Monday, 28 September 2009
Whose idea was it to persecute him?
What has happened to Switzerland?
Even the Swiss have gone cuckoo.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Socialism is seen as rule by the common man, capitalism rule by the elite.
Radicalism v Conservatism, Revolution v Counter-Revolution.
Conservatism is always on the defensive, it would appear, and can only be defended by religion.
For the past 50 years, we have been saying to each other "Why not? Why don't we? Go on, go on, go on!" before embarking on yet another disastrous policy misadventure, as we have been doing, for perhaps too long.
The policewoman branded an illegal childminder - for looking after her colleague’s toddler
‘This extraordinary edict from Ofsted is the latest example of a pervasive and deeply worrying trend towards Government becoming ever more closely involved in micro-managing parental and family decisions.’
Totalitarian state, anyone?
Friday, 25 September 2009
Barnbrook got his facts wrong when making a point about knifecrime on his blog.
He claimed three murders took place in Barking & Dagenham over a period of time. It turned out that two were attempted murders because the victims subsequently recovered, and the third murder did not take place in Barking but in Newham, though the victim did come from Barking.
When this was pointed out to him, he argued that it was still substantially true, in that this was the average number of murders that takes place in his borough and the real situation as regards knifecrime is even worse, because not all knifings are reported to the police by victims.
The video of him discussing this was placed on YouTube and on his blog and stayed on for four weeks/months(?) after this factual error was pointed out to him.
The action was brought by Labour Councillor Val Rush who claimed that by knowingly lying about these facts, he had brought his office into disrepute and that he was whipping up fear of crime and causing confidence to be lost in the police. The pretext that anyone in this country has any confidence in the police nowadays, when fear of violent crime is so high that we are now a "walk on by" society, is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.
When asked by Councillor Barnbrook how this could have brought his office into disrepute, particularly as no one else had complained about this factual error apart from her, it was merely repeated by Councillor Rush that he had brought his office into disrepute. The impression he had given of knifecrime in Barking was substantially true he suggested, after reading from a list detailing murders on a year by year basis in the borough. The average of 3 was about right, he claimed. In fact, in some years it was even as high as 6 or 8.
"Even one murder is one murder too many," Councillor Barnbrook said.
Councillor Rush repeated her allegation that he had whipped up fear of crime and brought his office into disrepute, without saying how or why (probably because she was unable to), though she was asked this question twice.
The tribunal (or should I say kangaroo court?) unanimously found him to be guilty as charged and punished.
Barnbrook said he would be appealing, and I hope he does.
If he has not brought his office into disrepute (and it was certainly not proven or even explained how he had done so), then he should not be punished.
The enmity between Councillors Rush and Barnbrook as individuals and as members of rival parties is well-established, and is detailed in the documentary evidence. Only Councillor Rush, who had an axe to grind, complained after he mentioned her name in the YouTube video in an aside about how Labour is using taxpayers' money to publish a free local paper which gives an unrealistically rosy view of life in Barking. This attracts advertising away from the local paper which publishes real news, nice and nasty. It would suit Labour to not have the bad news reported by any other paper, Barnbrook was suggesting.
Since no one else has complained about Barnbrooks video, it is certainly arguable that the tribunal was biased. It is well-known that all the mainstream parties regard members of the BNP as "evil", "racist", "fascist", "Holocaust Deniers", "Nazis" etc and an electoral threat.
The documentation was substantial and lawyers were of course instructed to prepare them. I therefore wonder how much taxpayer money has been used to facilitate the victimisation of this BNP councillor who was expressing concern about knifecrime and exploring ways of dealing with it, in the face of the ruling party's understandable desire to pretend that nothing is as bad as the media says it is and its anxiety to assure us that everything's under control.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
This country is now on the brink of serious moral collapse. We must stop demonising men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women.
Harriet Harman's insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it's our children who will suffer.
Should women also loathe feminism?
After all, it hasn't made them happier, has it?
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Alastair Campbell complains in "GB wins award" at 2009-09-23 09:43:49:
If you get out a microscope, and scour the British papers today, paying very close attention to a small number of very small articles, you might be able to discover that Gordon Brown won an award as World Statesman of the Year in advance of the United Nations General Assembly.
Take the miscroscope down to the body of the copy and you might be able to enjoy the words of former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger about the 'vision and dedication' GB showed in handling the global financial crisis a year ago. 'His leadership has been essential to our ability to overcome the moment of danger,' he said.
Even the presence of an A list celeb like Bono at the awards could not elevate the presentation to anywhere near the coverage and praise for Victoria Beckham's offerings at London Fashion Week.
Now let's just ask a couple of questions. If David Cameron had won such an award, let's say for his work in raising awareness on important global issues like ... oh, I don't know, let's just pretend he has ... do you think we might have heard a little more about it?
In my opinion, it is probably better that it is not mentioned for it would only raise a few sardonic laughs. How is becoming embroiled in two ruinous and disgraceful wars in partnership with the world's most hated nation "statesmanlike"?
Sounds like it is Uncle Sam patting its little poodle on the head and giving it a bone.
