Translate

Friday, 31 May 2013

Time for Muslims to engage with jobsworth political leaders of UKIP and BNP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFOJBK1G4cM
"Jihdad Murder in Wooldwich"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5aUZoSC76w
£12 billion to get out

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/video-nick-griffin-islamic-extremism
VIDEO: Nick Griffin on Islamic Extremism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-urges-supporters-to-ignore-police-ban-on-planned-march-at-scene-of-drummer-lee-rigbys-brutal-murder-8638632.html

BNP leader Nick Griffin urges supporters to ignore police ban on planned march at scene of Drummer Lee Rigby's brutal murder

BNP leader tweets: 'Ignore reports of march ban. See you there on Saturday'

Griffin is hoping for a riot so that people are killed and hurt and of course for Muslims to be blamed again when people are killed or injured. "Look what you made us do!"  I would ban the march if I were in charge and the police have, to their credit.

https://www.facebook.com/events/100127643531850/

Saturday
13:00
Woolwich New Road, Woolwich, London

Everybody is welcome – regardless of your political affiliation, we want you to join us in London on Saturday 1st June.

We will be meeting in Woolwich at 13.00hrs at the junction between Woolwich Newroad and Gunner Lane, opposite the Barracks.

From there we will take part in a march and motorcade which will terminate at the Lewisham Islamic Centre.

We are marching to demand that the political class take action and kick Muslim 'Hate Preachers Out' of Britain NOW!

Please wear red white and blue and bring flags to fly.

Consider wearing your 'Help For Heroes' T–shirt to show solidarity with their great work in supporting our brave soldiers.

What could be more provoking to a Muslim who objects to UK foreign policy than to call the soldiers who invade and bomb Muslim countries heroes?

But it is surely the intention of the BNP to provoke more attacks on Muslims and to provoke Muslims into further terrorist attacks, and then say that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live together and guess who must leave the country?

Make no mistake, what would please the BNP the most is if this country descended into an orgy of rioting this summer.  What Griffin would love is for what is happening in Stockholm now to happen in London and any major British city.

This should not surprise anyone who has studied the nationalist scene, for we already know that nationalists can only pray for a breakdown in law and order (because they are too unpleasant, unprincipled and incompetent to ever attract enough votes) so that Nick Griffin and his acolytes can be seen to be stepping in to sort everything out.

That would be fine if Nick Griffin were an honourable man, but he is not.

If he were an honorable man he would encourage more middle class professionals to join the party and keep them there, instead of expelling them one by one if any of them seemed capable of challenging him as a rival leader.   Griffin is happy for the BNP to remain a party perceived to be of uneducated lower class CHAV scum, so that he remains able to milk them for money and labour without them ever wising up.

I have been saying for years now that the indigenous white proletariat have been both betrayed by the LibLabCon and the BNP who do not care enough about them to tell them why successive governments conspire to facilitate immigration when they already know everyone hates it.

It is because British mothers are mostly single mothers and therefore bad parents and the British education system is not fit for the purpose of turning school-leavers into someone a rational employer might wish to hire.

Neither the LibLabCon nor the parties who oppose them dare call for the slaying of the unholy trinity of Sacred Cows that the British even now unquestioningly worship, who are eating them out of house and home and crapping all over their nice carpet.

What is the constitution of this Unholy Trinity of Sacred Cows?


  1. The welfare state
  2. Sexual liberation
  3. Feminism that encourages women to be as promiscuous as men and men to be as cowardly and hypocritical as women
Britain can only be great when she is good, but Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland is now the Land of Compulsory Fornication.  It is just not a good idea to allow most of your people to become welfare-dependent unmarried single mothers and singly-parented NEETs, is it?   

It is certainly not a good idea to let it happen until most mothers in Britain are single mothers and then refuse to discuss this.   


Do you hear UKIP or BNP saying anything about the above?  Of course not.  They can only think in the short term and of the votes they hope to get.   

They will not be saying anything to alienate the slut and bastard vote, will they?

Of all the political parties in the land, which party do you think has the highest rate of illegitimacy, and which party would alienate most of its natural supporters if it were to denounce never married mothers?

You can be sure that the BNP under Nick Griffin will not be addressing the origins of Western malaise because to suggest that sexual morality may be to blame for lower standards of education and behaviour as well as your country being full of immigrants is more than his or Nigel Farage's job's worth

Only a female and foreigner has dared to say so loudly and frequently while the political establishment and those who claim to oppose them denounce her for what amounts to blasphemy.   

A question springs to mind: will widespread rioting this summer in Britain make the political establishment  more or less likely to ask themselves the questions I have been posing?   

