Saturday, 30 August 2014

How to say "Pakistani" if you don't like Pakistanis

Claire Khaw accused by Marxist journalist Jen Izaakson of being white and male when she stood up for Sun readers

Friday, 29 August 2014

Draft letter of apology from Nigel Farage to Roger Lord

Dear Roger

It has not escaped my notice that your feathers have been ruffled over the announcement of the by-election that Douglas Carswell has triggered, in which he will now be the UKIP candidate. This will mean that you will not now be UKIP candidate for reasons you will no doubt already be aware of. Douglas has risked his political career by defecting from the Tories to us and I am sure you will understand that it is tactically satisfying that he trigger the by-election and then to win it back, just as David Davis did in Howden & Haltemprice when he had had enough of David Cameron.

While I know that this is a source of grievance to you that you were not informed before the official announcement of this before Douglas's press conference, perhaps you will understand that it is necessary for certain things to be kept under wraps until it is announced properly, for maximum effect and publicity. There would always be the danger of such stories being leaked to the media had we told you earlier, causing the eventual announcement of a half-leaked story to lose much of its impact.

Judging from the behaviour you have been exhibiting since the announcement, it was very likely indeed that you would not have been able to take it on the chin like a man and done exactly what Douglas and I feared, and complained to the local party thereby leaking it to the media before we were ready to hold the press conference.

I am sure you will acknowledge soon if you have not already done so that you are unlikely to be chosen as the Clacton candidate now that our plans have been announced. Douglas is already known as a politician with intellectual "bottom" while you for all sorts of reasons are not.

To insist on the local party going through the formalities of choosing Douglas instead of you will do no one any good, and I am a little surprised that I have to explain this to you at such length.

It seems you want an apology, or something, from me after all the years of devoted service you have rendered UKIP, and this I am happy to do, in writing, to assuage your grievance. But it cannot be denied that Douglas is an obviously superior candidate in the light of the media interviews we have heard you giving to the effect that your feelings were hurt for being cast aside in favour of a candidate who is actually a professional politician, unlike yourself.
I trust this will be the last we will hear about the matter.
Nigel Farage

Thursday, 28 August 2014

On Muslim sex predators and their apparently superior skills of sexual preying

I think the real reason IC1 males are so angry with IC4 males is because they are not as good as IC4 males at being sex predators. I don't expect any Islamophobic BNP supporter to admit this though.

If IC1 males want to be better sex predators than IC4 sex predators, what must they do?

Getting a car helps so you can drive from place to place preying on schoolgirls.

Getting a car that is a pussy magnet would also improve your chances.

If you are a sex predator, should you be a lone sex predator or work with men of similar interests so you can share information, resources and victims?

If you are a sex predator, then you would probably enjoy voyeurism, exhibitionism and gang-bangs, so it would be advisable to work in gangs to maximise your opportunities for sexual preying.

Why are Muslim sex predators more effective than non-Muslim sex predators though?

Is it because there are just more of them, or because they are more organised?

Do Muslim sex predators tend to have more access to cars than non-Muslim sex predators?

Are Muslim sex predators better at co-operating amongst themselves than non-Muslim sex predators, who tend to be lone wolves?

Why do Muslim sex predators have more access to cars than non-Muslim sex predators?

Is there anything about their religion that makes Muslim sex predators more effective sex predators than sex predators of other races and religion?

Or is it because IC1 schoolgirls just find IC4 males more attractive?

Does a high concentration of young unemployed Muslim men living near to high concentrations of inadequately supervised vulnerable white schoolgirls from "problem families" living in an environment where under-aged sex is virtually normalised and statements likely to arouse racial antagonism forbidden by law explain away the apparently superior operational effectiveness of the Muslim sex predator?

I think we should be told.

A swift and effective way of addressing rising antisemitism

The Chief Rabbi writes:

'However, in expressing strong views about Israel some people do not realise the extent to which they draw upon myths, images, fears and expressions that have a long and ugly history. Others knowingly and deliberately draw upon such rhetoric and upon the history of vile persecution. How can anyone attempt to justify disgraceful placards the like of which we have seen in pro-Gaza demonstrations in London proclaiming “Hitler should have finished the job”, or “Death to the Jews”?'

This could all be solved by a change in UK and US foreign policy. Are you prepared to propose this, Chief Rabbi?

If not, then you just want what you want without giving anything worthwhile to Muslims, and only expect and demand that the government protect you better by passing more draconian laws against hate-speech etc that would curtail all our liberties.

When people complain about this, Jews will predictably complain about antisemitism, and propose even more draconian laws against free speech and our liberties. I think I can see where this is all going.

'Hitler should have finished the job" is opinion which, however offensive, is the right of anyone in a free society to express.

"Death to the Jews", however, could be interpreted as an incitement to kill Jews, which is surely a crime.

The police could arrest the person with this placard and ask him to complete this slogan so that it becomes a complete sentence with subject and a verb.|

If this person says he only meant "I wish death to the Jews" then he is only expressing a view, if he says "I call on all Muslims to cause the death of Jews" then he would be guilty of inciting racial and religious hatred.

This would be the way to allow a proper debate without any danger of that inciting violence.

Oh, and a BBC documentary on A History of Antisemitism presented by a suitably tarted up Claire Khaw might be just the thing.  

Can pandas be made to support marriage if they are clever enough to fool the Chinese?

I wonder if pandas could be induced to support the institution of marriage if they see married pandas with cubs getting better and more food as well as nicer accommodation than pandas who mate before marriage and fail to get pregnant. Worth a try, don't you think?

Why is no journalist asking what Shaun Wright meant when he asked "Why are you picking on Rotherham?"

Are all UK journalists also involved in a cover up?

I actually sympathise with the police who are even now accused of being institutionally racist. Were they supposed to investigate all cases of alleged under-aged sex or just cases of alleged under-aged sex taking place between white females and Asian males? If so, this policy would be rightly flagged as sexist and racist, and I can see exactly why the cops preferred to expend their energy and resources doing something else and not “go there”.

We already know that coppers prefer not to waste their time investigating complaints made by complainants who blow hot and cold, such as in domestic violence cases, don't we?

Understandably, they tend not to take seriously complainants who are known to make a complaint and then subsequently withdraw it and go back to the alleged abuser to resume a physical relationship with him and turning it into a pattern of behaviour.

Understandably, they will regard all these cases of under-aged schoolgirls from certain backgrounds making these complaints as not to be taken seriously.

Even "Emma" admitted that she subsequently went back to her abusers and resumed having sex with them.

What the fuck were the police supposed to do?

Even  if everyone in the police and the local council resigned, the real culprits will still not be apprehended.

Who are the real culprits then?

They are social attitudes - the liberal social attitudes which condone extramarital sex.

Once you condone extramarital sex, you will find yourself condoning under-aged sex. The slippery slope argument has been proven yet again.

How many of you in practice condone under-aged sex?

If you found your under-aged daughter to be sexually active what would you do - put her on on the pill?

That is condoning under-aged sex, isn't it?

We know what happened to the daughter of a British mother who did precisely that.

Oh, and Tracey Emin's mum put her on the pill too when she discovered that Emin was having under-aged sex.

So, what are we asking the police to do?

Not bother if the under-aged female is having sex with a under-aged boy of her age?

Not bother if the under-aged female is having sex with an under-aged boy of her age and race?

What age does the male having sex with the under-aged girl have to be for the police start taking an interest?

Why have an age of consent if in practice people ignore it anyway and get away with it?


Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,_Baron_Fraser_of_Tullybelton
Lord Scarman
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Templeman

also guilty of condoning under-aged sex?

If it quacks like duck, walks like a duck, is it a duck?

"the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor."

What is the definition of the best interests of a minor? When a knocked-up schoolgirl wants an abortion, of course.

What if the knocked-up schoolgirl doesn't want an abortion but its parents do? The knocked-up schoolgirl gets to have it in defiance of her parents' wishes, of course, who may then kick her out out of the family home, but then the state will give her council accommodation.  

Are the police aware of the concept of Gillick competence?

Should the police be made aware of the concept of Gillick competence?

Should the police be expected to apply the rule of Gillick competence?

What is this principle exactly that establishes that an under-aged girl already having under-aged sex is legally competent to obtain contraception and abortions without telling her parents? It is the Gillick principle. Poor Mrs Gillick whose crowning humiliation was to have this principle named after her by liberal judges ...

When a fish rots, it rots from the head down, does it not?

Have you had under-aged sex?

Do you have friends who have had under-aged sex?

Have you or any of your friends ever made jokes about children having under-aged sex?

Do you think an adult woman in authority such as a teacher seducing an under-aged boy is funny?

Do you as a man wish you had enjoyed the experience of under-aged sex?

Then you would condone under-aged sex in general, wouldn't you?

In this kind of environment, do you think sex predators of any race and religion would make the most of the easy pickings available, with so much low-hanging fruit, so to speak?

Do you think this is a Muslim problem or a social attitudes problem?

Do you think unfit mothers who don't care what their daughters get up and/or who have abandoned them to care homes have no responsibility at all for this state of affairs?

Do you find it easier and more convenient to blame Muslims and Islam for this rather than blame the lax social  attitudes of non-Muslim Britons towards extramarital sex that has resulted in this state of affairs?

Are you an Islamophobe who relishes the the idea of blaming Muslims and Islam for a state of affairs that your own culture and morality is really responsible for?

Have you always hated Muslims anyway?

Finally, again, can you answer the question of what you think Shaun Wright meant when he asked "Why are you picking on Rotheram?"

"I’ve been married for 20 years but I’m gay. Should I leave my wife?"

Stay with your wife and, if you must, continue to have sex and think you are in love with the men you date. When you get old enough to be visibly unattractive and start being viewed with disgust and contempt by the younger ones whom you do fancy (can't be long now since you have already been married to your wife for 20 years and you must be already be around 50), you will be treated very badly indeed and be very very grateful that you still have a wife to go back to.

Do you have children? If so, you may risk losing them if one or some or all of them decide to have nothing more to do with you, or your relationship with them will suffer, if it becomes their view that you are nothing more than a silly self-indulgent man who has gravely injured their mother just so he can have sex with men.

Look upon being gay as just fancying someone else other than the person you are supposed to fancy - your spouse. Lots of heterosexual married men are in that position, as I am sure you already know.

Homosexuals are very nasty to other homosexuals they don't fancy, probably in the same way that women used to be nasty to each other before women's lib. You could get young flesh as an old queen, in theory, but only if you are very very rich. Not worth it, mate.

Sunday, 24 August 2014

Peter Hitchens tries to make sense of UK foreign policy. Its raison d'etre explained by Claire Khaw

Peter Hitchens:

Bloody lessons we didn’t need to learn

For all the good he did by coming back from Cornwall last week, the Prime Minister might just as well have stayed on holiday, perhaps studying some more fishmongers’ slabs.

There he might find a flounder, the creature he currently most resembles – flat and still for most of the time, flailing wildly about when agitated.

The public murder of journalist James Foley has stirred a great deal of powerless frenzy.

As you listen to our leaders and their media friends raging and threatening vague things, I urge you to remember the following: They used to say exactly the same about the Provisional IRA, whose apologists are now welcome to sup with Her Majesty at Windsor Castle.

If people such as me criticise them, they grow pious and call themselves ‘peacemakers’.

Poor Mr Foley (may God rest his soul) was captured in November 2012 by the Syrian rebels our Government (and those of the USA and France) were already encouraging against President Assad.

On August 11, 2012, the former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind said sides had already been picked. He said we should be ‘giving them [rebels against Assad] equipment to bring the conflict to an end much sooner’.

Now this genius, a man who has had great power in the State, is saying we should work with President Assad against the Islamist fanatics.

Former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind said we should work with President Assad against Islamist fanatics

He might claim he had learned from his mistakes. But he had no need to. This outcome was obvious at the time. In June 2012, I wrote ‘Why do William Hague and the BBC want to help Saudi Arabia set up a fanatical Islamist state in Syria?

‘Don’t we realise that the “activists” we support are just as capable of conducting massacres as the pro-Assad militias?’ I also passed on reports from informants in Syria who told of ‘Salafis, ultra-puritan Muslims influenced by Saudi teachings, who loathe and threaten Syria’s minorities of Alawites and Christians.’

In February that year, I had written: ‘I tremble for the fate of Syria’s Christians if the Assad regime falls.’
The weathercock politicians who now claim to be shocked by the deeds of IS should be ceaselessly reminded that they helped to create it, when they could have known better.

And, like those who supported the Blair War in Iraq, their every public statement should be accompanied by a large warning, saying: ‘Wrong then – why should I be right now?’

Meanwhile, the Chilcot Report on the Iraq War remains unpublished, a scandal greater than any in modern times.

UK foreign policy only makes sense if you view it in the following terms:

Cause a situation where the sale of British armaments is made to willing buyers after they have had their countries destabilised by Western media and NGOs. In short, it is a state-sponsored criminal enterprise.

A test of the impartiality and the intellectual rigour of the King's Review

I have commented on the following essays on the King's Review:

  1. Why not say that unisex toilets are a manifestation of more and more men wanting to be women. Why, even UKIP is stuffed with them. Why do men want to become women?
    Is it cos they think men are lower than women?
    Or is it cos these trannies think becoming a woman is a way for them to get sex without having to pay for it?
    Anyway, feminism is not interested in empowering trannies, who are men trying to have a share of female power by becoming women and will always be regarded as interlopers by the ideologically-aware feminist.

THE KING'S REVIEW is an online magazine that brings together the best of academic expertise and current affairs journalism. Based in King's College, Cambridge, and inspired by the public contributions of fellow members such as John Maynard Keynes and Alan Turing, we continue the long tradition of a community positioned to respond to events that will not slow down to allow scholarly contemplation to catch up. We welcome submissions, whether as articles, blog posts, or suggested book reviews.
The ambition is big but the product is innovative: a magazine that blends the academic with the journalistic, tied to an institution that already has credibility, fame, and a long history of public engagement. Drawing on an international network of writers and thinkers, we will provide broad and timely coverage of important world issues while maintaining the rigour of a peer-reviewed journal.


There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Do you think my comments will be displayed, eventually?

I have offered to contribute to their magazine. Do you think I will receive a response?

I think we already know that the overwhelming number of modern graduates have been well and truly brainwashed and indoctrinated. Even if they don't believe, they have to pretend they believe in the official orthodoxy, or they will be marked down by their usually female feminist PC liberal lecturers.  

Ajmal Masroor's 3 steps to combating extremism in Britain

"First we need to inculcate the spirit of solidarity, togetherness and our unique identity, and that is we live in this country and it is our home," he said

He emphasised the need to tell young Muslims, that whatever their grievances that there was no justification for picking up the gun, and "that it cannot be done in the name of Islam".

Finally the government needed to be "more consistent with its foreign policy", not support dictatorships and encourage the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

On the first point, I think these men already know that they hold British nationality.

You cannot deny that the Koran commands Muslims to fight against those who oppress them.

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.

[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

Perhaps Ajmal will answer this question that I imagine an intelligent jihadist might ask him, if he were allowed the opportunity of asking it publicly and allowed to wait for the answer before he is taken away to be water-boarded:

"Why is Western democracy assumed to be good when it is Western democracies who bomb and invade Muslim countries, apparently at the behest of AIPAC and their military industrial complexes?"

Might Masroor support the making of a BBC documentary on A History of Antisemitism and pester whoever he needs to pester to make such a documentary? I don't mind presenting this, and, known for my judicious impartiality as well as not being an adherent of any of the Abrahamic faiths but wanting the best for Britain and Western civilisation, may well be a suitable person to do so. I promise also not to have annoying hair like the female historians Joann Fletcher or Mary Beard and trust the BBC will have competent make-up artists who will make me look my best and perhaps even put a style consultant at my disposal who will point me to the clothes of the best of British designers which will look most photogenic on me.

I will do my best to present this programme in the grandiose style of Lord Clark of Civilisation.

Mary Beard hair

Joann Fletcher hair

Claire Khaw hair

Lord Clark hair

Mao: To investigate a problem is to solve it.  

Paedo squad now going for Cliff Richard. Who will be next? Julie Andrews?

Don't you just hate how so many people's memories of their youth and childhood are being trashed and dragged through the mire over allegations that will never reach the required criminal standard of proof because of the white man's obsession with appeasing SSMs which most British mothers are these days?

If paedophiles are mosquitoes, then SSMs are stagnant pools of water.

All this paedo hysteria started with the CRB checks to protect SSMs already furnished with council accommodation at taxpayers' expense who have the practice of letting men who are not the fathers of their illegitimate children shag and shack up with them, who later go on to take an unhealthy sexual interest in their daughters.

I know a very nice lady of a certain age who was a Cliff Richard fan and hate to think that all that she found good and nice about her youth has to be smeared with all this paedo crap that cannot logically ever reach the criminal standard of proof that would be required for a conviction in a fair trial.

How happy are you about this, if you are a man?

If you are a man, do you ever wonder why you are lower than an SSM?

If you think you know the reason, are you going to do or even say anything about it?

Did you know ALL British men are lower than SSMs, even David Cameron the supposed alpha male (a leader of beta males) of Britain who will be too shit scared to say or do anything about SSMs, who are the omega females of Britain? (An omega female is the least desirable female you can have to be your wife and mother of your children, by the way.)

Since you are all too beta, scared and stupid to do anything about that you deserve exactly what is coming to you when it gets worse. Next time you tell off a delinquent brat, he will accuse you of being an ugly filthy old paedo and call the cops on you. That is where it has led, and you better damn well hope you will be dead by the time the cops get round to checking your computer for paedo porn.  

Saturday, 23 August 2014

Banning the viewing of the beheading of James Foley would be an own-goal for the West

The Guardian’s stance on Foley is a demonstration of the fine balance of those decisions: at present, one image of Foley from the video is used, but not as a lead picture. None of his forced speech is portrayed, and the short audio elements from the video – some of his murderer’s speech – have been used against a still image.

A police warning that watching or sharing the graphic video of journalist James Foley being beheaded by Isis (known as Islamic State) could be a "terrorist offence" has been slammed by a lawyer, who says the statement was "false and alarmist".

But what would happen if they criminalised it anyway?

Then only the speech of James Foley before he was executed would be left:

"I call on my friends, family, and loved ones to rise up against my real killers, the US government. For what will happen to me is only a result of their complacency and criminality.

My message to my beloved parents, save me some dignity, and don't accept some meagre compensation, for my death, from the same people who effectively hit the last nail in my coffin with their recent aerial campaign in Iraq.

I call on my brother John, who is a member of the US air force. Think about what you are doing, think about the lives you destroy, including those of your own family. I call on you John, think about who made the decision to bomb Iraq recently and kill those people, whoever they may have been. Think John, who did they really kill? And did they think about me, you, our family when they made that decision?

I died that day John, when your colleagues dropped that bomb on those people they signed my death certificate. I wish I had more time. I wish I could have the hope of freedom and seeing my family once again. But that ship has sailed. I guess all in all I wish I wasn't American." 

As for this speech, all that falls to be discussed is whether Foley meant what he said or whether he was forced to say what he did.

To me, it reads as authentic and eloquent, and the words of an educated man trained in the use of words, such as a journalist. The jihadists probably don't have it in them to write elegant sentences in English, I wouldn't have thought.

If he knew he was going to be executed anyway, he would have said "Nuke these bastards and avenge me!" as a Neoconning American might be wont to do. He had nothing to lose anyway, did he, after he knew he was going to lose his head? But he said his words with conviction and clarity and even inserted the personal message to his brother.  

Perhaps he was eventually persuaded of the wrongness of US foreign policy and had the generosity of spirit to acknowledge that even as he knew he would be executed in place of those who formulated US foreign policy and implemented it in its complacency and criminality. If so, that was mighty big of him and his parents have every right to be proud. 

What if repeated viewing of his speech to establish for ourselves whether he was forced to say what he said were criminalised too? (The Guardian has already censored it, and even The Mail did not quote it in its entirety, as you can see at Then we would be no better than Iran when it issued a fatwa for the execution of Salman Rushdie, and very soon Western civilisation as we know it will be no more.  

I think his executioners knew precisely what they were doing. Even if we catch and kill Jihad John, he and his confederates will have won this round.  

Why will no one discuss foreign policy properly? This may be something to do with the complacency Foley referred to in his speech. 

What can you do if you object to UK foreign policy when all the parties who have seats in Parliament support the foreign policy in question?

Does even UKIP who challenges this political cartel offer a different foreign policy? Nope.

Can it be that only the BNP - Britain's fifth largest party who are infamous for their plebeian xenophobia, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia - has the non-aggressive foreign policy that Muslim's objecting to current UK foreign policy would approve of? It would appear so.

British foreign policy can be summed up as follows: cause a situation where the sale of British armaments is made to willing buyers after they have had their countries destabilised by the Western media and NGOs.

Is this not a state-sponsored criminal enterprise? Perhaps the government and its supporters did not realise this, but this is how it is perceived to be by the rest of the world.

And Foley was a member of this Western media.

Are Muslims expected to vote BNP then, when they are known to be rabid Islamophobes? Isn't that expecting a bit much of Muslims? Perhaps a few of them do, but that does not mean that that party of racist plebs will ever garner enough votes to hold the balance of power, does it?

If no protest except violent protest will move anyone in government away from their complacent and criminal foreign policy, what are those who protest against it supposed to do? Turn the page and forget all about it? This is OK if you are a mere liberal, but what if you are Muslim and burn with rage at these injustices committed against the ummah? What if they prefer not to have a drink or switch on the TV or view some porn to take their mind off things? Surely it is a bit insulting to suggest that they should do what a liberal is expected to do?

How do you fight against state-sponsored criminal enterprise that is armed to the teeth, except by violence, especially when they will not listen and will not pause to examine their actions honestly even after so many acts of terrorism and suicide bombings?

Which politician have you heard of is discussing this thing called an ethical foreign policy? Did the idea die with Robin Cook?

If UK foreign policy is not ethical then it is unethical. Indeed, it may even be criminal. If our government is committing crimes in our name, then we must expect some form of retaliation by those aggrieved by the policies that we should be able to tell our government to cease and desist, if we truly lived in a democracy governed well.

Did you know you can more or less predict Western foreign policy just by reading Jane's Defence Weekly?

How many of you will be voting for a political party based on its foreign policy in the 2015 General Election?

Will the BNP will have a leadership contest in 2015?

What makes you think Adam Walker is not up to the job of being BNP leader on his own?

Has it occurred to you that Adam Walker might have been appointed by Nick Griffin on his own merits?

Are you saying that Nick Griffin thinks stepping aside in favour of Adam Walker would avert the danger of leadership election in 2015 because he thought time would start running from the date of Walker assuming leadership and that the next leadership election would be 4 years from that date?

Did you know that the BNP constitution is silent and ambiguous on when a leadership contest is to take place in the case of Adam Walker's incumbency? "7.1 The National Chairman of the Party shall be elected for a fixed term of four years; with the election cycle beginning in 2011."

Are you really claiming that Nick Griffin is so afraid of Jeffrey Marshall that he only pretended to step down in favour of Adam Walker so as to make it less likely that Jeffrey Marshall would throw his hat in the ring for the 2015 BNP leadership contest?

How likely do you think other nationalists would be to encourage Jeffrey Marshall to throw his hat in the ring for the 2015 BNP leadership contest?