Extracted from Rod Liddle's blog:
Fucking Jews! A Foreign and Commonwealth civil servant has appeared before Westminster magistrates accused of inciting racial and religious hatred. Rowan Laxton, who reportedly earns £70,000 per year at the FCO, was allegedly heard to shout “fucking Israelis………..fucking Jews” in a gym while watching a Sky news report of Israeli military action in Gaza. Confronted by a chap who heard him, Gideon Falter, Laxton admitted the rant but said that his comments were not racist but added that he hoped “Israel would be blown off the face of the fucking earth” (although Laxton denies saying this last bit, and also denies saying he said fucking Jews”.)
I tend to get very racist when using the running machine my wife bought for me a while ago because, as she put it, “you’re a fat fuck.” I usually howl abuse about Somalians, but I’ve also been known to have a go at the Roma and the Portuguese. I hate working out and like to have a nation at hand to blame (quite wrongly, of course) for my predicament. Luckily nobody is around to hear me inciting racial and religious hatred (I have a go at the Scientologists and the Muslims sometimes, when I’m bored of dissing the Somalians). And then there’s this: My little daughter, aged three, came up to me the other day and said: “Take me to the toilet, nigger.” Incredulous, I asked her to repeat what she had said and she did, giggling. I have no idea where she got the word from – even on the running machine I don’t dare say stuff like that. I thought for a moment about ringing the police, as I had been mortally offended. Bang her up.
What a fatuous, expensive, inhuman, cringing and counter-productive piece of legislation it is. That people can be hauled before a court for “giving offence”; a genuflection to our tissue paper-thin sensitivities these days and our determination to make people suffer when they do something we do not like. I suspect I would disagree with Rowan Laxton about almost everything, and especially Israel. But to prosecute him for his views?
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
In the case of former lovers, let me explain that they called me "dangerous" even as we were still lovers and being loving, and not, I must point out, after I have hurt them in some way.
How shall I capitalise on this though, if my plan to marry Mandy does not quite work out as I hope?
"You are very persuasive," a former lover once said to me, not without a hint of suspicion and doubt.
"I am not going to that, not even for you," said yet another in protest at some outrageous request.
"Why did I do that? Why did I let you make me do that?" I remember one bewailing.
Should I go in for PR and advertising then, if Mandy will not marry me? Or if the Mail will not give me a column?
Extremist liberalism tolerates behaviour that is societally destructive (examples are female promiscuity, single parenthood, widespread illegitimacy, fatherlessness, family breakdown, rising crime, uncontrolled immigration, the welfare state, the morbid over-feminisation of society also known as the matriarchy and ever lowering standards of education) while denouncing whistle blowers as evil, racists, bigots and fascists.
Extremist liberalism will be the downfall of Western civilisation, and now is the best time to challenge it, for the chickens are coming home to roost ...
Monday, 21 September 2009
Are we being softened up for the handover to Lord Mandelson that I recommend should take place at Brighton on 27 September - 1 October?
If it is to happen it should happen on the last day, for maximum dramatic effect.
The NHS as it currently operates is a luxury we cannot afford. And there are many others one too, such as universal child benefit, and this should be debated by all MPs of all parties together, irrespective of ideology.
Only one ideology should be allowed, which is a strict regard for truth and the National Interest, not narrow party political advantage. This means thinking in centuries, rather the short-termist five year tranches that those who govern us cannot go beyond.
And yes, I am in fact aware of how alien and outlandish these suggestions sound to most of you.
And then they go and spoil it all by proposing a property tax, a bit like death duties but payable in the property owner's lifetime. Then they spoke of withdrawing universal child benefit, but don't quite go the whole hog of withdrawing it for unmarried mothers to discourage feral parenthood.
Perhaps this is still a sign that the LibDems are seeing the light, even if it is through a glass darkly ...
The party that most convincingly proposes:
1) cuts in taxes
2) cuts in spending
3) cutting red tape
will win handsomely. Ideally, Lord Mandelson should lead such a party, and such a party would get away with proposing more spending cuts than the Tories. An opportunity not to be missed, but which I fear will be.
But children need to know that Santa Claus does not exist, or they will be laughed off the international stage when their money runs out after they have thrown it away on propping up the unproductive at the expense of the productive, heaping up their funeral pyre with their best possessions and then going up to sit on it, inviting others to light their fire.
Conservatives are the people, or ought to be the people, who tell it like it is, and are supposed to know why one must be cruel to be kind.
So badly have the Conservatives betrayed their own principles that true Conservatism - not Cameron's Compassionate and Progressive varieties - are now represented by the Muslims, who question feminism, denounce female promiscuity, family breakdown and divorce, and tell the political classes that the threat of Islamist terrorism is entirely due to decades of British and American foreign policy.
The Credit Crunch was due to complacency, excessive risk-taking and irresponsible borrowing and lending. Call it usury if you must.
The truth is so ugly that we turn away from it, in the same way that we keep silent about our most embarrassing mistakes, and even consciously repress bad memories, and then forget the lessons they could have taught us.
Only truth can set us free now, but we are no longer able to face the truth.
When absolute poverty disappears, society is then divided between those who can afford their champagne socialism and those who cannot.
Champagne socialists are those who willingly pay higher taxes to feel good about themselves and ask everyone to follow their virtuous example. These people think the carrot is the only thing a good liberal need to use even as they know that the majority are stupid, stubborn and vicious, liable to become worse if the stick is not used. Some of them do not even know this, because they are out of touch with the rest of society in their leafy suburbs and privileged lives. The stick, to a liberal, is "fascist". Carrot is "liberal".
This issue is totemic.
Liberalism is the classic example of sparing the rod and spoiling the child.
Liberals are Nice People who do not complain about single mothers like the Nasty People known as Conservatives. Theresa May and her Compassionate and Progressive Conservatives have surrendered their principles and submitted to champagne socialism because they were tired of the Ugly Truth and wanted to be thought of as nice people too, so people would vote for them.
This is after all what passes for ideological debate in Britain these days.
The Whig historian peddles a fantasy that things will keep getting better and better as long as liberals and liberal orthodoxies prevail.
Now is the time to challenge this fairy tale.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
"I would rather have evil men act deliberately than have good people do terrible things by accident."
Does this statement say imply that liberals are more annoying than fascists / realists / Conservatives?
There is no right or wrong answer of course. Only one that agrees with mine, with all that this implies, of being in the company of the right-minded decent upstanding, or the other lot ....
Chatting with the others before the meeting began, Irving remarked on "the unEnglish weather" and said someone should be punished for it."
He regaled us with the time when one of his meetings in Portland Oregon were stormed by the Left. They snatched his list of attendees with their contact details. Unfortunately, they later found their property - cars especially - being vandalised. Such are the violent methods of the illiberal Left.
He then gave us an example of Real History, ie history from primary documents. The sort of history you interpret yourself, without quoting from another historian's prejudice whose misinterpretation and errors you may well be repeating.
Anthony Eden, widely thought to be a bit of a wimp, was in fact party to plots to assassinate Nasser during Suez . Indeed, Irving came across a memorandum at the National Archives in Kew by Eden with three lines blacked out. In the margin was scribbled note by Eden saying "Too secret to record." (We were led to think that it could well be some blacked out order for Nasser's assassination, but of course this can neither be confirmed or disproved. The three lines were in fact indecipherable. Irving said he held it up to the light at the Public Record Office in Kew, but still could not read it.)
This was Real History, he said, not Conformist History.
He gave another example of Real History, when Hitler was recorded to have said: "I want the Final Solution postponed till after the war."
What are we to make of that? Conformist Historians ignores this sort of inconvenient information, but it is typical of the many "square peg in round hole" pieces of information that don't fit the theory that Hitler came to power with the express and sole intention of exterminating all Jewry.
In fact, Hitler was rather chauvinistic about German Jews, whom he thought would be a great help in the war effort, unlike the East European Jews. Hitler viewed German Jews as superior to Russian Jews, whom he regarded as 'rubbish'. Hitler was making a cultural - perhaps even a racial distinction between the two types of Jews
Then rather movingly, he mentioned his daughter Jessica, now 15, whom he used to take to school when he lived in London. On seeing her school, she would let go of her father's hand and break into a run towards school - Connaught House School - because she couldn't wait to go to school. When she asked what she should do when she grew up, he told her to find a calling: "Find what you like and do it," just as he had found his calling as a historian, something to make him get out of bed in the morning.
He then spoke of the loss of Empire. "We gave them love," he said, by building railways and civilising them. "People [he meant British politicians] are not taught to to think in centuries" as historians do.
Its loss was not inevitable, he said, rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that it was. Why was it inevitable, he asked, but did not himself answer the question.
Perhaps he meant the ruinous Second World War made the British too enfeebled to fight for anything any more, including its own territories, when the Empire struck back, after sensing a collective British loss of will.
Perhaps this subsequently made the British more susceptible to the toxic ideologies of liberalism.
But then America, which is now in ruins, did not lose the war and is also a basket case. Most toxic forms of liberalism emanated from there in the first place, so perhaps American decline is explicable by the length of its exposure to this ideological infection?
Neville Chamberlain, he said, was a man of peace, but history has not been kind to him. Churchill was a warmonger, and apparently advocated lynching the top 100 Nazis without even a show trial. It was Stalin who wanted due process.
Firstly, book publishing is controlled by Jews. Secondly, the press - where all reviews of books appear - is controlled by Jews. Third - and most serious of all - nearly all the people that read books in America are Jews. No wonder it raised a laugh. The anecdote was constructed like a good Jewish joke. You can imagine Jackie Mason timing the gag to perfection. But then David Irving told it pretty well too.
He has annoyed the Jews, he admitted in the short term by refusing to shut up. However, in the long term he is doing them a favour, he claimed.
I asked what this might be and the answer was that it was the favour of making them ask themselves why they are so hated.
Could it be that they are perceived to be passive-aggressive? I wondered, in one of my eureka moments.
On the question of Holocaust Denial, the bombing of Dresden was an interesting parallel. There were so many dead that bodies were heaped up and burnt. British figures say 25,000 died. A German estimate places it at 135,000.
It was not a question of whether it happened but The Scale of It.
Irving does not deny the that many Jews were killed, he merely questions the detail of it, such as the existence of the gas chambers. He described a number of occasions when they were shot en masse.
Auschwitz, he said was a Disneyfied version of it. The four death camps where most of the extermination occurred of which Treblinka was one, had very little left that would attract tourists.
Apparently, SS Officer Karl Wolff heard Himmler fretting about Hitler discovering how badly they had been treated. After Dresden, Hitler was heard to remark that the Jews had been treated with greater humanity than the British had treated the Germans at Dresden.
