Saturday, 31 October 2009
Legalise all drugs.
Treat those who commit crimes while intoxicated and addicted more harshly than those who are not.
In short, intoxication and addiction in a criminal is treated as an aggravating factor attracting a higher penalty.
Three strikes and the death penalty kicks in.
The debate centres on the concept of harm. The truth is that not all of us have equally addictive personalities. Some of us can try any number of hard and drugs and still be OK.
And there are those who are addicted to over-eating. These people should just be allowed to eat until they go pop, and this includes their children too.
Since obesity is a feature of an affluent society with a history of welfarism where the poor, ignorant and unemployed can sit around watching daytime TV and eat themselves fat, a Libertarian minimum state would instantly solve the problem of underclass obesity by abolishing the welfare state.
This exemplifies one of the main planks of Libertarian Eugenics. It is better than the state sterilising and euthanasing people. You just let them destroy themselves.
Cigarettes and drink can cause more quantifiable long term harm to health than Ecstasy and cannabis, of course.
But what is harm? Societal harm or individual harm?
And how is it quantified?
Why would someone's ill health matter to society if there is no NHS?
Is the NHS beneficial to Britain's long-term future?
Civilisations and nations have risen and flourished without a free health service, so I rather think not.
Vote: Should Professor Nutt have been sacked?
As Claire said at http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/shoot-the-messenger-when-evidence-and-policy-clash/#comment-4713 "... what Alan Johnson wants is not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence."
While waiting at the bus stop with two young Somali women in Muslim garb they remarked on an ad on the bus shelter. It said: "Becks Beer. Love Music. Hate Racism."
They giggled and said to each other: "What are they on about? Everybody is racist!"
How wise women these young ladies are. It is like admitting that no one's perfect and we are all capable of hating and fearing others for unfair, unkind and irrational reasons.
It is time now that we deny the concept of racism, in the modern sense, as a massive fallacy. The traditional and narrow sense of racialism, ie that certain races being superior to others, is now rare indeed.
If we think we ourselves better than other people, we should be entitled to the view. (Indeed, if we think ourselves inferior in racial accomplishments to other races, that too is also a form of racism.)
Liberty is freedom of expression, contract and association should be paramount in a free society or a society that likes to regard itself as free. Therefore if these "racists" wish not to associate with a certain group, be their neighbours or hire them and tell their children not to marry people like that, they should be allowed this liberty, without being accused of being evil Nazi racists.
Liberals in their mania to be liberal have subverted their own liberalism and become the totalitarian bigots they they themselves revile.
"I am tolerant of everything except intolerance", they would say smugly. Well, that's not very tolerant, is it?
These liberals now appear to think that claiming that one is offended is enough to trump any rational argument.
If one were truly liberal, then one would make a special point of others' liberty to be intolerant.
We are but sinners, all of us, and love and hate for irrational and therefore mistaken reasons. Therefore let he who is without sin, yet lives in a greenhouse, throw the first stone.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Bassey lives in Monte Carlo. Yes, there's the tax she doesn't have to pay, but more important, it's easier to be private there. When she returns to Britain, she is shocked by the change. "It's sad that they just let it to rack and ruin, Labour." How? "Well, it's violent, isn't it? That's all we read in the papers and see on television. Why does she think this has happened? "We're letting in too many people. We're an island, for God's sake. And the Britishness seems to have gawwwnnne." She enunciates the word "gone" so poshly that it takes a while to work out what she's saying. "The English are emigrating all over ... there won't be any English left." She talks of a nation of bullies and paedophiles in which people live in fear. I can't help wondering what her Nigerian father would make of her assessment of modern Britain.
If you were prime minister, what would you change? "No, no, no!" she protests with a volley of laughter. "I knew I shouldn't have gone there. No, I'm not going there. Na nah nah. I would put family values back. Parents are afraid of their kids. The kids are out of control."
Snide comments by The Guardian writer abound in this interview, but you get the gist.
White people who complain about immigration are automatically racists.
Non-white people who do the same are reminded about their racial origins and told they have no right to express a view on immigration because they are foreign and non-white.
Such is the divide and rule method of verbal intimidation employed by the liberal pro-immigration faction. It is time we all wised up and told them where to go.
