Malaysians should be proud that they have a leader prepared to grant asylum to Zakir Naik

This is probably one of the speeches Naik made that got him into trouble with those who control Western media.

Richard Spencer:

"We might need to adopt some of the virtues of Islam if not all of it in order to survive. It is a kind of natural reaction against the ultimate consequence of Western ways of thinking which is if it feels good do it to satisfy your empty soul with material goods and that something like Islam is ultimately necessary."

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.

Why I would be pleased to see the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square pulled down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/04/boris-johnson-book-winston-churchill

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.

Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.

1. Why did Britain enter WW1?
2. Was Belgian neutrality worth the sacrifice of so many British lives?
3. What document provided for Belgian neutrality?
4. Are you aware of the contents of the Treaty of London 1839?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
5. Can you discern from its contents what it was that was so important about Belgian neutrality to Britain that made its leaders sacrifice so much over it to so little effect?
6. Were you aware that the German Ambassador in London was aghast at the British for going to war over what they called "a scrap of paper"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#.22Scrap_of_paper.22
7. Are you aware that the British went to war in 1914 over a document signed 78 years before that?
8. Was Britain the most militaristic nation in Europe?  (A militaristic nation goes to war at the drop of a hat and over scraps of paper.  It is understandable that Germany would go to the aid of Austria if it was being threatened by Russia, if it had recently agreed to do so.  It is understandable that the Russians who are Slavs would go to the aid of the Serbs who are also Slavs if they were being threatened by their Austrian overlords, but what the fuck had Belgian neutrality to do with the British??)
9. Could it be said that British foreign policy at the time before WW1 and WW2 consisted of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans?
10. Could it be said that the British policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans ended up in the disintegration of the British empire?
11. Why couldn't Germany have Poland when Britain had its world empire since Germany had completely missed out in the scramble for Africa?
12. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon ie German king as recently as the 1600s?
13. Did you know that Germany regarded Poland as its backyard in the same way that Britain regards Ireland as its backyard?
14. Could it be said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1?
15. But for WW2, would Britain have lost its world empire?
16. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and Britain lost its world empire as a result of WW2, could it be said that Britain lost its empire over "a scrap of paper"?
17. Was Hitler's greatest mistake his belief that the British would be reasonable about Poland (which was outside their sphere of influence anyway) when they had already gone to war over the scrap of paper that was Belgian neutrality?
18. How rational do you think British foreign policy is?
19. How rational do you think British foreign policy has been in the last hundred years or so?
20. Did you know that Hitler liked children, was an animal-lover, a vegetarian and was kind to his servants, while Churchill was a drunkard, a depressive and was rude to his servants?
21. While Hitler was an infamous antisemite, did you know that Churchill thought "Keep England White" was a good slogan?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Return_to_power
22. If you have gone to the trouble of acquiring an empire, shouldn't you at least try to hang on to it for as long as you can?
23. Could it be said that Churchill gambled away the empire the British, acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in a roll of dice?  (What is war but a speculative gamble?)
24. Are the British fools or knaves for overlooking the enormity of Churchill's folly?
25. Could British foreign policy be better conducted by Claire Khaw who takes a Palmerstonian view of British interests?  (Palmerston would have taken a dim view of the Special Relationship.  "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.")
26. Is it time for the British to stop being the poodle of America and instead become the Pekingese of the Chinese, which would mean shutting up about Tibet?
27. Do you think British MPs ever discuss foreign policy in an honest or reasoned way?
28. Are you are of any serious and detailed discussion taking place as regards UK foreign policy?
29. If you were a Muslim terrorist committing terrorist atrocities to make the British re-examine their foreign policy, do you think you have done enough?
30. Do you think the Germans are on the whole quite decent forbearing people considering what they have had to put up with from Hitler and the British?
31. While Churchill was not the one who in fact declared war on Germany, do you think he more or less bounced Chamberlain into declaring war on Germany?
32. Do you think Churchill fancied himself as war leader?
33. Are you aware that tinpot dictators like starting wars so that they can strut around being war leaders?  

The brilliant screenplay to HITLER - THE MOVIE ignored in our PC world

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Young-Hitler-Claus-Hant/dp/0704371820

I noticed today that Naim Attallah with whom I had lunch this time two years ago was complaining that the critics had completely ignored Claus Hant's "non-fiction novel" entitled YOUNG HITLER

Naim Attallah at Le Boudin Blanc where we had lunch in January 2011
http://www.boudinblanc.co.uk/

Naim tweeted:

https://twitter.com/nattallah/status/290910057649033216"For those who follow my blog read my article tomorrow about " Young Hitler" a book Quartet published in 2010. It was ignored then ."

https://twitter.com/nattallah/status/290911532840263680"Why was "Young Hitler "ignored? Although on the face of it the reason is obscure, the reality is different . It is thought provoking......"

https://twitter.com/nattallah/status/291451642807742464Diana Mosley http://wp.me/pGlMo-ET 

It is terribly sad that the liberal establishment and media are conspiring to ignore this book which is both entertaining and profound.   My review is at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/book-on-which-hitler-movie-will-be.html

Here is what I suggest Quartet Books do for maximum publicity:

Announce that forthcoming issues of The Literary Review and The Oldie will contain reviews of Young Hitler by

1. the current Lord Chief Rabbi
2. the former Lord Chief Rabbi
3. the Neturei Karta Rabbi
4. the current Archbishop of Canterbury
5. the former Archbishop of Canterbury
6. Abdal Hakim Murad
7. Anjem Choudary
8. David Irving who will I hope one day become Lord Irving of Nazism in the same way Kenneth Clark  became Lord Clark of Civilisation
9. the PM or anyone he nominates
10. the Deputy PM or anyone he nominates
11. the Leader of the Opposition or anyone he nominates
12. the leader of UKIP
13. the leader of the BNP

who would all be sent review copies.

It would not surprise me at all if many of the above would shrink from this undertaking, but out of this lot I really think Naim can at least squeeze at least a review or three out of this list.  

It does not all have to be published in one issue, though it would be nice to have an Adolf Hitler Special  issue of both the Literary Review and the Oldie, which would no doubt increase their respective circulations dramatically, if the publicity is managed properly, by me, perhaps.  

It is possible that the editrix of the Literary Review Nancy Sladek might baulk at this idea, but I would like to think that Richard Ingrams of the Oldie would still be game for a laugh.  In my experience, it is not the elderly but the young who have a fit of the vapours whenever they see a swastika.  The old should always retain the capacity to shock the young, and the idea of the Oldie doing a Nazi Special is too delicious for words.

My review of Mein Kampf at Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/817224164X/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0


I found Mein Kampf informative and entertaining though it must be pointed out that Hitler conflates Jews with liberals and liberalism.

Jews, by dint of following their religion, practising their traditions and respecting the institutions of marriage and family, will find themselves effortlessly superior to the gentiles who do not.

While I do not agree with him about his racial theories, all that he says about government, democracy, the stupidity of the general public, liberals and the cowardice and hypocrisy of the middle classes remains disturbingly true.

His racial theories are clearly nonsensical since, if there were a race that was inherently superior to all other races then that race would stay top dog for all time.

That "every dog will have his day" is clearly closer to reality.

It is of course perfectly possible to argue that the Jews secretly or not so secretly consider themselves to be a superior race. They were after all the people who created God.

It could even be said that Jews are the teacher's pet in a world of dunces and bullies.

My theory is that the problem of antisemitism, endemic in Christian Europe, is actually a problem of Christianity, which is as a faith inferior to both Judaism and Islam. Christianity is inferior to Judaism and Islam because you have to ignore so much of it to make it work. I believe Hitler even thought that himself, but knew it would not be politic to point this out to the Germans of his time.

It occurs to me that if Hitler had really been serious about the Germans acquiring racial superiority, then he should have converted the Germans to Judaism, instead of just planning to get rid of the competition by shipping them to Madagascar minus their property.

Racial superiority is rather like claiming to be a lady or gentleman. The more you insist that you are a lady or a gentleman, the less likely you are to be either.

A truly superior person would never dream of claiming to be superior.


Get the John Murphy translation.

German Muslim Sahib Bleher speaks at the New Right Meeting for the second time - Hitler is mentioned

Sahib Bleher, the German Muslim

Sahib Bleher was accused of being a race traitor by Lady Renouf during Q&A after the first hour.

Hitler is mentioned at 1:15 when it was claimed by a member of the audience that he really wanted Germans to become Muslim.

Feminism is not mentioned at all, which I found tremendously disappointing. Bleher did however say that the reason why Islam is considered so transgressive and repellent to the liberal establishment is because it promotes the kind of social conservatism that equips communities to fight the agents of "global oppression".  I do wish he had the courage to say "feminism" or "the matriarchy" and gone on to point out that it was feminism, the welfare state and consumerism which has produced our Culture of Sex and Shopping as well our Culture of Entitlement and Excuses all of which undermine male and parental authority so much that no traditions of any value are passed to the next generation any more.

That is why families and communities are now broken.

He could have also gone on to say that the thin end of the wedge was the working mother who became the divorced mother who is now the SSM explained at http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/3-degrees-of-culpability-in-single.html

It is these SSMs who give birth to the majority of the babies born in Britain, the babies who are now born out of wedlock.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

Of course Sahib Bleher cannot be expected to say what I do, for he is not Claire Khaw who has been banned from New Right Meetings because she was suspected of passing on information to the Reds about the venue and apparently not supposed to blog about what was spoken about at those meetings though they themselves video their speakers and put them on YouTube. Never mind, I am hardened  now to the ways of the treacherous and dishonourable white man. I do not expect these degenerate and dishonourable white men of the 21st century to have the decency to make out their accusations properly, or, if they cannot, withdraw them.

Such niceties of civilised and honourable behaviour are now entirely forgotten.  Perhaps, when they are remembered again, there might be hope for the white man whose entire civilisation, it appears, has been Cursed by God.   http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

What should be noted was that this was not the first time Sahib Bleher spoke at a New Right Meeting, and that he has been invited again to speak for a third time. The audience was polite and interested, and he clearly enjoyed the audience at the last meeting.

To be fair to the organiser of the meeting Troy Southgate, he did briefly consider allowing me to speak ata New Right Meeting before all the ridiculous accusations were made about me divulging information that was already known to the Reds at Hope Not Hate and Searchlight.   

National Socialism is just one-partyism

What is National Socialism?

It was not really Gassing the Jews-ism as most people seemed to think.

No, it was "one-party-ism".

Starts 1:53

This is what Hitler says about National Socialism:

"When our party had only seven members, it already had two principles:  first it would be a party with a true ideology [of nationalism ie of the long term national interest]..   And second it would be, uncompromisingly, the one and only party ... "

This does sound rather frightening, but if it were up to me, the rights of party members will be protected in the following terms, as per Article 4 of the Chinese Communist Party:


Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party's education and training.
(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party's policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.
(3) To make suggestions and proposals regarding the work of the Party.
(4) To make well-grounded criticism of any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party in a responsible way, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent cadre.
(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.
(6) To attend, with the right of self-defense, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves or to appraise their work and behavior; other Party members may also bear witness or argue on their behalf.
(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to Party organizations at higher levels even up to the Central Committee, provided that they resolutely carry out the decision or policy while it is in force.
(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to higher Party organizations even up to the Central Committee and ask the organizations concerned for a responsible reply.
No Party organization, up to and including the Central Committee, has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

People may sneer at this idea, but ask any MP or any member of any party in the UK if they have anything like the equivalent and you will know how much Article 4 protects the rights of its members more than any constitution of any political party in the UK.

Cabinet Members are only Cabinet Members until the next reshuffle, and this will be subject to the Prime Minister's whim.  

That is why they fear to speak out, lacking an Article 4 to protect their rights to free speech.

You see, it is the free speech of the politician that must be protected, and theirs is more important than any member of the public.

3:103 http://quran.com/3/103 and 6:159 http://quran.com/6/159 of the Koran certainly appear to say that a one-party state would be just what the doctor ordered if the constitution of that party protects the rights of its members to speak freely about policy matters without fear of being marginalised, demoted or expelled.

But I fear this revelation will only fall on deaf ears.

Herbert Spencer gave Hitler his eugenic ideas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

"Spencer's ideas became very influential in China and Japan largely because he appealed to the reformers' desire to establish a strong nation-state with which to compete with the Western powers. His thought was introduced by the Chinese scholar Yen Fu, who saw his writings as a prescription for the reform of the Qing state."

The Chinese have the benefit of the ideas of Herbert Spencer, but the British do not.  This is ironic and tragic in view of the advanced case of national degeneracy they are now suffering as a result of decades of feminist indoctrination.

Herbert Spencer

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_shaped_Adolf_Hitler's_view_of_Jews

Uh oh!

An evening with David Irving

David Irving and me

https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17764&cat=249&page=1&fb_source=message

David Irving is a terrific raconteur. It occurs to me that most historians must have been.

All good historians and history teachers know how to tell a good story.  How I remember dear Miss Young who taught me O level history goose-stepping from the front of the class to the back of the class!

I am agnostic on the Holocaust since I was not there and even if I had been it would have been impossible to tell how many were killed and for what reason in a war situation.

As far as I can see, this Holocaust thing is a hangover of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity, which will one day be resolved when we have Secular Koranism in Britain.   Sadly, not many people understand it, though it is really very simple.

The debate between how history is established and taught will rage on forever more, just like politics.

David Irving makes a point of using only primary sources.  His books are popular and readable because they contain the necessary details to bring it all to life, eg the colour of the wallpaper, the weather on the day.  His books read like novels, I imagine.

He refers to Ian Kershaw as a "conformist historian", and said Kershaw would refer to his books in order to write his conformist version.

David also told us of how a postcard which Hitler sketched himself was stolen by a man who now lives in Tallahasee whose name is Michael Hesse, I think.

He mentioned the "birdy spoon" which his daughter Jennifer used for her cereal, which has been through the dish washer many a time.  I believe it must be something along the lines of the spoons found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=170833719843&nma=true&rt=nc&si=atqdK2KCATIogCrl0ZIgpXg5J14%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_2909wt_699

Anyway, I found it a charming story.

There was a book called ADOLF HITLER with some great photographs of the Fuhrer looking happy and glorious in  it, but it was in German, priced at £100.

Apparently, the Soviets tried to suppress the fact that Hitler shot himself, and claimed he merely poisoned himself like a woman.  The fact was that he did both.  It is also incredibly difficult to shoot yourself in the temple because of the kickback, and he recounted an occasion when a top Nazi attempted it twice and failed, only managing to graze the top of his head.  Someone else had to finish the job for him.

So that is why if you want to do it properly, you put the gun into your mouth.   Hitler managed to successfully shoot himself in the head, in case you were wondering.

He found most of the Hitler's private staff very approachable, though they would not have been quite so to approachable to any other "conformist historian" with an anti-Hitler axe to grind.

The story that charmed me most about Hitler was the one about how a fly saved Hitler's adjutant Fritz Darges's life.  It was high summer and the Russians were about to invade.  Hitler was in a conference with the leaders of the German Armed Forces.   There was a fly bothering Hitler, and he demanded that Fritz  Darges get rid of it.

Fritz Darges's response was that, since it was a creature on wings, it should be the job of the Lutwaffe.

His levity resulted in his being sent to East Prussia as punishment that very day.  Three days later, the bomb that was meant to kill Hitler went off.   If Fritz Dagen had been in his usual place, he would have died.

So there you go, one should have a sense of humour.

This rather indicated to me that Hitler did usually have a sense of humour, or doubtless Fritz Dagen would not have made such a joke under any circumstances.

This rather endears Hitler to me.

I asked what sort of a man Irving thought Hitler was, and, unhesitatingly, he said: "A very kind man.  He was compassionate, incorruptible, honest and decent."

He always asked after the health of the family of his generals and was kind to those who served him.  Indeed, he once demanded the stenographers be given electric heaters so they were not too cold in the draughty huts they had to work in.

I had an idea that he was a kind a man anyway, from Chrita Schroeder's book, which is eminently readable http://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-My-Chief-Secretary/dp/1848325363

So there we have it:  Churchill was a warmongering drunk and known for being horrid to his servants, and Hitler was a teetotaller and was kind to his servants and never would have invaded Britain, according to David Irving.

I feel sorry for the British who haven't had a decent foreign policy since the days of Palmerston.   

Imbecilic Parish Councillor wants to ban Nazi uniforms at WW2 re-enactment.

Should Nazi uniforms be banned at an event that is about WW2?  Parish Councillor Thorne in dumbed-down Britain thinks so.  So the Nazis were NOTHING do to with WW2 then??  

I bet you could advertise the event in Germany and get lots of young handsome Germans to come here who would enjoy strutting round an English village in their Nazi uniform, seig heiling merrily to their each other.

There could be special prize for the best Eva and Adolf couple too, and you can imagine pairs of them walking arm in arm enjoying the show, smiling and waving to one and all.

A prize should be awarded for the best Hitler impersonation.

Perhaps a Nuremberg rally could be re-enacted too while they were at it?

What fun that would be!

I would love to go to report on such an event.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9329730/Nazi-uniforms-banned-from-1940s-weekend-after-visitors-came-as-SS-officers.html

Triumph of the Will as can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfYncHshJc will give you an idea of the cinematic event I have in mind that will be re-enacted in the North of England, but in English.

Perhaps the Lord Chief Rabbi could be prevailed upon to preside over events and be MC so the organisers do not have to deal with constant accusations of antisemitism.

To ban Nazi uniforms at a WW2 re-enactment would be the equivalent of asking Disney to ban cartoons.  Parish Councillor Barry Thorne and others of his ilk should be told to go and boil their heads.   

On being often compared to Adolf Hitler

Someone said to me today: "Some people have compared you to Adolf Hitler. I bet you did Nazi that one coming."

"But how am I like Adolf Hitler?" I asked in dismay.

"Probably because of your views on euthanasia of the disabled."

It should be noted that I at no time advocated a policy of systematic extermination of all who are disabled though many of enemies like to pretend that I did. My brand of Libertarian Eugenics consists only of legalising the practice of infanticide by the parents of the victim.  This means that up to the age of 12 months, parents of unwanted babies may dispose of them without getting into trouble with the law in rather the same way that the Ancient Greeks exposed their unwanted young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Greece_and_Rome

This would considerably speed up the adoption process too, and obviate the need for social workers, adoption agencies and the like saving the taxpayer billions of pounds.

I really don't mind discussing the subject of EUGENICS.

Infanticide was not exactly unknown way, way, way before Hitler was even a twinkle in his father's eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwifery#Early_historical_perspective

"After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

"Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations."

"Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people."

http://www.prometheism.net/articles/ancient.htm is where you will find Allen Roper's essay on ANCIENT EUGENICS argues the MORAL case for Eugenics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias#Children

"The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death. The survival of congenitally disabled adults—conspicuously evidenced among the elite by the partially lame Emperor Claudius—demonstrates that personal choice was exercised in the matter."

I don't mind undertaking the task of explaining again and again these agreed facts of Western history to ignorant Westerners who have not been taught their own history in their morbidly feminised curriculum after they abandoned the Classics.

I don't mind explaining again and again that the institution of Marriage is Eugenic in intention, just like laws prohibiting incest.

Feminism is of course anti-eugenic because it promotes gender equality which encourages female promiscuity.

A matriarchy is a society which condones female promiscuity while a patriarchy is a society which condones male promiscuity.

What is wrong with female promiscuity?  Because it tolerates widespread illegitimacy.

Why is widespread illegitimacy a Bad Thing?  Because it tolerates and makes excuses for ever-lowering standards of behaviour, morality and educational standards, leading to the decline and fall of your society, race, nation and civilisation.

In a degenerate society, women find good men dull and bad men attractive, and are not punished for this preference.

Women, because of their weak, conformist and masochistic nature, will tolerate most evils while their strong maternal instincts seek outlet through the care of the helpless and the pathetic.  In those whose instincts are mainly masochistic, the more pathetic their offspring, the greater their status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

It has been noted that the most notorious cases of Munchausen by Proxy cases are women.

If only people would concentrate on what I am saying rather than wondering whether I am like Hitler in their infantile way.

I have no intention of having a union with Austria, or of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.  In fact, if truth be told, I am really a bit of a peace-nik who believes in good old fashioned family values and the virtues of good government by a wise, courageous and rational political class capable of directing their minds to the principles of good husbandry in the long-term national interest and never again towards bribing the voters with their own money to their own long-term detriment for the sake of  a miserable term in office in which they will do very little good.

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+husbandry&qpvt=husbandry&FORM=DTPDIA

I am really not at all like Hitler.

Christians equate Christ with God. No wonder their religion is failing.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/death-of-god.html

Just think: they equate their God with a failed revolutionary they decided to worship as a deity.

Not one Christian can honestly explain the Doctrine of the Trinity without ceasing to be a Christian.

Do you think the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or York believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity?  Do they hell. What they are doing is paying lip service.

Do as I say, not as I do, they will say to you, when you have revealed their unbelief.

Have you noticed how Christians start looking shifty the moment you ask them about the Trinity? You should try it and see.  

The only reason why Christians believe Christ is God is because they don't want to do the hard work a Jew needs to do to remain a Jew and because they despise Muslims, who, like the Jews deny the Trinity and abhor the idea of a divine prophet.  

"It is a weakness of human nature to hate those whom you have wronged."     

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/18667/

How have Christians wronged Jews and Muslims?

Let me count the ways: the Inquisition, Crusades, the turfing out Muslim Arabs to make way for the Jews they have been persecuting for centures in Christian Europe in their ignorant and arrogant antisemitism.   In other words, robbing Peter Arab to pay Paul Jew.  

As for those who call themselves Christians but don't know they have to believe that Christ is God or else go to hell - because if you don't believe that you ain't Christian and all non-Christians go to hell, doncha know -  I only have pity for you and your ignorance.

Actually, only the non-white non-cultural Christian truly understands the nature of this bargain unlike the ignoramuses who think they are Christians because they are not Jews or Muslims (whom they despise), and call themselves Cultural Christians.  (That is why these Oriental converts and evangelists are always proclaiming Christ is Lord to all and sundry in that annoying way, to show everyone else that they believe, even if deep down inside they do not.) These Cultural Christians never enter a church save when they are called upon to attend a wedding.  They know they feel comfort a the sight of a church spire and feel alarm and distress when they see a minaret, and that is what makes them Christian, they think to themselves.  

Or they might go to church for a bit, until their children get into the church school of their choice, because they cannot afford school fees.

What else do these disgusting Christians do?

They pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ like some cannibal who thinks that eating a dead human being, especially one that they also think is God, will give them special powers. Yep, that is what Christians call Communion and the Eucharist, don't you know.

What was it Hitler said about telling a big enough lie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

How can believing in a lie and making others believe in the same lie possibly make you a better person and make your society a better society if you are so hypocritical and so cowardly you never condemn anything at all, not even gay marriage?

Instead of enjoining good and forbidding evil, as the Muslims are meant to do, the Christians spend their entire lives convincing themselves of a lie while tolerating all manner of evil and waste their compassion on the worst of people because theirs is a masochistic religion for women and slaves.  

There is a reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy go together like Horse and Carriage ....  

British Jews too have gone native in the land of Unctuous PC Extremist Liberalism.  When an Orthodox Rabbi brightly suggests on Woman's Hour to Dame Jenni who calls him "Zvi" that all who wish to marry should first become civilly partnered with the option  of converting it into marriage later, you know that the stench you are smelling is the rotten corpse of Western civilisation.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/most-unorthodox-orthodox-rabbi-commends.html

Is Ed Miliband in the pay of the SNP?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16576255

I am actually AGHAST that the leader of the Labour Party could be so cowardly and so stupid for handing the scalp of Tom Harris - a prominent and talented of member of his own party - to the  Scottish Nationalists. Why the fuck did you do that?

And how much did the SNP pay you to deliver this own goal to the morale of your own party and the unity of the United Kingdom?

Even the racist Diane Abbot (who has racially abused white people and their ancestors as well as suggesting that black people are mostly slut and bastard gangstas who could never be represented by anyone black who believed in family values http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2012/01/was-diane-abbott-racially-abusing-black.html) would be a better leader for white Labour  than Ed the Mad.

It is time for Ed to go now, go now, go now, go now, go now, go now, go now.    

Bye Bye Dead Ed, fuck off now, for the sake of your reputation and for the sake of the Labour Party.  Fuck off and die, for your own sake.   Have the decency to acknowledge you are not fit for purpose, when you were so out of touch that you could not see that saying you were too busy to marry the mother of your illegitimate children was a very Bad Thing.  

And if you thought people didn't care, it was because they knew you would never amount to anything.  

Fuck off, Ed, or beware the Ides of March ....

I think Tom Harris should be leader of the Labour Party.  I have said it before, and I will say it again.  The Labour Party, if it were wise, should dump that space oddity Mad Ed and choose Tom Harris, even if he is a bit of a coward because he often does and says the right things and then apologises for it.  Do that less, Tom, and people will like you more.   

Jews denounce British bookseller for promoting a book they dislike by the world's most infamous antisemite

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/dec/23/mein-kampf-perfect-present-waterstones?CMP=twt_fd

People used to fulminate about The Clever Jew.   

But perhaps these days even the Clever Jew has been dumbed down by the culture of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.  

If they were really clever, they would have ignored Waterstone's recommendation of Mein Kampf.

If they were really clever, they would  have realised that antisemitism is not that far off the surface.

If they were really clever, they would have known that by drawing attention to the availability of Mein Kampf in Waterstone's they would send all sorts of people scurrying to buy a copy.   

If they were Clever Jews, they would know that telling gentiles not to read unflattering descriptions of Jews is only likely to encourage them to buy a book from a book shop that stocks unflattering descriptions of Jews.   

And that is why Clever Jews are not so clever after all, and we should not fear them the way some antisemitic people do.  They too are getting stupider and are also contaminated by liberalism and its hysteria and its imbecilities.  

We shouldn't worry about how clever Jews are, but how stupid we all are.   

Why shouldn't Waterstone's sell Mein Kampf?  If they sell it, why shouldn't they promote it?  It is an important and interesting book, and a book which I for my part thoroughly enjoyed as anyone interested in European history would enjoy.  If you read it, you would know that Hitler cared deeply about the poor and a lot of what he says remains chillingly relevant to our times.  

If we think that Hitler really meant liberals when he complains about Jews, it would make it a more interesting read, and we can all fantasise about sending them as slaves to Madagascar (unless they renounce liberalism) when I am in power.   

Everyone who wants to understand antisemitism, liberalism and nationalism should read it, and I would have thought Jews especially should read it, if only to be told how annoying gentiles find them and why.  

If you would like to join the Mein Kampf Book Club, you can find it at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/147429175288744/

Hitler on Religion and why Christianity must not be killed but allowed to die, to be replaced by Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETkE0CT2EM

"Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable that one could find anything durable in a falsehood?

I'm convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful nature of such a compromise.

Thus the state will have based its existence on a foundation that will one day collapse.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained - that is to say, of the unknown.   If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's Programme."

It is not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches.   The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.  A slow death has something comforting about it.

The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.  Religion will have to make more and more concessions.   Gradually, the myths crumble.  All that's left to prove in nature is that there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic.

Originally, religion was merely meant as prop for human communities.  It was means, not an end in itself.   It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction with the object of maintaining the rule of priests, who can only live to the detriment of society collectively.  [NB: The Koran does not encourage a priesthood.  It encourages us all to read the Koran and to exercise our reason while interpreting it.]

The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions give, contributed to foundation of organised communities.   The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret - all these were obligations invented by intelligent people.   The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory.   Observe, by the way, as a corollary, the Muslim was promised a paradise, peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams, a real earthly paradise.   The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after life they are allowed to sing hallelujahs!

The more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline [because science has already impregnated humanity].

It is possible to satisfy the needs of an inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past.

Only a minority, however, can at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul.   The average human being has the same needs but can satisfy them only by elementary means.   That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops.   The person whose life tends towards simplification is thirsty for belief and dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they have acquired others that are more reasonable.  Indeed, it's important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed.  We must finally achieve this.   But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

Nothing dies unless it is moribund.

There was a time when the ancient world was divided between systems of philosophy and the worship of idols.   It is not desirable that the humanity should be stultified and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

A movement like ours must not let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions.   It must stick to the spirit of exact science.   It is not the Party's function to be a counterfeit to religion.

Science cannot lie, for it is always striving according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true.  When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith.   It is Christianity that is the liar.   It is in perpetual conflict with itself.

If at this moment we were to eliminate religions by force, the people would unanimously beseech us for a new form of worship."  

Why Hitler despised Christianity and was probably sympathetic to Islam

Hitler post mortem has given the Jews the means by which to hang themselves. He didn't think much of Christianity and believed that it would die if ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETkE0CT2EM

I believe that Hitler found Islam appealing. Napoleon carried the Koran with him for guidance and inspiration, and so too did Lawrence of Arabia. It is already clear that Nietzsche was right that Christianity is the religion for women and slaves. This is because most Christians are cowards and hypocrites, who dare not forbid what is evil, hiding under the cloak of what they think is mercy, compassion and tolerance, but which is nothing more than a disguise for inaction, hypocrisy and cowardice.

Women wish to wound but are afraid to strike, women wish the ends but not the means, but Western man is now hopelessly feminised and liberalised.  They have been conditioned to be as cowardly, vindictive and as hypocritical as women because in the West now you gain more privileges the more pathetic, stupid, weak and feckless you are.

The Jews have adopted the ways of a manipulative woman as they necessarily must do because they remain a minority and have not the strength of numbers, and thrive on promoting Christian European guilt.  (It is after all true that belief in totalitarian Trinitarian Christianity - the belief that if you didn't believe Christ is God you would go to hell - made Christians behave in a totally crazy way when they did taken their religion seriously.)

Jews recommend liberalism to the gentile in the same way that a wife who wants to kill her husband would ply him with cream while declining to partake, saying she must watch her figure.  She would not go so far as to poison him, but killing him with cream would be quite acceptable to her conscience.

But for Hitler, there would be no State of Israel.  Israel is therefore a poisoned chalice bequeathed to the Jews from Hitler, by Hitler from beyond the grave.  This post mortem gift from Hitler to the Jews will result in what Hitler predicted would happen:

1. The discrediting of International Jewry and their motives when they recommend another dose of liberal poison chief of which is Keynsian economic policy of spend and gamble with money you do not have, doubling your money until you go bust..
2. The death of Christianity, which is not fit for the purpose of promoting social cohesion, nor that of enjoining good and forbidding evil.  If ignored it will eventually die, Hitler predicted.

Islam would then move into the vacuum.

The writing is on the wall, but only the wise can decipher it.

My Churchillian speech about fighting the liberal establishment

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in our homes,
we shall fight in schools and factories, in pubs and churches,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength,
we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender,
to FUCKING LIBERAL SCUM!!!!!

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-is-teaching-establishment-like.html


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-beginning-there-was-word.html

The book on which HITLER THE MOVIE will be based

The dust jacket says “Claus Hant is a German scriptwriter …” –  and  so this “non-fiction novel” was written with HITLER THE MOVIE in mind.  All that remains to be seen is who will direct the movie (Steven Spielberg, I hope, who has already portrayed a  Nuremberg rally with admirable integrity in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK), and who will be the actor chosen to play Hitler.  (George Clooney?  Hugh Laurie?  Jude Law?)  After such a compelling narrative of Hitler’s rise to power, and 66 years after the end of  WW2, I would like to think such a film would now be possible and welcomed. 

Hitler is seen through the eyes of his friend Martl (a character who is really an amalgam of four friends of Hitler during his salad days). 

The scenes where Hitler makes his immortal pronouncements are already cinematically staged.  Picture, if you will, Hitler being offered a cigarette and his response, “Thank you, dear, but smoking kills everyone, not just the racially inferior.”

There are many such scenes portraying Hitler as a personality – a son fearful of his mother’s death, being infuriating and irritating, quoting philosophers, being reckless, demanding and unreasonable, and of him being unnervingly prescient and prophetic while explaining his theories …

Hitler comforts  his dying comrade Frederick in the battlefield:

A huge pool of blood had collected around his crotch.  I knelt down beside him.  “You’re going to be okay,” I lied.  “It’s not as bad as it looks.’

“Really,” he groaned, gritting his teeth from the agonizing pain. 

“I’ll get you a medic!”  I scrambled back up the bank to look out over the field.  But there were no medics, just freshly dead bodies. 

“Dolferl! [Hitler’s nickname] I screamed.

He turned and with his head cocked inquisitively, he ran back.

“Just be calm,” Dolferl told Frederic, crouching down.  “Have you ever read Schopenhauer?”

“Only a little,” Frederick admitted.

“In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer talks of a leaf that is afraid to fall of the tree in autumn,” said Dolferl, calmingly.  ‘ “Foolish leaf!” says Schopenhauer, “where do you think you’re going? And where do you think the new leaves will come from?  Where is the oblivion you so dread?  It is part of you!”

“Where’s the medic?” Frederick asked. 

Yet another challenging scene for any Hitler-playing actor:

“I’m not afraid of death,” Dolferl said, staring me straight in the eye. 

“No?”

“ ‘If death seems so cruel because we dread the thought of not existing, then we would have to dread the time before we were born as well.  Our non-existence after death can’t be any different to our non-existence before we were born.  An eternity passed before we were born but that doesn’t sadden us at all …’ ”

I sighed. 

“That’s the beauty of Schopenhauer,” he said , took the gun out of his holster, pointed the barrel at his temple, and cocked it.

“Dolferl!” I screamed.  “What are you doing?”

Slowly, he lowered the gun, un-cocked it and put it back. 

“As long as you have an exit strategy,” he said, “you will always be okay.”

As well as cinematic story-telling, its appendix on racism, anti-Semitism and the mystical background of the Thule Society are a historian’s delight.  The psychological insight too is rewarding: “For Hitler’s career to succeed, three prerequisites had to be fulfilled: 1) a nation longing for a new beginning after defeat in a war, famine, revolutionary turmoil, national humiliation and economic chaos; 2) a man convinced of his ‘mission’ beyond all doubt; and 3) a group of believers who were awaiting just such a man.

Indeed.  The Hitler Phenomenon could happen to any Western industrial nation.  We have been warned. 

UKIP and BNP like Dad's Army

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/dadsarmy/char.html

The Europhile liberals are Hitler and the Germans, but perhaps you can match each Dad's Army character to its Eurosceptic equivalent?

The ARP Warden is Nick Griffin, Private Joe Walker is Nigel Farage, the Vicar is Archbishop Cranmer.  When I am in charge of the united Eurosceptic movement after the BNP-UKIP anschluss I will try to avoid becoming like Captain Mainwaring and do better ...   Is Dan Hannan Pike?

How the teaching establishment is like Hitler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9259000/9259008.stm

0818
Is the English language being mutilated by the recent trend to turn nouns into verbs? Journalist Anthony Gardner and Elaine Higgleton, editorial director of Harper Collins English Dictionaries, discuss developments in modern languages.  

The English language is being mutilated by the fact that teachers dare not teach and when they do teach they do not teach the basics of grammar and punctuation. It is the lower classes who are most disadvantaged by this progress liberal "educational" policy, when no one wants to hire these badly schooled people and prefer to hire foreigners. It often strikes me that the liberals are like Hitler.  They hurt most the people they claim they most want to help. Hitler wanted to help the German nation and the Germans, but only ended up heaping disgrace and defeat upon them.

Is the British teaching establishment not positively Hitlerian, through not teaching them properly, the scarcity of single sex state schools and stuffing them with sex education through all orifices at ever earlier ages?   

How is the British teaching establishment like Hitler is quite easily explained.  What motivates them to do so  is not quite so easily explained.