Thursday, 28 February 2013

Unseemly gloating at forced resignation of Cornish councillor who dared to criticise the disabled (and by extension the matriarchy)

Why are someone's views wrong just because they are 'outdated'?  Has this woman not heard of the eternal verities of human existence?

However, it amuses and gratifies me to be used as some sort of baseline for being Politically Incorrect.

At can be read the unseemly gloating of malicious vengeful women on Twitter.  They are squawking really to have the poor man hung, drawn and quartered as a warning to any other male person presuming to criticise women who make irrational and negligent reproductive choices that are harmful to the long term national interest.

What do these women care about the long-term national interest, eh, as long as someone else pays?  

Like the indigent and irresponsible, they are always generous with the money of other people.

Colin Brewer: an apology not enough for vengeful malicious women who regard themselves as beyond criticism.  They probably secretly want him hung, drawn and quartered, or perhaps even burnt at the stake for presuming to criticise women who make bad reproductive choices.  This is Britain under a FOUL AND DEMENTED MATRIARCHY.  Destroy feminism before it destroys you, your society, your nation and your entire civilisation and the future of your children and descendants.

My unique fusion of religion, politics, social conservatism, libertarianism and the long-term national interest

Did you know that most Britons actually support BNP policies?

Read all about it at

But one look at those despised lower class proles makes them go the other way and think they must be wrong, and run straight into the arms of well-dressed expensively-educated bourgeois Eurocrats.

Nationalism and Islam have the WORST salesmen.

It is like getting some stinking fucker in rags who cannot even drive, to sell your car.

The lower classes are not after all endowed with the manners, education or fortitude for a career in politics and are only fueled by their grievance.   Most of them have no sense of honour anyway.

So, even if the car looks beautiful and drives like a dream the buyer will be convinced there is something wrong with it.

I intend to break the mould, however. I promote Islam while not being a Muslim, I also promote nationalism in Britain while being neither white nor indigenous and as well as anti-feminism while being myself female.

Of course, I have redefined Islam as Secular Koranism and nationalism as the promotion of the long-term nationalist interest, to distance myself from the disaster that was Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and WW2.  Nothing of my ideology is in any way racist, antisemitic or Islamophobic.

It is however anti-feminist.  This means, potentially, half the voters would be instantly supportive once they understand my ideas.

Mothers too, will like my ideas.  As for the views of non-mothers, it is my contention that their views can be safely and rightfully dismissed.    

Doing as I do will make people think about what I am saying. The cognitive dissonance will make them consider my ideas more carefully, not think they already know what I stand for just by looking at me.

Of course, many will think I am mad.

However, even apparently mad ideas have a strange way of taking hold on people.

Many of my ideas are disturbing and unpleasant to contemplte, but they cannot be argued against because they are morally and intellectually defensible.

Even the worst thing I have said - which is the wish not to bring up a severely disabled baby - is something many actually identify with, even very left-wing people.

I will get my break soon, I expect, simply because I am now identified with a PACKAGE of ideas and am already known to the media.

Those who wish to marginalise me - the feminists - think they can continue to do so by IGNORING me altogether.

They even scrapped the Orwell Prize for blogging to prevent me from entering it again, though they do not say so in so many words at

It is only when things turn really bad that people will conclude that drastic circumstances require drastic solutions, and that I am a force for the good after all.

Why have I declared myself to be guided by the Koran?

Because I already know that I have no moral authority on my own. I however have the humility to appeal to a supreme authority IN ORDER TO give me greater moral authority.

That is why I reject Libertarianism as an ideology because I know it is useless at galvanising the non-existent courage of liberal British men, because it is basically NEGATIVE and cannot ever hope to inspire or comfort the average voter.

Also, the counter-intuitive PARADOX of using a THEOCRACY to have a rationally smaller government with fewer laws and lower taxes appeals to enormously.

The contemplation of the HORROR with which liberals will regard my idea, of an anti-feminist sexually repressed one-party theocracy, is reason enough to promote it as a supreme exercise in liberal-baiting.

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

How UKIP can defend itself against spurious accusations of racism

By having me in the party as Director of Communications of course.

I have already told them how they can allow ex-BNP etc members to join without being contaminated by racism, with the ingenious solution I have outlined at

They are welcome to put me to the test and let me field questions from hostile journalists.  

What is the difference between someone saying "Homosexuals should be executed" and "Paedophiles should be executed"?

Or even restoring the death penalty?

None, I would suggest, since they are only proposing a change in the law.

Since they are expressing a political opinion, someone (such as a homosexual or a paedophile or a murderer of children or police officers) who holds the opposite view is bound to be offended.

So, while I profoundly disagree with the female student who declared that it would be right to execute homosexuals, I would defend her right to say it.

The Middle Eastern studies undergraduate who secretly filmed the discussion asked a member of the society whether, “in the Islamic society in which you strive for,” they would “feel comfortable, personally and morally, to kill a gay man".

The female student replied: "Absolutely," and described homosexuality as an "atrocity, because it goes against what God says".

The student was also asked if she, in her "ideal" Islamic state, would feel confident to kill a man if he "did something as com­pletely innocent as kiss another man outside the Students’ Union," to which she replied: "Yeah, abso­lutely ... "

I would also point out to her that the Koran does not in any case says homosexuals should be executed, it only says punish them.  They could be fined, or be lashed 100 times just like those who are guilty of fornication or adultery, or God could ordain another way.

All the Abrahamic faiths are "homophobic" in any case.


If any of your women
Are guilty of lewdness,
Take the evidence of four
(Reliable) witnesses from amongst you
Against them; and if they testify,
Confine them to houses until
Death do claim them,
Or God ordain for them
Some (other) way. 

If two men among you
Are guilty of lewdness,
Punish them both.
If they repent and amend,
Leave them alone; for God
Is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

Old Testament:

Leviticus 18 and 20
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:
22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)

New Testament:

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:26-27 NIV)

"Phobia" means an irrational hatred and fear of something.

Is it ever irrational to hate and fear those who promote homosexuality?

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

IN DOUBT: LibDem ability to run whelk stall, manage piss-up in brewery let alone run a coalition government

I wonder if Lord Rennard is feeling just a little betrayed by his party after all those years of  helping the party.  The LibDem women for some reason decided to complain about his lechery that happened over two decades ago, and his male comrades have basically hung him out to dry.  One of them, Tim Farron, even called the cops about Lord Rennard's "sexual impropriety" too.

Tim Farron, President of the Lib Dems: Would you trust this man to run a whelk stall without calling the cops for back-up?

The question of how to handle the claims against Lord Rennard will be considered not only by the party but by the Specialist Investigations Command of the Metropolitan Police.

The meeting between the Met and Lib Dem officials on Tuesday comes after Lib Dem officials approached the force.

On Monday night, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Special Investigations Command has been approached by officials in the Liberal Democrat Party and is working with them to ascertain whether or not criminal activity has taken place."

A Lib Dem spokesman said: "We can confirm that the party has had an invitation to attend a 'stakeholder meeting' at Scotland Yard to discuss the involvement of the police in any investigation into Chris Rennard. The party will fully engage with the police on this issue and continue to encourage anyone with allegations of a criminal nature to contact the police."

Amidst such terrible scenes of betrayal and mutual backstabbing, it is clear that the concept of honour amongst thieves does not exist in the minds of  the LibDem men and women.  Party discipline is singularly absent and Clueless Clegg limps on while the LibDem men call the cops on each other at the behest of treacherous LibDem women.

If these weak, treacherous and stupid women are still going on about it decades after the event, then their contribution to British political life is NEGLIGIBLE if not UNDESIRABLE.  Too bad LibDem men whose brains  have turned to shit, their guts to piss and their balls to mince, cannot bring themselves to say this or form this view independently, let alone articulate it.    

From at page 24, you can see that the woman allegedly groped by Lord Rennard was on perfectly good terms with the LibDems as recently as April 2012.

"Bridget Harris is the deputy prime minister’s agent in the House of lords. She is one of a number of departmental advisers who represent the lib Dems and their leader across government departments where the liberal Democrats don’t have a lead cabinet minister.

These advisers were appointed to give the lib Dems more clout in areas of policy they don’t have a direct control over at ministerial level."

She reminds me of a certain woman who did the dirty on Nick Griffin at

The rule for women who are being sexually harassed must surely be "Either tell them in no uncertain terms that you want them to cease and desist, or forever hold your peace."

This woman has subsequently gone on to call the cops on Eddy Butler the former BNP National Organiser for allegedly assaulting her, apparently withdrawing those accusations, and then renewing them, apparently according to whim and time of the month.

Look at the list at if you don't believe me, and note not just the number of female journalists but also the number of editors who are female and Commie Pinko Liberal Feminist.

I hate to say this, but the brains of men fall out when they see a woman they fancy.  Yesterday, a male friend who is educated, professional and legally-trained (but who identifies himself as a UKIP-Conservative) was cooing about Anna Soubry and Harriet Harman.

I am considering only letting ugly, but clever and good people enter politics when I am Dictator of Britain.

It now occurs to me that the niqab was really to protect men from women.  

Should men allow themselves to be held to ransom by women like that?  Will the country be better governed as a result?  I rather think not.

This is yet another reason not to have female bishops.

I urge Cameron to dump that bunch of losers without further delay and form a coalition with Labour instead.
LibDems to ban women from the workplace and propose khalwa laws?

LibDems to ban women from the workplace and propose khalwa laws?

It is only a matter of time before the penny drops.

Why have women in the workplace at all competing with men if they are going to do the dirty on you like that?

These women have no sense of party loyalty, do they?   If they cannot fend off the advances of a lecherous man then in what way are they fit for politics?

There is a difference between an actress on her casting couch and a woman hoping to become MP after all.  If she submits to the lecherous attentions of a man she finds repulsive, then she has no business to be in politics.

If she is unaware of the techniques with which to repel the advances of lecherous men without hurting their feelings or calling the cops then she has no business being in politics.

If you men want sex with women not your wife, surely it is easier to have it with a prostitute, if you do not have a wife, than with a treacherous female colleague or comrade?

The Sharia criminal offence of "close proximity" whereby two unmarried non-relatives of the opposite sex are apprehended after being found "in compromising positions" by state religious police.

Why should this unelected woman impose gay marriage on the British?

Samantha Cameron, unelected and unaccountable, wife of the Prime Minister, imposes her will on the British nation.  Doubtless she is a FEMINIST, and therefore part of the PORNOCRACY.

How to defeat feminism

  1. Jews to challenge feminism as a moral, rational and sustainable ideology.
  2. Christians to challenge feminism as a moral, rational and sustainable ideology  (The Christian Institute at has deleted comments arguing for it to support marriage by challenging feminism in response to this article
  3. Muslims to challenge feminism as a moral, rational and sustainable ideology
  4. Jews, Christians and Muslims challenge to feminism as a moral, rational and sustainable ideology
  5. Jews, Christians, Muslims and social conservative atheists who are against gay marriage to challenge feminism as a moral, rational and sustainable ideology

Who is anti-feminist?

Anyone who wants to repeal the Equality Act 2010

What is feminism?

It is the ridiculous notion that it is rational, sustainable or moral to allow women to do men's jobs badly while neglecting their own work. 

Why is feminism a Bad Thing?

Because it causes immigration, anomie as well as cultural disintegration and national degeneracy by bribing men and women with cheap sex.  

Who should be against feminism?
  1. Men
  2. Women who want legitimate offspring
  3. Women who want to be good mothers
  4. Women who care about the long-term national interest
  5. Libertarians who want to return to rationally small government
  6. Anyone who hates our Culture of Excuses and Entitlement
  7. Anyone who wants to say enough is enough to the degeneracy, decline and bankruptcy of the West

Monday, 25 February 2013

Death warnings on cigarette packs when I come to power

"In the long run we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes

"A man who won't die for something is not fit to live" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time" - Mark Twain

"While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die" - Leonardo da Vinci

"No one can confidently say that he will still be living tomorrow" - Euripides

David Cameron HENPECKED into supporting gay marriage

Peter Hitchens tries to make sense of the madness of Cameron in promoting gay marriage at

But this story at makes much more sense.

The Prime Minister’s wife Samantha Cameron is the reason for his obsession with gay marriage, according to an unnamed cabinet minister.

The Daily Telegraph quoted the minister as saying: “Samantha is the driving force behind the policy”.

Samantha Cameron, the daughter of a baronet, is a creative consultant at a Mayfair luxury goods firm.

She is known to have socially liberal views, and ministers have previously said her strong influence on the Prime Minister “will have a more liberalising impact on Cameron than Nick Clegg”.

Meanwhile, David Cameron’s own mother was reported as saying the Prime Minister “just won’t be told” that same-sex marriage is unpopular and is alienating voters.

She made the comments at a lunch, in response to questions about why Mr Cameron is pressing ahead with the plans.

Perhaps we should all come to terms with the possibility that he is one or some or all of the following:

  1. He is mad.
  2. He is a robot.
  3. He is not a Conservative.
  4. He is the Antichrist.
Is there not something rather plastic and robotic about this "Conservative " Prime Minister promoting "gay marriage"? Have you noticed how suspiciously hairless, effeminate and androgynous he is - a bit like a Ken doll?

The Ides of March 2013 approaches ...

Caesar's wife should be above suspicion.

How the voters of the Eastleigh should vote,_2013

The following questions fall to be considered:

  1. Do you dislike politicians more than you like them?
  2. If so, you should vote in a way that would cause maximum distress to the politicians who have failed you, shouldn't you?
  3. Which party could you vote would the liberal political establishment most hate to win and which would do you least harm?
  4. Do you think voting for a non-L:ibLabCon party would accomplish your purpose?
  5. In that case, which fringe party should you vote for to cause the LibLabCon maximum distress and would be the most worthy recipient of your protest vote?


  1. It  is their civic duty to vote UKIP to show their disapproval of the LibLabCon.
  2. It would also be good for the LibLabCon to receive a good kicking from UKIP so they will change their ways before the next general election.  Andrew Lilico makes this point quite well.
  3. If they are outraged about the treatment of LibDem women by LibDem men they should not be voting LibDem.
  4. On the other hand, if they are outraged at the fact that men can be accused of sexual impropriety DECADES after the event and have their reputations ruined, WITH THE CONNIVANCE OF THE LIBDEM LEADERSHIP, after all that they have done for their party, this is also another reason NOT to vote LibDem.

To resign is to acknowledge guilt, Cardinal O'Brien

Cardinal O'Brien

It is so typical of the white m an to cave in at the first sign of difficulty. To resign is to acknowledge guilt.

These days the white man is so without honour, so without pride and without good sense that he cannot see this.

The days of the Catholic Church are clearly numbered.

Are these the words of a guilty man?

His resignation will encourage more people to make spurious claims of abuse.

How can ANYONE even deny this?

This man behaves like a woman whose default programming is to yield at the first sign of difficulty.

If I were him and guilty, I would go down in a hail of bullets and challenge my accusers to prove it, since doing this would hardly bring the Catholic Church further into disrepute, would it?

You might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, I would have thought.

The effeminacy of the white man will simply make the West the weak man of the world and the white race the laughing stock of the world.  

I wonder if it is only me that feels this visceral contempt.

Did Cardinal O'Brien or the people who advised him to resign even think for one moment that doing so would would do the Catholic Church any good?

Your enemies will increase and the accusations multiply.

Which is more contemptible: that he resigned because he was guilty or he is completely innocent but thought he would resign anyway?

I would prefer to be a guilty Catholic sodomite than a cowardly Catholic cunt.

Do you want the Conservative Party to be more Conservative, Lord Ashcroft? Then pay attention, please.

Lord Ashcroft should read my recommendations at

In case there is any doubt about what I am saying to him, it is this:

See to it that my expulsion is withdrawn and have a word with Stephen Phillips, Secretary of the Board of the Party and whoever will be deciding my appeal, to this effect.

Stephen Phillips has told me to let him know by 13 March that I wish to appeal, and this I have already done.

My defence can be found at

You are the one who pays the piper, you call the tune.

I have done NOTHING that is inconsistent with Conservatism except shock and horrify the milquetoasts at CHQ.

Below are my ideas for making Conservatism more radical and more appealing to right-thinking members of society.

Is it now time to consider that Cameron is one or some or all of the following?

  1. Not a Conservative
  2. Mad
  3. A malfunctioning robot
  4. the Antichrist has Peter Hitchens trying to find method in the madness of Camoron.   

This photo shows why the BNP has no future in mainstream politics until and unless it changes its monkeys and its organ grinders

Would you vote for a party whose leader is content with  a membership like that?

The BNP is old.

Its rivals are also old.

Those attending the launch of the rival British Democratic Party this month.

I have nothing against old people, but there is something infinitely demoralising about these photographs, if you are a nationalist.  

The attempts by Hope Not Hate to describe these people as dangerous rather than in danger of extinction are laughable.

You want some photos of the younger ones?  Here they are.

Even if you agreed with them, would you vote for any party that represents them?

Lord Rennard and Cardinal O'Brien: in Britain to be accused is to be CONVICTED

Lord Rennard

Cardinal O'Brien

How long will it be before even the LibDems will see the virtue of introducing * khalwa laws and think of excluding women from the workplace?

* The Sharia criminal offence of "close proximity" whereby two unmarried non-relatives of the opposite sex are apprehended after being found "in compromising positions" by state religious police.

What was he supposed to have done? Did he rape a few women or just proposition them unsuccessfully?

Women are of course treated as innocent till proven guilty, while men in authority are treated as guilty as soon as the accusation is made, especially if the accusation is made by a woman or a younger man.

No man questions this state of affairs, for some reason.

Is it because British men are too stupid, or too scared?

If either or both is the case, then what are these milquetoasts doing in government?

Sunday, 24 February 2013

The national interest is too important to be left in the hands of British nationalists

Such is the moral degeneracy of the British nation that no political party will support the institution of marriage unless it is "gay marriage".

Taking a stand on gay marriage is the only thing the fourth and fifth parties of British politics have done, but  it is far too little and far too late.

The BNP now have no intention of repealing the Equality Act 2010 in its entirety, which consolidates all the major Acts of totalitarian anti-discrimination legislation in one Act.

The primary purpose of the Act is to codify the complicated and numerous array of Acts and Regulations, which formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. This was, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.

The most they are prepared to do is

... repeal the Race Relations Act and all other far leftist social engineering projects, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission aimed at enforcing multiculturalism.

as stated in their 2010 manifesto at

It is the manifesto at which represents my favourite BNP manifesto.  This one proposes the repeal all anti-discrimination laws.

Social conservatism now only survives fitfully in the Eurosceptic nationalist parties, and is constantly being eroded, as we have seen, even in the BNP.

This, together with the pariahs status of nationalist parties, will further marginalise social conservatism.

It was not that long ago that the Jews were told that their religion is sexist and racist.

Clearly, the fact that the BNP are associated with racism discredits the entire package of social conservatism.  They are associated with racism because ethno-nationalism is by definition racially exclusive.

While they are attached to this ideology, it has done them no good at all.   Nothing is to be gained by keeping it and everything to be gained by dumping it.

They don't have to listen to me, only look across the Channel to see the success of Front Nationale.

Why won't they do it then?

Is it because Nick Griffin actually wants to party to stay small so he can retain control over it, or is it perhaps because he is too lazy or fearful to grasp the nettle of ethno-nationalism and uproot it from the BNP once and for all?

In a way I understand why he would not wish to.  The idiocy of those who insist that they must be ethno-nationalist so they can propose

(a) the forcible repatriation of non-white British citizens
(b) apartheid
(c) laws that would turn non-white British citizens into second class citizens

is both bemusing as well as tragic, and tragic not only for nationalism, but for social conservatism too.

It is therefore time non-racist, non-antisemitic and non-Islamophobic social conservatives who want a smaller state and fewer laws snatched nationalism out of the hands of these antediluvian dinosaurs before they discredit the cause of social conservatism even more with their imbecilic mulishness.

They do not see reason because Nick Griffin either has not the energy or the will to make them see it.

The long-term national interest is clearly too important a matter to be left in the hands of British nationalists.   

British Democratic Party launch reviewed

Kevin Scott, said that the new party would respect the rights of those legal immigrants and their descendants to remain in the UK without fear or hindrance. 
You would have thought they have learnt not to say things like that any more.   The lady doth protest too much!  This is from

The most important and interesting speech is Adrian Davies' who speaks approvingly of the success of Marine Le Pen and Front Nationale.  Her father Jean Marie has been nagging British nationalists to unequivocally embrace civic nationalists since 2004, advice that Nick Griffin would do well to follow.   The singular lack of urgency that characterises British nationalism is something about which British nationalists ought to be thoroughly ashamed.

Sadly, however, a singular lack of shame is yet another badge of British nationalism.

The most interesting speech  from the above link is Andrew Brons', who confuses nationality with race.   He wants citizenship only to be given on grounds of nationality, and nationality as far as he is concerned is about race.

If only British nationalists would drag themselves out of the primeval swamp of ethno-nationalism and take a dip in the pool of inclusive nationhood as defined by the Islamic concept of a racially neutral ummah.

Someone suggested that members be made to sign up to the party's principles and  it had to be pointed out by Adrian Davies that BDP cannot exclude anyone on grounds of race, because that is now the law, unless they fancy spending a hundred thousand pounds or thereabouts disputing this in court.

The BDP is clearly more "racial" and more full of unreconstructed ethno-nationalists  than the BNP who have modernised to the extent that it now describes itself in its constitution at 3.2.1 in these terms:

"Our party is a party of British nationalism, both ethnic and civic".   

It is terribly disheartening that they still do not understand why civic nationalism is the only way forward.  To succeed, they must be ideologically more civic than the BNP, but they went the other way instead.   I suppose that is the reason why Kevin Scott the Chairman excluded me from attending without deigning to give a reason.

I just feel a bit sorry for these people who are now going to have their time and money wasted, because they do not see the point of having ideological clarity.  Most of them are grateful to have something to do after being kicked out of the BNP, I suppose.  They are taking the middle way between the NF and the BNP when what is required is for a party that takes the middle way between the BNP and UKIP.

Yes, they are dunces and dunderheads, mules and fatheads, and there is nothing I can do about it.

To be associated with a movement that is always shooting itself in the foot and putting its bloodied limb in its mouth is something I must continue to put up with, I suppose.  

Doubtless, if I were white and male they would be begging me to lead them.  However, because I am female and foreign, they will ignore everything I say, just because they wish to do the opposite of what I say.

Never mind, when things get bad enough, they will remember that I told them so, and come to me begging  me to be their leader.

As ever, I intend to be magnanimous in victory, and graciously accept.   To err is human, to forgive divine.
Who should lead the nationalist movement if not Nick Griffin?

Should I start a British Whites Protection Party?

A British White Male - is he not magnificent?  Help preserve this fine specimen and others like him!

All the nationalist parties have leaders and members so degenerate and ignorant that they cannot see that feminism is the source of Western malaise, however many times I explain it and however simply I put it.

Even the ones who take my point about feminism seek to distance themselves from this position.

Of course, to say that feminism is bad for any civilisation is blasphemy to the matriarchy that now rules the West with an iron fist.

If white people are no longer capable of preserving and protecting themselves from feminism, then it seems a female and a foreigner must reluctantly step into the breach out of a sense of civic duty.   The BNP and UKIP are clearly not fit for this purpose, for, not only are they afraid of challenging feminism, they are afraid of their women, who are mostly SSMs (or have SSM daughters and grand-daughters) who have now been elevated to the status of Sacred Cow.

Who can join?

  1. Anyone who is prepared to challenge feminism as a rational, moral or viable ideology
  2. Anyone who is prepared to call for the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 (into which the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) has been consolidated.
  3. You don't have to be white to join, only a concerned British citizen of any race or religion who hate to see what white people are doing to themselves and don't want the cancer to spread to your people too.   
  4. You have to be a social conservative and hate the idea of a Conservative Prime Minister pulling out the stops to promote "gay marriage".   
  5. You have to hate what passes for British culture now.  What is British culture?  Pub culture?  Drug culture?  Pop culture?  Ugh.  Is it the culture of the Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, ASBO, Tesco and Paedo?
  6. You have to hate what SSMs are doing to this country, ie causing widespread illegitimacy and consequently national degeneracy.   If you are suffering from national degeneracy, it means you have suffered a noticeable decline in educational standards and morals during your lifetime.  Morality includes sexual morality and is directly related to illegitimacy.  SSMs can be found at
  7. You have to agree that the Church of England (now infested by feminists and Commie Pinkos) is no longer fit for the purpose of maintaining the morals of the English and that the English need a new state religion.
  8. You have to want to preserve the Union and agree that Britain was always an English project.  You don't have to be English, only realise that it is in Welsh and Scottish interests that the Union is preserved. 

This Sacred Cow represents Feminism, the Welfare State and Sexual Liberation

Friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.   When there are enough of you we - and we don't have to be all white - can form this party that will be better at protecting the interests of white people better than the useless BNP and the BDP (British Democratic Party) who are so despised for their racism, antisemitism and the fact that they are mostly uneducated proles not suited for high office that they will never get anywhere in politics and give social conservatism a bad name.  

By helping others we help ourselves.   

Machiavelli describes 21st century Britain


The weakness of the princes of the present day, caused by an effeminate education and want of instruction, makes them regard the maxims of the ancients as inhuman, or impossible of application.

To usurp supreme and absolute authority, then, in a free state, and subject it to tyranny, the people must have already become corrupt by gradual steps from generation to generation. And all states necessarily come to this, unless... they are frequently reinvigorated by good examples, and brought back by good laws to their first principles.


A want of proper judgement sometimes causes men, who are incompetent to defend themselves, to engage in war for the defense of others.


For in nature as in simple bodies, when there is an accumulation of the superfluous matter, a spontaneous purgation takes place, which preserves the health of that body. And so it is with that compound body, the human race; when countries become overpopulated and there is no longer any room for all the inhabitants to live, nor any other places for them to go to, these being likewise all fully occupied — and when human cunning and wickedness have gone as far as they can go — then of necessity the world must relieve itself of this excess of population by one of those three causes [pestilence, famine and inundation]; so that mankind, having been chastised and reduced in numbers, may become better and live with more convenience.

It is necessary then (as has been said) for men who live associated together under some kind of regulations often to be brought back to themselves, so to speak either by external or internal occurrences. As to the latter, they are either the result of a law, that obliges the citizens of the association often to render an account of their conduct; or by some man of superior character arises amongst them, whose noble example and virtuous actions will produce the same effect as such a law.


When once the people have taken arms against you, there will never be lacking foreigners to assist them.

Every student of ancient history well knows that any change of governments, be it from a republic to a tyranny, or from a tyranny to a republic, must necessarily be followed by some terrible punishment of the existing state of things.


I think, and ever shall think, that it cannot be wrong to defend one's opinions with arguments, founded upon reason, without employing force or authority.


A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring bloodshed and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community, while the executions carried out by the prince injure only individuals.

[A prince] must encourage his citizens to follow their callings quietly, whether in commerce, or agriculture, or any other trade that men follow, so that this one shall not refrain from improving his possessions through fear that they may be taken from him, and that one from starting a trade for fear of taxes; but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and to whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state.

Let no state believe that it can always follows a safe policy, rather let it think that all are doubtful. This is found in the nature of things, that one never tries to avoid one difficulty without running into another, but prudence consists in being able to know the nature of the difficulties, and taking the least harmful as good.

It is impossible to establish a perpetual republic, because in a thousand unforeseen ways its ruin may be accomplished.

It will be found that some things which seem virtuous, if followed, lead to one’s ruin, and some others which appear vices result in one’s greater security and well-being.

Saturday, 23 February 2013

Would the quality of British justice be improved by more female judges?

Why don't we ask the guys at Fathers for Justice?

Was it men or women who voted New Labour in?

Is it men or women who keep voting Democrat?
What to do about so many women voting for Left Liberal parties

The Doyenne of Divorce, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not understand the principle of treating the accused as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial
How many female speakers?  How many male?

Marriage Foundation’s First National Conference

Conference Speakers

Do you think these lawyers are more interested in preventing divorce or making money out of it?

Harry Benson is not a lawyer, but if you speak to him you will find him keener to sell you his courses and his books than in reintroducing the element of fault into divorce.  The reason may be guessed at.

If they are really interested in preventing divorce, they should do what is the most logical thing to do, which is to reintroduce the element of fault back into divorce.

The best way of apportioning fault is to make it compulsory for those who wish to get married to agree a marriage contract.   The party in breach of a term of the marriage contract would then be deemed to be at fault.

Why do educated legally-trained men and women find difficulty in understanding this laughably simple idea?

Is it because they want to continue making money out of the misery divorce causes while only pretending to be concerned about the long-term social consequences?

If so, then they really are beyond contempt.

Claire Khaw hopes for a UKIP win in the Eastleigh by election,_2013

There is only one party you can vote for if you

  • are concerned about immigration
  • believe that leaving the EU would bring immigration under control
  • hate the idea of legalising gay marriage
  • wish to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
  • hate how Cameron has subverted Conservative principles
Indeed, if you are a supporter of Conservative principles as defined below:

American historian and political theorist Russell Kirk developed six 'canons' of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:
  1. a belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  2. an affection for the 'variety and mystery' of human existence;
  3. a conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize 'natural' distinctions;
  4. a belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  5. a faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
  6. a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another", and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."

then you cannot possibly in good conscience vote for the Conservative candidate, even if she is saying things that are recognisably Conservative.  

Remember, even if you do not love UKIP's very attractive candidate, Diane James, 

it is your purpose to show Cameron how much you hate him for what he has done to the Conservative Party, especially if you are a social conservative.   

Because of Cameron and Theresa May, social conservatism is now so marginalised that it only survives in the fringe parties.  

Voting UKIP is the best way to hurt Cameron, who is not a Conservative at all.   He just happens to be leader in a party too dumbed-down and suffering from dementia to even acknowledge how far he has deviated from Conservatism.  

Claire Khaw - a bullet in search of a gun

I am not the only person to call Marta Andreasen flaky then.

It occurred to me this morning that I could be described as a bullet in search of a gun, though bringing to mind a similar witticism about a politician described as a shiver in search of a spine to run up.

Like Andreasen, I have been known to be a member of more than one party, viz Conservative, UKIP, Labour, BNP and Conservative again till my expulsion in December over which I intend to appeal. This I did this to further my understanding of British politics and the different cultures of the different political parties.  Also, it was an excellent way to meet people in order to acquire an understanding of their foibles and their follies and indeed the things that make them tick.

Another thing I will say in my own defence is that my political views have not been modified according to which party I am a member of.

Any political party who takes me on will take me on together with my views in favour of the following:

  1. reintrroducing capital punishment
  2. reintroducing corporal punishment
  3. leaving the EU
  4. reintroducing the element of fault back into divorce to be reflected in the divorce settlement through making it compulsory to agree a marriage contract before one can be legally wedded to another
  5. the abolition of the civil partnership together with the abolition of inheritance tax
  6. repealing the Equality Act 2010
  7. repealing the Human Rights Act 1998
  8. bringing British troops back home safe from the foreign misadventures that is the consequence of  misguided British foreign policy
  9. introducing the New Model Comprehensive
  10. a policy of strict neutrality as regards Israel
  11. the abolition of usury
  12. the creation of new state religion that is fit for the purpose of maintaining the morals of the British and the disestablishment of the Church of England - an utterly failed religion now infested by feminists and Commie Pinko homos.
  13. the destruction of feminism as a viable, rational and moral ideology 
  14. a one-party taxpayer democracy with a party constitution that protects its members' rights from the leader and his cronies  (This would be the logical conclusion if Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill had become law.

I will not be changing my views for any party who will have me and any party who does have me as a member would have to deal with the tension such views will create amongst its membership and its potential voters.  I have an idea that many of my ideas will be eventually be popular, but only if the leadership allows me to promote them and is prepared to support my right to defend myself, without necessarily agreeing with me.

None of the above in any way could be said to be in conflict with any of the official principles of the parties I was a member of, not even the Labour Party's.

That ridiculous woman Andreasen says that UKIP have no chance of ever being in office, but the silly woman misunderstands the purpose of UKIP and indeed of all the fringe parties.  Their purpose is to lay out policies to be "stolen" and implemented by the oligarchs at the LibLabCon.   That is why there is no harm in the BNP and UKIP being as radical as I would wish them to be.  They will be seen as a receptacle for the protest votes of disgruntled voter.

I wish it to be known that I have every intention of forgiving UKIP their scurvy treatment of me by refusing to admit me into their party simply because I was once a member of the BNP.  If they invite me to join I will certainly do so.  However, if the Conservatives decide to let me back in after my appeal against my expulsion, I would also rejoin them without hesitation.  I am also open to offers from the BNP to annul my expulsion in 2011 thus making me eligible to throw my hat in the ring at the next leadership election.

None of these courses, were they open to me, could be said to be in conflict with the principles I have been known to hold.  I have already said I am in favour of a one-party state so in a way the parties are really all the same to me.

Any of these outcomes will make British politics more entertaining for its participants and observers.

Marta andreasson has joined the Tories one month after this attack on Cameron . I'm sure she has done this for deeply held principle rather than a desperate bid to hold onto a failed political career
Unlike ·  · 
  • You, Rich Kendall and 3 others like this.
  • Maggie Chapman Her timing right before Eastleigh, leaves a lot o be desired.But i wish her well.
  • Bill Etheridge Ukip Ppc You are entitled to your opinion of course Maggie . I don't wish her well I think her behaviour has been disgraceful
    2 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 3
  • Maggie Chapman It has yes, but if she wasnt happy then she has done the right thing.No point in bearing a grudge when there is work to be done  If she can shit on one party, nothing to stop her doing it to another.....
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Rich Kendall She is a traitor and a hypocrite. How can she be taken seriously after leaving a Eurosceptic party, and has joined a pro-EU party?
    She was a waste of oxgygen anyway. I do not wish her well.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 2
  • Maggie Chapman Im not one to bear grudges, life is far too short.Others have joined UKIP in the last few weeks, so i prefer to concentrate on them.Plus Eastleigh should be at the front of everyones minds  she has gone, so time to move on.
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Rich Kendall I'm not bearing grudges lol. Ive said what i believe to be true, so that is all i have to say. She will be remembered as a traitorous hypocrite.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 1
  • Wyre Forest Ukip This is exactly why we need to make sure people get selected from the bottom up, not because of any celeb status, and Marta was brought in because of who she was, not what she had done for UKIP, how many more times do we have keep learning before we realise that promoting someone because of their celebrity past is a recipe for disaster as it all turns nasty later and this hurts the party and it lets down all those that do all the ground work.
    2 hours ago · Like · 5
  • Ukip Thurrock ^^^ wholeheartedly agree with Wyre Forest Ukip.
    2 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Caryl Thatcher does any of this get to he aware of what we think? it would be interesting to know
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Christopher Gillibrand There is one big difference between Nigel, about whom I could say many things, but not that he is a dictator, he has his eyes on the prize.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Maggie Chapman I know im going to get shot down in flames here but, as a female, i have met quite a few mysoginists in the party.They have been dealt with quickly and quietly but they are still there.
  • Jeannie Susan Armstrong But that's ok Maggie- UKIP is a broad church that reflects good old common sense filled Joe public. (and Jane public) (at a push)
    2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Mark Croucher Marta coming to UKIP was a boost at the time, in a campaign which was flagging somewhat. She's obviously been speaking to the Tories for some time, and they saved her up for a rainy day: the Rennard allegations in the Lib Dems and Marta within a couple...See More
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Jackson Wright She sounds a bit of flake. Also, she made no bones about doing it to get the best deal for herself, rather than out of principle.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Jackson Wright Claire Khaw, on the other hand, is a bullet in search of a gun ....

Maggie Chapman:

"I know im going to get shot down in flames here but, as a female, i have met quite a few mysoginists in the party.They have been dealt with quickly and quietly but they are still there."

Does it sound a bit sinister to you guys?

Remember, gentlemen, feminism is a worldwide scourge and the feminazis will stop at nothing until they have destroyed your civilisation through widespread illegitimacy (which they condone if not actually promote) which causes national degeneracy.  Why is national degeneracy a bad thing?  Because it means fewer and fewer British people will be capable of becoming productive citizens because of the way they have been parented or educated.

This means more and more immigrant labour will be needed and imported because the British can no longer shift for themselves.

Remember, gentlemen, that the teaching profession is hideously dominated by the worst of feminine vices - cowardice and hypocrisy.  The corrupt educational establishment have completely defeated Michael Gove, so standards of education will continue to plummet and Britain become less and less internationally competitive, because no political party will grasp the nettle.  (It is because of the intractability of the corrupt educational establishment that made me see that the only way forward is a one-party state, otherwise no political party would ever take the bull by its horns, causing Britain's international competitiveness and fitness to survive to be continually eroded until it becomes a failed state, whose people are mostly  pirates and prostitutes ...)

These feminists always stick up for each other in a totally amoral and tribal way.  Maggie Chapman has a daughter with illegitimate offspring and will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who says that fornicatresses, especially fornicatresses with illegitimate offspring, are to be criticised.  To have me back in UKIP would  present an ideological triumph of male virtue over feminine vices, showing that UKIP is more than just a one-trick ideological pony who is not afraid of feminazis and is prepared to reconsecrate the institution of marriage.