Friday, 28 February 2014

The Moral Maze: what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

The Morality of Nationalism
Duration: 43 minutes
First broadcast: Wednesday 26 February 2014
This week the Moral Maze looks at the morality of nationalism. In Ukraine and the UK people are fighting and in the former case dying over the idea and the ideals of nationhood. Those are just the biggest headlines today; without pausing to think too hard you might add Syria, the Basque and Catalan regions of Spain and Tibet to the list and that's just from the news in the last seven days - let alone going further back in history to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Chechnya and Ireland. Nationalism and the struggle for national identity is a complex moral puzzle. What makes nationalism such a powerful and morally problematic force in our lives is the interplay of old feelings of communal loyalty and relatively new beliefs about popular sovereignty. On the one hand it undoubtedly expresses something deep in human nature - a yearning for self-determination and justice. But it can also come with darker tribal undertones of "us" and "them" and has been seen all too often through ethnic cleansing and genocide. To what extent should people be permitted to act on the basis of loyalty to those to whom they are specially related by culture, race or language? Are there benign forms of nationalism? Should enlightened people repudiate nationalism? What value should we attach to cultural diversity? Given the current examples of how nationalism can sometimes seem to be a force for good, and sometimes a force for very great evil what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser.

The best thing that was said was when one of the guests said nations are "ethically neutral".

They are a necessary evil in other words.

Human beings have to gather themselves into groups, and the nation state is one of these units they can gather themselves into.

Asking anyone if they like the idea of a nation state is like asking them if they like people, or houses, or even if they like themselves.

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Houses can be nice or they can be nasty, depending on how they are run and whether they are habitable.

The nation is the biggest human grouping that is big enough to matter, but small enough to care.

The nation is also a reaction to amoral tribalism and the word ummah means nation in Arabic. Since this word has particular application to Islam, it can be translated loosely as a community of people who share the same moral outlook and recognise the same laws.

Islam is therefore in concept and application civic nationalist while Judaism is ethno-nationalist. Jews are not supposed to practise usury on each other, but are allowed to do so on other tribes.  Muslims are absolutely forbidden to practise it at all.  This does tend to show which religion is more "us and them", does it not, and which more racially exclusive.

The entry threshold for becoming a Muslim is rather lower than that of becoming a Jew, and this no one can deny.  To declare as the Shahada requires a convert to affirm that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God." This is rather easier to do than to become a Jew which requires that one's mother to be a Jewess or a long and thorough process of conversion.

It would be true to say that Islam is like a political party while Judaism is more analogous to an exclusive private club.

Is nationalism a good thing, the programme asks? Is it moral?

If it is necessary then it must be good. A country necessarily has physical borders and people living in it who have different ideas of doing things and the conflicting interests of different groups: between old and young, male and female, rich and poor, the aspirational and the established.

A nation is like a human being in many ways. It has a physical self, a mental self-image and an image of it held by others. Every now and then it has a haircut, buys new clothes, downsizes or expands. Sometimes it is nice and other times nasty.

Perhaps we should think of the nation as a collection of cells and organs, rather like our own bodies. Whether we are good, healthy, clever, happy, sane and strong depends on the ideas we embrace and practise, and the food we eat.

Just as bodies have healthy cells it can also have cancerous cells. Just like a country it has internal and external enemies. The enemy within is the struggle we have with our ourselves to avoid error, and the enemy without is other people who wish us harm or who may lead us into error.

The group most analagous to cancer cells are of course SSMs.

The reason the Abrahamic faiths all forbid extramarital sex is to avoid the evil of widespread illegitimacy which leads inexorably to national degeneracy.  This theory would adequately explain why all advanced civilisations are patriarchies and practise marriage.  Feminism demonstrably undermines marriage, but liberals are loath to criticise it because it is through feminism that liberals acquire sexual liberation, which is their real sacred cow.
I will now answer the questions raised by the programme.

Q1.  To what extent should people be permitted to act on the basis of loyalty to those to whom they are specially related by culture, race or language?

A1.  The principles of liberty should permit people to act on the basis of loyalty to those who are specially related by culture, race or language.

What are the principles of liberty?

  1. freedom of expression
  2. freedom of contract
  3. freedom of association
  4. the right to property

On these grounds the decision of the Supreme Court to deny the Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast the right to refuse to do business with a homosexual couple is clearly contrary to the principles of liberty.  

If bed and breakfast owners do not wish to do business with any of the protected groups listed in the Equality Act 2010, then that right should be respected by good liberals everywhere, I would have thought.  Perhaps there are no good liberals anywhere any more. 

Q2.  Are there benign forms of nationalism? 

A2.  Just as there are benign dictatorships, there are benign forms of nationalism.  A good king is but a benign dictator, if you think about it.  

Q3.  Should enlightened people repudiate nationalism? 

A3.  If you agree that nationalism is the ideology of promoting the national interest, then the question to ask people who regard themselves as enlightened is to ask them how promoting the long term national interest could be described as being in any way against their principles.

Q4.  What value should we attach to cultural diversity? 

A4.  We should accept the cultural diversity we have now but not allow any more.  (Cultural diversity is a weasel word for immigration used by liberals, of course.  They like it because it is even more abstract than immigration, which everyone knows means "immigrants".)  

