THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Conservative party whips threatened rebels with a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and a general election in order to push through a vital bill, a Tory MP has claimed, as she called for a cross-party “government of national unity” to be brought in to handle Brexit.
The Tanakh gives rise to the idea of a nation-state. John Stuart Mill thought it was his idea but it is in fact a Biblical idea. The idea of the Jewish state depends on the idea of the nation state. The nation state is the path to human freedom.
Why newly arrived Muslim immigrants do better than working class locals
David Cameron:
Asian families and communities are incredibly strong and cohesive, and have a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame. Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.
The antithesis of a degenerate matriarchal liberal democracy must be a one party theocracy practising marriage and family values, re-establishing the patriarchy.
The West should resist becoming a matriarchy because human society was a primitive matriarchy before it became a patriarchy. It is already a matriarchy, but it could even drag itself out of the matriarchal swamp once beta males find themselves an alpha male leader with sufficient leadership qualities, moral courage and charisma. What is feared that not even ten such men exist in the West and this therefore means the extinction of Western civilisation, bearing in mind the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I believe the Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage and were superseded by Homo Sapiens who did and became more successful through this superior form of human organisation ie patriarchy.
It was only later that a unique, supreme, omnipotent and perfectly moral Abrahamic God was created in order to perpetuate the practice marriage, even if periodic backsliding has been notoriously hard to prevent.
All advanced civilisations practise marriage and are therefore patriarchal. Conversely, all matriarchies are primitive and declining societies are either extinct or about to become extinct.
A patriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried mothers. A society practising patriarchy would easily triumph over a matriarchy if there were a war between them because a patriarchy would have superior ways of social organisation in order to facilitate maximum efficiency through male solidarity enabling co-operation to deal effectively with its internal and enemies, while a matriarchy with its fake egalitarianism is obviously inefficient and divided with no one really in charge for long and therefore devoid of effective moral leadership, as we in the West are now. (The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are of course sluts and socialists.)
This buck-passing lack of accountability demoralises and demotivates men from striving, making them risk averse and turns them into women earning the ridicule, hatred and contempt of men of other nations and races.
This phenomenon can be seen in Western democratic politicians who are now so devoid of ambition that they are lying low trying not to say anything that would get them into trouble thereby earning the hearty contempt of the people they are supposed to represent. They are clearly so cowed by the matriarchy that they live in daily fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence or some former porn actress violating her non-disclosure agreement without suffering the legal consequences of so doing. So much, then, for the much-vaunted rule of law in the West.
What is so disgusting and contemptible is that even with the excess of superfluity of lawyers in the West, not one of them seems capable of noticing when the rule of law is being daily flouted in front of them.
In a matriarchy, the sexiest person would be the most powerful but youth passes quickly.
This is clearly demonstrated by the failure of John Major to be perceived to be sexier than Tony Blair in the General Election of 1997 and the inability of Ed Milliband to be perceived as sexier than David Cameron by the female voters in the General Election of 2015.
The rot started when the British Conservative Party suffered a bachelor Ted Heath to lead the country forgetting the rule that a male leader must at least be seen to have passed the test of being a marriageable man and therefore a husband and father in charge of his family before he is allowed to lead the country.
The fall of Keith Joseph, Jew and Prime Minister-in-waiting, after being critical of the reproductive decisions of never married mothers happened in 1974. Disgracefully, no senior male politician, Jew or gentile, supported him for warning the political establishment of the clear and present danger of welfare degeneracy and the replacement of the patriarchy by a dysgenic matriarchy. When Keith Joseph had to stand aside in the leadership contest for Margaret Thatcher for his lèse-majesté, the writing on the wall that the matriarchy was here to say was unconsciously read and internalised by the cowardly feminised and yielding male politicians of the time.
Youth is often guilty of foolish and reckless behaviour as well as arrogance and abuse of power. Youth and beauty are therefore not indicators of wisdom, however seductive they may seem and however much lust they may arouse. (Lust is of course one of the Seven Deadly Sins, if you remember.) Wisdom is generally found in persons of maturity with the humility to learn from experience
In a patriarchy, the male exhibiting the most wisdom, strength and charisma would become the alpha male chosen by beta males to protect their interests.
In a matriarchy, even a male leader is chosen by the women most of whom will instinctively choose the man they find most attractive and be oblivious to rational or moral arguments.
In a matriarchy, all males are lower in status than the unmarried mother.
In a patriarchy, beta males would be able to choose a leader to protect their interests and this would include their right to have legitimate children with females who will not have the right to divorce their husbands under the rules of no fault divorce and then take half their property and deprive them of their children or vote for political parties that impose ever higher taxes and impose ever more restrictive laws on men to protect immoral women who become unmarried single mothers from the consequences of their bad reproductive decisions.
It is the failure of parenting and to have enough children who create the demand for more willing and cheaper immigrant labour as well as underachievement in their often illegitimate children who become a statistic in the rising crime figures.
The working mother normalised the divorced mother, the normalisation of the divorced mother normalised the never married mother, the normalisation of the never married mother normalised bastardy and the normalisation of bastardy will mean an increase in the crime rate and the number of NEETs.
Marriage is eugenic, simply because it is about creating the environment suitable for the proper parenting of the next generation. Children are obviously better off being brought up by their married parents living together in a loving relationship. Societies that support marriage (eg Jews, Muslims, Asians) will have a better quality next generation than one that does not ie the Post-Christian West who now feels exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and the immigrants they so often complain about.
By Cameron not promising an EU referendum, of course.
But this would have meant letting Labour win the 2015 General Election.
So Ed Miliband becomes British Prime Minister. Do you think the Tories
in opposition would not have promised a referendum in the run up to
2020? I can't see them resisting that temptation.
By 2020 there
would be even more immigrants and refugees, as well as more MPs being
assassinated by more and angrier white men probably.
You remainders would only have postponed the inevitable for another 5 more years.
There was nothing more David Cameron could have done.
The Scottish Nationalists dare not go immediately because by the time they get their act together to call for another referendum, Article 50 will have taken place, so they might as well wait and see. They are only saying what they say to upset the English again, as is their wont, being spiteful silly Scots who hate the English who will miss no opportunity to display their hatred.
We don't really need Gibraltar, and a United Ireland is historically inevitable anyway. Then Northern Ireland will become the problem of the Irish government, not Britain's. It was just a colonial outpost, after all.
Now dry your tears and shake the dust off your wings.
Under UK law you can be an "immediate threat" even if what you planned but didn't do was in LONDON in summer, as you are assassinated in August in SYRIA.
This was the rule of law that the now silenced Anjem Choudary was mocking. God's laws do not change because He does not keep making mistakes and try to cover up for them by changing them all the time to confuse people until no one knows what the law really is any more, not even the judges. The rules of natural justice require that the consequences of breaking a law to be accessible and foreseeable.
But if you can be considered an "immediate threat" even if the time for the terrorism you were alleged to have been plotting in London has come and gone and was not even committed justifies your assassination in Syria, then this rule of law is arguably neither accessible nor foreseeable.
Cameron was so anxious to crow about these the assassination of Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan that he forgot about the so-called government-defined British values of "the rule of law".
If there is a rule of law then that rule would be clear. If you are following it, you would have to stick to it, not vary the application and interpretation of it to fit in with what you wish to do while refusing to give coherent and verifiable reasons. This really does not suggest that the rule of law is being followed.
This war between Islam and the West is an ideological war, therefore some demonstration of moral superiority would be necessary in order to win hearts and minds, as well as force of arms. It does not appear that Western leaders understand this. While even ISIS terrorists say they follow the rules of their holy book, Western leaders seem determined to follow no particular rule or interpretation of any law except what suits them, and nothing is more guaranteed to bring your law into contempt than doing precisely this. The psychopath is not merely a deranged murderer as is commonly supposed, but someone who is without conscience or compassion for the people he hurts, without principles, and who will commit any crime if he thinks he can get way with it according to his mood of the moment. This would be the Western politician.
It was David Cameron who displayed his ignorance of the rule of law on the David Letterman Show when he couldn't answer what Magna Carta meant in English. I am sure it was not only the English who thought putting down promises you never intend to keep on a piece of paper with your signature was a very useful device in politics to trick people into supporting you and to mess your enemies around. These days it is called the manifesto.
If liberals no longer believe in liberalism and the fundamental principles of freedom of belief, contract, association and expression as well as the rule of law, what do they still believe in? Liberalism these days seems synonymous with sexual licence, an exaggerated respect for the slut and gay marriage under a dysfunctional system of government called representative democracy. Are we sure that these are the Western moral values that we want to be seen to be defending to the death, if at all, once the dust of history has settled?
If this were done, what conclusions can the world reasonably reach about how the British government adheres to its declared British values of the rule of law?
The idiot politicians who keep wittering on about winning hearts and minds remain clueless about what is actually necessary to win the propaganda war. This can only be done credibly by showing moral superiority and moral superiority cannot be credibly displayed when you break your own rules, and actively go against your own principles, can it?
Welfare state discourages beta males from working.
Low birth rate causing labour shortage.
Indigenous labour force uncompetitive lazy good for nothings unattractive to employers because of bad parenting and bad schooling which government has refused to address for decades.
Most women stupid hypocritical sluts who want to trick men into a relationship with a woman who is stupid but kind.
Male leader who will pander to the preferences of female voters at the drop of a hat eg David Cameron.
Female leader falling over herself to display feminine compassion at the expense of her own people eg Angela Merkel.
Female-dominated media constantly pumps out sentimental tripe to encourage mass hysteria over eg a photo of a drowned boy giving stupid sluts the opportunity to show their indiscriminate compassion at the expense of men and the long-term national interest.
Where Emotional Fascism exercised by women operates against men.
Simon Sheppard on Emotional Fascism
In a highly feminine environment females can fall into a belief, then an insistence, that their feelings are precious, invariably valid and paramount, while male sensibilities are dismissed as inconsequential. This has been dubbed emotional fascism. 'My emotions are always correct and sacrosanct. Your feelings don't matter. You're only a man."
If you were a healthy young male migrant, you would know that a country whose women are mostly sluts and whose men are all afraid of sluts where even their supposedly anti-immigration politicians cry on cue to pander to their stupid sentimental slut voters without thinking things through would offer you the most sexual and career opportunities.
The BBC and its female journalists are busily selling the interests of their male licence-fee payers down the river and they are still too fucking stupid to get it. There is no one to protect them either. If you think Nigel Farage is going to do anything other than cry on cue for the benefit of the passing female voter you really should have another think coming.
If I were a migrant I would keep on coming and bring all my mates.
Can anyone define what extremism is, without looking it up?
Can a government be extremist without knowing it?
Why is the government always assuming it can never be the one guilty of extremism? Surely that is in theory possible?
"So as we talk about the threat of extremism and the challenge of integration, we should not do our country down – we are, without a shadow of doubt, a beacon to the world."
Is Cameron suggesting that "doing our country down" is a sign of extremism? And that Western government is perfect?
"the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism – not Islam the religion"
The only difference is Muslims who decide to stay in the West and keep their heads down, and those who choose to go to Syria and fight under the Caliphate or commit acts of terrorism in the West.
The Koran does state that Muslims have a duty to fight oppression and there is no doubt that Muslims will perceive that Muslims are being oppressed if Muslim countries are invaded and regime-change imposed on them by the West.
"like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive."
Any ideology that is diametrically opposed to yours would be logically "subversive".
Feminism is subversive to the patriarchy and marriage.
Muslims respect the institutions of marriage and the family, and have noticed that PC Liberalism is subversive to these institutions.
"At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview."
Muslim terrorists who object to Western foreign policy have worked out that Western foreign policy is the direct consequence of Western democracy and have therefore deduced that the only way to challenge Western foreign policy is to put the frighteners on the people who keep voting for the same shit parties who perpetuate the shit foreign policy they object to.
Was there a single BNP voter who was a victim of the 7/7 bombing? Statistically that would be unlikely. (The BNP were the only party in the land who offered an alternative non-Zionist foreign policy. Michael Adebalajo actually considered voting for them, and was said to have approached a BNP organiser running a paper sale in Woolwich and discussed UK foreign policy with him.) http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-end-problem-of-terrorism-without.html
As for Muslims killing Muslims, we already know Nazis kill other Nazis (Night of the Long Knives) and Commies also kill other Commies (Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin's secret police). Atrocities are often committed in war and revolution. The English had the English Civil War and the Americans their American Civil War.
Islamic State are doubtless purging their own ranks of whom they perceive as being subversives and traitors, as you would expect, really.
"basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality."
Democracy only lasted 180 years in Athens.
Freedom? Freedom to do WHAT? What is this sexual equality? Does he mean gay marriage?
"Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation."
Like ladies withdrawing after dinner? That would be sex segregation, I suppose, and having male and female toilets.
What sectarianism is he referring to?
"Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others."
PC Liberals and their protected groups are privileged by law over social conservatives, are they not?
Christians have no freedom of contract to refuse to bake sodomite cakes for LGBTs and no right to refuse to have them as guests in their B&Bs.
"And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. "
Cameron has never heard of the Israel Lobby or AIPAC, clearly.
"In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash."
These views cannot be disproven, can they?
They cannot be disproven the way God's existence cannot be proven or disproven.
"And like so many ideologies that have existed before – whether fascist or communist – many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it. We need to understand why it is proving so attractive."
If you are Muslim and you care about other Muslims, you would be inclined to think that the NATO invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did not improve life for Muslims in these countries.
You may have noticed that the UK government has not given any convincing reasons to justify these invasions and may even have noticed that the Chilcot Enquiry's findings have had their publication delayed to protect the MPs who called for and voted for these invasions.
'So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.'
"When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims."
