I have thought and thought and thought about why the TBG might wish to exclude me from their meetings.
First, I thought it was racial, and then decided it could not be, since I was made to feel welcome at dinners of TBG in its former guises.
Then I thought it was because of something I had said, and I do say so many things. However, because I do say so many things, I am not sure which of the views I have been known to express has caused so much offence and horror.
Despite persistent questioning over an extended period of time, my investigations and requests have yielded nothing I can get my teeth into.
"You are a loose cannon" was the most I got out of Gregory Lauder Frost as you can see at
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-i-think-of-gregory-lauder-frosts.html when I, even if I were white and male would have refrained from spending nearly an hour advocating the repatriation of non-white British citizens without for once going into the question of how this was to be accomplished. If he wants voluntary repatriation, then GLF should join the BNP or say he votes BNP. If he wants forced repatriation he should join the NF or say he votes NF.
But he is only a member of UKIP. I am not saying he has no right to say what he says, mind, merely pointing out that it is not politic now to say such things without expecting to be eviscerated by the liberal media for being so out of touch that he thinks saying that voluntary repatriation was a policy of the Conservative Party in the 1970s is enough to get him off the hook of racism.
In any case, what is the point of asking for things you know will be refused out of hand? I think GLF confuses complaining with effective activism.
I know I could be accused of doing the same thing myself, but I am always delighted when people challenge me and explain why I think what I do and what I propose to do to make it happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gregory-lauderfrost-exposed-the-tory-fringe-group-leader-with-nazi-sympathies-8755093.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23617555
I speculated that it might have been my antifeminist views that might have caused my exclusion. Indeed, at one time I was convinced that that must have been it, but GLF assured me that they at the TBG were antifeminist too.
Claire Khaw
Why won't the TBG discuss feminism?
Is it for the same reason UKIP won't repeal the Equality Act 2010?
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Because we are traditionalists. We are opposed to feminism. Full stop.
Although this response does not appear to make much sense, it seems that GLF is saying that he and TBG are indeed opposed to feminism.
But if so, then surely I should have been invited to give a talk on the subject myself at the TBG conference?
So what could it be, if the reason for my exclusion was neither because of my race nor my political views?
If one is accused of something it would be helpful to know what exactly one is supposed to have done. That is the whole point of
habeas corpus, after all. If we are being accused of something terrible then that thing must be specified so that we can make some sort of an attempt to question the validity of that accusation. I am not saying that they do not have a right to exclude me, but it would be manly and honorable for them to give me a proper reason.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-the-third-man-in-that-traditional-britain-photo--and-what-he-says-about-the-new-loony-right-8771448.html
A TBG spokesperson confirms Heaton-Gent’s exit from the committee, along with Liam Stokes, an agriculture student, and Henry Hopwood-Phillips, who has described his political views, as “Spengler meets Zizek via UKIP” (Oswald Spengler was a German philosopher; Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian thinker).
Hopwood-Phillips declines to answer questions. In an email, Stokes says he left the TBG when it became clear it was not “moderate, mainstream, or socially conservative.” Apart from Lauder-Frost, remaining committee members are Louis Welcomme, a Newcastle graduate who did not respond to emails [This is what the BNP do too!], and George Jones, who declines to talk about the TBG “without my lawyer present”.
A further snippet in The Independent said of a certain Jack Buckby now a member of Liberty GB an outfit even more rabidly Islamophobic than the BNP:
Jack Buckby is a 20-year-old student once tipped as the next Nick Griffin, the party’s leader. He is also a TBG supporter and was invited to its Rees-Mogg dinner and subsequent AGM. Earlier this year, he was introduced by Griffin at a meeting of the Alliance of European National Movements, a far-right group also supported by France’s Front National.
“I think people view students as generally left-wing but that’s not the case,” he says. “I joined the BNP because it’s one of few places conservative students can go. Conservative Future is packed with left-wingers and dictated to by those with a modern, liberal consensus. It’s not for traditionalists.”
Buckby left the BNP a few months ago when the “open race hatred became unacceptable.” But he agrees with the TBG view that Mrs Lawrence is “totally without merit”. He says he “detests Islam” and fears Britain will become an Islamic state by 2050. In May, he launched Liberty GB. Its “plan to save Britain” includes halting all immigration for five years and abolishing the Human Rights Act.
A prominent recent study supports Buckby’s view that youth politics is veering to the right.
I do happen to know that Jack Buckby has always been very wary of engaging me in any kind of political discussion right from the beginning. He has never really made clear what I have said that he found so offensive, but has made his antipathy of me very clear.
