I have been compared to Chun Li by a nationalist!

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=110317&page=3&p=1394641&viewfull=1#post1394641

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun-Li

Nationalist meeting in Newcastle on Sunday 27 May 2012

http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1497

I would encourage any nationalist concerned about the future of nationalism to attend this meeting so that questions can be asked of the speakers.

1. Do any of them see feminism as a nationalist issue?
2. Is feminism an issue that nationalists should avoid because it is controversial?
3. Do any all of them see controversy as an opportunity to show the liberals how wrong they are?
4. Is feminism a sacred cow of the British?
5. Should nationalists propose that the sacred cow of feminism be slain?
6. How good has feminism been for nationalists?
7. How good is feminism for the long national interest?
8. Is feminism the enemy of family values?
9. Does feminism condone the right of women to be never married mothers?
10. Does the tolerance of widespread illegitimacy lower educational and moral standards?
11. Does the fact that most babies born in Britain are born out of wedlock augur well for the future of the British?
12. Do any of them see that the tolerance of widespread illegitimacy has led to the degeneracy of the British race?  (By degeneracy I mean your offspring being physically, economically, intellectually, educationally and morally inferior to you.)
13. Do any of them see feminism as the enemy of male and parental authority through which the traditions of any society are passed?
14. Have you noticed that women are far more easily offended than men and how often they call for more taxes to be imposed to suppress free speech and more laws to be passed?
15. Have you noticed how female-dominated and feminist-dominated is the teaching profession?
16. Have you noticed how cleverly the feminist teaching profession disguises its failure to teach your children to be employable?
17. Have you noticed how good women are tricked into careers so they forget to have children?
18. Have you noticed how promiscuous and irresponsible women are not discouraged from having their illegitimate children at the expense of the British taxpayer?
19. Is the degeneracy of the white working classes the reason why successive governments bring in immigrants to do the jobs they should be doing? 
20. Do you think the contempt in which Muslims hold the white man is something to do with the perception that white women are mostly slags as well as the worst mothers in the world,  and that the white man is afraid of his women?
21. Is true that nationalist men do not trust themselves to challenge feminism?
22. If it is true that nationalist men are afraid of their women, should they not let someone else do it?   
23. Do the speakers agree that the person best able to challenge feminism is Claire Khaw?
24. If Claire Khaw is indeed the person best able to speak against feminism on behalf of nationalists and the nation, should nationalists not consider becoming civic nationalists so she can join and represent the party's views on feminism?

If you feel strongly enough about these issues and think that these issues need to be tackled forcefully and intelligently, just print this out and hand it to the speakers at the meeting, after asking one or some of these questions from the floor.  

Otherwise, you know what they will do.  Put you to the expense and trouble of attending the meeting just to to boost their egos while doing NOTHING at all for you, except telling you to wait and see.  

The old dinosaurs of nationalism will not change their tired ideas until and unless they are made to.  Don't let them fob you off any more!

Nationalist Unity Meeting 17 May 2012

I enquired what was decided at the meeting.  My sources inform me that they discussed whether or not to form another party and get the 65 year old retirement aged Andrew Brons to be the figurehead.

I have no idea why nationalists would think that yet another nationalist micro-party with a leader older and slower than Nick Griffin, defeated in a leadership election, could ever be more successful than the current BNP, especially one that has decided to dissociate itself from me because it is pretending that I endorse the actions of Breivik when I have taken every care to say that Breivik is a terrorist and that it is possible for nationalists to gain influence even under the current rules, but only if they are strategically astute.

Perhaps it is yet another disease of the mind that Western men are currently afflicted by.

The last time I attended such a meeting, I told them that they needed to find a leader who is obviously better than Nick Griffin, but I fear that they either did not understand the implication of my words or cannot quite grasp that Andrew Brons is obviously not better than Nick Griffin, since he was defeated in a leadership contest.

