Saturday, 30 October 2010

Volunteers could earn 'care credits' for helping others

The only way to avoid a lonely old age or being sent to an old folks home to die there largely unvisited and ignored, to be looked after by possibly abusive and indifferent carers, is to have legitimate offspring who have legitimate offspring who are able and willing to support you in your dotage. 

Why the fuck is care in old age a right and not a reward if you have no family and have no money?

That is all part of our Culture of Entitlement, innit.  

Getting credits for helping the elderly is going to be another big fat con.

Do it only if you want to help, not for reward, or be prepared to deal with any feelings of disappointment, bitterness and betrayal when Old Mother Hubbard tells you the cupboard is bare. 

Friday, 29 October 2010

Thursday, 28 October 2010

"The Kids are Alright" (being brought up by two lesbians)

The actress Julianne Moore is in the UK this week promoting her new movie 'The Kids are Alright', a comedy-drama centres on a lesbian couple who each gave birth to a child using the same anonymous sperm donor. Evan Davis asked her whether she thought the film normalises the concept of lesbian mothers.

Julianne Moore in a movie about two lesbian mothers and saying that this excremental filth is a good and right way of bringing up children.

Thank you so much, BBC, for mentioning it so approvingly.

Perhaps the BBC should consider trying to raise standards of morality occasionally. That would be such a nice change.

Predictably, the two children brought up by their lesbian mothers (called "Joni" and "Laser" - no doubt these names will become very popular with lame-brain Brits who love anything American, particularly if it is excrementally stupid and bad for you) are female and surprisingly well-adjusted. One is about to leave home for university, and the other is, surprisingly, still not yet a single mum, like JUNO.

Perhaps a horror movie on how a boy brought up by two lesbian mothers and who turns psycho because there were no decent male role models for him to emulate will be made and become famous in the genre of film very noire.

Just like in KILL BILL which glamorised violence against men, this young man will go around glamorously committing violence against lesbians because he feels that the lesbians closest to him have ruined his life by depriving him of a father figure.

I propose that Quentin Tarantino direct this movie and then be invited to on Toady to tell us how wonderful, artistic, life-affirming and non-exploitative it is to be doing and portraying this sort of thing.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Sayeeda Warsi banned from attending Muslim conference by that cunt of convictionless Conservatism Cameron

I wonder if a male Muslim politician would have obeyed David Cameron's outrageous ban against her attending The Global Peace & Unity held at the ExCel Centre on 23-24 October.

If I had known I would have gone myself.  Sounds like a right proper rave-up, with sound and light.  Must have cost a bomb to organise, but we now see that the Muslims have this sort of money while the BNP and the Christians just wouldn't be able to get it together to organise a similar rave-up. 

I like to think that a Muslim man in Sayeeda Warsi's position would have known to tell where David Cameron can shove his ban and and maybe even shove it up there himself, good and hard.  As it is, being a girl, she meekly stayed home because she didn't want any trouble. 

Being a mere woman, she is excused her cowardice and convictionlessnes.  I do hope her Muslim brothers and sisters make a special point of giving her a piece of their mind in no uncertain terms. 

If I were a Muslim I wouldn't have missed the rave-up for all the tea in China. 

My proposed Control Card System for Drunks

My idea is even better than paying to breathalyse drunks twice every day, I would suggest.   

Everyone of drinking age has a drinking licence which must be presented to anyone who sells him alcohol.

There will be a telephone number for people who have been troubled by this licence-holder's drinking.

Those who ring this number will identify licence-holder by name and address (it is usually the spouse or a close family member anyway) and give details of behaviour complained of.

His licence will be endorsed and he will prevented from obtaining legal for a period to be decided, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

An action fee will be required of the person reporting on the drunk.

It could be a real money-spinner for the government.

We already have the technology.

Fucked up British fuck themselves up even more with taxpayers' money

There is already evidence that the vaccine is giving some girls a false sense of security and leading them to think that because they have been vaccinated they are protected against the worst effects of sexual promiscuity and can therefore engage in casual sex without consequence.'

Other trusts are paying the obese to lose weight or pregnant women to stop smoking.

And cocaine addicts are receiving hundreds of pounds as a reward for getting off drugs.

Read more:

Saturday, 23 October 2010

The parlous state of British schools, education and training

Someone on Facebook commented that "3rd generation [non-whites] and beyond seems to suffer from the same degree of apathy as found in the UK."

In case you haven't heard or noticed, British edu kay shun is an international scandal.

That is why British employers don't want British workers and why the working classes are no longer fit for purpose.

Successive generations of immigrants have been Anglicised and turned into degenerate, drug-taking, binge-drinking, whingeing Britons.

Successive governments have simply replaced the generations they have made useless with a new influx of foreigners.

This is because they cannot and dare not cut the Gordian knot or clean the Augean stables that is the British teaching establishment.

That is why a one-party state is required to effect all the necessary changes.

Friday, 22 October 2010

Nick Griffin tweets that Jim Dowson is not renewing his contract with the BNP

"Personally sad that Jim Dowson has decided not to renew his contract when it runs out shortly, for he has been to hell and back for our party over last 3 years. What he has taught us will go on playing a huge role in the continued progress of our Cause for many years to come. A tip to future historians: the key thing isn't fund raising but what Jim did with our databasing. All in all a remarkable man to whom we owe a great deal and who remains a good friend and true patriot."!/nickgriffinmep

Politicians are the sewage treatment operatives of toxic ideas

The reason why politicians are despised and the government distrusted is because they now refuse to get their hands dirty.  Even as the sewage and sludge is getting so high it is now at mouth level, the politicians are still pretending they retain the ability to lift the carpet and sweep dust underneath it. 

Politics is ....

Politics is the art of making a rational choice out of a range of unappetising options.

Warmest Congratulations to Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of Tower Hamlets (or "Minaret Hamlets" as the Islamophobes now call it)

Could Lutfur Rahman have won as a result of the BNP bloc vote? Let us see if it will have the same result in another election somewhere else.

Here is Archbishop Cranmer's take on things.  He cannot make up his mind whom he hates more: Muslims or the Labour Party.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

A view of God atheists and believers may share

Q1.    Is it rational to believe in God?

A1.    Yes, if it makes us happy and good.

Q2.    Is it necessary to believe in the existence of God?

A2.    God already exists as a concept.  We are already discussing this concept (and Him), now.

Q3.    Is society happier and better without God?

