Monday, 26 December 2011

Koran Book Club

If I had loadsa money I would have a Claire Khaw Koran Essay Prize as substantial as the Woolfson Prize (£250,000 -

The prize would go to an Islamophobe (and s/he must be a practising Islamophobe and recognised as such by Islamophobes - eg Douglas Murray, Andrew Gilligan) who writes convincingly and truthfully about what they like about the Koran and how it could be a force for good if its guidance were adopted by their government.

Koran Book Club

Mein Kampf Book Club

If I had loadsa money I would have a Claire Khaw Mein Kampf Essay Prize as substantial as the Woolfson Prize (£250,000

The prize would go to the Jew (and s/he must be a practising Jew and recognised as such Jews - perhaps a Rabbi or even better the Lord Chief Rabbi) who writes the best essay giving good persuasive moral reasons why Jews should read Mein Kampf.  

Mein Kampf Book Club

Saturday, 24 December 2011

Jews denounce British bookseller for promoting a book they dislike by the world's most infamous antisemite

People used to fulminate about The Clever Jew.   

But perhaps these days even the Clever Jew has been dumbed down by the culture of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.  

If they were really clever, they would have ignored Waterstone's recommendation of Mein Kampf.

If they were really clever, they would  have realised that antisemitism is not that far off the surface.

If they were really clever, they would have known that by drawing attention to the availability of Mein Kampf in Waterstone's they would send all sorts of people scurrying to buy a copy.   

If they were Clever Jews, they would know that telling gentiles not to read unflattering descriptions of Jews is only likely to encourage them to buy a book from a book shop that stocks unflattering descriptions of Jews.   

And that is why Clever Jews are not so clever after all, and we should not fear them the way some antisemitic people do.  They too are getting stupider and are also contaminated by liberalism and its hysteria and its imbecilities.  

We shouldn't worry about how clever Jews are, but how stupid we all are.   

Why shouldn't Waterstone's sell Mein Kampf?  If they sell it, why shouldn't they promote it?  It is an important and interesting book, and a book which I for my part thoroughly enjoyed as anyone interested in European history would enjoy.  If you read it, you would know that Hitler cared deeply about the poor and a lot of what he says remains chillingly relevant to our times.  

If we think that Hitler really meant liberals when he complains about Jews, it would make it a more interesting read, and we can all fantasise about sending them as slaves to Madagascar (unless they renounce liberalism) when I am in power.   

Everyone who wants to understand antisemitism, liberalism and nationalism should read it, and I would have thought Jews especially should read it, if only to be told how annoying gentiles find them and why.  

If you would like to join the Mein Kampf Book Club, you can find it at

Hurt by Johnny Cash

This song is America.

What is America addicted to?

All the seven deadly sins.

Friday, 23 December 2011

The Perfect Present this Xmas for anyone who wants to read Mein Kampf

Waterstone’s issued an apology after several people spotted the anti-Semitic tome at a store in Huddersfield in West Yorkshire with a sales sticker saying the book is “the perfect present” and “essential gift for anyone seeking to understand one of history’s most despicable figures. A shocking read and vital warning for future generations.”

AVOID reading the disgusting translation by Ralph Mannheim with an introduction by Donald Cameron Watt.  It is virtually unreadable and hysterically biased.

I like to think the sales of Mein Kampf at Waterstones will have received a rocket up its bottom since that customer complaint has been reported in the national media.

I think Waterstones should have swastika flags on all their UK shops 

with actors up and down the nation hired to play Hitler who will sign copies of Mein Kampf encouraging British schoolchildren in the children's section every hour to read more and study hard so that British schoolchildren of all races in Britain will excel over the peoples of other nations.  He will pat the Jewish, Christian and Muslim children on the head and as well as black, Hindu, Sikh and Oriental ones, and be photographed with a rainbow race of British schoolchildren, smiling benignly at one and all ....

That would be my Xmas thought-present to all my Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends in aid of world peace and mutual forgiveness, for all atrocities past and present, real and imagined, denied and acknowledged .... 

Hitler's ideas make perfect sense if we as a nation were treated as one people and behaved as if we were one people, irrespective of our race. He was already acknowledging that the Germans themselves were a terribly mongrelised people with brunette Germans and blonde Germans.  If we treated the liberals as if they were Jews until they recanted, then I think things would be sorted out pdq with not many people being too much upset or inconvenienced or shipped off to Madagascar or wars started, or any more wars than those started by the liberals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya ...

Ein Volk, ein Reich, eine Partei!

How lucky the Germans must have felt at the time - however briefly - to genuinely love their leader, unlike the rest of Europe!  It was a passionate an intense love affair that ended in disaster, which knocked the socks off the participants and those around them .... The Germans were like a wife of a dull, hypocritical, cowardly and effeminate man who suddenly found herself being wooed by a practised seducer with thrilling noble ideas.   The outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Happy Xmas to all my friends and enemies, and especially to Tom of Waterstone's in Huddersfield.

Mein Kampf Book Club

Thursday, 22 December 2011

On racial superiority 14/88

The essence of racial supremacy is not going on about it. It is already ASSUMED. If you have to go on about it, you are already fucked.

A man who is always telling others what a gentleman he is can't possibly be one.

A lady can be a woman who appears ladylike or has high standars of chastity.  The moment she refers to her high standards of chastity she will immediately make her listener imagine her in a compromising position.

Aristocrats find it painfully embarrassing to be with vulgar people. It is vulgar to clamorously claim superiority over other races. When you really are the race who is currently master of the universe, no one questions you. When you have to assert it, you have already lost it.

It is probably the difference between a multi-millionaire who never discusses money and a social climber who is always trying to find out how much everyone earns and telling everyone how much he earns.

Or a celebrity being outraged at being treated badly in a restaurant.

To say to the rude and incompetent waiter "Don't you know who I am?" would be quite counter- productive, because the answer is already NO, which would leave one open to further humiliation.

I think it is time to shut up about racial superiority and think about how to be gentleman and ladies.  It is when other races believe your race to be mostly gentlemen and ladies that you can claim and assert racial superiority.  When other races already know you are mostly sluts and bastards they will assuredly treat you like niggers when you are skint.

Sadly, the white people who wish to assert racial supremacy tend to be the less educated and from the lower classes - precisely the sort who are not ladies and gentlemen.

A decent civic nationalist movement should therefore attract the support of people with a bit of money, but the small-minded and the insecure nationalist leadership that clings to its core supporters for dear life like a timid child to its mother's apron strings could never reach the critical mass required for any change to happen. After all, who would want to vote for an insecure child who clings to its lower class supporters for dear electoral life and wishes to be identified with those people ad infinitum? Sadly, such a leadership reinforces a sense of racial inferiority and despair, too scared to even tell its own members that the reason why white working class people are mostly scared, skint and stupid and rejected in employment by employers seeking unskilled labour these days is because they are mostly low paid sluts and bastards with low standards of education and behaviour who are abused and exploited by their leadership, and who have nowhere to go but the English Democrats if they are expelled for criticising the leader.

