Thursday, 5 April 2012

My ten policies if I had been the BNP London Mayoral Candidate instead of Carlos Cortiglia

  1. I would establish a super-brothel like Pascha as a job creation scheme for London's Slut Single Mums. 
  2. I would introduce the Tuk Tuk.
  3. I would allow citizens to set up their own borough-based militia to deal with the next lot of rioting.
  4. I would set up patrols of Pavement Police to fine drunken and vomiting Pavement Users. 
  5. I would firm up the laws to make a citizen's arrests easier for the arresting citizen.'s_arrest#United_Kingdom
  6. I would set up debating societies in every London borough and promise to attend an event at each debating society at least once in my term.  
  7. I would set up a marriage bureau in every London borough to make it easier for decent Londoners of the marrying kind to meet each other.
  8. I would London the first city in Britain to try out the Marriage Contract.  (Lots of lovely legal fees for London lawyers!)
  9. I would set up a marriage counselling service in every London borough to help those whose marriages have hit rocky patches.
  10. I would set up a London Blind Date Association.   Prospective husbands would make offers of marriage to prospective wives who would be wearing a niqab, but only after their questions have been answered to their satisfaction. These women would of course also have a list of questions for the men about their prospects, property and ambitions. It would be a bit like Blind Date but with the contestants wearing the niqab, even if they are not Muslim. This would be when deportment, wit, learning and personality would come into its own.  Only when an offer has been made and accepted would the niqab be removed to reveal the features and the form of the woman concerned. As Mayoress of London I claim the right to be Mistress of Ceremony.  It will be great fun, fellow Londoners!  


Anonymous said...

I like your blogs, Claire. You have a great sense of humour at times, and there is really pretty much no other woman out there like you. I mean you are sharing some of the views of Simon Sheppard for f*ck's sake.

As for Carlos Cortiglia, he may be Uruguayan, but he's still a white man and so doesn't move all that much away from the BNP's traditional image. The BNP is a total joke now anyway as are all 'nationalist' parties.

Claire Khaw said...

Just imagine, JUST IMAGINE, if I had been the BNP London Mayoral Candidate though.

The IMAGE of nationalism would have been UTTERLY TRANSFORMED.

And thank you for your kind words.

Insofar as a women have the ability to be impartial and are able to take constructive criticism, they would have to agree, like me, that what Simon Sheppard says is incontrovertible, which is why they hate him so much.

Anonymous said...

It would certainly have altered the image of nationalism if you had been a candidate, but ultimately in the long term it would have made little difference. No matter what happens, a party such as the BNP cannot gain electoral success and especially in such a multiethnic melange of a metropolis as London. It would be viewed as a publicity stunt to have a non-white female candidate regardless of what you actually had to say, much as when an elderly Sikh man from India (who may have died since, if I recall correctly) became a BNP member.

I agree with your assessment that the BNP is fundamentally an English political party. I am from northern Scotland, and so from my perspective, London is almost as distant both geographically and culturally as it is possible to be within the UK. The National Front is actually active here, although it is a total joke, even moreso than the BNP. There is barely any point in voting because political correctness, human rights and other mediocrity creates a standard of international uniformity that nations dare not shy away from. No European nation will ever adopt any kind of 'far-right' political system - it will never happen - and even if one did, it would immediately become an international pariah and become economically crippled.

I like your blog because really you're right up my street in terms of the things you talk about. Here's an article about Anders Breivik that was published by this Big Sister type that I really found irksome:

"this fantasy of invulnerability is about the desire to be fully insured against risk – and ultimately, against death"

What is wrong with discriminating against death? Not discriminating against death has been tried:

The result is suicide. And, well, that's a bit shit really.

"Discrimination is an essential human function. To discriminate is ‘to see the difference.’ It is obvious that someone who cannot see the difference between a small opponent and a large one, or between an enemy sneaking up in disguise and a friend, is at a disadvantage. If one kind (sex, race, species, genotype) is exploiting another it is to their advantage to erode their opponent’s discrimination – to discourage discrimination on the basis of kind. This is the Malign Encouragement procedure: encouraging an opponent to pursue an adverse strategy. Collectively employed it is ‘What’s bad for them is good for us.’"

Anonymous said...

I know I'm straying a bit (or even quite a lot) from the original topic of the post, but if you could give your thoughts on what I have been (and am) saying, Claire, that would be great.

If white people are in such a weak position (see then why are any females (of any race) attracted to white males at all?

The answer lies in what evolutionary psychologists refer to as 'mismatch theory'.

"The essence of mismatch theory is that organisms possess traits (including behavioral, emotional, and biological) that have been passed down through generations, preserved by natural selection because of their adaptive function in a given environment. However, the given environment of the evolutionary period can be quite unlike the current environment. Therefore, traits that were at one time adaptive in a certain environment, are now "mismatched" to the environment that the trait is currently present in."

See also these pages:'s_rule

Taking into account the facts that

a) white people will disappear completely within the next few hundred years


b) it is a lot more common for non-white men to date, marry and have children with white females than vice-versa;

then in accordance with the sexy son hypothesis and Hamilton's rule it makes no evolutionary sense for any females to be attracted to white males because that would be putting their own sons at a reproductive disadvantage.

Thus, the fact that any females are attracted to white males MUST be an evolutionary mismatch.

That's all I will say for just now. If you could offer me your thoughts, that would be very nice.

Claire Khaw said...

Most Hollywood stars are still white. A lot of black people do stuff to their skin to white up. Orientals undergo cosmetic surgery to make their eyes larger. The white look is still admired, for aesthetic reasons.

There is also a time-lag factor. Most of the rest of the world still thinks the white man is master of the universe, for the moment.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but as you suggest, those who change their appearance to look more 'white' are almost exclusively non-white FEMALES.

Paradoxically however some white females change their appearance to look more non-white, especially with fake tans and suchlike.

This does not however give them non-white facial features.