"Far from being Tony Blair's "good war", Nato's assault on Yugoslavia was in its own way as immoral as the assault on Iraq. But as the Iraq war has become discredited, so it is even more important for the supporters of "liberal interventionism" to promote the line that Kosovo was in some way a success. The Council of Europe's report on the KLA's crimes makes that position much harder to maintain. And if it plays its part in making people more sceptical about any future western "liberal interventions", it is to be warmly welcomed."
Western interventionism does not exactly create for Westerners a fund of goodwill, does it?
"the adherents of this ideology are overpowering other voices within Muslim debate, especially those trying to challenge it. There are so many strong, positive Muslim voices that are being drowned out."
Those inclined to go on jihad are unlikely to be persuaded by the elderly and the middle-aged telling them not to go.
The already know elderly risk-averse male relations reliant on the NHS would not wish to go on jihad, and their comfortable and complacent parents would not wish to go on jihad either.
As for the clerics who insist that all terrorism is by definition wrong, that is not what the Koran really says, does it?
008.038
YUSUFALI: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
SHAKIR: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.
008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
008.040
YUSUFALI: If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.
PICKTHAL: And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Befriender - a Transcendent Patron, a Transcendent Helper!
SHAKIR: And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper.
008.041
YUSUFALI: And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.
PICKTHAL: And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met. And Allah is Able to do all things.
SHAKIR: And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things.
Could Western foreign policy be described as "desisting"?
"Ask yourself, how is it possible that when young teenagers leave their London homes to fight for ISIL, the debate all too often focuses on whether the security services are to blame?"
If you were an Islamophobe, you would just love the idea of Muslims being targeted for being Muslim and expect them to like it or lump it or leave the country, wouldn't you?
Secretly or not so secretly, Islamophobes want Muslims all to be radicalised and become terrorists so they can just mow them down with their machine guns after they have locked them up in one big mosque and set fire to it if they try to escape ....
If you were Muslim, you would be quite likely to be radicalised once you are aware of the extent and depth of the Islamophobia against you.
"And how can it be that after the tragic events at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, weeks were spent discussing the limits of free speech and satire, rather than whether terrorists should be executing people full stop?"
I am sure even the terrorists knew they had forfeited their lives after they gunned down Charlie Hebdo.
I don't recall anyone saying that these gunmen should have been let off if they were caught alive or that gunning people down for whatever reason should not be allowed. The debate was whether Charlie Hebdo "had it coming".
"When we allow the extremists to set the terms of the debate in this way, is it any wonder that people are attracted to this ideology?"
What does he mean by allowing the extremists "to set the terms of the debate"?
"For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds."
"So when groups like ISIL seek to rally our young people to their poisonous cause, it can offer them a sense of belonging that they can lack here at home, leaving them more susceptible to radicalisation and even violence against other British people to whom they feel no real allegiance."
"Instead of being a slut, SSM (Slut Single Mother) or a man afraid of sluts and SSMs, why not become a jihadi warrior?" is probably quite a seductive suggestion.
"let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values."
The West's strongest poison which it causes its own citizens to imbibe regularly is its own liberal values that produced the foreign policy complained of by Muslim terrorists - liberal interventionism or Western militarism, if you prefer.
Muslims living in the West inclined to become Muslim terrorists are also disgusted by the permissive sexual mores of the West, which has now plumbed new depths with gay marriage.
Two gay men get it on with each other in a funeral parlour. East Enders is shown at 7.30 pm.
Two men kissing each other in broad daylight in a public place.
East Enders is shown at 7.30 pm.
"We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together."
Islam is about forbidding extramarital sex, liberal values is about having sex wherever, whenever with whomever. Those who regard sodomy as an abomination, as the Koran instructs them to, would regard gay marriage with as much disgust as a gourmet would experience if invited to eat shit.
"We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith."
So all the white British people who are descended from generations of white British people who disapproved of LGBTs were never British?
If we don't subscribe to the Cameronian view of Britishness then we are automatically no longer British?
"We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together."
What freedom is this? The freedom to fuck wherever, whenever with whomever? No thanks.
"Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride."
Must we all be glad to be gay? If not, will we be punished?
If we were all gay there wouldn't be much of a next generation to be British or be seen as degenerate Britons any more.
"And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam; the security services aren't behind terrorist attacks; our new Prevent duty for schools is not about criminalising or spying on Muslim children. This is paranoia in the extreme."
If people hate you enough they will willingly believe any lie about you, no matter how obviously ludicrous.
"In fact that duty will empower parents and teachers to protect children from all forms of extremism – whether Islamist or neo-Nazi."
Muslims and Nazis are quite likely to denounce Israel, Jews, Zionists and Zionism, I imagine.
"We must stand up to those who try to suggest that there is some kind of secret Muslim conspiracy to take over our government, or that Islam and Britain are somehow incompatible."
Islam is about social conservatism, degenerate PC Liberalism is about desecrating the institutions of marriage and the family.