Muslims could help themselves by asking these questions too, but perhaps they prefer just to keep quiet for fear of inciting even more Islamophobia by bringing attention to themselves.  I have already offered to be their spokesperson, but I fear they will find my methods somewhat unorthodox, probably, but it is only I who straddle the entire political spectrum like a colossus ....

Hiring one of their own to do their PR, especially if she wears a hijab or if he has a beard, will only incite more hatred against Muslims.   

As Baroness Warsi well knows, to complain of Islamophobia only generates yet more Islamophobia.  Only one such as I can break the cycle.  

It is of course up to the Muslims to get in touch with me and appoint me their spokesperson, but they probably won't, I fear.

If nothing but widespread rioting will induce the LibLabCon to re-examine UK foreign policy, then, sadly, widespread rioting will be necessary to bring them to their senses.  

As they say, no pain, no gain.  

It is a great shame people cannot be made to see reason before things deteriorate further, but British people, as a result of living in a matriarchy, have become more corrupt, cowardly, hypocritical and irrational over the years.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html  The punishment from God has come, and it seems more is to come, if you believe in such things.  The punishments listed in Deuteronomy does not only apply just to Jews, after all.  It merely states what will happen to your society, whatever your race, if you say it is OK for your women to be sluts and SSMs.

"Cursed are the unmerciful, fornicators, and adulterers, covetous persons, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and extortioners."

http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/a-commination.aspx

Surely they mean us?

As they say, if the cap fits, wear it.


“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding; and out of this, all evil.”

-Bhagavad Gita, I, verse 41 et seq.



The corruption of women flows from feminism.

Are Muslim terrorists more rational than liberals and BNP supporters?


  1. Whom do you think is expressing their dislike of UK foreign policy more effectively?                        (a) Muslim terrorists                                                                                                                        (b) The BNP
  2. Who is more rational - Liberals or Muslim terrorists?                                                                      (a) Liberals who invade and bomb Muslim lands without getting any benefit                                           (b) Muslims who object to UK foreign policy and do something about it
  3. Who is more rational - Muslims or BNP supporters?                                                                       (a) Muslims who object to a war and demonstrate against it, and even commit acts of terrorism to demonstrate their deep antipathy towards governments and their agents who pursue immoral wars             (b) The BNP who object to the same war but only attack Muslims who object to it.
  4. What do the BNP want to do more?                                                                                               (a) Show their hatred of Muslims while hoping for a conflagration that would cause damage to property as well as injury and death to unite voters in their hatred of Muslims                                    (b) Making the government re-examine UK foreign policy
  5. The BNP cares no more than the LibLabCon about what happens to young men who become soldiers.                                                                                                                                          (a) Agree.  Dead soldiers killed by Muslims are just the cannon fodder they need in their war against Muslims and Islam to make more and more people hate Muslims.                                                      (b) Disagree.  At least the BNP state their objections to UK foreign policy at http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/foreign-affairs even if they only demonstrate against Muslims who oppose the very war they claim to oppose, being the cowards and hypocrites they are.
  6. Does the Woolwich atrocity make UK foreign policy more or less morally objectionable?                 (a) Yes                                                                                                                                           (b) No                                                                                                                                            (c) No change
  7. Is the political establishment or the media now seriously discussing UK foreign policy as a result of the Woolwich atrocity?                                                                                                                                         (a) Yes.  (If yes, please cite examples.)                                                                                            (b) Not that I have noticed.
  8. If you were a Muslim terrorist objecting to UK foreign policy, do you think you have done enough to make the UK government re-examine its foreign policy?                                                                  (a) Yes, I can just see them doing it now!                                                                                        (b) No, I am not aware of either the political establishment or the media discussing UK foreign policy in any detail or seriousness, much less calling for its re-examination.
  9. If you were a Muslim terrorist objecting to UK foreign policy and you have concluded that 7/7 and the Woolwich atrocity are still not enough to make either the political establishment or the media debate UK foreign policy, what do you think you  think the British should expect?                                  (a) More acts of terrorism.                                                                                                              (b) That Muslim terrorists would just shut up and forget about objecting to UK foreign policy, like a good liberal would.
  10. If you are of the view that UK foreign policy is both immoral and not in the British long term national interest, what should you do?                                                                                                                       (a) Continue to object to it in the strongest possible terms.                                                               (b) Shut up and forget about it.                                                                                                         (c) Keep blaming the Muslims but not UK foreign policy, just like the BNP.
  11. What would be the best way of honouring the life of Lee Rigby?                                                         (a) By discussing UK foreign policy and demanding answers from Cameron on how invading and bombing Muslim countries serves the long term national interest.                                                        (b) By not discussing UK foreign policy at all and using the Woolwich atrocity to unite voters in hatred against Muslims in the hope of eventually expelling them from the country, as the BNP are hoping to do.  

Thursday, 30 May 2013

Save Western civilisation from the dementia of feminism




Another feminist whose hit and run "debating" tactics leave much to be desired.  (She tweeted at me and then blocked me.)

Mind you, she got one thing exactly right, it is indeed my intention to destroy feminism.  This feminist thinks destroying feminism would destroy society, but the intention is to save Western civilisation from the matriarchy.  Thankfully, the penny is now dropping with more and more people.

Everyone who has ever benefited from Western civilisation has a stake in it, regardless of race.  Let us now start a worldwide campaign to save Western civilisation from feminists!   

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

How does asking why something is happening amount to a libellous statement?

Sally Bercow tweeted:
"Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*."

What about "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *sad face*"?

What about "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *happy face*"?

What about "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *wink*"?

Even if she were asking the question maliciously, she would not be asserting that Lord McAlpine was a sex offender. She could just have been glad that an innocent man had been accused.

Justice Turgendhat:

"The allegation was made by a complainant, a Mr Messham, who was *undoubtedly* abused when he was a boy living at the Bryn Estyn care home in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s."How would Justice Turgendhat know?

 Was there a trial?

Has anyone been convicted?

Nope.

Justice Turgendhat's cavalier and unlawyerly use of words in his judgement at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html does suggest that his judgment may not be as sound as it ought to be.   

In any case, it should be quite easy to explain even to a schoolchild learning the rudiments of grammar that a question can never ever be statement, because a question enquires (whatever the intention and malice of the person asking, whether or not the question is rhetorical or leading), while a statement asserts.

A statement asserts the truth of what it asserts, and a question, however, maliciously asked, always gives the answerer the option of contradicting whatever it was that was being suggested.

Why didn't her lawyer argue that??

I don't even like the woman, but this verdict really really bothers me.  If I had a spare hundred thousand or three I would bankroll her appeal.

I am not saying that no question could ever be defamatory.  If Sally Bercow had tweeted

"Why is Lord Acton a sex offender?"

she would be making a statement that he is one.

"Why is God angry with me?"

would be a statement assuming and stating the existence of God.

One that lawyers would be familiar with is:

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

This assumes that the accused has been beating his wife.

"Why did you kill your wife?"

This question assumes that the accused killed his wife.

Supposing Sally Bercow had tweeted:

"Lord McAlpine is trending on Twitter because has been named on Newsnight.  *grinning with malice*"

There is no way it can be said this statement indicates that the maker of this statement assumes his guilt.  At its highest, it only displays malicious pleasure that he has been named.   To be accused or arrested does not mean one is automatically guilty.

In the name of liberty, investigative journalism and press freedom, Sally Bercow should have appealed against this perverse and irrational decision.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/29/are-there-questions-yougov-should-not-ask/ has a rather alarming story in which people who are becoming increasingly emotional and intolerant complaining in large numbers about the questions they found offensive posed by YouGov, which does excellent work.

If Justice Tugendhat's irrational judgment is allowed to stand, our descent into chaos and fear in a climate of censorship will accelerate.

It was obviously a bad move for her not to insist on a jury. If most of the jurors were users of social media she would have got off easily.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/preparing-for-trial/defamation-trials.htm

Does a defamation case have a judge and a jury?

Usually a defamation case will be tried by a jury. The exceptions are when both sides agree for the case to be heard by a judge without a jury or when the judge decides that a jury will complicate matters. This could be, for instance, because explaining the complexities of certain defamation cases to a jury of laypeople could be too time consuming.

Firstly in a libel case with a jury, the judge will rule whether or not the statement in question is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. If the judge rules that it is, only then will a jury be called upon to decide whether or not the statement was defamatory. The jury takes into account the circumstances in which the statement was made e.g. the jury examines an explanation of the meaning of the exact words in the context in which they were originally used.

Finally, if the jury finds that the statement was defamatory they will then decide how much the publisher will pay in damages to the individual, company or organisation about whom the statement was made.

Sunday, 26 May 2013

We are in the Kali Yuga

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

Prophesied events during a Kali Yuga 

A discourse by Markandeya in the Mahabharata identifies some of the attributes of Kali Yuga.

In relation to rulers, it lists:

Rulers will become unreasonable: they will levy taxes unfairly. (Note the deliberate conflation of avoidance and evasion.)

Rulers will no longer see it as their duty to promote spirituality, or to protect their subjects: they will become a danger to the world. (US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers have been a succession of warmongers.)

People will start migrating, seeking countries where wheat and barley form the staple food source. (Mass immigration.)

"At the end of Kali-yuga, when there exist no topics on the subject of God, even at the residences of so-called saints and respectable gentlemen of the three higher varnas [guna or temperament] and when nothing is known of the techniques of sacrifice, even by word, at that time the Lord will appear as the supreme chastiser." (Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.7)  (Neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church are fit for the purpose of protecting the morals of the people.)

