Tuesday, 25 January 2011

What is miscegenation?

It is the tolerance of unmarried motherhood in your family, with your friends, in your neighbourhood, in your race and in your nation.

No woman of any race or religion should have children if she is too stupid to find someone to marry her first.

Does that rather not explain why Western civilisation is now on a path of ever-decreasing circles towards decline, degradation and eventual extinction?

I think the writing is on the wall, but the matriarchal liberal-feminist establishment has regressed so far into ignorance, irrationality and cowardice that it can no longer read or act upon this information.

In any case, the men now think and behave like women and practise all the feminine vices, such as hypocrisy, denial of the truth, and believe that cowardice is clever.

Why, even the leader of the opposition does not see fit to marry the mother of his illegitimate children, and she is too stupid and scared to ask him to.  White trash culture seeps up to the metropolitan elite.  

My exchanges with the BBC on being disabled from commenting on The Today Programme

Sent: 01 January 2011 14:22
To: Today Complaints
Their response of Sat, 1 January, 2011 17:00:19

Dear Claire Khaw,
Thank you for your emails. I have spoke to our online team. I understand that they have taken action because of unacceptable content in a number of your postings.
Yours sincerely
Dominic Groves
Duty Editor

My response of Sat, 1 January, 2011 17:09:54

Dear Dominic Groves

May I know in what way they were unacceptable and whether my ban is permanent?

Your sincerely

Claire Khaw

Chasing them up on Tue, 4 January, 2011 9:22:19
Dear Dominic Groves

May I know if you intend to respond to my questions?

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Chasing them up again on Thu, 6 January, 2011 10:00:15
Dear Dominic Groves

May I know if you have received my email of 4 January?

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw
Chasing them up again on Wed, 12 January, 2011 8:38:13
May I have the email of the person who banned me, please, Dominic?  I wish to establish if there are any rules for posting on the Today Programme.  I do hope you will see fit to assist me in this regard.  If not, can we assume that there are no rules and the Today Facebook Moderator does as he or she pleases? 

Claire Khaw

Their response to me of Tue, 25 January, 2011 11:04:28 
Dear Claire Khaw,
Thank you for your email. The moderation rules can be found in this link -
under communities.
Yours sincerely
Dominic Groves
Duty Editor
My response on Tue, 25 January, 2011 11:12:27
Dear Dominic Groves

That was not brought to my attention at any time before I was disabled from commenting and all my comments deleted.  May I respectfully request that I be allowed back on now that I have been made aware of the parameters of discussion? 

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

A further email to the BBC of Tue, 25 January, 2011 12:37:49
Dear Dominic Groves

May I make a suggestion as regards the rules which were at no time brought to my attention?

I anticipate that there will be many accusations of "left wing" bias after Peter Sisson's book and it may assist the BBC to change the rules from those currently in operation.

It is quite clear that

(i) About your posts:

  • Contributions must be civil and tasteful.
  • No disruptive, offensive or abusive behaviour: contributions must be constructive and polite, not mean-spirited or contributed with the intention of causing trouble.
  • No unlawful or objectionable content: unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material [my italics] is not acceptable.
is intended to cover any eventuality and to give the BBC a reason to censor anything that anyone might find offensive for any reason at all. 

This will of course leave the BBC open to accusations of institutional bias against anyone expressing any opinion that would offend to those who regard themselves as Left Liberal, and therefore failing the test of impartiality

Are there any plans to revise this?

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw
 BBC response of Wed, 2 February, 2011 18:57:07

Dear Claire Khaw,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your email.I'm afraid the decision is final. The rules are not designed to exclude any genuine political opinion - provided the contributors obey a few sensible rules. ''Disruptive offensive or abusive behaviour'' for example is unacceptable wherever it comes from.It's not a party political matter. It's hard to see how an unmoderated forum of any kind could operate without such rules.

Yours sincerely

Dominic Groves
Assistant Editor
Sent: Wed, 2 February, 2011 22:45:52

Dear Dominic Groves

Perhaps you will give me example of posts of mine that were considered to be disruptive, offensive or abusive?  Otherwise the accusation is entirely unfounded and not substantiated by any evidence. 

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw 

Fri, 4 February, 2011 15:31:31

Dear Dominic Groves

I do believe that the BBC is in fact unable to produce any posts of mine that were considered to be disruptive, offensive or abusive. 

Please confirm that this is the case. 

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw
  Mon, 7 February, 2011 10:44:45

Dear Dominic Groves

I do hope I will be able to receive a YES or NO answer to this simple question today.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Tue, 8 February, 2011 8:05:14

Dear Dominic groves

As I did not receive an answer yesterday, perhaps you will let me know if I will receive one today.  Surely you must know if the BBC retained any of my comments that were considered to be disruptive, offensive or abusive?  Or was the fact that I am a member of the BNP considered to fulfill all of the above?  How dare Nazi scum like me post on the Today Programme?  Perhaps it was considered a deep affront to liberal sensibilities that I was allowed to post at all?

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the above was the case, whereupon I will then commence proceedings to apply for judicial review. 

I have consulted a solicitor and it was confirmed that I have a good case that the BBC is yet again in breach of its duty to be impartial. 
I therefore suggest that you let me back on and then remove me later should I be considered to infringe your catch-all rules later.  You will then be able to give a reason as to my removal when you will have remembered to  keep a copy of the offensive, disruptive and abusive comment in question, and explain why it was offensive, disruptive and abusive or indeed "otherwise objectionable".
I look forward to hearing from you. 
Yours sincerely
Claire Khaw

Fri, 25 March, 2011 23:37:08

Dear Ms Khaw

Reference CAS-598116-4571J8

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Today’ on Radio 4 and the rules concerning the programme’s Facebook page. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and are sorry you've had to wait on this occasion.

We forwarded your concerns to Dominic Groves who explained in response that the programme is quite within their rights to ban contributors to non branded BBC sites, and they stand by their decision to do so on this occasion.

With this in mind, there's little we can usefully add but we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints

[Still no reference to any evidence of how I have offended against their rules.]   

Monday, 24 January 2011

Belgians want a one-party state!

Tens of thousands of Belgians have staged a march to call for national unity and demand a government after seven months of political impasse. 

About 50,00 people joined the "Shame: no government, great country" march in Brussels, organisers said. Police put the number at 34,000.

Sunday, 23 January 2011

My email of today to the Baroness Warsi saying gissa job

Dear Lady Warsi

I hope to interest you in the idea of a PR campaign for Muslims. 

I am, like you, legally-trained. 

Perhaps the most important thing you should know about me is that I am one of the few non-white members of the BNP who is known for my concept of Anglican Islam AKA Khavian Koranism AKA Secular Koranism and my playfully rational  and practical interpretations of the Koran. 

My appointment would certainly be in itself controversial and I would use this publicity to the best of my ability to explain the social, political and economic causes of Islamophobia and recommend ways of dealing with it. 

I am also known to the Association of British Muslims whose Amir - David Rosser Owen - is sympathetic to some of my ideas. 

I already have the support of a talented Muslim who has a scholarly knowledge of the Koran and Arabic who has said he would wish to set up a PR firm in partnership with me.  Obviously, this would only happen if I was given the job. 

I look forward to hearing from you so I can explain in detail to you the ideas I have for the poster campaign I have in mind.

You will note that I am a talented self-publicist and have already copied this email on my blog at

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

"Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better." - opinion-polling direct democracy - gender-relations and sexuality - politics explained
"God is an instrument of good government, whether or not you believe in Him."

Friday, 21 January 2011

Chilcot Enquiry

Hang the warmongering Bastard Blair.
Send the fucker to Iraq.
When they're finished hanging him,

Send him on to Af Ghan Nis Stan ...

And all the lobby fodder shit-for-brains MPs
Unless they recant immediateleeee ....

Claire Khaw - Director of Communications for the Conservative Party?

I am for hire, David Cameron, and prepared to let bygones be bygones for the good of the British nation and Andy Coulson's salary.  