A3.    Liberals say they are happier and better without God, but liberalism is fast becoming discredited, and there may be regime-change soon.

Q4.    Repeated question: Is it necessary to believe in the existence of God?

A4A.  It is necessary to believe in the existence of God if you cannot be happy and good without believing in His existence.

A4B.  It is not necessary to believe in God if you can be happy and good without believing in His existence.  Each to his or her own.

Q5.    Who or what created God?

A5.    Man created God when he first conceived of Him, gave Him a name, described Him and then conjured Him into existence by behaving as if He did indeed exist.  (The power of imagination, eh?)

Q6.    If Man created God, can he destroy God?

A6.    You cannot destroy an abstract concept or an idea though you can of course suppress and discredit it.  The need for something - anything - cannot be destroyed.  This is because need is spontaneously generated where there is want and imperfection, error and suffering.  To destroy these emotions, you would have to destroy the agents of these emotions, ie kill the human beings who feel these emotions, ignore their suffering, or make things better for them so they no longer suffer and therefore no longer complain to you or blame you.

Q7.    How do you make things better for the people who suffer?

A7.    We could try doing as God (if He exists) commands.

Q8.    What does God command?

A8.    His commandments may be found in the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

Q9.   Which is the best version?

A9.    The most reasonable and recent one.

Q10.   Is the Koran the most reasonable version?

A10.   It is arguably a synthesis of the Old and New Testament and repeatedly exhorts us to use our God-given reason.

Q11.   But why are the Muslims so backward then?

A11.   Because they don't follow God's commandments as they should.

Q12.   Why don't they?

A12.   Because they prefer to be willfully blind rather than change their ways.  Many people take up bad habits which they find they later cannot quit.  Because of the length of time they have indulged in it, it has become second nature.  They don't follow the Koran because they have this curate's egg called the Hadith which often contradicts the Koran.

If the Koran says "all animals are equal" (Animal Farm by George Orwell) then the Hadith says "but some animals are more equal than others".

You would have thought that Muslims would be falling over themselves to know the Koran as well as possible and to assess the likelihood of they and theirs falling victim to the evil consequences that Koranic commandments are designed to prevent, but  they do not.  They are rather like people who won't read instruction manuals to the equipment they own, even though they risk damaging their equipment by improper use or not getting the full benefit of all the features of that gadget.  Perhaps they feel already happy and good enough and don't want more happiness and goodness, or perhaps it is just a combination of pride and sloth.

Q13.   What should be our attitude be towards God?

A13A.  If you believe in His actual existence then you ought to love Him.  If you do indeed love God then you would want to know as much as possible about Him as it is possible to know, and do what you think would please Him, thereby gaining his favour and protection, as if He were a parent, lover or powerful friend.

A13B.  If you are sceptical about His existence or even disbelieving of it, then you must take a more analytical and teleological approach.   Most man-made things can be understood by reference to their purpose.  If you believe God was created by Man then God's purpose can be easily established: to comfort and protect Man from the vicissitudes of life and his fear of death.

The  most rational view to take of God is therefore to:

  • acknowledge the existence of God as a concept - which most certainly exists
  • decide whether His commandments would make us good and happy
  • follow as many of them as we can in order to keep well and happy

In this way can agnostics and atheists have the best of both worlds: the option of internal disbelief while having the benefits of the practices and prohibitions that would keep us good and happy in this life, and perhaps in the afterlife, if it exists.

Jeffrey Marshall's letter to East London Advertiser in support of Lutfur Rahman as Tower Hamlets mayor

Jeffrey Marshall has informed me at 1717 on 20 October:

"Mike Brooke, East London Advertiser, writes to say that my pro-Lutfur letter will be printed next week.

Too late to influence the election then, I replied (jokingly).

However he said he had put it on the ELA website under 'Features'.

Why would you want to influence it anyway, he said. So I mentioned comparable absence of democracy in Labour and BNP, but he hasn't responded as yet."

Below is the letter that would have appeared today in the East London Advertiser in the normal course of events, though I realise things are far from normal at Tower Hamlets, for it is polling day today.

Cllr Shahed Ali writes that mayoral candidate, Lutfur Rahman, is a ‘Respect collaborator disguised within Labour’ (‘There is really only one right candidate for mayor’, Advertiser Letters, October 14).

Since Cllr Rahman was leader of the Labour council for two years from 2008 to 2010, it is surprising that the Labour party failed to notice this at the time.

Cllr Ali also wonders how ‘an independent candidate with a proven track record of breaking party rules’ can be an effective mayor, and seems to suggest that submission to Labour party discipline is somehow in the best interests of the electorate, despite Labour’s National Executive Committee having a proven track record of ignoring party democracy.

In the final round of Labour’s ballot, Lutfur Rahman won twice as many members’ votes as the two runners up, John Biggs and Helal Abbas, put together.

But when two of his Labour rivals, Helal Abbas and Bill Turner, apparently alleged, among other things, that he was sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists, Lutfur Rahman was dumped by Labour’s NEC without even an investigation.

Unquestioning party loyalists might not care, but the lack of internal democracy and accountability in political parties has serious implications for our democracy as a whole.

So a degree of independence from any party might be useful for a mayoral candidate, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated when he stood as an Independent for London mayor in 2000, defeating an uninspiring ‘official’ Labour candidate.

The council’s election booklet shows four candidates in open-necked shirts, who look as if they are dressed for an evening in their local pub, and one serious contender, Lutfur Rahman, looking very presentable indeed in smart collar and tie.

The post of elected mayor creates a new opportunity for leadership in Tower Hamlets. The successful candidate will be a key representative for our borough. So it should be someone that Tower Hamlets can feel proud of.

The crowning irony of all this is that while Britain is constantly whining at China about is human rights records, none of any members of any political party capable of achieving office protects the rights of individual members against its leadership.

The Chinese, who have been through the Cultural Revolution, have at least acknowledged the importance of protecting members' rights in its party constitution.  Without this protection, any courageous front bench MP will find his career over the moment he says anything to displease his leader, just like Enoch Powell, when Heath expelled him from the Cabinet for speaking what most people then and now adversely affected by immigration feel to be the truth.

Article 4. 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.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Peter Bone MP's proposal to abolish the party whip a matter of grave national importance and should be properly debated

If we had a one-party state then the party whip should and would certainly be abolished.

The reason why there is no democracy in this country is because there is no party democracy in any of the parties.  Party members demoted or expelled have very little redress.  Indeed, a member of the Chinese  Communist Party has more rights than anyone belonging to any UK political party. 

I didn't know blackmail, threats and arm-twisting is called "pastoral care" in the Conservative Party, but I do now.  

But at least I know that:

1.  Big Society is really Big Government

2.  Compassionate Conservatism is really Socialism

3.  Cameron is a cunt of convictionless Conservatism if not actually a Commie Pinko

4.  the British public are too stupid to notice or too apathetic to do anything about it.

Private Members Bill Procedure

Progress of the Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons | 10.12.2010

The Tariq Ramadan Show consisting of the "Moderate Muslim" and the "Museum Muslim" on the modernisation of Islam

Well, that Tariq Ramadan Show was a waste of time. Usually Muslim gatherings have great food, but that was rubbish as well. Absolutely no panel discipline - Ramadan (the Modern and Moderate Muslim) the prima donna and bore - was allowed to go on and on and interrupt the Museum Muslim. They spoke mostly in abstractions. No attempt was made to see that all who had questions had them answered, and the moderator Hamza Andreas Tzortzis was blind to a long queue of women waiting to ask their questions (so I never got to ask my killer question which would have given them a few ideas about how to modernise Islam.)

He preferred to let the scholars have an endless unenlightening exchange with each other rather than let the queuing women ask their silly feminine questions.  At the end, a Somalian man I had seen before actually pleaded to be allowed to ask his question, but this was denied.

A waste of an evening and £18.

Al-Haddad at least made a few jokes that were funny (on the question of how can we get justice in this world he answered simply "When we get Islamic law" which took the sails out of Ramadan's self-important sailboat) and was a master of conciseness compared to Ramadan (to whom the soundbite and a short sentence is an alien concept) who loved the sound of his own voice so much that he constantly interrupted, and never spoke for under 5 minutes at any given time. He even shouted as if he were addressing a public assembly when he was just answering a question by Al-Haddad.

Haddad wants to go back to Orthodox Islam (whatever that means and something only he and people like him really understood). The Koran is not open to interpretation by just anyone, Allah forbid! I suppose he means his version of Islam.

I did like what he said though, that if one looks after one's akhira (posterity or our posthumous reputation) then dunia (our life in this world) will look after itself. 

Ramadan questioned the use by Haddad of the term orthodox, one of the wiser things he said. Otherwise, he went on and on and on about "the complexities" however simple and unambiguous the hypothetical situation given to him, which of course only he understood ...

So this is how scholars talk to each other. No wonder no one gets Islam and everyone hates Muslims. Boring, long-winded, obscure, incomprehensible, badly-organised, badly-managed and worst of all, men and women were segregated.

Just shows you how serious Muslims are about modernising their religion, huh?

There was a men's mike and a women's mike, and separate eating areas for men and women too.

Maybe Muslims should attend a few debates organised by non-Muslims and see how it should be done, but you don't want to be contaminated by us, eh?

Perhaps if you could bring yourself to risk your immortal souls by coming out and mixing with non-Muslims, you might realise that people who attend long and boring talks like to be given the chance to ask questions after hearing long and boring talks.  Muslims just don't get this, do they?

Oooh! Imagine shaking our filthy sinful feminine hands. Yeah, you will probably burn forever in hell for doing that or just sitting next to a non-Muslim female. JAHANAM!!!!

Speaking of which, I think I saw Anjem Choudary in the audience.  Whatever you think of him, he is an excellent speaker and very entertaining too.  This man would make a great stand up comic.

If the organisers wish to redeem themselves, I suggest they hold a debate between Nick Griffin and Anjem Choudary to sell-out audiences and enforce mixed seating, ie

male Muslim/non-Muslim female
female Muslim/non-Muslim male

in strict rotation. 

Monday, 18 October 2010

The Multicultural Society has failed

It took a bloody long time for her to state the obvious, didn't it?

The BNP may be withering on the vine and may already be a spent force, as the media seem to be suggesting, but the basic grievance against liberal hegemony will not go away.  Disgruntled voters will find another vehicle or, more to the point, another conveyance will become available for those who want to give the political establishment a piece of their mind.  

The BNP is not the only way to bring down the liberal establishment, after all.

Saturday, 16 October 2010

"HELAL DEAD MEAT" in "Rotten Boroughs", Private Eye, No 1273, 15-29 October 2010

"Labour is in meltdown in Tower Hamlets, where the party's cack-handed efforts to prevent its own former council leader, Lutfur Rahman, becoming elected mayor of the east London borough on 21 October have virtually guaranteed his triumph at the polls.

Lutfur has become an embarrassment to Labour because of his alleged links to the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe, which pulls the strings at the East London Mosque - first reported in this column two years ago (Eye 1219) and forensically examined by Andrew Gilligan on Channel 4's Dispatches back in February. 

In the blowback from Dispatches, Lutfur was ousted as Labour group and council leader in May.  He then put his name forward for nomination as the party's mayoral candidate and became an unlikely martyr after the London Labour Party twice removed him from the list of candidates.  Lutfur went to court to remain on the list and then romped home in a poll of local party members.  Labour's National Executive Commitee then dumped him as candidate, so Lutfur declared he would stand as an independent - shades of Ken Livingstone and the London mayoral race back in 2000.

Playing the frank Dobson role as doomed-to-lose official candidate is Lutfur's replacement as council leader, Helal Abbas, who has little democratic legitimacy because he was only the local membership's third choice, with 157 votes to Lutfur's 433.  Second-placed John Biggs, who unlike Abbas comes with no embarrassing baggage, won 251 members' votes.  He is assumed to have been passed over because he is, er, white.

Abbas, a former bankrupt, is hardly a breath of fresh air, having appeared in this column on numerous occasions over the past decade.  In a previous incarnation as council leader in 2003 he won the Eye's prestigious "brass-necked councillor of the year" award for pocketing a 49% rise in allowances (Eye 1096) and ungraciously responded to the accoldate by declaring that Eye readers were not "sane-minded" and should "get a life" (Eye 1099).

During his three years at the helm up to 2005, he took on the mantle of the fraud-buster and police opened investigations into four council-funded organisations.  Some of the shine came off this when leaked documents from a Housing Corporation investigation in to allegations of electoral fraud at a housing association referred to a certain "Candidate A" who had used "votes" from an out-of-date register - which included the names of dead people - in an attempt to win a seat on the association's board (Eye 1133).  Abbas was asked on at least four occasions if he was "Candidate A" and each time strangely lost the power of speech.