With regard to human relationships, Markandeya's discourse says:

Avarice and wrath will be common. Humans will openly display animosity towards each other.

Ignorance of dharma will occur.

People will have thoughts of murder with no justification and will see nothing wrong in that.

Lust will be viewed as socially acceptable and sexual intercourse will be seen as the central requirement of life. (The civil partnership has lead to gay marriage, has it not?)

Sin will increase exponentially, whilst virtue will fade and cease to flourish.  (Virtue and principle is mocked as stupidity deserving of exploitation.)

People will take vows and break them soon after. (No-fault divorce.)

People will become addicted to intoxicating drinks and drugs.

Gurus will no longer be respected and their students will attempt to injure them.  Their teachings will be insulted, and followers of Kama will wrest control of the mind from all human beings. 

The maximum lifespan of a human in this age is 90-100 years.

Brahmans will not be learned or honored, Kshatriyas will not be brave, Vaishyas will not be just in their dealings.

Do they mean us?

Kali Yuga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org

Kali Yuga (Devanāgarī: कलियुग[kəli juɡə], lit. "age of [the demon] Kali", or "age of vice") is the last of the four stages the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures. The other ages are Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga and Dvapara Yuga.

“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding; and out of this, all evil.”

-Bhagavad Gita, I, verse 41 et seq.
(as quoted by Savetri Devi in The Lightening and the Sun, page 139)

The corruption of women flows from feminism.

Saturday, 11 May 2013

What would you do if you found yourself in the body of a member of the opposite sex?


You suddenly find yourself in the body of a member of the opposite sex of the same age . To change back to your original body, you would have to undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery. Would you

(a) make the best of things in the body you have found yourself in?

(b) undergo GRS as soon as possible?

(c) commit suicide

This poll can also be found at https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/573976712624232/

Male to female gender reassignment surgery
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/SRS.html

Female to male gender reassignment surgery
http://www.gendercentre.org.au/phalloplasty.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y7qJQ-6Lpk
Stephanie does have a feminine voice.  I must say she convinces me just by her voice and I find her persona quite likable.  She is genuinely feminine.

https://www.facebook.com/trippy64?fref=ts
Stephanie Rose Woodcock

http://www.stephaniewoodcock.co.uk/

I actually have a brilliant idea for a TV show featuring transsexuals which I know people the world over would just love.  

Friday, 10 May 2013

BBC Socialist feminist Jayne Egerton displays a sound understanding of the rules of tolerance and the methodology of rational discourse




"King of the Manginas" - Mark Williams-Thomas


"King of the Manginas"?
http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk/ 



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324522/400-year-old-diary-Witchfinder-General-trials-opened-public-time.html

Thursday, 9 May 2013

Matriarchy proposes to make it easier to convict those who are accused of rape (ie men) by abolishing jury

What is Rape Myth Acceptance?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110125234919AAUFd2W

She asked for it: the impact of rape myths
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201211/she-asked-it-the-impact-rape-myths

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/paf/508-assets/conf-2011-herman-irma.pdf
Quiz on how you are affected by RMA



Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, (2013), pp. 1–29 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt006
Rape Myths: Is Elite Opinion Right and Popular Opinion Wrong?1
Helen Reece*



"Once the population has been stigmatized as dripping with RMA, there are two solutions: to remove either rape-supportive people from process or rape-supportive attitudes from people. Donald Draper is unusually unapologetic about recommending the former. Making explicit the elitism that is implicit in much of the rape myth discourse, he sees rape law as representing a tension between elite opinion, which is right, and popular opinion, which is wrong. ‘Elite opinion has controlled the law-on-the-books’, he states, but ‘popular opinion has had more influence on the law-in-action.’ Accordingly, he is quite matter-of-fact about his proposal to abolish the jury in rape trials, as a ‘direct bypass of popular prejudice’. Proposals to screen criminal justice personnel for RMA, or ensure more female representatives, are less extreme points along this spectrum. It might have been assumed that the more optimistic recommendations would be those based on education. It is true that part of Draper’s reasoning for abolishing the jury is his pessimism about the prospects of attitudinal change (although this is in large part because he recognizes that educating people out of rape myths means the wholesale transformation of public attitudes towards gender roles and stereotypes). But in reality, ambivalence towards abolishing jury trial is rarely based on the importance of popular participation in the criminal justice system, and rarely because reformers are ‘bright-eyed optimist[s] [expecting] a sudden sea-change in popular attitudes’. Rather, RMA is seen as too rampant for this remedy to work. Specifically, Temkin and Krahe ´ are tentative about abolishing the jury because ‘reliance on judges and barristers effectively to challenge stereotypes seems rather like pie in the sky’."

"Nor does this problem extend only so far as judges and barristers. Before conducting their research, Stewart and others had expected rape supportive attitudes to differ across social positions, but they ‘became fascinated by the consistency with which cultural myths and stereotypes about rape were embraced at all levels of the justice system and by all parties involved’; for Temkin and Krahe ´, during discussion of the SOA 2003 adherence to rape myths extended as far up the echelons as the then Home Secretary. In sum, rape myths influence the ‘judgments and decisions made by police officers, crown prosecutors, forensic medical examiners (FMEs), juries, and judges’. According to these rape myth researchers, only super elite opinion is right. RMA having such a hold within the body politic, quarantine clearly cannot hold. Those few who are clean of RMA would not have time to process all the rape claims.

Accordingly, the more common reform proposals involve managing, not excluding, people with rape-supportive attitudes. One important strategy is to give them rules to follow, as discretion involves trusting decision-makers’ instincts. The other strategy is education. In itself, educating people is of course a good idea. But education needs to involve an educator who is better informed imparting knowledge to others who are worse informed. In relation to some small segments of rape myth education, these stipulations may be met. If jurors mistakenly believe that physical injuries must accompany rape, or that a woman’s delayed complaint means that she was not raped, then certainly information will help their decision-making. However, this is not true of the training programmes aimed at dispelling stereotypes, let alone the ‘wider educational initiatives designed to target social attitudes’. As we have seen, these involve persuading people to believe that they believe the most perverse rape myths, by labelling as myths what are actually a mixture of fact and opinion, depicting the occasionally held sex myth as rampant rape myth, and putting the worst possible interpretation on ambiguous and complex statements. The message of these initiatives—that those attitudes that are disapproved of are rape-supportive, and those views that are not shared are rape myths—functions to close down, not open up, the possibilities of a productive public conversation about these important and at times vexed questions."


Be afraid, be very very afraid as the matriarchy entrenches itself and spreads its tentacles all around you, especially in your mind.

Time to tell feminism to fuck off, methinks, if men value the quality of their lives and value being men.

Philosopher appears to be proposing self censorship - another nail in the coffin of academic freedom and free speech in the West?

http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofPoliticsInternationalStudiesandPhilosophy/Staff/Archard/


Dear Professor Archard

Would it be possible for me to have the rest of your essay?

Personally I find it shocking that Mary Warnock should now be suggesting that the philosophers should watch what they say after the implementation of her pernicious education policies that have ruined the education of so many British schoolchildren.   

If this woman is in fact proposing to curtail free speech because she fears criticism of her discredited policies and give up on the language of what is morally right and wrong, then I think the British public ought to be told about this.   

Regards
Claire Khaw






The Acceptable Face of Philosophy

David Archard asks what compromises philosophers should be prepared to make in order that their ideas will be listened to.

In the very engaging memoir of her life’s work on various public bodies, Nature and Mortality (2004), Mary Warnock notes that during her drafting of the committee report that led to the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act on reproductive ethics and scientific research, there was a critical point when she realised that her insistence on the language of morally right and wrong was misplaced. She recognized that they needed to talk instead in terms of what was acceptable – a usage she had previously rejected as fundamentally mistaken. In essence she had come to believe that her responsibility was not to recommend what she and others on the committee thought was morally justified, but rather, to find a set of recommendations that could win the support of the government, Parliament and the general public, and so what was acceptable to them.

Warnock did indeed steer the committee to produce a report that led to the drafting and passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. That Act created a regulatory body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.




Questions I would like to ask Baroness Warnock:


  1. What do you feel is your greatest achievement in life?
  2. What do you feel about being an over-promoted mediocrity being allowed to jump on her hobby horse and ruining the education of generations of British schoolchildren?
  3. Do you have any regrets?
  4. Are you really not aware that the distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference?
  5. Would you say you are in touch with the concerns of ordinary people?
  6. When you say that philosophers need to talk in terms of what is acceptable rather than "insist on the language of morally right and wrong", were you trying to justify expediency at the expense of morality?
  7. Is someone who openly favours expediency over morality an immoral person?
  8. Should immoral female academics, however elderly and apparently distinguished, be challenged when they advocate what is clearly immoral or at the very least against the interests of free speech?
  9. What are your views on free speech?
  10. Do you think academic philosophers teach anything useful?  If so, what?
  11. When is it acceptable to make a moral compromise?
  12. Is there a difference between a "moral compromise" and a "mere" compromise?  
  13. If so, what?
  14. Should certain principles, such as free speech and academic freedom, never be compromised?
  15. What are we to make of a philosopher who recommends that philosophers only say what is acceptable and forget about what is morally right or wrong?
  16. How do you feel about compromising on academic freedom and free speech?
  17. Should a philosopher who openly advocates compromising on academic freedom and free speech be uncompromisingly denounced for her immoral proposal?
  18. Are you suffering from dementia?
  19. Should we propose that you be "euthanased" if it is dementia that has caused you to make this immoral proposal as well as caused you to be a burden on the state and your family?
  20. If your immoral proposal does not have its origins in dementia, are you prepared to defend it? If so, how?

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Swinton Circle speakers: Lord Viscount of Massarene & Ferrard and Simon Heffer

Tuesday 19th March 2013
Alan Harvey with the Viscount Massarene and Ferrard

Tuesday 19th March 2013
Sarsons vinegar bottles used as paperweights, or should I say "flagweights"?

Tuesday 19th March 2013
“The Decline of Europe and the Western World, and what the future holds” 

Tuesday 19th March 2013
Viscount Massarene's talk consisted of a trot through English history.  If only I had heard it when I was doing  History A level!

23rd April 2013    St.George’s Day
Robin Willow, the minstrel before Simon Heffer talking about Powell.  I asked Heffer which actor he would most like playing the part of Powell if ever the BBC adapted his biography of  Enoch Powell LIKE THE ROMAN.  He said Eric Porter after saying that that was as unlikely as a pig flying to the moon.  I also asked him which Tory MP he would most like to see replace David Cameron and he admitted he didn't know.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Like-The-Roman-Enoch-Powell/dp/0297842862

Years ago at the 50th Desert Island Discs Party, he nearly entered the room we were in.  I remember him standing at the threshold, with the light behind him, looking alarming like the Messiah.  His eyes swept the room to see a friendly face.   I was a slip of a girl then, and wondered what I would say to him if we were ever introduced to each other.  I don't think he found a friendly face, and it seemed he left the party without speaking to anyone.  I later popped my head out of the room to see if he was still there, but he had gone.

How I remember the group joshing Melvyn Bragg about his TV series A Time To Dance, saying "It wasn't that bad!"

Years later, I met Pam Powell at the memorial service for Lord Harris of High Cross of the IEA.  This was at St John's in Smith Square. I had arrived early and had sat down.  Mrs Powell then arrived with her two friends and Christopher Gill asked if I wouldn't mind moving so they could all sit together.  I was delighted to do this for her.  After the service was over, Pam Powell herself came round and thanked me for giving up my seat, which I certainly did not expect.  It was then that I felt a sudden and profound connection with the late Powell, thinking how much he must have loved her for being such a proper memsahib, for being so charming and for being so gracious. They don't make Englishwomen like her any more.

Eric Porter


23rd April 2013    St.George’s Day
Robin Willow singing in Mandarin

The enemy within of nationalism - the promiscuous female nationalists fear to offend


Understand your class system. The BNP are considered lower class losers who are expected to put up with this kind of thing because they are lower class losers. It really is as simple as that. Nick Griffin doesn't want any educated middle class professional joining the BNP because he doesn't want any leadership rivals.

The problem is therefore

1. the pariah status of lower class voters who are anti-immigration

2. the fact that the leader of the lower class voters are anti-immigration doesn't want to change its image of being a party of lower class voters who are anti-immigration

UKIP doesn't want anyone who ever joined the party of lower class racist voters to join them.

What nationalists in the prohibited list of parties and organisations that cannot join UKIP could most usefully do is to debunk ethno-nationalism and become civic nationalists, but I can't see that happening because they confuse a political party with a social club and believe that their political activism is the repetition of their desire to repatriate non-white British citizens.

They will insist on their right to say they want to send every non-white home even as they know how unrealistic and deluded it is to ask for that. They are not the brightest bulbs in the box, after all.

They insist on asking for all or nothing even though knowing that asking for all means they will end up getting nothing.

It is just the mulish stupidity that gives them their pariah status ie not only are they racist, they are also STUPID. They are so stupid they have no idea how much they are despised for both their views, their social status and their dress sense.

They never want to discuss anything ideological because they know they will end up fighting each other, and they can be pretty unpleasant to each other, as we all know.

In the meantime, Nick Griffin regards them as a source of income. He is not interested in helping them, only in milking them by feeding their grievances.

If he cared about them, he would drag them kicking and screaming into civic nationalism, but he cannot be bothered with these stupid vicious people, even though the success of Front Nationale has shown quite conclusively that the way forward is civic nationalism.

Is there another rival nationalist party in France? Nope, nothing that need worry Marine Le Pen.

She tellingly said that her party is closer to UKIP than it is to the BNP.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8230286/Marine-Le-Pens-emulation-of-Ukip-shows-Euroscepticism-is-growing-across-the-EU.html

Uneducated people tend not to get the significance of ideology and it is true that most BNP supporters will not understand why it is necessary for nationalists to embrace civic nationalism.

These uneducated and ignorant people see nationalism as asserting the right to say they want to repatriate non-white British citizens, even as they know it does them no good.

