Justice is long and arduous.
First a wrong has to be suffered.
Then it has to be reported.
Then it has to be investigated.
Then the suspect arrested (if found).
Then the suspect interrogated and the right questions asked.
Then brought to trial (if sufficient evidence).
Then convicted (but it may be the wrong man).
Then punished (but it may be inadequate or too harsh, in which case yet another injustice is committed while in pursuit of justice.
Perhaps this is why some people prefer to believe in God.
Remembrance Sunday is coming up. This is my poetic effort in remembrance of those who died and for those still living who don't want to die in stupid wars that have nothing to do with us.
All them dead,
All for what?
Show us, tell us,
All for what?
Blair and Brown,
Liar and clown,
Is it for you our boys die for?
Go to hell,
Don't come back,
Go to Iraq and Afghanistan!
Let them tear you both apart!
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
If that is not Equalities & Human Rights Commission-compliant, then "We Were Here First Party" ("WWHF" or "Whir Whir Her Fur") could perhaps be considered.
I must say every time I say it to myself, the sound of "Whir Whir Her Fur" becomes increasingly attractive. One can imagine demos where the demonstrators would hum "Whir Whir Her Fur" ...
"We Were Here Before You Party" ("WWHBY" - "Whir Whir Her Burr Yer" is probably a bit too much of a mouthful but perhaps it could be combined into a menacing murmur ...
It could be quite powerful, I think. The vibrations of such crowd humming would strike terror into the craven hearts of those lily-livered MPs.
The Chinese have a rather more sophisticated and Athenian system, of direct democracy under a narrow elitist and meritocratic franchise, that we would do well to emulate, but we are both too proud and frightened. No, the awful truth is that we do not have a better system than the Chinese and many of them pity us for our lack of basic freedoms, such as the inability to say "gollywog", "nigger", "Enoch was right" without getting demoted and losing our jobs.
More members of the Chinese Communist Party voted to support capitalism and dump Communism, and it happened, just like that. Surely that would be, and is in fact, the democratic ideal?
"Let the state do what the state must do for the good of the nation, and let the people do what they are able to do for themselves."
It was the late Deng Xiaoping who said that. Pretty libertarian for a communist, eh?
Monday, 2 November 2009
Immediate 22.00hrs Wednesday 20th June 2007
Their involvement with an organisation to which two groups campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia were affiliated has come back to challenge three leading Labour Party figures.
Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham.
NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of the People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.
Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on.
The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974. The very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate. In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O'Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to 'deplore' the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.
Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a 'straight', in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for 'relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.' The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL. 'An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,' the motion went on. It was duly passed.
Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented: 'It is timely that the ghosts of the 1970's past should come back to haunt these three leading Labour Party politicians. Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt were in their mid- or late-twenties at the time, but that cannot really excuse the way NCCL came to regard paedophiles as an oppressed minority whose civil liberties needed to be fought for.
'All three of them really need to explain why they were so friendly toward so many out campaigning homosexual paedophiles in their youth. Why did they allow the NCCL gay rights sub-committee to be stuffed with them? Why were they happy to work with paedophilia supporters on the NCCL Executive? It cannot have been sympathy with child-molestation, so was it a complete lack of judgment or was it moral cowardice?
'NCCL has now been rebranded as 'Liberty' and is doing great work standing up to the Government to defend the civil liberties of us all. But thirty years ago some rather peculiar things went on, and I think we should be told why.'
The British would then get a referendum on the EU, which Labour and Tory have conspired to prevent for so many decades.
This should mean that the British people could be a step closer to enjoying commonsense government, or a disruptive but regrettably overdue British Revolution, or a Civil War, and even an Islamic Revolution, which should clear the air a little.
After half a century of liberal ideology, the nation is in desperate need for a spring clean and an ideological clear-out.
These MPs have after all nothing left to lose but their seats and their jobs. They might as well go out with a bang rather than a whimper and become the revolutionary B-Nippers of tomorrow, if they have the stomach for this thing, which they probably won't ....
Some may think this is a bit over the top, but MPs are social pariahs, even more despised than all the immigrants legal and illegal, asylum seekers failed and bogus they have let in.
Was there not talk of Resettlement Grants recently in relation to MPs?
Where would they be expelled to, I wondered, for a brief mad moment. Madagascar?
The only way they can redeem themselves now is if they all joined the BNP, demanded a BNP-UKIP merger and campaigned for an EU referendum.
But they won't because they are feeble-minded cowards and weaklings, despicable and hypocritical.
Perhaps concentration camps can be set up for them near the House since they are no longer allowed a second home allowance.
They can join Brian Haw who has established a camp there. Their joining him in protesting against the Iraq war may dispose the public to relent when it comes to sending them to the extermination camps that are now being built to receive them.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
- Get a fake hand grenade with a removable pin. (IMPORTANT: It must not be a real one or you will get into even more trouble.)
- Wear a burka.
- Open the door.
- Remove pin.
- Curse the Infidels nations and their Godless consumerist traditions and laugh maniacally.
- Throw grenade at the little children who will invariably be accompanied by their parents.
- Enjoy their howls of horror.
- Retreat indoors before they recover from their shock, laughing maniacally all the while to complete the effect.
