Thursday, 23 February 2017

Talking up the threat from Moscow is displacement activity by the West

From 28th minute

Anatol Lieven:

I don't think nuclear war is like, God knows, but I don't think a laughing matter nor quite frankly see why Russia and the USA should still have thousands of nuclear missiles pointing at each other. The attempt to keep the Cold War going when almost all of the objective bases for it have disappeared seems to me profoundly perverse. As for May's statement about compromise with Russia meaning the eclipse of West, if we brought the Cold War to an end by compromising with the Soviet Union without suffering an eclipse, how on earth does compromising with Russia over the Donbass - a palce which even four years ago not one Westerner in a thousand had ever heard of and couldn't find on a map, how on earth does that ... 

I don't know if you saw the latest news coming out of the British Army that the whole British Army would be hard put to put to produce one combat brigade. That is not going to deter a Russian invasion. If the Russians are going to invade, they are going to invade, but the point is that they're not going to invade and there is no threat to Estonia. No Russian official has even hinted at an invasion of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania in recent years. Now you could say that British troops are a tripwire of some kind, but the point is if the only way of defending these people is through nuclear war, well, isn't that realistic grounds to try to reduce tension with Russia? If they can't be defended by conventional means, well, don't provoke the other side. 


There's a more cynical and unsympathetic or a less cynical and more sympathetic view. The less cynical and more sympathetic view is that all national national security establishments develop doctrines about who is the enemy and who are the potential enemies and over time these become simply hard-wired into their structures, their attitudes, their analysis, their recruitment and so forth and NATO and the CIA and other institutions were products of the Cold War and they have never grown out of that, even though Russia represents nothing like the competitive threat like China to US interests, nor of course does Russia pose a direct security threat to America or Western Europe. Russia self-evidently does not back international terrorism unlike various forces in the Muslim world. So, there is this doctrine which now lacks real basis in reality.

The less sympathetic view would be that these people in the Western security establishments are hanging on to their jobs for dear life. They were trained to confront Russia, they kept NATO going in the 90s after the end of the Cold War by continuing to confront Russia through the expansion of NATO, even if they said that wasn't what it was all about, and they're too lazy to learn Chinese or Arabic, and deal with the real problems facing the West. This is a wider problem amongst the Western elites in general. The real problems in the West are nothing to do with Russia are economic stagnation, the growth of gross inequality between a richer and richer 1% and the rest of the population and of course migration from the Muslim world. Now these are all issues which challenge the liberal project of the past generations at its core and require very very serious thought and reconsideration. They are acutely painful and by the way there may not be solutions to these problems and this is an even more painful thing to confront. How much easier to play the old game which everyone is so used to of talking up a threat from Moscow.

Instead of WW3, why don't we defenestrate the stinking matriarchy and make the world a better place?

Claire Khaw no-platformed from Bath University debate on feminism

Swedish city councilor calls for sex breaks at work to boost fitness & childbirth

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Ted "Malevolent" Malloch shocks and awes his detractors with a triumphalist Trumpian vision of the future


What is the old order being replaced? What does the New Order look like?


There are a number of elements, I think. On the international side, the most important element is the movement away from this idea of expert global elite determining our future which is after all the socialists' goal towards a more state-centric national participation by people in decision-making so that pendulum has swing and is swinging all across Europe. Brexit is evidence of that and the coming elections this year. That is a major shift ideologically and otherwise. That is in fact a turning point in world history. The other turning point I would suggest is this notion that the economy can be run for the good and benefit of all the people instead of just a few people, and this kind of inclusive capitalism, to use a phrase, is something that I think Donald Trump will prevail on. It certainly has free market orientation. It is not overly protectionist, but it will provide a degree of economic growth through a number of means both by infrastructure builds and by taxation etc to make the American economy frankly the engine of growth in the world economy, and we haven't had that in the recent decade and a half. 

You shouldn't worry about the protectionism too much. You've read The Art of the Deal which I have to keep reminding people is the way to understand Trump thinks, works and has acted throughout his entire business career as a transactional business person. There is this degree of bluster. It is a negotiating technique. It is already working. Jobs are coming back to America. You dangle a stick and carrot and sometimes you have to use the stick but it's the threat of that stick so I tell people that it's not going to happen that the world is going to collapse into a trade war, it's just not going to happen. 