Because they are seen as so uneducated, racist, lower class and unpleasant, no one will give them the time of day apart from their leader, who only wants to squeeze money out of them.

Anyone who is leadership material in the BNP would be marginalised and expelled anyway, because Nick Griffin wants to stay top dog whether or not it is in the interests of his cause or not.

If he cared about his cause he would encourage people of talent to join and stay, but he does not. He only cares that he stays leader of the BNP.

Because he does not care about the people who supports the BNP, he sees it as more than his job's worth to tell them why the political establishment despises them and no sane British employer wants to hire a British worker who cannot compete against unskilled manual labour from abroad, probably because they are obese, or disabled or have learning difficulties as well as mental health issues with a few substance abuse, behavioural addictions and drink problems thrown in.

The fact is that the white working class are not fit for purpose.

Does Nick Griffin tell them that? Of course not. He tells them it is all the fault of the Jews and the Muslims.

There is only one person in the land prepared to tell the white indigenous working classes exactly what is wrong with them and why they are so despised, but she was expelled at the behest of an unmarried single mother with illegitimate and disabled offspring.

Single mothers with illegitimate and disabled offspring actually wield a disproportionate amount of power, because there are so many of them and they have the vote.

These women, who are members of the parasitic pornocracy who wield such power over both nationalists and the political establishment, are the result of over half a century of feminism and that other grave and continuing error - indiscriminate universal suffrage.

The reason why there are so many immigrants in this country is because British mothers do not have enough children and do not bring up or educate those that they have properly.

We all know that the teaching profession is female-dominated and have been trying to hide their failure for years.

But is any British man or even leader of a political party prepared to say that?

Of courser not. He is so afraid of them (because they have the vote) that he prefers to blame the symptoms of his malaise than point to its cause - the matriarchy that has established itself on the foundations of feminism, indiscriminate universal suffrage and no-fault divorce.

Any race of men who are known to be afraid of their women will be treated with contempt by other races whose men are not afraid of the worst of their women, the unmarried single mother with illegitimate and disabled offspring.

In fact, these days the white man is generally supposed to be a paedophile and his women considered sluts.

However, so effeminate and degraded is the white man now that he is either unaware of the contempt in which he is held by other races, or affects not to care.

In other races, there remains a visceral disgust for the promiscuous female. It probably comes from a collective memory of how degraded a society becomes when it allows the preferences of these women and their offspring to dominate their society, and is followed by invasion, conquest, exploitation and slavery.

The reason the promiscuous female is instinctively hated and despised is because when there are too many of them, standards of education and morality decline, and men become afraid of women. What can be more humiliating than to have to admit that you are afraid of people who are in most cases stupider, poorer and weaker than you?

Only men without honour and who feel no shame and who have no masculine pride would admit to this.

Yes, it is indeed the case that the enemy is within. It is in your trousers and between your legs and between your ears in the way that the default position of the average British male is that of rational cowardice and his degenerate inability to understand the purpose of abstract concepts such as honour and courage.  

Men fear the wrath of promiscuous women when they are so impoverished that the only kind of sex they can hope for is sex from a slut.

If they want sex from such a woman, he must take care not to offend her by calling a spade a spade and, of course, a slut a slut.

A slut is anyone prepared to have sex with a man not her husband. A worse kind of slut is one who gets knocked up. The worst kind is one who goes on to have her illegitimate offspring at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Catholic Church is no longer prepared to call a slut a slut because it is afraid of the predictable accusations of homosexual and paedophile celibate priests.

The worst kind of man is a man who pretends he can see nothing at all wrong in all this, especially if he calls himself a nationalist.

If you want to know when the rot started, it was when the institution of marriage was no longer respected.

It was no longer respected when no-fault divorce was introduced. When that happened the fact that your marriage certificate has now become a piece of paper not fit to wipe your arse on was only inevitable.

To desecrate marriage further, treat the unmarried mother better than married parents by allowing her to live off the taxpayer.

To desecrate marriage even further, give it to same sex couples as a sex toy to use for when they want to say they love each other, until they no longer do.

In the Land of Compulsory Fornication that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland the Slut Single Mum is Queen and the men drones.

Have you noticed how feminists never ever consider the long term national interest between pauses of "Gimme, gimme, gimme"?

It is an alien concept to them.  It is like asking a serial killer to consider the feelings of the loved ones of his murdered victims.

How can such a nation, based on such immoral and demented principles, ever prosper again?

Man created God to protect him from the promiscuous female.  Now, the effeminate man no longer believes in God.   Even those who acknowledge the usefulness of God do not have the conviction to use Him as an instrument of government, even as he knows that a general belief in God was an essential prop in making  people respect the institutions of marriage.

Marriage is eugenic, illegitimacy dysgenic.