Buy The Performance, out on 9 November. It is bound to be better than any of Great White folk stuff the the BNP are promoting anyway.
Dame Shirley, doncha just love her???!!!
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Is our nanny state the result of feminine values predominating and a national manifestation of feminine neurosis and irrationality?
Is Western civilisation doomed if it does not address this problem? Surely it must pull itself back into masculine preoccupations of analysis and rational problem-solving as opposed to feminine displacement activity?
History is replete with patriarchies while matriarchies are unheard of. Is it because matriarchies are by definition incapable of practising anything as civilised as reading and writing, because its natural state is simply breeding, emotionalism and barbarism?
The refusal to address the problem of single mummery is the chief reason why we have ever-declining educational standards which successive governments are too frightened to address for fear of giving offence to the illegitimate and the mothers of the illegitimate, and of course the female-dominated teaching profession.
Those who are illegitimate will have fewer inhibitions about having illegitimate children and so the rot slides down its slippery slope, and we with it.
46% of babies are now born out of wedlock.
70% of our prison population were singly-parented.
And still the liberal establishment will not speak out against single mummery.
Do such incompetents, cowards and hypocrites deserve to rule over those they regularly denounce as extremist, such as the BNP and the Muslims?
Feminine neurosis does not affect women alone. There are many emasculated liberal men who subscribe to all the irrational values of feminism and are permanently frightened of giving offence. Many of them are prominent male politicians. Some of them even support the paedophile tax (of paying £64 to the government to "prove" you are not a paedophile), even as they know that it would do nothing to protect children. These men are either eunuchs or drones.
Is it not time they were sent on their way, in favour of courageous, principled rational and masculine leadership or at least by women capable of thinking in these terms?
Good husbandry is a after all male concept. It means delegating that which needs delegating while you get on with more important matters. Women need to be kept properly occupied or they will simply interfere and impose their irrational emotionalism on everything and everyone else, to the detriment of society and the civilisation that that society is part of.
Why has gay bashing risen by 20% in London, ie in the Tower Hamlets - a predominantly Muslim area? Is it because the Muslims (whose Koran informs them that homosexual acts are sinful) are beating up gays more than any other group?
Is it anything to do with the increasingly militancy of homosexuals and how they are perceived to be a sort of gay mafia taking over the country and given special privileges, and the "gayer than Labour" message the Tories are trying to give?
When two groups protected by PC legislation are in conflict with each other, who wins?
Hate Crime (ie assaulting or killing someone because you hate them) attracts a higher penalty than if you did not particularly hate them.
Why on earth would you attack or kill someone if you did not hate them?
So, attacking a homosexual, disabled person or someone on religious or racial grounds, would attract a higher penalty than if you attacked a member of the BNP, would it?
How does this square with the principle of equality before the law?
It's official then, is it, that here in the UK there is no equality before the law?
There is a very simple Libertarian solution to this: repeal all hate crime, which is but thoughtcrime. If you punish properly those who kill and attack others, then there would be no problem, would it?
It is just possible that our legislators have got their knickers in a twist and have had their knickers in a twist for a very long time.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
An email I have received:
NICK BOLES PPC – THE ART OF MAFIA POLITICS
It is good to know the political influences and aspirations of the Tory’s prospective MP for the G&S constituency.
What type of politics do we want?
The question is, “Is this the type of politics we want”?
So much for honesty, openness, modernising and decency.
All these fine words of the modern Tory lexicon are lies, deceits, mere puff.
The essence of Boles’s politics appears to be backroom deals, plausible deniability and covert threats.
This is not new – Tony Blair brought this type of dirt into British politics a decade ago.
Look where it has got us.
This is trite fractional politics, bereft of big ideas, devoid of sincerity and lacking a moral compass.
This type of politics serves only a privileged elite.
What has “Loyalty” got Lincolnshire?
Nick Boles has been parachuted into the G&S seat, and he, like the rest of the Tory party has taken it, and Lincolnshire, for granted.
Being taken for granted, has not been to Lincolnshire’s benefit, indeed, it has been very much to our detriment.
Like a loyal mutt, blind and deaf, Lincolnshire has slavered over the Tory boot for decades.