"People who say these things are trying to undermine our shared values and make Muslims feel like they don’t belong here, and we will not let these conspiracy theorists win."
Actually, the Far Right and Muslim radicals are agreed that democracy and Christianity is a dead duck. Interestingly, a Caliph is just a dictator who undertakes to govern using Koranic principles in a one-party theocracy.
"And here’s my message to any young person here in Britain thinking of going out there:
You won’t be some valued member of a movement. You are cannon fodder for them. They will use you.
If you are a boy, they will brainwash you, strap bombs to your body and blow you up."
But if you are a brave jihadi warrior, they might reward you with sex slaves.
"If you are a girl, they will enslave and abuse you."
Jihadis are supposed to marry their sex slaves, I believe.
"using people who really understand the true nature of what life is like under ISIL to communicate to young and vulnerable people the brutal reality of this ideology"
If it is perceived as HMG propaganda, it will be dismissed out of hand.
"empowering the UK’s Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish communities, so they can have platforms from which to speak out against the carnage ISIL is conducting in their countries"
These Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds would refugees and their statements would be made under duress. The intelligent radical would know to dismiss whatever they say as government mouthpieces.
"countering this ideology better on the ground through specific de-radicalisation programmes"
Will this mean preventing us from using deductive reasoning and coming to the natural and obvious conclusion with the available and undisputed facts?
"we need our internet companies to go further in helping us identify potential terrorists online."
How far have they gone already, and how much further does Cameron want them to go?
"They – the internet companies - have shown with the vital work they are doing in clamping down on child abuse images that they can step up when there is a moral imperative to act. And it’s now time for them to do the same to protect their users from the scourge of radicalisation."
Sounds like Cameron wants internet companies to block certain websites from their customers. Which ones?
"the Home Secretary has already announced a review of sharia courts."
Sounds like the government proposes to interfere in the process of arbitration.
"new protection orders which came into force last Friday and were used immediately by Bedfordshire police to prevent two girls being taken to Africa."
What would be the terms of these protection orders?
"passive tolerance of practices running totally contrary to our values."
Will Muslims be expected to apologise for Muslim terrorism the moment an Islamophobe demands an apology from him?
This is going to be fun and so going to make Muslims stop wanting to blow us up!
"The failure of social services, the police and local authorities, to deal with child sex abuse in places like Rotherham was frankly unforgiveable."
It was only too predictable that the coppers were not going to take the complaints seriously.
"police, already not caring enough about teenage girls being abused, could not be bothered with dealing with the flak of being accused of racism; it is not because they were being ultra-careful not to target an already maligned ethnic group.
The reason there was inaction and poor practice in tackling this crime early on is not political correctness but rather racist cowardice combined with a distaste for the victims. It is precisely because the liberal left has refused to tackle the thorny issues surrounding race and ethnicity that the likes of Ukip are able to colonise it so successfully."
Nobody cares about abandoned children who were carelessly conceived then carelessly abandoned by their unfit promiscuous irresponsible Slut Single Mothers (whom no MP will criticise) into care homes.
"And look what happened in Tower Hamlets, in the heart of our capital city. We had political corruption on an epic scale: with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century. As the judge said: those in authority were too afraid to ‘confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism’."
This decision is being appealed by the ex-Mayor of Tower Hamlet found guilty of a criminal offence by a clearly biased Election Court judge who thought he could find Lutfur Rahman guilty of a criminal offence without the involvement of the police charging and arresting him.
"We undertook an immediate review when it became apparent that extremists had taken over some of our schools in the so-called Trojan Horse scandal here in Birmingham. But I have to be honest here – one year on, although we are making progress, it is not quick enough. It has taken too long to take action against the governors and teachers involved in the scandal and to support the schools affected to turn themselves around."
All these parents wanted was keep their children's school environment Islamic ie without sex ed, which encourages British schoolgirls to be sluts.
"So as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred."
Sounds like Cameron is proposing to ban them from Twitter and Facebook.
"And we will also work to strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels that broadcast hate preachers and extremist content."
Which channels are these?
"I have charged Louise Casey to carry out a review of how to boost opportunity and integration in these communities and bring Britain together as one nation. She will look at issues like how we can ensure people learn English; how we boost employment outcomes, especially for women; how state agencies can work with these communities to properly promote integration and opportunity but also learning lessons from past mistakes - when funding was simply handed over to self-appointed ‘community leaders’ who sometimes used the money in a divisive way.
Louise will provide an interim report early next year. And we will use this report to inform our plans for funding a new wider Cohesive Communities Programme next year, focusing resources on improving integration and extending opportunity in those communities that most need it."
"Taking on extremism in all its forms – both violent and non-violent."