PS:   Labour has purged those Tower Hamlets councillors -eight of them - who supported Lutfur's mayoral candidacy.  These martyrs to principle include Rania Khan and Oliur Rahman, who were originally elected as Respeck councillors in 2006.  They then left to join a breakaway group called Respect: Independent Party (RIP - geddit?).  At the London Assembly elections in 2008 the pair stood for the Left List but were then persuaded by Lutfur to join Labour last year.  Principles - now you see 'em, now you don't!"

Lutfur's shabby treatment by the Labour Party, who sought to have him removed as candidate without a proper investigation, has echoes of the treatment meted out to as many as 30 BNP organisers who were suspended without being given a proper reason except that they might use the membership list to help Eddy Butler (who was calling for a leadership election and therefore needed to secure enough nominations) and that they may potentially breach the Data Protection Act, with no indication of when a decision might be given as to whether their suspension would be lifted and certainly no right to attend any hearing in order to defend themselves. 

Those in the BNP who wish to show solidarity with victims of their party's arbitrary decisions wish Lutfur a successful campaign. 

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Al Qaeda want Linda Norgrove alive, the US and UK government want her dead if they can't rescue her

Imagine the horror of having a long drawn out negotiations and then having to watch Al Qaeda cut off her head on YouTube.  No, Al Qaeda wanted her alive.  It would suit the US and UK governments to have her dead if they can't rescue her.

So, bleeding heart spinsters with nothing better to do with your lives, let this be a lesson to you: stay out of Afghanistan and other places where you are not welcome.  The Afghans are not grateful and your own government will hang you out to dry, ie kill you after an unsuccessful rescue attempt, rather than let you fall into the arms of the enemy. 

Learn so that you may live. 

If your life is so empty that playing the brave bleeding heart social worker in foreign countries is the only way you can get your kicks, you should maybe ask yourself why.

Maggie too unwell to go to Downing Street while Cameron is leader of Tory Party

If I were feeling already a little unwell, prolonged exposure to Cameron's smarm might really make me embarrassingly nauseous.

Why can't the Tories just get rid of him and put Dan Hannan in his place? 

Yeah, yeah, I know: those arseholes can't even organise a piss-up in a brewery and Cameron and his cronies are doing their damnedest to see that Hannan doesn't get a safe seat.

What a shame that creep Cameron - with his effeminate face which would be ideal for cross-dressing - can't just be made to break off from his Brokeback Coalition and bugger off to Brussels.

Solar Lamp the Environmentally and Politically Correct Choice of Neil McGregor

Why can't we have that beautifully-wrapped mummy with the individually-wrapped fingers that is my fave BM exhibit?

It could be a metaphor for historical preservation, serendipity and human ingenuity and of course the human form. 

Instead, Ian McGregor chose the solar lamp because the PC theme of environmental sustainability is flavour of the decade.  Ho hum.  

Mixing my metaphors

Would I be mixing my metaphors if I said

"Cunty Cameron and his cunts of convictionless Conservatism are condoms on the cock of courageous Conservatism."?

Lutfur Rahman and the BNP

Just in case anyone wishes to use the fact that some BNP supporters in Tower Hamlets are prepared to support him because of the shabby and underhanded way he has been treated by the Labour Party as another piece of mud to sling at him, let me issue the following clarification. 

The BNP at the moment has a bee in its bonnet about party democracy. Many activist members of the BNP have been suspended and expelled for daring to challenge the leadership's handling of its finances.

The general election has now drained its coffers as well as legal costs which could perhaps be better handled.  This is one of the reasons why the BNP do not have a Tower Hamlets mayoral candidate.  Since there is no BNP mayoral candidate, no harm could be done to the party by publicly supporting Lutfur who is now ex-Labour after the shabby treatment meted out to him by the Labour Party, who suspended him without an investigation after Helal Abbas, his rival, made allegations against him.  It is clearly against the rules of natural justice that someone who made allegations against you has benefited from so doing, even if those allegations remain unproven. 

Another reason why the BNP would like to see the Labour candidate Helal Abbas defeated is that he is a campaigner of Hope Not Hate, an organisation created specifically to thwart the BNP.  He is also a former bankrupt, just as Nick Griffin was.  It has been said that people who have been bankrupt tend not to be very good with money. 

It is by no means clear that all BNP supporters and activists would support Lutfur, but those of us who do wish him every success in his campaign.

I also wish to make clear that at no time did Lutfur solicit votes from the BNP.  Those of us who do give our support to him do so without expectation of anything in return and have not been promised anything.

Lutfur's Campaign Team have made the following statements to me.

3 October at 15:06

We welcome support from all parties and all sections of the community, but we cannot form an alliance with any party or the BNP as our pledges and goals are clearly set out in our plans to reach out to all.

14 October at 11:17

"We will not be asking the BNP to endorse us, as Lutfur represents the Labour values which I believe is anti thesis to BNP values. He is being supported by Labour members and a large part of the traditional Labour supporters. You are free to support Lutfur like everyone else, but Lutfur has not and will not ask the BNP for any support. If he does become Mayor, he will work for all the residents of the Borough irrespective of political background."

His BNP supporters wish him the very best of British luck for a successful campaign.

Mandy Movie by Hannah Rothschild

"This spring Mandelson was running a department with a budget of £21 billion. His immediate staff included two special advisers, two drivers, five private secretaries, one PA, one diary secretary, one principal private secretary, one spokesman and more than 50 press secretaries at his disposal, courtesy of the taxpayer. He sat on 35 of the 43 government committees and each morning conversed with the Prime Minister, shaping his government's day ahead, his finger in every pie. Today, he's looking for a job."

Peter would be excellent on TV, and so would I. We could be The Lord and Lady Mandelson Show, on which we would interview hapless politicians in our pretend studio home.

BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5: Are you reading this?

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Lutfur Rahman and the BNP bloc vote

Labour Making a Big Mistake Over Lutfur Rahman

The Labour Party really hate Lutfur Rahman, don't they?  Here are a few anti-Rahman quotes:

Rushanara Ali, the newly-elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow congratulated the membership for "not tolerating intolerance" whether from "the far right or the far left - the Respect Party. You said goodbye to George Galloway [in May]. You said, we don't want division here, we don't want this community turned against each other - black against white against Asian; men against women; father against daughter; son against mother. That's what George Galloway's legacy has been." But she added: "Unfortunately, the Respect Party is not dead yet. It's rearing its ugly head again in a new way. It's calling itself 'independent'." This got a loud cheer. "It's not the same as Ken Livingstone becoming an independent," she continued. "Don't flatter them." She urged her audience to impress upon voters that the choice of who took care of a billion pound budget was between Labour, "a mainstream political party" that wants to unite the borough's different communities, and a divisive group of people who, among other things, want to "hijack Islam for selfish motives." She warned against intimidation and provocation and paid tribute to older Labour politicians who'd fought against the far right in her youth.

