Translate

Showing posts with label Peter Mandelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Mandelson. Show all posts

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

Whom would I choose if both David Irving and Peter Mandelson proposed to me?

David Irving and me

Lord Mandelson

Someone online is always asking me questions on ask.fm at http://ask.fm/oneparty4all and arranging marriages for me.  Today, he has suggested that I might like to marry David Irving, and I must say I am rather taken with the idea though previously I had convinced myself that only Peter Mandelson would do for me. David is just the kind of Englishman that I have always admired.  I can imagine what our honeymoon would be like, doing a romantic Hitler tour and but with none of his acolytes and around ....  

The thought of the UKIP-voting British Democratic Party http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-question-for-andrew-brons-of-british.html  (who have now disabled me from commenting on their website at http://britishdemocraticparty.org/ without warning or notification and the BNP gnashing their teeth, rending their garments and tearing their hair out at this prospect  is too delicious for words.  

If David wishes to approach me on the subject, he should know that he would be warmly received.

Peter Mandelson should not feel shy of applying, however. David may have also sorts of ethno-nationalist principles that could inhibit him.  I would point out to David as his unhired publicist that even just discussing this in public would have a beneficial effect on his book sales.

Simon Sheppard at http://www.heretical.com/ may also wish to get in on the game as he has a book to sell. http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/190124024X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Saturday, 23 March 2013

33 MPs I would like to nominate Frank Field to replace Ed Milband




EUROSCEPTIC LABOUR MPs
  1. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
  2. Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West)
  3. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
  4. Jon Cruddas (Dagenham & Rainham)
  5. John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead)
  6. Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West)
  7. Natascha Engel (Derbyshire North East)
  8. Frank Field (Birkenhead)
  9. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green)
  10. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
  11. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
  12. Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak)
  13. John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
  14. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
  15. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
  16. Andrew Smith (Oxford East)
  17. Graham Stringer (Blackley & Broughton)
  18. Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston)
  19. Mike Wood (Batley & Spen).



AGAINST LIBYA  INTERVENTION

  1. Graham Allen (Lab)
  2. Ronnie Campbell (Lab) (also Eurosceptic)
  3. Katy Clark (Lab)
  4. Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) (also Eurosceptic)
  5. Barry Gardiner (Lab)
  6. Roger Godsiff (Lab) (also Eurosceptic)
  7. John McDonnell (Lab) (also Eurosceptic)
  8. Yasmin Qureshi (Lab)
  9. Linda Riordan (Lab)
  10. Dennis Skinner (Lab) also Eurosceptic
  11. Mike Wood (Lab) also Eurosceptic


AGAINST IRAQ WAR


  1. Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington) 
  2. Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (also Eurosceptic and against intervention in Libya)
  3. John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead) 
  4. Tony Banks (West Ham) 
  5. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire North East) 
  6. John Battle (Leeds West) 
  7. Andrew Bennett (Denton & Reddish) 
  8. Joe Benton (Bootle) (also against gay marriage)
  9. Dr Roger Berry (Kingswood) 
  10. Harold Best (Leeds North West) 
  11. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) 
  12. Keith Bradley (Manchester Withington) 
  13. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) 
  14. Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North) 
  15. Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield) 
  16. Ms Anne Campbell (Cambridge) 
  17. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) 
  18. Martin Caton (Gower) 
  19. David Chaytor (Bury North) 
  20. Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone) 
  21. Mrs Helen Clark (Peterborough) 
  22. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge & Chryston) 
  23. Tony Clarke (Northampton South) 
  24. Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead) 2
  25. Iain Coleman (Hammersmith & Fulham) 
  26. Michael Connarty (Falkirk East) 
  27. Frank Cook (Stockton North) 
  28. Robin Cook (Livingston) 
  29. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (also Eurosceptic and against intervention in Libya)
  30. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) 
  31. Tom Cox (Tooting) 
  32. David Crausby (Bolton North East) 
  33. Ms Ann Cryer (Keighley) 
  34. John Cryer (Hornchurch) 
  35. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) 
  36. Ms Valerie Davey (Bristol West) 
  37. Ian Davidson (Glasgow Pollok) 
  38. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) 
  39. Terry Davis (Birmingham Hodge Hill) 
  40. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre) 
  41. John Denham (Southampton Itchen) 
  42. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) 
  43. Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton) (also against gay marriage)
  44. Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras) 
  45. Frank Doran (Aberdeen Central) 
  46. David Drew (Stroud) 
  47. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) 
  48. Clive Efford (Eltham) 
  49. Bill Etherington (Sunderland North) 
  50. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central) 
  51. Paul Flynn (Newport West) 
  52. Hywel Francis (Aberavon) 
  53. George Galloway (Glasgow Kelvin) 
  54. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) 
  55. Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North) 
  56. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath) (also Eurosceptic and against intervention in Libya)
  57. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) 
  58. John Grogan (Selby) 
  59. Patrick Hall (Bedford) 
  60. David Hamilton (Midlothian) 
  61. Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) 
  62. Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) 
  63. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne North) 
  64. Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) 
  65. David Heyes (Ashton under Lyne) 
  66. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) 
  67. Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) 
  68. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) 
  69. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) 
  70. Ms Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood) 
  71. Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East) 
  72. Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) 
  73. Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate) 
  74. Ms Helen Jackson (Sheffield Hillsborough) 
  75. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff Central) 
  76. Dr Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak) 
  77. Martyn Jones (Clwyd South) 
  78. David Kidney (Stafford) 
  79. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton) 
  80. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith) 
  81. David Lepper (Brighton Pavilion) 
  82. Terry Lewis (Worsley) 
  83. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) 
  84. Iain Luke (Dundee East) 
  85. John Lyons (Strathkelvin & Bearsden) 
  86. Mrs Christine McCafferty (Calder Valley) 
  87. John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington) (also Eurosceptic and against intervention in Libya)
  88. Ms Ann McKechin (Glasgow Maryhill) 
  89. Kevin McNamara (Hull North) 
  90. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead) 
  91. Ms Alice Mahon (Halifax) 
  92. Jim Marshall (Leicester South) 
  93. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) 
  94. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) 
  95. Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North) 
  96. Chris Mullin (Sunderland South) 
  97. Denis Murphy (Wansbeck) 
  98. Doug Naysmith (Bristol North West) 
  99. Eddie O'Hara (Knowsley South) 
  100. Ms Diana Organ (Forest of Dean) 
  101. Albert Owen (Ynys Mon) 
  102. Ms Linda Perham (Ilford North) 
  103. Peter Pike (Burnley) 
  104. Kerry Pollard (St Albans) 
  105. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) 
  106. Gwyn Prosser (Dover) 
  107. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton North East) 
  108. John Robertson (Glasgow Anniesland) 
  109. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham Deptford) 
  110. Martin Salter (Reading West) 
  111. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow Govan) 
  112. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen North) 
  113. Philip Sawford (Kettering) 
  114. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney South & Shoreditch) 
  115. Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge) 
  116. Alan Simpson (Nottingham South) 
  117. Marsha Singh (Bradford West) 
  118. Chris Smith (Islington South & Finsbury) 
  119. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) 
  120. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South) 
  121. Dr Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh) 
  122. Graham Stringer (Manchester Blackley) 
  123. David Taylor (Leicestershire North West) 
  124. Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) 
  125. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) 
  126. Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton Kemptown) 
  127. Bill Tynan (Hamilton South) 
  128. Rudi Vis (Finchley & Golders Green) 
  129. Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) 
  130. Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby) 
  131. Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton Test) 
  132. Alan Williams (Swansea West) 
  133. Mrs Betty Williams (Conwy) 
  134. Mike Wood (Batley & Spen) (also Eurosceptic and against intervention in Libya)
  135. Tony Worthington (Clydebank & Milngavie) 
  136. David Wright (Telford) 
  137. Dr Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) 
  138. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey) 
LABOUR PARTY MPs AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE



  1. Joe Bentonn (also against Iraq War)
  2. Sir Tony Cunningham
  3. Jim Dobbin (also against Iraq War)
  4. Brian Donohoe
  5. Robert Flello
  6. Mary Glindon
  7. Roger Godsiff (also a Eurosceptic, against Libya intervention and Iraq War)
  8. Rt Hon Paul Goggins
  9. Michael McCann
  10. Jim McGovern
  11. Rt Hon Paul Murphy
  12. Stephen Pound
  13. Jim Sheridan



Anyone Labour MP who is on any of these three lists must be good eggs really.  The ones whose names are featured in all three are particularly good eggs.

Where is Tom Harris MP?  He is on none of them!

Frank Field should be leader because he has the respect of senior and principled politicians in the Conservative Party to better work with them in a National Government.

Michael White said:

But I am sure Peter Mandelson would be delighted to be Frank Field's right-hand man as well as his hatchet man.   Ask him and see if I am wrong!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jan/22/frank-field-mandelson-clarke-cable  I just know Frank Field would support this idea because it was him who was going on about a National Government way back in 2009.

Now please get on with it, Frank and Mandy!   Once both of you say you are solid on this, you can have your leadership election (which will really be the Coronation of Frank Field).

It has to be so because you have to show the world that you are now mending your ways, so it cannot be any of the Old Guard Liberals (or The Young Ones, as I would call them).

The Young |Ones: Blair, Brown, and the Milibands


Mandy, it is now time to stop spouting your usual Europhiliac propaganda and smell the coffee.  From now on, it's going to be every European nation for itself.

Do a deal with Frank.  Make a joint statement that that is how you see the future and wait for the thing to snowball.

34 POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS FOR FRANK FIELD TO BECOME LEADER OF LABOUR PARTY FROM THE LIST BELOW


  1. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
  2. Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West)
  3. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
  4. Jon Cruddas (Dagenham & Rainham)
  5. John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead)
  6. Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West)
  7. Natascha Engel (Derbyshire North East)
  8. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green)
  9. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
  10. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
  11. Steve McCabe (Birmingham Selly Oak)
  12. John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
  13. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)
  14. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) - Remember me, Austin?  We have met.  
  15. Andrew Smith (Oxford East)
  16. Graham Stringer (Blackley & Broughton)
  17. Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston)
  18. Mike Wood (Batley & Spen).
  19. Graham Allen (Lab)
  20. Katy Clark (Lab)
  21. Barry Gardiner (Lab)
  22. Yasmin Qureshi (Lab)
  23. Linda Riordan (Lab)
  24. Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington) - How I wanted Diane to be leader of Labour Party!  I was a member then and even voted for her.   
  25. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) 
  26. John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead) 
  27. Ms Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood) 
  28. Tony Banks (West Ham) 
  29. Dr Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) 
  30. Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East) 
  31. Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) 
  32. Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate) - I just wanted Glenda on this list cos I loved her in Elizabeth R!  
  33. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire North East) 
  34. David Wright (Telford) 



Proposed .leader of Labour Party:
Frank Field

Peter Mandelson:
Right Hand Man and Hatchet Man
of  Leader of Labour Party

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Should Peter Mandelson present The Andrew Marr Show?

I anticipate the usual objections about his well-established pro-EU stance offending against journalistic impartiality.  However, it could be tempered by my presence in the show, for I have always been Eurosceptic and had a reputation for impartiality.

Even Nick Griffin acknowledged this after reading http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/interview-with-nick-griffin-may-2004.html

So, while The Andrew Marr Show becomes The Peter Mandelson Show if Peter were to present it, it would become The Lord and Lady Mandelson Politics Show if we were both to co-host it and he to marry me.

I don't think people have any idea how entertaining and charming I can be if I put my mind to it.  

There will doubtless be the usual objections about my alleged "extremism", but the list of parties I have joined is testament to my determination to remain non-partisan and to leave my spoors in every party.   Even now, I exhort the political parties to merge into one party for the sake of the long-term national interest.

I have been a member of the following:

  1. The Conservative Party
  2. UKIP
  3. The Labour Party
  4. The BNP


It does seem that, taken together, I would be more impartial than Peter, who has only ever been a member of the Labour Party.

Indeed, my political experience may be wider than his in some or perhaps many regards.

The idea of having one's national laws subordinate to a supranational entity is something I found, as a nationalist,  instinctively abhorrent.

I was actively Eurosceptic as long ago as the Maastricht Bill, in fact.  Bill Cash and his other volunteers others I worked with then should remember me.

I could be the Stacey Herbert to Peter's Max Keiser, perhaps.  At any rate, I am sure Peter and I can work as a team, if not a couple.

Ah, to think of Peter and me, the Juan and Eva Peron of British politics!  

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Lord Mandelson spotted by Claire Khaw's friend in Westminster looking grim and purposeful


This was what I was told while she was ringing me about something else, yesterday evening.


Me and Mandy  - are we moving towards ever-closer union?



Would the British people enjoy a politics show called The Lord and Lady Mandelson Politics Show on Sundays around the same time as The Andrew Marr Show?

Would the level of political discourse be raised as a result of Peter and me co-hosting this show?

Will we be the Punch and Judy of politics shows?

Or the Richard and Judy?

I have consulted our horoscopes and they are auspicious.  Scorpio men cannot resist me.

The men who have truly loved me or been tolerably fond of me have been scorpio men.

All the men I have ever loved were scorpio men.

Come up and see me sometime, Peter.

Just for you, I will even join the Labour Party again, if they will have me.

