On the treatment of men by our matriarchy

Since when do the police investigate the dead? What is the purpose of doing so? The CPS has long ago stated that it cannot make charging decisions in relation to deceased persons. The costs of the investigation into Sir Edward Heath amounted to the annual payroll of 50 new police officers. Where does the public interest lie? The outcome, which must have been obvious, can only be to create and circulate an unfair slur.

(Letter to The Times from Jonathan Caplan QC, 6/10/17)

Feminazis want to discredit men.

No one should be convicted of a crime without a trial.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm

The dead can already be libelled, but there are those who want to try and find the dead guilty after expecting them to answer charges, hire lawyers, go into the witness box and answer questions, it seems. Shall we disinter the bones of Heath and put them in prison, as a warning to other dead men?

Have you noticed that only dead white men are subject to this treatment by our matriarchy?

That is because white women despise white men. Know thine enemy. Many white women despise men of their own race viscerally and cannot bring themselves to be fair, if they ever had a sense of justice to begin with, which is doubtful. White women despise confirmed bachelors, probably more than men despise ugly women who are mentally defective. Men who are obviously unable to control their women are despised by men of other religions and races, and regarded as ripe for exploitation and invasion. Even with the best will in the world, it is almost impossible to be respectful of the physically and morally feeble. This is where sexual liberation leads to.

Only forgetful, stupid and incompetent women investigate the alleged crimes of dead men and expect justice. What sex is our Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecution, Chairman of the Bar Council and Police Commissioner?

It was Doctor Pangloss who thought we live in the best of all possible worlds. It is probably right that MSN who allow such things deserve all the punishment they get. Their civilisation should indeed decline and fall and become extinct as a warning to others. They certainly deserve more punishment if they know what is happening and remain too afraid to speak out.

I have a question for Jewish thinkers: have most Westerners now become the Amalekites Jews have a religious duty to exterminate? As I understand it, the Amalekites were Neanderthals and Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage because in their time it had yet been invented. If the West goes the way it is currently going, blurring the distinctions between the married and unmarried and giving both the same rights, won't this process mean the uninvention of marriage itself? And if marriage were uninvented, would humanity not regress into the savage primitive state it used to be in before marriage was invented as mankind forgets all it ever learned? If the answer is yes, should not good men try to prevent this?

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.