Saturday, 20 July 2013

The Conservative Party has filed its defence to my claim

Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.
—Quran, [Quran 4:95

Whether or not you believe in the God of the Koran, it is clear that this verse is saying that God, if He exists, only helps those who help themselves.

The people who agree with me about most things but who dare not say so, or who dare not say so using their own names, should take note.

If all the people in Britain were prepared to defend their views through being inconvenienced or by making some sacrifice, we would all be closer getting the government we want.

It is sadly the case that hardly anyone in Britain even knows what a principle is, let alone is prepared to defend it.   The Conservative Party does not know what a principle is, or what its principles, if any, are and it is prepared to say so in open court.

It seems to me that all the problems of West stems from a complacent and stubborn refusal  to define Conservatism and state its principles.  If that had been done, we would not have had a Conservative Prime Minister force gay marriage on us and we would not be left with social conservatism being so marginalised that it is only found in the demonised Eurosceptic parties.

Statement of Facts Relied On

Statement of Grounds page 1

Statement of Grounds page 2

Statement of Grounds page 3

Statement of Grounds page 4

Statement of Grounds page 5

Statement of Grounds page 6

Claimant – Claire Khaw          Defendant – Conservative Party

Letter from Defendant to Claimant dated 20 December 2013                                 1

Thursday 20th December 2012
Dear Ms Khaw
I am writing on behalf of the Conservative Party Board to inform you that your membership of the Conservative Party has been cancelled under Part IV 17.7 of the Constitution of the Party, which states:
The Board of the Party shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall be ... responsible for ... the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion of any Party member ....
Yours sincerely
Stephen Phillips
Secretary to the Board of the Party

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 11 January 2013                                      2

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:41 PM
Subject: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Dear Mr Phillips

I refer to your letter dated 20th December and would be grateful if you would let me know the reason why you cancelled my membership.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 14 January 2013                                      3

From: Claire Khaw
Sent: 14 January 2013 15:18
To: Phillips, Stephen
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Dear Mr Phillips

May I hope to receive from you an acknowledgment or an answer to my question?

If it is the Conservative Party's view that I am not entitled to receive an answer then please also let me know this.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Email from Defendant to Claimant dated 15 January 2013                                      4

----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Stephen
To: Claire Khaw
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

The Conservative Party received a complaint and subsequently launched an investigation.  The investigation found subject matter personally attributed to you which were wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party.

The Board of the Party reserves the right to cancel the membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party member.

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 15 January 2013                                      5

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
To: Phillips, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Yes, I gathered that I have done something which you dislike, but may I know

(a) what I have done that is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party?

(b) what are the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party?

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 16 January 2013                                      6

From: Claire Khaw
Date: 16 January 2013 17:49
Subject: The reason for the cancellation of my membership
To: "Phillips, Stephen"

I wonder if you have received my earlier email.

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 18 January 2013                                      7

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
To: Phillips, Stephen
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

May I know if it is your intention not to tell me

1.  what I have done that is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party; and

2.  what are the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party?

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 23 January 2013                                      8

From: Claire Khaw
Date: 23 January 2013 11:31
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership
To: "Phillips, Stephen"

When may I expect to hear from you on this?

Letter Before Claim from Claimant to Defendant dated 6 February 2013               9 - 11

Letter from Defendant to Claimant dated 11 February 2013 with Key Episodes      12  - 14

1st link referred to in Key Episodes (photo of Claimant)                                                                                                                               15 - 16

2nd link referred to in Key Episodes  (photo of Claimant)                                                    
                                                                                                                                    17 - 18

3rd, 4th and 7th link referred to in  Key Episodes                                                                                                                                        19  – 20                                                                                                                       21 - 24

5th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                                                                   25 - 30

Transcript of what Claimant said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show                          31 - 36
                                                                                                                                    37 - 38

6th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                           39 - 40

8th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                                   41 – 42

9th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                           43  - 44

10th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                         45

Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill                                        46 - 47

Claimant's Appeal dated 5th March 2013                                                                 48 - 54

Defendant's  Dismissal of Claimant's Appeal dated 27 March 2013                         55

Defendant's letter to Claimant dated 4 April 2013                                                    56

David Cameron's Foreword in the 2010 General Election Manifesto                       57 – 59

Claimant's Letter Before Claim dated 10th June 2013                                              60 - 63


A quashing order nullifying the Defendant's expulsion of the Claimant

A mandatory order requiring the Defendant to publish a formal Statement of Its Principles

Statement of Costs page 1

Statement of Costs page 2

Statement of Costs page 3

Statement of Costs page 4

Statement of Costs page 5

Defence of Conservative Party page 1

Defence of Conservative Party page 2

Defence of Conservative Party page 3

Defence of Conservative Party page 4
It would be cheaper for the Conservative Party if they just got themselves this one Conservative principle

"The Conservative Party supports the principle of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest.  The national interest includes solvency, social stability, stable prices as well as standards of behaviour and education that are considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next."

Perhaps it will eventually dawn on them, before this goes too far, that they would be better off with principles than without.  Indeed, some of them might even concede that it is better to have me inside the party than outside the party.

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Funeral Blues for a Gay Nation

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message 'Brits now gay'.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

The English went North, South, East and West,
They would work and then on Sundays rest,
Now it is sex and shopping; women and song;
I thought they would fight gay marriage harder: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Disabled lobby terrorises The Royal Highland Hotel with menacing phone calls

I just called the hotel and spoke to someone called Gillian. She said what happened was this:

On Sundays kids eat for free. Because Willie Forbes, who suffers from Down's Syndrome, wanted a child's portion, it came through on the computer as free, so she went to the kitchen to tell the cook about the administrative problem of billing them for the meal and putting it through their system.

There was no question of the hotel not serving them, but when the waitress went back  to the table the prospective diners had gone.

Sadly, the hotel receptionist has been receiving all sorts of threats. They even had to take down their Facebook page because it was inundated by threats on staff members.

"Miss Cumming ...  said she wanted Mr Banerjee [the Regional Manager] to travel to Aberdeen and apologise to her uncle in person."

Who does she think she is?  Such a demand merely demonstrates the crazed and despicable self-importance of the disabled lobby.  

It is a nice hotel, so all those fueled by class envy would want to burn it down and beat up everyone in it, I imagine.

Mr Indranil Banerjee, of the Royal Highland Hotel which is backing the Courier's Cuppa For Kids event

Monday, 15 July 2013

Why doesn't Andrew Bridgen get on with the job of collecting his 46 signatures to save the country from SamCam?
Why is this unelected woman influencing UK foreign policy?
Why is this unelected woman proposing social policy that would fundamentally change the way the British relate to each other sexually?

Why do the British allow themselves to be governed by someone who is clearly pussywhipped?

Silly question: because the British are stupid, obviously, and it may be catching. is the sort of shit we are now getting in our demented matriarchy, but nobody cares.  Most people don't care because most people are stupid.

Soon there will be enough transgender people to make all toilets gender neutral.  I can imagine how awful it must be for transgender people every time they need to use a public toilet.  Strange looks and threats all the time, probably.  This means gay men can no longer cottage each other in peace and women will be RAPED silly by men who will have the right to use their toilets.

It is just SHIT living in a nation of stupid cunts, I can tell you, and I am sick of it.
How many signatures has Andrew Bridgen got now?

Does he want a bit of help from me?

Sunday, 14 July 2013

Isn't this sweet? One of my Facebook friends did this for me.

14 July 2013 at 18:35
You in west not have a good leader and are suffering under imperialist scummery with obsession with fucky and sucky. You in Britain should make Claire Khaw supreme leader since she is not obsessed with masturbating to watching Paris Hilton nor is she a banker.

1. Possibly change Great Britain to Glorious People's Monarchy of Brittania.

2. Put everyone that has been on Jeremy Kyle, reality Television, Hip Hop, Soaps, music videos and politicians in dissident death matches.

3. Put Paris Hilton in prison and indoctrinate her to be a muslim. This be useful to show how Claire is gifted to turn capitalist whore like Paris into decent human being

4. Use Islam and secular Koranism to unite people under banner of Claire Khaw. Britain is not one race like my nation so Islam with its racial equality message useful in this case.

5. Have personality Cult surrounding Claire Khaw.

6. Set up re-education camps

7. Have posters against degeneracy : Picture of Claire's face with writing under saying: Sluttery leads to Aids.

8. Have public executions.

9. Have single party state under control of Dear Mother of Nation Claire Khaw.

10. Have festival every year where "chavs" are executed to celebrate Claire's rise to power.

Saturday, 13 July 2013

Should I sue Suzanne Moore for defamation?

In her defence, I would like her to cut and paste words that I have said that fulfills the conditions of my saying disabled children should die.

She also seems to think that I think single mothers should be convicted.  Convicted of what?

I am already suing the Conservative Party, so why not Suzanne Moore?

Only Secular Koranism can promote social conservatism, fight feminism and defend marriage

Dysgenic feminism cannot be fought by the useless men's rights movement or the nationalist parties of Britain.

The men's rights activists are useless because they campaign for paternity leave if they see women getting maternity leave, but they have no interest in promoting or protecting the institution of marriage or promoting the efficiency and competitive of British labour or British business.  They are stupid enough to think they can beat women in the competition for victimhood and think whingeing to each other amounts to political activism.  They also feminised and effeminate beta males.

As for the BNP, they are so pathetic they changed their logo into a heart-shaped union jack to attract female members.  This means they are not prepared to offend  female BNP members, and we already know that these days most British mothers are SSMs, most British women are sluts and most British men are MCSFs. (morally-compromised slut-fuckers).

We also know that BNP members are mostly beta males.  This means they are already known for being low achievers in status, income and education, and, for this reason, no one will is going to listen to anything they say.

Nick Griffin their leader knows that to attract and keep alphas in the party would only threaten his position and it is enough to keep milking the betas for money from time to time to keep treading water.  This strategy is therefore not going to make him do anything to alienate his mostly illegitimate male members who are probably also parents of illegitimate children, because those two are linked.

What else is there to fight feminism?  There is only Islam and me, the only woman in Britain prepared to say publicly that she would use Islam to overthrow the demented and dysgenic matriarchy.

I know you don't want to hear this, but I am right, aren't I?

I do know how much the British hate Muslims and Islam, so I have created Secular Koranism just for them.  
Now what I need is for respected and educated British intellectuals to read the Koran and tell me what they find so objectionable about it.  

I certainly think all MPs should participate in this exercise, but I get the feeling that they are too lazy, illiterate and chauvinistic to do so.

If I had the money I would send them all a copy of the N J Dawood Penguin edition of the Koran and invite them to tell me what they find so objectionable about it.  

If they can find nothing much after having read it, then we can go ahead and establish Secular Koranism, which at least does not require a belief in God, only that God's laws as stated in the Koran would be incorporated into the UK legal system.  

My message to the beta male supporters of the BNP: social conservatism, which protects you and the integrity of your society and your people, can only be promoted and maintained by religion

Women of any race despise men of a lower class whom they don't fancy.  How can they fancy men whom they regard as inferior to them? When they don't fancy you, you really are useless to them. If you don't even have a job, then you might as well be dead to them.

Guardian-reading feminists know deep down that it was their liberal social and educational policies that caused so many NEET males to come into existence.

It is after all human nature to hate those whom we have injured.

Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris

They find it hard to forgive you for reminding them of what their crap policies have turned you into.

It was Simon Sheppard who said that men were instinctively more racist than women because they need to protect themselves from males of other races.

While both men and women fancy a bit of the other from time to time, women think foreign men in their midst are somehow cleverer and stronger than their own men if they manage to penetrate into their society and will find them attractive for this very reason.

The fact that women these days can legally and socially forbid men from expressing views they dislike is conclusive evidence of female supremacy and male submission.

Every now and then these women like to throw their weight around and remind you who is boss. This is probably why that female teacher mentioned at - and I am pretty confident that the teacher was white and female and non-Muslim - chose to humiliate a boy of her own race.

Who is an alpha and who a beta? An alpha is a man who is sexually attractive to women without even noticing them.

All societies need their betas because someone has to do the work. When your betas are replaced by foreigners, then the betas have lost the reason for their very existence. That is why they are treated with such contempt by their women and their government, and of course men of other races who notice their degradation.

The Muslims I talk to hardly ever even mention the BNP. They already know you are not even worth worrying about because you will never get anywhere and will get weaker and more effeminate with each generation.

Nationalists are overwhelmingly beta males. This means they are naturally followers but not leaders. Most of them know they have not the status, education, wealth or charisma to lead anything, and they are afraid of the ridicule of their fellow betas who no longer have male codes of honour capable of promoting male solidarity.

For any movement to be successful it needs to be led by an alpha male. Nick Griffin is an alpha male, being a public schoolboy and having some of the charm that goes with it, but sadly for you all, he lacks moral courage and has no principles.

Since the leader of the BNP holds a virtual monopoly in nationalism and he is not interested in helping nationalists except to profit from their grievance, nothing much is going to happen.

If he wanted the movement to prosper, he would turn it into an exclusively civic nationalist movement as Jean Marie Le Pen was urging him to do so way back in 2004, but that is more than his job's worth since he knows how many of you will not see why you should and will hate him for even proposing it.

Anyone who seems like he could be a successful leadership contender - ie who is posh, personable, good-looking etc - will be ruthlessly removed from the party.

The person who fits this description most that I knew of was Andrew Moffatt, but he didn't really want the job anyway.

As Nick once said at an East London meeting , "Those of you who want my job can't do it, and those of you who can do my job don't want it."

All Nick has to do is to just give you people exactly what you want, to ensure the failure of nationalism. It really is as simple as that.

You don't want to go civic nationalist, he won't make you go civic nationalist.

You want to join the EDL on their marches, he will lift the proscription against the EDL.

You want your anti-Muslim marches, he will give you your anti-Muslim marches.

You don't want to talk about foreign or education policy then he won't talk about foreign or education policy and just go on and on and on about Muslim grooming and Muslim sex predators.

He doesn't care as long as you are coughing up your money often enough to keep him in his job.

Anyway, the only person in the land who can do his job and would like to give it a go is me, but I am a Muslim-loving female and a foreigner in your eyes, so I will never get anywhere and Nick will just stay on till he hands the job to his daughter Jennifer.

That is the reality of the nationalist position. is something I prepared earlier on the same theme.

Islam, because it promotes social conservatism and moral restraint, makes Muslims more cohesive than BNP supporters who wonder where their people and their country have gone.

If you don't watch out, enough smart white working class women who want legitimate children will convert to Islam just to get a decent husband.

And then you will find yourselves converting to Islam just to get a decent wife.

It won't be the Asian Muslims who did it to you, but you allowing your women to do this to you, and all because you refuse to confront them now about their morals.

It is a can of worms though, isn't it?

Your women do what they do - have their variously-fathered feral bastards on the state - because the welfare state allows sluts to have bastards all over the place.

It stands to reason that if most of the women in Britain are sluts, then eventually, most of the babies in Britain will be bastards.

There is a reason why the word bastard is a derogatory word, and it is common to most cultures.   The Chinese have their own version - "ma te" which means literally "It is the mother's".  The mother's what, you ask?  The mother's fault for bringing the bastard into existence and not bringing it up properly.

If you want to abolish the welfare state then you have to abolish it for yourselves too.

Sluts and the Welfare State are your sacred cows, so you are left with complaining about Jews, Muslims and immigration.

While Jews and Muslims believe that their God is moral and omnipotent the people who hate Jews and Muslims - like you-  are known chiefly for your fear of offending your women.  While men of most races will even sympathise with you if you are afraid of a tyrant who is smarter, stronger and richer than you, he will feel only contempt for a race whose men are afraid of the worst of their women ie sluts.

If most of the women are sluts, they reason, then most of the men must be morally-compromised slut-fuckers (MCSFs) afraid of criticising the morals of their women, and they would be right, wouldn't they?

In the sense of Western men having shared values, I suppose it could be said that they all share the idea that sluts must not be criticised and that feminism is their Queen who has given them all that free and cheap slut sex that they have so far managed to enjoy.

But why they would accept such a pernicious ideology that weakens them with every degenerate generation is beyond me.

I suppose it is because most of these men don't have children and just want to go to their graves keeping the beliefs they were brought up with, ie that feminism is good because it turned women into sluts, and most men love to fuck sluts.

They think, perhaps, that the Feminist Slut Show will continue to run for a bit longer, and will continue in their lifetimes at least. By the time the tide of Islam is in, they will be dead, they think.

If they had children they would be concerned about the future, but since most of them do not, or if they did had lost touch with them, life for the beta male is all about filling his boots as much as he can with cheap slut sex till he can no longer get it up and he dies.

This is how the typical atheist British male thinks, and there really is no hope for him.

Social conservatism is the means through which you preserve your civilisation and traditions, or all that your ancestors have acquired and learnt will be forgotten and lost in a few generations.

The only viable force for social conservatism in Britain now is Islam.

You could say the BNP is one of the forces for social conservatism, but we already know that they are regarded with hatred and contempt.

Very few voters would wish to identify themselves with a pariah group consisting of low status, low income plebeian males that no sane woman would want to fuck let alone marry.

In any case, beyond saying no to gay marriage, the BNP have done nothing to promote marriage, because its leader already knows most of its members are incapable of ever being seen as marriageable by sane white women.

Jews and Muslims are the living demonstration of the power of the institutions of marriage and family. Just by respecting those institutions they effortlessly rise while you sink like a stone.

Social conservatism protects the integrity of your nation, but that means moral restraint in the form of respecting marriage. This actually means prohibiting extramarital sex, but I already know that most atheist white Britons who regard extramarital sex as their birth right will find my remedies detestable.

Because I have blasphemed against the Trinity of the Sacred Cows that the British worship - Feminism, the Welfare State and the SSM - it is unlikely that I will be admitted as a member of any political party.

Because the Conservative Party is a fraud on its supporters and no longer promotes social conservatism, nothing much will change for the beta males who support the BNP.   Their leader will not tell them what is really the problem with them for fear of offending them and perhaps causing them to join a rival nationalist party, and why should they listen to someone like me - a female and a foreigner - who tells them things they do not want to hear?

So nothing will happen to improve the lot of the beta male, who will become increasingly degenerate, effeminate and unattractive to the women of their race.

While I believe that even a beta can become an alpha, none of the nationalists I know are capable of challenging Nick Griffin for reasons of education, class, occupation and income.  After all, they are overwhelmingly beta and betas are conformists who do what they are told.

Betas are also potential alphas who continue to fear to do what they must do to become alpha.   

Betas are betas because they had no father around to show them how to be an alpha, because they were deprived of their fathers by their mothers who did not think their sons needed a father or that she needed to have a husband before having offspring.

Betas are betas because they were taught mostly by female teachers.

Being the mind of a man happily inhabiting the body of a woman and who understands what must be done to win the ideological battle, I believe I could do a lot for nationalists.  However, it is not likely that Nick Griffin, who is in thrall to female BNP supporters with disabled family members up North, would defy them, is it? After all, there are many more disabled illegitimate BNP members than there are of me, and he would not wish to alienate them.

He will just say I am seen as a Nazi Muslim-sympathiser who is a female and a foreigner, with a detestable message and detestable remedies, and he would be right.  

No, it is most unlikely that I will ever get anywhere in British politics and will continue to be seen as a lone voice, marginalised, ignored and derided by the LibLabCon as well as the parties who oppose them.

I am however heartened to see the mainstream media and mainstream politicians becoming increasingly critical of feminism.

Friday, 12 July 2013

The Omega Male must eventually make way for the Islamic Male when British women eventually wise up

There is something deeply repulsive about the kind of blatant antisemitism expressed by the more primitive species of ethno-nationalist, and we have an example of this in the link above.

For daring to visit a synagogue on London Open Day two years ago and inviting me along so I took photos, Jeffrey Marshall is now suspected of being a Jew because he had to cover his head to enter a synagogue. He was given a skull cap to wear. He wore it, and now every retard in nationalism thinks he is a Jew and therefore the enemy.

It is a bit like my flag and gun photo.  In the same way that some imbecilic liberals believe that I am a Nazi, just by being photographed near a swastika, it is generally believed by retard nationalists that Jeffrey Marshall is a Jew because he was photographed in a synagogue wearing a skull cap.

I have met Jeffrey's mother and she is not a Jewess.  He is also the son of a publican.

It is only to be expected that these Nationalist Neanderthals cannot imagine themselves ever wanting to visit a synagogue.  After all culture, history and architecture are not in the included list of interests of the lumpenproletariat.

Nationalists are overwhelmingly beta males.  Being beta means that they feel the inconveniences of being poorer, lowlier, less educated and less desirable than men who are more affluent, have higher status, and are educated and considered attractive and eligible.

Still, many of these ethno-nationalists are so pig ignorant they regard antisemitism as synonymous with patriotism. Many of the associates of Dave Jones, my former political associate, feel this hatred deep in their guts and what passes for their souls. But then Dave Jones is a rancorous peasant who never completed his education, and his associates are in a similar position and also dysfunctional in some way. It is easier for them to blame Jews and Muslims for their troubles than the way the beta male craves the approval of SSM fornicatresses.  Because the beta male cannot easily persuade women to have no-strings sex with him, afford to take a wife or the services of a prostitute, he is left only with the hope for sexual access to women who are prepared to give it to him for free - in short, the Recreational Fornicatress.

Such women will have low standards of morality and intelligence. However, because of this natural craving to have sex and the wish to gain reproductive rights, the beta male feels he has no choice but to refrain from offending these fornicatresses or even to be seen to be defending them whenever I criticise their morals.

Dave Jones and those of his ilk cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth about SSMs.  While they would never want to have sex with Jews or Muslims or Blacks, the English slut is at least useful to them, they reason, because she can at least be persuaded to give them a shag without too much difficulty, unlike the sexually inaccessible Jewess or Muslim female.

However, the attachment and protectiveness that English ethno-nationalists feel towards the English slut is only the protectiveness a drunk feels towards a bottle of glass containing cheap strong drink that he is anxious to consume and protect from breakage.  

It is only because Jews and Muslims respect the institution of the family that makes them easily outgun the gentile lumpenproletariat who cannot compete with foreigners even in the field of unskilled manual labour. It is they who have had their characters ruined by the welfare state, and the welfare state is kept going because it must be kept going to keep the sluts fed and watered, breeding and parasitical.

While the white working classes remain unfit for purpose, there will always be a demand for immigrant labour.  Sadly however, my theory that sluts cause immigration is not accepted in the same way that an alcoholic cannot bring himself to admit that his drinking has in any way caused him any problems with his job or his relationships, because he does not want to give up drink.

Pity these omega men for they have no family, no culture, no god, no education and no personal qualities that might dispose a sane British employer to hire them willingly, for this is now the lot of the white working classes of Britain destined to be replaced by wave after wave of immigrants facilitated by government after government.

Only I dare to tell them what is happening to them.  Only I say this to them because there is no one else to do so, for even their leaders exploit them, abuse them and expect little from them.  Nick Griffin certainly does not consider them worthy or capable of being told the truth of their unenviable position.   It is far far easier to blame Jews and Muslims and Blacks and Chinks than the sluts they cannot bring themselves to criticise.

The coarsening of British culture is directly related to the fact that most British men get their sex from sluts these days. In the days when marriage was respected, most men would get their sex from their wives and a minority from prostitutes.

In the Land of Compulsory Fornication that Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland now is, where most women are sluts and most men are morally-compromised slut-fuckers (MCSFs) decline and fall into bastardy and barbarism is inevitable and perhaps already  irreversible.

You would have thought that nationalists whom you would expect to care about the long-term future of their nation would be in some way be exercised by this alarming prospect of degeneracy and decline, but not a bit of it.

These men are not true nationalists in the real sense.  A true nationalist would care about the long-term future of their nation instead of equating hatred of Jews, Muslims and other races with love for his country or for his people.

Those of them who do agree with me dare not be seen to agree with me in public, for fear of the offence this would cause their fellow nationalists, who are mostly illegitimate and who are mostly parents of illegitimate offspring.  In fact, these men who are portrayed by the media as dangerous extremists are really hypocrites and cowards afraid of criticising the morals of the worst of their women, in order to avoid acknowledging the reality of their own degradation.

What of the future?  I predict that eventually enough white working class British females will vote with their feet and convert to Islam in the hope of marrying a husband who is prepared to take his marriage vows seriously.  This is in fact already happening at East London Mosque.  Even Eastern European Catholic women in London see that the future is Islam now.

Eventually, enough men will vote with their feet and convert to Islam in the hope of taking a wife who will take her marriage vows seriously and be a good mother and wife.  

Britain won't be Islamified by brown Muslims but by the reproductive choices of rational British women who will eventually realise that the only rational choice they have left, if they care about the quality of their offspring, is to reject their pernicious culture of sexual liberation and reject any man who does not look like he will prove to be a good provider, a good husband or a good father.

So, now you know what Muslims are for, and Jews for that matter.  They are the living demonstration of the importance of marriage in any society that desires longevity and wishes to remain an advanced society, and that this mysterious mechanism of regulating sexual relations between humans called marriage can only be supported in perpetuity by a continuing and general belief in society of the existence of a moral and omnipotent God.  

It would be cheaper for the Conservative Party if they just got themselves this one Conservative principle


Here is one they can have for free:

"The Conservative Party supports, first and foremost, the principle of free speech and of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest. The national interest includes solvency, social stability through the promotion of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, stable prices through fiscal prudence as well as the maintenance of standards of morality and education that are considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next.  It is the intention of the Conservative Party to use the Koran as its guide."

If I do get permission to apply for judicial review, I will make them an offer that they adopt the above principle and then tell me how I have behaved in a way that is "wholly inconsistent" with it.  If I am persuaded of the justice of their reasons, or, if they annul my expulsion, I will withdraw my action.

If they refuse and I win then they will be liable for my costs.

Can't say fairer than that, can you?

It is not like that finances are in a healthy state either.

I am aghast that the City of London would wish to bankroll a political party that is so stupid it conflates tax evasion with tax avoidance and which refuses to raise educational standards in schools so that British businesses can have a better quality of employee born and bred and educated in Britain.

If I were dictator I would certainly lower taxes and cut red tape.  Perhaps the City of London should be thinking of bank-rolling me instead of the Conservative Party.

Top 10 City donors

  1. David Rowland, financier: has donated £4,031,016 since 2005
  2. Michael Farmer, hedge fund: £2,973,850
  3. Stanley Fink, hedge fund: £1,945,141
  4. Michael Hintze, hedge fund:£1,235,000
  5. Adrian Beecroft, private equity: £537,076
  6. James Lyle, hedge fund: £500,000
  7. Jon Wood, hedge fund: £500,000
  8. Peter Hall, investment fund: £493,540
  9. George Magan, banker: £485,000
  10. Paul Ruddock, hedge fund: £465,000

I have also identified more parties and organisations whom I feel ought to support me.

  1. The Marriage Foundation
  2. Christian Concern
  3. Christian Institute
  4. Coalition for Marriage
  5. BNP
  6. UKIP
  7. The IEA
  8. The Libertarian Alliance
  9. Adam Smith Institute
  10. Members of the Conservative Party who think David Cameron is a fraud and not a Conservative
  11. Muslims who are against gay marriage and who are ashamed to find themselves living  in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland 

I am pleased to report that Dave Blatt of Canada has indicated an interest in setting up a Legal Defence Fund.  

Who would be interested in registering, maintaining, promoting and donating to a Claire Khaw Legal Defense Fund? Is a legal defense fund necessary? If the funds raised were not committed to Claire's lawyers, to which charity should excess funds be donated? Would this only encourage her to antagonize the wrong people or would it enable her to make full use of her right, and responsibility to free speech?

Why I am suing the Conservative Party, in language a layman would understand

• With politicians working hard to seem amiable, it's refreshing to be reminded that they rarely leave home without the iron fist within that velvet glove. That realisation must be dawning on that horrible controversialist Claire Khaw – who was expelled from the Tory party earlier this year when party bosses discovered nasty things she had previously said about the disabled. You are not our type, the Tories said. Which seemed fair enough. But Khaw, being Khaw, went to the high court and applied for judicial review. Cue a letter from the Tory party lawyers – and it's a beauty. We "strongly advise" that you take legal advice "before taking any further steps", it says. "Your application for judicial review will fail." You can't challenge our disciplinary committee because we are essentially a "private members'" association. Even if you could, the decision was a sound one. We have to respond to your application by 22 July, they say. We will fight and we will win, and make you be liable for costs. "You have a choice. Withdraw your claim and prove that you have done so by 1200hrs on Thursday 18th July. If you do this our client will not seek to recover its legal costs from you." If you don't, on your own head be it. No surrender, says Khaw. I'd rather risk legal fees, if they are reasonable. Reasonable legal fees? She is odd, isn't she?

It won't be a big legal bill because they are saying my claim is so crap that they just have to tell the court it is crap and the court will agree with them pronto and refuse me permission, in which case that will be the end of the matter.  If I have to pay their costs at all, then it would be for the cost of the Conservative Party instructing its solicitors to file a defence saying that my claim is utterly without merit and should not be entertained for one moment by any High Court judge in his or her right mind.  

What I am asking for is in fact really very modest. The Conservatives have no principles (or mistakenly think that their principles are contained in David Cameron's Foreword of their 2010 General Election Manifesto at I just want them to publish a formal Statement of Principles.

My theory is that the reason why Western governments are now foundering is because none of parties that are supposed to promote social conservatism - such as the Conservative Party - have a Statement of Principles.  Because social conservatism is never defended and the need for it not properly understood, extremist liberalism and feminism and their irresponsible social policies have caused social problems that will not be dealt with, let alone solved, for a few generations.

I will be suggesting to the Conservatives that they might like a principle along the lines of "The principle of the Conservative Party is to conserve the long-term national interest."

The national interest could be defined as, for example, solvency and social stability which would mean the promotion of fiscal prudence and marriage (between a man and a woman only) for social stability.

I know people will find it very difficult to grasp, but what I am suing the Conservative Party for is this:

For claiming that I have said and done things that were 'wholly inconsistent' with their aims, objectives and principles AND THEN BEING UNABLE TO TELL ME WHAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE.

To judicially review a decision of a public body you have to cite the following legal grounds.

I recognise that my legal action may fall at the first hurdle, because their lawyers have already claimed that the Conservative Party is not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body and are instead "a private members' association".,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc is the case that I will cite that argues that any organisation that can make decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large will be deemed to be a public body, whether it likes it or not.

This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatisation" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Cameron could not have become Prime Minister if he had not joined the Conservative Party.

Now that he is PM and proposing to legalise gay marriage, this would clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

Organisations such as

The Marriage Foundation

Christian Concern

Christian Institute

Coalition for Marriage

and anyone else who is against gay marriage and the way the Conservative Party is running this country should really be supporting me in this.

This would include UKIP and the BNP and any organisation that considers itself Libertarian eg


The Libertarian Alliance

Adam Smith Institute

If the court is minded to favour my arguments, then it will be what lawyers call a landmark case.

I expect anyone who is a member of any political party to take an interest, because this case highlights really how powerless the individual political activist is and how likely his rights will be abused by the leaders and his cronies with impunity by his abusers.  Any complaint of ill-treatment will be treated with indifference by one's friends, family and associates because everyone hates politicians and think they deserve to suffer for presuming to tell them what to do.

They are of course claiming I am a very bad egg: an antisemite and a Nazi for one thing, and for daring to discuss controversial subjects in a way that has caused great offence to liberals and feminists.

My intention is to prove that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi and deny that I am an antisemite.  I will however put my hands up to discussing controversial subjects. One goes into politics precisely because one has a view about controversial subjects. Discussing controversial subjects and expressing controversial opinions should not be a reason for expulsion from any party, should it?

It is shocking that no political party will defend the right of any of its members when they say something liberals and feminists dislike.

I have a made a point of not saying anything that is logically, morally and intellectually indefensible, but it seems that these rules of rational discourse are unknown even to what passes for the intelligentsia in this land.

No one is interested in discussing whether something is moral, practicable or rational, only that it is offensive in this easily-offended and morbidly feminised country.

The Truth is ugly, boys and girls, and I think it is time that you were told that this is a fact of life.   Santa Claus does not exist and Mummy and Daddy (if you have one) will not be around forever to look after you and bail you out.

Surely political activists are allowed to discuss controversial subjects without being vilified and their political careers ruined, in what we fondly imagine to be a society which is supposedly free because the principle of free speech is upheld  by the state?

Is there anything at all in the Conservative Party constitution that forbids a member from discussing the disabled in terms that they or their parents might find offensive?  I rather suspect not.

Just because one is not taken out and shot for saying something found to be offensive by the easily-offended - usually women - does not mean one has free speech.   Many are easily intimidated and the threat of a much lesser punishment, such as loss of a Facebook friendship, loss of status, is usually enough.  Many men fear being considered odd by women with whom they wish to have sex and so toe the feminist line in order not to offend the women whom they hope to fuck.  Men, as we know, will do anything for sex, and telling a few lies, or, more likely, refraining from criticising feminism during courtship in order to gain sexual access to women, is easily done.

All this is enough to make self-censorship the rule in this supposedly free country.

Probably, China has more free speech than Britain.   

Thursday, 11 July 2013

A particularly egregious example of Chinglish

I scored 32 out of 36 which suggests I am socially very intelligent indeed

Are the Conservatives quite sure they don't want me in their party?

Not only that, I am a female capable of assuming the characteristics of the alpha male.   Surely Britain is in need of a dictator just like me - ruthless, rational, resourceful, robust, persuasive, charismatic and charming?

Inspirational symbolism by Chirico

I find this painting inspirational and believe it hints at the solutions to our problems.

The train passing by in the background refers to science, travel, exploration, control and communication.

The two men shaking hands suggest co-operation and perhaps male solidarity.

The fountain suggests an appreciation of aesthetics.

The cloisters suggest a place where politics is discussed and businesses transacted. I assume that this scene is similar to a Roman forum.

Perhaps all that is required for our problems to be solved is co-operation, creativity, industry, and politics made easier if we know how to appeal to the aesthetic consciousness of the people.

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

The principle the Conservative Party ought to have

It would appear that the major parties that form the governments of the West have no principles at all.

I have asked both the Republican and Democratic Parties what their principles are but have received nothing more than a confused and horrified silence.

The Conservative Party of Britain are threatening me with their costs if I do not succeed in application for permission to seek judicial review.

The purpose of doing so is to get them to publish a formal Statement of Principles, but I fear that no one understands or cares what this is all about.

The Labour Party started with the principle of nationalising everything in sight but abandoned them for the platitudinous confection that replaced their old clause iv in 1995, in order to get elected in 1997.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

If they are all going to be like that, then why not just agree to promote the long-term national interest - an equally vague concept?

Why not pretend that the long-term national interest is something that could be conserved by Conservatives, and laboured for by the Labour Party?

No one can possibly find anything in the new clause iv objectionable, not even a Conservative, not even me.  Why not scrap the lot, became just one party and agree collectively to promote the long-term national interest?

At least something said to be in the long-term national interest can stand and fall on those terms.  If it is arguably against the national interest to pursue a certain policy and it is successfully argued against, then it shall not be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote against it.

If it is arguably for the national interest to pursue a policy and successfully argued for, then it shall be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote for it.

Secular Koranism promotes Conservative values and nothing that it enjoins or forbids would be against the long term national interest.

Those who object will not have read the Koran.  In any case, when have liberals or feminists ever considered the long term national interest and instead based every decision on short termist expediency?

What possible objection would the Conservative Party have to saying that its principle is to promote the long-term national interest as well as to conserve it, and to exhort Labour to labour for it too?

Threatening letter I expected to receive from the Conservative Party

"An ambitious young solicitor, finding himself unexpectedly at the gates of heaven, protests to St Peter.  'How can I be dead?' he asks.  'I'm only 32.'  St Peter consults his notes, but is unmoved.  'We just totted up the amount of hours you billed to your clients,' he explains.  'According to our figures, you are 395."

My only comment on being liable for the costs of the Conservative Party if my application fails is this:

"If they are so sure that my application for judicial review will fail then it won't cost them that much to file an easy-peasy lemon-squeezy defence saying that my claim must surely fail because it is so obviously rubbish and that Datafin,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc does not in any way apply to the Conservative Party, who are clearly not a public body because nothing it or any of their members do in any way affects individual citizens or society at large because starting wars, invading other people's countries, changing the traditional meaning of marriage, running the country properly etc, have absolutely no effect at all on individual citizens or society at large, and I should go sling my hook. "  

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

What Claire Khaw said and didn't say

We recounted in January how Claire Khaw, the deliberately offensive activist cum "British nationalist philosopher", managed to achieve membership of the Tory party. This was despite her eye-popping views on the need to get tough on those with children with disabilities and advocacy of slavery for people found in Britain without the right immigration papers. Unsurprisingly, the Tories, realising the anomaly, withdrew her membership. But the former BNP agent won't be told, so here it is, Khaw v Central Office. She's gone off to the high court, seeking judicial review. May the least objectionable party win, we say.

It is tedious to have point out again that I have never said anything about children with disabilities. What I in fact advocate is to give parents of unwanted unviable and disabled babies the option of committing infanticide.  If they want to keep their unwanted unviable and disabled babies they can. At no time did I propose a programme of systematically exterminating the disabled, as was so sensationally claimed by so many of my detractors.

As for enslaving illegal immigrants, I put my hands up to that one and stand by what I said at

Here's one Claire Khaw – whose background, interestingly, is Malaysian Chinese, and who is acting as cheerleader for Jeffrey Marshall, the party's candidate in London's Bethnal Green and Bow – engaging in some recent banter on Facebook: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy."

Sunday, 7 July 2013

Charles Saatchi quite right to divorce his faithless and stupid wife

Instead of being Domestic Goddess she is now Domestic Violence Goddess as well as being known for being stupid and faithless epitomising what a rotten deal you get if you generally get if you marry a British wife whose character has been destroyed by feminism.

If Charles Saatchi is looking for another wife he should bear me in mind, I would never be so stupid and faithless as to allow my friends and the media to influence me in this way.

It seems that our ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigella's father father Nigel Lawson, was incapable of giving her any sensible advice or she incapable of acting upon it if it was ever given.

It seems that even Jews are destroying themselves in our environment of toxic and demented matriarchal rule.

Instead of sorting things out man to woman, Nigella decided to put it in the hands of some scummy PR adviser.  PR men are the scum of the earth, unless he is my husband and my brother-in-law, of course. has all the advice I have given to the troubled couple.

Should I ritually burn my Nigella cook book at my next barbecue?

I have just been told by a Facebook friend who tells me a female friend of hers in the art world is already setting her cap at him.  I want Charles to know now that he can have any number of mistresses and I won't mind.    

Whom should I marry?
Charles Saatchi
  • Adrienne Hartley
Lord Mandelson