How can a race of skint, scared and stupid sluts and bastards possibly assert racial superiority?

They can't and they won't.

I feel deeply sorry for them and want to help them, but know they will not let go of their racial pride by supporting me.  If I were white and male they would go for me all right, but I am female and foreign, so that's me out.

"God does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts."

The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat

Someone likes me!

"I, for one, am grateful to you Claire for giving voice to what so many feel, but are reluctant to state given the creeping totalitarianism of the liberal state. It is unfortunately true that there are still many who shroud their moral degeneracy in the Union flag."

I think this friend who wishes to remain anonymous is referring to the slut and bastard BNP.   

How to bring about World Peace with a TV show

Why doesn't Israel have its own version of BIG BROTHER and stuff their Big Brother House full of Jews (secular and religious) as well as Christians and Palestinians?

The WHOLE WORLD would be watching and while they are watching they would not be fighting ....

I wonder when I will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, it appears that they do already have this and it has not yet brought about world peace.

Why can't we have Anjem Choudary with Nick Griffin, Suzanne Moore, Eddy Butler, Emma West and me?

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Nick Griffin now supports ANIMAL WELFARE rather than FREE SPEECH, just like a mainstream politician

"Mr. Griffin recently sent a letter to the large number of constituents who contacted him to ask for his help in persuading the government of the Ukraine to step in and prevent the slaughter of stray dogs," I was told.

Really?  I can hardly believe that there are enough BNP supporters who would write to the Chairman and ask him to make representations to the government of Ukraine about its treatment of stray dogs.

The leader of the BNP addresses its members:

I´m writing to you personally in case you haven´t already heard the good news. The Ukrainian Minister of the Environment has announced that the law is to be changed and that the four largest cities in the country are stopping the slaughter of stray dogs immediately. The Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, has instructed the Ministry of Interior to use all possible legal mechanisms for the prevention of cruelty to animals and punishment of persons involved in such sick crimes.

Also great news is that Ukraine´s Prime Minister has told us that a national construction programme has been ordered to provide major cities with modern shelters for dogs. The whole programme to improve Ukraine´s treatment of animals is to be overseen by Naturewatch, who are to be commended for running such an effective campaign.

I also drew attention to the problem, and the extent of concern about it in Britain, with members of the Ukrainian government during a personal meeting I had with them in Brussels early last month. I did so from both a purely animal welfare point of view and also from the angle that the ill-treatment of animals in Ukraine was a political problem for the government which could be exploited by external forces pushing for a change of regime and international policy direction.
I am pleased to be able to tell you that the Ministers with whom I spoke clearly got the message on both points, not least because I was genuinely able to tell them that I had received more letters and emails on this issue than on any other in my first two and a half years in Parliament. They were amazed by the huge bundle of emails I had! So it was the combined weight of lobbying from people like you that really made the difference.

In closing, then, many thanks for making the effort on behalf of stray dogs in Ukraine - it paid off! Can I now ask you to do something further? I know that fish aren´t anything like as appealing as dogs, but the EU´s fishing policy is a long-standing disaster and an environmental catastrophe as well as having destroyed one of Britain´s most important traditional industries. Fortunately there is a tremendously effective lobbying campaign for effective reform being run by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall at 

If you could find the time to take a look and sign the petition you´ll find there, I believe that your help could make all the difference in another important issue in terms of our relationship with the other living things with which we share this wonderful world.

With best wishes and thanks for your activism

Nick Griffin MEP

I wonder if the dumbed-down supporters of the BNP realise that Nick Griffin takes the animal welfare more seriously than the fact that white race is degenerate because of its widespread tolerance of widespread illegitimacy by emasculated and effeminate white men are now too afraid of criticising SLUT SINGLE MUMS who are mostly bad mothers, ie the breeders of the next generation of depraved criminals and unemployable NEETs.

The white race is crap because they were mostly badly brought up.

They were badly brought up because working mothers tend not to bring up their children well.

If the next generation is useless the next one on will be even more useless.

Whoever advises him on policy and PR should be sacked and never given a job in PR again.

What on earth does he think he is doing?   What does his PR person think he is doing?  I can only imagine that he is now so isolated that he no longer knows what he is doing and fondly imagines that supporting animal welfare when he is not complaining about foreigners and Muslims will win him enough extra votes to make the exercise worth while.

Actually, he doesn't even have to win any votes.  All he has to do is get the gullible to give him money or become activists only to be expelled the moment they show any sign of being leadership material or questioning his decisions.  

The BNP's non-policy on fox-hunting is the perfect example of the New English Tradition of Hypocrisy and Cowardice, of trying to get in on a bit of the action but wanting to suffer none of the inconvenience.

Despite backing the CA's demonstration, the BNP claims that it does not have an official position on hunting. However, the far-right party also states that it does not believe that central government should "interfere with centuries-old traditions".

If the BNP cared about English traditions and liberty it would unhesitatingly support fox-hunting.  However, because its members are mostly lower class sluts and bastard toff-hating townies who are sentimental about foxy-loxy, it knows it cannot  bring itself to support this particular English tradition.

I, on the other hand, was once the guest of the Master of Foxhounds one weekend.

If I were leader of the BNP the way would be quite clear.   I would dump the BNP slut and bastard "core supporter" in favour of the BNP Khaw supporter and take the party to previously unimagined heights.  Sadly, it is not to be, because its leadership likes playing safe and nationalists are too cowed, racist and apathetic to support me.

Sunday, 18 December 2011

A few hours with the Koranists

Nadia Choudhury, Jacqueline DeVeaux, Yasin Ali Bhatti, Farouk Peru

I thought it was going to be quite dull.  I was one of the people supposed to be speaking but was pulled because there was not enough time.

My speech would have been along these lines.


What is this first step?

The Koran is generally acknowledged to be a great work of literature, even by non-Muslims.

It is also said to be the direct word of God.

If that is so, it should be regarded as a contract between God and Man.

It promises to be a warning and a guide for mankind and warrants that its guidance will keep man peaceful and at peace with himself, but only if its directions are followed.

While it is said to be a religion of peace, it is also a religion of war – a war against evil and oppression, idolatry and irrationality, intoxication and sexual licence.  

This being so, it would benefit law students to study such a divine contract, whether or not they are Muslim as it would usefully add to their legal knowledge and drafting skills.

Even if Koranic knowledge were acquired reluctantly, just for the utilitarian purpose of passing a law exam and getting a law degree, it is very likely that the law student who goes on to becomes a legal practitioner will apply Koranic principles either consciously or unconsciously when interpreting and applying the law.

An example of this is seen in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson which promoted the Christian principle of love thy neighbour.  The Koran has a similar principle too.

YUSUFALI: Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;-
PICKTHAL: And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful,
SHAKIR: And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful;

There will doubtless be skeptics and Islamophobes who will have to be persuaded of the wisdom of adopting such a course, which they will find objectionable and controversial.

To counter them, simply form a Koran Book Club and offer generous prizes to non-Muslims only, preferably intellectuals who are known Islamohobes eg Douglas Murray, to write essays that confirm what has been said above.

The Caliphate should be fully mature in about two decades, I predict.    

Koranism is basically rejecting any Hadith that contradicts the Koran.  The problem for Muslims that they have over the centuries preferred the corrupt practice of asking scholars what they think the Koran says because they have been told that the Koran is too difficult for them to understand and interpret or are too lazy or illiterate to read it.   The scholars assume the role of experts who cannot be questioned or contradicted.

An example would be how the penalty for apostasy.  The Koran quite clearly says that it is something for God to deal with, while the Hadiths says the penalty is death.   

The Koran does not mention any punishment that involves stoning adulterers to death, but the Hadith prefers the harsher Old Testament ways of doing things.   

Of course, when you question these Muslims, they will say such practices have been sanctified by tradition and who is anyone to question their traditions, which would be heresy!

The trouble is that much of what non-Muslims find objectionable about Islam do not come from the Koran at all, but the Hadith.   The Koran is of course the primary source of the Word of God, while the Hadith is just stories (of varying reliability) of what the prophet said and did.   The Koran does not tell us to hero-worship Muhammad, but commends itself as a warning and guide to man.  

But it is easier to hero-worship someone than to practice his teachings.  The Buddha himself had the same problem.

Koranism, for me, is back to basics.   Indeed, I would prefer such a practice to be called Islamic fundamentalism rather than the beard and burqa stoning to death kind of fundamentalism.  As far as I am   concerned, the Koran is tightly-drafted enough to be interpreted literally without doing injustice to humanity and reason.   

I was therefore a little taken aback to be told that homosexuality is not a sin by Farouk Peru, and someone else who took exception to my insistence that no other interpretation could be made of those verses other than that the Koran disapproved of homosexuality and calls for its punishment.  (I say this as someone who is atheist, has no desire to punish homosexuals if they are not exhibitionist and recruiting, but who cannot escape the plain ordinary meaning of the words of those verses.  If Farouk and the others wish to put their case that claims homosexuality is not considered a sin, then they should make it clearly and coherently.)

What I regard as the intellectual dishonesty of those trying to claim the opposite (either because they are homosexual themselves, or because they want to sell Islam to the current liberal political establishment in a cultural environment that worships sexual licence with indecent fanaticism) did not fill me with confidence for the Koranist movement, and I fear it will fall into the liberal practice of fudging and mudging issues, in rather the same way that the Orthodox Jews have been n interpreting the harsher Old Testament verses right of existence.

I find I am now in the position of being denounced by two Orthodox Jews for my criticism of SSMs, when I am sure in a different age they would have approved of my stance, so corrupted are they too by the unquestioning practice of sexual liberation in the West.  Nowadays, you even have Orthodox Jewish rabbis marrying same sex couples.

"O tempora!  O mores!",  as they used to say in Ancient Rome.

Not that the Chinese are not also now on their way to racial degeneracy with their one-child policy and their demographic time bomb ticking away.   "Those two are comrades" would be how the modern Chinese now refer to same-sex couples.

Below are the relevant verses commonly supposed to concern the punishment for homosexual acts

YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. 
PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation). 
SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. 
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful. 
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.  

YUSUFALI: "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." 
PICKTHAL: Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. SHAKIR: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. 

I thought this an excellent way of disapproving of homosexuality without punishing them too harshly and sometimes not at all.   Farouk however insisted that he did not think these verses signified that homosexuality is a sin.

I then asked what did these verses mean then if they did not mean what most people think it means?

There was a murmur of agreement from the men's side of the room, for we had all subconsciously segregated ourselves as we took our seats.

I am afraid I did not understand his response at all and cannot even begin to report what I thought he said.

There was some discussion about the wife-beating verse, which I feel I have already dealt with at

We were then told that we would have to agree to disagree and it doesn't matter too much what we think because we can't do anything about it anyway as individuals.

But don't they want a Caliphate?  What they said sounded frankly rather feeble and unfocused, to just read  it and discuss it and then "agree to disagree"!  Muslims are surely more than members of a book club?

It all seemed terribly wishy-washy to me.

I really would not have a problem about a Caliphate, provided the Koran was interpreted in a libertarian civic national socialist way that I would approve of, though of course I know there is no guarantee of that.

After the talk a man also ventured to put it to me that homosexuality was not a sin, according to his interpretation.  I have absolutely no desire to seek out gay people to punish them in any way, but was merely pointing out that the Koran seems to be saying quite clearly that homosexuality is a sin simply because it has prescribed punishments for it.   The burden of proof is quite high (lesbians to be convicted had to have four witnesses witnessing their lewd act with each other) and Muslims are forbidden to spy on each other so any evidence adduced through spying, phone hacking etc would be deemed inadmissible.  The idea is therefore that of tolerance, but never equality, which seems fair enough to me.   Therefore a Muslim would repeal the Civil Partnership Act without hesitation and there can be no question of allowing civil partnership ceremonies to take place in a church or a mosque under a nation guided by Koranic principles.   They could however cohabit with each other and be left in peace if they are discreet and don't frighten the horses.

If homosexuality is tolerated it will be flaunted.  When homosexuality is tolerated, so will widespread female promiscuity until, like in Britain, more than half the babies born now are the bastards of sluts who will be mostly bad mothers, whereupon the savagery, depravity, degeneracy and illegitimacy of the people will reach critical mass, triggering the decline and fall of one's civilisation.  That is probably why most cultures have always had a horror of bastardy and promiscuous women while in Britain and the West generally this instinctive fear and disgust has been virtually bred out of people, unless they have the protection of a faith they take seriously enough to obey.  When all around us is sexual licence, we are near the Sodom & Gomorrah stage of our civilisation, and will probably suffer a similar fate soon enough.

Think of homosexuality as the equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine.  It is the barometer of our societal and civilisation health.   On purely Kantian terms of universalisability, homosexuality is wrong, because, if all us were gay, the human race would die out, which would be a Bad Thing as far as we are all concerned.

He had some odd take on it that I cannot now remember because it was so convoluted.   It may not be wrong of me to say he was probably of the gay persuasion.

I then pointed out that whoever took over, if they did take over, would interpret the Koran in just the way they would wish, because they would presumably be in a position to do so once they have taken over.


"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

Saturday, 17 December 2011

Asinine twitter debate between two lefties in the Church and the Tory Party

giles_fraser Giles Fraser
Dinner with @Phillip_Blond discussing worst criminals in English history. We agree. 1. Henry viii 2. Cromwell. Who is number 3?

Phillip_Blond Phillip Blond
@giles_fraser we have agreed the third worst criminal in english history who has done the most damage is John Stuart Mill

Phillip_Blond Phillip Blond
@giles_fraser Giles you received much Twitter protest from our designation of JS Mill as the third most damaging figure in English history?

giles_fraser Giles Fraser
@Phillip_Blond Of course. Most wanted Mrs Thatcher - who is JSM's love child, after all.