But then one hates and fears the person one has wronged.  Lutfur Rahman was to have been the Labour Tower Hamlets mayoral candidate until a rival Labour mayoral candidate, Helal Abbas, complained about him, causing Lutfur to be removed as a candidate without an investigation

This has provoked him into standing as an Independent against the Labour Party which will doubtless result in his expulsion.  Suzanne Moore, the Guardian and Mail columnist who was also a member of the Labour Party, was expelled from the party after she stood against Diane Abbott.

So this is party democracy in Labour, which is not much better than the kind of party "democracy" we get in the BNP.

Lutfur Rahman does have a way with words, necessary to a politician and a lawyer of course, but also courage and determination from the array of his enemies:

"It has become fashionable among the right-wing to characterise Tower Hamlets as a 3rd World entity. If by that they mean a place where the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of unaccountable officials; where such basic principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" and the integrity of the democratic process are overruled by fiat, then they are entirely correct. But it is not me, or the borough's Bangladeshi community that are responsible for this sorry state of affairs, it is the Labour Party, who have for years treated Tower Hamlets like the last outpost of the British Raj."

Jeffrey Marshall and I have met Lutfur.  It was two or three years ago at a Safer Neighbourhoods meeting.  It was a Sunday and I remember Lutfur wearing jeans, for some reason.  Jeffrey complained about the intimidating gangs of youths hanging around street corners.  Lutfur even came over and chatted to us because we, being non-Asian, stuck out all like sore thumbs.

A few months later the gangs of intimidating youth had been dispersed with the dispersal notices that Lutfur must have had something to do with.

So, Lutfur's strong on law and order and gets things done.

Another reason why BNP supporters should vote for Lutfur is to show solidarity with someone who has been badly-treated by his party.

Details of how and why can be gleaned by reading

Some of you may have heard of the BNP's recent troubles.  The reason why the BNP have failed to enter a candidate for the Tower Hamlets mayoral elections was because it had escaped the notice of the Acting London Organiser (one Nick Griffin living in mid-Wales who relieved the previous London Organiser Chris Roberts of his post because he was suspected of being a supporter of Eddy Butler the leadership challenger that never was because he could never in a month of  Sunday secure enough nominations under the current rules) that there was a deadline to be met if one wanted to be a candidate for the mayoral elections on 21 October. 

There is just a hint that Lutfur is anti-feminist and anti-Zionist, which would be OK with the typical BNP supporter, I imagine.  (He has clearly outraged Rushanara Ali who  made unspecified allegations against him  to Harriet Harman, the Supreme Matriarch of Britain.  It could be that he suggested that Rushanara Ali - another female candidate of the Oona King mode - is but a creature of the Labour Party and can no longer be said to properly represent the Bangladeshi community.  Perhaps the Bangladeshi community prefer a middle aged lawyer in preference to a slip of a girl who has "gone native" and will probably slavishly support whatever line her party wants her to take.)

Lutfur was also against the invasion of "Afraq" which is another important BNP policy.

Also, Ken Livingstone (whose political antennae is as faultless as mine) supports Lutfur and Keith Vaz - a lawyer - is on record saying that Lutfur's sacking was against the rules of natural justice.

Lutfur won by a majority of almost 200 votes from a total of 881 casted votes and the Local and Regional parties and both expressed confidence that the election had been fair and democratic.

Lutfur Rahman - 433 votes

John Biggs - 251 votes

Helal Abbas - 157 votes

Shome mishtake, shurely?

It would be an excellent story of mature co-operation if the BNP bloc vote helps to keep the Labour candidate out.  Helal Abbas has been a bankrupt under his other name of Abbas Uddin.  Helal Abbas was also a member of Hope Not Hate - an organisation specifically set up to thwart the BNP.
and suggests that there is a very nasty and concerted campaign by Andrew Gilligan, Labour and Zionists to smear Lutfur as a racist and an anti-Semite.  I think people of all races who are branded as "racists" by the liberal establishment should stick up for each other. 

The way ahead is therefore clear.  BNP supporters in Tower Hamlets should vote Lutfur Rahman on the grounds of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  It will be very satisfying to deliver a good hard kick to Labour while proclaiming to the nation that the BNP bloc vote is something to be courted if your majority is anything less than solid.

Sunday, 10 October 2010

What is this British "culture" that must be protected against Islamification?

It is up to the British to impose British values on newcomers, I would have thought. If you don't get it together to give them a culture that they want to identify with, they will just keep to their own customs.

But what is British culture?

Whingeing and binge-drinking, shagging and drug-taking, shopping and single motherhood.

Nothing to be proud of then. Quite understandable that they don't want to be Anglicised and become the losers that most white Britons have now become.

No sensible Muslim man would want to be an impoverished man living in a bedsit after his wife has divorced him, taken half his stuff and deprived him of his children after accusing him of being a paedo.  
No sensible Muslim man would think he is going to get justice from any UK family court dominated by feminists whose hearings are held in camera. 

No sensible Muslim woman who wants children and a husband who will provide for her, would want to be a single mother or end up a spinster as is the lot of most white women who have been indoctrinated with the  false promises of feminism. 

Is "Pakiphobic" Britain really ready for a Pakinstani Shadow Home Secretary?

We shall see, won't we?

Talented and effective though he may be, there is just a chance that making him Home Secretary is a step too far when we all know how  "Pakiphobia" is running rampant in this country. 

If I were Ed and had to reward him for running my leadership campaign, I would have made him Shadow Foreign Secretary.  The idea of the pretty but brittle Yvette Cooper being Foreign Secretary would  raise hackles too, especially amongst the more traditional nations who don't like having to deal with uppity white women.  

At this rate I don't see that Ed will be getting anywhere near power, if his Shadow Cabinet appointments are anything to go by. 

Like a Chinese emperor, he is far away and out of touch with the British public, but not as out of touch as David Miliband who supported the war and was dumb enough to say that he still supports it, reminding me of what Talleyrand said of the Ultramontane:

"They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

"Responsibility for this tragic outcome rests squarely with the hostage takers"

I do hope the latest death of yet another female do-gooding bleeding-heart will discourage more do-gooding bleeding-hearts from going there.  Clearly, the late Miss Norgrove had nothing better to do with her life than minister to those who were clearly outraged by the audacity of her ministrations, and so paid with her life.  The Afghans want us to fuck off out of their country.  How many more Britons must they kill before the penny finally drops? 

Foreign Secretary William "Don't Call Me Gay" Hague said:

"Responsibility for this tragic outcome rests squarely with the hostage takers."

But you would say that, wouldn't you, because you and your stupid stinking fuck of a party voted for the war.

Democracy, Onepartyism and Electoral Reform

We live in an elective oligarchy, not a democracy.

An oligarchy is a political oligopoly, or cartel, if you prefer.

A cartel is a conspiracy of providers who have mutually agreed to carve up a market between themselves and will do all in their power to keep out any competition.

Democracy in the old-fashioned sense was Athenian Democracy and this took the form of citizens being allowed to vote on policies and laws as individuals.

A modern form of this would be government by referenda, which of course we do not have. In fact, the British are the worst-treated nation of all the EU nations since most of them have already had a referendum on Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty, while the British were denied a referendum on either.

Clearly, for direct democracy to operate, the exercise of voting for parties would become redundant.

Clearly, too, the form of democracy that operated in Ancient Athens and Republican Rome was without party, because the citizens of Rome would vote for or against laws. (Shifting factions are of course unavoidable.)

In a modern state however, a party would be necessary, if only to count votes, field candidates, propose policies etc.

But to even propose this raises the spectre of a one-party state and all the horrors that our knowledge of Hitler, Stalin and Mao will bring to mind.

The only flourishing and functioning one-party state is of course China. The continually revised constitution of the Chinese Communist Party reveals that they have got the theory right at any rate, and there are articles in it that are there to safeguard the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies. Article 4

China is, ironically and paradoxically, the only country that is practising direct democracy, albeit with a very narrow franchise.

Perhaps the reason why it is now doing so well is because the system now practised in China is the most rational of all known forms of government. All the best people join it, the rewards are enticing, and there will be no problems with succession under their finely balanced constitution. The leader is elected by the Politburo (consisting of 9 members). The Politburo is in turn elected by the Politburo Standing Committee (consisting of 27 members) and also elects members to the Politburo Standing Committee.

If their current leader falls under a bus, there will be at least 9 people waiting in the wings with the experience and the talent to replace him, unlike our sad sorry system we like to pretend is a democracy.

Why I joined the BNP - Part I

I am a member of the BNP and do not regard myself as a racist. Being a member of the BNP of course attracts all the usual accusations of being a Nazi Fascist Racist Extremist. 

I also regard myself as a nationalist in the sense that I believe there should be a developed ideology of what constitutes the national interest, and that the national interest cannot be represented by just one group of people who identify themselves by race, religion or whatever.  

In my opinion, the national interest should be defined as the long-term interest of the nation.

The national interest (because the nation consists of many groups of people with competing interests on grounds of gender, class, wealth, race, religion etc) should always be a judicious balance of competing interests within that nation.  

Ethno-nationalism is therefore, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms.  It is but racial preference and therefore has a divisive effect on the nation. 

While I am aware that the BNP is a party that promotes the interests of white people, I do not see why their interests are necessarily in conflict with other races if their more racially-motivated policies are dropped. 

The policies of the BNP that I agree with are:

  1. opposition to the invasion of "Afraq"
  2. withdrawal from the EU
  3. the reintroduction of the death penalty
  4. selective education
  5. opposition to uncontrolled immigration
  6. repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation
I do not fear the party's policy of voluntary repatriation, though I am firmly of the view that it would be the better for the party if it dropped this altogether.  The wiser and more experienced activists of the party already know that the only people it is politically respectable to propose expelling are illegal immigrants. 

It is my firm belief that most people, irrespective of race and religion, if left to themselves, would support most of the policies of the BNP.  They do not because they are too hypocritical and cowardly to do the most obvious thing, which is to vote for the party that has the most policies that they agree with, and simply express this preference.

If everyone did just this, then politics in this country would be in a better place.

Instead, they regard elections as some sort of bet, and if the party they vote for does not win, they feel they have wasted their vote.

I do not believe that any race is inherently better than any other. It is all a question of culture, which is created by religion and politics, which is of course eternally fluid because religion and politics will always be affected by external circumstances in just the same as we individuals are.

Perhaps nations, like individuals, all have a designated lifespan.

If that is so, then Western civilisation is an old woman suffering from dementia.

"The victor will not be asked if he told the truth" - Adolf Hitler

Saturday, 9 October 2010

How I would sort out politicians and the political system if I could pass any law I wanted

I would actually double MPs' pay after introducing a one-party state. I would however immediately conduct another general election to re-elect all the MPs who would henceforth be free of their party whip.

PPCs would be expected to pass certain exams which I have set to be taken in exam conditions.

Their essays would be published online.

Part I is explained at

Part II will simply ask them say how they would have averted the fall of Republican Rome.

So that's the quality control sorted.

They would henceforth have to vote according to principle and conscience, where found. If absent, they will just have to do what the people want.

There will be annual elections - just as the Chartists wanted - because there will be the equivalent of an AGM to pass resolutions and reappoint, appoint and remove directors.

Friday, 8 October 2010

CPS apologises to woman over assault case collapse

So this woman - "Diya" (not a local then as she lives in Ealing which is now being colonised by Somalians)  wanted to give evidence behind a screen against someone who has assaulted her.

Why?  The accused must already know whom he is alleged to have sexually assaulted?

Sounds very fishy to me.

So the taxpayer is now expected to pay for what sounds like a spurious accusation and then the compensation for the woman who made this spurious accusation.

No wonder they come here in droves to settle like flies.

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Imperium by Robert Harris

"If you must do something unpopular, you might as well do it wholeheartedly, for in politics there is no credit  to be won by timidity." 

"No one can really claim to know politics properly until he has stayed up all night, writing a speech for delivery the following day.  While the world sleeps, the orator paces around by lamplight, wondering what madness brought him to this occupation in the first place.  Arguments are prepared and discarded.  Versions of openings and middle sections and perorations lie in drifts across the floor.  The exhausted mind ceases to have any coherent grip upon the purpose of the enterprise, so that often - usually an hour or so after midnight - there comes a point where failing to turn up, feigning illness and hiding at home seem the only realistic options.  And then, somehow, under pressure of panic, just as humiliation beckons, the parts cohere, and there it is: a speech.  A second-rate orator now retires gratefully to bed.  A Cicero stays up and commits it to memory."

"Politics?  Boring?  Politics is history on the wing!  What other sphere of human activity calls forth all that is most noble in men's souls and all that is most base?  Or has such excitement?  Or more vividly exposes your strengths and weaknesses?  Boring?  You might as well say that life is boring."

"Rome is not merely a matter of geography.  Rome is not defined by rivers, or mountains, or even seas; Rome is not a question of blood, or race, or religion; Rome is an ideal.  Rome is the highest embodiment of liberty and law that mankind has yet achieved in the ten thousand years since our ancestors came down from those mountains and learned how to live as communities under the rule of law."

"The ability to listen to bores requires stamina, and such stamina is the essence of politics.  It is from bores that you really find things out."

"Such was the huge amount that the bribery agents were already being paid, and such was their nervousness about antagonising their mysterious client, that there was not a single vote to be had, and not a breath of rumour as to who that client might be.  Now you might wonder, given the thousands of votes involved, how such an immense operation could remain so tight a secret.  The answer is that it was very cleverly organised, with perhaps only a dozen agents, or interpretes as they were called, knowing the identity of the buyer.  These men would contact the officials of the voting syndicates and strike the initial bargain - such-and-such a price for fifty votes, say or five hundred, depending on the size of the syndicate.  Because naturally no one trusted anyone else in this game, the money would then be deposited with a second category of agent, known as the sequestres, who would hold the cash available for inspection.  And finally, when the election was over and it was time to settle up, a third species of criminal, the so-called divisores, would distribute it.  This made it extremely difficult to bring a successful prosecution, for even if a man was arrested in the very act of handing over a bribe, he might genuinely have no idea of who had commissioned the corruption in the first place."

"If it is gratitude you want, get a dog."

"You can always spot a fool, for he is the man who will tell you he knows who is going to win an election.  But an election is a living thing - you might almost say, the most vigorously alive thing there is - with thousands upon thousands of brains and limbs and eyes and thoughts and desires, and it will wriggle and turn and run off in directions no one ever predicted , sometimes just for the joy of proving the wiseacres wrong."

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Darkness at the end of the tunnel

67 BC -  The tribune A. Gabinius passes his lex Gabinia. This gives a command to Gn. Pompeius Magnus, who is given unlimited imperium on water to fight against the growing pirate menace.

The Muslim menace is the 21st century equivalent of the pirate menace, is it not?

That was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic, before it plunged into civil war from which Octavian emerged as the first Roman Emperor. From a liberty-loving people who hated kings the Romans eventually became a people who practised emperor-worship.  Proof that a people who prefer security over liberty will eventually deserve neither. 

If only we could all join together and extricate ourselves out of the disaster and dishonor of the wars that being America's poodle has involved us in.

But Cameron voted *for* the war and twisted the arms of the Tory front bench to do the same. He agreed with virtually everything New Labour did. He only said he would implement New Labour policies better than New Labour itself. And the Tories swallowed all that: hook, line and sinker.

The taste for military adventurism started with Blair over Bosnia. Its success whetted his appetite for military adventures.

Thatcher only got back what was snatched from Britain.

And now we have it: a Conservative government being more socialist than a socialist government and a socialist government led by a warmonger, getting away with it because people only go by labels and never look inside the package to examine the ingredients, too slow-witted to notice that the labels had been switched ...

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

A demand for principled politicians not met by supply. Why?

Is it cos our political system is crap?

But if it is crap then why can't we change it?

Because there are no principled politicians. 

Lustrum by Robert Harris

Just finished this. Keenly anticipating the third in this trilogy. Looking forward to getting my hands on IMPERIUM.

"What is great oratory, after all, except the distillation of emotion into exact words?"

"But sometimes in politics a great weakness can be turned into a strength."

"But I fear there is in all men who achieve their life's ambition only a narrow line between dignity and vanity, confidence and delusion, glory and self-destruction."

" ... in politics, how things look is often more important than what they are."

"My worldly, meretricious friendships may make a fine show in public, but in the home they are barren things.  My house is crammed of a morning, I go down to the forum surrounded by droves of friends, but in all the crowds I cannot find one person with whom I can exchange an unguarded joke or let out a private sigh."  Cicero

" ... you cannot oppose illegality by illegality and hope to command respect.  Hard times lie ahead, gentlemen, and although you may not feel you need Rome any more, Rome has need of you.  Preserve yourselves for the battles yet to come rather than sacrificing yourselves uselessly in one that is already lost."  Cicero

"I did not know where to begin.  There were so many errors: they stretched back like islands behind us, an archipelago of folly.  Or perhaps 'errors' was the wrong word.  Perhaps it was more accurate to call them consequences: the ineluctable consequences of a deed done by a great man for honourable motives - is that not, after all, how the Greeks define tragedy?"
A chilling account of the fall of Republican Rome.  Such a pity Cicero cannot be interviewed on the Today Programme and asked if he would have done anything differently.

Dan Hannan - a lone voice in the statist Socialist Conservative Party

Daniel Hannan, "the evangelist for the much smaller state" commented on Britain's "relative social fragmentation", and pointed out that "state spending is now 40% of GDP".  "Efficiency of the state starts to fall of once it starts to raise more than 20% of the GDP, and there are serious diminishing returns once the percentage of wealth taken by the state goes above the necessary minimum."

"The expansion of the state has frayed the bonds that used to tie people together.  It was not very long ago when an adult, seeing a child out of the classroom in school time, would have stopped the child and asked: 'Why aren't you in school?' and that's now seen as the responsibility of the state.  Not so very long ago you would check to make sure that an elderly neighbour was picking up their milk every morning.  Now that is seen as the responsibility of Social Services.  Every time the state presumes to do something that was previously done by communities we become less good citizens and, yes, there may be money being saved, but that's an incidental side effect.  This is primarily about making us more responsible. 

Nick Boles is a fraud, a shit and pompous with it.

20% is the magic number.  It is the magic number, folks.  The Koran recommends that as the top rate of tax and hedge funds know that it is the most you can make people willingly pay for a service.

