Translate

Thursday, 11 April 2013

Why changing your principles can win you an election, but you have to have them in the first place

I am enraged, infuriated and aghast at the number of people who


  1. do not know what a principle is
  2. do not know what principles are for
  3. are in the Labour Party and cannot even summon up the moral energy to make a fuss that the Conservative Party has no principles and that the leader of the Conservative Party is not in fact a Conservative.   

Clearly, they do not think as I do that the blame for the ills of the nation can be laid at the door of this omission - this omission to insert an official statement of principles in the constitution of the Conservative Party.   

I can see that this omission was perhaps deliberate, for not having principles gives the leader and his cronies the ability to trim their sails to the prevailing wind and adopt the cause of expediency in order to stay in office or come to office.   

What is the harm of this, you ask?

It will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage at the hands of a Conservative Prime Minister.

If you are not shocked and appalled, then you clearly you do not respect the institution of marriage, and the overwhelming number of people in Britain do not.  It is now a badge of Britishness to say that a wedding certificate is only a piece of paper not fit to wipe our bottoms with.   

Cameron does not understand or will not be told that conferring upon couples who are only capable of recreational sex with each other the privilege of marriage is the ultimate in the desecration of marriage.  You really cannot go any further than that in policy terms.   

Yet he will not be told and no one can explain it to him.   

The awful truth is that not a single party in the land dares to propose or support policies that would actually support marriage.

The awful truth is that no one seems to understand that to support the institution of marriage, one has to treat marriage as a privilege to be reserved for heterosexual couples only.

The awful truth is that in order to support marriage (and not just pay it lip service) married parents must be privileged over unmarried parents.  

And the reason for this?

Since most babies in Britain are in fact illegitimate, this would mean that most mothers are self-evidently sluts, or fornicatresses, if you prefer.  This means that there are more SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379 than there are non-SSMs whose children are legitimate.   This means that they must make up a significant percentage of the female vote which Cameron, who did not win outright the last election (because he feared to promote or even articulate Conservative principles), feels he can ill afford to alienate.  

Principles can however be very useful.   

Old Labour had principles.  Being a socialist party, it had the principle of nationalising everything in sight.   This was found not to be very popular and so they felt they had to change it in a way that would reassure their potential supporters ie voters who owned shares in the newly privatised utitlities.  Clause iv of their constitution contained the clause that said they would nationalise everything in sight and therefore clause iv had to be removed in order to reassure voters with shareholdings in British Gas and British Telecom.   After much rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, this was successfully accomplished in 1995.  The voter being reassured, Labour went on to win the election in 1997.   

The fact that Labour Party constitution had a clause stating this policy turned out to be a blessing in disguise, for it served to be the clear blue water that divided Old Labour (not electable) from New Labour (infinitely electable).   

There was doubtless much sniggering by the Tories at the discomfiture of Labour.  Tories are not after all the fools who would ever have such a  ridiculous policy in their constitution.   http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/05/does_the_conser.html

The Tories congratulated themselves on the fact that they had no principles and on the fact that Conservative Party principles were always whatever the leader of the party and his cronies said they were, which was all very convenient and expedient.

But what if their leader was not a Conservative and had no idea what Conservative principles are?

Can it really be the case that Conservative Party is claiming that its principles are contained in the Foreword of this piece of puffery at 

What would Disraeli, Peel or Salisbury make of this farrago of absurdities?  We can only imagine.  

The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that because Labour had principles and took them seriously, they went on to win a general election.  Because they saw the importance of having principles, they made a big thing about having to change them, even though everyone quarrelled with each other and was very upset.  However, because they were making such a fuss, this made everyone notice them and take them seriously.  The result was that they went on to win an election by a landslide.  

As for the Tories, who had no principles, they had the purpose of their party subverted by a convictionless charlatan, who had no idea what Magna Carta was even though he went to Eton, and foisted gay marriage on the nation while claiming to be a Conservative.   

Sadly for the Conservatives, most of them were so dumbed down by the miasma of illegitimacy and low moral and educational standards all around them that they no longer knew what a principle is nor what principles were for and believed it was something to to do with sacrifice, inconvenience and the unnecessary narrowing of one's options.  They no longer had any idea what Conservative principles were because it is not written down anywhere, and came to prefer the Humpty Dumpty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass approach to Conservative principles, which meant that they left such things to their leader.  While a few protested, most of them who did not like thinking very much did not mind.   Eventually, Conservatism became Whateverism - an idea that that salvation lies in doing whatever your leader says while hoping for the best.  Whateverism does not take into account that your leader might be an unprincipled charlatan or perhaps even an alien from outer space who wishes to subvert your society and destroy it, because it is best not to worry oneself too much about these things.   

And, so, boys and girls, that is how Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland came to have gay marriage - because the Conservative Party had no principles and no one cared.  No one cared because a nation of sluts and bastards would not care about such abstract concepts such as principles, much less Conservative principles.   

Marriage is an abstract concept that can only be supported by the principle of forbidding extramarital sex.  Those who do not make the effort of understanding abstract concepts, such as justice, faith, truth, morality etc and those who do not abide by abstract principles eventually return to barbarism and live like animals, caring only to have sex, food and shelter.  Eventually, they will become like cattle, to be exploited by other races, nations and civilisations who do respect marriage, if they do not become extinct altogether.

Eventually, the Whateverists lurched ever more madly into having sex for the sake of having sex, with mothers not looking after their children properly or bringing them up to be good and obedient children.

Eventually, the children of heterosexual couples became the sexual playthings of homosexuals and then went on to become homosexual themselves too.  They in turn preyed on the children of other heterosexual couples.  Their numbers declined drastically and eventually, because no one saw the point of having children any more, there was only one lone homosexual left.   

And when he too died (it was believed he committed suicide) there were no Britons left in the world any more.   

And that is why gay marriage and not having principles is wrong and bad for your civilisation.   

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I've seen cows and horses having sex in fields in the countryside. The penetrating animal kind of mounts the one that is to be penetrated.

One interesting thing is that women, in being penetrated, are actually behaving like gay men. Or perhaps, it's gay men that behave like women in being penetrated? I suppose it's a chicken and the egg type question. Do trees look like broccoli, or does broccoli look like trees?

Your scenario of society dwindling down to just one person is an interesting one. It reminds me of a discussion in the following text...

http://www.suicidenote.info/ebook/suicide_note.pdf

Mitchell Heisman's suicide note is one of these crazy long documents (like Breivik's 2083 manifesto) that everyone with a half-decent brain should try reading.

Page 1627, he asks, "Is liberal democracy the final solution to the human question"?

I found this document to be a really interesting read, although in some places the reading can be quite heavy so if you're a dumb proletarian it'll be out of your league. The great thing about you Claire, is that you can challenge any ideological view, whether on the left or right. You're never afraid to ask questions.

Interestingly Heisman was a left-wing American Jew with Asperger's who concluded that life was meaningless, and one of the main themes of his work was that in order to pursue a greater equality, we should make death equal with life.