Godfrey Bloom eats his hat

What Godfrey Bloom finds so objectionable about "New UKIP"

The font at http://godfreybloom.uk/11.html may be too small for some and I have therefore reproduced Godfrey's words below:


"Some newer members have not, it appears, heard the term 'New' UKIP, coined, I believe, by Andrew Neil (perhaps Helen Lewis, New Statesman) but no matter. Transition to New UKIP was not an overnight makeover. It followed a number of quite deliberate steps to fight the 2015 election. Believe me I used to be part of the hierarchy.


1          New constitution granting almost complete power to the leadership.

2          An unelected party Chairman, Secretary and other senior positions.

3          The 'adjustment' concession so member votes can be set aside by the leadership in  secret.

4          The curtailment of regions to select their MEPs with a much more easily manipulated national vote which also can be circumnavigated and has been.

5          The withdrawal from a basic libertarian ethos.

6          The suspension of due procedure for membership cancellation.

7          The secrecy of the vote counting and refusal to publish members' votes (where are  the national lists for the August 2013 MEP vote?).

8          The quite obvious swing to main party political correctness as illustrated by MartyCaine's  posts. A fundamental concession to the metropolitan press elite.

9          The strategic advance in favour of a coalition in some form.

10        The ruthless dogma that criticism of the leadership is disloyal to the cause, party, country. Where, I wonder, have we seen that historically?

11        The outright refusal to allow regions to elect representatives to the NEC. Yorkshire Region is still not represented in spite of 400,000 votes.  This skews the whole governing body to the south.

12        The final say on PPC selection remains with the leadership.


Folks, I still vote UKIP, remain a member and advocate on TV and radio of UKIP. My record on this is above reproach. Long-term members who still remain know exactly what 'New' UKIP means. The irony is that UKIP governance follows almost exactly the EU method. The referendum 'no' vote polls are now the worst in 10 years. So who in Brooks Mews works for the government?

A few things for the record, I spoke to four packed houses in the north of England in the winter, exhorting people to vote UKIP in May. Head Office vetoed other appearances. My continued technical support for the region for 12 months, post July 1st has been vetoed. I paid all staff and kept Yorkshire on the road right up until the 1st of July. Every TV and radio appearance has me endorsing UKIP. I am a founder member and have donated over £150,000 in the last 20 years in some format. All accounts are logged. I flag these points up because there are thousands of new members who perhaps think this is how it always was."


GODFREY BLOOM: WHY TRADITIONALISM AND LIBERTARIANISM ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE

The real difference between men and women

You can't imagine women doing that, can you, especially if one of them has hit the other over the head with a rolled-up newspaper?

Imagine if Karen Danczuk hit Louise Mensch over the head with a rolled-up newspaper for asking her annoying questions. It is quite simply unimaginable.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/395405/Karen-Danczuk-Twitter-row-Louise-Mensch-boob-selfies

Traditional Britain Group too afraid to denounce feminism

http://traditionalbritain.org/events/traditional-britain-conference-basis-culture/

How do I know? Because I have been declared persona non grata at TBG.

Why?

Because I denounce feminism, though they have not said so officially.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/more-speculation-on-reasons-why-i-am.html

I suppose I should be grateful or I would have paid £35 to listen to these speeches and wasted a whole day.

Stupendously dull speeches except for Godfrey Bloom's (and he didn't even suggest any solutions), but I have - repeal Equality Act 2010 and abolish no fault divorce - simple and easy to remember.

Godfrey Bloom tells Claire Khaw he wants to repeal the Equality Act 2010

I have been frozen out by these dull old men because I denounce feminism. Do these dull old men like feminism? Of course not. Why don't they denounce it then? Because they are afraid. But if I do their job for them then I get all the credit, and that won't do either.

That is the only explanation for their apparently inexplicable behaviour.

Keir Martland: Family Structures, The Privatisation of Offspring
Transcript of Keir Martland's speech

Professor John Kersey - 'Music and Culture'

Professor Tomislav Sunić - ‘Modern education and the destruction of culture'

Godfrey Bloom on Libertarianism and Traditionalism

Godfrey Bloom - 'Why Traditionalism and Libertarianism are not incompatible

Godfrey Bloom does *not* mention how feminism increased the size of the state and our taxes

The real reason why Godfrey Bloom said Nigel Farage is not up to the job of being UKIP leader

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10737813/Nigel-Farage-is-not-up-to-the-job-of-Ukip-leader-says-Godfrey-Bloom.html

He should have said it, but did not, doubtless because he feared the wrath of Emma Barnett, who is clearly a prominent member of the matriarchy and who patronised him pitifully throughout that interview.

I know the real reason and it is as follows:

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:24:35 +0000
Subject: Equality Act 2010
Dear Godfrey
Would you happen to know what the UKIP leadership's view is on the repeal of the Equality Act 2010?
Kind regards
Claire Khaw

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:56, Godfrey Bloom wrote:
To be brutally frank the UKIP policy is as follows:
1. Leave the EU
2. Strict immigration policy
3. Bring back grammar schools
4. Support fracking, bin wind turbines
All very good. There is nothing else, which is why I left in despair.
Kind regards
Godfrey

Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:40:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Equality Act 2010
If UKIP or any party at all proposed to repeal the Equality Act 2001 and to reintroduce fault into divorce, would you approve?
Kind regards
Claire

Sent: Friday, 15 November 2013, 15:09
Subject: RE: Equality Act 2010
Yes.
Kind regards
Godfrey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10741121/Nick-Clegg-v-Nigel-Farage-Hey-ladies-Nigel-Farages-Ukip-wants-to-turn-the-clock-back-for-womens-rights.-Fact.html

Dina Rickman complains:

Mr Farage’s ex-flatmate Godfrey Bloom said in an interview with the Telegraph Wonder Women just this week that women should not expect maternity leave or pay from businesses.

Lest we forget, Mr Bloom had the Ukip whip withdrawn after he called a roomful of women “sluts” and whacked a journalist on the head with a piece of his party’s propaganda - but not when he said small businesses should be able to sack pregnant women. This attitude to maternity rights isn’t libertarian, it’s draconian. As a society, I thought we were past the assumption women need to choose between working and having a family.

I guess you thought wrong, Ms Rickman.  If the Equality Act 2010 has adverse consequences for men, children, the elderly and society in general, then I guess we are not "past the assumption women need to choose between working and having a family". You may think it draconian, but it is also draconian to have thoughtcrime legislation, especially in a society that prides itself on being liberal.

The female journalists of The Telegraph don't like anti-feminism, in their tribal and amoral way, and see fit to insult and denigrate anyone who threatens feminist hegemony.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people clearly demonstrates that Nigel Farage fears the matriarchy and has no intention of kicking it in the goolies.  Repealing the Equality Act 2010 would be the legislative equivalent of kicking feminism in the goolies.  Bloom wants to while Farage dare not because he is a moral coward, and this is the fundamental philosophical disagreement between Bloom and Farage.

There is a certain danger in allowing feminists to have too influential a voice in matters of policy, for they cannot be trusted.  They cannot be trusted because feminism is an ideology that does not ever consider the long term national interest, only the privileging of women simply because they are women, though the heavens may fall.

The male readers of The Telegraph should be put on notice that their interests are being gravely threatened by allowing these self-interested and selfish women to destroy whatever's left of social conservatism.

It is quite clear from http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html that women and men think and act quite differently.  Why did 83% of female MPs vote for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did?  The entire premise of feminism is based on a pernicious lie that will destroy your civilisation.

The principles of feminism are as follows:

1. Men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant.
2. Because men can have extramarital sex without getting pregnant, it is OK for men to have extramarital sex.
3. Women must be treated the same as men.
4. Women must be treated the same as men even if they are the ones who get pregnant after having extramarital sex. 
5. Women are right even when they are wrong. 
6. Men are wrong even when they are right.
7. Women are equal to men.
8. Women are superior to men.
9. Although women are equal and superior to men, they still need the protection and provision of men.  
10. Women are to exercise the prerogative of the whore: power without responsibility.

This cancer of society must be surgically excised through the means of

1. repealing the Equality Act 2010
2. abolishing No Fault Divorce
3. abolishing Child Benefit

or the decline and degeneracy of the West will be terminal and irreversible.  

UKIP too afraid of controversy to repeal the Equality Act, yet claims to be a party of libertarians

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:27  14/11/13
Hi Lynda.  Claire Khaw here.  Is Godfrey Bloom interested in raising his profile?  I have a few ideas.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:34  14/11/13
Hi, where are you from?  I suspect he isn't though ideas are always useful of course.

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:48  14/11/13
I am not a member of a party but a Eurosceptic blogger.  My view is that Farage should be more adventurous in pushing the envelope of debate on domestic matters.  I think talking about setting up a UKIP debating society nationwide would create interest.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:51 14/11/13
We already do really, they are the UKIP branches.  Meanwhile we concentrate more and more on domestic issues.

CK to Lynda Roughley 12:53  14/11/13
Are there any plans to repeal the Equality Act 2010, Lynda?

Lynda Roughley to CK  13:01  14/11/13
We can't repeal anything till we are in power.