This rather suggests that the scenario of the left hand not knowing that the right hand was doing was very likely in war-time conditions in Nazi Germany.
When I asked if the Madagascar Plan was not conclusive proof that the Nazis intended to expel rather than exterminate the Jews, he said that the plan to send them there was evidence of the humanity of some of the Nazis. Madagascar is a tropical island known for the clemency of its weather. The Jews would not bother their neighbours and would not be bothered by their neighbours, though it would not be too much of a surprise to find the Madagascans themselves objecting to sharing their island with the Jews, and reacting similarly to the Palestinians, but that was another matter.
Apparently, Hitler was still hoping to implement the Madagascar Plan until as late as 1942.
As for the Japanese, they were desperately trying to negotiate a surrender, but kept being ignored. The Americans were obviously gagging to try out their new bomb and that was what they did in the end.
Britain, America and Russia were all aware that the Japanese were waving the white flag and were doing their level best to negotiate a surrender - completely without success. America wished to test out its bomb on Hiroshima because it was a 'virgin' city, unlike Tokyo. The Allies did not wish the results of their experiment to be confused with earlier bomb damage. 'It made perfect scientific sense', said Irving. 'It is just that it was morally despicable'.
There are still racist wars going on, he said, the racist one being fought by the Israelis against the Palestinians and the racist one in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the victims are destroyed like vermin, because "they do not matter."
The word Holocaust was an invention of the 70s, he said. It appeared to have been dreamt up as a PR exercise. A distinctive word was needed for drama and identity, and, lo, "Holocaust" was coined. It was perfect, with offshoots such as Holocaust Denier, stories about the Holocaust, films about the Holocaust, trials about the Holocaust, films about Nazi-hunters. Perfect for the Holocaust Industry.
'Giving it a name meant they could make money out of it', said Irving, 'which had previously been impossible'.
Irving's greatest triumph was having a Jew admitting to him after reading Hilter's War, that he actually cried, even when he knew what was going to end, ie of Hitler putting a gun to his own head and pulling the trigger.
Irving saw this as an achievement of the craftsmanship with which he had written the book, using the techniques of a novel. In not saying, for example, 'such and such went to see Hitler' but 'such and such came into the room' so that the book appeared to be identified with Hitler's point of view. Irving succeeded so well that a Jewish reader actually identified with Hitler!
I wish I had bought it now.
Friday, 18 September 2009
2) All MPs would have more rights under this system.
3) The one-party constitution would be our constitution really, because if our political representatives do not have a right to free expression and the ability to dissent from the leadership, the people are not being properly represented.
4) Such a party can countenance any view and people holding a particular view, however unpopular, can still hold it even if they are in a minority and cannot have their way.
5) It will enable our MPs to vote according to their consciences, because under such a system all votes would be free votes.
6) In this constitution will be the condition that NO MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS CAN DEPRIVE ANOTHER MEMBER OF HIS POSITION AND MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT A PROPER HEARING, ALLOWING THE MEMBER PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND A PUBLICISED APPEAL.
7) There would no longer be any problems about party funding.
RECOMMENDED RIGHTS FOR MEMBERS (CRIBBED FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY):
Party members enjoy the following rights:
1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.
2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.
3) To make suggestions and proposals regarding the work of the Party.
4) To make well-grounded criticism of any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party in a responsible way, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent cadre.
5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.
6) To attend, with the right of self-defense, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves or to appraise their work and behavior; other Party members may also bear witness or argue on their behalf.
7) In case of disagreement with a Party resolution or policy, to make reservations and present their views to Party organizations at higher levels even up to the Central Committee, provided that they resolutely carry out the resolution or policy while it is in force.
8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to higher Party organizations even up to the Central Committee and ask the organizations concerned for a responsible reply.
No Party organization, up to and including the Central Committee, has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.
If they all agree to pursue the same policies, then it would be nice if Peter Mandelson could be PM. (These policies are irresistibly and deliciously popular.) I would then claim credit for helping him realise his ambition and taking his rightful position in life, to be Lord of the Labour Party and First Lord of the Treasury. My prize would be that of being his consort, and he would be my Lord and Master ...
I have already vowed to give up sex with men (and to not even hope for any action from him as my husband, knowing of his preference for the stronger sex) in order to that he may feel comfortable in this arrangement. I do hope he and his advisers will not insist that I give up sex with women as well!
If any of my new girlfriends, ie the ones I acquire after becoming Lady Mandelson, are as attractive as Carole Caplin, the former topless model, I imagine I should be able to resist temptation, if he insists ....
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
'I am an atheist because I don't want to believe in a God that I should always fear, and will punish me at the end of my life if I've done wrong things. Many bible stories don't make sense, and the "miracles" people see on tv can easily have been faked. I'm not agnostic because I don't want to be always unsure, and being atheist I can really get on with my life without being in fear.'
As an argument for atheism, it is logically invincible, don't you think?
Imagine that David Cameron is already Prime Minister.
Imagine that the Conservative Party is the only political party in the UK.
Would David Cameron be considered a totalitarian dictator for expelling a member who committed the thoughtcrime and speechcrime of not toeing the party line and therefore deemed to be acting against the interests of the Conservative Party?
The Conservative principles that the Conservative Party claims to support in its party constitution has never been defined. They are whatever the leader and his cronies say they are.