My BNP connections would show that I am a woman of the people with the common touch, and a finger on the pulse of the powerful but gullible monster that is public opinion.

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Is it about time Dan Hannan formed The REAL Conservative Party?

I think so.  Do you?

Wouldn't it be delicious if he stood against David Cameron in Witney at the next General Election?  He would win too, particularly if he starts talking about doing so NOW to prepare the ground ..... is where to join the debate if you are keen on the idea. 

Join BNP-UKIP *merger* ONLY WAY OUT OF EU at if you like this very simple idea of turning the tables on the entrenched liberal establishment. explains why it only requires the Will to Power!  Once Dan has got that everything will fall into place. 

I already have it, Dan, but do you? 

The problem with the teaching of history in the UK according to Abdal Hakim Murad

Thought for the Day with Abdal Hakim Murad - Muslim Chaplain at the University of Cambridge - for whom I have a spot that is soft, yielding (and I like to think welcoming) ...

He would be my Archbishop of Canterbury if I were Tudor Monarch Henrietta VIII.  Abdal Hakim Murad complains about the disjointed teaching of history through which we derive our disjointed morality and our woeful lack of noble national traditions.  The standard fare of Hitler and Stalin is not enough, he says.

If I were absolute monarch Henrietta VIII, I would create a new religion of Indifferent Agnosticism AKA Anglican Islam.

I would also break off diplomatic relations with the US.

Would I take a number of husbands or civilly partner women (or a combination of both) and then cut off their heads?

Watch this space.

Graham Allen MP another example of fuck-witted limp-dickery

The aim of the National Parenting Campaign which the Labour MP Graham Allen is calling for after his investigation into how to turn around the lives of the most vulnerable children in society, is for it to be "the crown jewel of the Big Society project, pursued with enough passion and vitality to make it irresistible even to the most jaundiced". Mr Allen outlines these aims.  
A government report on early intervention is calling on private financiers to invest in the future of our nation's most vulnerable children to help give them a better start in life. 'Early Intervention Bonds' would pay out dividends for investors when those youngsters make a success of themselves. Toby Eccles, Development Director for Social Finance and Edward Melhuish, Professor of Human Development at Birkbeck College, University of London discuss whether such a scheme could work.

This is complete SHIT. Early intervention my ARSE. Stop them from being born at all by stigmatising unmarried mothers.

What's wrong with that? Cheap and easy after the screaming and wailing has died down.

More fuckwitted limpdickery from the cunts of convictionlessness that are now in charge of the ship of state.  Did you hear them talking about the "inter-generational difficulties" of these people in the second interview?  Yep, it's been going on for generations, this white trash culture that our male politicians dare not deal with head on.  

Remember John Major's Back to Basics that he soon gave up on, when he said we should "tolerate a little less and condemn a little more"?  Well, that was the last pathetic limp-dicked attempt.  

There are more single mums with their variously fathered feral children who are a burden on the state with the vote now, and these politicians are getting more and more limp-dicked and fuck-witted with every passing day because they are afraid of alienating the single mum vote.  

To be afraid of the Secret Police or a dictator like Stalin or Hitler or Mugabe who will have you shot or beaten up I can understand.  But to be so afraid of slut and slapper unmarried mothers as to not dare criticise them is simply beyond contemptible. 

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

The subtle difference between Judaism and Islam

Judaism is Ethno-Nationalism AKA racialism AKA tribalism.

Islam is Civic Nationalism. 

Was the Lateran Treaty religious or political?

The difference between politics and religion is a distinction without a difference. 

Anyone who tells you different is a fool or a knave. 

Jesus said "I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Muhammad, not being a someone trying to get out of trouble with the authorities, treated religion as politics and politics as religion.  Islam is but an ideological weapon and it is surely about time the frightened and shell-shocked West pick it up to have a good look at this religion of peace and war. 

As one very clever Muslim told me once, you can only fight Muslims with the Koran ...

How David Cameron can go down in history as a GOOD Prime Minister

He can support the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, and encourage all MPs to do the same, so that all votes by MPs would be free votes. 

Then, he can propose a one-party state so that all MPs would be subject to the same rules as regards the party they belong to because all serving MPs would find themselves in the same party, of which he would still be leader.

It is a bargain that could most certainly be made, if managed right, if Cameron wants his name to be more than a footnote in history. 

I am happy to advise him on the detail and let bygones be bygones for the good of the nation.

The Islamic concept of Ummah is International Nationalism

The concept of Ummah was created to eliminate endemic amoral tribalism.  (It is really just the Muslim version of Christendom.) 

One of the possible translations for this is "nation".  Of course if you were a Muslim, you would have no problem in thinking that Islam would be good for any nation.

If you considered yourself a Nationalist - in the sense of wishing to adhere to an ideology that promotes the long term National Interest (rather than that of narrow petty divisive amoral tribal ideological politics and short term tactical advantage against the other party) - then you would find yourself obliged to consider whether it is in the National Interest to disestablish the Church of England and establish something more fit for purpose. There is no reason why Islam should not be considered for the British Nation mutatis mutandis, establishing an Islam that is unique to Britain or even calling it Anglican Islam ...

Were this to happen across Western nations then varieties of Islam such as American, Franco, Germanic Islam might emerge.  Indeed, it is possible that our lives might improve in the light of Koranic wisdom.  I am quite certain almost anything would be better than living in a state of Demented Feminism (which promotes female promiscuity amongst other social ills) and Liberal Extremism (which systematically cultivates failure) as we do now. 

Just supposing all the countries in the world embraced Islam.  Would this necessarily mean that there would be no wars ever?  Of course not.  In the event of a war, the nation that best practices Islam would win over a nation that practises Islam less well.  

Islam is after all a religion of peace and war, which sounds a lot more useful than being just a religion of peace, IMHO. 

To have peace be prepared for war, or, as the Romans would have it, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Sunday, 9 January 2011

Muslims urgently need a PR Officer as their unpopularity grows

"Hatred of Muslims and Islam is becoming more and more commonplace - what are you going to do to stop it?" asks MPACUK on Facebook at

Claire Khaw
You need decent PR done for you by someone who is not a Muslim but understands Islam, Muslims, Islamophobia and knows the Koran, like me.

And you also need to be prepared to admit that campaigns like the one at is just counter-productive, ignorant and irritating.

Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) ‎@ Claire: Yeah I'm confused too as to how that website is a "counter-productive, ignorant and irritating" campaign?

Claire Khaw Because people are just as Islamophobic, aren't they?

In other words, it was just a waste of time and money.
Claire Khaw
You need someone with an Islamophobic perspective to get the message right. I talk to Islamophobes all the time - quite a few of them are my FB friends. That campaign showed quite clearly a woeful ignorance about the state of mind of the typical Islamophobe.

They hate you because they *want* to hate you, because you are many, visible and alien.

Otherwise, they would have to hate *themselves* .
Abdullah Al Andalusi of Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI) even commented on his Facebook wall that I had "hit the nail on the head" with my analysis of the situation, but he subsequently deleted it.  

Avais Qureshi Claire, I'm interested in what you think would get rid of Islamophobia. Would you mind elaborating?

Zoe Chase
When I look at MPACUK I see a group which is attempting to draw attention to Muslim grievances in Britain, Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, and Pakistan. These four political regions involve vastly different circumstances with no publicall...y understandable causal links between what is going on in the four separate regions. ''Islamphobia'' is a social problem in Britain but it would be absurd to describe what is going on in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine as ''Islamphobia''.

Beginning in the mid 90s Bosnians were victims of ethnic cleansing by Christian Serbs who were motivated by a greater Serbian nationalistic agenda which was supported by Russia. America intervened militarily to halt the abuse and murder of Bosnians and today the Americans use their military protection of Bosnians to misrepresent the USA as protectors of Muslims. In this way America distracts attention from their vast financial support for the abuse and murder of Palestinians by the Israeli Defence Forces. Muslims in and around Pakistan are being killed by American Drones but the America operates in and around Pakistan with the consent of Pakistani Government who are allied with America against the Taliban. If MPACUK is against American military activity in Pakistan then MPACUK is also against the government of Pakistan.

We understand that the Americans have a self-serving definition of ''terrorism'', i.e. when Muslims do it then it's call ''terrorism'', but when Americans to it then it's called ''anti-terrorism''. The Group Name ''MPACUK'' mimics the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has a coherent message in America because AIPAC represents the Nationalist Aims of Israel, but this group MPACUK is lumping together difference people in different countries who are doing different things for different reasons. This Group lacks any coherent message because totally different problems are being lumped together under the bandwagon banner of ''Islamphobia''.

I am not offering help to MPACUK because I do not have knowledge of the Koran. I only have knowledge of the Israeli/American abuse of Palestinians as shown in the 32 images with text and links in my album at this link Claire has knowledge of the Koran and Claire has the ability to present Islam to non-Muslims, so I suggest MPACUK takes any advice Claire is offering because the existing public relations message from MPACUK is incoherent therefore MPACUK will have no effect on your target audience who are non-Muslims.
Claire Khaw
Avais, non-Muslim Europeans fear and hate Muslims because the sheer number of Muslims in their land reminds them of their helplessness. They have also invaded two Muslim countries and must have an apprehension that Muslims cannot like them for their foreign policy.

There was a time when the West was a happier place for Westerners and this was a time when they were not troubled by the presence of Muslims.

It is easier for them to hate Muslims because Muslims are many and visible and alien instead of asking themselves why they have so many Muslims in their country when they don't even like them.

Only when it can be shown that Islam is useful and helpful to them will they stop hating you.

I have my Secular Koranism idea which they might just like if presented carefully and gently.

Zoe Chase
Websites like are very good in the eyes of Muslims but in the eyes of westerners such websites only present Muslims as having an unsophisticated revivalist religious fervour which further alienates Westerners from Muslims.

As Muslims you belong to a separate culture which is completely different from the culture of the Westerners you are trying to persuade. This makes Muslims blind to the cross-cultural subtleties which are involved. How can we convince you that Muslims should not trust their own judgment about the best method for communicating with the non-Muslims which Muslims need to persuade?
Adnan Ramzan @ Zoe, what's your point ?
Zoe Chase
‎@Adnan Ramzan. Quoting Claire from above, ''Your campaign shows a woeful ignorance about the state of mind of the typical Islamophobe. You need someone with an Islamophobic perspective to get the message right. You need decent PR done for you by someone who is not a Muslim but who understands Islam, Muslims, Islamophobia, and who knows the Koran.''

MPACUK is presently incapable of persuading Islamophobes to see how Islam can be useful and helpful to them, so Claire has offered herself by saying, ''I have my Secular Koranism idea which they might just like if presented carefully and gently.''

Adnan Ramzan, my point is that Claire is 100% correct. The MPACUK message is too important to be left in the hands of enthusiastic amateurs. MPACUK should convene a meeting to formally appoint Claire Khaw as the professional controller of MPACUK's PR. That is my point.

Claire Khaw It would get HUGE publicity, Adnan, just because of who I am and the party I belong to.

I am thinking of using the designs at for the poster campaign.

Claire Khaw
Just to say that Abdullah Al Andalusi (also on Facebook and whom I have met on a few occasions) the Speaker and Director of Muslim Debate Initiative thinks I have hit the nail on the head as regards why Muslims are so hated.

If you do decide to use me, my appointment would be very controversial indeed, but I think that would be a Good Thing as far as the campaign is concerned.

 Zoe Chase
Through her party associations Claire has publically placed herself in the direct path of ethnic political prejudices and over the three years I've known Claire, she has consistently demonstrated her special talent for bringing dignified rationality to even the MOST controversial subjects, which makes things extremely difficult for her detractors. Claire's professional legal background make her a 'safe pair of hands' and she is an accomplished public speaker/debater whose energy and commitment are not doubted by anyone. Claire's thoroughly modern approach to gender and ethnicity together with her well-developed ideas of 'Secular Koranism', offers MPACUK a very powerful method for dismantling irrational Islamophobic attitudes in the minds of the non-Muslims who are MPACUK's target audience. Without Claire Khaw MPACUK will remain incapable of communicating the message that Islam makes Muslims valuable to British secular society.

Saturday, 8 January 2011

Tim Montgomerie and Suzanne Moore

Tim Montgomerie has blocked me from following his Tweets, just like Suzanne Moore.

What are they so afraid of?

British politics

British politics consists of weaklings doing nothing more than wishing for things and not being too afraid to even ask for what they want, much less propose doing anything about anything. If you refuse to practise their mendacity, hypocrisy and cowardice, you are branded a fool, an eccentric, an extremist or a revolutionary.

My Churchillian speech about fighting the liberal establishment

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in our homes,
we shall fight in schools and factories, in pubs and churches,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength,
we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender,

Friday, 7 January 2011

Embarrassing photographs of a certain UKIP-supporting South African

I have just been circulated with some embarrassing photos of a certain UKIP-supporting white South African.

I have actually shaken hands with him.

That was at one of those Freedom in the City lunchtime meetings at the Counting House.

Of course, his sex fetishes are none of my business and do not in fact detract from the virtues and virility of Euroscepticism.  I just wish men would be more careful and stop themselves from getting too carried away, especially with women they don't even know and should not trust.

Men really are the weaker sex when it comes to, well, sex.

My friend the late Mike Smith would have enjoyed this story though.  The last time I saw Mike Smith was at a Swinton Circle meeting at which he stood up and declared the intention of suing Alan Harvey.

Mike made legal history by being the first person to sue for libel committed online.

Spirituality is the Contemplation by Atman of Brahman

Thursday, 6 January 2011

Madness and what it means

Madness is but a state of being in profound error, though many people seem to think that to qualify for this, all you have to do is diverge from current political orthodoxies. 

In the beginning there was the Word

In the beginning there was a Consciousness that wished to communicate itself to all who had a consciousness and who also wished to communicate with others who had Consciousness. 

That is why words are important.

If we respect this Consciousness, we should take care to speak, spell and express ourselves logically and accurately.

Grammar is the Logic of Language.

God, if He exists, would be supremely rational and logical.  

And that is why we suffer when we think irrationally, express irrationally and act irrationally - in other words when we do not practise what the Buddha recommended: "Right thought, right speech, right action."

So fuck the female-dominated "progressive" teaching establishment who are part the Demented Matriarchal Liberal Establishment who doesn't think grammar, punctuation and spelling are either necessary or desirable and who are no longer capable of teaching it.  Fuck them to fucking hell.

Wednesday, 5 January 2011

Proposed BNP-UKIP Anschluss - why there is NOT - I repeat NOT - a problem

It seems Eddy Butler is coming round to my view of a BNP-UKIP merger.  Below is an extract of his rather statesman-like posting:
Most sensible nationalists would agree theoretically that the ‘best thing’ would be if all the political groupings on the patriotic, nationalistic, ‘right-wing’, populist, non-politically correct, identity-related side of the spectrum united. That would create a large broad-based party that could realistically challenge for power.

Within that spectrum can be found UKIP, the BNP, the English Democrats and a variety of other smaller groups and independents most of which have split off from one or other of the named parties. This new party would instantly create an organisation with still over a hundred councillors at all levels, a directly elected Mayor, a GLA member, several members of the House of Lords and fifteen MEPs. The party would have over 30,000 members. It would instantly be a major force in British politics. It would have gained the equivalent of nearly 3.8 million votes at the last European election. It would no longer be part of the fringe.

Said UKIP teen bigot and sceptic Leon Georghiou:

"I will steadfastly oppose any UKIP-BNP merger that doesn't mirror the present UKIP manifesto. Of particular concern to me are: free market economics, minarchism, and classical liberalism. The BNP are, of course, the total opposite: socialist, statist, and interventionist. The parties are too fundamentally different for a merger to work or, indeed, be on the horizon, thank God."

I said:

I have addressed this problem countless times, Leon. You obviously don't pay attention. Do you not remember my proposal of:

1. Merged BNP-UKIP promise a referendum on leaving the EU or not

2. Merged BNP-UKIP promise a referendum on whether to have UKIP or BNP economic policies at the same time they are having a referendum on whether to stay in the EU or not.


Am I or am I not fucking brilliant?

Hint: only one answer allowed.

If I were leader of this party - just supposing - it would deflect any suggestion of racism once and for all.  I have never said anything racist because I do not believe that any race is inherently superior or inferior to another.  But I am a Nationalist in the sense that I believe that an ideology of

(1) defining
(2) ascertaining and
(3) pursuing the broad long term National Interest (as opposed to narrow short term party interest)

would be the best way to govern any country.  

The National Interest would necessarily be a judicious balance of the conflicting interests of the peoples of Britain who are, like any other land, divided by race, religion, class and gender.

The National Interest as I see it is therefore not synonymous with the interests of any one group of people, though it is undeniable that the National Interest would favour the majority group of Britain, which also happens to be white and working class.

I see no harm at all in pursuing policies that would favour the the advancement of the lower middle classes - which after all make up most of the BNP.  They are independent traders - rather like Del Boy and Trotters Independent Traders, men in white vans, taxi-drivers and the self employed, ie the people who instinctively want to shift for themselves of all classes, races and faiths.

The slogans would be very simple, popular and memorable:

1.  lower taxes
2.  fewer laws
3.  family values supported by marriage
4.  make punishment fit the crime

Am I fucking brilliant or am I fucking brilliant?

Tuesday, 4 January 2011

If you find the idea of white women in hijabs alien, ugly and dismaying you might like the idea of Anglican Islam

The book on which HITLER THE MOVIE will be based

The dust jacket says “Claus Hant is a German scriptwriter …” –  and  so this “non-fiction novel” was written with HITLER THE MOVIE in mind.  All that remains to be seen is who will direct the movie (Steven Spielberg, I hope, who has already portrayed a  Nuremberg rally with admirable integrity in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), and who will be the actor chosen to play Hitler.  (George Clooney?  Hugh Laurie?  Jude Law?)  After such a compelling narrative of Hitler’s rise to power, and 66 years after the end of  WW2, I would like to think such a film would now be possible and welcomed. 

Hitler is seen through the eyes of his friend Martl (a character who is really an amalgam of four friends of Hitler during his salad days). 

The scenes where Hitler makes his immortal pronouncements are already cinematically staged.  Picture, if you will, Hitler being offered a cigarette and his response, “Thank you, dear, but smoking kills everyone, not just the racially inferior.”

There are many such scenes portraying Hitler as a personality – a son fearful of his mother’s death, being infuriating and irritating, quoting philosophers, being reckless, demanding and unreasonable, and of him being unnervingly prescient and prophetic while explaining his theories …

Hitler comforts  his dying comrade Frederick in the battlefield:
A huge pool of blood had collected around his crotch.  I knelt down beside him.  “You’re going to be okay,” I lied.  “It’s not as bad as it looks.’
“Really,” he groaned, gritting his teeth from the agonizing pain. 
“I’ll get you a medic!”  I scrambled back up the bank to look out over the field.  But there were no medics, just freshly dead bodies. 
“Dolferl! [Hitler’s nickname] I screamed.
He turned and with his head cocked inquisitively, he ran back.
“Just be calm,” Dolferl told Frederic, crouching down.  “Have you ever read Schopenhauer?”
“Only a little,” Frederick admitted.
“In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer talks of a leaf that is afraid to fall of the tree in autumn,” said Dolferl, calmingly.  ‘ “Foolish leaf!” says Schopenhauer, “where do you think you’re going? And where do you think the new leaves will come from?  Where is the oblivion you so dread?  It is part of you!”
“Where’s the medic?” Frederick asked. 