CK to Lynda Roughley 13:05  14/11/13
You could say in your manifesto that you would repeal the Equality Act if UKIP come to power!  Are there any plans to do so, Lynda?



After my response to her idiotic answer, I heard nothing further.

CK to Godfrey Bloom  13:24  14/11/13
Would you happen to know what the UKIP leadership's view is on the repeal of the Equality Act 2010?

Godfrey Bloom to CK  15:56  14/11/13
To be brutally frank the UKIP policy is as follows:

1.      Leave the EU
2.      Strict immigration policy
3.      Bring back grammar schools
4.      Support fracking, bin wind turbines

All very good. There is nothing else, which is why I left in despair.


It was at this event http://www.dashtory.org/2013/10/cfl-event-review.html that the libertarian Dan Hannan MEP answered YES to my question: Would he repeal the Equality Act 2010?

It is of course this legislation that contains all the hallmarks of Orwellian thoughtcrime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime, for what is discrimination but the active exercise of thought and what is hate but an emotion that can only be felt by thought?   And what is hate speech but the prohibition of the expression of certain emotions and thoughts?  

Claire Khaw agrees with Godfrey Bloom that the unemployed and public sector employees be stripped of the vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-public-sector-workers-and-the-unemployed-should-be-stripped-of-the-vote-8921383.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

Godfrey Bloom and Ian Cowie follow in my wake as regards narrowing the franchise.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/too-many-women-have-vote-and-solution.html has my radical and thrilling plan to narrow the franchise even more.

I am even thinking of disenfranchising bachelors.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/which-would-be-quickest-way-of.html

These ideas need to be introduced gradually to the voters and the political establishment, of course, and I would be very happy to go through my plans with him next time he is in London.

We will know how much the public like these ideas during the 2014 EU elections.  I do hope Mrs Bloom will strongly discourage him from standing down because I know how much fight there is in the old boy still. He would only get under her feet if he decided to retire from politics.

I will be able to get him all the publicity he wants and more.  All he needs to do now is get in touch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVes02tiTgo

Jane Collins is the MEP candidate UKIP are thinking of replacing him with.  She is bound to be completely boring and not say anything of interest at all.  We have had quite enough of over-promoted female mediocrities already, have we not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_and_the_Humber_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results

Godfrey Bloom compounds his disgrace by talking of shooting a journalist he attacked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431232/Godfrey-Bloom-quits-UKIP-threatens-shoot-reporter-Michael-Crick.html

I am afraid I now increasingly think that Nigel Farage was right about getting withdrawing the whip from Godfrey Bloom, after his increasingly outrageous comments about shooting Michael Crick.

If Bloom is not careful he will find himself in the English Democrats.

No politician should be seen to even joke about using violence against journalists for asking them awkward questions.

It is a shame that Nigel Farage cannot get it together to say that he is removing the whip from Bloom because he attacked a journalist, and not for saying that the UKIP conference was "full of sluts" when he only meant to say "slatterns".

Nick Griffin defends maternity leave at the expense of British business

UKIP at least propose policies that would help British businesses. The BNP are a different kind of party though: they represent people British employers don't want to hire.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/solidarity-condemns-ukip-mep-rant-women

In short, the BNP defends feminist legislation that so burdens British businesses.   These women who claim maternity leave do not even have to be married.

It is shocking and outrageous that a party that supposedly cares about the health of the white indigenous people of Britain should be so infuriatingly deaf over the degenerative effects of widespread illegitimacy that feminism and feminist-inspired totalitarian anti-discrimination legislation seeks to perpetuate.

Godfrey Bloom quite rightly points out that British businesses should  NOT be burdened by being obliged to pay women to have babies in the form of maternity leave.  Their HUSBANDS should be paying them to do so, but these days it is a bit radical to suggest that since most British mothers are not married.  

Nick Griffin, MEP, said: "We need to do more to help young families. They are the bedrock of a stable society.

No, Mr Griffin, MARRIAGE is the bedrock of a stable society, not just any old SSM having a baby at the expense of the taxpayer and her employer.  Not discouraging husbandless women from having babies or refraining from criticising their morals because most of your members are illegitimate or women hoping to claim maternity leave from their hapless employers is the opposite of principled opposition.  

It is all about breeding, and breeding is about mate selection.   Mate selection is not choosing a partner for the night with low enough standards to have sex with you no questions asked, is it?

Or perhaps it is, in morally degenerate 21st century Britain.

You would have thought that a party that claims to care about the indigenous white Briton would care about the quality of the national gene pool, but not a bit of it.

Is the BNP leadership now so totally lacking in moral vigour that it pretends not understand the purpose of marriage and the degenerative effects of totalitarian feminist legislation?