If I had been allowed to attend, and not shunned because Richard Edmonds has chosen to pretend that I endorse the actions of Breivik (whom I had described as a terrorist on numerous occasions), I would have said the same thing, and doubtless they would have listened just as uncomprehendingly and carried on just as before.

I wonder if this proposed party that would have Andrew Brons as figurehead would have an ideology that is ethno-nationalist, or civic nationalist.   Perhaps it did not even occur to them to address this issue at their meeting.   Since it was mostly ex-BNP members who have now gone over to the NF, they will be going back to muttering darkly about forcible repatriation again, probably, seemingly oblivious to the fact that any attempt to do so would bring about civil war, and that  British citizens who have been born here have nowhere to be "repatriated" to.

It is terribly terribly sad that they do not seem to have realised that time has moved on or heard of the old Texan saying "If all you do is all you ever did, then all you'll get is all you ever got" - defeat and disappointment.

Most of my ex-BNP buddies have gone to the English Democrats (who are too bland and boring) or the NF (who are too full of stick in the mud dinosaurs who have not noticed that the non-white British citizens they would like to repatriate have been born here for three generations now).

Ironically and laughably, they like to pretend that they are more intellectually and socially respectable than me and claim falsely that I endorse Breivik's actions (even though they cannot find anything I have said in words and deed to prove this), when it is they who fear and hate Muslims more than me.

In fact, I do not fear Muslims at all.  In fact, I think there is much of their religion that the British used to follow before the Muslims arrived.   In fact, I propose that Islam - and a distinctly Anglicised form of it, with Anglican forms of worship in Churches with carols and hymns, pews and pulpits (but with Trinitarian elements excised) should be made the national state religion after the current lot of third-rate minds incapable of discussing morality beyond tolerating every damn single evil thing, openly gay priests, women, socialists, liberals and feminist clergymen have been defenestrated and dramatically disestablished.

Predictably, I have not been given the opportunity of putting it to put it to them that civic nationalism will give ethno-nationalists more of what they want than ethno-nationalism.  Perhaps they already know this, but don't care, as long as they can keep themselves busy going round ever-decreasing circles.

Even I would be give nationalists a sense of a new dawn than Andrew Brons ever would.  Many at the last meeting I attended complained of the tardiness and ineffectiveness of his actions, always too little, always too late.

I really do not think they want success, but prefer the failure that fuels their grievance, because that is all they ever knew and all they will ever know.   Put to them a new idea and they will behave in exactly the way a vampire would  if you offered them a phial of holy water or a wreathe of garlic.   You cannot help the Undead, especially if they do not want to be helped.

Perhaps the only future for the independent nationalist who refuses to give up is to infiltrate the established parties.   The Conservative Party would be the obvious choice, now that they have a seething simmering backbenchers' rebellion after having ousted Peter Bone, the most rebellious of the rebel Tory MPs.

Sadly, for most of my ex-BNP buddies, they will be too tribal and socially awkward to contemplate leaving the group of people they have met at their little social club that they fondly imagine is a political party.  

Reasons given to exclude me from a nationalist unity meeting, and my answers

ONE WHO OBJECTS TO MY PRESENCE AT THE MEETING


Her posting on her blog, photos of herself in exactly the same pose as the depraved killer Breivik, complete wirth aimed rifle, etc. makes it politically impossible for us to invite Claire to the above "Nationalist Unity" meeting.

On her web-site, Claire published a photo of the depraved mass-killer, Breivik, holding and aiming a gun. Immediately underneath Claire deliberately published a photo of herself in exactly the same highly provocative pose: gun in hand, aiming.

[This can be seen at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-breivik-did-what-he-did-and-why-i.html]

What message is Claire trying to make ? The murder of all those young people - who may have been leftists, (young socialists), but at their age and living in this enforced multi-racial society, they hardly know / knew any better - was a most wicked crime.Claire talks about wishing to start the rehabilitation of National Socialism , but in Adolf Hitler's Germany, as in healthy society, Breivik's action would have been regarded with horror and revulsion, and as a matter of fact, Breivik, once convicted, would have met his end at the guillotine.