I've been working with some people and there's now a panel at the White House on how infrastructure can be orientated towards the private sector. So up until now the view was we give the money back to the mayors and they can do the bridges to nowhere and give them money for their friends to build roads to nowhere that nobody uses so it's all a degree of political cronyism and we use the municipal bond market which is tax exempt to do that. What I'm telling you is that this is being rethought in the White House and there is going to be in this infrastructure package a complete reorientation towards the private sector, not just public-private partnerships, I'm talking about an influx of capital frankly from all over the world to build user-pay infrastructure in the United States. Very exciting prospects. 



To some degree the European Union has put the cart before the horse. They've tried to bring about this political integration which is proving difficult. They have increasingly had a degree of anti-Americanism which is very disheartening particularly when you think of what America has done since the Second World War, the German Marshall Plan and all through the last number of decades for Europe and defending Europe and rebuilding Europe and trading with Europe. There is a degree of ungratefulness, and I find that actually very disturbing, actually very sad. 



Marxism as a philosophy has been bankrupt since Marx penned the words, but like most philsopohies the disciples were more problematic than the originator so there were numbers of Marxists in any of the political regimes around the world, not just in Eastern Europe, and even after the Berlin Wall fell and after the Soviet Union collapsed there were still many Marxists in places as far away as Venezuela and Bolivia and Trotskyites in certain academic institutions ...


In Yale?


I'd have to say our far right wing began with Barack Obama. It got more to leftist as you moved on and it was very strange in the left when you believed in all kinds of things. That kind of Cultural Marxism is very much part - if your listeners don't know this - of the academic set. So one should be wary when you're sending your wonderful youth off to universities and paying very princely sums that they actually come back with ideas that you would never invest them with. 
The free speech that existed then [around the time of publication of Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind] which still existed then when there could have been a debate has largely dissipated. That doesn't exist in the academy any longer. 

I believe there is something akin to a Cultural War.  


Your prediction for the next eight years?


There's going to be a lot of protests circling President Trump as we've seen already some of it paid for by external sources - George Soros and people on the left - some of it violent in nature, which is very discouraging - damaging lives, damaging private property. I am very much in favour of the ability of people to protest peacefully. People say these protests will end after the first month of President Trump's reign or after the first one hundred days, I don't want to be discouraging, but I think it will go on the entire eight years. 


And your prediction for Europe? How long before it breaks up completely?


Oh my goodness. I have no prediction whatsoever and I wouldn't want to be an actor in such a thing. How could you even suggest it? 


I don't know where I got that idea from, it must have been some rubbish I read in the papers or something.

Will Jews bring about world peace by declaring Donald Trump to be their Messiah?

"A common modern rabbinic interpretation is that there is a potential messiah in every generation."

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Claire Khaw no-platformed from Bath University debate on feminism

This House Believes that Feminism is outdated

The worst that could happen to the feminist side is that feminism is found to be merely "outdated" - like "Oh, this is so last year!" and not actually evil.

We already know who is going to win the debate, don't we? The female students of Bath University will vote with their feet for more feminism. We already know there are more female students than male students at Bath Spa. 40 male/60 female, in fact.

Even had I been allowed to argue against feminism (for a full 6 minutes, wow!), I know I would have lost the debate anyway. Virtually no one these days is influenced by truth, logic or morality.

The more female students there are at a university, the less academic freedom you get, and the higher the number of false rape accusations are made against male students, it would appear.

The more promiscuous the women, the greater the number of rape accusations.

So now we know to what we can attribute this progressive (pun intended) loss of academic freedom, free speech and other liberties traditionally associated with the West - feminazis taking over everywhere with male students and academics too unprincipled, outnumbered and emasculated to challenge this.

From: Bath University Debating Society
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017, 18:09

Subject: Proposed debate on feminism on 28 February 2017

Hi Claire,

Forming the opposition will be speakers from the Gender Equality Group from the University of Bath and members from the Women's Equality Party, the UK first feminist political party. The exact names are not yet confirmed but I will let you know as soon as possible.

Have a nice weekend,


From: Bath University Debating Society
Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2017, 18:36
Subject: Proposed debate on feminism on 28 February 2017

Dear Claire Khaw,

I am deeply sorry to announce that the Student’s Union of the University of Bath did not approve you as a speaker for the debate.
Therefore you won’t be able to come and participate to the debate, I am truly sorry about this.

Best wishes,

Amandine Désire

To: Bath University Debating Society
Sent: Sunday, 19 February 2017, 8:52
Subject: debate on feminism on 28 February 2017

This House Believes that Feminism is outdated

Dear Amandine

I have now discovered why I was no-platformed. It would have been simpler if you had just said that the Student Union did not approve of me as a speaker because I appeared to be a Nazi.

Then I would have been given an opportunity to explain why I do not regard myself as anti-Semitic or a Nazi and told you the reasons why it is in fact impossible for me to be a Nazi.

I would have asked you if I was a nun if I was photographed in a nun's habit outside a nunnery, or a nurse if photographed in a nurse's uniform outside a hospital, or a policeman if photographed in a policeman's helmet on my head outside a police station.

If asked why I appeared to be trying to be a Nazi, I would have responded that I was only doing it to attract attention so people might feel more disposed to pay more attention to my political views after having their interest piqued by that photograph.

I doubt if anyone would pay any attention to me for long enough to become aware of my political views if I was always dressed respectably, behaving impeccably and speaking politely about everyone and everything.

We could have gone on to discuss whether one becomes a Nazi in Britain just because one is accused of being one by the Left, with no right of appeal and whether an accusation should ever be as good as a conviction.

While it is true that I am associated with British Nationalism, that does not ipso facto mean that I am a Nazi.

It is possible that you have already taken on board all these points but have decided that the appearance of being a Nazi is in itself sufficient and necessary for my invitation to be withdrawn, even as you accept that it is in fact impossible for me to be a Nazi even if I were anti-Semitic, which I am not.

It does of course mean that I will have views unlikely to be favoured by the Left who currently exercise unrivalled hegemony in all the institutions of the West.

It is just possible that the Left do not feel themselves to be intellectually equipped to deal with the challenge to their ideas and believe it is better to control the debate in the only way it knows how: through suppression, ostracisation, avoidance and sometimes violence.

It is a great shame that the Left of the University of Bath feels itself to be collectively unable to defend its position and reverts to the only tactic open to them: avoidance.

If this is indeed the case, why are their views of the Left allowed to hold sway over the rest of the country and indeed the rest of the West?

Claire Khaw

Bath University Debating Society

Thank you to our primary sponsors:
 Back to Home                      
is where to go if you want to post a comment on the Bath University Debating Society event that I have been excluded from.

Is this the Claire Khaw you have invited to our campus?

Comment   Storify
Bath University Debating Society
Bath University Debating Society Hi Chros, thanks for bringing this to our attention, we will be talking with the SU as to the best way to move forward. We will let you know when a decision is made.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 · 16 February at 12:58
Chros Riche
Chros Riche A decision...on whether to invite a Nazi onto campus? Christ alive.
Jeffrey Marshall
Jeffrey Marshall This photo isn't proof positive she's a Nazi, or even sympathises with Nazism. 

The smiley t-shirt (with the familiar moustache) suggests a degree of irony.

It might have been more productive to find out what she actually had to say about feminism rather than rushing to judgement.
Unlike · Reply · Storify · 2 · Yesterday at 03:04
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Nothing of what I say is racist in the sense that nothing I have said has a particular application to white people only. I regard white people as *my* people and want to help them get over their inhibitions in exercising free speech and logic when discussing their national, social, political and economic problems. 

It is the totalitarian shroud of rampant uncontrolled extremist feminism that prevents the free exchange of ideas. When most people are too afraid to speak out and those who dare prevented from speaking, the free exchange of ideas will in practice be impossible. 

The rules of patriarchy maintain and strengthen a nation, and not obeying them strengthens matriarchy weakening the nation. 

Discovering that you live in a matriarchy is like discovering your civilisation has cancer. 

How many healthy matriarchies currently in existence can you think of whose civilisation you have heard of?

The answer is NONE.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The essential ingredient of Nazism is anti-Semitism. If you can find anything I have ever proposed that is anti-Semitic ie obviously and intentionally harmful and hostile to Jews, then I just might be anti-Semitic, but even then it is still IMPOSSIBLE for me to be a Nazi. 

Those who have no real arguments and can only indulge in petty and childish name-calling would of course pretend not to get what I have just said. 