Perhaps one day soon Dan Hannan will become leader of the Tory Party.  His understanding of Conservatism  is demonstrated by the way he so ably and elegantly articulates its principles.  Cameron and his cunts of convictionless  Conservatism can then fuck off to New Generation New Labour or even the LibDems or whatever where I am sure they will be ideologically at home, and  the Tory Party can once more be a party for Conservatives. 

No doubt Cameron and his Commie cronies will do their utmost to prevent Hannan from getting a safe seat. 

Free Schools - another cunting Conservative Con by Cameron the Commie

Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, says support for the scheme is a sign of parents' dissatisfaction with the current system. Photograph: Martin Argles

Free and Academy Schools are occupational therapy for parents who want to clutch at straws.

Monday, 4 October 2010

Tory Conference and their SHIT broken Britain logo

Was it perchance designed by the same SHIT company who did their SHIT broccoli logo?

Who were also the same SHIT company who designed the Olympics post-it logo?

I think we should be told.

Secular Koranism a weapon to defeat the insanity of both religious fanatics and liberal extremists

It is pretty clear to me anyway that all the Abrahamic faiths were created to strengthen the patriarchy and to prevent a self-destructive, promiscuous and irrational matriarchy from returning society to the barbarism from which it once emerged.

When you are faced with two evils facing your society and civilisation, it would be rational to choose the lesser evil. Patriarchy v Matriarchy: which is the lesser evil?

Secular Koranism invites you to agree that the Koran is a good enough guide for mankind, even if one does not believe in the existence of a living God.

Unfortunately, sloth and pride as well as hate and fear prevent most intelligent and educated people from picking it up and reading it for themselves.

Old Testament/Judaism/Law = Thesis

New Testament/Christianity/Mercy = Antithesis

Koran/Islam/Law, Mercy and Reason = Synthesis

Why are the Muslims such basket cases? Because most of them don't read the Koran in the same way that people who claim to be Christians don't know their Bible either.

Secular Koranism would require that people *qualify* as Secular Koranists through passing an exam. This would actually mean Secular Koranists are in fact better guided than those who claim to be Muslim but have never read the Koran with any understanding or digested or practiced its principles.

Tory Commie Cunts con British public yet again

They too want to turn your children into CHAVs, single mums and white trash and then replace you with foreign labour.

Toby Young probably shares the same "racist" reluctance over making his children ethnic minorities in his local state comp

My main criticism of Toby Young is that most parents are not going to do what he did just to avoid sending their children to the local comp. They will move house, they will pay school fees, they will invest in private tuition, but they will mostly not want to do what Toby is doing and start their own school. 

If Toby wants to improve education, he should campaign to improve education *for all*. By helping others, we help ourselves. Instead, Toby confines his whole campaign to his own neighbourhood. Even if it worked it will not help others unprepared and unwilling to put themselves to so much trouble, which is why it will run out of steam eventually.

I am also suggesting that the reason why he does not want to send his children to Acton High School is because it is the kind of school where white children are in the minority and hijab-wearing schoolgirls are a significant and irritating eyesore to those who do not like the sight of too many Muslims around. 

This is what BNP supporters bitterly complain about, but when middle class people won't send their children to these schools, it is not called racism, is it?

Toby is of course one of those people who pretend they don't "get" what BNP supporters are complaining about.  If that school were just as it is but white majority, would he mind quite so much?  I rather think not as its GCSE results are not really that bad, are they?  Though perhaps sending his children there would be blow to white racial pride. 

It may be that Toby is a hypocritical little creep after all, and is trying to move heaven and earth so that his 4 children don't have to go to that school where the best-performing children are brown-skinned children who are not Christians.  

This year 14 of the pupils in Acton High School got more than 10 A* GCSEs.

Only 3 of them have Christian names.

Only 1 of them is "fully" white.

No BNP supporter would have difficulty understanding his objections, but he will of course have no truck with the lower classes who cannot pretend they understand the first thing about Latin or grammar and who wouldn't recognise a grammar school even if one decided to go walkies and bump into them.  

To help yourself, help others, Toby.  Speak the truth and mention race, articulating precisely what it is that makes you not want to send your children there.  Hiding behind the absence of Latin and Greek is just a convenient shroud, is it not?

Sunday, 3 October 2010

A definition of the National Interest , the Nation and Nationalism

The only thing that should matter for those who call themselves nationalists is whether something is for or against the national interest.

My definition of the national interest is the long term good of the nation

The nation consists of different groups within which there are competing interests to be wisely and fairly balanced.

It is a matter of practical politics as to whom one includes and excludes from being a member of that nation.  

Ethno-nationalism is a contradiction in terms for it is, as far as I can see, but tribalism and racial preference.  It is not working in Israel, the caste system (also based on birth origins) in India is socially divisive and pernicious, and apartheid did not work in South Africa.  The writing is therefore on the wall for these morally bankrupt ideologies who are only promoted by those who are "well born".  

Britain is still a white majority country and so whatever benefits the majority of white people could be said to be in the National Interest.

In my view, the policies that would most benefit the nation would be policies crafted to encourage the lower middle classes, ie those who aspire and those with a work ethic.  This would include the small independent businessmen, the man in the white van, the Asian owner of your local corner shop.  Policies that favour trade unions and big business are therefore against the national interest.  

This would mean a meritocratic educational system that is keen for excellence to flourish  rather than one that has an ideological imperative to impose equality of failure while hiding the failure of education in this country.  This would mean selective education, the end of mixed ability teaching, and the rigorous implementation of streaming according to ability.  

This will make the Liberal Left gnash their teeth, rend their garments and tear their hair, but we need to tell them in no uncertain terms where to go and which of their orifices they can stuff their toxic ideology up. 

The way forward is reasonably clear. To me anyway. 

Friday, 1 October 2010

Commando-style raids on UK, France and Germany ordered by Bin Laden

It wouldn't be too hard to launch a commando style shoot-out in a shopping centre, I would have thought, especially with Xmas coming up. It would completely destroy tourism and shopping in the UK. Somebody tell me again why the fuck we are in Afghanistan pissing these people off who understandably don't want foreign soldiers in their country shooting at their people either? 

Bin Laden said it 9/11 was about Israel.,2933,137095,00.html 

So why THE FUCK are we dying for Israel? What has that misbegotten shithole of a country ever done for Britain? Why are British gentiles dying for Zionism?  Are they STOOOPID or something?  How many Jews or Zionists in the Armed Forces?  Are the dead and limbless not overwhelmingly gentile?  Answers on a postcard, please.