The self-evident truth that feminism denies

Some things are easy for men but hard for women and vice versa. Most women are easily offended and find it hard to think logically, for example.

Most men find it easy to talk about sports and politics endlessly which would bore women silly.

If we acknowledge these differences, then we would have to acknowledge that men find it harder to say no to no-strings sex while women have more offers of sex than they would like to accept.

The problem with feminism is that it denies this self-evident truth, and uses all its legislative power to suppress the pointing out of this self-evident truth: that men are the weaker sex at saying no to no-strings sex.

For most women, sex is a chore while for most men it is a physical and all-consuming imperative.

If sex were a drug then men would be the user and women the dealer. The cancer of feminism is now so bone-deep that expecting the Western man to denounce feminism is like expecting a drug-addict to call the cops on his dealer. Ain't gonna happen.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet and just voting UKIP is not going to be enough because UKIP are too afraid even to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

What does the elephant in the room consist of?

1. indiscriminate universal suffrage
2. representative democracy when we should have a one-party state that protects the rights of its members operating under the principles of Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
3. anti-discrimination legislation
4. no-fault divorce
5. gay marriage
6. the civil partnership
7. the consecration of our right to have extramarital sex (which is dysgenic) and the desecration of the institution of marriage (which is eugenic)
8. the powerlessness of our politicians hence their despicable cowardice and hypocrisy
9. the existence of the welfare state - another sacred cow - which supports all of the above making governments borrow recklessly to keep the whole shebang going

The operation of democracy prevents these tragic and continuing errors from being corrected and we are heading towards the edge of the cliff like lemmings.  

Please help me save Western civilisation by discussing this with any woman intelligent enough to understand this, even if you think she will disagree, become offended and never speak to you again.  

This would be your wife who will divorce you under the ruinous terms of no fault divorce, your daughter who will never speak to you again, and your slut girlfriend who will dump you, right?  

Ain't gonna happen, I know.

And that is why Western civilisation is going down the toilet.  

Any civilisation in which the overwhelming majority of men are afraid of women and husbands afraid of wives to even discuss politics cannot survive, let alone prosper. 

Can you imagine David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg discussing any of this with their wives? Or even Barack Obama?

I rest my case and my case is not based on a conspiracy theory. Men really are stupid and women really are crazy. Women are crazy because men become stupid the moment they say it is OK for women to be sluts, and women go crazy when they get the go ahead to be sluts.

We are all to blame if we do not work up the courage to confront the perniciousness of feminism.

Remember: once upon a time, a Wise Man created God to protect himself from feminism and his susceptibility to sluts.

When Aristotle said that the greatest injustice was to treat unequal things equally, he meant feminism would be the greatest injustice, and feminism is a cancer, waiting in the wings for its cue, for the right conditions to makes its entrance, to thrive and flourish. and then eventually kill its host ...

Athens did not become successful despite its alleged misogyny but because of it, but you won't hear classical historians like Mary Beard saying this, even if she agreed, cos she would be out of her job and out on her ear.

Feminazis have been victimising Camille Paglia for decades for speaking the truth.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

Why Claire Khaw does what she does

Lord Rennard's apology fails to placate the implacable

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643106/Lib-Dem-peer-Lord-Rennard-FINALLY-apologises-encroaching-personal-space-four-women-months-defied-Nick-Cleggs-demands-say-sorry.html

It is disturbing how irrational and idiotic how may of these supposedly experienced party men are.

If I were Lord Rennard desperate to get back the party whip, here is how I would have played it.

This is how I would have put it to Clegg:

"If I apologised do I have your word as a gentleman that you will call off the bitches and tell them you will expel them for bringing the party into disrepute if they carry on asking for my head on a platter after I apologise?  No? Then I won't apologise. Yes? Then I will.  I think my apologising and their gracious acceptance of my apology would be the best result all round for the sake of the party, don't you, Nick, if you are prepared to put your foot down on this one? Do let me know after you have had a word with Miriam, eh?"

If he received no answer then he should take no action and await the results of the third "investigation" into his conduct, whose "conclusions" will only published after the next LibDem leadership election, I imagine, which will be after GE 2015, probably.

Why he wants to get back into that party when they are so obviously on their way out is a mystery to me, but perhaps the House of Lords is a lonely place if your fellow LibDem peers shun you and turn their backs on you.  It is rather like a rat apologising for being a rat begging to go back on board a sinking ship and makes no sense to me at all.

If these experienced party men don't even know how to manage their own affairs and negotiations, how well do you think the are managing the affairs of the nation?

A proposed three-pronged attack for Lord Rennard's consideration

I.  See to it that Nick Clegg pays for being so wrong about how he mishandled everything.  He obviously should have got the complainants and Lord Rennard together and told the complainants that anyone who says anything more about the matter would be expelled from the party for bringing it into disrepute.  If Lord Rennard did do it, he should not do it again, or there would be Big Trouble for him.  

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf

A. Leadership election rules 

The rules for the election of a leader of the federal Liberal Democrat party are set down in its
Constitution. The Constitution was agreed in 1988, on the formation of the Liberal
Democrats.  

No changes were made to the leadership election rules between the formation of the party and the 2004 edition of the Constitution, which specified: 

10.1 The Leader of the Party shall be elected by the members of the Party in
accordance with election rules made pursuant to Article 8.4.

10.2 An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
(a) the Leader asking for an election;
(b) the death or incapacity of the Leader;
(c) the Leader ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons (other
than a temporary cessation by reasons of a dissolution;
(d) the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a
declaration of intent to resign upon the election of new Leader;
(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of
all Members of the Parliamentary party in the House of Commons;
(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75
Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated
Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students)
following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or
(g) the first anniversary of the preceding general election being reached
without an election being called under any of paragraphs (a) through
(f), provided that:
(i) the Federal Executive may postpone such an election for no
more than one year by a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting; and
(ii) this paragraph (g) shall not apply if the Leader is a member
of the Government. 

II.   Applying for judicial review which, if successful, would subject the LibDems' actions (and the way they rode roughshod over established and important legal and liberal principles) to scrutiny by the judiciary. They are:

(i)     the rule against retrospective legislation (Lord Rennard could not possibly have known that touching a woman's knee all those years ago could have landed him in such hot water now.)

(ii)    the rule that we have the right to be treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

(iii)   the rule against double jeopardy

III.  Issuing defamation proceedings against his accusers, and their running dogs.  This would include the leader as well as the party itself, for

(a)   implying that Lord Rennard had committed a crime by putting this matter in the  hands of the police

(b)   insisting that he had something to apologise for, even when they knew they could not prove in a court of law that he was guilty, either to a criminal or civil standard

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

What I would like the political parties of Britain to do for me

FIRST UNDERTAKING

The Conservative Party can go and get itself some principles. If they are having difficulty formulating any, I propose the following:

"The Conservative Party supports, first and foremost, the principle of free speech and of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest. The national interest includes solvency, social stability through the promotion of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, stable prices through fiscal prudence as well as the maintenance of standards of morality and education that would be considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next.  It is the intention of the Conservative Party to use the Koran as its guide."

SECOND UNDERTAKING

The Labour Party should change their constitution and allow Lord Mandelson to become their leader even though he is not an MP.  Or perhaps just get Diane Abbott to do it, if they can't quite manage that.

THIRD UNDERTAKING

The LibDems can expel Nick Clegg for bringing their party into disrepute and replace him with the legally-trained Simon Hughes.

FOURTH UNDERTAKING

UKIP can propose an EU referendum and the repeal of the Equality Act 2010

FIFTH UNDERTAKING

The BNP can propose the reintroduction of fault into divorce to show that they support sensible things such as marriage, which undeniably does have a bearing on the quality of your race. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
'The whites have become black' says David Starkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517
Democrats' (in the UK, substitute Labour for Democrat) idea voter: illegal alien, single mother, convicted felon
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html
“Victim of a crime? Thank a Single Mother.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html

SIXTH UNDERTAKING

See to it that Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill gets Royal Assent. http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

SEVENTH UNDERTAKING

Become a unicameral one-party state and use the Chinese Communist Party constitution mutatis mutandis. Their Article 4 gives party members rights that are to die for. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/229722.htm#2

EIGHTH UNDERTAKING

Suggest to the Chinese government that they might like to follow the British model for their one-party state viz allow judicial review of party decisions affecting the rights of party members.

NINTH UNDERTAKING

The Lower House in particular to take an interest in Khaw v Con Party 

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-conservative-party-has-filed-its.html and cheer me on when it gets to the Court of Appeal.  If I win this one, it will mean that I have negotiated for all MPs of all parties better working conditions, because it means that their leader and their party can no longer abuse them and kick them around any more. They will no longer be abused by their party and their leader if the courts can judicially review any decision made by their leader and his cronies to unfairly and irrationally demote, suspend or expel a member, or in any way unfairly deprive him of his rights.

TENTH UNDERTAKING

Discuss the truth or otherwise of what Schopenhauer said about women after subjecting the women who made the complaints against Lord Rennard to rigorous and vigorous cross examination to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard was indeed guilty of what he was accused of.

 "The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."

-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

If MPs want to think of me as their Shop Steward, I will certainly not stop them from doing so.  My dear mother was a union representative in her time, so it could be said that a family tradition of speaking up for people too stupid and scared to speak up for themselves runs in my veins.

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos shall be my motto.

"Roman! let this be your care, this your art;
to rule over the nations and impose the ways
of peace, to spare the underdog, and pull down
the proud."
— Aneid VI. 851 

Who are the proud that shall not be spared?  The ones who have no principles, and who say:

"The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." 

Who are the strong?  The party leader and his cronies including his nagging wife.

Who are the weak?  The individual party member.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0200:book=5:chapter=89:section=1

I dedicate my legal action to Lord Rennard - the worst-treated party activist in British history - who has been in his party for 40 years and joined as an adolescent.  It is now being proposed that he be expelled to satisfy the implacable demands of a bunch of malicious women if he does not apologise and leave himself open to legal action.  It would probably be kinder to assassinate him with an ice pick, methinks.

Who has brought the Liberal Democrats most into disrepute as a party?

Who has brought the Liberal Democrats most into disrepute as a party?