What is the difference between what you think of as nationalism and Conservatism?

Is there no difference between Conservatism and Nationalism them?

Why do you continue to waste your time on the BNP - a party that was never meant for the likes of you?

Wouldn't it be funny if Michael Crick asked if he could interview Adam Walker about the future of nationalism under his leadership?

Are you saying that Nick Griffin forbade Adam Walker from tweeting because he is a stupid pleb who cannot be trusted to keep himself out of trouble whenever he opens his mouth?

How can you be sure that Nick Griffin forbade Adam Walker from tweeting?

Why do you think Nick Griffin forbade Adam Walker from tweeting?

What would Jeffrey Marshall's bid for the BNP leadership contest in 2015, if he threw his hat in the ring, be based on?

Now that you have laid out so much of your plans online, how do you think Jeffrey Marshall will feel about perceived to be merely your proxy for the 2015 BNP leadership contest?

You seem to be saying Jeffrey Marshall has no other choice but to throw his hat into the ring for the 2015 BNP leadership election, aren't you?

Which BNP policies are you in agreement with?

Have you read Section 7 of the BNP constitution about the election of party leader?

Is the publicity you think you will get for Jeffrey Marshall the kind of publicity that would help him in the 2015 BNP leadership contest?

What makes you think Jeffrey Marshall is more likely to win the 2015 BNP leadership contest if you run his campaign?

Has it occurred to you that Jeffrey Marshall may not want you to run his campaign in the 2015 BNP leadership contest?

How are you going to persuade Jeffrey Marshall to throw his hat in the ring for the 2015 BNP leadership contest now that you seem to think he is reluctant to do so?

What else are you going to say to Jeffrey Marshall to persuade him to stand if he says he is just not up to it and doesn't fancy throwing his hat in the ring for the 2015 BNP leadership contest because of all the opprobrium it would attract from BNP members who would resent him for rocking the boat?

What would you do if Jeffrey Marshall explicitly declares that he is not having you as his campaign manager for the 2015 BNP leadership election?

Friday, 22 August 2014

I could be prophet, in theory ...

"It was the characteristic of the spirit of the Jewish people that whenever monarch, priest or nation went astray, some ordinary man or woman would simply appear and announce what he or she believed to be God's view on the matter. In Hebrew such individuals were known as nabi' im, literally mouthpieces of God. In modern religious teaching they are referred to as 'prophets', but this is really a misnomer since foretelling the future was the least of their many attributes. Most importantly, a nabi was not a priest per se. The Jewish people had priests by this time, but they were regarded, and would continue to be regarded, as mere functionaries, supervisors of animal sacrifices, and ultimately of no religious importance. A nabi could be anyone. a courtier such as Isiah, priests such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, even a woman, such as Deborah, but quite often an uncouth countryman, such as Eligjah the Tishbite, who in the ninth century, clad in a goat's hair shirt, came forward to condemn Israel's King Ahab and his flagrantly pagan Queen Jezebel. A nabi was supremely important because he represented the voice of God, but his inevitable problem was that of convincing others that he was what he claimed to be. The surest sign was working of what appeared to be 'miracles'. Moses reputedly first attracted notice by turning his rod into a snake, a story which, fantastic as it may sound, may well be true. A cobra, if given a sharp blow on the back of the neck, will go catalepitcally rigid like a rod, as Egyptian snake-charmers can still demonstrate. Moses seems simply to have reversed the process. And he followed this trick with some water-divining in the desert. The common feature of nabi'im was a commanding, probably hypnotic personality which enabled them, as in the cases of Elijah and Elisha, to practice 'natural magic', sometimes returning 'dead' people to life.

Nabi'im, because they tended towards an ascetic, 'back to nature' outlook, continually railed against the Jewish people for lapsing into hedonism and materialism that Moses had led them away from in Egypt."

From Ian Wilson's JESUS: THE EVIDENCE.

Just imagine, folks! I could be prophet.

Maybe I should just learn hypnosis and a few magic tricks.