Soon, the white man will be so degenerate that he will no longer be able to grasp these concepts.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

Returning to barbarism means behaving like animals, and animals are not known for their ability to grasp and use abstract concepts.

Let the West then be the perfect demonstration of how condoning extramarital sex can end your civilisation.

WHY WHITE WOMEN NO LONGER FANCY WHITE MEN AND PREFER MUSLIMS
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/05/muslims-dominate-the-natives-on-the-streets-of-norway/

COUNTRIES WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL ALSO HAVE A HIGH RATE OF ILLEGITIMACY ie most of their women are slut single mums
http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Ryan Anderson should just have said: "Marriage should remain ONLY THE PRIVILEGE of heterosexual couples. Robust approach required.

Dear marriage supporter,
A few weeks ago Piers Morgan hosted his TV show in America and sneered at everyone who doesn’t agree with redefining marriage, but he didn’t expect to come up against this supporter of real marriage!
Video: Ryan Anderson on Piers Morgan Live
I’m excited to tell you that this young, intelligent, articulate supporter of real marriage, Ryan Anderson, an author and academic, is coming to the UK and we’d like to offer you the chance to come and hear him speak.
Chessington, Tuesday 14 May, 8pm - 9.30pm
The King's Centre, Coppard Gardens,
Chessington, Surrey, KT9 2GZ

Click above for a map
London, Wednesday 15 May, 6pm - 7.30pm
The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple,
Crown Office Row, London, EC4Y 7HL

Click above for a map
Also at the meetings will be Adrian Smith, the housing manager from Manchester who was demoted and lost 40 per cent of his salary just for saying on his own personal Facebook page that gay marriage in churches would be “an equality too far”.
The same presentation will be given at both meetings. The meetings are free of charge and there’s no need to book. But, to give us an idea of numbers, if you intend to come please hit this button:
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
Coalition for Marriage
8 Marshalsea Road
London
SE1 1HL
You received this email because you chose to be 'kept informed' when you signed the Petition for Marriage at c4m.org.uk or on paper. If you no longer wish to receive information from Coalition for Marriage, click 'Unsubscribe' below, or for other enquiries, contact us here.
Tel 0207 403 7879

The censoriousness and debating skills of the average transsexual





An example of liberal impartiality by historian and journalist Guy Walters





I wonder if Walters is aware of his duty to be impartial as an academic, historian and a journalist.   Britain is suffering from advanced matriarchal dementia and this does rather mean that most people who should know better dispense with these inconvenient concepts in their anxiety to be entertaining and popular.

Why would Mosley be writing to that effete lefty Russell anyway?  

Walters does not say, but you might have thought as a historian he might see fit to mention it in passing.

They both opposed the war, so you would have thought Russell might have tried a little harder to see what he and Mosley could do to avoid the war that lost Britain its world empire, one would have thought.

As for the wording of that letter of rejection to Mosley, it could have been written by one's maiden aunt after  being revived by smelling salts once she had gotten over her fit of the vapours.

Russell never stood for much in politics anyway.  He was chiefly known for having tantrums and tearing up his Labour Party membership card.  One can imagine him lifting his skirts up in outrage and flouncing out of the room, again and again and again ...

Forever lifting up his skirts and flouncing out of the room ...  

I trust wonder if Jewish Ed Miliband will be stupid enough to sack Ken Livingstone as Jewish MP Brooks Newmark suggests. Ken is popular, Jews are not.

http://order-order.com/2013/05/01/tory-mp-demands-ed-sacks-ken-for-boston-bombing-slur/#comment-1696184


Tory MP Demands Ed Sacks Ken For Boston Bombing Slur

24 hours after Guido reported that Ken had blamed America for the Boston bombings on Iranian state television, and still he has escaped reprimand. Tory MP Brooks Newmark has now written to Ed demanding he be sacked from Labour’s NEC:
“I find it wholly reprehensible for Mr Livingstone to link the Boston bombings to Western intervention in the Middle East. In doing so, he suggests that the actions of the two Boston bombers were justified and excusable. I am sure that both you and the Labour Party agree that terrorism, which in this case killed three innocent people and injured many others, is never justified and never excusable.
He also intimates that America itself was responsible for the bombings. I am sure that you will also agree with me that the only two people responsible for the bombings were the terrorists themselves.
As a member of Labour’s NEC, Mr Livingstone has been placed in a position of responsibility and influence within your Party. As leader of the Labour Party, I call on you to condemn these disgusting remarks and remove Mr. Livingstone from your NEC. I know you will want to do so as soon as possible to make clear that neither you nor the Labour Party condones such beliefs.”
Your move, Ed…

Why do transgender people hate the Tories? Should Labour pander to them at taxpayers' expense? In what way are the transgendered useful to society?