1. Nick Clegg
2. Lord Rennard
3. Lord Rennard's supporters
4. The women accusing Lord Rennard
5. The supporters of the women accusing Lord Rennard

Why the rights of MPs *must* be protected, so they can do a better job

About Lord Rennard, yes, I do know that he

1. is a politician.
2. is a LibDem politician. 
3. is on the heavy side, though I imagine he might have lost a bit of weight from the stress his suspension has caused him.
4. probably did do it, but in my view deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

It is only now that brings home to mind this liberal saying that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than that a single innocent man is punished.  

This is of course an extreme expression of principle.  Even if he probably did do it, should be be treated as if he had not?  Does such a man deserve justice?  He is after all a politician, and we know how despised they are.  

Their rights and liberties count for nothing, because they are so hated.  The fairness or otherwise of their punishment is neither here nor there.  They common view is that they deserve to be punished just for being politicians, and this hatred is visceral and implacable.  

They are hated as much as the way people used to hate blacks and Jews, I imagine: believing them to be either obviously inherently inferior and to be pitied and avoided or too cunning to be ever trusted.  

They are these days hated because they are too afraid to do their jobs, which is to express the views and acknowledge the preferences of those whom they purport to represent.

If they ever say anything interesting or remotely truthful, they will invariably be apologising for it before too long.  

It is probably this apologetic reflex that made Nick Clegg think saying sorry is nothing more than standard procedure to get oneself out of trouble and had expected Lord Rennard to follow suit. To say sorry was, for Nick Clegg, just like saying it when you had bumped into someone or trodden on their foot.  It is instinctive and just basic good manners, he said, suggesting that Lord Rennard was in some way uncouth and ill-bred for not laying himself open to civil action by vindictive LibDem women who want him punished more because he did not have the instinctive servility to obey immediately and without question.

Because most people hate politicians and it is an occupational hazard of politicians to say things that will be considered offensive to another who holds the opposite view is precisely why the rights of politicians must be protected, in order that they can do their jobs properly.  Otherwise, we would be sending in soldiers into battle without weaponry, or sending sewage workers into sewers or firemen into fires without proper protective clothing.  

At this time, politicians are either too stupid or scared to even think of protesting about their working conditions and their employer - their party leader who routinely abuses them - because to end up being expelled from your party means you are shop-soiled as far as any other party is concerned.  

Being expelled from our party is a bit like having potential spouses find out that  one has been a victim of rape.  People who discover this will simply assume that you are a trouble maker (calling into question your morals), or joined the wrong party (calling into question your judgment).  

Yep, I know all about that, and how career-ending it is for most people to end up being expelled from their party.  

When Peter Bone MP proposed the abolition of the office of the whip in the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wondered how many MPs took that seriously enough to even understand its purpose. I know mine did not, or he pretended he did not understand it, and said he was too busy to take the time to do so.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm

And so we add to the list of why we hate politicians denial as well as incompetence, corruption, cowardice and hypocrisy.

While I would stand up for the right of BNP supporters to complain about immigration, I think standing up for the mostly rotten political classes is one step beyond the pale.  

But if one unashamedly unsuccessful activist - me - who supports unpopular causes won't stand up for them, then who will?  They are the ones most in need of support and improved working conditions, and I have the solution for them as well the road map to electoral reform.  

What do they have to do in return to get this?

Why, take an interest in Khaw v Con Party, of course, all the way up to the highest court in the land, because this is a matter of the gravest constitutional importance while discussing it amongst themselves.

I really hope I will get a few intelligent questions from time to time after all the sacrifices and risks I am taking on behalf of a class of people whom I suspect fear to be seen to be associated with me and probably doubt my sanity.  

Battle of the sexes taking place in the LibDems. May the best man win.

This story highlights exactly why there should be honour amongst thieves and why most women shouldn't be in politics.

Women who cannot fend off unwanted male attentions without crying about it decades later demanding vengeance really should not be in politics.

Men like Nick Clegg who cannot grasp the principle that no man should be convicted of a crime without a fair trial should not be in politics either.

If Lord Rennard has not been convicted of any crime then he should not have to apologise for anything.

It heaps even greater contempt on an already discredited political class.

Not only unprincipled, but stupid as well as ignorant of the most fundamental principle that you would have thought a liberal politician would uphold: the right to a fair trial.

What a pity that the manginas in the LibDems cannot see this, but perhaps this is not too surprising since Nick Clegg is the No 1 Mangina of Britain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541954/Henry-VIII-Kim-Jong-Un-Thomas-Cromwell-Nick-Clegg-Lib-Dem-peer-launches-devastating-assault-leader-stance-sex-harassment-scandal.html

http://skypressoffice.co.uk/newstranscripts/murnaghan-190114-interview-lord-carlile-lib-dem-peer-miranda-green-former-press-secr

http://newsatw.com/rennard-could-sue-his-way-back/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewsTodayOnline+%28News+Today+Online+NewsATW%29

"It is astonishing what you can achieve if you don't mind who takes the credit."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446093/PM-Panics-Tories-bid-quit-EU-year-MPs-hijack-Commons-vote-2014-referendum-years-early.html

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/from-jameswhartonmp-why-adam-afriyie-is-wrong-my-referendum-bill-must-not-be-amended.html

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/10/the-best-chance-to-get-an-inout-referendum-is-for-eurosceptics-to-back-the-wharton-bill-unamended.html

Politicians who should most bear this in mind are:

1. James Wharton MP
2. Nigel Farage 
3. Nick Griffin MEP
4. Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West)
5. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
6. Jon Cruddas (Dagenham & Rainham)
7. John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead)
8. Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West)
9. Natascha Engel (Derbyshire North East)
10. Frank Field (Birkenhead)
11. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green)
12. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
13. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
14. Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak)
15. John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
16. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
17. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
18. Andrew Smith (Oxford East)
19. Graham Stringer (Blackley & Broughton)
20. Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston)
21. Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)
22. Stuart Andrew (Pudsey)
23. Steve Baker (Wycombe)
24. John Baron (Basildon and Billericay)
25. Andrew Bingham (High Peak)
26. Brian Binley (Northampton South)
27. Bob Blackman (Harrow East)
28. Peter Bone (Wellingborough)*
29. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West)
30. Andrew Bridgen (Leicestershire NW)
31. Steve Brine (Winchester)
32. Fiona Bruce (Congleton)
33. Dan Byles (Warwickshire North)
34. Douglas Carswell (Clacton)
35. Bill Cash (Stone)
36. Chris Chope (Christchurch)
37. James Clappison (Hertsmere)
38. Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
39. David T C Davies (Monmouth)
40. Philip Davies (Shipley)
41. David Davis (Haltemprice & Howden)
42. Nick de Bois (Enfield North)  http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/nick-de-bois-mp-adam-afriyies-judgement-is-flawed-2014-is-the-wrong-time-for-an-inout-referendum.html
43. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport)
44. Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid)
45. Richard Drax (Dorset South)
46. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster)
47. Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble)
48. Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park)
49. James Gray (Wiltshire North)
50. Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry)
51. Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
52. George Hollingbery (Meon Valley)
53. Philip Hollobone (Kettering)*
54. Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
55. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough)
56. Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and Essex N)
57. Marcus Jones (Nuneaton)
58. Chris Kelly (Dudley South)]
59. Andrea Leadsom (Northamptonshire S)
60. Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford)
61. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
62. Julian Lewis (New Forest East)
63. Karen Lumley (Redditch)
64. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley)
65. Karl McCartney (Lincoln)
66. Stephen McPartland (Stevenage)
67. Anne Main (St Albans)
68. Patrick Mercer (Newark)
69. Nigel Mills (Amber Valley)
70. Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot)
71. James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
72. Stephen Mosley (Chester)
73. Sheryll Murray (Cornwall SE)
74. Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton N)
75. David Nuttall (Bury N)
76. Matthew Offord (Hendon)
77. Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton)
78. Priti Patel (Witham)
79. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole)
80. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin)
81. Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood)
82. John Redwood (Wokingham)
83. Jacob Rees-Mogg (Somerset NE)
84. Simon Reevell (Dewsbury)
85. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)
86. Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
87. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
88. Henry Smith (Crawley)
89. John Stevenson (Carlisle)
90. Bob Stewart (Beckenham)
91. Gary Streeter (Devon SW)
92. Julian Sturdy (York Outer)
93. Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle)
94. Justin Tomlinson (Swindon N)
95. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)
96. Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes)
97. Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
98. Robin Walker (Worcester)
99. Heather Wheeler (Derbyshire S)
100. Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley)
101. John Whittingdale (Maldon)
102. Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)

Above are Labour and MPs who voted in support of the EU referendum.  

What should be done must be done, what must be done must be done as soon as possible.

Those MPs listed above who cannot bring themselves to support should be especially targeted by BNP/UKIP in the 2015 General Election.

BNP and UKIP should co-operate and agree not to stand against each other in order to inflict maximum damage on any MP listed above who is not on record as supporting Adam Afriyie's amendment.  

My suggestion is that UKIP and BNP divide amongst themselves the seats they are most likely to win and leave the field clear to each other.  

To avoid any accusations of racism, the BNP should change its constitution from 

"3.2.1 Our Party is a party of British Nationalism, both ethnic and civic ... "

to:

"Our party is a party of civic nationalism committed to promoting the long-term national interest through the judicious balancing of the conflicting needs and wants of British citizens of different races, classes, religions, genders, ages and abilities. We are pledged to maintain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the establishment of meritocracy facilitated by social mobility. Social mobility can only be facilitated by a free and excellent selective education system." 

Indeed, the BNP should annul my expulsion so that I will be in a position to throw my hat in the ring for the BNP leadership election of 2015.  Once I am elected Madam Chairman, no one will accuse the BNP of being racist ever again.

This should be the entire basis of BNP/UKIP election strategy in 2015 ie for the BNP to become officially and unambiguously civic nationalist so that it is in a position to do deals with UKIP in order to jointly play its role of being the only party in the land that still promotes social conservatism.   

My fondest hope is that both BNP and UKIP leaders can bring themselves to praise Adam Afriyie even if most of their members are a bit racist.  Show some leadership for a change, guys!

The UKIP leader should be pleased that just one black man with planning and courage can get for them what an entire party could not have got themselves.

The BNP leader should be pleased that just one black man has single-handedly taken away the entire reason for UKIP's existence.  If all goes according to plan and the British get their EU referendum on 23 October 2014, UKIP will no longer exist by the time the 2015 General Election comes to pass, leaving the entire anti-immigration field clear to the BNP.

The only people who would hate this would be the Europhiliac, gay marriage-supporting, Syria-bombing con men and con women of the Conservative Party, who deserve a good kicking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277267/Adam-Afriyie-why-I-and-other-MPs-could-not-support-the-Syria-motion.html

What should Ed Miliband do?

Support it, of course.  Supporting it would demonstrate his democratic credentials and please the grassroots, who always appreciate being consulted.

What should Nick Clegg do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/15/pmqs-nick-clegg-european-union-referendum_n_3277948.html

He should  go fuck himself.  

Number of children in married families drops 1million in ten years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226583/Number-children-married-families-drops-1million-years.html


There will be fewer legitimate children and more bastards by SSMs. Is this a sign that your society is suffering from terminal cancer? What is the government doing about it? NOTHING. Why not? Cos too many of these SSMs and their bastards have the vote.

Nick Griffin is afraid of SSMs.

Nigel Farage is afraid of SSMs.

Ed Miliband is afraid of SSMs.

Nick Clegg is afraid of SSMs.

David Cameron is afraid of SSMs.

Boris Johnson, when he becomes PM, will also be afraid of SSMs when there are more parasites than hosts for the parasites to feed upon.  

This is the future in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland.   

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-SSMs-Slut-Single-Mothers-be-entitled-to-state-hand-outs/220271251432495
"Like" this page if you agree.   If there are enough likes then maybe the government, diseased by feminism, might do something more than wring its scummy Paedo Bastard Slut and Liberal hands.  

What I would say about Nick Clegg's wealth tax if I were leader of UKIP

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9505272/Nick-Cleggs-wealth-tax-plan-is-politics-of-envy.html

If I were leader of UKIP, I would say:

"Cameron could easily have avoided having a coalition government if he hadn't been so busy kowtowing to the liberal agenda.   If he had promoted and supported unashamedly Conservative policies, he would have won by a landslide, but such is the nature of the milquetoasts who pass for men in the LibLabCon.  

An absence of moral courage and fear of alienating the female vote is the problem.  If the Republicans knew what was good for them, they would be busily alienating the female vote now, and dare the women who vote Democrat to do their worst in November.  

UKIP shall henceforth adopt a stance that is consistent with masculine authority and moral courage and speak the truth without fear or favour.

UKIP men will no longer cower before UKIP women like the disgraceful milquetoasts they were under the reign of Farage.   

It was after all the female voter who voted in New Labour.   Do we need to say any more about the perniciousness of courting the female vote?  The last 50 years of Western government has been about courting the female vote and this is where it has got us: bankrupt.  The West is now socially, financially and intellectually bankrupt, consumed as it has been by the demands of immoral and parasitical single mothers.  There was a time before I became leader of UKIP when there was absolutely nothing about SSMs (Slut Single Mums) in the UKIP manifesto.  Now, I am glad to say that that omission has finally been rectified since the resignation of Nigel Farage and his handing over of the party to me.  He has very understandably decided that he wants to retire from his lifetime of moral cowardice.  Yes, indeed: you now have your new broom, and things are going to be different now.    

To the good liberal, SSMs are sacred cows who cannot be criticised, but we social conservatives who want fewer laws and lower taxes know better, do we not?

If Cameron had played his cards right, the Tories would not be confronted with the Scylla of Labour and the Charybdis of the Liberal Democrats, who are the parties of the Commie Pinko subversive.   

UKIP will henceforth state its position on domestic and foreign policy every time an error of the government comes to light and explain how we would have done it different and better.

Every day, as each new error of government comes to light, it will be pointed out to the voter how I,  Claire Khaw,  leader of UKIP, would have done instead.  By the time the next general election comes along, I will be seen as the saviour of degenerate Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland and simply step into Cameron's shoes.  Indeed, I plan to stand in Witney as prospective parliamentary candidate.  It will a historic first to oust a sitting Prime Minister."

Cleggeron disagreement on internships

I wish, in the spirit of peacemaking that I hope I will one day become known for, offer a solution to the Clegg-Cameron Coalition dichotomy on the question of paid and unpaid internships.

Clegg thinks unpaid internships should be discouraged because they advantage the children of wealthy parents to the disadvantage of children of poorer parents, while Cameron cannot see why parents cannot use their connections to advantage their children.

My solution is simple: there should be an equal number of alternating places in any firm for paid and unpaid internships.

Am I or am I not a genius who should become Dictator of Britain to be elected by SMS using AV on Political X Factor in which I will beat the other candidates by a clear margin?

Ought I not have Obama's Nobel Peace Prize transferred to me forthwith as being the clearly more deserving recipient?

Are not my problem-solving powers simply phenomenal?

Like all the best things in life, my ideas are free.  

We are such "special" people, aren't we, Mumsnet and Nick Clegg?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11287193

0810
Ofsted says nearly half a million children in England, labelled with special needs have been wrongly diagnosed. Jo Shuter, headteacher at Quintin Kynaston School, a secondary school in North London and John Bangs, former assistant general secretary of the NUT discuss the reasons for the high numbers.

0856
At least on-in-five five school children in England are now classed as having special educational needs (SEN), according to Ofsted. Brian Lamb, who chaired an inquiry last year into whether parents had confidence in the SEN system, gives his reaction to the claims.. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8996000/8996159.stm


Special Needs Children should go to special schools. "Special" is a term of insult, now, is it not? A bit like "spastic". It is of course a middle class racket to give their children access to the character-deformining process of whingeing for more money and "special" pleading. Notice how that head teacher refused repeatedly to answer John Humphreys when he repeatedly asked her if she gets more government funding if she has a specially large number of specially educationally needy children. What happens in effect is that these middle class specially educationally needy children get butlers to follow them around and minister to their special needs at the expense of the merely average, who are more likely to be useful citizens of the future.  This teacher and middle class parent racket of Special Needs children disadvantages the average child whose needs are not regarded as special enough to require butlers.     

Give them more money, get more of the specially needy, ie educationally inadequate. Is that what we really want?  


Being the "special" people that the British are, we probably do.  

http://www.educationlawyers.co.uk/ demonstrates what a fucking racket it all is.  

"Reward the inadequate!  Punish the productive!"  this is the rallying liberal cry. 


Well, I guess there is no reason why parasites in turn can't have their own parasites too.  When all the parasites in this country are busily feeding off each other in a unbreakable food chain of parasites who breed and eat other parasites, then this country will finally disappear up its own arsehole.  

Said a perceptive observer:

"For the percentage Ofsted considers are wrongly classified as "special educational requirements" I suspect this could be a money-saving wheeze."

But of course!  The conspiracy between the middle class parents with difficult and thick children and the useless job creating arm in the educational establishment has now been revealed!
 
http://www.mumsnet.com/onlinechats/nick-clegg

Why is Nick Clegg sucking up to these disgraceful representatives of working  British motherhood of the Mumsnet Matriarchy? (The reason is of course that these harridans are now in charge and Cleggeron have to suck up to them real good.)  The most indiscriminately compassionate is the affluent but divorced middle class mum with her educationally-needy "special" child.

Below is an exchange between one of the whingeing mothers asking for more handouts with the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg:  

  MadameDefarge: Apologies if this has already been covered, but have you any policies with regard to the shocking state of SEN provision in schools? Millions must be spent on various agencies, none of whom will talk to each other, heads who run out of SEN budgets, and children who are utterly ignored and failed every single day, even with full statements. Because all SEN school provision devolves onto one teacher who has probably had an afternoon's training, SENCOs who are completely untrained and just general unjoinedupness of the current system. What we do need are named advocates for individual children who take ownership of that child's needs and coordinates all involved parties, and that advocate should ot be school based.


NickClegg:The underachievement of many children with SEN is truly shameful. Our plans to introduce a £2.5bn Pupil Premium would give a massive funding boost to many children with Special Educational Needs, meaning that schools would have more money to provide specialist and one-to-one support. But we realise that when it comes to supporting children with SEN, money isn't everything. We would improve teacher training so the workforce becomes better at detecting SEN and providing appropriate support.

Why have butlers for the weird, thick and behaviorally-challenged children of the professional middle classes with access to lawyers when they could just be sent to "special" schools, out of sight, out of mind and out of trouble?

Too thick to govern is the Cleggeron!  

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/

Below are my two contributions to Cleggy's excellent idea.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/direct-democracy-under-a-narrower-taxpayer-only-franchise/idea-view



No representation without taxation


Only taxpayers who pay a minimum of tax, say £1,000 per annum, will be entitled to vote. 

This would stop most women from voting. 

Women are, as we know, potentially parasitical because they

1.  want to mother everything
2.  find mothering an expression of their nature and identity
3.  know that the more they mother and the more dependent their charges are, the more important they are perceived to be  (You therefore get quite a few mothers "boasting" of their disabled and autistic child and therefore their martyrdom.)
4.  are sentimental, masochistic, hypocritical, irrational, emotional, and often in the dishonourable position of wishing to wound but being afraid to strike, eg single mothers, criminals etc.  They are the most vociferous proponents of bail-outism.
5.  are the ones who are always whingeing for more state handouts.  (If you don't believe me, visit Mumsnet and see them asking for more state assistance because they have messed up their lives through being unmarried mothers, divorced mothers or are messing up their children by becoming bad mothers and messing up their employers by being bad employees suing for sex discrimination at the drop of a hat.)

Notice how our male politicians abase themselves before Mumsnet  and Woman's Hour chasing the female vote.  Imagine if a female politician were asked what kind of knickers she wears  or what her favourite biscuit was, and then mocked because she didn't have an answer ready.  She would soon tell her questioners where to go. 

Having a taxpayer-only only franchise would therefore exclude most women, which would be a good thing because they are always the ones asking for more nannying legislation and state handouts. 

Even if these women were given a sum representing the minimum of tax required to entitle a citizen to become a voter by their husbands, it is a given that most of them would buy something nice to wear with it rather than spend it on exercising their democractic right. 

A society under this government would find most women in wedlock doing only one job: of being a housewife and mother, rather than being a working mum.  This does not imply coercion but choice.  Women are not completely stupid and would vote with their feet to have one occupation rather than two if they did not need the money enough to go out to work. 

Government by Referenda in a One Party State
This need not mean totalitarian government if the party constitution properly protects the rights of freee speech, party position and income of individual members against the leader and his cronies. 

It should be quite clear by now that MPs in fact have no free speech in this country.  Powell, Mercer, Duncan and Grayling were all expelled and demoted by their leader for saying something that incurred the wrath or displeasure of the leader. 

Under this proposed system all who have an interest in politics - whatever their view - have only one party to join.  This means that changing one's mind on totemic policies does not mean career-disaster as one merely cultivates a different set of people within the party with whom one shares common objectives. 

I therefore propose that all differences be settled INTRA party rather than INTER party. 
This would mean that the whips will be retired and all votes by MPs would be free votes, entitling them to vote according to their convictions and principles rather than the behest of their party whip. 

All MPs would have a residential connection with the constituency they represent, and the practice of the national party parachuting in someone disliked by local party would be ended. 

This would actually mean more accountable government doing what the voters want and greater job security for MPs.

Elections would be conducted annually, rather like an AGM where shareholders vote to appoint or reappoint directors, approve accounts, vote for or against resolutions etc. 

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

has a draft party constitution losely based on the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. 

Proportionately More Votes for Proportionately More Taxes

This idea mirrors the power of a shareholder.  It would then become a privilege and an honour to pay tax.  There would be a Register of Voters with the top taxpayer of the year being accorded the title of Taxpayer of the Year with accompanying honours and publicity, if this is what he wishes.

Individual voters would be able to get in touch with each other  to organise campaigns through this Register of Voters, which would be online, rather like http://www.1party4all.co.uk

My idea is important because it would

1. enable a return to rational, smaller government thus safeguarding our liberties and our property
2. give MPs greater job security
3. enable MPs to make decisions that reflect the wishes of the people they represent rather than their party leaders, allowing them to become more popular, respected and better paid
4. rid Britain's politicians of the scourge of the female vote - the cause of matriarchal degeneracy and matriarchal dementia that we are now suffering because women now have too much power. 

Remember, bad motherhood causes the deterioration of the next generation and the degeneration of the nation! 

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world!

Unfortunately, 46% of the hands that rocks the cradle is a promiscuous never-married mother who couldn't find herself a husband or is too short-sighted and foolish to think she does. 

It should also be noted that 70% of our prison population were singly parented. 

It is about time the government discouraged the poor and stupid in the breeding the next generation of feral youth, CHAVs, NEETs and benefit scum mums.  It is after all its role to encourage the prudent taxpayer to marry and have children who will be future taxpayers, in the long-term national interest. 

It is now time for the government to re-examine the role of the women and motherhood if Britain does not want to sink into barbarism and irreversible decline. 
There really is not much time left.   When the percentage of babies born out of wedlock reach 50%, the British would be locked into a vicious cycle of irreversible decline and descent into barbarism. 




http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-sex-discrimination-act-1975-1/idea-view

It basically urges the government to disenfranchise most women - especially the parasitical female - by requiring citizens to pay a minimum of tax before they can vote.


It recommends that the UK dump representative democracy in favour of one-party direct democracy under a narrower taxpayer-only franchise where voters get proportionately more votes if they pay proportionately more tax. 

This has benefits for the government and the governed.  MPs would get better job security and the governed would be better and more rationally governed and given the lower taxes and fewer laws that they actually want.

Why shouldn't the agents of the Afghanistan invasion not be insulted if you disapprove of it?

Isn't a bit hypocritical and incoherent to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan and then forbid Muslims from mounting insulting protests, eg

'Butchers return' and 'What are you dying for? £18k'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286784/Muslim-protesters-brand-war-heroes-murderers-homecoming-parade-turns-violent.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0r1DK9VOO

against the agents of the invasion, ie British troops? I think British soldiers who die in Afghanistan should know that their sacrifices are not being appreciated.

In fact, they should go AWOL if they had any sense.  Why anyone would die for Bush, Blair, Brown and now Cameron and Clegg is absolutely beyond me.

David Laws resignation and how to solve the problem of accommmodation for out-of-town MPs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282489/David-Laws-resigns-paying-40-000-gay-lover.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/31/david-laws-resignation-naivety-privacy

Laws paid £40,000 to his landlord and lover James Lundie for renting accommodation through him in London. Laws needed to do this because his home is in Yeovil in Somerset.

If he hadn't had sex with Lundie it would have been within the rules, apparently.

So if you are an MP you are not allowed to have sex with your landlord or the landlady whose B&B it is you are staying at, or it would cost you? Where is the logic of that, I wonder. But then logic is not this nation's strong suit.

Crazy rules, which no one thinks to revise, and which brings the law into general contempt generally. A dangerous state of affairs, I would have thought, but our political classes are too thick to see this or if they are, too cowardly to say or do anything.

If you are a London MP then you aren't entitled to claim for your accommodation because you already live in London, which is fair enough.

Why doesn't the government provide accommodation for these out-of-town MPs then?

The Japanese do this for their MPs so why can't we?

So he goes because the British political establishment is full of gutless little wimps afraid of envious little sheeple baaing over MPs' expenses claims.

These sheeple will soon forget what they are baaing about and start baaing about something else. It is well-known that sheeple have the memory of goldfish, but our political classes are afraid even of goldfish, as well as of slut and slapper verminous single mums breeding the next generation of vermin.

How about MPs' accommodation near the House courtesy of the taxpayer for out-of-town MPs then ? This seems obvious to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5384031/MPs-expenses-and-you-thought-British-MPs-were-bad-.-.-..html

Are they really that gutless and thick they can't even organise a piss-up in a brewery?

If this is the case they shouldn't be running the country then, should they?

David Laws goes, mown down by collective cowardice and hypocrisy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/27/david-laws-profile

Gosh, we're so clever, aren't we? Obviously, our government is already so STUFFED with talent that we can afford to cut MPs down like grass over some petty rule about whom one may pay rent to if we hire their premises, especially if they show a bit of talent.

There are so many petty rules that even the politicians who made them can't keep up. That is the long and short of it.

The best people (and I include Peter Mandelson because he is loved, hated and feared in equal measure) are now out of office and staying out, while fools and knaves increase in number.

The media as expected are pompously prating about integrity and the reputation of MPs.

Anyone earning less than an MP - and you have to be something of a loser, don't you, to be prepared to settle for the paltry basic salary of just under £65K per annum an MP gets these days while being spat and sneered at by members of the public - seem to be gloating obscenely, pissing and shitting themselves with delight at yet another opportunity to kick a member of the political classes in the teeth.

Cameron and Clegg are very obviously not defending him but managing to make a few weak squeaks of regret and support.

Two metrosexual men in charge, but still no balls in British government.

People deserve the government they get, and boy, do we deserve the government we are going to get.

The rightward shift of the British political landscape

In case this has escaped our notice, the political landscape is shifting very notieably to the "Right". The irony of Nick Clegg of all people talking about "savage" and "serious" cuts shows a commendable gesture to give people what they haven't had for a long time: a bit of honesty.

And then they go and spoil it all by proposing a property tax, a bit like death duties but payable in the property owner's lifetime. Then they spoke of withdrawing universal child benefit, but don't quite go the whole hog of withdrawing it for unmarried mothers to discourage feral parenthood.

Perhaps this is still a sign that the LibDems are seeing the light, even if it is through a glass darkly ...

The party that most convincingly proposes:

1) cuts in taxes
2) cuts in spending
3) cutting red tape

will win handsomely. Ideally, Lord Mandelson should lead such a party, and such a party would get away with proposing more spending cuts than the Tories. An opportunity not to be missed, but which I fear will be.

"Repeal ALL anti-discrimination legislation and end this race for Greater Victimhood!" or "Why I am thinking of voting Lib-Dem"

Gad, all these race discrimination actions brought by disgruntled Asian officers who didn't get their promotion!

One wonders if the police have time to catch any criminals, their time at work being mostly taken up by fretting about being racially discriminated against or being racially discriminatory towards one another.

Perhaps the reason why Ali Dezai didn't get his promotion despite getting top marks for all his exams was because his employers knew he would be a trouble-maker.

This was of course proven prescient in the light of his subsequent actions.

Perhaps the Met have every reason not to hire anyone who is not IC1, because of their higher statistical probability of suing for racial discrimination, which is disruptive to the workplace as well as socially-divisive.

It is very rare for anyone IC1 to sue for race discrimination. Sex discrimination, yes, but virtually all who sue employers claiming discrimination are women and wogs (if such a playful alliteration is still allowed). Is this (and the fact that they have a tendency to get pregnant even when unmarried, and use their sick children as an excuse to skive off work) not a compelling reason not to hire these groups of people?

Why, I might be hunted down and shot by the PC police just for suggesting this, but I will say it anyway.

I have no doubt that British society would be more cohesive and less litigious if all anti-discrimination legislation were repealed.

In its old Tyndalite days, the BNP were unashamed about their desire to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation. Now they seem to have pulled back from this, perhaps because they see the potential of claiming Greater Victimhood than the non-1C1s after decades of oppression suffered by them from the PC-liberal elite.

It is a great shame really, if British nationalism merely identifies itself with this modern manifestation of the slave mentality, that of Victimhood and Blaming Others - a womannish and proletarian trait.

I had once thought those who supported the BNP - however much they blamed the wrong people for their ills - had the courage of their convictions to brave being treated as social pariahs in the service of a nationalist ideal. This ideal was something to do with a peasant and instinctive antipathy towards PC liberalism and the concomitant desire to introduce more traditional policies favouring the family, as well as the condign punishment of criminals, or so I had thought.

Now, however, it does appear that all is lost. British nationalism is represented by an all-white cry for Greater Victimhood. If they have nothing more constructive to offer the electorate other than Greater Grievance, Greater Victimhood and the bribing of non-whites to go home at £50K per person, then they will fail in even these dubious objectives.

If this once-great country should be run by anyone, it should be by The Great and The Good, confident of their Greatness and Goodness.

Were it to be run by the ones who wish to represent The Least and the Worst, proud of the smallness of their minds and their tendency to vice and illegitimacy, what sort of standard would it set for the rest of the nation? Or indeed a loose federation of England, Scotland and Wales? (The BNP favour divisive devolution and an English Parliament, don't you know.)

At least the Lib-Dems (or should they now be called the Libertarian-Democrats?) are saying something populist that is also sensible. Nick Clegg should be congratulated for this bold repositioning of his party by offering us the option of lower taxes, unlike the contemptible and cowardly Conservatives.

Were he to dare go further on this Libertarian theme and propose the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and take the UK out of the EU, he would have more than my vote. Let us hope he is power-hungry enough to take this risk.

For any Lib-Dems reading this, may I point out that there is nothing inherently anti-Liberal or undemocratic about repealing laws that favour litigious employees who should never have been hired.