Translate

Showing posts with label Chairman Mao. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chairman Mao. Show all posts

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

11 types of liberalism

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.

To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type.

Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.

To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.

To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.

To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type.

To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.

To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along - "So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell."

This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.

To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type.

Mona Siddiqui fails to denounce feminism and make the connection that feminism causes paedophilia

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/comments.php?y=13&m=10&entry=entry131015-075848

Listening to Mona Siddiqui's Thought For the Day, I am reminded of a woman I knew of a certain age who told me one of her abiding childhood memories was that her mother would invite tramps into her home and give them a cup of tea.

Apparently, their visits were seasonal and the same tramps would turn up at about the same season every year.

Tramps often featured in Richmal Cromptom's Just William books and were never portrayed as sinister perverts.
http://www.stellabooks.com/informationsource/william/william_and_the%20_tramp.php

Will feminists try to challenge the clear link between feminism and female promiscuity, female promiscuity and the sexualisation of children, porn and paedophilia as well as the early sexualisation of children with paedophilia?

Of course not.  They will say sententiously that correlation is not causation and dismiss everything I say and call it misogyny.

Feminists only care about piling high their privileges, no matter who suffers.  They do not care that men suffer, or that the elderly suffer.  They do not care that the next generation suffers, or that even that their society will decline and fall.  All they care about is holding on to their privileges at all costs even though the sky falls in and your civilisation ends.  That is how selfish and stupid they are, and that is why feminism is evil.

64:14:

"O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."  

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/louis-theroux-place-for-paedophiles.html

It is interesting, is it not, that Kevin Scott, Chairman of the British Democratic Party - an ethno-nationaliast party that you might have thought would care about the quality of the next white generation - has absolutely no interest in challenging the evil ideology of feminism.

So bereft of principle and courage is he that he would lower himself to accommodate the views of the Newcastle SSM than tell her plainly that the reason why the country is going to do the dogs is because of the poor reproductive decisions of promiscuous, immoral and irresponsible SSMs whose numbers increased the more feminism established itself in Britain and the West.  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Never-Married-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379

Stuart Hamilton Kevin Scott is claire khaw officially banned?  8 October at 19:49

Kevin Scott Hello Stuart, and thanks for your concern about the strange journey of Ms Khaw. As you say, no party (whether UKIP, BNP, Tory, Labour - I think she has joined or attempted to join them all!) will entertain her, so why does she think the BDP will be any different? She was given a chance a year or so ago to state her case on a public platform in Newcastle and failed miserably. She is a poor public speaker and had nothing to say other than the anti-immigration movement in this country should embrace immigrants (like her, obviously!) Everybody was very civil and polite to her and she was made to feel very welcome and given a chance to explain her position, both privately and from the platform. She even went native and sank a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale with the lads!! And that was the end of that!!! I do wish she would find another hobby or past time to occupy her time. Or even follow the advice of the anti-immigration parties she attempts to join and finds the courage to repatriate herself (as a good example to all those immigrants she wants to appeal to via her brand of 'civic nationalism'!) I hope that helped.  8 October at 19:59

Kevin ScottI hate to break the shock news to you, Stuart, but she has nothing useful or even that interesting to say. She is just grandstanding or pursuing some attention-seeking agenda to compensate for the nothingness (it sometimes happens to people from immigrant stock in a strange country) in her life.  8 October at 20:17

Kevin Scott  Criticise feminism (in the north east of England!)? Is she mad?  8 October at 20:49

Kevin Scott  (Unlike Claire,) I have knocked on thousands of doors and listened to thousands of ordinary people and although many of them had very strident views about the state of the country, particularly on politically incorrect subjects such as race and immigration, not once did anyone mention feminism, Leon. Sorry to disappoint you!  8 October at 20:55

If he is afraid of alienating SSMs in Newcastle because the white working classes there are no longer fit for purpose and can no longer compete with foreigners even in the field of unskilled manual labour and half of the people who make up the BDP's potential voters are female, then he should, like me, propose the narrowing of the franchise so that no one on benefits gets the vote under the principle of no representation without taxation.  It seems that Kevin Scott is not much into principles judging from the way he has abused his position as Chairman by keeping me out of the BDP while refusing to state full and proper reasons why I must be prevented from joining.  (I believe it is a combination of (a) not wanting more than one civic nationalist in the BDP; (b) not wanting anyone who might seem a better leader than he in the BDP; (c) wanting more "racial" Northerners to continue dominating the BDP; (d) fear of having the BDP associated with my antifeminism even as he knows as well as I do that John Tyndall if he were alive now would be campaigning for the repeal of the Equality Act 2010.)

I would have found it almost forgivable if Kevin is atheist and feminist but he is a in fact a Catholic, and should know the dysgenic consequences of not forbidding fornication.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-bdp-bnp-and-conservative-party.html

Mao called this sort of thing "tailism".

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch11.htm

"Tailism in any type of work is also wrong, because in falling below the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of leading the masses forward it reflects the disease of dilatoriness. Our comrades must not assume that the masses have no understanding of what they do not yet understand. It often happens that the masses outstrip us and are eager to advance a step and that nevertheless our comrades fail to act as leaders of the masses and tail behind certain backward elements, reflecting their views and, moreover, mistaking them for those of the broad masses."

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Democracy, Onepartyism and Electoral Reform

We live in an elective oligarchy, not a democracy.

An oligarchy is a political oligopoly, or cartel, if you prefer.

A cartel is a conspiracy of providers who have mutually agreed to carve up a market between themselves and will do all in their power to keep out any competition.

Democracy in the old-fashioned sense was Athenian Democracy and this took the form of citizens being allowed to vote on policies and laws as individuals.

A modern form of this would be government by referenda, which of course we do not have. In fact, the British are the worst-treated nation of all the EU nations since most of them have already had a referendum on Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty, while the British were denied a referendum on either.

Clearly, for direct democracy to operate, the exercise of voting for parties would become redundant.

Clearly, too, the form of democracy that operated in Ancient Athens and Republican Rome was without party, because the citizens of Rome would vote for or against laws. (Shifting factions are of course unavoidable.)

In a modern state however, a party would be necessary, if only to count votes, field candidates, propose policies etc.

But to even propose this raises the spectre of a one-party state and all the horrors that our knowledge of Hitler, Stalin and Mao will bring to mind.

The only flourishing and functioning one-party state is of course China. The continually revised constitution of the Chinese Communist Party reveals that they have got the theory right at any rate, and there are articles in it that are there to safeguard the rights of individual members against the leader and his cronies.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738_1.htm Article 4

China is, ironically and paradoxically, the only country that is practising direct democracy, albeit with a very narrow franchise.

Perhaps the reason why it is now doing so well is because the system now practised in China is the most rational of all known forms of government. All the best people join it, the rewards are enticing, and there will be no problems with succession under their finely balanced constitution. The leader is elected by the Politburo (consisting of 9 members). The Politburo is in turn elected by the Politburo Standing Committee (consisting of 27 members) and also elects members to the Politburo Standing Committee.

If their current leader falls under a bus, there will be at least 9 people waiting in the wings with the experience and the talent to replace him, unlike our sad sorry system we like to pretend is a democracy.


Thursday, 27 May 2010

Party Democracy and Its Importance in a Democratic Nation

http://yourbnp.com/2010/05/26/red-white-and-blue-2010-cancelled/

The Red White and Blue is the BNP's annual summer event.

It has been cancelled, it has been suggested, in order to stop people getting together to discuss leadership challenge for which nominations have to be in by mid-August.

Having read the new constitution as best I can, online, I have now formed the opinion that it is in fact practically impossible, under such a constitution to dislodge the Chairman.

All right if he is the one who has built up the party to its present size and influence, not so good if he is one no-good sonofabitch getting fat on the party donations and dragging it down.

Perhaps not all right even if it is St Nicholas who is the Chairman because the principle of party democracy should protect individuals members from the arbitrary decisions of the leader.

The party should exist to serve its members and supporters, not the interests leader.

It is virtually impossible to change the constitution too.

Party democracy, anyone?

This problem is not confined solely to the BNP either. The Tory Party constitution is also another autocrat's charter.

At least the BNP constitution is online and you can find it at

http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=constitution-british-national-party

The Tory Party constitution is nowhere to be seen, locked away in the way Mr Rochester locked up his mad wife.

The moment you ask for it, they will be put on notice that you could be a trouble-maker.

Was it right for

1. Enoch Powell to be expelled from the Tory Party for saying that uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not a very good idea and would probably have long-term future consequences for the indigenous population of this country?

2. Nigel Hastilow to be withdrawn as a Tory candidate simply for saying that his constituents had said "Enoch was right"?

2. Patrick Mercer to have been demoted for discussing what does or does not constitute racism?

3. Alan Duncan to have been demoted for telling the truth about MPs being treated like shit and forced to live on rations?

4. Chris Grayling to not become Home Secretary because he dared to suggest that B&B owners should have the right to refuse the custom of homosexual men demanding a double bed, if that is what they want to do? (Theresa May will be awful. Jacqui Smith was dire. Any female Home Secretary will be dreadful because most women cannot keep order. I would probably be the noble exception, but we will never know now.)

5. Peter Mandelson to join the wrong party and therefore fail to become the Prime Minister he could have been? (I dedicate my one-party idea to him, with all my love and respect, and more!)

In case this is not quite clear, let me point out that a one-party state frees the politician to change his mind about things at any time in the light of experience and maturity, while a multi-party system chains him to his tribe for the rest of his career. As we all know, tribal loyalty is amoral rather than principled.

Differences can always be resolved intra-party because it can be done more swiftly and efficiently than the inter-party method we currently have, which is sclerotic, corrupt, oligarchical and frankly no longer fit for purpose either for those in government or those who are governed.

The Chinese Communist Party constitution is in English online for people everywhere to admire.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738_1.htm

You can be sure after what Mao did -

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

- the Chinese would try to make damn sure nothing like that ever happened to them again.

That was why they over-reacted to the personality cult of Falun Gong. Mao, in case anyone didn't know, was a massive personality cult.

The British do have something to learn from the Chinese when it comes to issues of party democracy, but they would rather die than admit it.

Or at the very least suffer more decades of decline and misrule by fools and knaves.

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...