Yet another challenging scene for any Hitler-playing actor:

“I’m not afraid of death,” Dolferl said, staring me straight in the eye. 
“ ‘If death seems so cruel because we dread the thought of not existing, then we would have to dread the time before we were born as well.  Our non-existence after death can’t be any different to our non-existence before we were born.  An eternity passed before we were born but that doesn’t sadden us at all …’ ”
I sighed. 
“That’s the beauty of Schopenhauer,” he said , took the gun out of his holster, pointed the barrel at his temple, and cocked it.
“Dolferl!” I screamed.  “What are you doing?”
Slowly, he lowered the gun, un-cocked it and put it back. 
“As long as you have an exit strategy,” he said, “you will always be okay.”

As well as cinematic story-telling, its appendix on racism, anti-Semitism and the mystical background of the Thule Society are a historian’s delight.  The psychological insight too is rewarding: “For Hitler’s career to succeed, three prerequisites had to be fulfilled: 1) a nation longing for a new beginning after defeat in a war, famine, revolutionary turmoil, national humiliation and economic chaos; 2) a man convinced of his ‘mission’ beyond all doubt; and 3) a group of believers who were awaiting just such a man.

Indeed.  The Hitler Phenomenon could happen to any Western industrial nation.  We have been warned. 

The utility of God to atheists

Apart from people tending to behave better than they otherwise might do if they believe in God, another spiritual use for God is when one toys with the possibility of God actually existing and taking an interest in one's affairs. 

This can reinforce one's patience and perseverance when one's friends, comrades and associates are just so FULL OF SHIT, not to mention the unreliability and treachery of spouses and family members who know exactly where to stick the knife in and how to twist it. 

God, if He exists, would operate through our conscience anyway. 

Discovering Perpetual Motion?

Once we work out a way of recycling dead bodies, we may  have  discovered perpetual motion ...

The scientist who discovers how to do this will be very wealthy indeed. 

Monday, 3 January 2011

The purpose of this dismal science called Economics

The purpose of economics is not to distribute wealth - an egregious socialist fallacy.

The purpose of economics is to analyse how wealth is created and lost.

Saturday, 1 January 2011

I am now a BNP martyr!

Caron Kendall on 27 December 2010:

"I don't know why the BBC took her away - I can only assume it was something she said that was agianst the rules and I think I may be in danger of turning her into a martyr and that is something no member of the BNP should ever be!" 
 If they had their wicked way with  me I would now be in Room 101 at the BBC Ministry of Love with rats gnawing at my face ...

Conservative brains more frightened and anxious because of victimisation by Liberal Left

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions. 

Yes, Conservatives are more anxious and fearful because they live in a totalitarian state operating demented  PC policies and are constantly being victimised by the Liberal Left.

Tell us something we don't know, why don't you, Professor Rees?

Day 6: "Unpersonned" by BBC Censor of Today Programmne Facebook page

My Sixth email to the BBC Today Programme:

To date I have still not received a response from you after nearly a week of writing to you every day.

I have over 200 Facebook friends who are now on the Today Programme Facebook page, one of whom is the distinguished and incomparable Naim Attallah, owner of the Literary Review as well as Herman von Rompuy, President of the European Council. 

You are not going to get away with banning me from commenting WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR WARNING, after deleting all my comments in a desperate effort to "unperson" me because you think my comments are too dangerous to be displayed.  Meanwhile I am daily libelled by that egregious Communist and Feminist Caron Kendall, with no right of reply. 

Why can't you get it together to even respond to me?

The "Where's Claire?" Whither Free Speech Campaign is well and truly starting up now. 

For good measure I have also written to as follows:

I have now received this response:
Dear Claire Khaw, Thank you for your emails. I have spoke to our online team. I understand that they have taken action because of unacceptable content in a number of your postings. Yours sincerely Dominic Groves Duty Editor 'Today'   1/1/11 
to which I have responded:
May I know in what way they were unacceptable and whether my ban is permanent?