There are two considerations:

firstly, that common decency demands that one utterly repudiates Breivik;

and secondly, the knowledge that the System would not hesitate to ban a party, and possibly imprison its leaders, if there was a suspicion that the party found favour in Breivik's actions; and the public, very understandably, would endorse and support such a ban.

MY RESPONSE TO HIS OBJECTIONS

I am afraid I wrote at such length that my point was lost.

The relevant extract in that hideously over-long post at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-breivik-did-what-he-did-and-why-i.html is as follows:

I will make it clear that I have no desire to become a terrorist nor do I wish to gas Jews (some of whom are my best friends). It is only the potency of these images that will attract liberal eyes in spite of themselves.

Breivik did what he did when he came to the conclusion that participating in the political process is futile. He observed that once enough Norwegian voters wised up to what was happening to their country, the Norwegian government would let more immigrants in, give them passports and gerrymander the vote.

Even now, organisations such as UAF, Searchlight and Hope Not Hate regularly intimidate nationalists and pubs who allow nationalists to use their function rooms.

If they make it seem so hopeless that everyone believes that participating in the political process is doomed to failure and disgrace as well as intimidation and violence, then they have only themselves to blame if Britain gets its own Breivik in the years to come.

I have had to go so far to get an interesting photograph of myself taken with Dave and that flag because that is the only way to make the Liberal Left listen. It was they who drove me to do this, and they have only themselves to blame.

In that extract I have only said things in the hope of preventing a British Breivik. I think it can therefore be inferred that I do not endorse what Breivik has done.

Perhaps, because of the inordinate length of that post, it was just not read by you.

It has been pointed out that there are many who share Breivik's views, but would never have done what he did.

As for the government thinking of banning any party that endorses terrorism that I am a member of, I will simply deny that I endorse terrorism and challenge anyone who accuses me of endorsing terrorism to point to any single thing I have done or said that supports their contention. My point has always been that nationalists can beat liberals under the current rules, provided they are strategically astute.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/protest-against-liberal-extremism-by.html

What I would like to see now is Swastika, Iron Cross brooches and badges worn with burqas, sarees, shalwar kameezes, chadors, kaftans, jelabas etc. I am sure many many non-white British citizens such as Muslims hate the idea of gay marriage which Cameron is hell-bent on pushing through, but are too afraid to say in case in case they provoke yet another wave of seething, spitting, gnashing Islamophobia.

I am actually in favour of British voters of all races and religions using Nazi imagery to outrage the liberal political establishment to show them how much we hate them for their totalitarian thoughtcrime and hate-speech laws and the way they indoctrinate rather than educate British children so they become so useless that no sane British employer wants to hire them and hires foreign labour instead.

What follows is what David Jones has to say about my being banned from Nationalist Unity Meetings because of the photographs at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-breivik-did-what-he-did-and-why-i.html.

"Regarding the provocative swastika flag, there's quite a bit of hypocrisy here.

It is worth mentioning that the flag has been used as a sign of rebellion since it was re-introduced by the Oakland Hells Angels founder Sonny Barger, in the case of the '81s German Chapters, it was worn even in defiance of that nations own governments guilt-ridden laws banning such Nazi insignia. (Other 1% MCs Satans' Slaves MC and Blue Angels also use variants of it)

Wearing a swastika is universal way of showing defiance of nitwits who quickly take offence, and doing it in no uncertain terms.

When I see nationalists taking offence on behalf of thin-skinned public, and refusing to be seen anywhere near a swastika, they display the same moral cowardice as the political classes that they are supposed to be fighting.

It has really come to something when you can't even rely on a high ranking member of the National Front to stand by your right to fly a swastika."

It is precisely my strategy that nationalists court controversy, arouse the ire and hysteria of the liberals and then calmly dismiss their manufactured outrage in a series of easily remembered soundbites.