Is this conducive to free speech and robust debate?
What do you think, dear reader?
Would you like such a man who is leader of such a party to be your Prime Minister?
Was there a collective groan of relief and physical release as Brown said the C word, again and again?
The prime minister said he would "cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets".
The experience must have been either cathartic or orgasmic.
And to think, just the day before, Lord Mandelson had spent months avoiding the word and playing the word game of talking about cuts without saying That Taboo Word.
Perhaps it was some sort of quasi-Masonic rule that only the Prime Minister can say it, but no one else can, not even that Lord of the Labour Party, Lord Mandelson. It is just a sign of where you are on in the Labour Party hierarchy, and Mandy is not quite PM yet.
And if and when he is, then he too will be saying the C word with relish and impunity.
Tragically, this is what passes for political debate amongst our political classes in this benighted country.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
"Peter Mandelson calls for constraints but silent on cuts."
Cuts in Public Spending (Us) v Cuts in Public Services (Them)
Cuts in Public Spending v Cuts in Public Spending
The speech is a classic example of how to have your cake and eat it and should be used as a set text of how to elevate form over substance in GCSE Propaganda Studies in spotting distinctions without a difference.
It is now reported that Brown will actually use the word at the TUC Conference.
Wow. So this is what political debate has been reduced to: a parlour game of talking about cuts without talking about cuts.
Is that not one of those silly things you are asked to do in JUST A MINUTE?
I am so proud to be British, aren't you? I can now almost understand why some of us might be proud enough to want to join Al Qaeda.
In fact, there is some suggestion that Peter Mandelson has been "radicalised", for he suggested that Labour should fight the next general election as insurgents, not incumbents.
This suggests that he thinks the insurgents are going to be the winners, and the incumbents are going to be the losers.
A Freudian slip, but that was just one soundbite too far. Hoist by one's own petard comes to mind.
Monday, 14 September 2009
That man seems to me to be equal to a god,
That man, if it is right to say,
seems to surpass the gods,
who sitting opposite to you repeatedly looks at you
your sweet laughter,
something which robs miserable me
of all feelings: for as soon as I look
at you, Lesbia, no voice remains
in my mouth.
But the tongue is paralyzed, a fine fire
spreads down through my limbs,
the ears ring with their
very own sound, my eyes veiled
in a double darkness.
Idleness, Catullus, is your trouble;
idleness is what delights you and moves you to passion;
idleness has proved ere now the ruin of kings and
© copyright 10-4-1997 by Rudy Negenborn
"It has been said that we already live in a one-party state, for the parties all make and break the same promises. Have you any insights from your recent trip China and their one-party system that you would like to share with us?"
Election battle lines drawn:
public spending cuts v public spending cuts!
Progressive state reformers v ideological state retrenchers:
framing the electoral choice between Labour and Conservative
Questions were taken in threes to ease evasion.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
The UNESCO report, called "International Guidelines for Sexuality Education," separates children into four age groups: 5-to-8-year-olds, 9-to-12-year-olds, 12-to-15-year-olds and 15-to-18-year-olds.
Under the U.N.'s voluntary sex-ed regime, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that "touching and rubbing one's genitals is called masturbation" and that private parts "can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself."
By the time they're 9 years old, they'll learn about "positive and negative effects of 'aphrodisiacs," and wrestle with the ideas of "homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power."
At 12, they'll learn the "reasons for" abortions — but they'll already have known about their safety for three years.
When they're 15, they'll be exposed to direct "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion."
UNESCO officials said the guidelines were "co-authored by two leading experts in the field of sexuality education" — Dr. Doug Kirby, an adolescent sexuality expert, and Nanette Ecker, the former director of international education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Nanette Ecker is on Facebook and is pictured with another woman, which suggests that Nanette Ecker is an out and about lesbian, not that I have anything against these people.
Not that any of the above has anything to do with anything at all. Or does it?
Perhaps Dr Kirby might have a few recommendations about demonstrating the pleasures of masturbation to his attentive young learners. Perhaps he fantasises about how he might like this to be done, and how his eager pupils might demonstrate the fact that they have taken on board what he has taught them. He might even imagine what he could do to assist them in their endeavours ...
All this might suggest that he is a pervert or a paedophile, but I am not saying anything ....
A house divided cannot stand.
A house divided will fall.
One Liberal Democrat frontbencher said that his party, seeking savings of up to £60bn, had not ruled out taxing or means-testing child benefit either: "It has not appeared on our [public] list of items identified for reduction, but the list is not exhaustive. [Child benefit] is expensive. I was surprised when I was told how much it was."
Why means test it? Just scrap it for everyone to discourage feckless non-use of contraception by the feeble-minded promiscuous.
Then things will look after themselves.
Having fewer offspring who are the fruits of promiscuous loins, which progressively lower the quality of the national gene pool, would also be good for the environment.
Humans, as we know, are the most polluting species around, being potentially very stupid and destructive. They are also particularly wasteful and are capable of causing more damage than any other species when they get things wrong, which they frequently do.
The more legislation is passed in an attempt to protect us from harm, the more society will be harmed.
The most relentless and ever-present enemy we have is the enemy within.
We are our own worst enemy.
The hurrieder I go the behinder I become.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
"... the Conservatives' greatest asset — Gordon Brown himself."