Phillip_Blond Phillip Blond
@giles_fraser yes Mill fathered all that was wrong in Thatcher but sired none of her good qualities and contributed nothing to her vision

giles_fraser Giles Fraser
@Phillip_Blond What our three villains have in common is their hostility to community and traditional patterns of social togetherness.

1party4all Claire Khaw
What would lefties know about "community and traditional patterns of social togetherness"?? #Cant and crap. @giles_fraser & @Philip_Blond

The Liberal Left, in case you hadn't noticed, have been directing all their efforts to desecrating the institutions of Marriage and Family, the very "community and traditional patterns of social togetherness" they so cantingly and cuntingly prate about.   

I really think Cameron could do with a Downing Street adviser like me.  To show he is drawing a line under the failures of the past he should publicly dissociate himself from the likes of Philip Blond, who makes it his business to say nothing very much, but is able to trick stupid gullible desperate Tory-liberals into believing he is wise and important when it is another huge heap of platitudes and fetid flaccidity.   

I am after all a one-woman think tank and I ain't no effete little lefty.   

Even if he doesn't think he is quite ready to have me as an adviser he should just sack Philip "Big Government Shite Society" Blond, just for the fun of seeing the expression on his face.   

It is time that Tories worked towards ideologically purity, and it should not just be someone talking leftist crap in a middle class accent.   

It would be also quite popular if  Cameron proposed disestablishing the Church to give the Commie Archbishop of Cant a nice little Xmas surprise.

Friday, 16 December 2011

Why I have won the argument on disability on grounds of Kant's principle of UNIVERSALISABILITY

If every woman did what my school friend did the human race would die out.

So game, set and match to me.

Too bad the BNP aren't familiar with these concepts and did not see fit to give me the opportunity to explain it to them.

Imagine, if I had been allowed to explain this to the liberal media and gave the impression that the dunces and dunderheads of the BNP had heard of Kant's principle of universalisability.   Wouldn't that bring the party into repute?

Wouldn't it have been glorious to beard the liberal lion in its lair?

But the BNP has made it a principle of practice to emulate the liberals in all their cowardice and hypocrisy and that is why they will continue to falter and fail, until and unless they make me Press Officer.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Feltham and Heston By Election 2011,_2011

A photo that breaks all the rules of good presentation

I couldn't believe how boring the UKIP candidate's website was.  Talk about LOCAL ISSUES OVERKILL making UKIP sound like it is only about commuter issues.   Methinks UKIP need a proper Press Officer, ie me.
What to do if you want Claire Khaw to be in UKIP
18 Reasons why UKIP should admit me

In terms of campaign literature alone the one who deserves to do better is clearly the BNP candidate whose slick and professional leaflet can be found at

Dave Furness in a messianic gesture of openness and triumph.  

I have met Dave on a few occasions and find him to be clever and calm.  He certainly deserves to do better than the UKIP candidate with his unbelievably inept campaign.

The Khaw Consultancy - advisory service to prevent the exploitation of party members and activists by their parties

I am thinking of starting a consultancy that advises politicians and activists who feel they are getting a bad deal from their party.

For the more plebeian political activist, they should think of me in terms of being their shop steward.

Mainstream or fringe, "Left" or "Right", gay or straight, atheist or monotheist - the Khaw Consultancy is an equal opportunities advisory service.

Any self-respecting MP would of course support Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill.

If you actually dare not, you should as yourself WHY.  

If that Bill ever became law, what would happen is that the powers that be would ask for a one-party state in return, but it would be no bad thing as long as your rights are protected from the leader and his cronies, and this could be done by defining the rights of a party member in the party constitution and having a supra-party body to see that no one in the party abuses his powers.

It is really is that simple, but I would be very happy to answer any questions.

This is another Simple, Radical, Rational and Revolutionary Idea by Claire Khaw.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

The REAL reason why the BNP are despised and feared, other than for being racist

My image of the typical BNP member

And then they wonder why people hate them.  People prefer not to be reminded that there are people like that around. White people are ashamed of the BNP specimens of the white race.

Using carrier bags to carry your belongings around is a sign of being LOWER CLASS and no one wants to vote for a party that is incorrigibly and unashamedly LOWER CLASS.

The Labour Party had that problem too until Peter Mandelson sorted them out.

Whether they like it or not, many non-whites now hold British citizenship. Probably there are a few people who would like to forcibly repatriate non-white British citizens. Indeed, many of them remain unwise enough to say so, and that is why they will never ever get anywhere.

Their hatred and helplessness are obvious. Why does no one love the white lower classes? Why do so many white people hate the party that claims to promote the interests of the white race?

Will they one day stop to ask themselves such questions instead of asserting themselves only through whingeing and saying loudly and repeatedly that they want to turn back time and return Britain to its racial composition as it was, before the 1948 British Nationality Act?

David Irving once famously told the Jews to ask themselves why they are hated.    I would recommend that members of the BNP too should  investigate the reasons - apart from their reputation of being a party of racists and the liberal bias in the media - why they are so hated.

It is a shame so many nationalists regard political integrity as the right to say what you want, when what you want to say does not in any way assist the cause.  Well, that's ethno-nationalism for you.

Lots of BNP people who throw their toys out of their pram join parties that are even more useless than the BNP, but we have to understand that these people are not made for politics, and have not had our education and our opportunities.  They only know that something is wrong and refuse to shut up about it.

Not being very bright they can only identify the symptoms, but remain incapable of addressing the causes of the British malaise.

In many ways the white working classes are their own worst enemy. But then not many people are made for politics, certainly not the white lower classes, who may recognise aristocratic virtue on the rare occasions they see it displayed in this country, but are incapable of practising it in their dealings with one another.

Indeed, it is probably true to say that aristocratic virtue no longer exists even amongst the aristocracy, so degenerate are the British these days most cannot list them off the top of their head, not even the pieces of Etonian shit like Cameron.

Bushidō includes compassion for those of lower station, and for the preservation of one's name.

There was a BNP Xmas Social on Friday which I made a point of showing up at, since two of their number actually took the trouble to forward the SMS invitation which declared that ALL would be welcome.

This was of course NOT the case.

If those two had not forwarded me the SMS I would not have thought of attending and would have lacked the information to do so.

And so I determined to turn up, whether I would be welcome or not, to make a point.

What was that point?

That all the BNP are made up of cowards and hypocrites who say something and then do the opposite, who do not have this thing called FOLLOW THROUGH or principle or a developed sense of honour.

But what should one expect of the lower classes anyway?

Such a party, made up of lower class whites who are mostly illegitimate, uneducated, gullible and only too ready to blame the foreigner rather than their own corrupt institutions and lack of moral virtue, led by a leader who exploits them and who is despised but obeyed reluctantly even as he flouts their party constitution which they are too thick to read and in any case are not expected to have access to, can have no future. Indeed, if you wanted a copy of the party constitution you would have to apply for it and pay for it, and the Chairman would immediately be alerted that you will probably be making trouble for him, and will then expel you, which means you will be finished in nationalism, like Eddy Butler is.

One of the organisers was given a reprimand for inviting me to their London Social in September though he had not infringed any of the rules of the party constitution.   There was a rumour that a letter had been circulated to the effect that any organiser that admitted me to a BNP meeting would be expelled, but no one actually had a copy of this letter.  It is true that I had threatened on Facebook to crash their party and thereby get them all expelled and it is true that I indeed attempted to carry out my threat.

The best way of doing this, I thought, would be a photograph of the organisers at their Xmas party, which would be displayed on this blog and on Facebook.   It seemed obvious to me that the party would not be insane enough to expel all of them at the behest of some northern organiser (who has taken exception to my views on (1) what I would do to any severely disabled baby (as disabled as Riven Vincent's Celyn who is blind, cannot lift her head or move any of her limbs) I might have and/or (2)  the illegitimate and/or (3) the mothers of illegitimate offspring) who had threatened to resign if he ever became aware that I had attended any BNP event.  It should be noted that there is nothing in the party constitution prohibiting individual organisers from inviting whom they liked.

Rules Governing Official Meetings of a Branch or Group
19 No rigid rules shall govern the holding or conduct of Official Meetings or Executive Meetings of a British Homeland Branch or Group save as are set out in this Annex 4 or otherwise provided for in the constitution of such Branch or Group.
23 Any Official Meeting of a Branch or Group may be open or closed to guests as the Branch Organiser or Group Organiser shall determine on the occasion each such Official Meeting shall be called.   

For the Organisers to be expelled for admitting me, I would have to be PROSCRIBED by the party, and this has not been done.

5 The Chairman may proscribe individuals, organisations or publications which are so hostile to our Party, or whose views and/or behaviour are so likely to bring discredit upon our Party, that Members should have no contact with them.
6 Such a hostile individual, publications or group is thenceforth regarded as a rotten apple and proscription is the means by which they are prevented from contaminating others. Not only are the proscribed barred from attending party functions and activities, but Members are barred from attending events organised by them and barred from sharing platforms with them, distributing or advertising literature and electronic media produced by or in support of them, and promoting events at which they are known or – in the opinion of our Party leadership – likely to be attending.
7 Proscriptions shall come into effect on publication in the National
members' bulletin and remain in force until further notice. A full list appears on our Party's website."

This would have given the London Organisers the opportunity of asserting their independence over the Northern Organiser in question who threatened to resign if I attended the London Xmas Party, but they thought they would play safe instead, doubtless because they did not think that I was "worth it".

The principle at stake was not about whether the Organisers wanted Claire Khaw at their Xmas Party but was of course everything to do with the principle of the RULE OF LAW.  Without the rule of law, we would all be subject to the arbitrary whims and fancies of the autocrat who dictates to us, but we don't expect such principles to move the lower classes, who just do not get the idea of having principles.  Indeed, no ex-grammar schoolboy in the BNP and outside have ever been able to explain principle to me properly, clever though these grammar schoolboys are supposed to be. To them, all principles are hostages to fortune, and inconvenient baggage.   Why, a prominent ex-BNP member said that there is NO POINT in having principles.   This is not a concept easily grasped by lower class whites who in any case expect to submit to the arbitrary fancies of whoever is more powerful than they are, eg whoever their leader wishes to favour (in this case one miserable Northern Organiser over all London Organisers).  It should be noted that such abstract concepts as principle are alien to the thinking of both women and the lower classes.  The BNP, being a party consisting mostly of lower class men, think and behave like women - vacillating and dishonourable, ready to use the excuses their sex and their class entitles them to use.   It can be seen that they are clearly more prepared to have their constitutional  rights infringed rather than assert their constitutional rights for fear of receiving a reprimand or being expelled.  (I am not really one of them after all.  Indeed, even if I were white they would still have turned me away, because they are congenitally unable to grasp the principle of principle.)   It was therefore expedient to turn me away, and I perfectly understand.

The Rule of Law would require that I be formally proscribed to be banned from all BNP meetings, but I was not.  They still banned me anyway.

Is this cricket?  I doubt if most of them even use this term now anyway or even know what it means.

Indeed, the National Organiser Clive Jefferson was asked if I had indeed been proscribed, to which there was a predictable silence so that London Organisers would be left in a position of uncertainty, without the need to commit himself one way or another to avoid giving any evidence of the unconstitutional nature of that prohibition.   Expedient, but dishonourable.

Doubtless many reading this would be wondering what I am on about, talking about principles and honour, but that is of course precisely the problem with the degenerate, depraved and dishonourable British.  They no longer even pretend to be honourable, or obey, or even know their own rules.

This is how the BNP deal with their own comrades, dear reader.  Imagine how they would treat you - whatever your race -  if they ever got into a position of power.  

It would clearly have been expedient for me not to have attempted to gate crash their party, but then I am not like them, for I am making a point of  not lurching down the blind alley of expediency and being the servant of whoever shouts most loudly at me.

I of course forgive them completely, for I have no right to expect lower class whites to know anything about the 12 Tables of Rome or see how it might just apply to them.  At least the plebs in Rome knew to demand that the laws of Rome be put in a prominent place where they could see them and could refer to them easily, unlike the vassals of the BNP fiefdom operated by their feudal lord.

And even if you tell them about it, they would only shrug their plebeian shoulders.  None of them would even think of demanding to see a copy of their party constitution as a matter of right.  (Most members of the Conservative Party have never read their own party constitution.  If they do, they will find it a bit of a shocker too.  At least you can read the BNP constitution online.) contains the ridiculous restrictions about who may or may not download a copy of the BNP constitution.  Members of the BNP are of course in a legal relationship with the BNP and the party constitution contains the terms of that contract.  (I actually took the party at is word and asked for a copy, long before I was even suspended.  Predictably, I received no response whatsoever to my request.)  It is clearly the intention of the BNP leader to see to it that members and activists do not get to see how unfair the terms of that contract are until it is too late.

Constitution of the British National Party
Version 12.3 of the British National Party’s constitution can be downloaded at the link below.

No part of this, the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time may be downloaded, copied, reproduced, republished, posted, transmitted, stored, sold or distributed without the prior written permission of N. Griffin MEP for and on behalf of the publisher, except that each Individual Member of the British National Party shall have a non exclusive non transferable licence to download one copy of the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time from on any single computer and print out parts or one whole copy of the same for his or her personal, non-commercial, home use and for uses connected with his or her membership as an Individual Member of the British National Party and only provided that all copyright and proprietary notices are kept intact.

Any person other than an Individual Member of the British National Party who wishes to be granted a non exclusive and non transferable licence to download or otherwise acquire one or more copies of the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time on to one or more computers and to print out one or more copies of this, the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party, as amended from time to time may apply to N. Griffin MEP to purchase a licence to do so.

Details of the licences available and associated fees are obtainable upon request from P O Box 14, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0WE.

The BNP are of course a microcosm of the worst features (ie the illegitimacy, irrationality, depravity, hypocrisy, effeminacy, cowardice and degeneracy) of the white race.