Why not have a National Debating Society on Foreign and Domestic Policy with a large cash prize for secondary schoolchildren and adults with televised debates allowing viewers to vote by text on Saturday evenings instead of the usual crap?
"Britain has never been cowed by fear or hatred or terror.
Our Great British resolve faced down Hitler; it defeated Communism; it saw off the IRA’s assaults on our way of life. Time and again we have stood up to aggression and tyranny."
Has any politician seeking election said anything about Britain's imperialist bombing of Muslim countries? Or why Israel takes precedence?
— Ibrahim Hewitt (@ibrahimhewitt56) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Why do voters not care about foreign policy? Cos deep down they don't care who their government invades/bombs/maims/kills.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Will voter be thinking about who their government invades/bombs/kills/maims on 7 May 2015? NOPE. Democracy = MORAL VACUUM
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 Are terrorists right to conclude that the only language voters in the West understand is VIOLENCE and LOTS OF IT?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
@ibrahimhewitt56 EFFECTIVENESS OF TERRORISM: 12 October 1984 - Brighton Bombing; 15 November 1985 - Anglo-Irish Agreement.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
If you are Muslim and care enough that Muslims are being invaded/bombed/maimed/killed to attend demos your children may be taken from you.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
You are radicalised when you realise that your government are the bad guys and that participating in the democratic process is futile.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Some Muslims have concluded participating in the democratic process is futile cos most voters are Islamphobes hoping more Muslims get killed
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Even if most voters don't actively want to kill Muslims they r clearly indifferent to the fact that Muslims are killed by UK foreign policy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Most voters are comfortable hating Muslims because hatred gives them the certainty they need in an uncertain world.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
If Islamophobes stopped hating Muslims whom could they hate? Their own government/ignorance/cowardice/hypocrisy? Easier to continue hating.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Why will no Western media discuss Western foreign policy honestly except @RT_com? Because they don't want to discuss the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
To discuss the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE that is Western foreign policy would mean discussing the nature of democracy and it is a MORAL VACUUM.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
What are we to think of the @BBC, which refuses to ever discuss Western and UK foreign policy honestly or facilitate a proper debate?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Radicalised Muslims already know what to make of this, while non-Muslim UK voters turn the page, watch porn or pour themselves another drink
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
"All terrorism WITHOUT EXCEPTION is the consequence of bad government policy." Discuss. Will the BBC be discussing this? What do you think?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
I challenge Cameron/May to an open & public debate:
ISLAM (Shari'ah)
Vs
MAN MADE LAW (Democracy)
Which is better/the future for Britain?
— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) March 23, 2015
What is democracy but knaves soliciting the votes of fools once every 5 years and bribing voters with their own money?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
In any general election the rich will vote for their party and the poor will vote for the party of the poor. What is the morality of this?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Democracy under indiscriminate universal suffrage is simply government by knaves for fools and vice versa.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Where is the sense of pursuing a deranged foreign policy and then complaining about terrorism when its victims react violently?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
Let us see how free we are in the "free West" to debate any of this. It should be revelatory when no journalist and no MP touches this.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 12, 2015
"The term is devoid of meaning ... who knows? I don't know? I am not a geneticist" David Starkey ['would you describe yourself as racist?']
— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) April 10, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays It depends on what you mean by "racist" and Trevor Phillips has already said the truth cannot be racist.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays I would like to live in a country where there is no thoughtcrime forbidding us from thinking forbidden thoughts.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays The best sign of a free country is when its citizens are allowed freedom of belief/contract/association, is it not?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays The worst sign of a tyranny is when we r accused of the worst crime in the world n that crime is not clearly defined.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays Racism is nothing more than thinking one race can be better or worse than another.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays If we as individuals r allowed to think that we are better or worse than other people why not one race about another?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays What causes racial resentment is that any race is being treated better than another for unfair and irrational reasons
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays What causes social resentment is that any group is being treated better than others for unfair and irrational reasons
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays What is unfair and what is irrational is not what the political establishment wishes to have an honest debate about.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays What is unfair and irrational is not what anyone in a position of influence wishes to have any kind of a debate about
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
I challenge Cameron/May to an open & public debate:
ISLAM (Shari'ah)
Vs
MAN MADE LAW (Democracy)
Which is better/the future for Britain?
— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) March 23, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays Anyone who wants a debate on what is unfair and irrational will predictably be denounced as racist/extremist etc.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays Not only wl the political establishment avoid a honest debate the liberal media too wl suppress any dissenting view.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@Broilster@sundersays When people with a genuine grievance know that it will NEVER be honestly addressed, guess what some of them will do?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@aeon456@xhorsechestnutx Because David Starkey has no wife he isn't afraid of saying anything his hypothetical wife might find offensive.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
@aeon456@xhorsechestnutx Because David Starkey does not want any sexual favours from women he doesn't worry about them not favouring him.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) April 11, 2015
Mike Buchanan explains how he was sent by his employment agency to be interviewed for a job he was never going to get so the feminazi who interviewed him could say she had interviewed an equal number of male candidates, even though it would only be a female candidate she would inevitably hire. She would always point to a quality the male candidate did not possess which the female candidate did to protect herself from accusations of sex discrimination by unsuccessful male candidates.
David Cameron is so unprincipled that he makes Mike Buchanan nostalgic for Tony Blair.
Angry ex-Tories now so angry they are now prepared to cut off their noses to spite their faces. That is why "Vote UKIP get Labour" no longer puts them off from voting UKIP.
Telegraph taken over by the feminazis, Times taken over by Caitlin Moran.
From the 40th minute you will get all the awkward questions being asked of Michael Gove from the audience. How much if at all do you think these issues have been addressed?
Why do you think David Cameron removed Michael Gove as Education Secretary?
Because he was stepping on too many toes and people were squealing.
Why did he make Nicky Morgan Education Secretary?
Because he knew she would do NOTHING to be upset anyone till the election was over.
This was in 2013.
How much longer has democracy got left before it implodes under the weight of its own lies and contradictions?
No government will improve standards of education until and unless there is a one-party state in which leaders of the teaching unions can be dealt with swiftly and decisively.
The problems of British education are now too entrenched, long-standing and bone-deep. No government will be able to solve them in one term of office and that is why it will never be attempted as long as representative democracy continues.
Have you noticed how democracy is about doing nothing and waiting for things to fail when there is so much to be done and so little time to be lost?
Have you noticed that democracy is really about knaves soliciting the vote of fools every five years and bribing voters with their own money?
Democracy means that no one is really in charge.
Democracy means passing the buck like a parcel with a ticking bomb until it blows up in someone's face.
I look forward to hearing that I am now on the Domestic Extremist List because I certainly don't believe in this dishonest demented and deficient system.
I will be voting UKIP in May 2015 however simply because I know things must get worse before they get better and pain is the only language smug liberals understand.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass was educated at The Royal School in Dungannon and at Stranmillis College in Stranmillis in Belfast. He worked as a teacher for a number of years before joining the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) in 1971. After leaving the Army with the rank of Major in 1981, he became Ulster Unionist spokesman on internal security and defence, and was that same year elected to Dungannon District Council, on which he sat for twelve years until he lost his seat in 1993. In June 2012, the UUP Whip was withdrawn from Lord Maginnis by party leader Mike Nesbitt over remarks which he made concerning his opposition to same sex marriage. Maginnis subsequently resigned from the UUP on 28 August 2012.
Yesterday, Lord Maginnis spoke on our Presidential system of Government (an unwelcome development with no democratic mandate); also Middle East and Ulster issues; Q&A. Lord Maginnis has a particular interest in Iran and recently attended a conference organised by the National Council of Resistance in Iran.
I am afraid I did not really know what he meant by that since it is easier for a British Prime Minister to start a war than an American President who has to obtain the approval of the both houses of Congress.
My guess is that he was really complaining about the remoteness of Cameron surrounded by inexperienced advisers whom he regarded as young whipper snappers who have never had a proper job in their lives still wet behind the ears, and it seems he thinks the problem was particularly acute in the Foreign Office. Things were rather different when Thatcher was in power, but at the time, I can imagine that Unionist MPs would naturally get a lot of media attention as well as access to the Prime Minister anxious to do a deal with the Shinners and the Loyalists. Another question I regretted not asking him was whether he approved of Theresa May's Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
The House of Lords is these days is "no longer about governing the country or giving advice" to the Commons any longer, he said, but a place where political cronies of the Lower House are rewarded.
"Ah, Ken, I must introduce you to Martin over here: you two have the same name and must be related."
It seems that the two men took rather well to this diplomatic banter, and the rest is history.
Lord Maginnis is often invited to events in the Irish Republic. I asked, in the context of a United Ireland, if he thought that rule from Dublin would be really that much worse than rule from London and he readily conceded that it was probably not. Indeed, he praised a politician whose name I did not catch for so rigorously and faithfully pursuing its austerity programme.
He was asked why there are now four Unionist parties in Northern Ireland but said he did not really know the answer and was guessing that it was probably a lack of a sense of purpose.
"We are teaching a responsible adult population to treat MPs like naughty boys."