“I do hope the finished brochure contains no photos of fat people (promoting obesity), or thin people (promoting eating disorders), white people (promoting cultural imperalism), black people (tokenism), women wearing make-up (promoting an unhealthy obsession with idealised female beauty) or children’s authors who do not have the correct CRB clearance.”
Friday, 11 September 2009
Someone with whom I am on friendly terms stated that he thought that if teachers had to have CRB checks, then school visitors such as writers should be subjected to the same indignity, in order to pursue his twisted idea of equal opportunities government persecution, for he is a very Politically Correct Man indeed.
The most important thing for him is that something must be seen to be done, even if it will do no one any good, for the sake of the kiddywinks.
I have a rather controversial theory that female promiscuity that is the result of feminism is in fact responsible for paedophilia, but women, because they are malicious as well as stupid, blame men.
Men, because they have allowed themselves to become as stupid as women, and are reluctant to give up their access to easy sex, take the blame.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
In the old days poor people would be obvious by their under-nourished appearance and servile manner.
In an affluent and egalitarian age when no one starves and even the poor can afford DVD players to play their porn and eat themselves obese, there would necessarily be a realignment and reclassification.
The ones who do not mind being endlessly compassionate and tolerant of all things societally destructive (such as female promiscuity leading to family breakdown, single mummery bringing about rising crime and ever-lower standards of education and uncontrolled immigration) can afford to do so because they reside in leafy low-crime neighbourhoods and aren't really bothered about things that affect those living less gilded lives.
They think, perhaps, that the white urban proletariat deserve what they get for being born on the wrong side of the tracks, for being poor, for not knowing any better and for not having access to a decent education.
There is just a hint of the caste system here you see, for it is much easier to think that the poor deserve what they get. It is much easier to brand them as CHAVs, racists, fascists and of being guilty of especial evil and depravity, than to put oneself out through suggesting that things could be made better for them (and by extension all of us) by simply doing this and that.
The issue of immigration is very telling.
Businesses and employers cannot get enough of cheap foreign labour because they know that the white urban proletariat make poor employees.
They make poor employees because they have had a sham of an education and are more often than not illegitimate and unmarried parents, with all the attendant social and educational disadvantages this entails.
Therefore the white urban lower classes are dismissed as useless and their grievances ignored in favour of the more productive foreign worker who come here and do the jobs the white urban proletariat shun. The white urban proletariat are discouraged from seeking employment because are fobbed off with beggarly sums of benefit, just enough to keep them quiescent while unemployed. It is little surprise then that they spend most of their time drinking, taking drugs, procreating while viewing porn and snuff films on their DVD players in the presence of their illegitimate children.
It is well known that Liberals have a phobia of seeming uncompassionate and intolerant. Because of this, they have for generations ignored the problem of schools that do not teach because there is no discipline, and the criminal justice system that neither punishes nor deters.
Talking about spending cuts is now so beyond the pale that not even the Conservative leader dares talk about that, and this demonstrates how utterly cowed and crushed by liberal ideology our political classes have been.
Those who call for traditional teaching methods and condign punishment for criminals are invariably condemned as illiberal intolerant bigots, if not actually called Fascists and Nazis.
You see, the underclasses serve their purpose as the receptacles of liberal compassion and tolerance, which only liberals can afford. It pleases them to wear permissiveness as an ostentatious badge of moral superiority, along with the free trade, environmentally-friendly, free-range, organic products which they instinctively favour as a means of reinforcing the message that the rich are good charitable souls who care about other people in other lands and other species, but not their own poor in their own land.
It is perhaps now time to question the viability of our political classes if they continue to drag us down this dead end, who ignore the questions they cannot answer, while smearing and censoring those who dare question their insufferable cant of compassionate tolerance and free love.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Edward Stourton chairs a live discussion series in which guests set out their strong views on a subject, before being challenged by a panel of experts.
Economist and writer Philippe Legrain argues that Britain should abolish all immigration controls. The movement of people across our borders should, he says, be as free as the movement of goods and services.
Legrain's views are challenged by Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, Labour MP for Keighley and Ilkeley Ann Cryer and Tony Saint, a writer and former immigration officer.
A spat when Sir Andrew said Philippe Legrain would be hearing from his lawyers if he did not withdraw his accusation of racism. Legrain reluctantly withdrew his statement, and I cheered.
Now that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are insisting that the BNP adopt equal opportunities nationalism, I wonder if BNP activists will soon find themselves able to make similar threats.
We will have to wait and see.
If only I could be his consort. I am starting my Mandarin classes anyway, so that I will be in a better position to assist him should that duty be required of me.
Thinking of the scrumptious delicacies he must be feasting on while in China, I picture how, delicately and solicitously, I would place the best titbits I can pick up with my chopsticks upon his plate and urge him not to worry about his figure, because I like a bit of meat on my man ....
He need only snap his fingers and I would be there at his side, smilingly prettily up at him and hanging on his arm ....
Peter faltered a little in the clip on the Guardian link, I noticed, because that was a very good question by a Communist Party Official which took him aback a bit. They aren't dullards, those Party Officials, unlike some British MPs I could mention.
Like just every other Western politician, he found himself lecturing the Chinese on their human rights.
I like to imagine the Communist Party Officials collectively rolling their eyes and miming the string section of an orchestra ...