What has this loyalty got us?
We have been kicked in the face time and time again, and treated with complete disdain by the privileged London elite.
If we want to assert our own interests, we need to bite the bastards.
We need to stand up and tell these prats to “shove off”, to bugger-off back to London, and to mind their own bloody business.
Why are the votes of G&S taken for granted?
Nick Boles may be an “A-Lister”, he may be part of Sam and Dave’s charmed inner
Notting Hill circle, but that does not mean he is the best person to represent the G&S constituency.
We may be mere country yokels to the Notting Hill set, but Boles is not the man to represent us.
The G&S constituency is not a “rotten borough”.
We are not beholden unto our Lords and Masters in London.
We are not simply a convenient stepping stone to greater things.
We are not just the small people of history….
People live here, people raise families here, real people vote here.
Our Vote should not be taken for granted by Nick Boles as he plays trite political games at CCHQ.
We don’t care about Mafia Wars …..
Being Gay is not enough …. you need principles, values and honesty.
Nick Boles could not win the Brighton & Hove seat in the 2004 election, despite it having the largest gay electorate in the country.
Brighton & Hove recognised that simply being gay did not make you an “A-List” candidate.
Despite his gayness, he was rejected by Brighton & Hove as cheap opportunist without principle, values or honesty.
Its no wonder therefore that he declined to stand again in Brighton & Hove , but opted for “safe” Conservative seat of G&S.
Brighton & Hove know a poser when they see one.
Boles lacks substance, he lacks principles, he lacks core values.
He is a backroom fixer, not a man of character.
Why should this seat be a “safe” Conservative seat?
Why does Boles have time for silly political games in London?
Why is he not campaigning daily in G&S?
Simple…. He assumes is in the bag, its all done and dusted…. He just has to bide him time to the next election.
Lets make sure it is not in the bag!
Boles must face a fight …. a real fight.
Like Brighton & Hove, lets make sure that Nick Boles is rejected by G&S come the next election.
The time after next, let him try again for Brighton & Hove.
Why do we need a Local Candidate in the G&S constituency?
G&S needs a local candidate who cares about the constituency.
Nick Boles regards G&S as simply a stepping stone to his assumed assured cabinet seat in dear Dave's “hug a hoody” government.
Nick Boles does not care about our Schools, indeed, he’d happily sacrifice all of them to what ever policy initiative was currently expedient.
Dave’s Tories have been prepared to sacrifice Grammar schools, and Nick will not challenge that position.
Are you surprised?
Of course not, he is a frightfully loyal insider of Dave’s kitchen cabinet.
He knows which side his bread is buttered.
Nick Boles does not care about our Hospitals, why should he? – he lives in Notting Hill.
Can he even tell us where Grantham Hospital is, or Lincoln, Boston, Peterborough or Nottingham hospital?
If you live in the constituency, have a wife, children and friends – then you know when Stamford Hospital is open, what services it provides, and you know how long it takes to get an ambulance from Peterborough or Boston.
If you don’t live here, then….. well, who cares?
Nick Boles does not live here.
Does Nick Boles have the interest of G&S at heart?
Of course not!
Until just over a year ago he could not point it out on a map.
Who’s interests does he have at heart?
Dumb question – his own, (and of course Dave’s) !
But, not yours or mine.
Nick Boles does not care about our Transport systems.
We know that Lincolnshire is a large rural county – we need cars, we need roads, we need a rail system that works.
Unfortunately, all the needs of those of us who live in the G&S constituency are going to get short shift by Dave.
Nick and Dave need to be “Green” and “cool” for their Notting Hill friends.
He may, however, in the interests of the “environment”, force us to have fields of windmills in the fens …. just a little bit bigger than that on dear Dave’s Notting Hill house.
He doesn’t, he won’t see them, Nick Boles does not live here…..
From Nick Bole’s perspective, once you have turned out and voted as loyal Tories should for any goat or A-Lister they stick a blue rosette on, who gives a shit about the yokels in G&S?
Nick Boles certainly does not.
Do you, or are you simply happy to doff your cap to your betters from London?
What makes Nick Boles your better?