Below is the only recorded communication between Jack and me:
- Conversation started 9 June 2012
Jack Grugel
What on earth is your problem? Do you get sexual kicks out of spamming people?
Jack Grugel
I do not wish to have correspondence with you. I do not wish for you to be involved with my pages. I have nothing to learn from you.
I'll leave you be, and I hope you will just leave me be. I am not interested in what you have to say and I would like to be given a chance with my Nationalist projects without you trying to mess it up for me.
Put simply - please leave me alone.
Is it possible that TBG would exclude me to please this whippersnapper, I wondered. Unlikely, I thought.
As for Henry Hopwood-Phillips, I remember being on quite friendly terms with him on Facebook. He was an ordinand, I seem to remember. Indeed, he even sent me rather naughty photos of himself when he sent a photograph of his tumescent member to me on 26 July 2011 as well as a photograph of himself in the buff.
I actually have no record of what we were saying that led up to it, and some might suspect me of having skilfully and seductively enticed a sexually naive ordinand into compromising himself in this way. What little I can remember of it was that it was along the lines of "I am so horny, do you know how horny I am, do you want to see how horny I am, what is your email so I can send you a photo of how horny I am?" and I must have said "All right then", and the rest is history, as they say.
After viewing the photographs, I did advise him to be careful, being an ordinand with his whole life ahead of him, but then said no more about it. Indeed, I noticed later that he had unfriended me, but thought no more about it, imagining that he must have been embarrassed or offended after I did not play along and send him equally explicit photographs of myself in the nude followed by a close-up of my genitalia. I do remember asking him if this is how young people engage in courtship these days, rather giving away my age. To this he responded that the girls he tried this on just love this sort of thing.
 |
| The photo sent had a pose somewhat resembling Michelangelo's David but with a rather friendlier expression and an enormously larger member. |
Here it is, but cropped:
Then it dawned upon me that it was probably Harry Hopwood who has been vetting me all this time. I have had a similar experience at a certain debating society. At first, they liked me so much that they invited me to become a member, which I accepted because I thought it would be rude to refuse. When I was blackballed, presumably after one of its members Googled me, I was in effect told to stay away, which was hardly fair since I never put myself forward to become a member but was in fact invited to become one, and accepted out of politeness.
I think I have been pretty good not to make anything of his embarrassing photos for all this time, but it irks me to find myself being excluded from meetings for really quite spurious reasons because of the actions of a sexually incontinent young man who subsequently came to see that his reckless behaviour had the potential to embarrass him and the politics he represents.
Something rather similar happened before I was excluded from yet another right-wing group, and after I had thought I had so graciously and politely declined the advances of one of its committee members too! Why can't these idiotic and sexually-incontinent men take no for an answer without turning nasty?
They remind me of women who make false and malicious rape allegations against men after having their offer of no-strings sex declined.
None of this would have happened if British men were not so laughably and pathetically sex-obsessed. This also brings home the point that sexual politics is in fact inseparable from politics. These days British men and women no longer know how to behave towards each other. At least the Muslims and Jews whom they so heartily despise do not accuse each other of sexual impropriety with such tedious regularity.
It is probably not a good idea to send naked photos of yourself to anyone other than your spouse, and even then it is still not advisable.
This is yet one of those many many ways that British nationalists are always shooting themselves in the foot and then putting their bloody foot in their mouths, while Jews and Muslims snigger at their helplessness, sexual incontinence and suicidal ineptitude. I am afraid things are now so bad that only a female and foreigner can sort them out now.
I really am not the sort of woman who feels she has to be more persuasive to men by giving them sex in order to have her ideas accepted. I am just making the point that the morals and courage of British men are now so low that they have rendered themselves contemptible to any reasonable observer with any sense of decorum, morality and common sense. I can help them, but only if they do what I say.
All I ask is that they tell me which of my views are so beyond the pale that they render me not fit to attend their meetings when they are themselves already social pariahs.
If the reasons are racial, I would encourage them to say so.
I invite them to consider how much more useful it would be for them if I used my energy and talents to attack the liberal establishment, and I can only attack them more effectively if I have their support and endorsement.
My resentment is particularly directed at BDP Chairman Kevin Scott who also refuses to give me an official reason for my exclusion. I am not for one moment demanding that they must let me join their party or group, I only ask that they give me a morally and intellectually defensible reason.
If they are honest and admit that their reasons for excluding me are in fact racial, then I promise them I really will shut up and go away. I just want them to have the courage to say so.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/service_providers_association__club__society.pdf