I am actually OK about the aims, objects and values of the Labour Party.  


Clause IV.
Aims and values 
1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It 
believes that by the strength of our common 
endeavour we achieve more than we achieve 
alone, so as to create for each of us the means to 
realise our true potential and for all of us a 
community in which power, wealth and 
opportunity are in the hands of the many not the 
few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties 
we owe and where we live together freely, in a 
spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect. 
2. To these ends we work for:  
A. A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public 
interest, in which the enterprise of the market 
and the rigour of competition are joined with 
the forces of partnership and co-operation to 
produce the wealth the nation needs and the 
opportunity for all to work and prosper with a 
thriving private sector and high-quality public 
services where those undertakings essential 
to the common good are either owned by the 
public or accountable to them 
B. A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by 
the condition of the weak as much as the 
strong, provides security against fear, and 
justice at work; which nurtures families, 
promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers 
people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice 
and the abuse of power 
C. AN OPEN DEMOCRACY, in which government 
is held to account by the people, decisions are 
taken as far as practicable by the communities 
they affect and where fundamental human 
rights are guaranteed 
D. A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, which we protect, 
enhance and hold in trust for future 
generations. 
3. Labour is committed to the defence and security 
of the British people and to co-operating in 
European institutions, the United Nations, the 
Commonwealth and other international bodies to 
secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic 
security and environmental protection for all. 
4. Labour shall work in pursuit of these aims with 
trade unions and co-operative societies and also 
with voluntary organisations, consumer groups 
and other representative bodies. 
5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the 
trust of the people to govern. 

Please don't anyone joke about me joining the LibDems, for I cannot support the nonsense at http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx as it would be against my principles.   

As for the aims, objects and values of the Conservative Party, I am still waiting for Stephen Phillips, the Secretary of the Board of the Conservative Party who cancelled my membership on 20 December 2012, to tell me what they are at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html for it seems I have said and done something that is "wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party".  

I must say I was a bit taken aback to be told that the Conservative Party had any principles at all, and am agog to know what they might be.  


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-lord-and-lady-mandelson-show-to.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/should-peter-mandelson-present-andrew.html

Friday, 11 January 2013

The Lord and Lady Mandelson Show to replace the Andrew Marr Show?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259759/BBC-says-Andrew-Marr-conscious-eating-continues-progress-suffering-stroke-aged-just-53.html

Someone suggested that Rory Bremner stand in, which sounds an excellent idea.

I would certainly audition for the job.

What I think would be a lot of fun is if Peter Mandelson and I could co-host the Andrew Marr Show. I have been interviewed on TV a few times, so I think I would be able to acquit myself fairly well before too long, with the right kind of support, management, hairdo and training.

Given enough time to loosen up properly, I could blossom into something resembling Dame Edna Everage, and dear Peter could be my Madge, perhaps.  And then we would swap roles the next show.

Rory Bremner could assume a butler-like role in the show.  I really think it could work.   

Monday, 12 November 2012

Hitler: "Don't publicly take part in politics before you are 30" (unless you are in a one-party state)


Hitler in Mein Kampf:


"Generally speaking a man should not publicly take part in politics before he has reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case of those who are naturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at least is my opinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtieth year or thereabouts a man’s mental development will mostly consist in acquiring and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a general platform from which he can examine the different political problems that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each. A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas and fit them together so as to form an organic structure of personal thought or outlook on life – a Weltanschhauung. Then he will have that mental equipment without which he cannot form his own judgments on particular questions of the day, and he will have acquired those qualities that are necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the formation of political opinions. Such a man is now qualified, at least subjectively, to take his part in the political conduct of public affairs.

If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if a man should enter political life without this equipment, he will run a twofold risk. In the first place, he may find during the course of events that the stand which he originally took in regard to some essential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon his former position or else stick to it against his better knowledge and riper wisdom and after his reason and convictions have already proved it untenable. If he adopt the former line of action he will find himself in a difficult personal situation; because in giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear inconsistent and will have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal to his leadership as they were before. And, as regards the followers themselves, they may easily look upon their leader’s change of policy as showing a lack of judgment inherent in his character. Moreover, the change must cause in them a certain feeling of discomfiture vis-à-vis those whom the leader formerly opposed.

If he adopts the second alternative – which so very frequently happens to-day – then public pronouncements of the leader have no longer his personal persuasion to support them. And the more that is the case the defence of his cause will be all the more hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption of vulgar means in his defence. While he himself no longer dreams seriously of standing by his political protestations to the last – for no man will die in defence of something in which he does not believe – he makes increasing demands on his followers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity, the more unfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party adherents. Finally, he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership and begins to play politics. This means that he becomes one of those whose only consistency is their inconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimes an artful mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.

Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people, succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear from the outset that for him the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of a menace.

I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.

When a man has reached his thirtieth year he has still a great deal to learn. That is obvious. But henceforward what he learns will principally be an amplification of his basic ideas; it will be fitted in with them organically so as to fill up the framework of the fundamental Weltanschhauung which he already possesses. What he learns anew will not imply the abandonment of principles already held, but rather a deeper knowledge of those principles. And thus his colleagues will never have the discomforting feeling that they have been hitherto falsely led by him. On the contrary, their confidence is increased when they perceive that their leader’s qualities are steadily developing along the lines of an organic growth which results from the constant assimilation of new ideas; so that the followers look upon this process as signifying an enrichment of the doctrines in which they themselves believe, in their eyes every such development is a new witness to the correctness of that whole body of opinion which has hitherto been held.

A leader who has to abandon the platform founded on his general principles, because he recognizes the foundation as false, can act with honour only when he declares his readiness to accept the final consequences of his erroneous views. In such a case he ought to refrain from taking public part in any further political activity. Having once gone astray on essential things he may possibly go astray a second time. But, anyhow, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand that his fellow citizens should continue to give him their support.

How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the cabal which at the present moment feels itself called to political leadership. In the whole cabal there is scarcely one who is properly equipped for this task."

TWO POLITICAL TALENTS THAT HAVE GONE TO WASTE BECAUSE OF THE MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM

I.  Peter Mandelson - if he had joined the Conservative Party, he would have been Prime Minister by now.  Being a member of Young Communist League as a schoolboy rather impelled him into the Labour Party and after that he was destined never to become Prime Minister.   

II.  David Jones, my former political associate, had his political career truncated because of his membership of a political party considered to be extremist by the liberal political establishment.  I would describe him as a Civic Nationalist Social Conservative Libertarian myself.  

