Thursday, 28 April 2011

Is this joke anti-Semitic?

There are many different kinds of Jews: Orange Jews; Lemon Jews; Lime Jews; Tomato Jews etc.

Tweeters who have stopped me from following their tweets

List of twits who have blocked me from following their tweets.

  1. @davidyelland!/davidyelland
  2. @MASieghart!/masieghart
  3. @TimMontgomerie!/timmontgomerie
  4. @IainDale!/iaindale
  5. @jennyeclair!/jennyeclair
  6. @domjoly!/domjoly
  7. @RealRobertWebb!/realrobertwebb
  8. @JohnRentoul!/johnrentoul
  9. @RuthieGledhill!/ruthiegledhill
  10. @Marthakearney!/marthakearney
  11. @laurenlaverne!/laurenlaverne
  12. @whjm!/whjm
  13. @isaby!/isaby
  14. @krishgm!/krishgm
  15. @paulmasonnews!/paulmasonnews
  16. @GuidoFawkes!/GuidoFawkes
  17. @JamesDelingpole!/jamesdelingpole
  18. @His_Grace!/His_Grace
  19. @tfa4freedom!/tfa4freedom
  20. @simplysimontfa!/simplysimontfa
  21. @alaindebotton!/alaindebotton
  22. @frasernelson!/frasernelson
  23. @scots_subrosa!/scots_subrosa
  24. @suzanne_moore!/suzanne_moore
  25. @hugorifkind!/hugorifkind
  26. @jameskirkup!/jameskirkup
  27. @SamiraAhmedUK!/SamiraAhmedUK
  28. @johannhari101!/johannhari101
  29. @indiaknight!/indiaknight
  30. @bindelj!/bindelj
  31. @DAaronovitch!/DAaronovitch
  32. @TomHarrisMP!/TomHarrisMP
  33. @DouglasCarswell!/douglascarswell
  34. @paulwaugh!/paulwaugh
  35. @juliahobsbawm!/juliahobsbawm
  36. @commentisfree!/commentisfree
  37. @toadmeister!/toadmeister 
  38. @GoodwinMJ!/GoodwinMJ 
  39. @TimHarford!/timharford 
  40. @graemearcher!/graemearcher 
  41. @williamcrawley!/williamcrawley 
  42. @vicderbyshire!/vicderbyshire 
  43. @sunny_hundal!/sunny_hundal 
  44. @Phillip_Blond!/Phillip_Blond 
  45. @Miss_Snuffy!/Miss_Snuffy 
  46. @susanhillwriter!/susanhillwriter 
  47. @mrspouncer!/mrspouncer 
  48. @bbcrobinlustig!/bbcrobinlustig 
  49. @holysmoke!/holysmoke
  50. @Pippyz!/Pippyz
  51. @polblonde!/@polblonde 
  52. @RebeccaJBradley!/RebeccaJBradley 
  53. @ClareKirkp!/ClareKirkp  
  54. @andrewcopson!/andrewcopson 
  55. @DavidAllenGreen!/DavidAllenGreen
  56. @JackofKent!/JackofKent  
  57. @PPeterthompson!/PPeterthompson   
  58. @riveninside!/riveninside 
  59. @rossaverde!/rossaverde 
  60. @pangallion!/pangallion 
  61. @indigojo_uk!/indigojo_uk 
  62. @pperrin!/pperrin 
  63. @VirtualResistan!/VirtualResistan 
  64. @ianbirrell!/ianbirrell 
  65. @Lefty_Lisa!/Lefty_Lisa 
  66. @margotjamesmp!/margotjamesmp
  67. @vivizaraz!/vivizaraz 
  68. @_millymoo!/_millymoo 
  69. @Tim_Aker!/Tim_Aker 
  70. @southwestbriton!/southwestbriton 
  71. @HarryAldridge!/HarryAldridge 
  72. @ArnieEtc!/ArnieEtc 
  73. @renarde!/renarde
  74. @BethanyBlack!/BethanyBlack
  75. @OwenJones84!/owenjones84
  76. @LDNCalling!/LDNCalling
  77. @legalaware!/legalaware
  78. @cherrigilham!/CherriGilham
  79. @tom_watson!/tom_watson
  80. @BHAnews!/BHAnews
  81. @LouiseMensch!/LouiseMensch
  82. @KevinBrennanMP!/KevinBrennanMP
  83. @iainmartin1!/iainmartin1
  84. @DoctorCuriosity!/DoctorCuriosity
  85. @clairefrilly!/clairefrilly
  86. @edwestonline!/edwestonline
  87. @TomChivers!/TomChivers
  88. @langtry_girl!/langtry_girl
  89. @enternoon!/enternoon
  90. @DamoclesBDA!/DamoclesBDA
  91. @dlknowles!/dlknowles
  92. @greebstreebling!/greebstreebling
  93. @the3rdgirl!/the3rdgirl
  94. @bloggers4ukip!/bloggers4ukip
  95. @HelenW71!/HelenW71
  96. @nthenry!/nthenry
  97. @richardcalhoun!/richardcalhoun
  98. @SAHDandproud!/SAHDandproud
  99. @JessieMiller1!/JessieMiller1
  100. @corrie_corfield!/corrie_corfield
  101. @janegarvey1!/janegarvey1
  102. @SteveBakerMP!/SteveBakerMP
  103. @MsAlliance!/MsAlliance
  104. @PaulLewis!/paullewis
  105. @daisynewman!/daisynewman
  106. @GuardianJoanna!/GuardianJoanna
  107. @BBCWomansHour!/BBCWomansHour
  108. @A_C_McGregor!/A_C_McGregor
  109. @edward_quigley!/edward_quigley
  110. @HackneyAbbott!/HackneyAbbott
  111. @PennyRed!/PennyRed
  112. @Ellwynnnnn!/Ellwynnnnn
  113. @Baddiel!/Baddiel
  114. @JamesSmartIII!/JamesSmartIII
  115. @AngusDuncan!/angus_duncan
  116. @davideyre!/davideyre
  117. @EVAWhd!/EVAWhd
  118. @russ_e_jones!/russ_e_jones
  119. @Future_of_West!/@Future_of_West
  120. @ciderdave!/ciderdave
  121. @mrsnickyclark!/mrsnickyclark
  122. @moewytchdog!/moewytchdog
  123. @GrantTucker!/GrantTucker
  124. @emmaboon!/emmaboon
  125. @ajcdeane!/ajcdeane
  126. @GavinFreeguard!/GavinFreeguard
  127. @TheOrwellPrize!/TheOrwellPrize
  128. @SlutwalkLondon!/SlutwalkLondon
  129. @DPJHodges!/DPJHodges
  130. @nickgriffinmep!/nickgriffinmep
  131. @MattHopeNotHate!/MattHopeNotHate
  132. @slaurencecowley!/slaurencecowley
  133. @cuffsl!/cuffsl
  134. @lucyann_7!/lucyann_7
  135. @SplinterSunrise!/SplinterSunrise
  136. @ascotsmanabroad!/ascotsmanabroad
  137. @MissLButtercup!/MissLButtercup
  138. @poochalot!/poochalot
  139. @saminus!/saminus
  140. @Glinner!/Glinner
  141. @MPACUK!/mpacuk
  142. @CatHam75!/CatHam75
  143. @AsifMalik1977!/AsifMalik1977
  144. @Siobhan4Mayor!/Siobhan4Mayor
  145. @sianwilliams100!/sianwilliams100
  146. @sadesarla!/sadesarla
  147. @obreption!/obreption
  148. @lindasgrant!/lindasgrant
  149. @MoAnsar!/MoAnsar
  150. @lisaansell3!/lisaansell3
  151. @MirrorJames!/MirrorJames
  152. @tobyharnden!/tobyharnden
  153. @happy_slimer!/happy_slimer
  154. @rangerstaxcase!/rangerstaxcase
  155. @BrianCathcart!/BrianCathcart
  156. @iamamro!/iamamro
  157. @Jezzebela!/Jezzebela
  158. @LordOtter!/LordOtter
  159. @specialdelia!/specialdelia
  160. @Rubovia!/Rubovia
  161. @NadineDorriesMP!/NadineDorriesMP
  162. @MerrynSW!/MerrynSW
  163. @clogmuso!/clogmuso
  164. @maleghast!/maleghast
  165. @AnneBillson!/AnneBillson
  166. @fleetstreetfox!/fleetstreetfox
  167. @Lunarteddy!/Lunarteddy
  168. @UKIPNorthEast!/UKIPNorthEast
  169. @caelainnbarr!/caelainnbarr
  170. @britishchambers!/britishchambers
  171. @CBItweets!/cbitweets
  172. @mockduck!/mockduck
  173. @Mr_Chas!/Mr_Chas
  174. @jwscullis11985!/jwscullis11985
  175. @HarrietSergeant!/HarrietSergeant
  176. @edwardlucas!/edwardlucas
  177. @londonistar!/londonistar
  178. @byameliahill!/byameliahill
  179. @NUTonline!/NUTonline 
  180. @The_IoD
  181. @ProfBrianCox
  182. @HenriBest1995
  183. @BillWongOT
  184. @deborahbowman
  185. @Ermintrude2
  186. @EverydaySexism
  187. @anjinanhut
  188. @faineg
  189. @DawnHFoster
  190. @marcusjdl
  191. @pierrenovellie
  192. @lisagoodchild
  193. @Robertsthegreat
  194. @billymclean87
  195. @Adrian_Hilton
  196. @travellingcoral
  197. @chrissiemanby
  198. @LeeJohnBarnes
  199. @StillersFanInFL
  200. @Miss_Tyeshia
  201. @ChristianJonas
  202. @akajesseb
  203. @mike1101011
  204. @Vote_UKIP
  205. @Cherrym_1982
  206. @TShortley
  207. @Bigchris_BRFC
  208. @hprw
  209. @JaxMay1972
  210. @SegaSky
  211. @stephenleather
  212. @Donna_Gallers
  213. @WeekWoman
  214. @sazza_jay
  215. @NadiaKamil
  216. @madeby_millie
  217. @UKIPNorthEast
  218. @ukiptandw
  219. @CaptainUKIP
  220. @FionaLister
  221. @star_pumpkin
  222. @RedHotSquirrel
  223. @HeanorPatriot
  224. @VixxyLix
  225. @johnjoeoregan
  226. @thomdyke
  227. @cake_not_hate
  228. @PopeBXVI
  229. @OfficialF4J
  230. @NadineOC
  231. @MattGOConnor
  232. @TradBritGroup
  233. @Paulflynnmp
  234. @ShirlWhiteside 
  235. @paul rogers002
  236. @londonmuslim
  237. @JacintaOC
  238. @Fraloob
  239. @mhd_bass
  240. @sarramanning
  241. @AWOT_UK
  242. @Boopetta
  243. @scroeser
  244. @missaleksia
  245. @RedHeadFashion
  246. @TheRealRoseanne
  247. @corrie_corfield
  248. @RevDavidOldham
  249. @AndrewGraystone
  250. @frsimon
  251. @thechurchmouse
  252. @FaithinConflict
  253. @suepritch
  254. @thetobymichaels
  255. @disorganic
  256. @racybaldhero
  257. @freiahill
  258. @KJX33
  259. @JoshuaRozenberg
  260. @WelshDalaiLama
  261. @BethEleri
  262. @JonathanHaynes
  263. @SallyHitchiner
  264. @ZASaunders
  265. @WinstonMcK
  266. @marcusbrig
  267. @peterburrows101
  268. @AbiHaworth
  269. @TheMrGrumpy
  270. @TheCommentator
  271. @stegan
  272. @sapienist
  273. @AbiWBC
  274. @BenCPike
  275. @AllyFogg
  276. @jimalkhalili
  277. @planetcath
  278. @CathElliott
  279. @Mancman10
  280. @billymclean87
  281. @fuelled_by_pies
  282. @benlovell
  283. @timstidham
  284. @brian_kelly67
  285. @NF_activist
  286. @RichardLoweUK
  287. @iaincollins
  288. @blondygirl1
  289. @Hossylass
  290. @georgegalloway
  291. @mrburlesk
  292. @BaronessDeech
  293. @ManicGG
  294. @rebeccakesby1
  295. @bananarahmana
(If you feel you should be on the list and have not been included it is because I have forgotten all about you.)

What do they all have in common?  Fear of discussing feminism perhaps?  The women are clearly reluctant to discuss any reduction of their legal privileges.  The men are too frightened of offending women because they don't want to lose their jobs, be divorced by their wives, lose half their property, be unjustly deprived of their children, have their wives bring unsuitable lovers into the former matrimonial home to perhaps corrupt their children and even to sexually abuse them ...

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Orwell Prize debate on the monarchy: ‘is it time to make monarchy history?’ OR Joan Smith is a fat arrogant old trollop and she is NOT better than the Queen

described as "babyish" by Peter Hitchens

This was a debate of particular interest to me as I had been in a few spats with a number of Facebook friends recently.  It seemed outrageous that so many of the Liberal Left such as Martin Amis actually think they are better than the Queen.  Amis gratuitously insults her and the Royal Family for not having read any of his books and no one really thinks much about this curious phenomenon of Liberal Left writers who think themselves as several degrees above the monarch even as their own family morals are mired in filth and degradation.  In Martin Amis's case I am of course referring to the tragic life of Sally Amis described at

Before it started I chatted briefly to David Cohen of the Evening Standard, who was on the longlist for the journalism prize.  He has very dark intense eyes which I found rather alarming, and his wife I found perfectly charming.  It was the first time he had entered for the journalism prize he told me.  He is not related to Nick Cohen, who was once my Facebook friend.

