Why is the Daily Telegraph sitting on the EU referendum fence?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/mar/03/why-is-the-daily-telegraph-sitting-on-the-eu-referendum-fence

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

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

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

I know the real reason and it is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Dina Rickman complains:

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

Lest we forget, Mr Bloom had the Ukip whip withdrawn after he called a roomful of women “sluts” and whacked a journalist on the head with a piece of his party’s propaganda - but not when he said small businesses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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principles of feminism are as follows:

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

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

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

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

More arrant nonsense by Ed West though his heart's in the right place

I will admit that I resent Ed West for being paid to write his incoherent rubbish, while my clarity and boldness are deliberately ignored by a cowed and cowardly liberal media.

West has told us not to blame Islam for our problems, but takes great care to balance it out with the usual half-truths and would please the typical Telegraph reader, who are just a more sophisticated version of the Islamophobic Mail reader, but with a wider vocabulary.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100147680/how-islam-became-a-scapegoat-for-the-problems-of-immigration/

Let me go through the passages one by one and tell you the ways in which I find his reasoning flawed.

Conservatism’s obsession with Islam is partly a reaction to multiculturalism, which holds that all religions are basically the same. This is untrue, as anyone with even a middling understanding of history can appreciate: the current moral order that emerged from the West, the world of the Enlightenment, the UN and human rights, stems from Christianity. No other religion could have produced it – not Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, because none have Christianity’s concept of the individual. Christianity is essentially a union of Hellenic and Hebrew civilisations, the greatest marriage that ever took place.

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

What has clearly  happened is that the West plagiarised from Islam and then forget where it had got most of its goodies from eg the university.

When Ed West gets off his high horse of cultural chauvinism and ventures to read the Koran he may one day acknowledge this fact.

Islam improved upon Judaism and Christianity and then itself slowly lost its marbles the way the West is losing them now.   It seems that all civilisations become likes this after a brief spell of imperialism and affluenza.  The US constitution is being flouted and, though it is much shorter than the Koran, the big fat stupid yanks have not noticed.  If they have noticed they do not care.  If they care they do not know who to vote for to remedy the situation.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Perpetual-War-Peace-Hated-ebook/dp/B003B0W1US/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333120697&sr=8-1 details the examples of the US government flouting its own constitution in rather the same way that Muslims do not read their own holy book because they are too busy stuffing their faces, getting laid, watching TV, going shopping etc.

Islam, in contrast, lacks not just Western concepts of the individual but also Christianity's historic separation of the state and religion. There is also no doubt that Islam has a very ambiguous attitude to violence in its name.

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

Clearly, the religion of Peace and War were not as hypocritical as Christianity in pretending that Christians never go to war, divorce their spouses, take slaves or run brothels.   It did not pretend that these things never happened with Muslims, and had instead acknowledged the existence such practices in order to regulate it, unlike the hypocritical Christians, who pretended to be so holier than thou that they were somehow above it all.   While they were busily pretending that Christians never go to war, divorce their spouses take slaves or run brothels, all sorts of terrible abuses took place.  

There is a reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy are so often associated like Horse and Carriage and go hand in hand.

Muslims certainly don't go around destabilising and invading other people's countries to rob them of their oil while pretending it is for their own good and for the sake of human rights

The reason why the Church had to be separated from the State was because Christianity was such a stupid vicious totalitarian religion that the Europeans only became civilised after they started ignoring most of it.

I bet Ed didn't know you could lose your job just for denying the Trinity until as recently as 1813.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

I bet he has no idea what the Trinity is either.   Most Christians don't.   The Nicene creed is something their priests get them to repeat, stupidly and uncomprehendingly, at church services.

They do not tell them that if they don't really believe that Christ is also God Himself, they are not Christians and would go to HELL.  This is because the Anglican Church just wants bums on pews.

If you spoke to a non-Western Christian, they would understand the bargain better, because they would proclaim to you: "Christ is Lord, Christ is Lord!"   They would have been told that they if they do not believe this they would go to hell.  Clearly, you cannot say this sort of thing to some liberalised feminist Westerners and still expect them to turn up to church, so they don't talk about this sort of thing these days.

Guess what, Ed?  Islam denies the Trinity.   Bet Ed didn't know that either.

But it affirms the Virgin Birth.   Why, Ed, why?   Cos it is schmoozing the Christians and going half way to meet them.

As for the separation of Church and State that Westerners think is so clever and civilised, this needed to be done in order to stop totalitarian Christian dogma from contaminating Western thought and dragging it back into the Dark Ages again.

It would be fine to infuse the UK legal system with Koranic principles, as far as I am concerned.  This is because the Koran is good enough to be interpreted literally.  

No, no, no, Ed would cry.   But which verse in the Koran do you find so objectionable?  To this I expect a silence, because you can be sure that Ed has not read the Koran, no, not even The Koran for Dummies.

I haven't read it myself, but it might be a good substitute for people who haven't read the Koran and are too scared to 

Since he has not read the Koran he will know nothing about 2:256 either - "There is no compulsion in belief."  (This means that there should be no totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation, by the way.   Does Ed know of any totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation?  I doubt he would recognise it even if it came up to him and spat in his face.)

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php

The huge movements of recent years have made Islam and Christianity an anchor of identity to people in Europe. The EDL are essentially a Christianist group, but the sentiments behind sectarianism and nationalism are the same. One cannot blame sectarianism on religion any more than one can blame nationalism on language – it just is. (It’s not as if the Shankill butchers were forever discussing Calvin and Luther on their nights out.)

I have no idea what he is trying to say here.  Does anyone?  The EDL is a "Christianist" Party?  What the fuck does that mean?  Is he saying the EDL are regular church-goers?   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christianist  If so, I have news for him.

As Christopher Caldwell once put it: “Islam is a magnificent religion that has also been, at times over the centuries, a glorious and generous culture. But, all cant to the contrary, it is in no sense Europe’s religion and in no sense Europe’s culture.”

Neither was Christianity part of Europe's culture, once upon a time, when Ancient Britons painted themselves blue and worshipped pagan deities.

Who is this Caldwell person that West quotes with such reverence?  I looked him up.

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

Caldwell's 2009 book Reflections on the Revolution In Europe has been accused of stoking Islamophobia, or what The Guardian refers to as a "culture of fear"

Another confused and incoherent piece, just like the last one I took apart at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/why-are-british-men-kneeling-before.html.  What a shame I cannot have this job.  The Telegraph is too scared to hire me, probably, though I guarantee that its readers will be much better informed and clearer thinkers if I became a Telegraph blogger.

Perhaps the Telegraph Editor Tony Gallagher will have a look at my blogs to see if I am the kind of writer his readers would enjoy.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/my-submission-for-2012-orwell-prize-for.htm has my entries that did not make the Orwell Prize longlist because Suzanne Moore hates me.

Why does she hate me?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/orwell-prize-left-wing-cabal-who-are.html explains.

Mentioned in the Telegraph and Hope Not Hate

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1830/BNP-member's-pro-Gaddafi-Facebook-group-snares-politicians

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8357620/BNP-members-pro-Gaddafi-Facebook-group-snares-politicians.html