What does Nick Boles care about public outrage as to the rip-off by MP’s of their
Boles’s solution - pay them a £100 grand a year!
Yep, hard to believe the arrogance, but true.
In any event, he expects a cabinet minister's salary, and …. so like dear Dave he can bicycle to work …. a limo behind no doubt.
So much for probity and austerity!
Nick Boles is the wrong candidate for the G&S constituency.
If Nick Boles is such an “A-Lister”, why is he not standing in the North of England or
inner-city Birmingham, Leicester or Nottingham?
Surely these are the areas where Dave needs to win seats?
If he such outstanding characteristics, he should, like Heineken beer, be seeking to refresh those parts of the electorate that other mere mortal candidates cannot reach.
So why was he parachuted into the apparent solid blue Lincolnshire G&S constituency by CCHQ,?
Why were all local candidates excluded from the so-called “Open Primary”?
Pretty obvious, Boles like the rest of the so-called “A-Listers” can’t cut it in the North, or in inner-city constituencies.
To be elected, the “A-Listers” need the democratic process to be gerrymandered, they need our basic political values to be subverted, they need a dirty backroom deal.
This is Mafia politics – and it is inimical to the political values of Nick Boles.
If you wanted to see the Mafia at work, it was very evident in the way his “election” as the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate was fixed.
It was a joke, a farce, an undermining of every principle of local democracy that dear old Dave has been trumpeting in the press in recent weeks.
This is not the kind of politics we want in Britain, and not the kind of politics we want in the G&S constituency.
Veronica Robinson is the new BNP organiser in Grantham & Stamford
Marilyn Swain is UKIP's
Monday, 26 October 2009
PC totalitarianism declares Jewish God to be racist and how joining the BNP can defeat liberal extremism
It would now appear that our out-of-control and demented nanny state is now gunning for the Jews as well as the BNP, the Muslims, and the rest of our traditional freedoms of speech, contract and association.
Suzanne Moore of the Mail recently said:
"What about if WE like ALL join the BNP? at once?" 12:52 PM Oct 21st from web
This is really an excellent idea. If enough of us join the BNP this would have the advantage of diluting their racism and making it become a genuine and powerful alternative to the LibLabCon.
When the BNP in due course lift their colour bar, they will be a better position to assume this role. On becoming members we would see to it that they
1) embraced this guiding principle enunciated by John Strafford who represents the Campaign for Conservative Democracy at http://www.btinternet.com/~johnstrafford/
“No political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission unless it has a democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of its members on the basis of one member one vote.”
and reflected this in their constitution concerning the rights of members.
2) incorporated my draft of the new BNP constitution which includes Peter Mandelson's brilliant drafting of the revised clause iv of the Labour Party constitution found at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-draft-of-new-bnp-constitution-that.html
3) incorporated the principles contained at http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107
I think this would work rather nicely in transforming the current political landscape from the sclerotic and undemocratic mess it is to something approaching democracy and rational government.
Friday, 23 October 2009
'There was a big gamble on the BNP winning a General Election seat prior to Nick Griffin's appearance from 10/1 down to 7/2, but since the broadcast we have only taken a small number of bets for them to do so - and we still think it is pretty unlikely' said Hill's spokesman Graham Sharpe.
Hills offer 1/6 that the BNP will win NO seats at the General Election.'The largest single bet we've taken so far is £160 at 8/1 in a Nottinghamshire betting shop.We face a five figure payout if the BNP do win a seat. ' said Hill's spokesman Graham Sharpe.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The Director of Public Prosecutions seems to think that the way to safeguard human rights is to protect the Human Rights Act from repeal by the wicked Tories.
I would suggest otherwise: the creation of a single political party where
- members' rights are not easily set aside by the leader and his cronies
- expulsion of a member cannot be effected until the majority of the party have had a chance to vote on it after a proper hearing
- the constitution can be changed by the majority of its members
At the moment it is quite clear that Tory MPs are demoted and expelled by Cameron for saying anything he dislikes or thinks the public will dislike.
Patrick Mercer, Nigel Hastilow and Alan Duncan are the most revealing examples.
The way the LibLabCon party leaders have hung their members out to dry over expenses after denying them an opportunity to vote on their own pay rise is even more dishonourable than the attempt to milk the system for as much as they could.
Why a one-party state?
Because that is the only way to allow all members to have a free vote and to abolish the whipping system. It would at least put MPs in touch with their consciences, convictions and principles, were they to by any chance recognise such concepts after such a long separation.
It would also make them keener to consult and represent the people and act without fear or favour.
Draft party constitution for a one-party state
John Strafford of Campaign for Conservative Democracy makes some very good points. Start listening on the 46th minute.
Griffin will say nothing more than common sense and has made nothing more than commonsensical points from what I have heard. The hysterical and exaggerated reaction to comments that in other sensible countries would raise no eyebrows has served to promote the BNP.
When Nick Griffin comes across as perfectly nice, sensible, normal and well-mannered, that will be the shock horror revelation - that the liberal establishment have been lying to them for decades, and demonising anyone - both white and non-white - who dares to express concern about uncontrolled immigration.
That is what the liberal establishment is so desperate to suppress - their cowardice, their hypocrisy and their lies, their inability to deal with the parlous state of British state education after decades of toxic liberal child-centred progressive teaching methods that impose no discipline, low grade skills because British numeracy and literacy in state schools is an international scandal. Growing numbers of NEETs who are even now going forth and multiplying are being prepared only for a life of illegitimacy, welfare, single mummery and crime.
The truth is that no sensible employer wants to hire a "local" when they can have an employee from abroad with a work ethic, brought up by two parents, taught in a school that teaches them the 3Rs, in an environment where discipline is imposed and respect for authority expected and received.
Yet no political party will touch the problem of single mummery and education with a bargepole.
That would be opening a can of worms, would it not, and there are already quite enough maggots crawling around at the feet of politicians.
- ignored the BNP and not set the Equalities & Human Rights Commission on them
- allowed to keep their colour bar and political objectives but made them change their name to the British White People's Party (on the grounds that a nation is a concept collection of tribes and races, a bigger idea than race and is supra-racial)
However, in an escalating series of hysterical own goals, the BNP have been propelled into prominence and the national consciousness.
If Question Time were to be cancelled, you can be sure there would be a huge outcry, riots even.
The nation's citizens - white and non-white - is agog and there ain't nothing the liberal establishment can do about it. It is the television event of the 21st century, and will mark the beginning of the end of liberal establishment.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Were Question Time to be cancelled tomorrow, I think there will be riots and possibly a revolution, so don't even think of it, Peter Hain.
Or perhaps we should dare you to stop it.
And if you do, then the British will have their revolution sooner rather than later.
The BNP have been the only party who have made politics emotional, absorbing and thought-provoking again. To be told things that we find interesting, to be given arguments that we find persuasive, to be intrigued and interested in politics at an emotional level, is something so rare these days that we must be grateful wherever we can find this.
The LibLabCon-trick have nothing to say for themselves except repeat the same old mantra that the BNP are evil racist fascists.
We will see, won't we, very soon, who is actually evil.
My definition of evil is the infliction of unnecessary suffering on another.
Whatever you think of their evil fascist racism, the BNP have started no unwinnable wars in Muslim lands, however much they dislike Muslims, they at least share the Muslim view that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a bad idea and no good would come of it.
Perhaps the only way to appease our enemies now is to execute our warmongers, as a warning to others, if they will not do the decent thing. Hitler at least had the decency to shoot himself when he knew Germany had lost the war and it was all his fault.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Now that UKIP is nearly bankrupt again, it seems to me that they might as well make the most of the situation and amalgmate with the BNP, in much the same way that the Liberals merged with the SDP.
Well, why not? They are both Eurosceptic, anti-immigration, pro-death penalty, against invading Muslim lands, pro-grammar schools, for starters.
Now that the BNP are going to be officially non-racist, what is the problem? In fact, the BNP is now in the course of amending its constitution so that it is EHRC-compliant.
Remember the two Davids that were the LibDems?
The Nigel and Nick Show is a close enough resemblance.
Perhaps a tactful suggestion from Nick that Nigel might like to attend their Blackpool Conference next month might be in order.
The British National Independence Party (the "B Nips" is a rather catchy name, don't you think?) would then, all things being equal, become the third political party in Britain, eclipsing the LibDems, and overthrow the liberal establishment.
Surely that prospect is enough to generate a little frisson of co-operation amongst that squabbling rabble?
It can be done, it should be done, in time for the next general election too.
There goes the Prime Minister again, being SuperBrit, with his mission to save the world from climate change. He sounds more and more like Chicken Licken every day.
Whatever they come up with, you can be sure it will mean more of us will have to pay more tax.
One cannot help but think he is confusing climate change with electoral meltdown. In both cases there is nothing to be done. He is doomed and so are we all, so he might as well find the time to lie down quietly in a dark room and rest his eye.
It would actually be quite a good thing environmentally if our numbers were significantly reduced by the incidence of tsunamis, swine flu and all manner of famine, pestilence and war.
Humans are, in case you didn't know, the most polluting creatures of all.
Other civilisations by other species will rise in our place, I have no doubt, and some form of life will carry on.
I really don't know what the fuss is all about.
Why is Peter Hain shrieking about the illegality of the BNP as a party or its legal right to appear on Question Time when he already knows Jack Straw is going to be on the panel?
Perhaps he is trying to suggest that all who appear on Question Time with the BNP that they are breaking the law, including the "Justice" Secretary to intimidate them into calling it off.
Labour is in serious disarray when it sends out mixed messages with such petulance and hysteria. Perhaps it is trying to have it both ways, ie having its debate with the BNP and saying they shouldn't be allowed a platform.
How typical of them.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
I am delighted that Frank Field has seen fit to protest against this blatant infringement against the rules of natural justice.
Laws should not be retrospective.
One should not be led to think it is OK to do something, do it in good faith, and then be told later that it turns out that people are very upset, have it in for us and want to punish us out out of sheer vindictiveness and that our leaders will see to it that we are punished rather than take the hit themselves.
After all it was the three party leaders who prevented MPs from voting for a payrise and fobbed them off with generous expense claims in lieu.
Why no MP has pointed this out I do not know. Perhaps it would "send out the wrong message" and demonstrate that not only are MPs useless at looking after the national interest, they are also hopless at looking after even their own best interests. Not only are they cowardly, dishonest and greedy, they are also stupid.
I pride myself on my longstanding support for causes, individuals and groups who have been misunderstood and traduced.
In my time I have stood up for the BNP, Peter Mandelson, Muslims as well as the Sharia for the UK Muslims.
I now stand up for the most despised group of all - MPs.
Things are now so bad for them that only
1. stringing all three of the party leaders to adjacent lamp-posts on Parliament Square
2. beheading this treacherous trinity and putting their heads on spikes on Tower Hill
3. joining the BNP en masse
could make them less unpopular.
(It looks like there is an unofficial vacancy for an MP shop stewardess. I wouldn't mind being Union Baroness if there is a job like that going, to be honest.)
Tom Harris MP:
"Obviously children will find it far too violent, distressing and horrific that Humpty should not be put together again."
* Seesaw Margery Daw, Johnny shall have a new master. He shall earn the minimum wage, because the Labour government made it legally binding.
* Rock a bye baby on the tree top, when the wind blows, the cradle will rock. When the bough breaks, the cradle will be safe because the tree has undergone a health and safety assessment.
* Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to get her poor doggie a bone. When she got there, the cupboard was full because she just had a delivery from Ocado.
* London Bridge is undergoing planned engineering works. Please wait for further announcements.
* Three visually impaired mice, three visually impaired mice. See how they run, see how they run. They all ran after the farmer's wife, who handed them over to the RSPCA.
* Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep – but she knows how to find them because she has satnav.
Friday, 16 October 2009
New and unique number-generating system!
Join quoting this offer with your dream and you will be given 6 numbers based on the dream you had last night. Guaranteed to make your next lottery-buying experience more enjoyable!
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
The British National Party is a democratic nationalist party. Nationalism is an ideology of National Interest and British Nationalist Party is the party of the British National Interest.
Nationalism rejects all ideologies that do not serve the long term British National Interest. The Party rejects the incoherent classification of ideologies of the “Right” and “Left” and is only concerned with exhorting what is good and forbidding what is evil, what works and what does not.
Nationalism is in essence pragmatic and responsive to change, and strives to pass on these characteristics to citizens at large, desiring to make them robust, rational and resourceful.
The Nation is necessarily an abstract concept that encompasses the greater good of the greatest number of British citizens, in the long term, and this necessarily requires its political thinkers to think in centuries, not in terms of short-term gains or the narrow self-interest of certain groups.
The Party recognizes that furthering or protecting the interests of a particular group, class, religion or race will be divisive, although it will strive to correct any inequitable inequalities which exist and which cause resentment and strife amongst the peoples of Britain.
All people value liberty and the concomitant of this is personal responsibility. In pursuit of good government, British Nationalism will strive to strike the right balance that will be perceived to be just by the majority.
The Party believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
For the current version of the BNP constitution, visit http://bnp.org.uk/constitution.doc
Tell me honestly now, dear reader, which one you prefer.
"... critics say short jail sentences are ineffective at reforming criminals and should be abolished in favour of community punishments."
Why don't we just flog/lash/birch them publicly and be done with it? I do hope they consider this option at the Tory Party Conference.
And wouldn't it be fun if the Labour steals a march on them by offering this to us in their election manifesto?
Then the EU will tell us we cannot do it because it goes against some EU directive on the human right of the criminal not to be flogged, punished properly or publicly humiliated or whatever.
In a huff, we lift our skirts, head for the door, walk through it and slam it on our way out of the EU.
That would be so nice, would it not?
This, folks, would be how the Muslims and BNP would deal with the situation. I have always thought that that lot have a great deal in common and should be nicer to each other and co-operate more to rid ourselves of this scourge of extremist liberalism, which has rotted the brains of those who govern us.
If nationalism is an ideology of national interest, then it might be in the national interest to embrace Islam, junk the Church of England and establish a Mosque of Britain.
I would have no problem with more Islamic forms of punishment being imposed on the criminal classes than the namby-pamby penalties now in existence.
Most people wouldn't either.
Because we want it, they will of course not give it to us. But if Labour offered us a referendum on the death penalty, we might vote for them, mightn't we?
If they offered us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we might vote for them on that basis.
Or whether to withdraw from the EU altogether.
Why don't they just give us the stuff the Tories won't give us?
This sort of thing would happen in a rational world. What a shame that this country is not part of the rational universe.
Vote: Should the death penalty be re-introduced in some form, eg for the worst cases of murder?
Monday, 5 October 2009
Maybe we should just it all up and start learning Mandarin instead.
For one thing, Chinese people are never dyslexic. They are either literate or illiterate.
It may be worth giving up the English language altogether now that the English are themselves too stupid and badly-taught to speak their own language properly.
Indeed, so degraded are they now that they do not even feel the appropriate sense of shame.
Some idiot educationalist has apparently been suggesting that we just ignore mis-spelt and mis-used words. After all, "impotence" is the nearly the same as "importance", is it not? It sounds quite similar after all and people these days are too stupid to notice the difference anyway.
A new history of the 4th century BC reveals how the collapse of Greek democracy occurred in circumstances similar to our own. They were going through a crippling economic downturn and their politicians committed serious financial misdemeanours. Dr Michael Scott author of "From Democrats to Kings" and classicist at Cambridge University discusses the comparisons and whether looking back at history can help to explain contemporary society.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Polanski was a hebephile, not a paedophile. His victim has forgiven him and that should be the end of the matter.
I cannot see why people keep interfering in this matter that should be between Polanski and Geimer only. The only person whose opinion we need take into account is that of the victim's and the victim has decided to forgive him.
That should be the end of the matter, but no, we have all these people thinking that punishing Polanski would somehow discourage paedophiles and "send the right message" when we keep having it confirmed again and again that Britain is a nation of paedophiles. There is even a paedophile "tax" of £64 per paedophile for those who want to visit schools and chauffeur children around.
This country is divided between two kinds of people, ie those who are convicted paedophiles, and those who have not yet been caught.
Isn't life in Old Blighty Grandy and Dandy?
Friday, 2 October 2009
There is very little one can do with this paedophile menace as the government tinkers around at the edges.
Either there is an epidemic of paedophilia, fed by Facebook and the Internet, or sadism and exploiting the helpless and vulnerable has always been the bloodsport of the secretly depraved.
They do not exploit and abuse other adults because adults have the capacity for protest.
The thrill, as far as I can analyse the motivations of those who wish to commit such crimes, is to impose their will on another human being.
No doubt if they could they would kill and eat babies, but that would leave them vulnerable to discovery. Therefore sexual abuse is a sensible half-way house of abuse. It is not easily discoverable, especially by those who lack the capacity for speech and it leaves no visible marks on the victim.
With this intractable problem of human depravity, what is to be done?
Instead of passing ever more oppressive and draconian laws (such as banning mobile phones with cameras in creches and assuming every woman who works with children is bent on filming the abuse of children in her care) , I would instead suggest this:
1. Let more mothers have the option of staying home to look after their children.
2. Tax their husbands less so that they can more easily earn enough not to have to compel their wives to go out to work.
3. If child sexual abuse continues apace - 60% of child sexual abuse takes place within their own home apparently - then it will be less distressing for others. Paedophiles will at least be abusing their own children, not other people's.
This would at least stop the international community from getting the impression that Britain is an island of perverts and paedophiles, even if we really are.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
This seems even more perverse than wishing to abuse children, in my opinion.
If I had a 12-18 month old that could have been one of the abused, I would rather not know and would rather not be told.
What good would it do except poison my relationship with my child and make me spend my life and its life blaming any failure or difficulty it has on the abuser?
Doubtless this would deprive certain child psychologists of an opportunity of earning some fees, but that is just too bad for them.
Sometimes, repression is the wisest and healthiest course.
But just over the German border, in the Bavarian town of Wank, their neighbours were unsympathetic. "The people in Fucking should cash in on their name," said Juergen Stoll, who runs the Wank guest house. "I have so many visitors here that we have to line the mattresses up in one big room, otherwise we couldn't fit everybody in. If the name helps to bring in the tourists, then why not cash in on it? In these credit crunch times, every little helps. In summer, visitors come to Wank so they can photograph each other on Wank Mountain, or go skiing on Wank piste. We sell hundreds of Wank postcards each month, especially the ones with the 'Welcome to Wank' sign on them. The name means nothing to most Germans, but when it comes to attracting English-speaking visitors, it's a goldmine."
(Central European News, 5/8/09/ Spotter: Colin Robertson)
From Private Eye, p17, No 1246, 2-15 October 2009
China's National Day or the 60th Birthday of the People's Republic of China.
No chance of us having anything like that, I suppose.
It's downhill all the way on that slippery slope to decline and eventual extinction now. Our politicians will whisper and shout all the C words they know at each other, and that will serve as their idea of political debate.
In the future, we will all be too thick to know what they mean and but will know to hiss and boo, or cheer and clap in the right places, just like children at a panto.
The country will fill up with the illegitimate children of promiscuous single mothers who have unbeknownst to us all, been deified, sanctified and are now beyond criticism. Their unsocialised children with no emotional intelligence will drag our education standards ever lower depths and we can all become a nation of pimps, prostitutes, paedophiles and pirates. Hooray!
I am thinking of emigrating to Zimbabwe because I think this country is going to the dogs.
Have you noticed how well-educated Zimbabweans, both black and white, are?
Robert Mugabe's education system is better than Gordon Brown's education system. Zimbabwe has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. 90% according to UNICEF in 2006.
They even have this very modern and clever thing which the most powerful nation in the world has: a one-party state. No doubt the Chinese suggested this, and they were not too proud to try it out. It would appear that things have improved for the average Zimbabwean too.
Robert Mugabe is a much more amusing and charming leader than Brown - full of memorable soundbites and impish mischief. Even while he insults the West one cannot help but smile indulgently at him, because he is so entertainingly rude.
"I do not have a problem with the British people, only with Number Ten," he said, with a twinkle in his eye.
I, at any rate, cannot help liking him a little bit, and admiring his media savvy which is equal if not actually superior to Lord Mandelson's ...
Perhaps a Robert Mugabe Leadership and Charm School could be established and Gordon Brown be his first student?