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Liberals are idealists.
The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of idealists.
Idealists shun the truth as ugly and banal.
Realists know the truth will set them free.
Are liberals good for society or are they a cancer of irrationality who hypocritically spout their ideology of indiscriminate compassion and moral relativism and pretend they help when in fact they harm?
Monday, 7 September 2009
This is what I have been saying all along, and only Mandy could possibly defeat the Tories.
Meanwhile, the issue of Mr Brown’s leadership yet again may be raised at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party group of backbenchers in October.
'We are facing a landslide defeat with him at the helm, we can’t pretend it isn’t happening,’ said one MP. ‘Getting rid of Gordon is the one thing that could scare the Tories.’
It seems that, without realising it, the Equality and Human Rights Commission have helped give the BNP a leg-up.
Firstly, it gave them the excuse to lift the colour bar - something that would otherwise be a bit of a problem with their core membership.
Secondly, it will give them the opportunity to do a bit of housekeeping and tidying up as regards their horribly undemocratic constitution (but which is actually more democratic than the Conservative Party's - so shocking that it is not to be found anywhere on the Internet).
Thirdly, it will give them lots of free publicity. All political parties love this.
Fourthly, it will result in their becoming more electorally acceptable and therefore more influential.
Fifthly, it will give the chance for the more integrated non-whites who are also tired of being traduced for daring to complain about immigration to take the opportunity of showing their Britishness.
Sixthly, it could well be an opportunity for a very ironic kind of inter-racial co-operation to be demonstrated very soon.
Three cheers for the EHRC! Hip hip hooray!
Barnardo's is of the opinion that removing potentially feral children from obviously unfit parents early would save a few lives and the general public from being upset by more scummy never-married mummies with scummy boyfriends who kill their children, or scummy parents who bring up scummy children who kill and torture other people's children for their amusement and entertainment.
Why does the government not take this idea to its logical conclusion and discourage the reproductive choices of sluts, slags and slappers?
The withdrawal of universal child benefit would be a start.
These women, though uneducated, are not completely stupid and will know on which side of their bread is buttered. They will soon stop indulging their low-life tastes if they know there is no financial reward in a lifetime of unmarried parenthood bringing up their variously-fathered feral children at taxpayer expense.
Educated middle class careerwomen are now doing the same. Mary F Pols, a writer and film critic, has now written a book about how she got pregnant "accidentally on purpose". A sitcom glamorising her story suggests that this societal cancer is most probably terminal.
Once the illegitimate outnumber the legitimate, civilisational extinction becomes inevitable.
Think of a whole civilisation dying of gangrene and you will get the idea.
Making bastardy and divorce a disgrace again would be an obvious solution.
Unfortunately, this shows no signs of happening because single British men want cheap and easy access to their infamously promiscuous women.
Married men are too frightened of being divorced by their wives, ie having their property confiscated and being deprived of their children, simply for questioning the benefits of feminism.
Most women are too dim and insecure to give up their rights. They also lack the objectivity to see the effects of female promiscuity on society as a whole.
Members of the British political classes are too cowardly, promiscuous, proud and stubborn to make this link. They are also too "compassionate", apparently.
Perhaps the best way of putting it is that they are all too pussy-whipped and enjoy that experience a little too much than is strictly good for them.
The patriarchy has been all but destroyed. Why do we never hear of matriarchies? Because they were all invariably primitive and had no written means with which to record their tragic folly.
The ever-lowering standards of British "education" is entirely due to the female-dominated educational establishment progressively dumbing-down to accommodate the unsocialised little bastards who form a significant intake of state schools.
Soon, the innumerate, illiterate and illegitimate British will be living like animals, copulating with anything and in all the combinations we fancy, just like the Bonobo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo, producing illegitimate feral children and no doubt eating them or killing them as the mood takes us, and behaving and living just like the animals that we are so sentimental about.
Friday, 4 September 2009
If we tolerate this for much longer, we deserve all that is coming to us, don't we?
Perhaps we need more stories like this before we will do something about single mummery.
If so, then let us wait for the next one. It will not be too long in coming.
And the next one and the next one, before those who presume to govern us will do something about the growing number of little bastards who torture and kill other people's children for fun.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
They probably do, though I haven't read any books by any female historians lately.
Western society is now morbidly over-feminised, with the worst aspects of the feminine character now manifesting itself: social cowardice, excessive emotionalism, an inability to reason and worst of all, masochism and victimhood.
We now have our Foreign Secretary emoting about how angry, upset and distressed he is by the behaviour of another country and must now be the laughing stock of the world, who will be picturing the British gathering up their skirts in indignation, flouncing off the world stage and slamming the door.
Let us have no more of this stupid girly stuff!
Perhaps we need homosexual men like David Starkey and Peter Mandelson (who are not vulnerable to the crushing toxicity of feminism or in danger of his wife threatening to divorce him and take half his stuff at the drop of a hat) to tell it like it is.
Of course, if Peter and I were to form an alliance, we would sign a very interesting partnership contract indeed. It could well be the model for others too.
It would be worth doing just to test drive my idea of how to safeguard the property of the wealthier partner while doing justice to the less wealthy partner.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
No doubt the rest of the world thinks that the average Briton is some promiscuous single mother who will be entrusting her child to some scummy drug-addicted paedophile boyfriend who will kill it after sexually assaulting it.
Fiona McKeown was the first in this series of typical British mums now internationally infamous.
Then there was Baby P's mother.
Then the Dundee case.
Now the lorrydriver boyfriend with a history of domestic violence who hanged himself. (His girlfriend's 9 year old daughter was found strangled in his cab.)
While it is no skin off my nose that these people neglect their children, use their children as a means of acquiring more benefits from the state, hire them out to perform kiddy porn, turn them into sex slaves, let them get knocked up by some other CHAV at their local sink school comp, sell them for meat or whatever, it is actually very distressing to many people of a more sensitive disposition.
What I am concerned with is the lowering of Britain's already devalued reputation as a result of these stories.
Surely people abroad will soon be pointing at white trash types they see and jeer at them, saying:
"You're mostly paedophiles, aren't you? Bet you're bastard or a bastard-breeder. Bet you have a history of drug and drink problems and have never worked in your life. Have you had sex with your girlfriend's under-aged child yet? When are you going to kill it?" etc etc
How many more, I wonder, before the liberal elite will question the wisdom of unregulated female promiscuity whose practitioners are sponsored by the taxpayer?
Remember, dear reader, when you read of the next Baby P-type death, you should rejoice at the fact that we are in fact closer to getting the government to do something about this insanity.
But perhaps they will continue to ignore the problem until the underclasses have killed off all their own children, which would be no bad thing, I suppose, if they are all going to grow up into the next generation of Tracey Connelly-types if they are female and her boyfriends if they are male, or become one of those 11 year olds who tortured Jamie Bulger to death for fun.
I am assuming that the government may get round to doing something about it soon, but they may just prefer to sit back and let the problem solve itself.
After all, it wouldn't do to suggest that the unmarried and promiscuous mother is akin to a parasite or a cancer, would it?
It seems they fear losing votes if they sound too censorious, but do parasites and cancers vote? I rather think not.
The extreme timorousness of HMG and its opposition is therefore, to me anyway, a bit of a mystery.
What he did was make the Labour Party make promises to the voters they wanted to hear.
Even if they could not keep those promises, as we have now seen, acknowledging that they would have to make the right kind of promises was a big start.
It was the tribute that the undemocratic vice of ideology paid to democratic virtue.
Lord Mandelson should be thanked for paying that tribute to our much-vaunted democracy.
You see, he is really a Conservative and bourgeois at heart. It is his misfortune that he had been born into the wrong family and joined the wrong party.
If he had joined the right party, he would have been the Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher.
And that is why I feel for Lord Mandelson this peculiar tenderness one might feel for a storm-soaked pussycat, who has aroused deep maternal emotions I never knew I had.
Lord Mandelson's political career has been a national and personal tragedy. He joined a party that is even now too dim, spiteful to feel the gratitude they should rightfully feel and too apathetic, timorous and small-minded to enthusiastically endorse his leadership even if they are secretly grateful to him.
As Phil Woolas once said of him: "He may be a bastard, but he is our [ie a Labour Party] bastard."
Brown could perhaps redeem himself by acknowledging Mandelson's unique suitability to lead the Labour Party into the next election, publicly and dramatically, at the Brighton conference.
If that happened I may even start believing in God.
A heap of hooey by the Tory-promoting Lawson.
Is anyone really convinced that the Tories would have done things any differently to Jack Straw and when found out claim that they are acting in the national interest (which they actually are)?
Brown's opinion is neither here nor there. What's done is done. Going on and on about it harms the national interest, but Cameron wouldn't care about it, would he?
More political opportunism by the Tories and LibDems on this matter is against the national interest, but they don't care, do they, as long as they discomfit the disorganised and divided Labour Party.
Re-unite the Labour Party, Prime Minister!
Re-invigorate the Labour Party by conferring the leadership on Lord Mandelson.
You know it makes sense!
Make a formal statement saying that no further comment is required or desirable and say you intend to draw a line under it.
If the Americans don't like it, you can always withdraw British troops from all foreign misadventures begun with them.
|An 1800s Russian engraving depicting the Whore of Babylon riding the seven-headed Beast (a Sirrush)|
Orwell does not need to be around for us to acknowledge that China and the Far East is on the way up and the West who has embraced socialism is on the way down.
We are now meeting them as we are on our way down and they are on their way up.
A senator recently complained that American economic policy is "financial socialism". The writing is on the wall, but we choose not to read it. Or if we read it, pretend we don't understand it.
Fact: the most rational form of government is the vehicle by which a civilisation secures hegemony.
The West used to be the most rational civilisation.
This is no longer the case as we now live in a new dark age of extremist liberalism.
Extremist liberals are incoherent, irrational, censorious, freedom-hating, thoughtcrime-loving and would deny the truth if it goes against their long-held beliefs. They are the Aztecs of the 21st century. They are already worshiping as their gods the very things that would destroy them.
The Sacred Cow they worship is the Single Mum Who is a Burden on the State.
Male Prime Ministers and Presidents dare not say anything about the Sacred Cow that is eating them out of house and home and defecating all over their carpet because there are too many of them now and they all have the vote.
"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication"
We now at last know where our free for all fuck fest has brought us to, do we not?
Bye bye, Western Civilisation. Nice knowing you.