I had an interesting discussion when I was discussing the idea of trick-or-treating in a burka in a non-Muslim area.
It was pointed out to me that this would be racially and/or religiously offensive.
This is because it gave the message that Muslims are in some way feared and hated.
My response was that this would be true, on the whole, and no Muslim (extremist or moderate) would deny that the existence of Islamophobia.
I pointed out that in a non-Muslim area there would be no Muslims to offend.
If I were to go to a Muslim area then they would assume I was a convert/revert and think nothing of it, and therefore no Muslims would be offended in a Muslim area either.
If I knocked on Muslim doors saying "Trick or Treat?" they would either tell me to go away and stop being such a silly Muslim (for they would think I was one of them) or give me sweets if they were the more assimilated type of Muslim.
So what I proposed to do was neither religiously or racially offensive.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Legalise all drugs.
Treat those who commit crimes while intoxicated and addicted more harshly than those who are not.
In short, intoxication and addiction in a criminal is treated as an aggravating factor attracting a higher penalty.
Three strikes and the death penalty kicks in.
The debate centres on the concept of harm. The truth is that not all of us have equally addictive personalities. Some of us can try any number of hard and drugs and still be OK.
And there are those who are addicted to over-eating. These people should just be allowed to eat until they go pop, and this includes their children too.
Since obesity is a feature of an affluent society with a history of welfarism where the poor, ignorant and unemployed can sit around watching daytime TV and eat themselves fat, a Libertarian minimum state would instantly solve the problem of underclass obesity by abolishing the welfare state.
This exemplifies one of the main planks of Libertarian Eugenics. It is better than the state sterilising and euthanasing people. You just let them destroy themselves.
Cigarettes and drink can cause more quantifiable long term harm to health than Ecstasy and cannabis, of course.
But what is harm? Societal harm or individual harm?
And how is it quantified?
Why would someone's ill health matter to society if there is no NHS?
Is the NHS beneficial to Britain's long-term future?
Civilisations and nations have risen and flourished without a free health service, so I rather think not.
Vote: Should Professor Nutt have been sacked?
As Claire said at http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/shoot-the-messenger-when-evidence-and-policy-clash/#comment-4713 "... what Alan Johnson wants is not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence."
While waiting at the bus stop with two young Somali women in Muslim garb they remarked on an ad on the bus shelter. It said: "Becks Beer. Love Music. Hate Racism."
They giggled and said to each other: "What are they on about? Everybody is racist!"
How wise women these young ladies are. It is like admitting that no one's perfect and we are all capable of hating and fearing others for unfair, unkind and irrational reasons.
It is time now that we deny the concept of racism, in the modern sense, as a massive fallacy. The traditional and narrow sense of racialism, ie that certain races being superior to others, is now rare indeed.
If we think we ourselves better than other people, we should be entitled to the view. (Indeed, if we think ourselves inferior in racial accomplishments to other races, that too is also a form of racism.)
Liberty is freedom of expression, contract and association should be paramount in a free society or a society that likes to regard itself as free. Therefore if these "racists" wish not to associate with a certain group, be their neighbours or hire them and tell their children not to marry people like that, they should be allowed this liberty, without being accused of being evil Nazi racists.
Liberals in their mania to be liberal have subverted their own liberalism and become the totalitarian bigots they they themselves revile.
"I am tolerant of everything except intolerance", they would say smugly. Well, that's not very tolerant, is it?
These liberals now appear to think that claiming that one is offended is enough to trump any rational argument.
If one were truly liberal, then one would make a special point of others' liberty to be intolerant.
We are but sinners, all of us, and love and hate for irrational and therefore mistaken reasons. Therefore let he who is without sin, yet lives in a greenhouse, throw the first stone.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Bassey lives in Monte Carlo. Yes, there's the tax she doesn't have to pay, but more important, it's easier to be private there. When she returns to Britain, she is shocked by the change. "It's sad that they just let it to rack and ruin, Labour." How? "Well, it's violent, isn't it? That's all we read in the papers and see on television. Why does she think this has happened? "We're letting in too many people. We're an island, for God's sake. And the Britishness seems to have gawwwnnne." She enunciates the word "gone" so poshly that it takes a while to work out what she's saying. "The English are emigrating all over ... there won't be any English left." She talks of a nation of bullies and paedophiles in which people live in fear. I can't help wondering what her Nigerian father would make of her assessment of modern Britain.
If you were prime minister, what would you change? "No, no, no!" she protests with a volley of laughter. "I knew I shouldn't have gone there. No, I'm not going there. Na nah nah. I would put family values back. Parents are afraid of their kids. The kids are out of control."
Snide comments by The Guardian writer abound in this interview, but you get the gist.
White people who complain about immigration are automatically racists.
Non-white people who do the same are reminded about their racial origins and told they have no right to express a view on immigration because they are foreign and non-white.
Such is the divide and rule method of verbal intimidation employed by the liberal pro-immigration faction. It is time we all wised up and told them where to go.
Buy The Performance, out on 9 November. It is bound to be better than any of Great White folk stuff the the BNP are promoting anyway.
Dame Shirley, doncha just love her???!!!