He, like me, no longer have the option of joining UKIP.  I wonder how much political talent is being wasted by 

1.  the amoral and restrictively tribal system of party politics
2.  the refusal to even consider seriously Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html which, if passed into law, would mean that Britain would become a one-party state so that there can be no question of ever joining the wrong party, because there would only be one party to join.
3.  not having a "party school" for nurturing of the next generation of political talent as they do in China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Party_School_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China


4.  not giving MPs as many rights as that contained in Article 4 of the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party.  http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/china_communist_party_constitution.htm#


It is all such a terribly sad waste, especially when those in government are of such poor calibre.


Peter Mandelson - the man who might have been Prime Minister if only he had joined the  right party
Hitler, whose one-party state would have avoided the wasting of political talent, so that all the available political talent in the land would at least be in the same party, whatever one's political views.


Monday, 1 October 2012

Should I marry this man to demonstrate my commitment to anti-feminism?

Daryll Christopher - a great rarity in modern Britain for he is a man not afraid of saying what he thinks:




"They [the BNP] should have capitalized on that publicity [generated by Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time] and embraced immigrants who loved Britain, instead they started to fight against each other. They need a Max Clifford type person, it was a opportunity missed."


I rather thank I am that Max Clifford person capable of promoting both a radical and a racially neutral agenda that promotes the institutions of marriage and the family, as well as lower taxes and fewer laws in the long-term national interest.   Too bad then that anyone who expresses views that are socially conservative will be immediately denounced as a bigot or a fascist or a Nazi if they even so much as get anywhere near questioning feminism.

If I were leader of the BNP, Daryll would be snapped up at once as the BNP Women's Affairs Spokesman, he who says such things as the things said at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/irreversible-decline-happens-when-your.html

It is worth doing just to watch feminists have a collective fit of the vapours.

To rescue the institution of marriage, you have to make marriage attractive again to men like Daryll.

And that is the reality of reconsecrating the institution of marriage.  That is the sacrifice we women are required to make for the good of the nation.

Would I be prepared to marry Daryll as evidence of the sincerity of my anti-feminist fervour?

Only if we can successfully agree a marriage contract.

I acknowledge that this proposed sacrifice is not quite as great as the sacrifice that Joan of Arc made for the people of France, but it will have to do for the moment.

But perhaps I should hold out for Peter Mandelson (who appears to be equally keen to marry me), but who will probably not make quite as many sexual demands on me.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/475490985806139/
Public Debate group on Facebook discussing this.   

Saturday, 8 September 2012

Message to UKIP: politics is about courting controversy, not running away from it

Kim Gandy:

"now they feel they are zooming up the political charts they are worried about how they will be perceived."

UKIP should make the best of this by courting controversy, rather than running away from it.

I am a skilled polemicist as well as legally trained.  I therefore have the potential to unite the major Eurosceptic parties in UKIP ie BNP, English Democrats and possibly even the NF.  All they have to do is hear me out, instead of behaving like frightened chickens.

The voter will not vote for frightened chickens, but for radical change they think can work and makes sense. Let me communicate this to the voter when UKIP make me their Director of Communications.

I have already studied the Dark Arts of Peter Mandelson and believe I can replicate it for the benefit of UKIP.  

Me and Mandy together


Sunday, 2 September 2012

I have fallen in love with the Marquis of Salisbury ON HIS FARM today on Radio 4


My faith in humanity is restored a little. Is it possible to fall in love without even having set eyes on someone, just through hearing his voice? I think so!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01m9mqj


Please, please, please listen to his voice and tell me: is he not the sort of Englishman one imagines the perfect Englishman to be?


In the same way that aristocrats might once have had a weakness for choir girls, I too must confess to having a genuine weakness for hereditary peers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_7th_Marquess_of_Salisbury
"Lord Cranborne attended Eton College and Christ Church, Oxford and became a merchant banker before going to work on the family estates."

That is just so sexy ....

Handsome, urbane, well-born, witty and political - just the sort of man I cannot resist


Sadly, even if he offered to marry me, I would still have to save myself for Lord Mandelson, who is a mere life peer. My head must rule my heart, because I am a politician, after all, and need to get the proles in the Labour Party as well as the homos on side.

I lay in bed suffused with pleasure at the sound of his voice and the witty things he said, about pig farming.  I longed to have a little Tamworth piglet running around in my home and longed to look after his pigs, just like the lucky lady who looks after them for him now.

It was his wife who gave him a Tamworth pig for is birthday, and now his farm is full of them.  Such a charming story!

If he were to impregnate me and I became an SSM, I would bear the illegitimate child of a Marquis, no less!

His name is Robert. Robert Cecil. Isn't it wonderful to be able to have to look up the first name of a man whose voice you have fallen in love with, and decide you like it after all? It would be terrible if I discovered his name was Cecil ....

Of course, I would always always call him Robert and never ever "Bob" ...

Sadly, these apparently perfect Englishmen that I have such a weakness for are becoming extinct. Etonians these days are the most awful people, like the Prime Minister.

Sadly, standards have slipped and even the the noble Marquis is helpless against the tide of degeneracy engulfing England like a tsunami of SSMs, for his son the heir has let the side down by siring an illegitimate daughter with a divorcee who is the ex-wife of Ivor Barka, born in 2001.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/9456949/Marquess-of-Salisbury-hands-reins-of-his-estate-to-son-Ned-Cecil.html

Camilla Barka is the MOBFOB and Ned the FOBMOB should each get 100 lashes.

If I were impregnated by the current Marquis and went on to have his baby I suppose I would have to be lashed too according to the Koranic principles I am now guided by, but I think I could just about put up with that, just to have the distinction of bearing his child.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/parents-with-illegitimate-offspring-and.html

Saturday, 18 August 2012

Claire Khaw gets ready to storm UKIP's Citadel of Inadequate Reasons for Not Admitting Her

Claire Khaw getting ready to storm the UKIP citadel?  Let us hope for everyone's sake that the pen and the keyboard is mightier than the sword.  I do want to resolve this peacefully, after all.


4 August 2012,  01:42
Claire Khaw to UKIP

May I know the reason for the prohibition against ex-BNP members joining UKIP?

14 August 2012, 13:37
UKIP to Claire Khaw

Thank you for your query regarding ex-BNP members, which has come through to UKIP Head Office.  The democratically elected NEC has decided after much debate that membership of BNP (or those who have since left that party) is incompatible with membership of UKIP.

UKIP is a libertarian, tolerant political party, that does not concern itself with matters of "race".  The BNP has shown itself to be very different, which is one of the reasons why the BNP is among the proscribed organisations listed on the UKIP website.

15 August 2012, 00:02
Claire Khaw to UKIP

Thank you very much for your prompt response.

I have always been a civic nationalist and certainly do not concern myself with matters of race, or I would not be living in a country in which the majority of the people are a different race from me.

I do hope that it is not being suggested that I am racist!

15 August 2012, 10:15
UKIP to Claire Khaw

Certainly not.  You asked why UKIP had proscribed the BNP and I explained why.  I hope that clarifies the situation.

15 August 2012, 12:16
Claire Khaw to UKIP

So, if you do not believe I am racist, then I can join UKIP after all?  I am perfectly happy to sign a declaration that I have never nor will I ever

1.  promote a policy of the forcible repatriation of non-white British citizens

2.  promote apartheid

3.  promote any policy that discriminates either for or against any British citizen on racial grounds

on pain of expulsion.

Perhaps that is all you require to let all those who have been in the prohibited list of parties and organisastion with something useful to do that would help UKIP, instead of wasting their time and energy with the English Democrats, BFP, EDL etc working against UKIP.

What do you say to that?

16 August 2012, 14:27
UKIP to Claire Khaw

Thank you for your application to this problem and ingenious search for a solution, which I'm sure would help immensely if only people were always honest enough never to sign declarations they did not believe in, unless there were a legal penalty for doing so; but how could such a penalty be applied in this case?

How could we be sure that unrepentant BNP-activists would not infiltrate UKIP, having signed such a declaration with their fingers crossed behind their backs?  And, even if we could, how would we convince the public, of this, or silence the howling of the jackals of political correctness (please see attachment) on the subject?

MORAL MUTATION  by Nigel Farage

With the onset of European dictatorships - notably in post-revolutionary France, the Third Reich and the USSR - the 19th and 20th centuries saw the guardianship of public morals pass from religious authorities to atheistic political ones.  In this way, public conduct came to be ruled by political correctness, as strictly defined by secular bodies, rather than by moral virtue, as determined by tradition and that sense of a universal purpose, which is greater than human understanding, and is therefore open to popular, and democratic, interpretation.

The contemporary, and as yet rather restrained, heir of those bloody dictatorships is the European Union (EU) which is a complex system, consisting of the incumbent political parties of 27 former democracies, the governments they create and a burgeoning, central bureaucracy.  Money from taxpayers and consumers is channelled, by this system, into those parts of the civil infrastructure, which support the incumbent parties and, for the last few decades, have ensured that these parties remain collectively in power and that they resolutely continue with the work of removing from society all concept of moral value, other than that defined by themselves.

It is natural that men should strive for power and that, having achieved it, they should seek to perpetuate it, by perverting or weakening the democratic processes, which endanger that perpetuation.  It is therefore highly necessary that those-not-in-power should succeed in restraining the powerful by retaining the ability to remove them from office, at regular intervals. When all the incumbent parties are part of the same political complex, however - as is the case in the EU - it is not possible to change the regime merely by rotating the parties.

Not content with this, the political élites are proceeding to force society into such a condition that (they hope) it will become incapable of removing them.  Hunting down and eliminating moral virtue, which they cannot themselves define or control, and replacing it with a legalistic political correctness, which they can fine-tune and direct at will, has thus become their preferred method for establishing their power in perpetuity.

The basis of this method, the fine sounding Droits de L'Homme (now translated as "human rights") appeared during the French revolutionary period and has since become a world-wide cult, spawning first the United Nations Organisation (UNO) then the Council of Europe, then the European Economic Community, a plethora of international bodies and courts, and finally the EU.

In each case, economics - or, quite simply, money - was used initially, or at an early stage, as a Trojan Horse to insinuate the artificial human-rights agenda into formerly democratic legislatures.  By this means, negative rights (everything allowed unless forbidden) have been gradually replaced by positive ones (everything forbidden unless allowed) and the traditional, or God-given, right of individuals to stand equal before the law, and be judged on their merits, has been subverted so that the law increasingly sorts individuals into arbitrary and unequal classes and treats them accordingly.

Curiously, or infuriatingly, this unequal treatment, or "positive discrimination", is rationalised as tending to create social equality, where this is perceived, by the élite, to seem to be lacking.  Justice thus becomes the victim of social engineering, and society becomes fragmented, as ever more minorities, disadvantaged groups and ethnic communities are identified, vaguely defined and given special privileges.

These privileged classes then become the flying columns of the élite's attack upon the majority. They are ever ready to provide "victims", in legal cases designed to test and advance new human-rights laws, and they become tribally captive to the incumbent parties, and their allied international, and supranational, organisations, all of which spew forth laws of this kind, at a most astonishing rate.

These developments go hand-in-hand with the churning of global populations, which produces cultural heterogeneity incompatible with democracy and thus confirms the powerful in power, by reducing the electorate to factions, which squabble ineffectually among themselves and are incapable of exerting a popular will.

That, at any rate, is the plan.  Some might call it a purely spontaneous process; but this distinction is academic.  It is happening, and rapidly; and we must stop it, while enough remains of our formerly exemplary judicial processes and of our formerly renowned system of democratic representation.  Moreover, arresting this moral mutation can only be achieved through the displacement of the incumbent pro-EU parties, which means electing a patriotic party, in the United Kingdom, ready for the challenges of independence in a changing world and yet respectful of the traditions, which have provided us with genuine moral guidance, and with the instinct and the institutions to follow it.

16 August 2012 16:34
Claire Khaw to UKIP

Despite UKIP's attempts to be whiter than white on the racism issue, this has not stopped Searchlight from still continuing to gun for you despite all your attempts to kowtow to PC censorship.

If you say you do not hate me, I will keep asking you if you really really really do not hate me, until you go mad, or start hating me.

And then I can point out that I was right all along and that you hate me and are therefore evil and must be destroyed.

It is practically impossible to implement forcible repatriation now anyway, with so many Pakistani cities already in existence in England.  You can only forcibly expel people who were not born here and we are into the third generation now.

It really is high time that UKIP abandoned its unofficial policy of cultivated cowardice which it tries to pass off as pragmatism.

I feel absolutely sure that the British voter would thrill to hear someone in a party they have heard of and could vote for make statements carefully calculated to defy the PC totalitarian.  I was called to the Bar and have a pretty good idea of what I can get away with.

You are probably aware that I have already met ethno-nationalists up and down the country.   I really do not find them as frightening as you all seem to.  The worse they can be is rather rude about your race on Facebook and exclude you from their meetings.

If some people still want to say they want this country to return to its racial composition before the British Nationality Act 1948, I do not see that this will do more than cause hurt feelings.

If anyone is caught expressing the prohibited views I have listed in my previous email by a reliable witness, then the penalty of expulsion seem fair enough and also effective.

If this risk is not taken then the Eurosceptic movement will continue to be regarded as as toothless pussycat, bringing discredit on its leaders and supporters, who are also associated with social conservatism.

In my view the risk is very small.   Only the more sensible and experienced members of the BNP who have already declared themselves to be civic nationalists would want to join UKIP anyway.

It would be a gesture of kindness to save them from wasting their lives in the English Democrats too.

It is quite clear that neither the BNP nor UKIP by themselves can beat the LibLabCon. My worst fear is that the LibLabCon will be the ones to take the UK out of the EU and claim that they could always be trusted to look after the national interest.

Cameron has already said there will be no referendum until the next election.  To be in a position of influence UKIP must have more or at least as many votes as what the LibDems obtained in the last election which was just under 7 million.   That gap is not going to be closed unless a more effective strategy is pursued.

The fact that all the combined votes of Eurosceptic parties in the London Mayoral elections could not even begin to match the vote of an unknown Yummy Mummy called Siobhan Benita should give Eurosceptics cause for concern!

17 August 2012, 7:23
UKIP to Claire Khaw

Thank you for your forthright comments.  UKIP's position of political correctness is stated clearly in the attached

17 August 2012, 12:16
Claire Khaw to UKIP

While I am happy to admit to admit that I had not read MORAL MUTATION before sending you my previous response, I have to say that I fail to see how Nigel Farage's acknowledgement that the liberal establishment's policy of limiting debate is in itself an argument for UKIP's policy of continuing cowardice.

There are now many THOUGHTCRIME laws in our so-called liberal society.  How can any party claiming to be libertarian even tolerate their existence?

But perhaps you do not recognise it for what it really is.  Perhaps I do really have to point out that any prohibition against you from discriminating on grounds of sex, race etc is undeniably a form of thoughtcrime because it presumes to limit your ability to think.

At least the BNP have said they wanted to repeal the anti-discrimination legislation now contained in the Equality Act.

Has UKIP said anything about this at all?   I can find no reference to this at http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies

To fight for free speech we must defy the political establishment.

The only way to defy the political establishment for a political party is through its policies, not essays by its leader about how the political establishment conspires to limit our free speech.  We already know that, and what we want is a way to stop them from taking away even more of our liberties after the next election.

To do so, UKIP should take courage and promise to repeal the Equality Act.

Is UKIP prepared to do so on libertarian grounds using libertarian arguments?  Is it even prepared to make this argument?  I am very happy to help, but it seems to me that it is the intention of UKIP not to admit me because I would attract controversy.

This is precisely what any political party worth its salt would want, I would have thought, but not UKIP it seems.

What we are discussing is semantic and philosophical and over the heads of most people, even if they hold senior positions in UKIP, but I know I can put it to the voter in simple and attractive terms.

I believe I can do it better than anyone else, and I think I can do this best through being a member of UKIP.

Of course my joining UKIP would attract controversy but that is precisely what we want! UKIP needs to build up a full head of steam in terms of publicity if it is to seize the initiative on this.


NB:

I know there is a fear that I will take over the party because I am so ruthless, clever, thrilling and daring.  But would that really be such a bad thing?  I have no desire to be party leader however, as long as I can discreetly pull strings from behind the scenes ....  I only seek to do for Euroscepticism and Social Conservatism what Peter Mandelson did for the Labour Party.   I look forward to his paying court to me without further delay.  There is much to be done, Peter!  
Time's winged chariot and all that.  We are going to unite the Left and Right of Britain in one glorious wedding!  Knowing of his romantic background, I already know he is a little reticent in these matters with the ladies, but I want to assure him that  I have every intention of accepting his hand in marriage and to become his Lady Mandelson.  Ah, the soirees we would have, and the salon I would run!   

For some reason I fancy a proper Jewish wedding.  It is probably because I just love the idea of the Lord Chief Rabbi doing the Mitzvah Tantz before Peter and me.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitzvah_tantz



‎"If anything comes in, i will let you know," said Maggie Chapman concerning people who actually email UKIP saying they would be more likely to vote UKIP if I were admitted.

Their email is 

mail@ukip.org

If you do write in support of my admission into UKIP, please copy me in so I can assure myself that Maggie has kept her promise.

Thursday, 16 August 2012

What Lord Mandelson and I have in common

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu



The flowers I delivered to Lord Mandelson when he was in hospital for his operation. I even received t  a thank you letter written in his fountain pen.  "Thank you for thinking of me," he wrote graciously.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6068026/Prostate-condition-very-common.html


Photo taken by a retired London Labour MP whose name I cannot now remember on the day of  the funeral of the widow of Tony Crosland
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/susan-croslands-funeral-4-march-2010.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-long-view-radio-4-1752139.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/peter-mandelson-labour
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/nov/09/labour.mandelson

"She has something of the Cardinal Richelieu about her," said a Facebook friend on 14 August 2012 at 13:20.

I know it is not quite the same as having laudatory pieces written about one by the liberal press, but it does suggest that Lord Mandelson and I may have something in common.  Lord Mandelson was the power behind the throne.  I could be the power behind the power behind the throne.

I wish Lord Mandelson to know that I would be delighted and gratified to receive a marriage proposal from him and to be his Lady Mandelson.  I understand his weakness for the stronger sex and hope he will also  understand my weakness for Facebook, and occasionally, particularly attractive, intelligent and charming members of the fairer sex.

Our marriage would make him interesting and to the media again and we could even have our own political chat show which would be so much better than what Andrew Neill is doing now.

You and me, baby, we could really go places!    

If I had been his wife I would have told him not to resign his seat, not to be so eager to be kicked upstairs and not be content with exile to Brussels.  And if he had followed my advice PM would be PM by now.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Peter+Mandelson has silly, loving and admiring things I have said of him.   

Thursday, 12 July 2012

3500 British troops should be just enough for a coup d'etat, shouldn't it?

Imagine me standing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace and the crowds - their faces rapt with adoration ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9394717/Olympic-security-soldiers-could-be-forced-to-sleep-in-school-halls.html

1.  March with troops to a Parliament in recess.

2.  Enter Parliament.

3.  Declare oneself Dictator.

4.  Dare Cameron (who will be on holiday and abroad) to do his worst.

5.  Decree that Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill becomes law. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html   http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/houseofcommonsdisqualificationamendment.html

6.  Declare a one-party state.

7.  Enshrine Constitution of one-party state along the lines at  http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

8.  Declare a General Election.

9.  All prospective parliamentary candidates to be voted in by AV, satisfy a residential requirement and swear to uphold new constitution.  (Talented men of military background will be encouraged to apply, and women will be tactfully discouraged, unless they are outstandingly talented.)

10.  Invite Peter Mandelson, Dan Hannan and Michael Gove to form triumvirate after repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the Equality Act 2010, the Equal Pay Act 1979, the Human Rights Act 1989, abolishing child benefit, declaring a flat rate income tax of 20%, abolishing the NHS, reintroducing fault into divorce, requiring any couple to sign a marriage contract before getting married as well as the measures described at  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/how-to-reinvigorate-british-economy.html  after introducing Secular Koranism,  abolishing usury, defaulting on our debts,  reintroducing slavery and legalising brothel-keeping, for starters.

11.  Retire and pull strings from behind the scenes to see that Britain enters the First Great Age of Khavian Ultra Rational Nationalism.


Sunday, 6 May 2012

Grudging congratulations to David Jones from a nationalist

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7119

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t879659-5/


Millhouse1933  5 May 2012  10:48 PM:

Dave Jones got 257 votes, 8.4%. Beat the Greens as well, he received less votes than them last time.

No elections for two years in Calderdale and if he does stand again, this time for the Peking People's Party or whatever it'll be called, he won't do so well fighting on a non-racialist ticket and by that time Claire Khaw will be bored of him and will have moved on to something else.

Big mistake, Dave.

I very much resent the suggestion impression that I am some sort of butterfly flitting from nationalist to nationalist or that I go round picking up nationalists and then dumping them casually and frivolously.

I like to think Dave and I will remain solid, simply because we wish to serve the cause of nationalist unity, and nationalist unity means the eventual merging of all the Eurosceptic parties, without which no nationalist movement can ever be successful.

If anyone is capable of this at all, it is me and a bit of help from my friends, of whom Dave is certainly one.

We can try to do this by agreeing a form of words that pragmatic nationalists can use that will not unduly alarm the easily frightened voter, or we can let the LibLabCon give us a referendum on the EU, but only when they are good and ready.  This was what Lord Mandelson had in fact suggested last week.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139381/EU-referendum-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Britain-vote.html?ITO=1490

Who would like to bet that the LibLabCon will be the ones to hold a referendum well before nationalists  figure out which end is their arse and which end their elbow?

Would they like things done more quickly then, so they can take some of the credit as well as promote the other policies that are important to them, such as the repeal of the Equality Act 2010?

If so, they really should get behind me and David Jones, and get Peter Rushton and Jim Lewthwaite to do the same too.

Being a female and a foreigner, I really am the best person to do this.  My views on the most issues are already on display, so there are no nasty surprises around the corner.

I really am only trying to help and am very happy to meet the people who seem to think I have two heads and arrived on a broomstick as the Wicked Witch of the East, just to reassure them that I can be quite nice and civilised really.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/111274988378/permalink/10150773613238379/
Answers to my question:  Why do nationalists hate and fear me so? I am only trying to help!

http://www.facebook.com/groups/111274988378/permalink/10150773679643379/
Answers to my question: Which of my views are considered extreme?

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

The REAL reason why the BNP are despised and feared, other than for being racist


My image of the typical BNP member


And then they wonder why people hate them.  People prefer not to be reminded that there are people like that around. White people are ashamed of the BNP specimens of the white race.

Using carrier bags to carry your belongings around is a sign of being LOWER CLASS and no one wants to vote for a party that is incorrigibly and unashamedly LOWER CLASS.

The Labour Party had that problem too until Peter Mandelson sorted them out.

Whether they like it or not, many non-whites now hold British citizenship. Probably there are a few people who would like to forcibly repatriate non-white British citizens. Indeed, many of them remain unwise enough to say so, and that is why they will never ever get anywhere.

Their hatred and helplessness are obvious. Why does no one love the white lower classes? Why do so many white people hate the party that claims to promote the interests of the white race?

Will they one day stop to ask themselves such questions instead of asserting themselves only through whingeing and saying loudly and repeatedly that they want to turn back time and return Britain to its racial composition as it was, before the 1948 British Nationality Act?

David Irving once famously told the Jews to ask themselves why they are hated.    I would recommend that members of the BNP too should  investigate the reasons - apart from their reputation of being a party of racists and the liberal bias in the media - why they are so hated.

It is a shame so many nationalists regard political integrity as the right to say what you want, when what you want to say does not in any way assist the cause.  Well, that's ethno-nationalism for you.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-ethno-nationalism-is-busted-flush.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/10/if-this-is-what-ethno-nationalism-means.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-ethno-nationalism-once-and.html

Lots of BNP people who throw their toys out of their pram join parties that are even more useless than the BNP, but we have to understand that these people are not made for politics, and have not had our education and our opportunities.  They only know that something is wrong and refuse to shut up about it.

Not being very bright they can only identify the symptoms, but remain incapable of addressing the causes of the British malaise.

In many ways the white working classes are their own worst enemy. But then not many people are made for politics, certainly not the white lower classes, who may recognise aristocratic virtue on the rare occasions they see it displayed in this country, but are incapable of practising it in their dealings with one another.

Indeed, it is probably true to say that aristocratic virtue no longer exists even amongst the aristocracy, so degenerate are the British these days most cannot list them off the top of their head, not even the pieces of Etonian shit like Cameron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido

Bushidō includes compassion for those of lower station, and for the preservation of one's name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitas_(virtue)

http://www.virtue.info/virtues/franklin/virtues.php

There was a BNP Xmas Social on Friday which I made a point of showing up at, since two of their number actually took the trouble to forward the SMS invitation which declared that ALL would be welcome.

This was of course NOT the case.

If those two had not forwarded me the SMS I would not have thought of attending and would have lacked the information to do so.

And so I determined to turn up, whether I would be welcome or not, to make a point.

What was that point?

That all the BNP are made up of cowards and hypocrites who say something and then do the opposite, who do not have this thing called FOLLOW THROUGH or principle or a developed sense of honour.

But what should one expect of the lower classes anyway?

Such a party, made up of lower class whites who are mostly illegitimate, uneducated, gullible and only too ready to blame the foreigner rather than their own corrupt institutions and lack of moral virtue, led by a leader who exploits them and who is despised but obeyed reluctantly even as he flouts their party constitution which they are too thick to read and in any case are not expected to have access to, can have no future. Indeed, if you wanted a copy of the party constitution you would have to apply for it and pay for it, and the Chairman would immediately be alerted that you will probably be making trouble for him, and will then expel you, which means you will be finished in nationalism, like Eddy Butler is.

One of the organisers was given a reprimand for inviting me to their London Social in September though he had not infringed any of the rules of the party constitution.   There was a rumour that a letter had been circulated to the effect that any organiser that admitted me to a BNP meeting would be expelled, but no one actually had a copy of this letter.  It is true that I had threatened on Facebook to crash their party and thereby get them all expelled and it is true that I indeed attempted to carry out my threat.

The best way of doing this, I thought, would be a photograph of the organisers at their Xmas party, which would be displayed on this blog and on Facebook.   It seemed obvious to me that the party would not be insane enough to expel all of them at the behest of some northern organiser (who has taken exception to my views on (1) what I would do to any severely disabled baby (as disabled as Riven Vincent's Celyn who is blind, cannot lift her head or move any of her limbs) I might have and/or (2)  the illegitimate and/or (3) the mothers of illegitimate offspring) who had threatened to resign if he ever became aware that I had attended any BNP event.  It should be noted that there is nothing in the party constitution prohibiting individual organisers from inviting whom they liked.

Rules Governing Official Meetings of a Branch or Group
19 No rigid rules shall govern the holding or conduct of Official Meetings or Executive Meetings of a British Homeland Branch or Group save as are set out in this Annex 4 or otherwise provided for in the constitution of such Branch or Group.
23 Any Official Meeting of a Branch or Group may be open or closed to guests as the Branch Organiser or Group Organiser shall determine on the occasion each such Official Meeting shall be called.   

For the Organisers to be expelled for admitting me, I would have to be PROSCRIBED by the party, and this has not been done.


ANNEX 2 CODE OF CONDUCT
"Proscriptions
5 The Chairman may proscribe individuals, organisations or publications which are so hostile to our Party, or whose views and/or behaviour are so likely to bring discredit upon our Party, that Members should have no contact with them.
6 Such a hostile individual, publications or group is thenceforth regarded as a rotten apple and proscription is the means by which they are prevented from contaminating others. Not only are the proscribed barred from attending party functions and activities, but Members are barred from attending events organised by them and barred from sharing platforms with them, distributing or advertising literature and electronic media produced by or in support of them, and promoting events at which they are known or – in the opinion of our Party leadership – likely to be attending.
7 Proscriptions shall come into effect on publication in the National
members' bulletin and remain in force until further notice. A full list appears on our Party's website."

This would have given the London Organisers the opportunity of asserting their independence over the Northern Organiser in question who threatened to resign if I attended the London Xmas Party, but they thought they would play safe instead, doubtless because they did not think that I was "worth it".

The principle at stake was not about whether the Organisers wanted Claire Khaw at their Xmas Party but was of course everything to do with the principle of the RULE OF LAW.  Without the rule of law, we would all be subject to the arbitrary whims and fancies of the autocrat who dictates to us, but we don't expect such principles to move the lower classes, who just do not get the idea of having principles.  Indeed, no ex-grammar schoolboy in the BNP and outside have ever been able to explain principle to me properly, clever though these grammar schoolboys are supposed to be. To them, all principles are hostages to fortune, and inconvenient baggage.   Why, a prominent ex-BNP member said that there is NO POINT in having principles.   This is not a concept easily grasped by lower class whites who in any case expect to submit to the arbitrary fancies of whoever is more powerful than they are, eg whoever their leader wishes to favour (in this case one miserable Northern Organiser over all London Organisers).  It should be noted that such abstract concepts as principle are alien to the thinking of both women and the lower classes.  The BNP, being a party consisting mostly of lower class men, think and behave like women - vacillating and dishonourable, ready to use the excuses their sex and their class entitles them to use.   It can be seen that they are clearly more prepared to have their constitutional  rights infringed rather than assert their constitutional rights for fear of receiving a reprimand or being expelled.  (I am not really one of them after all.  Indeed, even if I were white they would still have turned me away, because they are congenitally unable to grasp the principle of principle.)   It was therefore expedient to turn me away, and I perfectly understand.

The Rule of Law would require that I be formally proscribed to be banned from all BNP meetings, but I was not.  They still banned me anyway.

Is this cricket?  I doubt if most of them even use this term now anyway or even know what it means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/not+cricket

Indeed, the National Organiser Clive Jefferson was asked if I had indeed been proscribed, to which there was a predictable silence so that London Organisers would be left in a position of uncertainty, without the need to commit himself one way or another to avoid giving any evidence of the unconstitutional nature of that prohibition.   Expedient, but dishonourable.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dishonourable

Doubtless many reading this would be wondering what I am on about, talking about principles and honour, but that is of course precisely the problem with the degenerate, depraved and dishonourable British.  They no longer even pretend to be honourable, or obey, or even know their own rules.

This is how the BNP deal with their own comrades, dear reader.  Imagine how they would treat you - whatever your race -  if they ever got into a position of power.  

It would clearly have been expedient for me not to have attempted to gate crash their party, but then I am not like them, for I am making a point of  not lurching down the blind alley of expediency and being the servant of whoever shouts most loudly at me.

I of course forgive them completely, for I have no right to expect lower class whites to know anything about the 12 Tables of Rome or see how it might just apply to them.  At least the plebs in Rome knew to demand that the laws of Rome be put in a prominent place where they could see them and could refer to them easily, unlike the vassals of the BNP fiefdom operated by their feudal lord.

http://rome.mrdonn.org/12tables.html

And even if you tell them about it, they would only shrug their plebeian shoulders.  None of them would even think of demanding to see a copy of their party constitution as a matter of right.  (Most members of the Conservative Party have never read their own party constitution.  If they do, they will find it a bit of a shocker too.  At least you can read the BNP constitution online.)

http://bnp.org.uk/constitution-british-national-party contains the ridiculous restrictions about who may or may not download a copy of the BNP constitution.  Members of the BNP are of course in a legal relationship with the BNP and the party constitution contains the terms of that contract.  (I actually took the party at is word and asked for a copy, long before I was even suspended.  Predictably, I received no response whatsoever to my request.)  It is clearly the intention of the BNP leader to see to it that members and activists do not get to see how unfair the terms of that contract are until it is too late.


Constitution of the British National Party
Version 12.3 of the British National Party’s constitution can be downloaded at the link below.

No part of this, the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time may be downloaded, copied, reproduced, republished, posted, transmitted, stored, sold or distributed without the prior written permission of N. Griffin MEP for and on behalf of the publisher, except that each Individual Member of the British National Party shall have a non exclusive non transferable licence to download one copy of the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time from www.bnp.org.uk on any single computer and print out parts or one whole copy of the same for his or her personal, non-commercial, home use and for uses connected with his or her membership as an Individual Member of the British National Party and only provided that all copyright and proprietary notices are kept intact.


Any person other than an Individual Member of the British National Party who wishes to be granted a non exclusive and non transferable licence to download or otherwise acquire one or more copies of the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party as amended from time to time on to one or more computers and to print out one or more copies of this, the 12.3 edition of the Constitution of the British National Party, as amended from time to time may apply to N. Griffin MEP to purchase a licence to do so.

Details of the licences available and associated fees are obtainable upon request from P O Box 14, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0WE.

The BNP are of course a microcosm of the worst features (ie the illegitimacy, irrationality, depravity, hypocrisy, effeminacy, cowardice and degeneracy) of the white race.

But anyone who can fix the BNP can fix Britain, probably.   


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/12/london-bnp-xmas-social.html

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...