UKIP too cowardly to defend free speech: that is why they will never amount to anything

It has come to my notice that Steve Moxon, who wrote The Woman Racket was to have stood as a candidate for UKIP but was removed because

"On his blog he said Norwegian killer Anders Breivik's thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17911131

What did Moxon say that was so contentious?

UKIP said that he

"made a number of remarks on subjects such as the Breivik manifesto and Islam that are at odds with UKIP policy and perspective."

What was it that Moxon actually said?

It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.



And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/anders-breivik-and-his-manifesto-great.html#links

I fail to read anything in it that is anything to do with UKIP policy.  Anyway, the long and short of it was that UKIP preferred to play it safe rather than allow themselves to be embroiled in a discussion about Muslims and Islamophobia, and suspended Moxon pronto.  

Moxon took it in good part, probably because he already knows, being a white man in an effeminate culture,  that the default position of the white man is that of expedient and repellent cowardice.   

At http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/on-happily-being-suspended-as-ukip.html#links you can read him taking it all so terribly well.

Sean Gabb the libertarian would also have been a feather in the cap of UKIP because he is something of an intellectual who appears in the media fairly regularly, but apparently, these days you are not allowed to suggest that people in possession of child porn should not necessarily be treated as criminals without being dropped as a UKIP candidate.

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/sean-gabb-banned-by-ukip/

How sad then that all those who have said nothing that is morally or intellectually indefensible and who could have defended themselves perfectly well against any hysterical accusations of racism, Islamophobia or whatever are always hung out to dry and then dropped like a hot potato by their party. 

If I were leader of a party and one of my members said something that he or she wished to defend publicly, I would make a point of letting them do so, to see how they acquit themselves.  It would be trial by media of course, but that is always so much fun to witness a baptism of fire even if it turns out later to be self-immolation.  

Something similar happened to me too when I thought I might have been the BNP London Mayoral Candidate in 2011 when I said or tried to say on Five Live that 

(a) I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled baby 

(b) no one should have to pay for another person's children whether able-bodied or disabled

(c) before the NHS came into existence, home births were the rule rather than the exception and any unviable disabled unwanted baby would be disposed of by the miswife

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html

For just saying this, it was suggested to me that I might like to resign, but I refused, since what I said I felt was morally and intellectually defensible, though undeniably offensive to the easily offended people of this morbidly feminised country.  

How sad it is that no one in our liberal democracy seems to understand what a principle is, let alone show any willingness at all to defend the  principle of free speech.   

A principle is perhaps rather too abstract for dumbed-down degenerate emasculated effeminate white men who have no sense of honour to grasp, let alone practise, I suppose.   This is because most Britons these days are illegitimate and singly parented in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html and you cannot expect much from people like that who have been marinating in their Culture of Entitlement and Excuses for generations now..   

What Voltaire said about free speech is now but completely forgotten in the matriarchal dementia the West is now collectively suffering.  In case you have forgotten what he was supposed to have said, here is it:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

This leads me inexorably to one of my favourite quotes:

"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."  The Bhagavad Gita