Q5.  Given the current examples of how nationalism can sometimes seem to be a force for good, and sometimes a force for very great evil what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

A5.  The moral underpinning of nationalism is good government, for it is only good government that will prevent social fragmentation, crime and disorder, war and revolution.  

How the end the problem of terrorism without violence and turn it into a politics show for TV

The bloody public murder of Private Lee Rigby outside Woolwich army barracks last May was a rare act of frenzied brutality which most will accept warranted harsh punishment. So why, when sentencing the two killers to life on Wednesday, did the court feel compelled to insist that it was imposing such long sentences because the homicidal Islamists hacked the soldier to death ‘in order to advance your extremist cause’, as if trying to decapitate a man in a London street was not crime enough?

If the British had the death penalty for murder they would not be trying to pretend that a political crime of terrorism is in fact qualitatively worse than a crime committed for gain or revenge.

These terrorists clearly wanted to be martyrs and in fact wanted to die in a hail of bullets, because they provoked the police into shooting at them after they committed their act of butchery in broad daylight on a busy London street.  They ran over a man, butchered him and then dragged his body into the main road so traffic stopped.

Whatever you think of terrorists, one should remember that these men were in fact prepared to sacrifice life, limb and liberty in order to make a political point.  This would suggest that there is an argument for making political crimes of terrorism a special category of crime, to take into account the terrorist's preparedness to sacrifice life, limb and liberty in pursuit of martyrdom.

It has been said that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.  If you are a successful terrorist, you get promoted to Freedom Fighter, and even become World Hero, as was the case with the late Nelson Mandela, who was also charged with terrorist offences.  The members of Sinn Fein are another example of this potential for a terrorist to be elevated into the position of a statesman.

As Brendan O’Neill pointed out on spiked amid the immediate panicky political and media response to the killing, the Woolwich atrocity was ‘a knife crime, not an act of war’ carried out by two deluded loners rather than an invading army. The danger in treating it as something more is that you can end up ‘doing the terrorists’ dirty work for them’, endorsing their self-aggrandising self-image as terrifying jihadist soldiers threatening our society.

To describe Lee Rigby's death as a knife crime would be to belittle his death.  If I were his mother I would resent this official trivialisation of my son's death for political reasons.  Lee Rigby's death was extraordinary and spectacular, and should be acknowledged as such, since it cannot be denied.

The point of terrorism is that it is an act of political violence, and should be treated as if it were an act of war. These terrorists, if they were dictators with access to a military force, would have declared war on this country if they could.  I was told by a BNP member that one of these men even considered voting BNP because they were the only party in the country who were against UK foreign policy.  Apparently, one of the murderers had in fact discussed this with a BNP activist holding a paper sale one Saturday in Woolwich. (It was BNP Organiser Paul Sturdy who either met him or told this story to others.)  This means Lee Rigby's murderers considered and then dismissed the idea of using the political process.  Why did they dismiss the idea?  Because they saw that it was hopeless, of course.  Even they were not deluded to think that the BNP would ever be able to get itself in a position to influence UK foreign policy within their lifetimes.

The Old Bailey sentencing hearing this week sounded like a case in point. At every turn, the prosecutors and the judge were keen to emphasise the extremist political character of the murderous assault. Prosecution QC Richard Whittam argued that both Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale should receive whole-life tariffs (meaning they would never be released from prison), not only because of ‘the severity of their crime’ but crucially because of ‘its political motivation’. The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, imposed a whole-life term on Adebolajo and a minimum 45-year tariff on Adebowale because they had murdered ‘a solider in public daylight’ in order ‘to advance your extremist cause’. After the hearing, Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, told the media that the whole-life term was justified in these circumstances, because ‘not only was the attack brutal and calculated’, but more importantly ‘it was also designed to advance extremist views’.

Why is it again assumed that it is worse to kill someone for a political cause than it is to kill someone for gain?

What is an extremist cause?  Is opposing UK foreign policy as regards invading Muslim countries in itself extreme?  Then there are quite a few extremists around, judging by the turnout in 15 February 2003.,_2003_anti-war_protest

According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.

There are eight to thirty million "extremists" in the world if Sue Hemming of the CPS is right in her pronouncement that to be anti-war is to be "extremist".

Or perhaps she thinks that you are only an extremist if you use violence to advance a political cause.  What then is war but a means of applying violence to sovereign states with whom you have a political disagreement that could not be resolved by peaceful means?  What is NATO policy towards Muslim lands if not one of  interventionism and military aggression?

Surely we cannot deny that war is politics by other means?  And how do we tell the difference between a just war and one that is not?  By who wins, of course, for the victor gets to write history, and will write it in his favour, as you would expect.

During the trial itself, Adebolajo had caused a storm by admitting that he killed Private Rigby yet insisting that this was not murder because he was a ‘soldier of Allah’ engaged in a war against Britain on behalf of Muslims everywhere. The judge felt moved to advise the jury, presumably with a straight face, that this bizarre claim was not a legitimate defence to a charge of murder under English law. Yet weeks later, at the sentencing hearing, all of the legal authorities appeared to accept Adebolajo’s case that he was more than a common murderer, an armed rebel with a cause.

Adebolajo was really saying that he should not be treated as if he were a common criminal who committed his crime for personal gain, because it was obvious that he had gained nothing by it in the sense that is commonly understood as gain. If he had heard of Bobby Sands he would have cited him as someone prepared to die for the principle of treating terrorists as political prisoners.

This seems to me to be philosophically and logically sound.  It would be the easiest thing to separate the political prisoner from the common criminal.  If there is any doubt about the motive of a criminal and whether it was committed for a political purpose or personal gain a test of intention could be easily introduced and facts elucidated under cross examination.

Since I believe in the principle of the death penalty, the BNP and other Islamophobic groups would have got exactly what they wanted.  If the death penalty imposed on the two murderers of Lee Rigby, then everyone would have been happy: the terrorists who wanted death and martyrdom and the Islamophobes who wanted these murderers executed.


Since terrorists who seek martyrdom are not ashamed of their crime and are in fact willing to sacrifice their lives, this is how I propose to deal with them.

  1. Invite anyone disposed of sacrificing life, limb and liberty to publicly declare himself.
  2. Invite him whether he wishes to sacrifice life, limb or liberty to make his point.  
  3. Invite him to choose a crime he would be prepared to commit to make his point.  
  4. Invite him to explain why he is prepared to do so.  
  5. Televise this on Sunday instead of the liberal and inane mess that is The Big Questions with me as Terrorist Interrogator instead of the effete Nick Campbell.  
  6. Convict him with the crime he proposes to commit if he fails to convince the government to change its policy.  
  7. Incarcerate him in a prison exclusively for political prisoners.

This would be an excellent way of ending political violence without using any violence at all, don't you think?

Thursday, 27 February 2014

Campaign to make the late Lee Rigby's mother a Baroness

If Doreen Lawrence has been ennobled by her victimhood, why not also Lyn Rigby, whose son was murdered by men of another race?  If the liberal political establishment refuse, is it cos she is white?

Doreen Lawrence: ennobled by her victimhood after her son was murdered by men of another race.,_Baroness_Lawrence_of_Clarendon

Only £300 to have 50,000 BNP EU election leaflets delivered

If this could be turned into a business service delivering any leaflet to 50,000 householders, why, that really would make the BNP unbeatable! 07771 598 227

Steve Squire may just give you a discount if you tell him you heard of this unbeatable offer on Voice of Reason!

Why would you do such a thing when UKIP has already now eclipsed the BNP?

Because you may think UKIP are being just a bit boring.

Did you know UKIP won't let me join their party, all for saying that feminism undermines marriage and that the Equality Act 2010 AKA (totalitarian anti-discrimination liberal thoughtcrime legislation that even Dan Hannan MEP has said he would repeal on libertarian grounds) should be repealed and no-fault divorce abolished? 

Their official reason is that my being ex-BNP makes me ineligible to join.  

If you want to make UKIP a little bolder in their policies, you could email them at and demand to know why they have not proposed repealing the Equality Act 2010 and abolishing no-fault divorce.  

Both measures would cut the legs off feminism after which it will just die.  It would also be good for business, marriage and family life.
The BNP have traditionally said they would repeal all the Acts of Parliament contained in it too.  

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.

On libertarian grounds I have always abhorred totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation which infringes on our Freedom of Contract and Association.

The BNP will 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.

Even the Koran is against thoughtcrime legislation.  2:256 says "Let there be no compulsion in belief, for truth stands clear from error."

If the powers at be at UKIP are too morally cowardly to propose the measures above, then they should be punished in some way.

Voting BNP at the EU elections will do no harm to Euroscepticism at all, as long as you do not vote for the LibLabCon.  A respectable BNP vote would put UKIP on notice that they still do not have everything their way and that there is still a role for the BNP to play.

If I can find any spare cash, I might even do it to make a point, if I do not hear from UKIP that they are proposing to repeal the Equality Act.

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Is the concept of human rights a nonsense?

Oh dear.  What does this all mean?  You pays your money and takes your chances? You bribes your judge and you gets the judgment you paid for?  Let us do away with legal precedent and deal with each case on an ad hoc basis?  I hardly think Lord Justice Moses is going to bring the law or the legal profession into repute with this bright idea.

As for human rights, is this not in some way tautological or nonsensical, rather like the people who call themselves animal rightists?  Animals cannot claim their animals rights except through a human, and they cannot actually speak, can they?

As for human rights, well, aren't all rights human?  Humans conceived of having laws.  Laws are conceived of by humans, passed by humans, broken by humans, enforced by humans, litigated by humans and interpreted and applied by humans.

The only thing we need to worry about, logically, is what should be made illegal, and this is a matter of politics.

Politics is of course the art of imposing on others your ideas of right and wrong, and this must always be changing, because people and societies do change their minds about things and are often made to change their minds either by others, or force of circumstance.

What is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad?  What is moral and what immoral? Have we quite worked that out yet?  Is our liberal political establishment well on top of this and the running of the government?  Judging by the hatred, ridicule and contempt the politicians are held in by the average voter, I would suggest not.

Soon, same-sex couples will soon have a right to call their relationships "marriage".  Indeed, they already have a right to acquire rights that are in every way identical to that between husband and wife with the same package of tax breaks if they enter into a civil partnership with each other. They also already have the right to adopt children and compel people who do not want to do business with them to do business with them.

Perhaps it is now time to revisit the age old debate between Natural Law and Legal Positivism.

I could never get the point of this debate.  I held this rather simplistic view that comes from an ancient Chinese saying:

"The people are the grass and the law the wind.  When the wind blows, the grass will bend."

As far as I was concerned, those who said the law ought to be moral and enforce morality had a point. Even if what it enforced was in fact immoral, the government would want us to think that the law was right and good to make us more likely to obey it.

Then there were the Legal Positivists, who said that the law did not have to moral to be "legitimate". What did this mean?  As long as we knew unpleasant consequences would be visited on us if we were caught doing what we wanted to do, thought we had a right to do and should in fact do for the greater good, eg hang corrupt and immoral politicians by his or her neck until dead in the gallows to be erected  on Parliament Square, we would refrain from doing such a thing.

The average citizen would have no time for such nuanced discussions about what constitutes "legitimacy" or "morality", and would focus mainly on the likelihood of getting caught and being punished.

Of course, this does not mean to say PC Liberals think they are evil people bent on doing evil, since they are the most self-righteous and sanctimonious people around.  I am sure they are hell-bent on building their idea of a Liberal Paradise on Earth and paving the road to hell with their good intentions.

The ones who oppose them are social conservatives, and social conservatives tend to be adherents of the Abrahamic faiths who respect marriage and are diametrically opposed to the proponents of Free Love that are Liberals.

So there we have it: the debate is really between those who on one extreme believe that sex between consenting adults (even if it involves incest, bestiality, necrophilia and those who are under-aged but who also consent eg the Labour PaedoThree known as the MPs Dromey, Hewitt and Harman) is OK and those who say all forms of extramarital sex must be forbidden and who say that marriage can only mean the union of a man and a woman.  These would be social conservatives who tend to be the adherents of the Abrahamic faiths and take their moral precepts of their religion seriously enough to know what they are, unlike Anglican clergy.

Who is right?

There must be a reason that all advanced civilisations who practise marriage are patriarchal.

Primitive societies and animals do not practise marriage and indulge in Free Love any time any place, anywhere.

It is just a question of our wanting to affirm our identity as the species that created God Himself, or preferring to be the species that lacks the intellectual sophistication to conceive of a unique, omnipotent and perfectly moral supreme being.  I know which I would rather choose, preferring to live in an advanced and necessarily patriarchal civilisation than a declining, demented and matriarchal one.

Why is Peter Hitchens soft on SSMs?

Peter Hitchens: proposing only to leave SSMs alone when they should be denounced and punished, because it is the only language stupid sluts understand.  Why is he afraid of them?

Peter Hitchens:

"There's only one lasting, simple welfare reform package this country needs. It goes like this. First, an announcement that nine months from today, all benefits of any kind for new unmarried mothers should cease.

Note the word 'new'. Existing victims of one of the stupidest policies in human history should continue to get their handouts and subsidised homes until their children are grown. It is not their fault, or their children's, that they were misled by weak and wicked politicians into this way of life.

They should not be condemned or harassed."

Why not?  Is Peter Hitchens afraid of SSMs?  Is he afraid his wife and her friends will disapprove of his proposing taking any stronger action against these irresponsible and promiscuous women who are the equivalent of cancer cells in any society?  What does his wife think should be done about SSMs?  Nothing?  

Clearly, if she disapproves of his views on SSMs she might give him a hard time, or even divorce him for holding views she dislikes.  Perhaps that is why he is afraid of proposing doing anything more than just leaving these bastard-bearing sluts alone.  

As we can see from reading tolerating illegitimacy is tantamount to inviting a cancer to grow in your body and inviting members of your society to become an inferior race.
SSMs can still work in brothels after the Equality Act 2010 is repealed.  It is one of the twin pillars of feminism.  Once no-fault divorce is also done away with, then both legs of feminism will be cut away from her, and this foul pernicious ideology finally die a well-deserved death.


The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

VIDEO: Maggie reads out the Newsnight credits

SSMs and some ideas about what to do about them

PATHS OF GLORY: The best war movie I have ever seen

Adolphe Menjou as Major General Georges Broulard

"I am kirk Douglas u r the mad french general who orders suicidal attacks", Eddy Butler taunted me.

Of course we were both fighting to be Dax, the hero, but in the end Eddy was right.  The character I most warmed to was General Broulard, played with irresistible charm by Adolphe Menjou.

Indeed, I found myself saying so in the discussion afterwards.  Even generals are not their own men, for they have to answer to the government who ordered the war in the first place, and to present it in the best way possible for public consumption as well as their political masters.

This film was not in fact anti-war as many like to think, but really about the practical difficulties of prosecuting it on the ground and presenting it to politicians and civilians back home.

The best part, for me, was this exchange:

You must be aware the general staff is subject to unfair pressures... from newspapers and politicians.
Maybe the attack against the Ant Hill was impossible.
Perhaps it was an error of judgment on our part.
On the other hand, if your men had been more daring, they might have taken it.
Who knows? In any case...
why should we have to bear any more criticism than we have to?
Aside from the fact that many of your men never left the trenches...
there's the troops' morale, don't forget.

The troops' morale? 

These executions will be a perfect tonic for the entire division.
There are few things more fundamentally encouraging and stimulating...
than seeing someone else die.

 I never thought of that, sir. 

Colonel, troops are like children.
Just as a child wants his father to be firm, troops crave discipline.
One way to maintain discipline is to shoot a man now and then.

Was Broulard really such a villain?  He did not order Brigadier Mireau to attempt to take Ant Hill, merely point out that if he continued to insist it was impossible his promotion would not be forthcoming.  Even Dax had the option of taking leave if he really really thought the mission was suicidal.  Someone else would have been appointed to lead his men to what would have been certain death for the overwhelming majority of them and his being on leave would have dissociated himself from the whole sorry business.  Also, Broulard did confront Mireau about giving orders to fire on his own men.  He basically did everything by the book, and in no way behaved dishonourably, in my opinion.  

Eddy chuckled at my transgressive temerity to be the only one in the post-screening discussion who praised Broulard while all sensible people were agreed that he was the villain of the piece. I suppose it is possible that I am trying to curry favour with the British military, whom I one day hope to enjoin to overthrow this sad sorry government and draw a line under so many years of effeminate liberal poncing about in government and blowing in the wind.

Yes, I do know Menjous supported the McCarthy witch-hunts and was generally hated in Hollywood, his name being a byword for the charming pantomime villain.  However, the feminine part of me thrills to now extinct men like him ...

The firing squad execution was excellently done.  It is still my preferred mode of going to my death, if I have to die an unnatural and political one ...

Monday, 24 February 2014

The libertarian purpose behind legalising infanticide if ever implemented would be to shame sluts

It is more despicable to commit infanticide because you are a fornicatress who didn't want your baby than it is to be a fornicatress who had an abortion because she was suffering from unwanted pregnancy.  

We know how prostitutes in ancient times practised their trade before the invention of modern contraception. They would sell their body to paying men till they became too pregnant to to ply their trade, have the baby, kill it, rest for a bit, and then carry on working after a brief convalescence, and the cycle would begin again.  

Disgusting, isn't it?

This perfectly demonstrates the link between casual copulation and casual killing.  Any society that would countenance most of its women regularly killing their unwanted illegitimate babies conceived as a result of casual copulation really would deserve to become extinct, would it not? Or at the very least invaded, exploited, abused and enslaved.

A libertarian state should give sluts the rope to hang themselves.

A libertarian state would not presume to stop sluts from disposing of their unwanted babies either before or after birth.

Sluts are the agents of illegitimacy and therefore the agents of degeneracy and corruption.

If promiscuous women are seen to be ones frequently killing their babies because they are too stupid, careless and lazy to practise effective contraception, then in time they will come to be ostracised by society.

Currently, Western men are terrified of offending sluts.

Remember, sluts are fornicatresses who are the agents of illegitimacy and therefore the agents of degeneracy and corruption, who will destroy your civilisation with their promiscuity and inability to practise effective contraception. Sluts are stupid too.  If you are a bastard, then half your genes are full of stupid slut genes, and the other half full of the genes of an MCSF (Morally-Compromised Slut-Fucker). What would happen to your country if most of your countrymen and countrywomen are like that?
"people with a learning disability, whose numbers are growing by up to 5% a year and who can require care and support costing a typical £1,500 a week"  Most of the mothers of the learning disabled will be SSMs.

And still no British male politician will criticise the irrational and irresponsible reproductive choices of stupid sluts.

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."  

Bhagavad Gita

Sunday, 23 February 2014

David Cameron tries to say Happy New Year in Mandarin and gets the words completely WRONG

Gah! I wish David Cameron wouldn't try to speak Mandarin when he gets not just the intonation, but the words completely wrong!

Go to the end, listen to him say Happy New Year in Mandarin incorrectly and then listen to it said correctly at  "Xin Nian Kuai Le"

Why we have weak, stupid and cowardly leaders in a democracy

"True strength is a quality of few men, or else we would not have the word hero. The masses consist of average men, democrats. But a hundred blind men do not make one seer, a thousand cowards do not make a hero, a hundred thousand parliamentarians do not make a statesman.

Cowardly men choose the most cowardly as their leaders, so that they won't have to show courage; and they choose the stupidest among the stupid, so that everyone can have the feeling that he's a little better than the leader."

This is attributed to Hitler, but the only source comes from Konrad Heiden in his contemporary account "The Fuehrer", so take that into consideration.

Pity the Ukrainians led by a woman in a wheelchair known for her braided hair wanting to be part of NATO.

Woman in wheelchair who will now rule the Ukraine.

Woman in wheelchair looking tired, ill and confused.  More of that to come?

Woman in wheelchair when she was young and sexy.  Did she get the job cos of her looks?

I know people in the Philippines who, after having had a number of disastrous female Presidents, said that female Presidents should be forbidden in their constitution.

You can easily guess at my gloomy predictions for the people of the Ukraine. Better under Papa Putin, I would have thought.

Now is the time you would want a ruthless and firm-minded leader if you were a Ukrainian as your country descends into violence and chaos.  A woman in a wheelchair just doesn't fucking cut it, does it?

Die Loreley

Looking at this woman's hair, I was reminded of the Rhinemaidens.  Yep, Yulia is could be likened to a Rhinemaiden with braided hair.  Wagner meant his Rhinemaidens to be a metaphor for the female sex if I have understood Wagner correctly.  He probably meant:

"Love your woman, for a good woman is a prize worthy of acquiring, but understand that she cannot really be trusted.  Her beauty will fill your mind with desire and dreams, so keep your feet firmly planted on the ground, old chap, and don't let yourself get too carried away."

Sorry, peeps, that's all the political analysis you are going to get from me on this subject.

If the Ukrainians choose the EU, they choose gay marriage.  

Saturday, 22 February 2014

Should Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman be made to defend their pro-paedophile views?

Margaret Hodge aplogises.

"PIE called for incest to be legalised, in what one MP described as a ‘Lolita’s charter’. What’s more, in 1975, NCCL lawyers attempted to muzzle hostile Press coverage of PIE and helped its members under investigation by the police."

Margaret Hodge - putting her hands up

Jack Dromey served on the NCCL’s ruling executive from 1970 to 79. PIE's crowning achievement was to secure formal ‘affiliate’ status, from 1975 until the mid-Eighties, with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) — now the respected lobby group Liberty.  SHOULD HE APOLOGISE?

Patricia Hewitt described the paedophile lobby organisation in glowing terms as a ‘campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.  Hewitt was General Secretary from 1974 to 83.  SHOULD SHE APOLOGISE?

In 1978, Harriet Harman wrote an NCCL submission to MPs attempting to water down child pornography laws.  In 1978-82 she was its legal officer. SHOULD SHE APOLOGISE?

"Counselling good for adults attracted to children", eh?  Reminds me of the term "genetic attraction", the liberal euphemism for incest.

I suggest we keep it simple with the following rules:
Saudi court upholds child rapist crucifixion ruling

Freedom Festival Time Table. Sounds good to me.

Catholicism will now become as rotten the Anglican Church under a Liberal Pope. Islam now the only source of social conservatism in the West

by Peter Stanford and with an introduction by Cherie Blair!

The history of Catholicism demonstrates perfectly why Islam is quite right to dispense with a corrupt priesthood.

The corrupt priesthood now are only interested in smelly bums on their rotten pews, not in in maintaining morality.  Catholic priests are terrified of being accused of being paedo priests, and so will avoid discussing sexual morality like the plague.  It is more than their job's worth to do more than perform their Catholic rituals when expected and required.

The history of Catholicism also demonstrates the fundamental error of denying that the truth of this proposition: that the difference between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference.

If religion is state ideology, then state ideology must be supported by legislation.

The religion of the West is not Christianity, as so many people mistakenly think. The religion of the West is PC Liberalism. This is so because government supports PC Liberalism and elevates this ideology as supreme over all other competing ideologies.

PC Liberalism is the opposite of patriarchal and the opposite of social conservatism.

It is obvious that to implement Islam we have to abide by its principles, and the only way to abide by its principles is to legislate according to Koranic principles.  Why else do you think the Muslims are so keen on their Sharia law?

Sadly, it is a truth not universally acknowledged that the the only way of bringing back the patriarchy is to respect marriage, and this means invoking God and practising social conservatism.

If you refuse to invoke God or impose a theocracy, you would be relying on UKIP or the BNP to bring it back, and believe me, they are too morally-compromised and afraid of women to do anything like that.

Only last week Nigel Farage was boasting on Woman's Hour that UKIP has been taken over by women.

As for the BNP, who is going to listen to a bunch of lower class CHAV bastards and sluts, even if they could bring themselves to support marriage? Nick Griffin will never raise the subject because he knows most BNP men are unmarriageable or do not want to get married and that most BNP mothers are SSMs.

No, the answer is a theocracy based on Koranic principles but without a priesthood ie Secular Koranism.  A properly trained judiciary who are not required to be Muslim is enough to interpret and apply such laws.

Secular Koranism is a legal system and not a religion, and is in fact no different to living under a government whose every law you do not agree with. Not that different to what we do now, except that it will be socially conservative instead of PC Liberal.

If you find yourself objecting to this idea, then kindly let me know which verse you find  most objectionable. At this point you will of course say that you cannot bring yourself to read that "filthy book" and that will be the end of this debate.

Understand this, right-wingers:

Your currently helplessness and impotence is directly related to indiscriminate suffrage in which women exercise a disproportionate influence.

Why are all the political parties chasing the female vote?  Because they are mad, stupid and immoral, of course.  The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible, as Oscar Wilde would say.

Why do Muslims refuse to integrate?  Because they don't want their sisters, daughters, nieces and grand-daughters turning into White Dee. However much of an Islamophobe you are, can you really really really blame them?

Feminism causes immigration.  Feminism is so filthy, stupid and rotten that it will allow in the very people with the religion that will destroy Feminism.
83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this mean for feminism?

White Dee - the face of White British womanhood and White British motherhood

Dee left school at 15 with CSEs in maths, home economics and religion. She did 'officey' work and wanted nothing more

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

The Big Immigration Row and what Ian Hislop's contemptuous attitude towards UKIP reveals

Leader of UKIP Nigel Farage, reacts as he looks at an edition of Private eye magazine during a visit to Ramsey in Cambridgeshire while on the local election campaign trail

As is usual in Have I Got News For You, the panelists were shown a photo and invited to make satirical comments about it.  It was this one above. Ian Hislop, the editor of Private Eye who was on the panel groaned and said it would make him lose readers.

Why would it?

Imagine if that were not Nigel Farage but the BNP leader himself, Nick Griffin.

He would have said exactly the same thing.

What is it about Private Eye readers who are so Europhiliac and pro-immigration?  Well, Eye readers are mostly public schoolboys and consist of members of the chattering classes and intelligentsia. Posh people, professional people, rich people, educated people and the political establishment read the Eye, not fucking plebs, and fucking plebs are precisely what these posh professional rich people of the establishment despise.

Plebs are the people who get affected by immigration, of course, and rich clever posh professional people don't give a shit about them. In fact, they love immigration (this was what Tim Stanley of the Telegraph said on the Big Immigration Row) precisely because it means they don't have to deal with the fucking plebs that they so despise, hate and fear.

A working class that is not fit for purpose is just beyond contempt and not worth even talking and thinking about.

What would these posh rich professional do to the plebs who don't work and whom they would never hire? Probably shoot them in the head if they could get away with it.

As they can't get away with it they just replace them with immigrants and sneer and spit at them while they do so.

Posh people think people who complain about immigration are just too fucking lower class for words and really deserve to be kicked in the teeth and their head for their temerity.  (They don't say that, of course, because calling them racist does the job of shutting the fuckers right up.)

What shall we do with these racist plebs?  Why, just carry on kicking them in the head of course. That is so easy to do.  They are after all so stupid and so poor and so ugly and so racist.  They have no comeback at all, with only moral cowards like Nick Griffin representing them.

Pity the plebs.  It is like being an orphan and retard with BO.  People will just avoid you without telling you why.  Even Nick Griffin can't be bothered to tell them exactly what is wrong with them as long as they stay in his party and pay their membership.

What do they need to be told?

They need to be told that the price of having an all-white Britain is to have an indigenous work force that is competitive and sought-after, but no one cares enough to tell a bunch of CHAV and welfare-dependent SSM-parented NEETs that, of course.  They wouldn't understand and if they did would probably turn nasty and do you an injury.

People who run businesses and who hire people know that if all the immigrants left, Britain would be taken right back to the 1970s with wildcat strikes, the three-day week, with frequent visits from the union barons to Downing Street to have their beer and sandwiches.

Very ironically, it is only I, a female and a racial foreigner, who takes the trouble to do so, but they would rather not listen.

And so the elephant in the room gets bigger and bigger as it is again swept under the carpet.
Nick Griffin tweets to the effect that he couldn't be arsed to appear on the "debate".  I wouldn't have enjoyed it either, but duty would have made it clear to me that it would be my job to attend, but Nick Griffin is under no such constraints of behaviour.  If he doesn't feel like going then he won't go, and he is right in that no one can make him go.

He could have sent someone else, but then that person if he performs badly would bring the party into disrepute, and if he performed well would take away too much of the limelight and present himself as leadership material, which wouldn't do with the leadership elections coming up next year.

All who are in his party are plebs and loyalists anyway, incapable of thinking up a strategy to oust him or with enough leadership skills to implement any strategy they might have come up with.

Politics is the business of selling hope to the gullible, uneducated, stubborn, illegitimate, degenerate and stupid, especially in the BNP.  

Monday, 17 February 2014

Why Labour did so well in 2014 Wythenshawe by-election,_2014

The Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election results were analysed in the following terms by an old BNP hand:

"Classic two party system vote swings.  When there is a Tory government Labour vote gradually climbs and vice versa.  In a Labour government the BNP will always do better too as Labour voters switch to the BNP quite easily as a protest.  You will see that in the Labour years that the European election results the drop in the Labour vote was almost exactly equal to the rise in the BNP vote.  UKIP take votes from the Tories."

Sunday, 16 February 2014

Are Google employees deliberately mocking heterosexuals?


Facebook friend:

"This is what you will find when you type in Google searchbar "heterosexuals are" (without quotation marks) and check out the search drop down menu suggestions. Do the same with "homosexuals are' and nothing happens. A suspicious mind might think that the homo employees at Google are manipulating their search engine solely to insult, deride and 'have fun' at the expense of NORMAL heterosexual people."

What do you think, dear reader?

Who are the pornocracy who rule Britain?

The pornocracy promote promiscuity.

Who discourages promiscuity in Britain?  No one at all.

Out of male MPs only 48% voted for gay marriage, less than half of them.

But out of the female MPs an overwhelming 83% voted for gay marriage.

These disgusting women are the pornocracy of course, and they wield a disproportionate amount of power and pull the strings of their compliant puppet husbands.

Who are the members of this Pornocracy?

Sam Cam showing a hint of her underwear

Sally Bercow the Speaker's wife deep kissing a black man in a night club

What is the sinister agenda of these immoral women?

The Prime Minister's wife and her clique presume to formulate UK foreign policy too.

The Pornocratic Sisterhood rumoured to formulate Cameron's foreign policy

This pornocratic prison manager should be lashed 100 times per act of copulation.

Teresa Rodrigues, spent much of her time during the prison relationship with  inmate in his cell

Should they and their husbands be shooed out of public life as soon as possible before God zaps us again?

Affluence over an extended period -> 

Arrogance -> 

Corruption among masses ->  

Corrupt Leadership -> 

the Social Laws abandoned -> eg gay marriage, SSMs, house-husbands, no-fault divorce the norm, 

Increase in Poverty ->  

The Fall of the Civilization. A civilisation takes centuries to fall.

God *must* be angry with the gay lord of the Environmental Agency for misapplying funds towards gayness

God if He exists must be very angry with gay Lord Smith, mustn't He?

bizarre spending by quango bosses

  • Investigation shows the Environment Agency, headed by Lord Chris Smith - Britain's first openly gay Cabinet Minister - spent £639 on gay rights mugs
  • EA also spent £30,000 sponsoring Birmingham's Gay Pride festival in 2009

A Mail on Sunday investigation has established that the Environment Agency, headed by Lord Chris Smith – Britain’s first openly gay Cabinet Minister – spent £639 on mugs promoting gay rights.
The mugs, emblazoned with the slogan ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’, are thought to have been handed out to staff at the organisation’s headquarters in London and Bristol. The cost of the mugs is enough to buy more than 250 sandbags to protect flood victims’ homes.
Under fire: Environment Agency chairman Lord Smith
Teabreak slogan: The Environment Agency spent £639 on these mugs, handed out to staff
Teabreak slogan: The EA (chairman Lord Smith pictured right) spent £639 on these mugs, handed out to staff
It has also emerged that the agency spent £30,000 sponsoring Birmingham’s Gay Pride festival in 2009 and that staff were provided with ‘proud to be at Pride’ T-shirts and banners with the organisation’s logo on at Manchester Gay Pride marches in 2009 and 2007. 
The agency even took out a costly half-page advert in the Independent newspaper’s Diversity section to boast about its sponsorship of the Birmingham Gay Pride event in 2009. Lord Smith became EA chairman in 2008.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did. What does this mean for feminism?
How gay can Britain go?  Is there a point of gayness beyond which Britain should not go without attracting more ruinously bad weather?

How shall the British atone for their gayness?

Is it a good idea to provoke God further with more overt displays of gayness?

Affluence over an extended period -> 

Arrogance -> 

Corruption among masses ->  

Corrupt Leadership -> 

the Social Laws abandoned -> eg gay marriage, SSMs, house-husbands, no-fault divorce the norm

Increase in Poverty ->  

The Fall of the Civilization. A civilisation takes centuries to fall.

Nationalists all out of ideas, except for you know who

Kevin Scott  2204  15/2/2014
Still room for genuine nationalism in my opinion rather than a neo-Tory fake.

CK  2212  15/2/2014
How long did it take UKIP to get where it is today?  If BNP eclipsed by UKIP then BDP eclipsed by BNP eclipsed by UKIP.  The work to be done in nationalism is ideological ie persuading ethno-nationalists to adopt a civic nationalist strategy and becoming exclusively and officially civic nationalist.  Sadly for nationalism no one will explore this idea.

Kevin Scott 2216  15/2/2014
Because it means accepting millions of alien immigrants as British English which they are not and never will be.

CK 2219  15/2/2014
Are you familiar with the police race codes IC1-6?  You could use those.  English/Welsh etc IC1-6.

Kevin Scott  2225  15/2/2014
Why pander to corrupt state labels.  You can if you want but count me out.

CK  2234  15/2/2014
How long have you been an activist?  How old are you??  Don't you know politics is a dirty business and that you have to wade through poo to get where you want?  Not even saying we should tell lies, just say the politically acceptable thing without betraying our principles.  Time to stop looking stupid, bitter angry and hopeless for a change!  UKIP won't propose repealing the Equality Act 2010, did you know that?
Kevin Scott  2240  15/2/2014
Agreed and I am happy to vote UKIP in the short term but I wouldn't join them at any price.

CK  2341  15/2/2014
They wouldn't have you anyway. What would you do if you were leader of the BNP?

Kevin Scott  2246  15/2/2014

CK  2357  15/2/2014
If the BDP was as big as the BNP, what would it do?

Kevin Scott  2314  15/2/2014
Not stand in elections.  It can't win.

CK  2321  16/2/2014
Can you tell me something you would do?  Or are you saying nationalist parties have no role to play and no reason to exist?

CK  2342  15/2/2014
Huh!  If you have no use for the BDP any more then you should just hand it over to me, and I will show you all how it is done!

Kevin Scott 0922  16/2/2014
Go home.

CK  0924  16/2/2014
Can you tell me something you would do?  Or are you saying nationalist parties have no role to play and no reason to exist?

Kevin Scott  0925  16/2/2014
Define the basis of nationalism and nations.

CK  0930  16/2/2014
Nationalism = promoting the national interest

The Nation = a geographical entity with borders and a distinct legal system.

Who belongs to the nation?  Anyone deemed to be a citizen.

Kevin Scott  0935  16/2/2014
You should join the LibDems instead if you think nationalism is that nonsense.

CK  0936  17/2/2014
Why do you want nationalism to mean racism?

CK  0937  17/2/2014
You define the basis of nationalism then.

CK  0939  16/2/2014
LibDems do not even mention the national interest.  They are only interested in promoting liberalism, socialism and democracy.