But anyone who can fix the BNP can fix Britain, probably.

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

The rottenness at the core of British Nationalism

If you regard the BNP as a microcosm of British society, you will see that its strategy consists of:

  1. blaming the government
  2. blaming foreigners
  3. blaming Jews
  4. blaming Muslims
  5. chasing the female vote
  6. being tolerant of Slut Single Mums
  7. not taking the bull by the horns for fear of offending their core supporters ie the offspring of Slut Single Mums and the fathers of bastards

While the British are getting progressively stupider (pun intended) because they are fucking themselves to the racial death that is sluttery and bastardy and degeneracy, most voters are still not stupid enough to vote for a party whose supporters are made up largely of marginalised sluts and bastards.   

Since the leadership dare not offend its core supporters, it will never ever progress beyond being a party of lowlife marginalised white trash and welfare scum the rest of the country thinks it is.    

"Oh, I agree with most BNP policies, but I could never associate myself with such people or vote for their party!"

"God does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts" and what is in the heart of the BNP activist is his sense of entitlement.  

"I was here before the foreigners arrived and I am therefore entitled to be treated better than they are."  

But no one wants to hire you because British businesses think British employees are crap employees.  

So the next thing for the BNP supporter to say is "Let us be better employees," but they do not.   Notice, dear reader, how they do not.   

However, they might say, "I couldn't work for those shit wages because it is not worth my while to do so.  I would rather sit at home on benefits watching Jeremy Kyle on daytime TV."  

At this point we could put it to them that benefits are too high and see what they are going to say in response.  

They would probably say "Nah, we would like benefits to stay as high as they are and just spend the rest of our lives whingeing about the immigrants who come here to take the bread out of their mouths."

You would suppose that they would have a leader to tell them it is time to change their lazy slutty white trash ways, but then you would suppose wrong.  

Indeed, you would be expelled for telling the truth (as I was) that most of the BNP membership are bastards or the parents of them, and that is obviously a bad thing for the white race and that is why white people are getting stupider and weaker and more depraved and degenerate with every passing slut and bastard generation.

It seems strange to me that the BNP are deeply ignorant of all the rules of the racial health and hygiene, even though they claim to represent the interests of the white race.   

So now in Britain you have liberals who don't believe in free speech and political parties that are supposedly promoting the interests of the white race but who do not care about the increasing degeneracy of the white race and would expel anyone who points this out.

Curiouser and curiouser.   

Monday, 12 December 2011

36th New Right Meeting

I am just more or less transcribing my incomplete notes, some of which are direct quotes of what I thought I heard.

First Speaker
DR JAMES THRING - Gaddafi's Nationalist People's Republic

Gaddafi wanted everyone to be heard in Parliament.  Anyone can go and you can imagine that this would be difficult to handle.

King Idris, overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969 in a bloodless coup, was installed by the British and the French.  He was their puppet who agreed that the price of oil would be fixed at US$2 with no inflation.   Gaddafi wanted a better deal for the Libyans and got this when he took over.

He also challenged the democratic model.  He was aware that electing politicians was not always democratic, for they will not always do what they are expected to do.  They may wish to keep their promises to voters but are prevented by their party leaders, who may in turn be pressurised.

Parties who win power generally win power with only 30% of the vote in any case.

Parties are always in need of funding.

Thatcher was advised to privatise by Jewish advisers to raise cash so so the nation's infrastructure was sold off for a song to Jewish business interests.

The UN is a permanent dictatorship by 5 permanent members.

Article 27 states that parties to a dispute eg Israel forfeit their right to vote on it.  The Chinese are timid about pointing this out.

Dr Thring then addressed the 4 matters on which the average Westerner might hold against Gaddafi.

1.   Gaddafi supported the IRA.

The US supported Israel.  Lots and lots of money have been given to the Israelis.  To be fair to the IRA, they always warned the police before they blew anything up.

2.  Lockerbie

House of Lords judges have held that the evidence against Libya was unreliable.

It is revealing that the UK didn't want it appealed since the Scots let Al-Megrahi go rather than have another trial.

Mr Bollinger (whom I understood to be speaking on behalf of the manufacturers of the chip of the circuit board that caused the explosion) was not allowed to see the chip in question and was only shown a photograph of it.

He declared that the one shown to him was not one of his.  The one in question was hand-finished and rough at the edges, those of his manufacture were always machine-finished.

This little thing was surprisingly discovered amongst the wreckage.

The damage to the plane was caused by an implosion rather than an explosion.

10 miles south of Locker was Chapel Cross, a nuclear power station which would, as you expect have defences against an aerial attack. Could the Pan Am plane have been shot down by the  RAF in error?

Dr Thring also mentioned the DEA stings which have bombs in suitcases that are handed over to the target that would explode to disable him.

3.  Yvonne Fletcher

The bullet entered her back at 60-70 degrees.  The Libyan Embassy was not tall enough for  someone shooting from any window there to do this.  There is however a nearby security firm with a building near the Libyan Embassy.  The bullet that killed Yvonne Fletcher was the same as the ones that killed Libyan diplomats, the police were told.  The police apparently forgot about this.

4.   Gaddafi allowed the PLO to train on Libyan soil.

5.   Gaddafi was implicated in the disappearance of  a Lebanese Shia cleric Imam Moussa Sadr.

It should be noted that Gaddafi was critical of Al Qaeda, trained by the CIA.

are, Dr Thring, suggested, organisations that go around destabilising the governments of other countries so they could be invaded under the pretext of protecting the human rights of their people.  

Dr Thring describes himself as a planner and first met Gaddafi in 1985 and attended various international Mataba Conferences.

Lady Michelle

2nd Speaker
My Project with Gaddafi on the UN and the Jewish Republic

Lady Michelle described the 4 Classical Virtues: Balance, Harmony, Sense of Beauty, Temperance.  She extended the list with Natural Nationalism, a sense of justice, wisdom, scientific attitude, courage and empathy.

There is nothing about Truth in the Talmud.  The Jews are predatory, obsessed with racial superiority, vanity and greed.   They have the power of thraldom with their predatory imperialism.

"Any foreigner would loathe us," she said of the British and their dishonourable foreign policy.

Gaddafi embodied the metaphysical identity of the Libyans, she said.  If only the British had a similar leader, so that that the British can say that the kind of Britishness we respect is this kind of British.

She mentioned the people who refused to come to this meeting because they did not want to hear about Gaddafi and don't care about the Palestinians.

She said was opposed to racial supremacy but "we have to look at the economics of it".   "The world cannot function in a predatory way."

Supposing a fathers one child.  You may motivate that favoured child and cause sibling rivalry or low morale.

"Our predator's greatest gift is its plausibility" - its Swindlespeak and media hype.

"It is my absurd career in advertising that gives me the edge on them."