By having me at your meeting you will of course court controversy. It is this that will help convey the nationalist message to the wider public. If I am allowed to attend the meeting, I will be able to explain better how I intend to make nationalism rational, inclusive and exciting, rather than boring, racially-exclusive and narrow.

What nationalists must not do is to shy away from controversy or even try to avoid it altogether. It is the fact that nationalists can do so, so easily, that is their secret weapon, which it seems they are now afraid to use. By being afraid to use their ability to court controversy, they are throwing away the only advantage they have over the other parties.

I very much hope I will be given a chance to explain my strategy

A REPETITION OF HIS OBJECTIONS TO MY ATTENDANCE

Any one is entitled to come to the conclusion, that"participating in the political process is futile" : that is not my opinion, but people are entitled to come to that conclusion. What they are not entitled to do, is murder dozens of young people: that is wickedness; and every body can see that.

The only people to blame if Britain gets its own Breivik in the years to come, is the individual(s) who commit such wickedness. As for our political enemies, who make difficulties for us, one just has to endure the difficulties, without reacting in a criminal manner to what are just provocations, specifically designed to destabilise us.

As for "getting an interesting photograph... in order to get the Liberal Left to listen". Why bother to get the Liberal Left to listen ? Who cares what they think ? The only peoples' whose opinions matter, are those of the broad majority of decent British people. For this very reason we need to be perceived as: responsible, disciplined Patriots with a strong sense of civic duty.

MY RESPONSE TO HIS REPEATED OBJECTIONS

I should have said "get the Liberal Left JOURNALISTS to listen". The voter consciousness is filtered through the Liberal Left media. By giving the Liberal Left media a story that apparently makes nationalists looks bad, we can turn the tables on them by ending the story in a way that makes nationalists look good. It is a kind of mental jujitsu, where you use the force of your opponent against himself by directing it in a certain way.

What nationalists cannot afford to do is to be boring, cowardly and despised (like the LibLabCon) AS WELL AS RACIST.

Nationalists need to deal with the liberal media and understand how hungry they are for stories.

We give them a story that runs and run that will keep coming to us for more. I think like a journalist. I know what stories the public wants and what kind of photos they want.

The role I see for myself in nationalism is Press Officer or Director of Communications. Nationalism needs for it what Peter Mandelson did to Old Labour to make it electable.

The Liberal Left do not know what to make of me and therefore they will want to write about me. There is nothing so far for them to write about if I am nowhere in nationalism, but, with the support of nationalists I can be something and nationalists can be something new and different and exciting and no longer racist.

I actually know people in the media and even once met them socially, though they shun me now. Let me make the most of my contacts, for the sake of nationalism

I have explained my position in the blog that accompanied the photos, and twice in emails to you, that I do not endorse Breivik's actions. To explain is not to justify.

I cannot quite understand why a nationalist should take the same hysterical attitude towards debate as a liberal does, but it seems it is your purpose to PRETEND that I endorse Breivik's actions and nothing I have written, long or short, will disabuse you of this idea.

I am the only person in nationalism who is not afraid of discussing Breivik, and it seems precisely your intention not to discuss Breivik and pretend you do not share many of his views. This is cowardice and hypocrisy of the highest order and the loss of a great opportunity to state the nationalist case. 

It is not criminal to have his views, only criminal to go on a shooting rampage. 

You may have other reasons, other than what you stated, not to have me in the movement, of course, and it would be naive in the extreme not to acknowledge this.

I would say it is precisely my race and my gender and my national origins that will be the secret weapon against the Left Liberal media, who do know what to make of me.

It seems you may be doing the things you were accusing Nick Griffin of not doing as leader of the BNP, not taking bold enough action, not doing things that obviously need to be done, but without discussing it properly with anyone, just because you are in charge and can exclude whomsoever you please.

I put these things to you in the hope that you are an honourable man and will do what is necessary for the sake of the cause and free speech and use the best available personnel and all the available means to defeat the enemy [of reason and free speech], without fear or favour.