The debate was kick-started by the audience being asked to raise their hands by Jodie Ginsberg the Chair if they agreed with the proposition.  She observed that roughly a third put their hand up.  No attempt was made to ask the views of those who disagreed, or even the don't knows, or whether anyone had changed their minds after the debate.

Typical left-wing bias, I thought to myself.

The first speaker was Gerry Stoker who appeared to be neutral about the monarchy, drawing our attention to the third verse of God Save the Queen, and making the point that she reigns rather than rules.

The second speaker was Ian McLean pointed out that that in our tri-cameral system (Monarch, Lords and Commons) only one was elected and that was undemocratic and an injustice crying to the heavens to be avenged, apparently.

Joan Smith was wearing a very short dress and reminded me of a character in the the Kenny Everett Television Show.

"the pneumatic American starlet Cupid Stunt, for whom Everett coined the catchphrase "all in the best pahssible taste!", as "she" crossed her legs with an extravagant lack of discretion"

Nothing wrong with her legs, but any woman over a certain age who flaunts them in this distastefully distracting way must be single and looking, I imagine.  She even remarked perhaps with an attempt at flirtatiousness that Peter Hitchens would have been her ideal man were it not for the fact that he is wrong about everything.  Peter Hitchens is married, and has better sense than to be aroused by an arrogant fat trollop like her, I like to think. suggests that no sensible man would touch her with a bargepole, not even the stupidest warmongering cunt of a  Labour politician who supports the war in Afraqbya, not even if he is called Dennis McShane ...

Smith attended the Queen's Garden Party, smiled and said hello to the Queen without observing the protocols curtsying first, so the Queen cut her dead.  That must have punctured her ego - about the size of a football stadium, probably - and from that moment on she thought the monarchy must be abolished.  One of her sillier comments was that our monarch should be elected and then, after seven years, another elected.  It doesn't have to be me necessarily, I think she also said, with a mockery of modesty.  If we did have a Queen Joan, I think the monarchy would be abolished pronto, so perhaps this is something the Republicans ought to consider.  It is possible that a Queen Joan would arouse the populace into such a fury that they will behead her, but perhaps the Republicans will consider it a sacrifice well worth making for such a noble cause.

Peter Hitchens said that he was making a point of smiling back at Joan Smith every time she smiles at him, to avoid the possibility of Joan Smith calling for the abolition of Peter Hitchens.

Said Peter Hitchens:

"You wouldn't know anyone who would approve of the monarchy, would you? And even if they did they wouldn't dare tell you."

This particular FemiNazi protocol.of Tory men making obeisance to Joan Smith by men was rather interesting and helps me warm to my theme that this country is having its face sat on and can no longer breathe, let alone complain intelligibly.   The men can only weakly gesticulate underneath her skirts and I can just make out their pathetically muffled cries.

Fear not O Men of Britain, Auntie Claire is coming to your rescue! Only Auntie Claire dares to say the things that need to be said about feminism that even the BNP are afraid to say!  

Sunder Katwala made the most surprising and heart-warming speech of all.  Being a Lefty he is a Republican but, being a democrat, sees that the abolition of the monarchy must be done only by majority consent which the Republican movement has signally failed to harness.  (I really do think if we want to abolish the monarchy all we have to do is substitute for just one month Elizabeth Windsor with Joan Smith and then sit back to see Britain arouse itself into a foaming ocean of Regicidal Republican Wrath ...

Non-whites Britons are more pro-monarchy than the white British citizens, he pointed out.  If we want to have a Republic, we would have to persuade the public.

Even with the help of four Republican newspapers: The Observer, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, the Republicans still cannot win the argument, it was pointed out.

What is so wonderful about elections, Peter Hitchens asked, and a very good question it was too.  Someone else other than the Prime Minister should be able to recall Parliament, but he did not say whom.

I forget whom it was who said that "The monarchy is like the king on a chessboard - it doesn't do much but it means the difference between losing and winning."

Peter Hitchens said he is a monarchist and not a royalist, and therefore couldn't care less about the royal wedding.  Apparently, Charles was advised not to meet Peter Hitchens by one of his advisers.  I wonder why and by whom.  I do hope Charles will meet me one day and perhaps think of making me a dame, because I have so many lovely ideas for the monarchy, chief of which is to disestablish the unfit for purpose Church of England and to establish a new state religion called Anglican Islam which is based on Secular Koranism. They should hear me out, they really really should.

Once this is done I could step into be the High Priestess of Anglican Islam and basically just sort everything out for the benighted British and make them see light again.

Martin Bright said Charles should not be made King because he is too political.

Someone rather spitefully suggested that the Royal Family's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act be revoked.

Ian McLean (in answer to Peter Hitchens' question "What has the monarchy ever stopped us from doing that we should wish to abolish it?") said that monarchy was an obstacle to freedom of religion and equality. Although I had a word with Ian McLean later, I never got to the bottom of it.  McLean (who is a Quaker) said it was an outrage that bishops in the House of Lords could forbid liberal Jews and Quakers from blessing civil partnerships in their liberal synagogues and their liberal friends' houses. Since it does say that in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination, I cannot quite see why even liberal Jews and Christians should wish to bless people who are committing abominations in the eyes of those who are Jews and Christians.

In any case, how is this the fault of the Queen?

Liberal feminist atheists have really gone mad with arrogance, I fear.   The awful frightening thing is that people like them are now in charge of the ship of state and would wish to destroy everything that normal sensible people hold dear just because they can and it amuses them to do so.  It is really really time they are stopped.  

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Happiness is a political issue but Happy Ltd has no solutions for the BNP

Claire Khaw
April 26, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

Do you think becoming a BNP supporter is a sign of unhappiness?

May we know if you have any solutions?

@happyhenry OFFICIAL: women CANNOT be criticised in the Demented Matriarchy that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland

1happyhenry Henry Stewart @
@1party4all why are you sending me links to BNP crap? are you a BNP supporter?

1party4all Claire Khaw @
@happyhenry Perhaps a sign of unhappiness is becoming a BNP supporter. What answers have you got for these unhappy people, Henry?

1party4all Claire Khaw @
@happyhenry Are you suggesting that BNP supporters do not deserve happiness?

happyhenry Henry Stewart @
@1party4all no, but i am suggesting if you support a racist & violent party, I'm not too intersted in talking further.

happyhenry Henry Stewart @
@1party4all i do suggest BNP supporters do not deserve to find happiness through attacking and victimising others.

party4all Claire Khaw @
@happyhenry So u have no political solutions to prevent people from supporting the BNP apart from saying that they do not deserve happiness?

@1party4all Claire, I'm sorry if you are so unhappy you joined the BNP. I don't have magic solutions but I'm pretty sure you won't find happiness with a bunch of racists. Bu, yes, I do believe you deserve happiness.

@1party4all I'm no politician but I'd say building homes, creating jobs and decent health and education would make BNP supporters happier and peace, love and understanding (of different cultures) .....

@happyhenry Throwing more money at the problem will make people happier, you think? That has been tried and the kitty's empty.

@happyhenry Joining a political party gives one a sense of purpose and brings you into contact with other people who share the same goals.

@happyhenry "Racism" is another form of bigotry just like "anti-racism" though these days racism just means complaining about immigration.

@happyhenry What do you say then to immigrants who are also concerned about immigration? Go and throw money at yourself? Go join the BNP?

@happyhenry Do you know that the thing that would most help the white working class - grammar schools - has been taken off the menu?

@happyhenry Do you know that the thing that would help the white working class - family values supported by marriage - is now off the menu?

OFFICIAL: women CANNOT be criticised in the Demented Matriarchy that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland

Simon Murray cannot speak the truth about women in Totalitarian Matriarchy that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland

Glencore chairman Simon Murray criticised for sexism
Glencore’s new chairman has been widely condemned for making “unacceptable” and “deplorable” sexist remarks, raising further corporate governance concerns ahead of the commodity trader’s planned $60bn (£37bn) stock market debut.

Who would now deny that we live in a Demented Matriarchy?   Only the emasculated effeminate shits like Sir Roger Carr, Lord Davies and Vince "Eeyore" Cable.

It has now got so bad that men need the women to speak up for them.

I have now undertaken this task though my political ambitions - there is a theoretical possibility that I may be chosen as the 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate - may soon run into the buffers as I have been told that my pro-AV stance is at odds with the BNP's anti-AV stance, and that my regular denunciations of single motherhood will alienate potential female supporters, which the BNP now wish to attract with their new heart logo amongst other things.

Since I have entered politics to speak out about the things I believe in, I shall certainly not be shutting up about the main reason - feminism - why white people are now in their current degraded and degenerate state. (Feminism encourages paedophilia as well as female promiscuity and single parenthood.

I see that all white men who dare to challenge feminism end up apologising profusely or denying what they had in fact said.

I shall not be doing any of that.

In fact, I think I would be the best BNP London mayoral candidate because I am saying things that many BNP men think but dare not say for fear of alienating their women.  So yes, lots of BNP men are just as pussy-whipped as their LibLabCon counterparts.  In fact, because they are more shunned by women than their LibLabCon counterparts, they are probably even more desperate to gain their approval.

I am the only BNP candidate that understands what has happened to the British and feels it her duty to keep saying it until everyone understands the point I am making.  I want good things for white people of all classes because I wish to continue living here, and it would sadden me that this country cannot be saved from feminism because white people are now so infested with all the feminine vices of irrationality, hypocrisy and cowardice that they cannot now save themselves from feminism.  It is for this reason that I feel I must now step into the breach.

I imagine that a male BNP candidate would fear his wife leaving him for saying anti-feminist things, or his girlfriend shunning him and potential female partners also shunning him.  The thought of never having sex with a woman ever again would force him into submitting to the shrieks of the demented matriarchy that has turned white working class people into a degenerate race of illegitimate, singly-parenting welfare-dependent scum whom British employers shun and avoid like the plague in favour of foreign labour.

I however am not that bothered if I don't have sex with a woman ever again.  Indeed, it is possible that my saying what I say will excite much interest in men and women wishing to have sex with me.  For all I know, they will be throwing themselves at my feet when I am Mayor of London .... or even if I am not.

But if I never have sex with a man or a woman again that is a noble sacrifice I am prepared to make for the benefit of sex-addicted white people whom I wish to save from themselves.

The greater prize of becoming Mayor of London which I may have to sacrifice because of my anti-feminist stance I suppose I must also come to terms with.

The BNP selection panel should also know that no UKIP mayoral candidate will be saying anything against feminism (though I believe they have plans to say they want to legalise brothel-keeping).

The BNP selection panel should also know that no London mayoral candidate who does not have the Muslim bloc vote ever gets elected mayor and that is why our Red Ken so skillfully cultivated them.

The BNP selection panel should know that I would probably the only BNP London mayoral candidate that would attract any significant Muslim votes, because I have taken the trouble to understand their religion and their concerns and have visited their mosques and spoken to their scholars both radical and moderate.

Muslims will already know that I am the BNP peacenik opposed the invasions of Muslim lands, who deplores the war in "Afraqbya" and have been regular denouncing Liberal Western aggression for many years now in my blogs.

Muslims will know how often I have told them that they are fools for supporting the very parties that make war on Muslim nations while being in needless fear and hatred of a party that - though unashamed about their dislike of Muslims - has quite categorically stated that they would never have  invaded "Afrabya" because it is not in the British National Interest to say they wish to save Muslims from each other by bombing and invading their countries, unquestioningly supporting Israel, and then complaining about Muslim terrorism.

Even if I do not attract enough Muslim voters to make me Mayor of London, I believe I have a pretty good chance of doing better than the previous BNP London mayoral candidates and of showing that Muslims and the BNP have quite a number of things in common chief of which is promoting family values supported by marriage.

So there.

British teenagers are drug-taking scum and so are their unmarried parents, it would appear

Monday, 25 April 2011

British LibLabCon supporting-Muslims are stupid too

While the BNP have never pretended that they like Muslims, they are less malign towards Muslims than the LibLabCon who say they do not hate and fear Muslims while dropping bombs on Muslims in Muslim lands. It seems most British Muslims prefer to trust in and vote for hypocrites.

How strange that the Muslims have not noticed that all the values the LibLabCon promote, eg gay rights, gay marriage, not punishing criminals properly, not promoting family values supported by marriage, not giving poor but clever children grammar schools, calling everyone who complains about immigration Nazi Fascist Racist Evil Extremists, condoning and encouraging under-aged sex with sex education at ever earlier ages, are obviously against the principles the Koran promotes?

In fact, the BNP without even trying, have policies that many Muslims support in their heart of hearts, eg NOT bombing Muslim countries and therefore not radicalising Muslim youth in this country who are understandably outraged that Afraqbya should be the victim of Western invasion and bombing for such obviously spurious reasons.

Perhaps the Muslims have integrated only too well now and have become stupid, hypocritical and cowardly, just like stupid white non-Muslims who are busily heaping up their own funeral pyre?

If uncontrolled mass immigration is bad for white people it is also bad for non-white people because it causes social tensions as well as racial and religious hatred.

Perhaps the BNP should change its name to the "We Were Here Before You Party" or the "We Told You So Party" and just get the vexed question of race right out of things.  I know for a fact that many Muslims have a problem with immigration but have no one to go to, because they know that BNP and UKIP hate them.

In truth, we are all - whatever our racial and religious differences - more in agreement with each other than we suppose.  We all want lower taxes, fewer taxes and more law and order, do we not?  Too bad then that LibLabCon AKA the liberal elite AKA the political establishment have carved out the market for themselves and marginalised ordinary people of all races and religions who just want commonsense government because we are all so stupid, divided and hypocritical that they continue to easily divide and rule us.  

Teachers warned: Do not become Facebook friends with your pupils

Slut, Slag and Slapper UK headteacher Belinda Langley-Bliss who posted about her breasts on Facebook

"She posted a photograph with a caption boasting about the size of her breasts shortly after introducing a tough new disciplinary regime at Wilmington Enterprise College in Kent."

What a shame so many  British teachers are so stupid and so depraved.  

Are the particularly stupid and depraved ones mostly FEMALE?

They appear to be from the sound of this Mail article.  No wonder most British girls these days are sluts, slags and slappers having under-aged sex and schoolgirl mothers.   This is the kind of SHIT we have teaching the SHIT of the future.

Saturday, 23 April 2011

Cleggeron disagreement on internships

I wish, in the spirit of peacemaking that I hope I will one day become known for, offer a solution to the Clegg-Cameron Coalition dichotomy on the question of paid and unpaid internships.

Clegg thinks unpaid internships should be discouraged because they advantage the children of wealthy parents to the disadvantage of children of poorer parents, while Cameron cannot see why parents cannot use their connections to advantage their children.

My solution is simple: there should be an equal number of alternating places in any firm for paid and unpaid internships.

Am I or am I not a genius who should become Dictator of Britain to be elected by SMS using AV on Political X Factor in which I will beat the other candidates by a clear margin?

Ought I not have Obama's Nobel Peace Prize transferred to me forthwith as being the clearly more deserving recipient?

Are not my problem-solving powers simply phenomenal?

Like all the best things in life, my ideas are free.  

Conclusive sign that Western leaders don't know what they are doing

When France and Britain decided to bomb Libya, did they really not see that a flood of refugees from Africa to Europe would be inevitable, strengthening the support for nationalist and anti-immigrant parties?

If they did not, they must have been warned, one would have thought.

If they had been warned, why did they not listen?

Is it cos they have shit for brains because they are the political establishment in a demented matriarchy and have a compulsion to keep doing mad and silly things?

Bombing Libya is not really a foreign policy objective, it is just a manifestation of a compulsion to intervene, just like one may have a compulsion to masturbate, shop, drink, take drugs or gamble.

I certainly saw it coming and offer my services to this benighted country to be Dictator of Britain so that it may once again have a rational domestic and foreign policy.

Other candidates should also offer themselves too, of course, and we could be elected by SMS and AV.

The Church of England is like a cheap whore

"The Anglican Church has ordained women, divorcees approved of civil partnerships it so politically correct it is a joke. Has it put any more bums on the pews not at all. The CofE the sooner good night God bless the better."

Friday, 22 April 2011

The Behaviour of the Bovine British Voter who knows Something is Wrong

Below is tweet I received referring to the incoherence of my political position.

Michael_Merrick Michael Merrick @
@1party4all don't mean to be unkind Claire but the problem is that you're incoherent - anger, or celebrity, is no substitute for good sense

Michael Merrick is a "A lefty. A conservative one."

Apart from the inherent contradiction of being a lefty and a conservative which seems to escape him (I think this means he is Old Labour), let us now examine the advice he is trying to give me.  I never had a response from him on how precisely I am being incoherent despite repeated requests.

My position is that if we vote for the party with the policies we most agree with, then we would be closer to the kind of government we want.

Unfortunately, the typical bovine British voter is afraid of a number of things:

1.  The typical bovine British voter regards voting rather like putting a bet on a horse.  If your horse doesn't win you have lost, and they are so afraid of losing.

2.  The typical bovine British voter is pathetically loyal to the party he belongs to.

3.  The typical bovine British voter does not know that a political party is like a bus, only useful if it is going where you want.

4.  The typical bovine British voter does not know where he wants to go and is content to be reassured by an increasingly lost bus driver that everything is OK even as the fuel and road signs run out.

5.  The typical bovine British voter is afraid to ask the bus to stop so he can get off, in case people look at him funny.  .

6.  The typical bovine British voter fears to wait on his own at the bus stop for the next bus.

7.  The typical bovine British voter would board a bus that goes to Belgravia even if he lives in Brixton, and walk the rest of the way, because he would rather not find out about the best way of getting to where he wants.  He probably has trouble reading the bus time table and working things out for himself.  The way British education is these days, that comes as no surprise, of course.

So Michael Merrick and his ilk will stay in the Labour Party and continue voting Labour all the while whingeing weekly, and weakly whingeing that things are not as they would wish.

Michael Merrick knows - in his heart of hearts - that voting for Labour would be taken as a signal that the party has the right policies by the leadership, but he dares not leave the party because of his unthinking tribal loyalty, perhaps not so much to his party, but to all his years of telling people that he is in the Labour Party.

Micheal Merrick is one of the many many many emasculated, feminised and educated British men who think cowardice, hypocrisy, intellectual incoherence are tolerable states of being as long as they remain part of the mainstream.

I, on the other hand know that I must lead by example.

If I say that we would be closer to the government we want if we just voted for the party with the policies we most agree with, then I must lead by example.

If that party is the BNP then it would have to be the BNP, even as  the bricks and the sticks and stones are hurled at me.

I am not having any of this "I support BNP policies but I won't vote for them because I am not a racist" CRAP, because I would hate people to think that I am a coward and a hypocrite.

These days the emasculated and intellectually effeminate NewBrit male will just smile sweetly at you for calling him a coward and a hypocrite and present to you all his four cheeks for you to slap.
There are worse things to be accused of being a racist, and that is to be Champagne Swilling Socialist SCUM or people too afraid of voting for parties they could vote for solely to express their political preferences.  You would have thought that a secret ballot would be sufficiently reassuring, but these people are very easily frightened after so many years of emasculation and effeminacy under the demented matriarchy that is Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.

Do we have free speech or not in this once great country of ours?  I think we already know what they think is the answer judging from the way these limp-dicked dwarfs are behaving.

Free speech: use it or lose it, but these limp-dicked pygmies have forgotten how such things are done many many moons ago.

There are people who say to me that they do support BNP policies, but cannot openly say so because they are afraid of the social and economic consequences of going public, because they have a job and a mortgage and a family and credit card bills to pay.  That is how they would justify their cowardice.

Should I listen to people like that who say I should go more mainstream so that they can feel comfortable about openly supporting me?

They want me to "make alliances".  But one must choose one's allies carefully.  The useless ones will just leave you in the lurch or stab you in the back the moment things get a bit dicey and they get a bit scared.

Thee educated white sheep-men who vote LibLabCon are the most despicably cowardly and hypocritical of all.  They know the good, but choose the evil, because they are afraid of the R word that will make them run and hide.

Are they men or mice?  Perhaps they are just rats.

Bishop of Oxford wants Church schools to only be 10% Christian

The Bishop of Cunt

Does the Bishop of Oxford want to destroy Christianity? Perhaps the stupid old fucker just likes winding people up.

If anyone thinks that Christianity is being destroyed by Muslims or immigration, they are quite quite wrong. Christianity is being destroyed from within by its own Commie cunt bishops.

Looks like the C of E really can't get the staff these days, so they will have to accept any old Commie cunt to fills its depleted ranks.

Clearly, the Bishop of Commie Cuntery wants a  more inclusive admissions policy in order that Church schools can be more like the sink school comps that parents who took the trouble of pretending to be Christian and going to Church regularly so desperately want to save their children from.

Commented a Facebook friend:

"It's obvious isn't it? If church schools have a better ethos, encourage better standards of behaviour and discipline in an environment where children are able to study without distraction, then it is precisely the type of parents who want to send their children there who must at all costs be discouraged so that the c of e can pursue its loony liberal agenda of empathising with those who neither respect or value its agenda." 

I am not surprised that he has already received a death threat.  Doubtless he wishes to receive more to raise his status of being the Martyr of Commie Cuntery.  I am just sorry for his family.  I am sure Anjem Choudary or Abu Hamza are ever so slightly more popular amongst their own supporters than the Bishop of Cunt. is a sermon by him.  These sermons are of course typical of the C of E, who are now too afraid of discussing anything controversial.  I still remember the a sermon I heard last year when the priest was talking about the "lambiness of Christ". I just about managed to stop myself from vomiting.

When I become dictator, I will disestablish the Church and invite tenders from other organisations capable of making the new state religion less laughably putrid and demented.   

Thursday, 21 April 2011

A silly question to which you will not be given an answer - the nature consciousness and the purpose of asking silly questions that will not be answered

S11 APING MANKIND at Town Hall Unreserved
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 18:00
£8 (£7), Members - 10% off

The blurb:
"Raymond Tallis questions the claim that a combination of neuroscience and evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain human consciousness, behaviour, culture and society. Join him to hear his argument that we humans are infinitely more interesting and complex than we appear to be when we are represented as essentially biological organisms. By minimizing the difference between ourselves and our nearest primate kin, are we in fact misrepresenting and even degrading humanity?" 

What is it about human consciousness that needs to be explicated beyond the dictionary definition and beyond what I have provided at has a number of silly questions we could ask to which there will be no real answer, viz:

  1. Is consciousness a valid concept or a conceptual error?
  2. Is it a single unified entity or a collection of distinct entities?
  3. How does it relate to language?
  4. Can it be explained in terms of the laws of physics?
  5. Why are we convinced that other people (or even we ourselves) possess consciousness?
  6. Why do we believe that some animals possess consciousness, and is there any way to test this belief?
  7. What is the nature of experience, and particularly what is the nature of sensory qualities such as the color red?
If you were to perchance get an answer, it would be so boring, irrelevant and obscure that you wonder why you bothered in the first place.  

Is this branch of philosophy a branch of philosophy whereby the most confident and convincing charlatans can talk utter nonsense for hours, be asked questions and answer them with supreme confidence and leave the uninitiated none the wiser?

Is this branch of philosophy the training ground for confidence tricksters?

Of course humans who are conscious are cleverer than animals who are also conscious.  

Does any more really need to be said about the subject? 

Is Western civilisation rubbish these days because Western philosophy is rubbish? 

My answer to "What is consciousness and why it is important"

I would define what is consciousness, and say that it is self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness is of course the awareness of the difference between myself and other people and other objects.

Self-consciousness is only possible if one were able to suffer pain or enjoy pleasure.

I would then say that I assume that all conscious creatures - if they were wise - would wish would wish to maximise their pleasure and minimise their pain in the long term.

This policy of maximising pleasure and minimising pain requires the use of Reason.

How well one uses Reason to maximise pleasure and minimise pain is a reflection of one's Wisdom, which is where philosophy comes in.

The use of reason requires one to make judgments on whether a course of action is wise or unwise and leads us to consider the nature of Knowledge and Truth (Epistemology) which would assist us in the process of reasoning.

The question is important because it demonstrates how so much time can be spent by so many clever people going down an intellectual blind alley that does not make us any the wiser, which is what philosophy and philosophers worth their salt ought to do for us.

The question "What is consciousness?" demonstrates the truth and wisdom of the saying "Ask a silly question, get a silly answer."

How did that silly question come to be asked? It came to be asked because Descartes tried to prove the existence of God by using his theory of consciousness ("I think therefore I am"), which is linked to his theory of knowledge ("How can we ever know anything for certain?") leading eventually, centuries later, to the Donald Rumseld Theory of Knowledge (Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, Unknown Unknowns).

Tallis is preoccupied with the existence of God because he is an atheist anxious to disprove the existence of God.  However, my theory of Agnostic Indifference to the existence of a Living God would most rationally reconcile the opposing positions of Atheists and Monotheists ie

"Only the altruistic and truly good would behave as if God exists (and do as they think He would wish us to do if He existed) for the Greater Good even as they entertain doubts about His actual existence.

Raymond Tallis could/would not explain why the question "What is consciousness?" is important in words a 12 year old could understand

Not wearing his red hat when I saw him.

To be honest, I was not planning to attend this talk because (a) I had to pay and (b) I predicted that the talk would be riddled with incomprehensible jargon and leave me none the wiser.

The night before the talk I caught the tail end of Joan Bakewell's interview of Raymond Tallis.

The skill of Joan Bakewell is that she managed to make Tallis much more interesting on radio by skilled questioning than he really was in the talk I attended.  It actually made me think he did have something worthwhile and profound to say.  Below are my sketchy notes on what I thought was interesting about the interview.

"To have an intellectual love of the universe ... "

"We are altruistic because we want the respect of others ..."

The opposable thumb makes humans create things and mark out a uniquely human domain ...
"The finger of God on Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel does not quite touch man. Point of parity, but separation ..."
"The act of pointing is the ground floor of our sense ... "

Difference between science and scientism.  Science is the study of things and how they behave.  Scientism is an ideology that all problems can be solved by science.  
Difference between mind and the brain. Tallis says he doesn't know. I think I do. The mind cannot exist independently of the brain.   While it is necessary to have a brain to have a mind, when we are dead, our rotting brains will be no use to anyone and what we will leave behind is evidence of the workings of our mind, in the memory and perception of others.  The brain is material, the mind is abstract.  The power of ideas ie things we cannot see, touch and hold, has the power to move mountains.  
"Free will not an episodic thing. Network of social obligations and encounters that carry moral judgments. We are therefore culturally conditioned in our moral judgments."

Therefore I went along in anticipation, though I was a little late.  Tallis  was reading from a very long essay full of long sentences, long words that were basically jargon to someone like me who is not learning to talk incomprehensibly, pretentiously (but confidently), in a way that might dispose people think one might just be a student in philosophy.

When he started talking about "intentionality" I asked if one is allowed to ask question because I felt that my ability to understand the talk depended on my understanding of this concept.

His response was no, because that would distract him from his train of thought.  (Distract him from what, I wondered?  If you are just reading from your essay, just go back to reading from where you left off after answering my question, I thought.)  He continued that he was giving the talk on the basis that most people would know a little about the subject and the implication was that it was too bad if I didn't.  Did I have a pen, he asked, rather sarcastically.  Perhaps I would like to write my question down so I can ask him the question after he had finished his talk.  I replied that was not necessary as my question was simply "What is intentionality?"  The essay from which he was reading eventually mentioned intentionality which it it seems is about the "aboutness" of things.  From the sound of things at it is not an easy concept to understand, much less explain, even to someone known by one and all to be a distinguished philosopher such as Tallis.

Words such as dualism, materialism, empiricism, ontology were bandied about.  Interestingly, the word "epistemology" was not mentioned even once.

Whether a slug that was given an electric shock by a man called Cantrell every time it did a particular thing was discussed.  This snail learned not to do the thing that resulted in an electric shock and this, I thought, was evidence enough for me that a slug does indeed have consciousness because it has the ability to feel pain and the desire and capacity to avoid it.  For some reason Tallis mocked this conclusion.  I meant to ask him why he was so confident in his assertion that a slug that responded to pain and changed its behaviour had no consciousness, but did not quite get round to it.  Perhaps Tallis thought he knew  because he was one himself in a former life, and knew that he had no consciousness?  But I did not get round to making this point.  This was not challenged or picked up by anyone either.

More and more convinced than ever that this man was talking arrant but jargon-laden nonsense, I eventually resolved on asking him to explain the mish-mash of words in terms a 12 year old could understand.  "Why are we asking this question and why is it important?" I asked.  (His response was something I did not manage to take down and certainly did not understand or remember, and all I can attest to is that somewhere in that answer Darwin was mentioned.)

In response to my question, Tallis asked if anyone else understood what he was talking about.  A black lady from Kingston Further Education College doing a philosophy course raised her arm.   (I resolved to speak to this lady after the talk to get her to explain to me the meaning of consciousness, but did not get round to doing this before she left, unfortunately.)  He then asked those who did not understand to raise their arm. Mine went up immediately.  As far as I can remember, no one else raised their arms though I did not look behind me, and so it appears that the others appeared to be in the very interesting position of not knowing if they knew or did not know what he was talking about!)

I think it was at this point that I sensed Tallis begin to actively dislike me judging by his comments about 12 year olds that I felt were rather snide but which I cannot now remember.

Someone did however comment that 12 year olds can ask quite difficult and intelligent questions, but Tallis did not respond to this point.

I made the observation that perhaps, if one asked a silly question, one might get a silly answer, which could only have sharpened his dislike of me, I suppose.

It seemed odd to me that he should have been so unwilling to explain any of his theories properly.  If I had to give a talk on something I did not in fact know, then, to avoid embarrassment to myself I would prefer to read from a text and just hope no one would ask me questions I could not answer.

However, if I had a difficult concept to explain and in fact wished to explain it, I would be absolutely delighted if anyone understood enough of what I had said to ask an intelligent question.  If someone said they did not understand and clearly wished to, I like to think I would have felt a professional duty to see to it that they did eventually understand, however irritatingly obtuse they were being, rather than mock them for asking the question and treating them as a nuisance to be disposed of.

I am afraid I did actually say to him that it did not appear to me that he cared  whether or not I understood the question.  At this point he told me how much he resented this remark and referred me to his website at which would show how much he cared.  I have since had a look at it and do not quite see how it proves that he cares about explaining anything in an intelligible way, since a website is primarily for self-promotion inviting others to acknowledge one's genius and ideas.

If he really cared about other people understanding his ideas, then he would have taken more trouble to explain himself in terms a 12 year old could understand, is my considered view.  As it was, I was clearly in the wrong as far as he was concerned for not getting what he was going on about and daring to say this more than once when I received no satisfaction from his incomprehensible and convoluted answers.

This passage from Mein Kampf now comes to mind.  It was of course Hitler's birthday (and it was a trending topic on Twitter yesterday, I noticed) and it seems particularly apt because Tallis did the exact opposite of what follows below.

He [the speaker] will always let himself be borne by the great masses in such a way that instinctively the very words come to his lips that he needs to speak to the hearts of his audience. And if he errs, even in the slightest, he has the living correction before him. As I have said, he can read from the facial expression of his audience whether, firstly, they understand what he is saying, whether, secondly, they can follow the speech as a whole, and to what extent, thirdly, he has convinced them of the soundness of what he has said. If - firstly - he sees that they do not understand him, he will become so primitive and clear in his explanations that even the last member of his audience has to understand him; if he feels - secondly - that they cannot follow him, he will construct his ideas so cautiously and slowly that even the weakest member of the audience is not left behind, and he will - thirdly - if he suspects that they do not seem convinced of the soundness of his argument, repeat it over and over in constantly new examples. He himself will utter their objections, which he senses though unspoken, and go on confuting them and exploding them, until at length even the last group of an opposition, by its very bearing and facial expression, enables him to recognize its capitulation to his arguments.

Of course, Hitler had a mission - which was to spread his message.  Tallis perhaps only had the purpose of making everyone acknowledge that he was a very clever man indeed, and did not perhaps care so much as Hitler did about whether anyone at all knew what he was going on about.

Anyway, after his talk, I asked him if he wouldn't mind repeating to me what was his answer to the hypothetical 12 year old.  I knew Darwin was somewhere in his answer, but would he mind repeating it again?

That was when he let rip and told me that I was quite the rudest questioner he had ever come across.  (I tried to look contrite.)  He said that some of the others understood and known what he was talking about.  (He seemed to be suggesting it was therefore my fault that I did not understand and that it was not his fault that he could not explain it to me in a way that a 12 year old could understand.) In any case, he wanted nothing more to do with me, and walked away.

I then asked the organiser who is a lecturer in philosophy what the question was.  She told me it was "What is consciousness?"  I asked if she knew what consciousness is and why it is important, and she pointedly told me that philosophy was not about answers but the discussion of questions.  I pointed out that it should at least be about being able to answer a question about a question.  In any case, I said I thought that I had a better answer than Tallis to the whole vexed question.  She responded by challenging me to give a talk on the subject.  I readily agreed, so fingers crossed that this lady will actually invite me to speak on this, or will she be so cross with me that she will want nothing at all to do with me for ever and ever, just like Raymond Tallis?

I do wonder though if perhaps the decline of the West is in some way related to the dreadful way Westerners who regard themselves as philosophers so happily waste centuries of their time asking silly questions without ever expecting or demanding a proper answer?

Secular Koranism

I would like it said that Secular Koranism is a novel and coherent fusion of atheism, agnosticism, monotheism, non-racist civic nationalism, libertarianism, direct democracy, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I would also it said that I am the High Priestess of Secular Koranism.   

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

Lynsey Hanley tells socially conservative Labour supporters to fuck off to the BNP

Lynsey Hanley was born in Birmingham in 1976. She moved to London in 1994 to study politics and history at Queen Mary and Westfield College, London. She writes for the Observer, The Word and the New Statesman. She is married and lives in the east end of London. Her book, Estates: An Intimate History, is published by Granta Books.

Lynsey Hanley, ex-working class, now Class Traitor, tells Ed Miliband:

"Labour must bury working-class conservatism, not praise it." 

She is saying, the Labour Party is now the Party of the Liberal Metropolitan Elite and should continue to promote the Cause of Champagne Socialist Scum like her.  If you don't like, then fuck off to the BNP you stupid working class racist white fuckers and homophobes.  (I paraphrase, of course.)

So, what will Ed Miliband do?  He is of the Liberal Metropolitan Elite, of course, and thinks, talks and behaves just like them.  Family values, family schmalues.  Marriage, schmarriage.

What is this young man, with no experience of life, who is only now getting round to making an honest woman out of the mother of his bastard sons, going to do to make the Labour Party electable?  Nothing of course. The young pup hasn't got it in him.  

The worst form of bigotry comes from liberal elite Champagne Socialist SCUM

I didn't say it.  Brendan O'Neill did.

The liberal elite despise all the values that would help the white working classes better themselves. The liberal elite love to sneer at the white working classes and deprive them of a decent education because they need someone to sneer at now we can no longer sneer at gays, other races and other religions. They are the hypocritical SHITS.


Superb opportunity for Monarchy to become more popular and distance itself from war in Afghanistan etc. (Ed Milband did that and became Labour leader!)

Muslim fanatics have warned they may burn Union Jack flags on the day of the Royal Wedding

"I believe that the Queen and her children are supportive of the war in Afghanistan, which translates to us as a war against Muslims." 

There are no coherent foreign policy reasons for invading Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya to impose regime-change because they all hate and resent us for even thinking that we have a right to tell them what to do.

Because there are already so many Muslims in Britain who are also outraged that the West should casually, thoughtlessly, unadvisedly invade three Muslim lands, the people of Britain are also in danger of terrorism. However, the chief danger is not so much terrorism but paranoia about Muslim terrorism that will take away all their liberties eventually.

So, if the Queen should decide to distance herself from the war and assure Anjem Choudary and his lot that none of the Royal Family support the invasion of Muslim lands, she would be doing herself, as well as the Muslims and non-Muslims of this country a very good turn, by causing an unpopular war to rapidly becoming even more unpopular and perhaps have the effect of bringing our boys home, sooner rather than later, with less futile sacrifice of resources and lives.

My letters of today to the Secretaries at Clarence House and Buckingham Palace (Mr Jamie Lowther Pinkerton, Sir Michael Peat, Mrs Ailsa Anderson, Mr Christopher Geidt)

Anjem Choudary and his threats to disrupt The Wedding on 29 April 2011

May I suggest that the Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William take this opportunity of jointly distancing themselves from the very unpopular war in Afghanistan? 
It may upset the government but would certainly be very popular indeed with the people, both non-Muslim and Muslim, Radical and Moderate.  

Yours etc

Stupid bitch dies in stupid war for Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg

Any soldier in Afghanistan who is dying for nothing instead of mutinying against this shit policy of being in Afghanistan are stupid bastards and bitches. But plenty more where they came from, eh?

British troops out of Afghanistan NOW.

Do not honour stupid bitches and stupid fuckers who willingly die for nothing and are happy to die for the dreary ceremony that is Remembrance Sunday.

Wake up stupid bastards and stupid bitches before you get blown up for Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

It is YOUR funeral, or soon will be, stupid.

If you have friends and family in the Armed Forces, tell them to mutiny before more damage is done to the reputation of this country IN YOUR NAME by Cunt Cameron and his warmongering fuckers.

It is YOUR country and in YOUR name Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are being invaded in.

Do you know how much the rest of the world hates us?

Yes, they really really HATE us.

They kill Christians in their country to show how much they hate us and we still don't get it.

Boy, are we STUPID.

Michael Heaver's Blog: Even the academics don't "get" UKIP.

Michael Heaver's Blog: Even the academics don't "get" UKIP.: "The work of Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin on UKIP has been a right dog's dinner. In an article reproduced for the The Guardian , they desc..."

A new festival for London - the London Love Festival - when I am mayoress to replace boring and irritating London Marathon

Like this NOT

Were I to be become Mayor of London I would abolish the irritating and boring London Marathon and institute instead a London Love Festival.

Boring and irritating London Marathon.  Who on earth wants to watch this??

The London Love Festival would celebrate the Joys of Outdoor Sex in London's Royal Parks. @SpencerTunick could be called in to do something

Are they perchance facing Mecca?

In keeping with family values only those married to each other may participate in the London Love Festival. The rest of us must look on in horror or envy.

No parades like the problematic Berlin Love Parade, just a general licence for married couples to have sex with each other in the open air in discreet places in the Royal Parks without getting into trouble with the law.