 |
| Claire Khaw getting ready to storm the UKIP citadel? Let us hope for everyone's sake that the pen and the keyboard is mightier than the sword. I do want to resolve this peacefully, after all. |
4 August 2012, 01:42
Claire Khaw to UKIP
May I know the reason for the prohibition against ex-BNP members joining UKIP?
14 August 2012, 13:37
UKIP to Claire Khaw
Thank you for your query regarding ex-BNP members, which has come through to UKIP Head Office. The democratically elected NEC has decided after much debate that membership of BNP (or those who have since left that party) is incompatible with membership of UKIP.
UKIP is a libertarian, tolerant political party, that does not concern itself with matters of "race". The BNP has shown itself to be very different, which is one of the reasons why the BNP is among the proscribed organisations listed on the UKIP website.
15 August 2012, 00:02
Claire Khaw to UKIP
Thank you very much for your prompt response.
I have always been a civic nationalist and certainly do not concern myself with matters of race, or I would not be living in a country in which the majority of the people are a different race from me.
I do hope that it is not being suggested that I am racist!
15 August 2012, 10:15
UKIP to Claire Khaw
Certainly not. You asked why UKIP had proscribed the BNP and I explained why. I hope that clarifies the situation.
15 August 2012, 12:16
Claire Khaw to UKIP
So, if you do not believe I am racist, then I can join UKIP after all? I am perfectly happy to sign a declaration that I have never nor will I ever
1. promote a policy of the forcible repatriation of non-white British citizens
2. promote apartheid
3. promote any policy that discriminates either for or against any British citizen on racial grounds
on pain of expulsion.
Perhaps that is all you require to let all those who have been in the prohibited list of parties and organisastion with something useful to do that would help UKIP, instead of wasting their time and energy with the English Democrats, BFP, EDL etc working against UKIP.
What do you say to that?
16 August 2012, 14:27
UKIP to Claire Khaw
Thank you for your application to this problem and ingenious search for a solution, which I'm sure would help immensely if only people were always honest enough never to sign declarations they did not believe in, unless there were a legal penalty for doing so; but how could such a penalty be applied in this case?
How could we be sure that unrepentant BNP-activists would not infiltrate UKIP, having signed such a declaration with their fingers crossed behind their backs? And, even if we could, how would we convince the public, of this, or silence the howling of the jackals of political correctness (please see attachment) on the subject?
MORAL MUTATION by Nigel Farage
With the onset of European dictatorships - notably in post-revolutionary France, the Third Reich and the USSR - the 19th and 20th centuries saw the guardianship of public morals pass from religious authorities to atheistic political ones. In this way, public conduct came to be ruled by political correctness, as strictly defined by secular bodies, rather than by moral virtue, as determined by tradition and that sense of a universal purpose, which is greater than human understanding, and is therefore open to popular, and democratic, interpretation.
The contemporary, and as yet rather restrained, heir of those bloody dictatorships is the European Union (EU) which is a complex system, consisting of the incumbent political parties of 27 former democracies, the governments they create and a burgeoning, central bureaucracy. Money from taxpayers and consumers is channelled, by this system, into those parts of the civil infrastructure, which support the incumbent parties and, for the last few decades, have ensured that these parties remain collectively in power and that they resolutely continue with the work of removing from society all concept of moral value, other than that defined by themselves.
It is natural that men should strive for power and that, having achieved it, they should seek to perpetuate it, by perverting or weakening the democratic processes, which endanger that perpetuation. It is therefore highly necessary that those-not-in-power should succeed in restraining the powerful by retaining the ability to remove them from office, at regular intervals. When all the incumbent parties are part of the same political complex, however - as is the case in the EU - it is not possible to change the regime merely by rotating the parties.
Not content with this, the political élites are proceeding to force society into such a condition that (they hope) it will become incapable of removing them. Hunting down and eliminating moral virtue, which they cannot themselves define or control, and replacing it with a legalistic political correctness, which they can fine-tune and direct at will, has thus become their preferred method for establishing their power in perpetuity.
The basis of this method, the fine sounding Droits de L'Homme (now translated as "human rights") appeared during the French revolutionary period and has since become a world-wide cult, spawning first the United Nations Organisation (UNO) then the Council of Europe, then the European Economic Community, a plethora of international bodies and courts, and finally the EU.
In each case, economics - or, quite simply, money - was used initially, or at an early stage, as a Trojan Horse to insinuate the artificial human-rights agenda into formerly democratic legislatures. By this means, negative rights (everything allowed unless forbidden) have been gradually replaced by positive ones (everything forbidden unless allowed) and the traditional, or God-given, right of individuals to stand equal before the law, and be judged on their merits, has been subverted so that the law increasingly sorts individuals into arbitrary and unequal classes and treats them accordingly.
Curiously, or infuriatingly, this unequal treatment, or "positive discrimination", is rationalised as tending to create social equality, where this is perceived, by the élite, to seem to be lacking. Justice thus becomes the victim of social engineering, and society becomes fragmented, as ever more minorities, disadvantaged groups and ethnic communities are identified, vaguely defined and given special privileges.
These privileged classes then become the flying columns of the élite's attack upon the majority. They are ever ready to provide "victims", in legal cases designed to test and advance new human-rights laws, and they become tribally captive to the incumbent parties, and their allied international, and supranational, organisations, all of which spew forth laws of this kind, at a most astonishing rate.
These developments go hand-in-hand with the churning of global populations, which produces cultural heterogeneity incompatible with democracy and thus confirms the powerful in power, by reducing the electorate to factions, which squabble ineffectually among themselves and are incapable of exerting a popular will.
That, at any rate, is the plan. Some might call it a purely spontaneous process; but this distinction is academic. It is happening, and rapidly; and we must stop it, while enough remains of our formerly exemplary judicial processes and of our formerly renowned system of democratic representation. Moreover, arresting this moral mutation can only be achieved through the displacement of the incumbent pro-EU parties, which means electing a patriotic party, in the United Kingdom, ready for the challenges of independence in a changing world and yet respectful of the traditions, which have provided us with genuine moral guidance, and with the instinct and the institutions to follow it.
16 August 2012 16:34
Claire Khaw to UKIP
Despite UKIP's attempts to be whiter than white on the racism issue, this has not stopped Searchlight from still continuing to gun for you despite all your attempts to kowtow to PC censorship.
If you say you do not hate me, I will keep asking you if you really really really do not hate me, until you go mad, or start hating me.
And then I can point out that I was right all along and that you hate me and are therefore evil and must be destroyed.
It is practically impossible to implement forcible repatriation now anyway, with so many Pakistani cities already in existence in England. You can only forcibly expel people who were not born here and we are into the third generation now.
It really is high time that UKIP abandoned its unofficial policy of cultivated cowardice which it tries to pass off as pragmatism.
I feel absolutely sure that the British voter would thrill to hear someone in a party they have heard of and could vote for make statements carefully calculated to defy the PC totalitarian. I was called to the Bar and have a pretty good idea of what I can get away with.
You are probably aware that I have already met ethno-nationalists up and down the country. I really do not find them as frightening as you all seem to. The worse they can be is rather rude about your race on Facebook and exclude you from their meetings.
If some people still want to say they want this country to return to its racial composition before the British Nationality Act 1948, I do not see that this will do more than cause hurt feelings.
If anyone is caught expressing the prohibited views I have listed in my previous email by a reliable witness, then the penalty of expulsion seem fair enough and also effective.
If this risk is not taken then the Eurosceptic movement will continue to be regarded as as toothless pussycat, bringing discredit on its leaders and supporters, who are also associated with social conservatism.
In my view the risk is very small. Only the more sensible and experienced members of the BNP who have already declared themselves to be civic nationalists would want to join UKIP anyway.
It would be a gesture of kindness to save them from wasting their lives in the English Democrats too.
It is quite clear that neither the BNP nor UKIP by themselves can beat the LibLabCon. My worst fear is that the LibLabCon will be the ones to take the UK out of the EU and claim that they could always be trusted to look after the national interest.
Cameron has already said there will be no referendum until the next election. To be in a position of influence UKIP must have more or at least as many votes as what the LibDems obtained in the last election which was just under 7 million. That gap is not going to be closed unless a more effective strategy is pursued.
The fact that all the combined votes of Eurosceptic parties in the London Mayoral elections could not even begin to match the vote of an unknown Yummy Mummy called Siobhan Benita should give Eurosceptics cause for concern!
17 August 2012, 7:23
UKIP to Claire Khaw
Thank you for your forthright comments. UKIP's position of political correctness is stated clearly in the attached
17 August 2012, 12:16
Claire Khaw to UKIP
While I am happy to admit to admit that I had not read MORAL MUTATION before sending you my previous response, I have to say that I fail to see how Nigel Farage's acknowledgement that the liberal establishment's policy of limiting debate is in itself an argument for UKIP's policy of continuing cowardice.
There are now many THOUGHTCRIME laws in our so-called liberal society. How can any party claiming to be libertarian even tolerate their existence?
But perhaps you do not recognise it for what it really is. Perhaps I do really have to point out that any prohibition against you from discriminating on grounds of sex, race etc is undeniably a form of thoughtcrime because it presumes to limit your ability to think.
At least the BNP have said they wanted to repeal the anti-discrimination legislation now contained in the Equality Act.
Has UKIP said anything about this at all? I can find no reference to this at http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies
To fight for free speech we must defy the political establishment.
The only way to defy the political establishment for a political party is through its policies, not essays by its leader about how the political establishment conspires to limit our free speech. We already know that, and what we want is a way to stop them from taking away even more of our liberties after the next election.
To do so, UKIP should take courage and promise to repeal the Equality Act.
Is UKIP prepared to do so on libertarian grounds using libertarian arguments? Is it even prepared to make this argument? I am very happy to help, but it seems to me that it is the intention of UKIP not to admit me because I would attract controversy.
This is precisely what any political party worth its salt would want, I would have thought, but not UKIP it seems.
What we are discussing is semantic and philosophical and over the heads of most people, even if they hold senior positions in UKIP, but I know I can put it to the voter in simple and attractive terms.
I believe I can do it better than anyone else, and I think I can do this best through being a member of UKIP.
Of course my joining UKIP would attract controversy but that is precisely what we want! UKIP needs to build up a full head of steam in terms of publicity if it is to seize the initiative on this.
NB:
I know there is a fear that I will take over the party because I am so ruthless, clever, thrilling and daring. But would that really be such a bad thing? I have no desire to be party leader however, as long as I can discreetly pull strings from behind the scenes .... I only seek to do for Euroscepticism and Social Conservatism what Peter Mandelson did for the Labour Party. I look forward to his paying court to me without further delay. There is much to be done, Peter! Time's winged chariot and all that. We are going to unite the Left and Right of Britain in one glorious wedding! Knowing of his romantic background, I already know he is a little reticent in these matters with the ladies, but I want to assure him that I have every intention of accepting his hand in marriage and to become his Lady Mandelson. Ah, the soirees we would have, and the salon I would run!
 |
| For some reason I fancy a proper Jewish wedding. It is probably because I just love the idea of the Lord Chief Rabbi doing the Mitzvah Tantz before Peter and me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah_tantz |
"If anything comes in, i will let you know," said Maggie Chapman concerning people who actually email UKIP saying they would be more likely to vote UKIP if I were admitted.
Their email is
mail@ukip.org
If you do write in support of my admission into UKIP, please copy me in so I can assure myself that Maggie has kept her promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment