Translate

Showing posts with label Chinese Communist Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chinese Communist Party. Show all posts

Thursday, 23 July 2020

An exclusive party



"From 1973, Xi Jinping applied to join the Communist Party of China ten times and was finally accepted on his tenth attempt in 1974."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

Does this sound like the kind of exclusive party you would like your state to have in order for you to enjoy better government?

Is China really doing that badly compared to liberal democracies?

Isn't the reason why China is doing so well compared to liberal democracies precisely because it concentrates the political talent of China into one party minimising waste of political talent, time and energy?

And didn't Putin say in 2019 that liberalism is now "obsolete"?


at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday dear Chinese Communist Party! Happy Birthday to you!





Taiwan and Macao are included in this parade








RT coverage of the celebrations
Funnier and more critical comments about the Chinese in the live chat



English commentary by probably China's best looking man and woman. The woman is just so pretty!


Criticising the criticism of Western media


Why China has better-trained and better-qualified politicians

Is China trying to subtly suggest to the West how it could better tain and better qualify its incompetent and unprincipled politicians, in an effort to be helpful and to save it from destroying itself?



Is this very catchy song really more designed for Western audiences to make the Chinese government seem cuddly to Westerners to counter the negative impression given about China and the Chinese by the neocon and CIA-controlled Western media that seems to be pushing the West into its waiting Thucydides trap?


at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, 1 June 2018

Western democracy falters and looks to China



The China Model Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 10 April 2017

Trump and the Deep State

Imagine you were Trump and the Deep State threatened to kill you and all your family if you didn't obey its commands. What would you do?

A rational and moral answer in fact exists.

The correct answer is that you would have to dare them to do their worse rather than be known for the man who started WW3, surely?

Athens exhausted itself in war and so did Poland.

Every war is a gamble. Think of it as trading on margin, in which the losses can easily exceed your original stake.

The Europeans destroyed European hegemony fighting two World Wars, allowing the Americans to take over.

In historical terms, the Americans have the codes to the nuclear button is like giving them to manic-depressive delinquent adolescent with learning difficulties.

Old empires like China, Iran and Russia look on in horror while a US President informs the world that it was the sight of beautiful babies dying of an alleged chemical attack by Assad's forces was what made him launch the American missile attack without even consulting Congress.

Who was this line of reasoning meant to appeal to? Stupid sentimental women, of course, with no understanding of foreign policy, anxious only to display their compassion as an expression of their femininity of which stupidity, sentimentality and hypocrisy are the main ingredients.

What were the reasons again for the fratricidal Second Thirty Years War the Europeans engaged in? Apparently, they were about Belgian neutrality and saving the Jews from Hitler in a Christian Europe where casual anti-Semitism was the norm.

It would appear that the Europeans have not yet acknowledged what caused them to lose their hegemony before handing it on a platter to the Americans who began to behave like a little boy with a new toy gun, except that this new toy gun was the nuclear bomb.

The situation China, Iran and Russia are dealing with is akin to that of being locked in a room with a rabid dog. We too are in that room and those of us who are citizens of the West are like the fleas on this rabid dog.

When things go nuclear, we will not be dying a dignified death.

Reflect on this, please, before things get worse, and understand the reasons why I say even if the deep state had threatened to kill Trump and all his family, he should have stood firm against a deep state than suffer himself to go down in history as the American President who started WW3 after which democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage became known as one of the greatest follies in human history.

When you think about it in the great scheme of things, democracy did not last that long in Ancient Athens or Republican Rome, did it? They were drops in the ocean of history.

What a shame there is no one in charge to be addressed on this matter. Even if I could drop in for tea at the White House, and even if Trump agreed with everything I have said, what could he do? He is not really in charge either.

Now, do you see why it is better to have someone who is really in charge whose name is public and whose role is clear?

In ancient China even the lowliest peasant had the right to appeal against oppression by the local officials. All he had to do was get to the emperor to make his case.

The Chinese Communist Party still keep this tradition going and I have read that peasants intent on making their complaints at Beijing have been prevented from boarding trains to Beijing by local officials.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/china1205/4.htm

We are worse off than this hypothetical Chinese peasant.





at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 10 March 2017

My support for the British monarchy is waning

I have always supported the monarchy but am wondering if it is time to abolish it because it is a relic of the past. To abolish it would be a symbolic gesture to declare monarchies obsolete in a modern world. Monarchies imply that the extended family of a single person is a big enough pool of political talent to choose a nation's leader, when it clearly is not.

The Queen should have made way for Charles before. No one wants an old king in our cult of youth. It is as if she wants to spoil things for him.

Compare and contrast the British monarch with the Dutch. The old monarch would stand aside for the son with an attractive wife and family, to give his sails a good wind.

If you wanted to preserve the monarchy, this is what you would do, since you are nothing more than a ornament, after all, or at the most a living exhibit of the most recent iteration of your royal ancestors.

Once the monarchy is abolished the Anglican Church will logically and necessarily be disestablished.

Christianity, already a walking corpse, will then finally die and be finally replaced by a religion fit for the purpose of maintaining morality, requiring that a nation's laws be in harmony with its morality.


Postscript
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19876372  seems an infinitely better way of choosing our leaders than the system we have now, which only allows us access to a succession of fools and knaves. If there were a grammar school in every borough, the quality and range of possible leaders of the future would be even wider and better. This proposal will predictably be blocked by MPs who pay school fees not wanting the children of the hoi polloi competing with their children, but since when did our MPs ever consider the national interest in anything they do? While the Chinese Communist Party at least requires its members to promote the national interest, the British remain clueless as to what that might be.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Duncan Bannatyne accuses Claire Khaw of being a coward after she defends Lord Freud




at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 21 May 2014

What Nigel Farage should do to get a UKIP *LANDSLIDE* in GE 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/25/mp-voted-for-eu-referendum


  1. Invite MPs who voted for an EU referendum to join UKIP.
  2. Promise a leadership election ASAP.
  3. Fight GE 2015 with as many of the MPs above.

This really would transform the British political landscape.  

The best case scenario is all 111 of them joining UKIP, but even getting fewer than half of them to jump ship would still be enough to scare the LibLabCon shitless.  

They can only be persuaded to join if they know they have a sporting chance at the leadership and the rules will not be rigged against them.  

To tempt them they shall also be offered rights similar to those given to members of the Chinese Communist Party, which are to DIE FOR, as far as a member of a UK political party is concerned. They should all know that they have no rights to speak of anyway. 



Article 4. 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 resolution 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 resolution 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.

It is proposed that members shall have access to Independent Arbitrators if there is any dispute as to the fairness of any internal party disciplinary hearing.  I am very happy to offer myself as their first port of call, known as I am for my judicious impartiality.


What I also propose is that those who want to be leader throw their hats in the ring and vote for a leader using rules similar the Papal Conclave.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave

Sorted!

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 23 January 2014

What I would like the political parties of Britain to do for me

FIRST UNDERTAKING

The Conservative Party can go and get itself some principles. If they are having difficulty formulating any, I propose the following:

"The Conservative Party supports, first and foremost, the principle of free speech and of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest. The national interest includes solvency, social stability through the promotion of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, stable prices through fiscal prudence as well as the maintenance of standards of morality and education that would be considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next.  It is the intention of the Conservative Party to use the Koran as its guide."
SECOND UNDERTAKING

The Labour Party should change their constitution and allow Lord Mandelson to become their leader even though he is not an MP.  Or perhaps just get Diane Abbott to do it, if they can't quite manage that.

THIRD UNDERTAKING

The LibDems can expel Nick Clegg for bringing their party into disrepute and replace him with the legally-trained Simon Hughes.

FOURTH UNDERTAKING

UKIP can propose an EU referendum and the repeal of the Equality Act 2010

FIFTH UNDERTAKING

 The BNP can propose the reintroduction of fault into divorce to show that they support sensible things such as marriage, which undeniably does have a bearing on the quality of your race. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
'The whites have become black' says David Starkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517
Democrats' (in the UK, substitute Labour for Democrat) idea voter: illegal alien, single mother, convicted felon
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html
“Victim of a crime? Thank a Single Mother.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html

SIXTH UNDERTAKING

 See to it that Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill gets Royal Assent. http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

SEVENTH UNDERTAKING

 Become a unicameral one-party state and use the Chinese Communist Party constitution mutatis mutandis. Their Article 4 gives party members rights that are to die for. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/229722.htm#2

EIGHTH UNDERTAKING

 Suggest to the Chinese government that they might like to follow the British model for their one-party state viz allow judicial review of party decisions affecting the rights of party members.

NINTH UNDERTAKING

 The Lower House in particular to take an interest in Khaw v Con Party 
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-conservative-party-has-filed-its.html and cheer me on when it gets to the Court of Appeal.  If I win this one, it will mean that I have negotiated for all MPs of all parties better working conditions, because it means that their leader and their party can no longer abuse them and kick them around any more. They will no longer be abused by their party and their leader if the courts can judicially review any decision made by their leader and his cronies to unfairly and irrationally demote, suspend or expel a member, or in any way unfairly deprive him of his rights.

TENTH UNDERTAKING

 Discuss the truth or otherwise of what Schopenhauer said about women after subjecting the women who made the complaints against Lord Rennard to rigorous and vigorous cross examination to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard was indeed guilty of what he was accused of.

 "The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women





If MPs want to think of me as their Shop Steward, I will certainly not stop them from doing so.  My dear mother was a union representative in her time, so it could be said that a family tradition of speaking up for people too stupid and scared to speak up for themselves runs in my veins.

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos shall be my motto.

"Roman! let this be your care, this your art;
to rule over the nations and impose the ways
of peace, to spare the underdog, and pull down
the proud."
— Aneid VI. 851 

Who are the proud that shall not be spared?  The ones who have no principles, and who say:

"The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." 

Who are the strong?  The party leader and his cronies including his nagging wife.

Who are the weak?  The individual party member.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0200:book=5:chapter=89:section=1

I dedicate my legal action to Lord Rennard - the worst-treated party activist in British history - who has been in his party for 40 years and joined as an adolescent.  It is now being proposed that he be expelled to satisfy the implacable demands of a bunch of malicious women if he does not apologise and leave himself open to legal action.  It would probably be kinder to assassinate him with an ice pick, methinks.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 11 February 2013

Widening the appeal of nationalism and anti-feminism


I intend to widen the appeal of nationalism just as it is David Cameron’s intention to widen the appeal of marriage by promoting gay marriage and thereby redefining marriage. Of course, my project is moral, necessary and right while Cameron’s is immoral, unnecessary and wrong.

I believe nationalism as an ideology of promoting the long-term national interest is a coherent, moral and pragmatic ideology that I can sell to other political parties once its racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism have been surgically removed.  No sooner has this been said than it is already done, for I am none of the above!  Racially neutral family values (ie I am pro-marriage and anti-feminist) are what I stand for.  How motherhood and apple pie is that?  I like to think my ideas will soon become very popular indeed, when the bottom falls out of the British economy and their are riots in our streets ...

After all, half the voting public ie men would be potential recruits to the destruction of the matriarchy and feminism as a viable and moral ideology.

As for the women, we can ignore the single women and just ask the mothers if they really really want to go to work.  Most of them will say no, I predict.  When that is done we can finally repeal the Equality Act 2010 and return the nation to rationally small and patriarchal government so things can be run properly again, in a one-party state that protects the rights of its members against the leader and his cronies.

Article 4 of the Chinese Communist Party clearly gives more rights to its members than the Conservative Party constitution.  Therefore the British should just swallow their pride and acknowledge the clearly superior rights the Chinese Communist Party constitution would afford them.

The fact that China switched from being communist to capitalist without a bloody revolution should be formally acknowledged too, and credit be given where it is due.

Transition from Communism to Capitalism was cleaner and swifter precisely because the Chinese had a one-party state making this profound change of heart possible, unlike our current crazy system of promoting conflict and division.

The fools and knaves currently in office will unhesitatingly dump what passes for their beliefs without hesitation if they see it is as expedient and rational, and I will tell them what is expedient and rational, when they finally see fit to consult me!

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Claire Khaw's membership of the Conservative Party cancelled

Thursday 20th December 2012



Dear Ms Khaw

I am writing on behalf of the Conservative Party Board to inform you that your membership of the Conservative Party has been cancelled under Part IV 17.7 of the Constitution of the Party, which states:

The Board of the Party shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party.  It shall be ... responsible for ... the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion of any Party member ....


Yours sincerely

Stephen Phillips
Secretary to the Board of the Party



That really is it.  There is no more information about what I was supposed to have done wrong.  The letter is also saying that I do not have a right to demand a reason and they  have no obligation to give me one.

This does not particularly surprise me though I was very flattered to asked if I wanted to be councillor when I attended their Xmas Party on 14 December.   

There is no mention of returning my membership fee (£25) either.

There is certainly precedent for treating political parties as public bodies as can be seen at http://www.strathmore.edu/ethics/pdf/CharlesKhamalaPoliticalParties.pdf

Democratic traditions prescribe periodic elections to transfer political power within the modern  nation-state. Political parties are quasi-public bodies which serve various critical functions to facilitate policy-making within multiparty constitutions. Myriad disputes potentially arise in the life of the party. Prior to 2008, two Kenyan statutory bodies, the Registrar of Societies (RS) and defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) regulated political party operations. This paper examines the judicial review of administrative decisions regarding leadership and nomination disputes in Kenyan political parties. To what extent can aggrieved officials, frustrated voters or unsuccessful aspirants challenge decisions by statutory bodies that wrongly recognize irregular party elections?

This is clearly saying to me that I have no future in mainstream politics.

I would like them to say exactly WHY and exactly which rule of theirs I have infringed.

It seems they are not obliged to give an explanation at all.

If my views are really so obviously transgressive and subversive, I would like to know exactly how and why.   


It says in the Conservative Party constitution that is the Party's purpose "to sustain and promote within the Nation the objects and values of the Conservative Party."

What are the objects and values of the Conservative Party?

These have never ever been defined.

Perhaps this is so that it means that in practice the objects and the values of the Conservative Party are whatever the leader says they are.

Is this not a tyrant's charter?  At least you can read the BNP constitution online at http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/final_amended_12.3_constitution_19.10.11.pdf, and they do at least state what their objects are, but the Conservative Party constitution is dirty nasty little secret whose only object is to stay in power for the sake of staying in power with no regard for anything else, certainly not the long-term national interest.

The remedy I shall seek is that the Conservative Party be required to give a reason for cancelling my membership

When they give me a reason, it will be shown to be one or some or all of the following:

  • the decision-maker does not have power to make that decision, or is using the power they have for an improper purpose;
  • the decision is irrational;
  • the procedure followed by the decision-maker was unfair or biased;
  • the decision was taken in breach of the Human Rights Act; or
  • the decision breaches European Community (EC) law.


I expect to get lots of support and to be bankrolled in this legal action I intend to take.

After all, I am not the only one that the Conservative Party has deprived of membership in this way, am I?

At http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/china_communist_party_constitution.htm#1 you will find the rights of members of the Chinese Communist Party defined, online and already in English, for the Chinese are actually rather proud of their party constitution.



Article 4. 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 resolution 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 resolution 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.


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


Current members of the Conservative Party (including members of the Cabinet) should know that the average member of the Chinese Communist Party has more rights than they.

There is apparently no right for a member to hear any accusation made against him or her.

His or her membership can be cancelled at any time at the absolute discretion of the Party for management and administrative reasons.

At the absolution discretion of a corrupt party machine, any citizen can be excluded from meaningful political participation, apparently.  

 Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is why the Sixth Amendment is so important.

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

But the Sixth Amendment does not apply to Britain.

Do you think that it is right that anyone who wishes to participate in politics could have his or her right to participate in politics in a meaningful sense taken away without explanation or appeal?

What other party can you realistically join once you have been expelled from the Conservative Party?

Well, there is always UKIP and BNP, who will never amount to anything.

Perhaps it is understandable then why so many Conservatives are so contemptible and cowardly. Once they realise exactly how things are stacked against them, they just keep their head down, try to hang on to whatever position they  have in the party and try not to say anything controversial, ever.

Is this quite how politicians are supposed to behave?  I thought the point of them was to serve and represent the people by articulating their views and dealing with their concerns, rather than tell them they must be evil and extremist, racist and fascist for thinking and feeling as they do.

I know that I am not the only victim of   Part IV 17.7 of the corrupt constitution of the Conservative Party who are in effect able to end your political career without warning or explanation.

You are led into thinking, if you choose not to give up politics altogether, that something may yet be achieved by having a kind of political half life going from one Eurosceptic party to another. Of course, nothing is to be achieved by joining those despised pariah parties.

It would be quicker and cleaner to be taken out and shot and have the cost of the bullet charged to your family. Then we would all know where we stand.

HOW TO MAKE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONSERVATIVE
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/how-to-make-conservative-party.html

What I hope to achieve for social conservatives by applying for judicial review of the Conservative Party's decision to cancel my membership without giving a reason
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-i-hope-to-achieve-for-social.html

My open letters to the Conservative Party
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html
at 24 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 15 November 2012

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.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Should Britain have a more Chinese style of government?

http://www.scmp.com/news/18th-party-congress/article/1083153/transcript-xi-jinpings-speech-unveiling-new-chinese

Is one-partyism and multi-partyism analogous to polytheism and monotheism?

Is not monotheism more advanced than polytheism?

What is the point of letting the stupid, parasitical, the immoral, irresponsible and venal vote?

No more than 10% of any populace deserve the vote IMHO.  If you give the rest the vote they will only vote for whoever bribes them most.

The long-term national interest is better served by directing our leaders to govern on the behalves of those who are not yet born than trusting to the tribal leaders of amoral political parties to ignore party interest in favour of the long-term national interest.

Let the revolution against the government for the parasitical sluts and their variously-fathered feral bastards begin now!  Let the rotten stinking carcass of demented feminism be buried! 
at 7 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Jeffrey Marshall's letter to East London Advertiser in support of Lutfur Rahman as Tower Hamlets mayor

Jeffrey Marshall has informed me at 1717 on 20 October:

"Mike Brooke, East London Advertiser, writes to say that my pro-Lutfur letter will be printed next week.

Too late to influence the election then, I replied (jokingly).

However he said he had put it on the ELA website under 'Features'.

Why would you want to influence it anyway, he said. So I mentioned comparable absence of democracy in Labour and BNP, but he hasn't responded as yet."


Below is the letter that would have appeared today in the East London Advertiser in the normal course of events, though I realise things are far from normal at Tower Hamlets, for it is polling day today.

Cllr Shahed Ali writes that mayoral candidate, Lutfur Rahman, is a ‘Respect collaborator disguised within Labour’ (‘There is really only one right candidate for mayor’, Advertiser Letters, October 14).

Since Cllr Rahman was leader of the Labour council for two years from 2008 to 2010, it is surprising that the Labour party failed to notice this at the time.

Cllr Ali also wonders how ‘an independent candidate with a proven track record of breaking party rules’ can be an effective mayor, and seems to suggest that submission to Labour party discipline is somehow in the best interests of the electorate, despite Labour’s National Executive Committee having a proven track record of ignoring party democracy.

In the final round of Labour’s ballot, Lutfur Rahman won twice as many members’ votes as the two runners up, John Biggs and Helal Abbas, put together.

But when two of his Labour rivals, Helal Abbas and Bill Turner, apparently alleged, among other things, that he was sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists, Lutfur Rahman was dumped by Labour’s NEC without even an investigation.

Unquestioning party loyalists might not care, but the lack of internal democracy and accountability in political parties has serious implications for our democracy as a whole.

So a degree of independence from any party might be useful for a mayoral candidate, as Ken Livingstone demonstrated when he stood as an Independent for London mayor in 2000, defeating an uninspiring ‘official’ Labour candidate.

The council’s election booklet shows four candidates in open-necked shirts, who look as if they are dressed for an evening in their local pub, and one serious contender, Lutfur Rahman, looking very presentable indeed in smart collar and tie.

The post of elected mayor creates a new opportunity for leadership in Tower Hamlets. The successful candidate will be a key representative for our borough. So it should be someone that Tower Hamlets can feel proud of.

The crowning irony of all this is that while Britain is constantly whining at China about is human rights records, none of any members of any political party capable of achieving office protects the rights of individual members against its leadership.

The Chinese, who have been through the Cultural Revolution, have at least acknowledged the importance of protecting members' rights in its party constitution.  Without this protection, any courageous front bench MP will find his career over the moment he says anything to displease his leader, just like Enoch Powell, when Heath expelled him from the Cabinet for speaking what most people then and now adversely affected by immigration feel to be the truth.

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

Article 4. 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 resolution 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 resolution 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.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 26 September 2010

The One-Party State Misused in North Korea

King Kim Jong Il

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8025015/My-happy-days-at-school-with-North-Koreas-future-leader.html

A one-party state, operating optimally, would attract all the best people into the only party in the country, where there will always be an experienced leader in waiting.

If Hu Jintao,  the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, fell under a bus he would have 9 other potential replacements waiting in the wings of the Politburo, who will in turn be elected by the 27 in the Politburo Standing Committee.

The point is that all of 38 of them will have proven themselves in government and within the party.

The constitution of the Chinese Communist Party is indeed a finely-balanced instrument, precision-engineered to avoid the current North Korea scenario.

Only cultural chauvinism prevents the West from acknowledging that the Chinese are the most rationally-governed nation on earth. 

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

The Koreans therefore have a de facto monarchy and I would love to be the one to point this out to them.
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

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.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 27 November 2009

"Racism", "bullying", "harassment" and our liberties valued at zero

These are such subjective words, are they not?

Being a racist means you may have expressed dislike of someone on grounds of race, or said something that could be considered offensive by a hypothetical person of another race.

The same principles now appear to apply on bullying and harassment.

If we think we are being bullied and harassed then we are being bullied and harassed.

If we are offended, then the person who offended us must have been offensive.

If the other person was offensive, then they will have to pay!

This means there is no free speech, no freedom of association and no freedom of contract.

Soon there will be no right to property either and we will have become a communist country without even realising it! Financial socialism in the form of Quantitative Easing even now proceeds apace.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Deng Xiaoping - the discreet Libertarian who was officially Communist

"Let the state do what the state must do for the good of the nation, and let the people do what they are able to do for themselves."


It was the late Deng Xiaoping who said that. Pretty libertarian for a communist, eh?
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 1 October 2009

Happy 60th Birthday, People's Republic of China!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8284224.stm

China's National Day or the 60th Birthday of the People's Republic of China.

No chance of us having anything like that, I suppose.

It's downhill all the way on that slippery slope to decline and eventual extinction now. Our politicians will whisper and shout all the C words they know at each other, and that will serve as their idea of political debate.

In the future, we will all be too thick to know what they mean and but will know to hiss and boo, or cheer and clap in the right places, just like children at a panto.

The country will fill up with the illegitimate children of promiscuous single mothers who have unbeknownst to us all, been deified, sanctified and are now beyond criticism. Their unsocialised children with no emotional intelligence will drag our education standards ever lower depths and we can all become a nation of pimps, prostitutes, paedophiles and pirates. Hooray!
at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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...