Those photographs are there to test the ability of my detractors as well as journalists to be fair. I did have those photographs taken for a reason. 

I did go all the way up to Todmorden to be photographed with that flag FOR A REASON.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Chros Riche is obviously left liberal judging from his obvious preoccupation with the rights of migrants and refugees against the rights of lawful UK citizens of all races.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw It is impossible for me to be a Nazi, actually. The reasons are given at

@MuppyChick @ntfem this is Claire. You may just wish to block her — Eliza Law (@onlyhatebigots) November 24,...
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw To be a Nazi, I would have to be Aryan, a German national or at any rate German-speaking and an actual card-carrying member of the Nazi Party. I am none of those things. I would also have to be anti-Semitic. Feel free to try to find anything I have ever said that is anti-Semitic.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw As for why I had those photos taken, I thought it was a good way of acquiring the notoriety I needed in order to get people to read what I have to say about politics in general. 

Also, I had just been expelled from the BNP and I didn't want anyone th
inking I had retired from politics or had given up on nationalism. 

Those photographs were taken in Todmorden at a weekend meeting with an ethno-nationalist who proposed a political association with him supporting civic nationalism after renouncing ethno-nationalism. 

Dave Jones had left the ethno-nationalist British People's Party in order to form this political association with me because he thought this association would increase his share of the vote at the council elections.

Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Your next question, I predict, is why I was expelled from the BNP. 

This is answered at

Dear Claire Khaw I have asked the National Executive for their advice on this issue and they have unanimously recommended that you be expel...
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Your next question then is why I joined the BNP. 

The answer is that they asked me and I thought it would be rude to refuse. 

This was when they were in trouble with the Human Rights and Equality Commission over not having non-white members in their party.

Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Your next question is predictably why I thought it was OK to join the BNP.

I actually felt honoured to be asked. It is the only political party I have ever joined whose ex-members I am still in touch with, and I have in my time joined a number of political parties for reasons of field research. 

What was the area of my research? Why white people can't seem to get their government right.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw And now I have all the answers. Participating in the debate would have allowed me the opportunity of explaining to you what I think is the answer, but alas it is not to be, since I have now been no-platformed.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw As you may have noticed, I identify myself as a nationalist. There are two forms of nationalism: civic nationalism and ethno-nationalism. 

Ethno-nationalism is the racist kind of nationalism, but not civic nationalism. I identify as CIVIC nationalist as do UKIP and Trump. 

To make this clearer, I would say that Judaism is ethno-nationalist, while Islam is civic nationalist.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw What has nationalism to do with feminism, you ask?

They are linked in the sense that feminism prevents and retards nationalism. 

But what is nationalism really?

I would define nationalism as the ideology of promoting the long term national interest, but feminism undermines it. 

How does feminism undermine the national interest?

Because everything about feminism undermines marriage. 

How does feminism undermine marriage?

It demotivates people from getting and staying married. 

Why is this bad?

Because it means most children will be singly-parented. 

Why is this bad?

Because it means most children will only have the cultural, emotional, intellectual and social input of one parent only causing them to be not quite the people their parents were, and I mean that in a bad way. What I in fact mean by that is degeneracy. 

Why is this against the long term national interest?

Because it means having fewer children as well as fewer children with married parents. 

As I am sure most of you already know, criminals tend to have been singly parented having suffered bad parenting and family breakdown, child abandonment and child sexual abuse, usually by their single mother's abusive live-in boyfriend(s) or by its carers once taken into care. 

The point I wanted to make is that marriage is the best child protection scheme created by God, some would say. 

But everything about feminism undermines marriage.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 hr · Edited
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw I am however aware that what I have said above does not fit in comfortably with the proposition that feminism is outdated. 

To call feminism outdated is to say that *evil*l is outdated, which of course it never will be. 

Evil clings to humanity in exactly the way good clings to humanity. Our understanding of evil is dependent on our understanding of good in just the same way we understand heat if we understand cold, up if we understand down, absent if we understand present, past if we understand future.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 hr · Edited
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw The proposition that feminism is outdated only makes sense to me if we are also aware that people these days say marriage is outdated.

In these similarities is the big clue is the link between feminism and marriage. 

The perception that marriage is outdated is simply because these days you just don't have to get married in order to have sex, but there was a time in living memory when it was required or unpleasant social consequences would be the result. 

Imagine how society would be if were law criminalising extramarital sex and treating those convicted of having had extramarital sex as sex offenders. 

Eventually, people would settle down to marrying earlier, having more legitimate children and staying married for the sake of the children. 

This would result in a better quality next generation than our current tolerance of widespread illegitimacy which feminism condones. 

In short, feminism is about sexual liberation - the sexual liberation of women in particular - and this undermines the patriarchy which can only exist when most people obey the rules of traditional marriage and most children are legitimate.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw How is nationalism linked to patriarchy?

It is very simple really. In a patriarchy you have male preference operating in such a society while in a matriarchy you have the operation of female preference. 

Men are more instinctively racist because they see foreign men as immediately threatening to their interests and status competing against them for scarce resources, position, jobs and women. 

Women on the other hand see foreign men as more interesting than their local men and don't feel directly threatened by their presence because it actually increases their choice of sex partner. 

Now that I have demonstrated that men and women do in fact think and behave differently because their interests are divergent in the same way that the interests of a buyer and seller are divergent, I like to think I have exposed the Achilles heel of feminism. 

Women and men are not the same so it would be unfair to treat them the same under the law. 

Justice is not a matter of treating people equally but fairly, since it is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally. 

Men have enough trouble competing with each other already they don't want women competing against them with feminist legislation giving women an unfair advantage over men. Women don't have to compete against men because they have women's work if they are married to do in the home such as bringing up the next generation so that they are not criminals, NEETs or a burden on the state, and this work is no less important than men's.

In short, under a patriarchy we would have a more efficient division of labour and this increased efficiency would make our society more orderly, efficient and prosperous which would promote the national interest. 

If you put all of the above to feminists, none of this would compute as far as they are concerned, though some of them would get very angry. Selfish feminists are only interested in accumulating for themselves all the privileges they can acquire and holding on to them at the expense of men, the next generation and the national interest. And this is why feminism is in fact *evil*.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 hr · Edited
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Can evil ever be described as "outdated"? I would say not. Saying evil is outdated would be as puzzling as saying good is outdated or error, failure, degeneracy and the decline of your civilisation is "outdated", because that just wouldn't make sense.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Since I will no longer be participating in the debate much less joining students for a drink in the bar after the debate, those of you who wish to ask me any questions can do so at

You can even do so anonymously if you are feeling shy.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If Bath University Debating Society feel disposed to renew my invitation, let me just say that I would be delighted to re-accept it. 

If you really won't have me, may I recommend Simon Sheppard, whom I know to be a knowledgeable and engaging speaker on feminism. 

In my view, his best writing on feminism is at

Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If you really must have someone mainstream, I could suggest Roger Scruton who is closer to Bath than I, but I know he is not really disposed to challenge feminism probably because he is an old man who knows that his wife will soon be his nurse.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 · Yesterday at 08:57 · Edited
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Peter Hitchens known to be a Conservative whom I know has spoken at your society is no good because he has declared himself to be a feminist. 

I have challenged him many a time to be harder on unmarried mothers, but he refuses. This is probably somet
hing to do with the fact that his mother was an adulteress who committed suicide after running away with the vicar.
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw If you really won't have me, I know Rod Liddle is just dying to share his thoughts on feminism with you and makes an excellent point at to which Kirsty Wark has no intelligible response.

Michaela Rios
Michaela Rios Be careful op, that pic is reportable...
Claire Khaw
Claire Khaw Conservative men with wives will be reluctant to denounce feminism with sufficient vigour because they will either consciously or subconsciously fear the wrath of their wives who have the ability to make domestic life unbearable if they go too far. 

Self-censorship in these circumstances is even worse in many ways than being no-platformed by university debating societies. 

I know the infamous Colin Robertson has been known to be anti-feminist, but I believe he still aspires to one day enjoy sexual congress with women, so he too dares not go too far. 

Since I have no wife, I would be the person most capable of ruthlessly slaying the dragon of feminism without fear or favour, being neither a person who hopes nor expects to have sex with women.
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 · 23 hrs · Edited
Michaela Rios
Michaela Rios I'm not joking
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 · 23 hrs
Michaela Rios
Michaela Rios The woman is putrid
Like · Reply · Storify · 1 · 23 hours ago