Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Me and the Muslims

Asghar Bukhari of MPACUK  and me, taken on 22 July 2012

Asghar Bukhari of and me. I thought I would do the One God sign, for the sake of symmetry. A moral unique and omnipotent perfect God is the most powerful idea man can conceive of, is it not? You do not have to actually believe in God, merely toy with the idea that He might exist, care for and wish to protect you .... The possibility is tantalising enough to be cheering and sustaining enough to me, an atheist. I am more an "ein volk, ein reich, eine partei" sort of girl.

Asghar's efforts are dedicated towards getting Muslims to combat Islamophobia, and how to win arguments against Islamophobes.  I tried to tell him that if you win all the arguments, the Islamophobes will hate you even more, because they need someone to hate, or the white working classes will end up hating themselves for being corrupted, then marginalised and despised by their own political class.

The only way to make them hate you less is to offer them the benefits of your religion.  I know this sounds very Anjem Choudary, but this does not mean we have to accept the Anjem Choudary interpretation of the Koran of stoning adulterers to death, does it?  (In fact, nowhere in the Koran does it mention stoning anyone to death, which comes from the Old Testament.)

Even if we were all Muslim, we would be quarrelling with each other over the interpretation of the Koran, and this creative tension is fine by me.

I am basically selling people my interpretation of the Koran.  If you like my interpretation and wish to abolish usury, rampant consumerism, the Worship of Mammon, and the insane gynocentrism of unchecked feminism, then get in touch.  Support me, bankroll me, fund my racially neutral civic nationalist party and I will effect change for you.  That is all I ask.

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


What is this first step?

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

It is also said to be the directly revealed Word of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To counter them, simply form a Koran Book Club and offer generous prizes to non-Muslims for essays that confirm that the Koran is the best guide to mankind or which persuasively propose a viable alternative.

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

Monday, 30 July 2012

Red got into trouble with the police for annoying the BNP

28 July 2012 1:03PM
I have a similar thing, with a ludicrious 'threat' online being taken seriously by the police. Several years back I had some BNP leaflet dropped through my door, which basically blamed Muslims (/asylum seekers/immigrants/refugees - they weren't sure the difference and used the terms interchangeably) for ALL the problems in the UK. It had an email address for their local division on there, so I happily obliged (cos obviously the only thing they were after was hatemail, right?).

I told them if they dropped anymore leaflets through my door I would sieg heil them in the eyes. Hilarious right? (i was 18 gimme a chance) They responded with an email saying that for "threatening to blind" them, they were reporting me to the police. And wouldn't you know it, the police came banging on my door (and my neighbours' door, as no one was in) at 11 at night. They didn't charge me with anything, but they did take my dna and fingerprints (to check against other keyboards, i suppose). They told me it was an unofficial caution that wouldn't come up in any CRB checks or anything, but whatdoyaknow - every job interview I've had since I've had to explain exactly what my 'threatening or malicious communication' is.

A warning to me to be afraid

"you have a blog that speaks the truth - be afraid :)"

Too many women have the vote, and the solution is OBVIOUS

The Reds are not under your bed, they are ON your bed.

"O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Why do so many nationalists hate Nick Griffin?

Mark Collet (ex-BNP) on Facebook:   "Trip to Scotland: £80, Burger King at the services: £6.50, the look on Griffin's face when he shit himself in the car park as his security struggled to deal with one lone protester: PRICELESS"

Does the Chairman intend to go around protesting at every rapist who is released from prison?

Is he saying that convicted rapists should never be released from prison?

If they are released, should they not live anywhere at all?

I think it would be far more sensible for rapists to financially compensate their victims after a decent flogging.  That is what I would propose if I were leader.

It does seem rather opportunistic of the Chairman to go all the way up to Scotland to march with the Scotties.  He should have known that the Scotties hate the English, and the BNP will be seen as an English party.

Bob Taylor on his Facebook wall on 30 July 2012:  "Doe's this look like someone who was beaten to a pulp by a 24 stone plus tub of lard. The birch tried to scratch my eyes out (see scratch) and the other mark is a graze from his scruffy leather jack with all the badges over it."

Bob Taylor:

"What a load of bollocks. Only one ponce ended up on the deck and it was not me."

"Paul Easton of the National Front turned up at our meeting in Kent and thought I would run from him but he come unstuck big time. He went over like a sack of shit. I'v just got the other half to take a picture of my face and I shall up load it and you tell me if I look like I've been beaten to a pulp lo."

Two questions on disability


You have two children: one is normal and the other suffers from a disability.

They are both in danger and you can only save one of them.  

Which one would you save?

This is a no-brainer of a question if you are capable of thinking rationally and are neither a coward nor a hypocrite.


You have two Down's Syndrome children: one a boy and a girl. They are both in danger and you can only save one of them. Let us say you love them both equally. Which one would you save? There is a correct answer.

The correct answer is that you save the male one because you don't want to have to deal with your Down's Syndrome daughter getting knocked up by every passing sex predator, and this means having to sterilise her.  

Five forceful steps towards remoralising Britain

1.   Abolish the CSA and require men to maintain only the children of the women they are married to.

2.  Allow a man to reject a child, especially if it is disabled and unviable and if he can prove  it is not his. 

3.   Abolish child benefit and the welfare state. 

4.   Stigmatise the mothers of illegitimate children.

5.   Propose that SSMs be lashed 100 times.  (The Koran prescribes the lashing of adulterers/adulteresses, fornicators and fornicatresses.  I am not even going this far, but what is a Slut Single Mum but a fornicatress?   No further evidence is needed, surely, unless she is claiming it was an Immaculate Conception?  Anyway, Mary managed to get Joseph to marry her so Jesus was in fact legitimate.)

Should SEN children be in normal schools holding back normal children?

Bullied: Mackenzie-Graye Evans, was hospitalized after a gang of school-bullies attacked him

Read more:

Perhaps this is a way of getting rid of children who hold back the education of other children because their parents want to have it both ways.

They want to bring up their behaviourally-challenged and mentally-retarded children but they also want them in normal schools, indifferent to the fact that SEN children hold back the progress of normal children.   In other words, they just want to selfishly exercise their privilege at the expense of others.

Perhaps, enough is enough and what happened to McKenzie-Graye Evans may be a sign that the parents of normal children will no longer take this lying down and allowing these selfish mothers with disabled children to trash the education of their normal children.  

Did you know that there are firms of solicitors specialising in suing your child's school so they have to spend money on SEN children which hold back the education of normal children?

Parasites of parasites of parasites, eh?

Older middle class mothers with their Down's Syndrome children are the worst, precisely because they are considered these days to be socially acceptable, and many influential female journalists want them to be socially acceptable because, probably, many of their feminists friends have these children   It is all totally selfish and gynocentric.
How far, if at all, did Ruth Dudley and her Facebook friends deal with the issues I raised about Down's Syndrome children? Are their attitudes symptomatic of feminine irrationality, cowardice, hypocrisy and censoriousness?

Feminism means privileging the women who make bad reproductive choices and who inflict their deficient offspring on normal children and don't care if they hold back the education of others.

Why should these selfish women be privileged just because they have a subnormal child?

Why should normal children have their educational progress retarded because of the selfishness of these mothers who use their subnormal children to get extra attention?

Time now, surely, to tell feminism to fuck off.

Why do most of us have an instinctive repugnance about cross-dressing?

Probably because societies in which men and women do not fulfil their allotted roles soon decline, fall and become extinct.  This instinctive repugnance in the way of self-preservation is no more than our visceral disgust when we smell the smell of rotting flesh and see maggots crawling about in it.  

When you give women too much power, sexual and then moral anarchy is what happens.

Stop it now before it destroys your civilisation.  

Is it now time to tell feminism to fuck off?

You betcha.

Saturday, 28 July 2012

What is multiculturalism?

Does it mean different cultures existing side by side while the host culture descends into a self-abnegating inclusivity?

Is multiculturalism when the host race falls to depravity, dementia, irrationality, senility, disability and illegitimacy, when the women fuck whom they damn well please and breed bastards like vermin while the men stand mute while submitting to the whims of the pornocracy?

Is it multiculturalism when an elected politician is not allowed to question, comment or criticise the historical accuracy of portraying black men as Victorian gentlemen?

Actually, I can kinda see why white men might think multiculturalism is not be for them.

Can I say any of the above without being called a racist fascist Nazi bitch by the totalitarian feminazi liberal fascists?  Probably not.


Look out Aidan Burley, Hate Not Hope are thinking of coming for you! Will your leader protect your right to free speech, will he fuck!

Dear Claire,
Last night the Olympic Games was opened with a spectacle of British history, culture and diversity. From Britain's green and pleasant lands, to Dizzee Rascal's homage to the East End. From a celebration of the National Health Service to a moment's reflection of those who had died in the 2005 London bombings - it was an opening ceremony like no other before.
The event organiser, Danny Boyle, wanted to reflect Britain's past, present and future. From the dark satanic mills to tomorrow's young athletes lighting the torch, he wanted to celebrate the nation we are.
Was it a Britain you identified with?
When former footballer-turned pundit Robbie Savage told HOPE not hate earlier this summer that the Olympics was every racist's "nightmare" he could not have imagined the horror that BNP, EDL and other far right activists must have felt last night.
The internet and twitter is in overdrive this morning with people feeling proud to be British. Are you one of them? Is pride in one's country good and is this a mood we should build on and encourage?
Of course, not everyone was happy with last night. Conservative MP Aiden Burley (Cannock) described the opening ceremony as "the most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen". He went on: "Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multicultural crap."
This from the man who enjoyed a stag do in France with friends dressed up in Nazi uniforms.
Are you appalled by what Aiden Burley said? Should HOPE not hate do something about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Summer 2012 was always going to be a time when Britain was on show. Following the Queen's Jubilee weekend I asked whether you felt Proud to be British. Over 3,000 people responded and unsurprisingly, our supporters had mixed views. Now I would like to ask the question again. Did last night reflect your Britain and if so is this something we should celebrate and build on? Please let me know your thoughts.
Facebook Twitter
Nick Lowles
HOPE not hate patrons

Nick Griffin donates thousands to charities, apparently

Robert O'neill 28 July 12:40
Nick Griffin MEP @nickgriffinmep

Jackie & girls on charity run Sunday.

Claire Khaw If he thinks that is going to make more people vote BNP ....
15 minutes ago · Like

Robert O'neill Your an odd ball
14 minutes ago · Like

Claire Khaw You are only posting this bit of information because you think it helps the party. I am saying that it won't.
12 minutes ago · Like

Claire Khaw It just makes people feel slightly nauseous.
11 minutes ago · Like

Robert O'neill Nick Griffin donates thousands to charity, if you keep being negative i will just block you.
10 minutes ago · Like

Claire Khaw I have given you the opportunity to tell the world that Nick Griffin donates thousands to charity so I have been helpful then.
9 minutes ago · Like

Claire Khaw How do you know he donates thousands to charity?
9 minutes ago · Like

Robert O'neill you are a weirdo

How I would have portrayed British history for the opening ceremony

There would be lots of fighting scenes.

1. As an island being constantly invaded by Romans, Vikings, Angles etc.

2. As a nation of pirates and buccaneers enslaving black people, selling them and colonising other peoples' lands.

3. Fighting every stupid war and losing all her colonies.

4. Being in turn invaded herself, by blacks, Asians, Poles and the Chinese, the last wave of people being the Olympic visitors....

Visually it could be quite stunning.

Dramatising the Viking invasions would be great fun.

Ditto the slave trade with black people clinking around in chains, the British selling opium to the Chinese to destroy their civilisation.

Nazis goose-stepping round the stadium would have had the audience gasping in surprise and consternation.

Then the fall of Singapore (with guns pointing the wrong way and the Japanese sneaking up behind the British on bicycles), the partition of India, the loss of colonies, the warmonger Churchill chomping on his cigar and choking to death on it, dragged out of the stadium in the way perhaps a dead bull would be dragged out of a bull ring by horses ....

Wave after wave of immigrant invasion - an Enoch Powell figure in the background gesticulating wildly and tugging at white people's sleeves, but being ignored - ending in the arrival of the Olympic visitors.  Everybody smiles, holds hands, hugs each other before ending in a spectacular can-can done by ladies covered in black wearing niqabs.  They strip off dramatically to reveal their lithe dancer's bodies, wearing very little but keep their niqabs on ....
Nazi salute at the Opening Ceremony.   Cute.

Oh, and no disabled people popping up everywhere and no crap children's choirs.  

As I thought, only a woman would have founded the spastic idea of a signing choir.  Technically, they were crap.  Visually, they were distracting and aesthetically unpleasing, but no one criticises women and the disabled these days, except me ...  

Friday, 27 July 2012

What is nationalism?

1. It is the idea that the biggest gang you can be in that is big enough to matter and small enough to care is the nation.

2. The nation consists of different tribes who have agreed to become or remain a part of that nation because the benefits are perceived to be greater than the cost.

3. The purpose of nationalism is to promote the long term national interest.

4. If (3) is true then it is incumbent on any nationalist to discuss the subject of eugenics and to promote it through recognising the primacy of the institutions of marriage and family and acknowledging how feminism has desecrated those two institutions through causing widespread illegitimacy and degeneracy.

Ethno-nationalism is nothing more than whingeing and asking for things that you should already now know you will never get ie forcible repatriation of other races, apartheid and racial privileges.

That is why it is a DEAD DUCK.

However, there is nothing stopping you from preferring your own people within a legal system that is racially neutral.

Ummah translates itself as nation from the Arabic.

I prefer this version of nationhood.

That is so much better than ethno-nationalism which proposes the forcible repatriation of non-white British citizens, apartheid or racial privileges, which only makes nationalists feared, hated and despised for being socially retarded and politically unrealistic.

Racially neutral but radical civic nationalism will be quite exciting enough.  Please do not think it is going to be boring just because you find UKIP and the English Democrats deadly dull.

Claire Khaw dubbed "Queen of Nationalism"!

DC  27 July 09:40
Credit were credit is due. Claire Khaw, out thought, out lasted and out manouvered Kim Gandy on every front. Kim Gandy has had some political experience, but it did not show. All she only was hurled abuse on a daily basis.

Claire was able to engage in trash talk, employed a bit of deception, a bit of humour and had much more stamina than Kim, not only that, she also picked up a few new admirers as well.

I declare Claire Khaw Queen of the Nationalists :)

KD 27 July 09:46
That is one of Claire's skills and strengths whilst she is well read with legal training and a sharp mind she can alter her output for any particular person. Everyone is catered for, from the eggheads on here to the sub-intellectuals such as myself and also the barely literate but very obstinate people. She also has time for most people including those who aren't capable of undertsanding her. Claire needs to get to the chattering classes, the intellingentsia, the liberal elite and media professionals; only then can she have any real influence or significance.

Do gay people ever apologise to straight people for hurting their feelings?

Then why the hell should straight people tread on egg shells where they are concerned?

Lots of gay men drop dead mysteriously or kill themselves in their 40s. It is probably something to do with all the gay sex they have and the STIs they catch.

That, or when they hit their 40s when they realise that they can only have sex with men they want have to sex with IF THEY PAY.

Gay men are horrible to men they don't fancy.  I was with a gay friend of mine who was no spring chicken, and this was a few years back.  He was buying me a drink and then complained about the gay barman who was practically throwing his change at him because he didn't fancy him.

I also knew a gay man in middle age who said he would give it all up to have a long-term partner and a stable family life, but it was too late for him now.

If  you think women are mercenary and treacherous to men, you should see how gay men are to each other.

So there.  Tell these buggers and potential buggers what really happens to ageing homosexuals with no money.   Why, even the successful ones kill themselves when they are in their 40s.  Remember Alexander McQueen?

Why not warn young people against the error of these gay ways rather than pretend it is a bed of roses?  You are only making them waste and risk their lives in an orgy of hedonism.  When they begin to see the downside of it, when they hit middle age, it will already be too late for them.

Is George Michael well-adjusted even with his success and money?

If you had a son, would you like him to turn out like even the successful ones?

If David Starkey were straight might he have been a better historian?  

If Stephen Fry were straight, might he be less irritating and smug?

Remember, the foul demented matriarchy thinks it is OK to be gay.   That is why it has to be overthrown as soon as possible.  

It is not OK to be gay, but if you want to be gay, at least be discreet.  We will tolerate you buggering each other out of sight out of mind but we will not let you "marry" each other.

Jeffrey Marshall and I bump into Matthew Collins in Brick Lane

Jeffrey and me after meeting Matthew Collins in Brick Lane

Matthew Collins of Hate Not Hope

MC:  "Hello Jeffrey. What are you doing round here?"

He looked so like a BNP member that we were racking our brains wondering who he was and trying to remember his name.

JM:  "Why not? I live round here" or something like that.

MC:  "Enjoying Ramadan then?"

I nearly blurted out that we were going to try and get a free curry meal at East London Mosque last night too!

I can't remember what Jeffrey said but it was something not Islamophobic and certainly neutral.

Then he turned to me and said "Hello Claire".

I said hello and smiled vaguely. He literally turned on his heel and walked off in in the other direction.

CK:  "Who was that, Jeffrey?"

JM:   "That must have been Matthew Collins."

He literally turned on his heel and walked off.

We then we then went to this wonderful free exhibition at after stopping off at the beigel shop where Jeffrey had his hot salt beef.   That was where we saw the poster of this exhibition reported in the Mail at

You even get a free glossy colour brochure with better photos of all the lovely cars take more artistically than you can take yourself, though I couldn't resist taking a few of my own too.

Jeffrey Marshall with a BMW Art Car

An African design

Thursday, 26 July 2012

How do white male actors feel about an all-black production of Julius Caesar in African accents?

We all know that the typical BNP member isn't much  interested in Shakespeare.

As for their public school boy of a leader Nick Griffin, he is probably too busy working for his EU paymasters to think about non-EU domestic matters to express the probable views of white male actors being marginalised at the expense of black male actors in this latest production of Julius Caesar no less.

An all-black production of Julius Caesar in African accents.  Is this a deliberate affront to white male actors?  Are they too stupid and frightened to complain because they fear their women too much?

Will it be any good?

Will I get a free ticket so I can review it on Press Night with Kevin Myers who wrote

One of Ruth Dudley Edwards' Facebook friends, Deirdre Nelson, enthused:

"The recent Julius Caesar with an all black cast was an amazing production! I thoroughly enjoyed it and Mark Antony was superb and delivered the speech brilliantly."

I am happy to keep an open mind  about these things, but I imagine that white male actors who have been told that the Black and White Minstrel Show is racist, may feel that their noses have been put out of joint.

I only say these things because I am keen to show white British men that I am more zealous of protecting their interests than Nick Griffin ever would be, despite the fact that I have been expelled from the BNP last year for saying what I said at

Is Nick Griffin really interested in promoting the interests of the white race when he is so studiously reluctant to discuss feminism and eugenics or even defend the free speech of his activists?  Or is he more interested in using the BNP as his little cash cow while taking no risks at all on the behalves of those whose interests he claims to represent?

Is this a job for the EU-bankrolled Nick Griffin, or is fighting feminism a job that only a female and a foreigner such as I can do?

What do you think, my dear White Male Reader?

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

GBS: Nationality in a healthy nation

"A healthy nation is unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones.  But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again."

Preface to John Bull's Other Island 1904

Suggested letter from the BNP to Claire Khaw

"Dear Claire Khaw

It is with great pleasure that I can now tell you that the National Executive has approved your request to annul your expulsion. (This means you will be treated as if your expulsion never took place, on payment of the membership fee that you would have paid to have remained a member of the Party.  This means you will have come out of your probationary period of 24 months and now have full voting rights.  Indeed, in 2015 you will have the right to become a leadership contender, if you so desire.)

That terrible misunderstanding last year was the result of our ignorance of the principles of Free Speech, which we have now remedied.  We should of course have defended  your right to free speech, or at the very least allowed you to defend yourself before our disciplinary tribunal.

We now recognise that any party that calls itself nationalist must be prepared to discuss the eugenics and its antithesis feminism, which is anti-eugenic and therefore destructive to the long-term national interest.

It also been agreed by the National Executive that you are to be Director of Communications and we look forward to seeing you running rings round the liberal media and have them tie themselves up in knots.

We are also grateful to you indeed for attracting former members back into the party and it is hoped that under this new environment of co-operation and unity which you will help create for us, there will be a greater sense of comradeship and social cohesion amongst all who support the Party's policies, which will be racially neutral civic nationalism.


Nick Griffin

British Nationalism - do you prefer the Claire version or the Kim version?

Do you prefer Claire's anti-feminist and anti-slut libertarian version of British nationalism that promotes male and parental authority as well as fewer laws and lower taxes in a new remoralised Britain?
Or do you prefer the Kim male-belittling, virulently Islamophobic  totalitarian version of British nationalism?  Most men are afraid of her but probably won't be able to say NO to an invitation to enter her "bat cave" her if she thrusts her very ample bosom into their faces.  Most male politicians are afraid of her, and women like her, because too many of them now have the vote, as do her singly-parenting female friends who have deprived their offspring of a father and who don't think it is any big deal to have illegitimate offspring or illegitimate grandchildren. These are the women who spread illegitimacy and degeneracy in YOUR society, gentlemen, while scorning the size of your genitalia and sneering at your erectile dysfunction.  Should she and women like her continue to have access to your taxes so they can continue to singly-parent and badly-parent the next generation to the detriment of this once great nation?

Does Kim Gandy embody British nationalism? Is not an image make-over for British nationalism now long overdue?

Kim Gandy -  the Grand Old Woman of British Euroscepticism or an impossibly vulgar and  aggressive woman who derides the size of the sex organ of any man who disagrees with her after claiming he suffers from erectile dysfunction?

I don't mind if she attacks me out of jealousy.  In a way, it is understandable that she should be rancorous with envy for I, a female and a foreigner, am a force for change now in British nationalism known to most active nationalists up and down the country, while she is precisely nowhere.

Perhaps one day I will be acknowledged as a force for good in the field of nationalist race relations.

I have big radical nation- and society-changing ideas while Kim Gandy admits that she has no policies.

I am happy to concede that she must have a better sex life than me with her younger male partner while I sublimate my desires for the greater good of this nation.  However many offers I get from eager nationalists of all ages and classes, I shall never compromise them by giving in to their ceaseless importuning for my sexual favours.  By this shall they know the great sacrifices I make on their behalves!

This poisonous woman now is claiming that a certain UKIP friend of mine (who is so inactive he has not attended a single meeting) is a "violent extremist with  UAF and Al Qaeda connections" merely because he is not full of hatred for Muslims and Islam.  I believe this spiteful woman is busily trying to get this young man expelled from UKIP by spreading outrageous lies about him.

She has also inveigled her more impressionable and easily-led female associates such as Maggie Chapman and Susan Lockwood to join forces with her.

Let these women do their worst at for they only demonstrate what can happen to a country when too many immoral, promiscuous and irrational women wield too much power over men and have their claws dug into the genitalia of men who are in charge of the ship of state.

Perhaps Kim Gandy is the best reason why most women should, like children, be seen but not heard in the field of politics.

Kim is of course not prepared to discuss eugenics and calls me evil for daring to say that I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled child nor force any other taxpayer to pay for it.

Women are notoriously hypocritical about these matters, for they know that to agree with me on the matter of disabled offspring is to give up their femininity.  I on the other hand am happy to proclaim that I am the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman.  It is for this reason that I clam I am fit to lead men by showing them that I am prepared to stick my head above the parapet and speak on their behalves, rather than indulge in predictably partisan gynocentricism that most women in politics -  Louise Mensch being the worst example - unthinkingly fall into.

For saying what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show I was expelled from the BNP (at the behest of an SSM with disabled illegitimate offspring) which behaves these days like a frightened, timid, cowardly and hypocritical promiscuous single mother with a disabled and illegitimate offspring or at any rate like a man afraid of these stupid, immoral and promiscuous women because so many of them now have the vote.

They certainly showed no signs of defending free speech or even understanding the principle of it.  But how can they, if they are all in thrall to the SSMs who control the minds and opinions of nationalist men if they are lucky enough to have female partners at all?

I like to think I offer more to British nationalism more than the contemptible exercise of pandering to proletarian and feminine vices that all the parties seem to do now in our demented matriarchy.

My form of nationalism is infused with masculine and aristocratic virtues, I like to think, and is fundamentally libertarian, while Kim's ideas are just totalitarian and anti-rational.

My Facebook friends are also obviously so much nicer and more educated than hers.  My male friends have education and erudition while hers are merely men who hope she will pause to whip them and kick them if she notices them, for they are surely sex- and humiliation-hungry subs looking for crumbs from the table of their imperious mistress, who wields a ruler that she uses to chastise them and measure their penises.  They probably experience tumescence upon being told by her that they have a small sex organ which she will then come round to measure, while my male Facebook friends suffer from detumescence at the very thought of having to enter what has been called by one this woman's "bat cave".

If Britain is now run by a pornocracy then it could be said that our Kim is Queen of the Pornocrats.  

Monday, 23 July 2012

Bob Taylor agrees to sign Jeffrey Marshall's nomination papers for the BNP leadership election in 3 years' time

It seems that Jeffrey Marshall is safe from expulsion from the BNP, because Bob Taylor has guaranteed that he will not be suspended or expelled on a trumped-up charge in the following terms:

"Jeff would like to be expelled so he could attack Mr Griffin as being a dictator and an undemocratic leader. Jeff will not be made a martyr."  23 July 12:00

"Claire, to show that we are a democratic party who's members can exercise our democratic rights, I would sign, Jeffs nomination papers openly, of cause I would vote for Mr Griffin but it would prove just how democratic our party is.".  23 July 12:19

Let us hope that Jeffrey Marshall, who is currently East End Organiser, will be allowed to organise a meeting.  Of course he will say nothing about the leadership contest at this meeting, if  it turns out he is allowed to organise it.

Sunday, 22 July 2012

Jeffrey Marshall says he will throw his hat in the ring at the next BNP leadership contest

Jeffrey Marshall speaking in  Newcastle

He said this in London on 17 May and also in Newcastle on 28 May.

I asked him to sum up what he said and this was his response:

"I commented on:

1)  the apparent reserve of any individual to put himself or herself forward for the leadership challenge; 

2)  the challenge to Nick Griffin cannot exist unless some individual is prepared to do so;

3)  that I would offer to be a candidate myself in the hope that it may inspire others who might feel they can do a better job than Nick Griffin or me, thus putting on record that my hat is now thrown in the ring."

Let us see then if Jeffrey finds himself suspended and then expelled for spurious reasons for declaring so early.  

The next BNP leadership election is 3 years away after all.  This means there is time enough for those who want to vote for Jeffrey Marshall as leader but who have left the party to rejoin the party and qualify to vote in the next leadership election.  There is 24 month probationary period but as long as  you lie low and do nothing you should be OK.

Currently, Jeffrey remains East End Organiser.  Will he even be allowed to organise a meeting after this bold declaration?  Will it get backing from the others?  Is the fact that he wishes to contest the leadership enough reason for the party to expel him?

If he is suspended then expelled on trumped-up charges, can he judicially review such a decision?  Or will he and other long serving activists be entirely without remedy?

If he is allowed to contest the leadership, will be allowed access to the membership list or will it be withheld from him the way it was from Eddy Butler?

Will there be procedural propriety and abuse of process all over again?

Also, how much will 7.13 cost the party if Jeffrey manages to dislodge the incumbent leader?


  1. By joining or rejoining the BNP now so you can vote and support him in the leadership contest in 3 years' time.  (Yes, this means you lot who have gone over to the NF or joined the English Democrats.)
  2. By seeing to it that you have your voting rights in 2 years' time by not coming to the attention of the leadership who may expel you before your 24 month probationary period is up (so you have no right to be heard by a disciplinary tribunal) or expelling you on some trumped-up charge with your only recourse to justice a biased disciplinary tribunal.  
  3. If you want to dislodge Nick Griffin as Chairman, there needs to be an attack on more than one front. It has to come from within and without.   Jeffrey Marshall is the only passably credible leadership contender who is eligible to contest the leadership and who may appeal to the educated middle classes.  He is the BNP's foremost "Muslim man" and believes that the only way forward for nationalism is to be explicitly civic nationalist.  He at any rate knows - because of his dealings with them - that even non-white British citizens complain bitterly about immigration and have no one to turn to.  Going civic nationalist does not mean you do not care about your own race.  It just means you see the futility in still banging on about (a) forced repatriation (b) introducing apartheid (c) making non-white British citizens second class citizens.  It is merely a pragmatic strategic stance.  Anyone who still cannot understand this should join the Neanderthals at the NF.
See Section 7 page 36


7.1 Elections for the post of the Chairman shall be held every year, starting in 2009. Nominations shall open on 20th July in each year and close at noon on 10th August following. The election shall be held on a 'one member, one vote' basis in a secret postal ballot of all Individual Members with right to attend and vote at a General Members' Meeting and whose required Subscription paid up by 1st of July.

7.2 Any Individual Member may become a candidate for the post of the Chairman of our Party provided that individual on or before the close of nominations:-

7.2.1 satisfies the BH Voter Requirement and the BH Resident Requirement;

7.2.2 does not poses dual or more citizenship;

7.2.3 is a Voting Member with five years or more Continuous Membership of our Party; and

7.2.4 has:- secured the signatures on his or her nomination paper of not less than 20% of the Individual Members with 24 calendar months of Continuous Membership the support of the Founders Association acting by a 10% or more vote in favour of that individual seeking to stand in a Leadership Election in a general meeting of the members of the Founder's Association entitled to attend and vote at such meeting, held between 1th August and 31st August in any year (if any) at which the nomination of each individual seeking to be a candidate in a Leadership Election and who satisfies the conditions set out in Clauses and Clause shall be put to a vote; and secured the signatures on his or her nomination paper of not less than 20% of the Voting Members.

7.3 An Individual Member may sign pursuant to Clause the nomination papers of an individual seeking nomination as a candidate in a Leadership Election only once.

7.4 An Voting Member may sign pursuant to Clause the nomination papers of an individual seeking nomination as a candidate in a Leadership Election only once.

7.5 The meaning of Individual Members and of Voting Members in Clause 7.2.4 and Clause 7.6 means those of such Members who are entitled to attend and vote at an Official Meeting of our Party.

7.6 On July 1st each year a statement will be issued detailing the total number of Individual Members with at least 24 months Continuous Membership and of the total number of Voting Members.

7.7 Notification of a leadership election shall be issued in the September issue of British Nationalist, while the October issue will include an A4 manifesto sheet from each candidate (designed and supplied by them) and a ballot paper, and will be sent by post to all Individual Members, including those who normally receive their bulletins electronically.

7.8 A pre-recorded debate between the candidates shall be publicised on BNPtv, a private page on the BNP website will give each candidate up to six sides of A4 designed by them, our Party magazine shall give each candidate equal space to set out their ideas, and at least three hustings meetings will be held with equal time for each candidate in different parts of the country and be open to all paid up Individual Members from the areas in question. In the event that unavoidable external circumstances render any of these methods of communication impractical they may be omitted or replaced as decided by a simple majority vote of a special meeting of the Advisory Council.

7.9 The ballot papers shall be kept unopened until the post has arrived on the third Thursday of October, when all received ballots shall be opened and counted under the supervision of two senior officials appointed by the Advisory Council who are not candidates, together with the candidates and up to two scrutineers each.

7.10 The Leadership Election shall take place on a „first past the post‟ basis.

7.11 In any year in which no nominations for the post of the Chairman of our Party are received in accordance with sub-section 2 of this section, the currently serving holder of the post will be deemed to have received a mandate from our Party to hold it for a further term. In any year where a leadership challenge is entered, the currently serving the Chairman shall be deemed to be nominated automatically should he wish to stand again.

7.12 In the event of a General Election being called before the ballot papers have been posted, the campaign may be suspended at the discretion of the Advisory Council by a simple majority vote, resuming the schedule immediately after polling day.

7.13 If an outgoing the Chairman is a paid employee of our Party and either does not wish to remain as such or is not required as such by the new incumbent, he or she shall receive severance pay in line with the statutory requirement, plus one month for each year served up to a total of eight years, and one week extra for each year thereafter.

7.14 The successful candidate in any Leadership Election will be considered asoccupying the office of the Chairman immediately on completion of the counting of votes in that election.

7.15 No Leadership Election shall be held during the imprisonment of the Chairman in our British Homeland on account of him or her upholding the Principles of our Party or any other terms and conditions of this Constitution.

Friday, 20 July 2012

How idiotic of an English solicitor to sue for libel on such flimsy grounds

Two women breaching the rules of natural justice
Bar Council's disciplinary procedure is judged to breach human rights laws
Monday 21 March 2005 02.47 GMT
Bar Standards Board 'in shambolic state'

If anyone should be able to organise a rigorous system of complaint and disciplinary tribunals, you would expect lawyers to. Yet, on this programme on Tuesday we heard a number of complaints about the Bar Standards Board - the body that regulates barristers in England and Wales. Today, the Board answers back. Baroness Deech is the chairman and will answer the critics.

As I thought, female Chairmen have been in charge of this shambles.

The Bar Standards Council was created in 2006.  The Chairman then was Ruth Evans

Ruth Evans - Is she doing better now? until 2008, and after that it was Baroness Deech.

Baroness Deech - presiding over  a shambles
More women are mediocre than men who dominate the higher and lower end of the ability spectrum.

Daryll Christopher:

"Everyone knows that the system is full of incompetent women. Only few of us have the balls to say it.Everyone knows that the system is full of incompetent women. Only few of us have the balls to say it."

I have been compared to Chun Li by a nationalist!

Thursday, 19 July 2012

How much money should the taxpayer spend on this hopeless case?

It is interesting that no one asked the question most on any taxpayer's mind:

How much does Monty cost to keep alive at the expense of the taxpayer?

Is the matriarchy rubbing the faces of the British taxpayer into this useless exercise of liberals bleeding hearts spewing their compassion all over your nice white carpet, just because it can?

Does the matriarchy enjoy mocking, infuriating and enraging the taxpayer, just because it can?

In what way is making a programme like this - produced by a WOMAN of course - different to poking a caged and enraged animal with a stick and rattling its cage, just because you can and think you will get away with it?

Is this programme in itself not sufficient reason to overthrow the matriarchy?

Are the two men on the panel not the worst kind of  floppy limp-dickery you have ever come across?

The matriarchy wastes your money, taxpayer, and wastes it blatantly and shamelessly, and throws that fact in your face by stuffing its propaganda down your throat that you pay out of your licence fee, and glories in this exercise.

How much longer will you stand for this?

Oh, but most men in Britain these days are limp-dicked floppies hoping for sex from some slut single mum, and will not dare to say anything to offend her.

Most men are afraid of the likes of Joan Bakewell - the thinking man's crumpet.

Do you ever wonder why female intellectuals you ever heard about are of the Left?

Do you ever wonder why this country is in the state it's in and why no man will ever say anything like enough to challenge the matriarchy?

The Reds are not under your bed, mate, they are on it, and you sleep with the enemy who fucks you over, again and again and again because you are so fucking stupid and desperate for sex with any old slag who opens her legs for you, because she is smart enough not to ask you for an up-front charge, which an honest prostitute would.

Notice how feminists hate the idea of legalising brothel-keeping.  They want to make you think it is free and then get you on the hidden charges, you stupid fuck.

If you cannot subvert a society with open revolt, you do it using their most immoral and feckless of its women, counting on the loss of reason in its men when bribed with the apparently cheap sex that feminism offers.

The results can be seen everywhere, in the lowest of the low - the sluts, bastards, paedos and general degeneracy this environment produces, and in the elite left-wing chattering classes like Joan Bakewell - the insufferably smug  liberals.

That woman apparently has no shame.  I am not commenting on her sexual morality, mind, but her journalistic integrity and he professionalism.

Why did she not ask how much this exercise is costing the taxpayer?

Because it ain't her money and she doesn't give a fuck.


If you want to save the life of someone whose life is worth saving then obviously you will force treatment on him if they are not in a position to consent to it eg someone who normally has legal capacity (and is likely to regain it after treatment) but is incapacitated by a coma or temporary mental illness.
If they were always fucked in the head and will remain fucked in the head even after they are cured just so some woman can have a human doll to claim is hers to play with (but without the inconvenience and expense of looking after him), then it is a fucking waste of taxpayers' money.

Parasitical women don't tend to care about things like that as long as they get their way.  

Below are statements made about Monty, who lives in a care home for people with severe difficulties.  He has a foster mother though.  (His foster mother is not inconvenienced by having to look after him, please note.)

"He completes repetitive tasks and wants to see his surroundings in a certain way.  We expected him to open and close doors, turn lights on and off."

"He is not likely to understand if you tell him not to do it."

"Monty cannot understand long sentences and is non-communicative."

"There is no way of persuading him to co-operate with treatment."

"He is not likely to understand what people say to him."

"He has no mental capacity because of his autism and severe learning disability."

Oh, and he got better in the end so he can carry on being a waste of space and being a drain on the state so his foster mother can enjoy the sort of attention being a foster mother to this sort of creature gets her, with none of the inconvenience of looking after him, because he is in a home.  Obviously she and people like her think the taxpayers' money is there to be squandered in order to indulge their every whim while the limp-dicked floppies who call themselves men keep their peace and button their lips.

Women more than men suffer Munchausen syndrome by proxy.  What is this but a pathological form of the damsel in distress seeking attention?

93% of sufferers are women.  Are you getting it yet, you stupid limp-dicked fucked over little fuck?

Why do you let them get away with it?

Cos you are scared and stupid and no longer a man.   That is why Western civlilisation is fucked.

When the men become women, who will protect the men?  Not the women who will just mate with the invader.  

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

"All my friends at Portcullis House have heard of Claire."

PORTCULLIS HOUSE: There are no decent balconies at all in any part of Westminster.  I have to go all the way to Buckingham Palace to find a decent balcony to address the British people about entering the First Great Khavian Age.
A decent balcony from which to address the people of Britain.  Not sure where this is  though.

This looks a jolly nice crowd.

Buckingham Palace is not really suitable because it is too far back with the gates and all.  I could ask for the gates to be opened, but I fear that Ma'am would find it rather an imposition to have the crowds swarming round Buck House peeking in through her windows ... 

A decent balcony from which to address the people of Britain.  Unfortunately, it is in Vienna.  

Hotel Imperial, Vienna

Hotel Imperial in Vienna and its most infamous guest
I think, for me and the people of London, it will have to be the Naval & Military Club in St James'  Square.

Tuesday, 17 July 2012

First the Reds came ..

First they came for the NF,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in the NF.

Then they came for the BNP,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in the BNP.

Then they came for UKIP,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in UKIP.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Did Bob Taylor commit the crime of computer hacking?

Bob Taylor  11:43PM Jul 16

"Claire ifyour in doubt about my ability with a computer, am sure you best mates Butler and Dalgleish can confirm for you what am capable of."

If Eddy Butler and Claudia Dalgleish had had their computers hacked (and they had), does this not sound like a confession?

For some very odd reason, Bob Taylor thinks the best way of discrediting me is to say that I have joined the English Democrats with Eddy Butler, when I have explained repeatedly and at length why I would never join the English Democrats because of ideological and practical reasons listed below.

  1. Their strategy of boring the English voter to death will never set the world on fire.
  2. They want to remain dull because they want to avoid controversy because they are weak, frightened and boring.
  3. They are happy with their strategy of taking rejects from other Eurosceptic parties.  
  4. Britain and Britishness was always ever an English project.  To retreat into the divisive regionalism of asking for an English Parliament means to acknowledge the failure of British nationalism.  There is not much point being English if one cannot also be British.   It would be like giving up your garden and your house and living in the shed.
  5. The party with the most policies I agree with remain the BNP, however badly they have treated me.
  6. My credibility would suffer if I ever became an English Democrat.
  7. I repeatedly advised Eddy Butler against joining the English Democrats telling him that if he thought the  BNP were small and useless he would encounter a more demoralising version of smallness and uselessness in the English Democrats.

If Bob Taylor has hacked their computers, then he is guilty of a crime.

If I am found guilty of computer hacking will I be liable for criminal prosecution?

As the offences under the Computer Misuse Act are criminal offences anyone found guilty will be liable for a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and a £2,000 fine. Furthermore under Section 2 of the Computer Misuse Act an individual will likely be guilty of the intended further offence.

If Bob is indeed guilty, and found to be so, then he would be yet another convicted criminal who has disgraced the party.   The pity of it is that the crimes he committed were committed against his fellow nationalists.

British nationalists should really think again if they really are comfortable being represented by the likes of Bob Taylor.

Far Right: Bob Taylor next to Claudia Dalgleish in happier more unified times in the BNP.   Did he hack her computer and Eddy Butler's?

Kim Gandy hates me because she is female and feminist

This woman has taken an extreme dislike to me because I wish to associate eugenics with nationalism.

I believe eugenics (ie policies to prevent degeneracy in your society) are necessary and therefore moral.

I also believe that feminism is anti-eugenic.

It is no surprise that Kim, being female and therefore a feminist, would take against me.

Interestingly, she has said about UKIP that they "are a bunch of lefties and UAF supporters - and misogynists"  I asked her what she meant and she refused to elaborate.

I suggested to her that the fact that she is such a vicious and vocal harridan would make men dislike her, which is not to say that UKIP men hate women.

She is probably jealous that more nationalist men like me than like her, and I don't even have to flaunt my bosom at them.

Kim Gandy flaunting her bosom in the faces of nationalist men, in the way that I do not

I like to think they like me because of my anti-feminism, though I cannot guarantee that some of them do not secretly harbour a desire to know me carnally.

I believe most women feel that they have to denounce me because I wish to discuss eugenics (feminism is anti-eugenic after all, because it causes degeneracy in your society, as we have seen).  Eugenics is nothing more than good husbandry - a term that is gloriously masculine and agrarian.

Women grow in status the more disabled their offspring because they are not beneath using the pity of others to raise their status, unlike men who have masculine pride.

One of my attributes is that I am the mind of a man in the body of a female.  This is what actually makes me so formidable as a debater.

Women want to be loved more than men, and not caring what people think about me as long as my message is punched through is one of my more masculine attributes, I would say, as well as the compulsion to stand by my principles (especially that of my belief in free speech) without fear or favour, and to defend the weak.  (Yes, white British men are indeed week and degenerate and I know they are no longer capable of making a stand against feminism.   I do what I do for all the men I have ever loved in my life and who have been good to me, both living and departed.) has the record of how the exchange developed.

Monday, 16 July 2012

What you may not be say in Britain without losing your job

Martin Sewell at his former place of employment after his contract was not renewed, most probably as a result of what was said about him by the CUSU, which is defamatory and actionable. The Cambridge University Students' Union have called him "sexist" and "racist".

What is sexism?  Something found to be offensive by women.

What is racism? Something found to be offensive by another race.

What is free speech?  Does anyone even know any more?

In a piece published in 2010, Sewell states:

"So-called racism [sic] is a perfectly natural in-group bias which has been stigmatized by the politically correct West. The most likely reason for the high incidence of black crime is blacks’ lower intelligence and greater impulsivity, which themselves are probably biological in origin."

Or it could be that poor people are bad because they are poor, or that they are poor because they are bad.   The Nature v Nurture debate remains one of the eternal questions.  Surely in academia these things may be discussed without losing one's employment if we are indeed living in a liberal democracy that we claim to be  so proud of?

Sewell also turns his attention to gender equality:

"Feminism not only harms men, but harms women. Indeed, women are less happy today than they were in the 1970s.

"To assume equality is false, whilst attempting to enforce it is totalitarian.

"Men must work hard, compete and take risks throughout their lives if they want any life at all, whilst women need only to look youthful and behave selfishly."

If feminism does indeed harm women, then surely something must be done about it as soon as possible?  What harms women harms children.  What harms children harms the next generation.  What harms the next generation harms the future of this nation.

In another section, titled "Eugenics", Sewell states:

"Hitler gave eugenics a bad name. The modern objectives are actually highly desirable: eugenics can help eliminate genetic diseases, reduce personality disorders and increase intelligence via human biotechnology. Time to reconsider."

"I am neither sexist nor racist, nor am I pro-Hitler.

"The real fascism lies with attempting to compromise an academic's career on the basis of his synthesis of peer-reviewed scientific research. The university has a long tradition of ground-breaking science and freedom of speech, which Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) would do well to respect."

Apparently, in China, you are allowed to say such things and still keep your job.

Does China have more academic freedom than Britain?

Martin Sewell's website is at