As for the his conviction of road rage, you may wish to view the video at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23755559 showing a man in his 20s loping towards the court. Lord Maginnis is now 77 and not tall. This young man whom Lord Maginnis described as being of about 6 feet claimed to be terrified of a white-haired not very tall 75 year old man with a weak arm and an arthritic shoulder. The incident occurred as a result of Lord Maginnis stopping his car and allowing a woman to cross the road and the young man behind him sounding his horn long and repeatedly, infuriating him so much he got out of his car to confront the driver.
He told us that he is currently being pursued to pay his fine after his conviction of fare-dodging in Croydon, and says he has extensive documentary evidence to prove that the incident was the result of a genuine misunderstanding and mistake. He will continue to refuse paying the fine which increases if one does not pay it, he tells us, and says he did not receive a fair trial.
Lord Maginnis did indeed speak about the Iranian refugees now being persecuted by Iraq, but whys and wherefores went over my head, I am afraid, as did what he said about Cyprus and Turkey.
I must also say that the mixed nuts in the Strangers' Bar are really the best I have ever had and also noticed that the Lords' division bell was far more tuneful than the Commons' division bell.
I was tempted to be photographed INSIDE the phone booth, but I am sure I would not have found any accomplices willing to photograph my proposed "crime"!
Nabila Ramdani: This shows how muddled the debate has become France's most godless magazine was displaying remarkably Christian values today. The first edition of Charlie Hebdo since nine members of staff were murdered by terrorist gunmen last week appears to turn the other cheek. Its cover – released ahead of the full magazine tomorrow – carries a depiction of the crying prophet Muhammad under the strapline "All is forgiven".
Interpretations of what this actually means will vary, but it is certainly more maudlin – schmaltzy even – than it is funny. We've seen the caricature a thousand times before: it is dated and tired, and the character's little sign reading "Je suis Charlie" is woefully dull and predictable.
The sense of cliche evokes President John F Kennedy's melodramatic "Ich bin ein Berliner" one-liner, which is now more than half a century old. Millions of people took to the streets of Paris on Sunday to rally under the Charlie slogan but that was all about conformist defiance in the face of terrorist horror. On the cover of what is meant to be an anti-establishment magazine, this just symbolises – at best – egalitarian bigotry.
Surely a satirical magazine is meant to defy the herd; to cause outrage through biting wit and originality? Not to vaguely insult one of the most revered figures in Islam, while actually suggesting that he might not be such a bad chap after all – some kind of hyper-sensitive liberal who can take monstrous violence on the chin and move on with his eternal life.
There is no such thing as being a "little bit blasphemous", of course, and Muslims are already reacting with predictable sadness and indeed anger to the cover. Feelings will run even higher when three million copies of the magazine are distributed across the world. Charlie lives, and will be lauded by many as a symbol of free speech and democracy, but to me this cover is just a hugely provocative reminder of how muddled the debate around these atrocities has become.
• Nabila Ramdani is a Paris-born freelance journalist and academic of Algerian descent
"She objects to the depiction per se, no matter what it actually does and that, I am afraid, is a prescription we cannot run with any more - not in a free society. You're going to have the allow the possibility that people for whom Mohammed has become a very big figure for all of us are allowed to talk about it and depict it in the way they see fit."
If David Aaranovitch can't find anything offensive about a cartoon, then it cannot be offensive.
Ergo, if libtards don't find something offensive, it cannot be offensive.
Ergo Muslims like Nabila Ramdani are lying when they say they are offended, or just being silly.
Apparently, a child childishly taunting an adult is not offensive because its insults are inept.
Apparently, the intention of the child to insult is not in itself offensive, according to David Aaronovitch and others of his libtard ilk.
How would he like a child to taunt him every day, even if its taunts about Commie Jews are inept and off the mark?
Apparently, the world revolves around David Aaronovitch and those who think like him. If they don't find something offensive, then it is not offensive, but if they do, then it is, because people like David Aaronovitch are in charge.
What they are doing is asserting the right of those who hate Muslims to continue provoking Muslims into violence because they themselves hate Muslims, deep down, and want - just like the anti-immigrant extremists the Left love to denounce - to bring about a situation where the idea of a conducting a pogrom against Muslims or making life as unpleasant for them as possible becomes increasingly attractive to the voter.
How will it end then?
In the expulsion of Muslims from the West or in Islamic State taking over the West?
Is this even a war between Muslims v Islamophobes?
No, it is an ideological war between Islam v Liberalism.
As to which is better and stronger and more worthy of victory, the proof pudding will be in the eating.
Exchange ended with @DAaronovitch shouting at @NabilaRamdani Muhammad wd b in future depicted in cartoons if he had anything to do with it
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch to @NabilaRamdani: "What do u find offensive about cartoon u said u found offensive yet said u don't really find offensive?"
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
I think @NabilaRamdani shd hv said to @DAaronovitch: "I found the INTENTION to offend offensive in itself even if the humour was a bit lame"
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