She then spoke of the Jewish Autonomous Republic of Birobidzhan, as big as Switzerland, that would accept Jews of Russia and any kind.  It has been in existence since 1928 and has been supported by American Jews too.   Its first language is Yiddish.  There are not many Jews there now as they have been have gone to Israel.   Many Jews have been seduced or forced to support Israel.

Vatican II was mentioned.  "The two covenants stand."  [I have no idea what she meant.]

Christianity and Islam are the dolphin religions.  Those religions have a sense of brotherhood.   The concept of brotherhood however is not present in Judaism, which she said is a "shark religion".

Gaddafi was insufficiently dictatorial.  In fact, he was a mere guide and didn't like posters of himself.  He said he wanted people to follow his teachings rather than heroworship him.

Lady Michelle said we need more witty, brilliant, authentic men like Gaddafi.

All US Presidential candidates have to be pro-Zionist.

She described her last meeting with Gaddafi as "bitter sweet" and was very proud to say that Gaddafi himself had said that he was proud of her.   The Libyans were proud of Gaddafi and their metaphysical identity, which he embodied.

"We need to be like soldiers."

"We want to enjoy genuine diversity [of our different races and our nations] rather than the Swindlespeak of diversity.

"The idea of international citizenship is absurd.  Nationalism fits us.  We need to trust our leaders to keep out our predator."

"We have a fantastic role model in Gadadfi."

"There is no nationalism in Israel."  [I am afraid I have no idea what Lady Michelle means.  Perhaps she meant that the ethno-nationalism of the Zionists is not really nationalism at all but a form of exclusive divisive tribalism?)

"The real role model is Gaddafi."

"We have to find like the Third Reich did: how high they can jump, their character, their environment and culture."

"It nearly conquered our predator."

[I apologise for the fragmentary nature of this account.  There will be a DVD of the talks recorded by Lady Renouf available at £5.]

Revisionist Xmas cards on sale at the meeting

3rd Speaker
MIKE NEWLAND: Are the Banks a Swindle?

Newland was trained as an accountant and was once BNP Treasurer.  Like me, he was expelled.

Adrian Davis introduces Mike Newland

His talk dealt with the following:

1.   Why is economics so difficult?
2.   Fractional Reserve Banking
3.   Boom and Bust

I am afraid I fell asleep.

I woke up hear him saying we will have 10 more years of zombie economy.

Adrian Davis introduces the orator Jonathan Bowden

4th Speaker

I had the distinct feeling that most people there had not heard of Mishima but I have read and still have in my possession THE LIFE AND DEATH OF YUKIO MISHIMA by Henry Scott Stokes

The humiliating defeat of Japan was internalised and the Japanese feminised.   There was little social anger towards the US, and Mishima felt that the Japanese had been mentally and morally invaded by the US.

The Japanese have manga comics through which they externalise rather than repress their transgressive urges.   Rapeman was mentioned, a superhero rather like Spiderman.  It is both sadistic and erotic, said Jonathan Boweden.

The samurai were a soldierly elite.  They were learned warriors, infused by Buddhism, aesthetic masculinity, with the values of the praetorian elite and the Spartans.  They were a priestly and warrior caste and expected to write a death poem before they committed ritual suicide in the form of a haiku that would contain themes of gentleness and forgiveness.  Their values were similar to those articulated by D H Lawrence and Nietzsche.

Mishima asked: "Why did the emperor have to become a human being?"

The Orator Jonathan Bowden in full flow

Mishima asked for the impossible, for he asked for the return of things as they were in Japan before their defeat in WW2.  Probably, he expected them to be rejected so he could then commit ritual suicide, to show his disgust with and dissociation from modern Japan, to make his point.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Wise open-minded non-racist nationalists have to choose me if they want change within their lifetimes

This is what the Liberal Left thinks of Nationalism and Nationalists.

Nationalists are basically marginalised white working class men who refuse to roll over and die. 

I actually do not expect the lower classes (let us not mince words here) to have the best of manners, ethics and education. 

I say lower classes not to be gratuitously offensive, but to explain things more clearly.   The poorest people are the ones who do not like where they live and do not like the people living around them.  The wealthiest people all live in neighbourhoods they wish to live in, because that is what money buys you.

In a country where the poorest are paid by the state to eat themselves fat, the first rung of aspiration is the kind of neighbourhood you live in and whether you like your neighbours.  The poor always hate their neighbours and the wealthy have the means to live where they like.

The poor mostly hate living with other poor people and move out as soon as they can, while those who do not have the enterprise, imagination and the will find themselves in a minority in their own land.   If you can, you move to a neighbourhood with the people of the class and race you feel comfortable with or would like to feel comfortable with.

The poor also mind being treated worse than foreigners, and that is the bottom line, really - an injustice they feel is crying out to heaven to be avenged.  "This is our land.  Why can we not kick around the foreigner here in just the way we know that foreigners in their countries kick around their foreigners?

The reasons for this can be found at

I actually told them why what has happened to them has happened to them, and for my trouble was expelled.  

The white urban proletariat, who would otherwise not be interested in politics, only became part of the nationalist movement when they started to realise that they are being treated noticeably worse than foreigners, which is of course a grave insult. 

Something inside them tells them that this is not quite right, and they refuse to shut up about it however hard the liberals try to intimidate them into silence by calling them Nazi Fascist evil extremist racists, but, because they are not very well-educated and an ill-disciplined rabble who are mostly illegitimate and lead the chaotic lives of the undeserving poor, they do not do very well in politics, and are liable to be exploited by their leaders. 

And of course they are despised and rejected for what they are and appear to be, in social and political terms.   They are seen as the party of CHAVs, lowlife and losers.   No one who goes into politics to advance himself would touch them with a bargepole, apart from me, perhaps.  

Their solution would be to choose me, but I know they won't because I am not white. Even if they admit that I would do the job better, they still wouldn't, because that is what they are like. They would rather die than admit that I could do the job better. Even if the survival of their very race depends on it, they would continue to reject me.

It is precisely because I am not white and not male that makes me ideal for the job, because I would confuse the liberal enemy.   

And they would know that I understand them better than they understand themselves, and can move in circles which are closed to them.   

All they have to do is just say they are considering supporting me, for the moment, to start the ball rolling.

Or, they will find that like Eddy Butler, they are finished in nationalism, or that nationalism is finished or worse, that their nation is finished.   

Nick Griffin "used to like to boast that if anyone ‘crossed’ him, then they would be ‘finished’ in nationalism."

Dump ethno-nationalism, choose me as leader of radical civic nationalism (to "cleanse" yourself of racism as far as the public is concerned) or you will find that your career in politics is over just like Eddy's now is.  His career can only be retrieved by doing something bold and ambitious, and he has already said he has no stomach for this.   

I am forgiving and understanding of the weaknesses of men, but especially of nationalist men.  Even as Eddy has joined the English Democrats, he will be assured of a warm political embrace from me, once he abandons the idea that all nationalism needs is a caretaker leader.    (Caretaker leaders are not a luxury open to the likes of nationalists, however.  What the nationalist movements needs is a leader prepared to take risks, not go on Euro-poncing junkets - which to my mind is the nationalist equivalent of strutting around on the international stage shaking hands with other leaders of other nationalist movements when there are more urgent matters to attend to at home.)  I already know that my deeds and words are in harmony and are seen as such by the objective bystander, for my deeds have been perfectly consistent with what I believe, which is to tell the truth as I see it, because no one else seems to dare to  these days.

If Eddy really thinks he is capable of turning around the bunch of losers in the English Democrats led by the dullest man in England without changing its motherhood and apple pie platitudes that masquerade as policies, then he is sadly mistaken.   If he thinks the BNP are useless and futile, he will discover an even more profound level of uselessness and futility in that party of Eurosceptic rejects.   

But it does not have to be Eddy necessarily, just a nationalist of sufficient prominence, maturity, imagination, flexibility, ambition and INFLUENCE, who has the self-confidence to assess the viability of what I have in mind.

Yes, I do know how scarce is the talent amongst all the political parties, so I should not expect too much.. 

The inexorable logic of a one-party state

This is so that Church of England clergy and members of the Police Force are not prevented from joining a political party of their choice.  

No member of the BNP may become a member of the NUJ.

If they are, under the current rules they would be sacked or have their union membership terminated.

Just because you are not taken out and shot in front of your family does not mean you have freedom of speech.  Social ostracisation, loss of business opportunities and loss of employment are very compelling reasons restraining you from expressing a political view, and all political views are controversial, by their very nature.  

Just remember that in Britain we have no free speech, no freedom of belief and no freedom of contract.  

Just remember that the The Freedom Association - supposedly a libertarian organisation - does not even notice THOUGHTCRIME when it comes up to them and smacks them in the face.   If they do notice they  dare not defend liberties that our ancestors would have taken for granted because they too have been cowed by the establishment.

Just as long as you know, Dear Reader.   

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Being rude about foreigners in Britain will end you up in prison for a month if you are white

David Ewings, an eloquent man whose arguments were ignored by  magistrates who were possibly "got at"

Carlos Cortiglia, BNP London Mayoral Candidate addressing the  media

David Ewings discussing the finer points of law, probably, with  one of the supporters of Emma West
Steve Squire, BNP Regional Organiser, recording the speech of Carlos Cortiglia
Outside Croydon Magistrates Court just before 10 am

Carlos Cortiglia the 2012 BNP London Mayoral Candidate being interviewed

S 4 of the Bail Act 1976 states:

4 General right to bail of accused persons and others.
(1)A person to whom this section applies shall be granted bail except as provided in Schedule 1 to this Act.
 which states:

Exceptions to right to bail
2 The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would—
(a) fail to surrender to custody, or
(b) commit an offence while on bail, or
(c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person.
The defendant need not be granted bail if—
(a) the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way; and
(b) it appears to the court that he was on bail in criminal proceedings on the date of the offence.]
3  The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare. 

It appears that Emma West and her partner have at some stage told the police that they received death threats.

At the hearing on 6 December however, she was saying that neither she nor her partner has received any death threats, either by landline or mobile.  the house was not attacked.  There have been no bricks through their window.  "Her family have received nothing but support".  (At this point there was applause from the gallery and a threat of removal from the magistrate if the noise continued.)

The messages that have been posted on social media have been of "support rather than anything else."

If the Prosecutrix (black and female but not particularly audible, eloquent or ready with her evidence) really felt that concerned about the defendant's safety, Emma West's uncle was perfectly prepared to put her up at an address that had not yet been posted all over Facebook and Twitter.

The Prosecutrix then mentioned Emma West's history of self-harming. Her barrister pointed out that she would actually be missing an appointment on Thursday with her own psychiatrist, which would be far far better than some prison psychiatrist who will only see her once a week.  Also, it would be good for her mental health to be in the bosom of her friends and family (there were about 7 of them in court) rather than being in prison over Christmas where there may be prisoners who may wish to harm her and victimise her.  (We of course all know that blacks are more highly represented in prison than whites because the media are always telling us that.)

Just like when Jeremy Clarkson said trade unionists should be shot front of their families, those who tweeted that she should be shot, knifed, raped etc.  It was just the vernacular use of "she should be shot".   If what they said had posed a serious threat, why hadn't the police arrested those whom it is alleged made those death threats, he asked.   It was a mere "linguistic turn of phrase".

The Prosecutrix then stood up, took what seemed like ages to find the document, and dully repeated what she had already said: "Her partner said they had received numerous death threats."

This black female prosecutor was apparently assisted and supported by a tall black man in a suit.  Sitting together on the prosecution side, I thought it looked particularly sinister.

The magistrates when they returned to give their decision about granting bail, looked distinctly uncomfortable. Frank Day of the EDL remarked on their body language.  The female magistrate looked grim, the Chief Magistrate Ian McNeal (a Scotsman) held both his hands over his mouth and so did the male magistrate on his right while they waited for Emma West to be return to the dock.   It even seemed as if they had been "got at".  He began by saying that the Crown's assertions and insistence that  Emma West must be incarcerated over Xmas must be "taken at its highest".

I was just surprised to learn that that if one would rather take one's chances out of prison than be in prison over Christmas "for one's own safety", one would be prevented from doing so.

But perhaps the government is just sending us a message.  Dare to complain about immigration loudly in a public place, and you will have your children taken off you by Social Services and be thrown in prison over Christmas, for about a month.  Should she die in custody after being beaten up by black prisoners who might gang up on her then the message would be even more terrifying.

I would have thought the government would wish to calm rather than exacerbate racial tensions.  Whoever thought it was in the public interest to prosecute this woman over such a de minimis offence must be either malicious or mad or certainly partisan.

Surely any reasonable Director of Public Prosecution could see it from 10 miles off that prosecuting this woman would be the opposite of being in the public interest?

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions - a self-confessed Blair and Labour supporter - would have a job trying to convince the public that this prosecution was not malicious and intended to cow anyone thinking of protesting against immigration loudly in a public place into silence, even as some black spat on the tram you are on near your feet and called you white trash when you dared to object.   This was what apparently enraged Emma West so much that she launched into her tirade.

Self-confessed Labour supporter Keir Starmer - the Director of Public  Prosecutions, who is ultimately responsible for the unnecessary prosecution of Emma West, very likely to stir up racial hatred 

It was not a good day for Emma West, despite the valiant eloquence of her barrister, but she could have done worse for her race and just pleaded guilty to make the whole thing go away, in order to be with her family over Xmas, and that would have been dismaying and disgraceful.

I therefore wonder if she would have opted for trial by Crown Court if she had known the outcome of the hearing.  Let us hope for her sake and her race that she is the sort of woman who would do the same thing all over again.

I hope she keeps a diary the better to sell her story with.

Unwittingly and unwillingly, Emma West has been adopted as a representative of the marginalised white working classes whom Labour have betrayed for so many generations, and whom they now loathe and fear.

As Tacitus said:

"It is a weakness of your human nature to hate those whom you have wronged". has a courageous and principled defence of free speech by Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance.