Translate

Showing posts with label British values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British values. Show all posts

Monday, 16 July 2018

Assimilated liberal Jews threaten the religious freedom of observant Jews



Liberal democracy is unnatural. It is a product of power and security, not innate human sociability. It is peculiar rather than universal, accidental rather than teleologically preordained. 


But power is a protean thing; it doesn’t just mean state power but any kind of hold over human beings. This highlights one of the paradoxes of liberalism: the ideology gains more power in terms of popular appeal at the expense of the states that make it possible. This is a good thing to the extent that liberal attitudes check abusive government. It’s a bad thing to the extent that liberal attitudes deprive states and populations alike of the wherewithal to combat external threats when they do arise. Pacifism, as a cousin or acute manifestation of liberalism, is a case in point. It’s one of the ideological luxuries made possible by security, but if adopted generally there would soon be no security left to leave it a choice for anyone but martyrs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b9v6cw


Emily Buchanan:

There was a time when being Chief Inspector of Ofsted meant simply monitoring pupil welfare in schools and keeping a beady eye on academic standards, but as cultural and religious standards increase, the job is now much more challenging. Amanda Spielman became the Head of Ofsted 18 months ago and has found herself at the sharp end, often treading on religious sensitivities as she attempts to exert what she calls Muscular Liberalism in favour of so-called British values in the classroom. She gave a speech last week in which she talked of an expanding sense of religious and cultural entitlement by some faith groups.  I asked her what she meant by that.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amanda-spielmans-speech-at-the-ascl-annual-conference-2018

Amanda Spielman:

We're hearing from a number of directions that parent groups and community groups increasingly putting pressure on schools to make provision that is very specific to that group, so for example, community groups even that only reflect a small proportion of parents' groups in the school may feel that they have an absolute entitlement to a community language taught, we see more pressure for parents to be able to withdraw children from slices of the curriculum that haven't historically been talked about as being things from which children should be withdrawn as well as disagreements about school uniform policies.

Emily Buchanan:

So why do you think this is happening?

Amanda Spielman:

Well, we are in increasingly diverse world with greater divergence in parental expectation and desire and community affiliation, the job of being a head is harder and it's tougher for them to get all parents to get decisions that they have to take.

Emily Buchanan:

And I suppose with that comes perhaps a lack of confidence in what is meant by so-called British values. You've talked about the need for Muscular Liberalism to be confident of those values but perhaps heads are not so sure what they are?

Amanda Spielman:

Well, at one level I think it's clear, but how it's interpreted, I think it's a question of what is the point at which tolerance of other faiths and beliefs strays a little too far into allowing groups of people to wall themselves off into a bubble that nothing else can penetrate at which point the sense of a school as a cohesive community can start to break down.

Emily Buchanan:

Well, now you've clashed with a number of religious groups, haven't you, from the Muslim Council of Britain and the Christian Institute. They would argue that there's already too much interference by the government in education.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ofsted-criticises-charedi-school-for-failing-to-teach-about-same-sex-orientation-1.60382

Rabbi Bassous calls all Jews with the flame of the Torah still burning in their hearts to take a stand against "fundamental British values" which have fallen dangerously below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws

Distinguishing authentic Orthodox Judaism from Reform Judaism is crucial to preserving the good of Jewish identity and keeping observant Jews safe

Amanda Spielman:

I don't think that's the case. I am talking about state education that is funded by the taxpayer and about a system that is designed to make a nation that works for all children. Schools have to make a balance that works for all children. Nobody should feel left out, nobody should feel not included. If anybody wants to make one identity that shuts out all identity - tribal identity if you like - then it creates problems for the people around them. So what we're trying to do is to make sure that we properly apply the framework of law and policy that we have to apply and that way we work helps heads balance out those competing interests, those competing cultural and religious preferences to make something that is fair and sensible for everybody.

Emily Buchanan:

Well, can we talk about hijabs in schools? In your speech last Monday, you spoke about aspects of a school's provision dictated by the preferences of a particular group whether that be uniform, curriculum or after school activiities, but why shouldn't parents whether they are religious or not be able to express a preference about what their child wears?

Amanda Spielman:

I start at the other end: we have for many years in this country had a default expectation that there is a school uniform that is something that is simple, age appropriate and that everybody wears so that nobody feels left out, nobody is marked off as different by reason of what they wear, and that's not something that is true in every country but that's something that we have. So if you unpick that then you get into a world where everbody wears what they want and you would probably have little girls wearing high heels, make up and jewellery  in classrooms - things that most people wouldn't be comforable seeing.

Emily Buchanan:

But that's not what people are talking about, is it? A lot of parents feel that what their child wears doesn't really affect their learning and they feel that if they're not allowed to wear the hijab that the government is somehow targetting Muslims in particular which of course alienates a group that you want to integrate.

Amanda Spielman:

And that's unfortunate because it's so clear that this is not a matter of religious requirement. It is very much a cultural preference. Remember, we are talking about very young children here, we're talking about children in the first half of primary school long before there is any age of religious expectation, so if you allow cultural preferences to determine what one group of children wear then effectively you have to apply that to all groups.

Emily Buchanan:

Would you prefer to have an approach more along the lines of what they have in France where religious face coverings are banned in public buildings including schools?

Amanda Spielman:

I think legislating is something that polarises and crystallises dissent. I think it's always much better to work to a degree of consensus and what we see is heads trying to exercise their responsibilities fairly and sensibly and that's what we at Ofsted are endeavouring to support.

Emily Buchanan:

Apart from clothing, what other aspects of the curriculum have you seen under threat from religious groups? I mean there's obviously evolution, but there are others that you have been concerned about ?

Amanda Spielman:

Yes, we've seen children being withdrawn from dance and music and drama. We've also seen in recent inspections things that are quite central to the national curriculum around areas of history, areas of science, thinks that most people would be quite surprised.

Emily Buchanan:

Do you think that inevitably, religous groups and religious preferences and even religious freedom has to be curtailed then?

Amanda Spielman:

I read and Adam Wagner piece in the Jewish Chronicle last week which I thought made a strong point that religious freedom isn't an absolute that trumps everything else. We exist in a framework of competing rights and perhaps what we need to discuss a bit more is very much the substance of my speech earlier this week is to recognise and acknowledge the place where different rights bump into each other and conflict and we would be better off having adult conversations about how those tensions ares best accommodated.

Ofsted's approach to Charedi schools has changed - for good reason Freedom of religion is not an absolute right, argues Adam Wagner

Emily Buchanan:

I suppose the other problem for you if you want to exert your muscular liberalism and give British values more clout is that these British values change all the time. I mean once upon a time Christian school teaching that marriage was between a man and a woman would have been fine but now that would be seen as against British values.

Amanda Spielman:

I think it's really important to stress tha ta vast majority of faith schools do a very good job. I'm talking about a very small subset of schools that struggle with this and I very much hope they can draw from the example of the other faith schools that do it so well, because there are so many that do. 

Monday, 19 December 2016

Are British values feminine values? Are feminine values in fact feminine vices? Are all virtues masculine? Are all vices feminine?

 











BRITISH VALUES DEFINED BY A FEMINAZI

BRITISH VALUES IN PRACTICE


BRITISH CULTURE CAUSED BY BRITISH VALUES

BRITISH PARENTING CAUSED BY FEMINIST VALUES
  1. British values is the indispensable ingredient for British culture.  
  2. British values is a weasel word for British morality.
  3. British values is a sociological concept because the British men are too embarrassed about discussing morality, knowing they dare not discuss it in case they are accused of hate speech by a feminazi, their jobs lost and their career ended. 
  4. The British are degenerate, and the degenerate find it on the whole difficult to comprehend and define abstract philosophical ideas such as morality, much less discuss them rationally. 
  5. It was decades of unchecked feminism that produced our Idiocracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc
  6. Are British values Liberal values?
  7. Are Liberal values just policies that encourage sexual liberation?
  8. Are Liberal values feminine values?
  9. Are these feminine values really just feminine vices?
  10. Is the worst feminine vice promiscuity?
  11. Is promiscuity considered the worst feminine vice because it ultimately destroys civilisations? 
  12. Are civilisations destroyed by generations of bad parenting and progressively degenerate offspring?
  13. Are civilisations destroyed by the lowering of general standards of morality and ever lowering educational standards?
  14. Is the Culture of Victimhood a manifestation of another feminine vice?
  15. Is the elevation of victimhood a feminine strategy to prevent men from criticising the behaviour and beliefs of stupid and immoral women?
  16. Are Conservative values masculine values?
  17. Are British men who are Conservative content to let feminazis hijack the concept of British values and stuffing it full of their feminine values which are really feminine vices? 
  18. Have British men even noticed how much their women have feminazified their laws, culture and morality and progressively lowered their status until they are now nothing more than the slaves of sluts?
  19. If not, why not?
  20. Have British men been given some drug that stops them from noticing their lowly status and the high status of women who are mostly sluts?
  21. Have British been hypnotised by feminazis into not noticing what these evil women are doing to their society?
  22. Do British men know the purpose of social cohesion?
  23. The purpose of social cohesion is to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal internal and external enemies by making men prepared to sacrifice life and limb to protect their nation. 
  24. How can that be done when all high status British men are not even prepared to risk their status by discussing morality and how it is linked to widespread bastardy?
  25. British men are now too frightened of each other to discuss such matters with each other frankly and rationally, and this cowardice now extends to senior male British politicians, who must resent their Prime Minister stuffing her cabinet with her mediocre female cronies while marginalising men who are obviously more talented and senior.
  26. How likely are childless atheist transgender gay men to risk life and limb to protect their society compared to a father of legitimate children who loves his wife and family?
  27. How likely are bitter divorced men to defend their estranged ex-wife and children from invaders?
  28. How likely are bitter divorced men who have had his property confiscated and deprived of his children to enjoy the idea of their ex being raped, robbed and murdered by the illegal immigrants these feminazis have so enthusiastically invited in?
  29. Is it the purpose of feminazis to destroy masculinity in order to weaken men and make them even less likely to challenge the feminazification of their society?
  30. Masculinity is a state of mind to do with knowing what their principles are and sticking to them.
  31. Feminists want to make the rules vague and confusing in order to discombobulate men. 
  32. Most men no longer know what principles are, much less what they are for.  
  33. Is the ultimate purpose of feminazis world domination?
  34. Will feminazification only stop when all women are sluts, all mothers are Slut Single Mothers, all children are bastards and all men Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage?
  35. Is feminism evil?
  36. If so, why would anyone want to swear to uphold feminist values unless they are either evil too or stupid?
  37. Should law reflect morality and if so what morality should it reflect?
  38. Is there any other kind of morality other than patriarchal morality? 
  39. The antithesis of patriarchal morality - in essence practising the human tradition of marriage and abiding by its most important rule - is no sex outside marriage. 
  40. Anything that strays from the principle of no sex outside marriage weakens social cohesion. 
  41. Anything that weakens social cohesion must be immoral.
  42. It must be immoral to weaken social cohesion by lowering standards of morality because the purpose of morality is to obtain group solidarity to protect your society, nation and civilisation from its eternal enemies. 
  43. The eternal enemies of society are sluts and socialists.  
  44. Why is feminism (also known as the religion of sluts) and socialism evil?
  45. Feminism and socialism require their adherents to ignore the truth in order to remain feminists or socialists.
  46. The undeniable truth that feminists and socialists are required to ignore is the fact that there are obvious differences between men and women and the way they think, speak and behave, and people are clearly not all equal. 
  47. Feminism and socialism requires its adherents to ignore the warning that the greatest injustice is to treat unequal things equally. 
  48. Egalitarianism -which both feminism and socialism encourage - is a denial of truth.
  49. Any ideology that requires you to deny truth will lead you into error and disaster.
  50. Will the media be discussing any of the points I raised?
  51. Will academia be discussing any of the points I raised?
  52. Will the House be discussing any of the points I raised?
  53. If they do not, does it mean that they are irredeemably corrupt and are now in effect the limbs of the matriarchy and already operated by feminazis and their running dogs?
  54. Is Justine Roberts, founder of Mumsnet and Gransnet, a feminazi?
  55. Is Ian Katz, her husband and editor of BBC Newsnight, a running dog of feminazis?
  56. Is the BBC in effect a mouthpiece of feminazis who both infest it and control it?
  57. Will UKIP leader Paul Nuttall propose the abolition of the licence fee in the UKIP manifesto of 2020?
  58. Will Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton discuss any of the above, or will he be too afraid of his wife - who will soon be his nurse - to do so?
  59. Are feminazis even more evil than neocons who also share their goal of  full spectrum global domination?  
  60. Are neocons and the CIA in effect the running dogs of feminazis?

Common decency saved Britain from falling into Fascism or Communism, according to Philip Blond. Is "common decency" sexual liberation to the extent of condoning underage sex, widespread bastardy, gay marriage, the emasculation of British men and the break-up of the family and no fault divorce as well as totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation compelling the white man to pay obeisance to all the groups protected by the matriarchy, who are now higher in status than him?

The matriarchy being female and hypergamous, consisting of white middle class feminazis, despise all men in the class below them while having successfully emasculated all them men of their own class and the class above them with feminist legislation reinforced by all the feminine tactics of argument and elevated victimhood.

Successful white men can now be easily accused of a historic sexual offence without the need to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. Indeed, the accused in such cases has to prove that he did not do it.

Any man who dares challenge the matriarchy can be easily accused. The Directrix of Public Prosecutions is a feminazi herself and so is the Justice Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Ministrix.

British society is breaking up because the Far Right cannot stand being governed by a matriarchy so contemptuous of the preferences of the very angry white beta male.  Radical Muslims cannot stand being governed by a government so clearly prioritising the preferences of the immoral woman and the Slut Single Mother who causes children to be born bastards and the children they have to be badly-parented and variously-fathered. It is really nothing to do with multiculturalism, though of course men always feel a greater hostility towards immigration than women because they feel that their interests are more directly threatened.

While of course the British must have a dominant culture, it must be a genuine that has evolved naturally and which they are all proud of, supported by the law. No one can be proud of their culture if their culture consists of nothing more than the following:

  1. The Culture of Entitlement
  2. The Culture of Excuses
  3. The Culture of Victimhood 
  4. Football culture
  5. Pub Culture
  6. Drug Culture
  7. Rape Culture ie Slut Culture (which includes the Culture of Regret Rape ie falsely accusing men of rape after regretting having had sex with them, sexting and being such a slut your ex exacts his revenge on you by posting revenge porn of you online)
Understandably, observant Jews, devout Christians and Muslims familiar with Koranic principles would know that totalitarian anti-discrimination feminazi legislation are fundamentally antithetical to their patriarchal religious principles. This proposal to make them swear to have their moral principles flouted and marginalised by an oppressive Big Sister government would only intensify the hatred of social conservatives against the feminazis now infesting British government and steel their resolve to defeat them.

Fat feminazi Louise Casey's report on social cohesion was the cause of Sajid Javid's proposal to humiliate migrants who are social conservatives by making them swear to uphold "British Values" as a condition of acquiring British citizenship. British values are in practice really no more than promoting policies of sexual liberation directly damaging to the institutions of marriage and the family. (It is of course the intention of feminists to destroy the Twin Pillars of Patriarchy.) In doing so they destroy Western civilisation, but evil feminazis now in charge of the ship of state don't care and won't be told. Imagine what English values would be like now if they were set in stone in Tudor times and all the subjects of Bloody Mary made to swear to uphold her Catholicism on pain of death, and you will see the fundamental philosophical objection against adopting this proposal. Can a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition be far behind if the matriarchy is not defenestrated before it does even more damage to society?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/18/communities-secretary-sajid-javiddrawn-british-values-loyalty/



Sunday, 27 September 2015

British values/morality v Islamic values/morality

According to Ofsted, 'fundamental British values' are:


  • democracy
  • the rule of law
  • individual liberty
  • mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.


What are Islamic values? Are they necessarily antithetical to British values?

Islamic morality can be defined because its rules of morality can be easily ascertainable by reference to the Koran eg the prohibition of usury, pork, gambling, alcohol, extramarital sex.

British values cannot be similarly established because there is no authoritative book with the title "British Morality For All Time" said to be written by the Greatest Liberal of All Time. Liberals will doubtless be dismayed to know that the Koran is obviously conceptually superior any other idea including liberalism because it is said to be the directly transcribed Word of God.

Islamic morality is intended to be universal and eternal, unlike British morality, which is indistinguishable from British values and British culture. British values were defined under a Conservative government whose leader and Prime Minister legalised gay marriage. British values were only defined British values in response to those who sought to challenge it by asking the government what they were.  The most fundamental British value is of course the right to have extramarital sex, which is now regarded as an inalienable human right. The evil consequences of these values have been described at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/uk-britain-motto-idUKL1256515520071112

In my view, the exercise of defining British values is futile and illogical.  It is illogical to define British values simply because they are bound to change if it is indeed the case that British values means British morality and it is the law's role to limit our immorality. The law changes from time to time and government to government. After a revolution, the morality that emerges is bound to be radically different to the morality that was in existence before the revolution. To advocate the return to pre-revolutionary laws would mean one is a reactionary, or a counter-revolutionary and therefore a security threat to the current regime, with grave consequences for our reputation, career and perhaps liberty and life itself. Even without a revolution, morality changes but more gradually, for example when a Labour government repeals a law passed by a Conservative government or vice versa, or when a Conservative Prime Minister legalises gay marriage.

On the grounds of individual liberty we should of course be allowed to say that the current system of morality is not one we ought to have, give reasons and propose changes which can only be done by changing the law (eg repealing or passing an Act of Parliament) or by changing the government (eg Labour, Conservative, UKIP etc) or indeed changing  the entire system of government (eg from a representative democracy to a Caliphate, dictatorship, one-party state, theocracy etc).

If we cannot do this without being arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation under s 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as Anjem Choudary was, are even those who articulated and commissioned the declaration of British values breaking their own rules?

If the government is breaking its own rules - the one concerning upholding the rule of law as well as the one about individual liberty (which must surely include freedom of  expression and freedom of belief) - then British values as pronounced by the British government is a sham.  They were only declared so that those who question and challenge it can be demonised as extremists and then categorised as potential terrorists, as a way of intimidating those who are thinking of speaking out as well as punishing those who already have. 

Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Islam v Islamophobes


“Some people say we preach hatred. Of course we preach hatred,” cried Choudary emphatically. 

We should hate evil and love good.

How can we tell the difference between good and evil?

It is really very simple.

What is encouraged by the Koran is good.

What is forbidden by the Koran is evil.

What more do you need to know?


 To hear Anjem Choudary admit that he preaches hatred, go to 2:11



Muslims are assured of victory even if hopelessly outnumbered.

008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

008.066
YUSUFALI: For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.
PICKTHAL: Now hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast.
SHAKIR: For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission, and Allah is with the patient.


The NF was formed in 1967.

The BNP was formed in 1982.

Choudary came to the notice of the public in 2003.

Nationalism is nowhere, but Islam is in our consciousness.

From what I have observed of Muslims, Muslim men are more masculine, energetic, educated, intelligent, purposeful and better-organised than the Islamophobes who hate and fear them, evidenced in the utter collapse of the parties dedicated to Islamophobia, anti-semitism and hatred of other races. They are also younger and more technologically savvy than the senescent and technophobic Islamophobes.

Muslim men also tend to marry and have legitimate offspring and stay together for their children, while Islamophobes tend to be gay like Douglas Murray or tend to have bastards with their women who are mostly sluts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html In other words, Islamophobes are irrational degenerates and irrational degenerate effeminates cannot win any war against those who are not degenerate who are neither effeminate nor irrational.

70% of convicted prisoners were singly parented.

The writing is on the wall, but that just means that the Islamophobes are just going to pretend that they can't read.

Atheist Islamophobes like to pretend they are more rational than Muslims, but anyone can see that it ain't so. You may hate what ISIS are saying and doing, but you would be clear about what they want and do. Has the UK government explained to your satisfaction what UK foreign policy is all about? Why won't they? MPs cannot explain its rationale even to themselves.

The British political establishment talks about extremism without being able to define it, other than to set British values in stone with their ridiculous definition of "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs".

Imagine a Victorian Briton reading this arrant nonsense. Will he recognise these PC Libtard values as British values? Would he be appalled that this piece of arrant nonsense that states what British values are has been set in stone for all eternity?

Individual liberty to be a slut - how good is that for the long term national interest when all the degenerate bastards are born?

Traditionally married couples are to respect gaily "married" couples? Why should those who expend their time, energy and resources and make sacrifices to bring up the next generation be treated as equal to those who have purely recreational sex all their lives and don't care what happens to their country after they are dead?

The liberal political establishment will not be answering these questions nor will the liberal media be asking them. Both are hopelessly corrupt and unfit for their designated purpose.

The British government does not see as its role the duty to promote the long term national interest and the British media, instead of asking questions, look the other way.

Therefore the only alternative to this nonsense remains Islam, I have reluctantly concluded.

What makes a violent extremist?

There is no mystery to this. Muslims are more likely to make sacrifices for Muslims than degenerate selfish atheist libtards for other degenerate selfish atheist libtards.

E O Wilson:

"Selfishness beats altruism in groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups, and everything else is commentary."

"Human nature is hung in the balance: our behaviour driven by selfishness and our desire to co-operate to ensure the survival of the group."

"The tension between individual and group selection is the tension between sin and virtue."

God if He exists is Darwinian. He means to demonstrate to us that those who follow His laws most closely will triumph over those who flout His laws. For this reason it is not looking good for the West, even if ISIS do occasionally misinterpret the Koran. 

Saturday, 27 June 2015

How to fight the totalitarian state

Hugh Lanning, Chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK, opens and chairs the meeting
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Jenny Jones, Green Party PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Peter Oborne, journalist.PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Karma Nabulsi, writer and academic at Oxford University.PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Asad Ali,  MEND - Muslim Engagement and Development
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Sally Hunt, General Secretary, University and College Union PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Rosalind McNeill, National Union of Teachers PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015
Simon Natas, Human Rights Lawyer PREVENT: tackling extremism or criminalising dissent?
Posted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK on Friday, 26 June 2015

Monday, 19 January 2015

When will British values be Muslim values?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/eric-pickles-letter-to-muslim-leaders-the-text-in-full-9987249.html

"British values are Muslim values. Like all faiths, Islam and its message of peace and unity makes our country a better and stronger place, and Britain would be diminished without its strong Muslim communities."

British values are currently the PC Libtard values that have established the matriarchy.

All the Abrahamic faiths promote patriarchal moral values.

Patriarchies run on marriage the way cars run on petrol.

The matriarchy was established as a consequence of the destruction of patriarchal moral values and the desecration of the institution of marriage.  

When will British values be Muslim values?

When we have the Caliphate.  ;-)  




Questions that will not be answered by Islamophobes or the British government

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

"If I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fb9nt

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/comments.php?y=14&m=12&entry=entry141216-075436

Menachem Mendel of Kotzk:

"If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!"

Most nationalists are nationalists not because they want to preserve their culture (because they have no culture apart from their pub/drug/pop/TV culture) but because they resent the idea of other cultures being practised by other races in their country.

None of these cultures stop them from doing what they like doing eg football, clubbing, porn, extramarital sex, Britain's Got Talent, X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, The Great British Bake Off, Big Brother etc, but that is not enough for them. They want other cultures to become like them, ie slut, bastard, paedo and NEET.

British culture is best described at Today's Britain: dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco

As for high culture, such as theatre, opera, concerts etc, BNP-supporters don't do that sort of thing anyway, do they?

They hate Jews/Muslims/Asians because Jews/Muslims/Asians practice their religion and culture (which includes respecting the institutions of marriage and the family) enabling Jews/Muslims/Asians to become more prosperous and socially cohesive than they are, while they are too busy watching porn, fucking sluts, having illegitimate offspring, claiming welfare as well as blaming other cultures and races for their problems to put their own houses in order.

They are too thick to blame their own dysfunctional political system, their dysgenic welfare state and their own political establishment who are made up mostly of fools and knaves, perpetually frightened of alienating the slut vote and too cowardly or stupid to acknowledge the inevitable failure of representative democracy to correct past and continuing errors of domestic and foreign policy.

When you try to tell them what is wrong with their culture, political system, religion, and in particular their neurosis of being in thrall to the female vote, you will of course be denounced as an extremist, Islamist etc.

The lower the morals of women, the lower the morals of men.  

Or, even more infuriatingly, they will pretend not to know what you are on about.

I wish my Jewish readers - I am proud to say I know I have a few! - a Happy Hanukkah.

Whether we like it or not, Liberalism and Christianity is kaput and Islam - hopefully Secular Koranism - will replace it as surely as night follows day

Jews are known to be the most cohesive group simply because their religion makes them practice their culture

Because they are successful, they are resented.

The only way they can make themselves less hated is to promote Islam, paradoxically, because that would mean the abolition of usury - for usury is the means through which Jewish power is asserted in the West on and through Western governments.

When Secular Koranism is implemented, then everyone can live together happily ever after, even in Israel ...

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

If Baroness Jones is on the Met's domestic extremist list, then so should I be.

Baroness Jones, who used to be a member of the disbanded police watchdog the Metropolitan Police Authority said as a Green Party politician some of her views could be seen as extreme by some.

"They are using a label of 'domestic extremist' for people who are publicly elected, have never been arrested and have no criminal background. I do think it is a waste of their time," she said.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) defines domestic extremism as individuals or campaign groups that carry out "criminal acts of direct action in furtherance of what is typically a single-issue campaign", adding that the groups usually seek to change legislation outside of the normal democratic process.

The Met said the National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit database contains about 2,500 individual records.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27872451

I shall be very offended indeed if I am not on the their list, after so many years of making my views known to the political establishment.

I have been arrested and have a criminal record.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-arrest-at-0740-on-24-january-by-five.html

I have never ever denied being an extremist when accused of this on social media, explaining that "Extreme error requires extreme correction."

Surely it can be said that a number of the proposals at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/how-to-reinvigorate-british-economy.html can be said to be in some way "extremist"?

I have even hinted darkly at mutiny and a military coup.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Campaign-for-a-military-dictatorship/310095559126516?fref=ts Indeed, I have already identified whom I would most like to lead my proposed military coup at
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/will-theresa-may-deport-colonel-richard.html

I have also recently questioned the moral validity of British values at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/british-values-and-what-i-would-like.html

What more do I have to do to actually get on this list? I really don't want to advocate and commit violence and terrorism.

Who shall I write to at the Met to bring this to their attention?

Thursday, 12 June 2014

British values are not an ideal, merely an expression of the status quo.

Wishy-washy crap at http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/insearchofbritishvalues1/#.U51byfldVqX:

Michael Gove Politician

There is something rather unBritish about seeking to define Britishness. Rather like trying to define leadership, it’s a quality which is best appreciated when demonstrated through action rather than described in the abstract.

As a Scot who, like Brown, has made his career in London and whose family are now rooted in England, I feel immensely fortunate to be a citizen of a cosmopolitan state where nationality is defined not by ethnicity but sustained by the subtle interweaving of traditions and given life by a spirit of liberty.

Britishness is best understood as an identity shaped by an understanding of the common law, refined by the struggle between the people’s representatives and arbitrary power, rooted in a presumption in favour of individual freedom, enriched by a love of the quirky, local and unique, buttressed by anger at injustice, constantly open to the world and engaged with suffering of others, sustained through adversity by subversive humour and better understood through literature than any other art.
But if you really want to understand Britishness you need to ask why the British find Tracey Emin loveable, regard Ealing comedies as sacred, look on the world of Wodehouse as a lost Eden, always vote for the underdog on Big Brother, make the landscape the central character in their Sunday evening dramas, respect doctors more than lawyers and venerate their army but have never had a soldier as leader since the Duke of Wellington.

Do you think this mush is going to make Muslims give up Islam and buy into this fey idea of Britishness and be OK about their daughters becoming sluts after sex ed who become SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts and their sons being divorced by their slut wives who then lose their homes and access to their children?  Not if they have their heads screwed on properly.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114702181761 What are British values?
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114704808321  What I would like British values to be
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114705485953  What should be the ten defining core British values?

British values are not an ideal: they are whatever they happen to be. Right now, the Education Secretary says they are gender equality and democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/09/michael-gove-british-values-curriculum

This seems to mean that no one may propose or campaign for the return of the patriarchy or discuss whether our environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage is compatible with good government and the long term national interest.  If that is the case, then COUNT ME OUT of this dementia called "British values".

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/human-rights-are-conceptual-nonsense.html
Human rights are a conceptual nonsense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSVYYiv_clU&list=UUqnbu3dpuqx7O3KRgZQarnA#t=80
Is Britain a Christian country?  

Friday, 20 March 2009

National Identity and Organised Crime

I have recently concluded that the world is really made up of gangster states who later take on higher ideals, when they have made their pile and feel they can afford to be holier than thou.

Those who remember the British Empire cannot come to terms with the national decline that has taken place since WW2. This actually includes the many immigrants who now wistfully wish they could return to their homelands, now more prosperous than the UK.

And how did Britain "make its pile"? Through being a rogue nation of pirates and warriors demanding protection money from weaker states and generally helping themselves to other people's stuff. I am sure the Spaniards of Elizabethan times would not disagree! Nor the Chinese who were peddled opium to keep them weakened and apathetic to their exploitation.

Perhaps we should at least now admit that and henceforth resolve to be more effective organised criminals?

For the sake of their own survival, the British must again cultivate characteristics that any hypothetical gangster would approve of. I propose that my trinity of

robust/rational/resourceful

which no one has bettered so far, should be adopted, unless a better trinity is proposed.

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...