Translate

Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

How a Jewish journalist was treated by the left for going against their groupthink



The left also think Jews also belong to them, but when Jews capable of thinking independently refused to conform to this expectation, the left started getting nasty.

Tweets I have received from the left:




at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

Danny Finkelstein complains of Guardian readers making antisemitic comments about David Baddiel's piece on antisemitism

Do Jews consciously or unconsciously provoke antisemitism and then complain about it?  Am I allowed to ask this question or will the cops be called on me in the land of "free speech" that is the West?

Sadly, the more Jews complain about antisemitism, the more people will hate them for even complaining.

The cleverer they are at getting governments to pass ever more restrictive laws against free speech such as Holocaust Denial, the more people will think there is a sinister Jewish conspiracy.

What I think is the problem is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/a-swift-and-effective-way-of-addressing.html

Also, Jews get blamed for what goes on in publishing, but it is my contention that the problem in publishing - increasing censoriousness, mediocrity and risk-averse behaviour - is not Jews being a problem but due to the fact that women have taken over publishing and the BBC. Women are obviously and objectively more libtard than men -  83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did - and men these days have been so emasculated by feminism that they are afraid of saying boo to a feminist out of fear of being accused of misogyny, rape or a historical sexual offence. Not only would they lose their job, they might even lose their wife who, under the rules of no fault divorce, can easily deprive them of their home and their children for no good reason eg objecting to their husband's political views and wishing to punish them for that.

Feminists seize publishing
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Nick Griffin tells Claire Khaw to fuck off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkXcVA2nYqk#t=28

What Nick Griffin's said in Germany:
  1. Civic nationalist parties like UKIP and Front Nationale who are doing well are condemned by him for being "phony nationalists".  
  2. Even if they were elected they would be overwhelmed by left-wing rioting and fall within the year.
  3. Nuremberg is not a German city now but a Turkish city.  
  4. Russia is the only European country left in the West.  The rest of the West are full of immigrants and Muslims.
  5. The EU elite are conspiring to start WW3.  
  6. Russia and Germany must form a nationalist alliance.  

He said nothing about the Equality Act 2010 and nothing about abolishing No Fault Divorce, as I had urged him to.

MY SUGGESTED BNP STRATEGY FOR GE 2015


  1. If UKIP won't repeal the Equality Act 2010 then the BNP should. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people
  2. If UKIP won't abolish no fault divorce then the BNP should.
  3. If UKIP won't be the party of small business then the BNP should be.
  4. If UKIP won't denounce feminism then the BNP should.  
  5. If UKIP won't oppose gay marriage then BNP should. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/UK/UKIP-will-not-oppose-gay-marriage-Nigel-Farage/articleshow/32313979.cms
  6. Declare the BNP to be officially and exclusively civic nationalist.
  7. Annul Claire Khaw's expulsion
  8. Appoint Claire Khaw as BNP Director of Communications
  9. Become bigger than UKIP
  10. Absorb UKIP
  11. Rival LibDems
  12. Become bigger than LibDems
  13. Hold the balance of power after GE 2015

Niche marketing must be the way forward for the BNP.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_market


Below are my messages to him:


CK to NG  19/3/14  2126
Your only chance of retaining any credibility with the public is to make the party officially and exclusively civic nationalist.  What are the problems you anticipate and what objections do you have to simply filling up the policy vacuum Farage leaves?  If he won’t repeal the Equality Act you will.  If he won’t abolish gay marriage you will.  Whatever he won't do you take up the slack?  What do you think?


CK to NG  19/3/14  2132
Please tell me your concerns and objections to repeal Equality Act and abolish no fault divorce if you find them objectionable.  I may already have the solution.  


CK to NG  20/3/14  0810
A belated but Damascene conversion to civic nationalism by you would attract media attention.  People would leave the party but you are just getting rid of the dross.

CK to NG  20/3/14  0819
Once the dross has left the good people will join.  Instead of pretending you aren’t racist you can say why repealing the Equality Act and abolishing no fault divorce would be in the national interest.

 I am afraid what follows was a rather dismissive response from the Chairman:

NG to CK  20/3/14  0852 
Do stop wasting your time and mine.  Mass immigration has been a deliberate genocide plan against white people from the very beginning.  Civic nationalists are not only cowards but collaborators with the biggest crime in human history.  A crank who poses with assault rifle and a swastika has not the slightest right to lecture the BNP.  http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/which-type-of-mangina-are-you So, to put it politely and for the avoidance of doubt: Fuck off!

I received no further response to my subsequent messages:

CK to NG  20/3/14  0901
That photo was for the purpose of making the point that it is logically impossible for me to be a Nazi and that I am as much a Nazi as I would be a policeman if I had been photographed outside a police station with a policeman’s helmet on my head.  It is also for making the point that the British don’t care much for logic.  I have never said anything antisemitic unlike you or tried to plead the 5th Amendment on Question Time re Holocaust Denial.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222441/Question-Time-panellist-launches-extraordinary-attack-BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin.html Instead, I have consistently asked: what number is Holocaust Denial?


CK to NG  20/3/14  0904
“Mass immigration has been a deliberate genocide plan against white people from the very beginning.”  By whom?


CK to NG  20/3/14  0906
“Civic nationalists are not only cowards but collaborators with the biggest crime in human history.”  I am a civic nationalist.  How have I been cowardly?


CK to NG  20/3/14  0913 That photo gives me notoriety and links me to nationalism.  You are probably aware that a conventional career path in politics is closed to me and that I must somehow make myself known as I am not a member of any party. 


CK to NG  20/3/14  0927
I would have thought that a nationalist would want to repeal the Equality Act.  I know John Tyndall would have supported my proposal and that the BNP wanted to repeal the Sex Discrimination Act in the 1990s.  You are not helping your people by failing to make nationalism an attractive, moral and noble ideology.  Instead, nationalism is now associated with CHAVs in Islamophobic demos.  Even UKIP have gone further than you in displays of Islamophobia eg screening of Fitna in the House of Lords http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/05/geert-wilders-house-of-lords, Gerard Batten’s proposal to make Muslims promise not to commit terrorism. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence

CK to NG  20/3/14  0933
What have you got against proposing the abolition of no fault divorce which undermines the institution of marriage?  It is the desecration of this institution that has caused racial and national degeneracy, has it not? http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html  [85% of Jamaican mothers SSMs.  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts] You do know that most British babies are illegitimate, don’t you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517 'The whites have become black' says David Starkey


CK to NG  20/3/14  0943
Your trouble is that you lower your morals to match those of your core supporters.  Perhaps my trouble is that I try to raise the morals of those I hope will support me.  I can tell you how to do better and you owe it to yourself and your cause to understand my ideas before you reject them.  If you tell me your practical and philosophical objections to my proposals then I can propose solutions which you would be free to reject or implement.  WHY won’t you propose repealing/abolishing EA/NFD?

CK to NG  20/3/14  1001
I was in The Guardian against last Friday.  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/13/hugh-muir-diary-pickles-audit-commission I can probably attract more publicity than you can these days.  Who else in nationalism has been described by The Guardian as “philosopher activist”? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/29/hugh-muir-diary-waterboarding-bbc  I am also legally-trained.  I am probably your last hope before you face electoral meltdown next year.  Now tell me why you won’t propose to do away with Equality Act and no-fault divorce.  If it is because you are afraid of a mass resignation of the Advisory Council I have just the solution, but you have to act fast.  

http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/content/contact is where you can send him messages saying you are a Eurosceptic who would vote BNP instead of UKIP but only if he does what I have suggested above and at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-bnp-can-do-now-that-ukip-has.html


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 12 July 2013

Why I am suing the Conservative Party, in language a layman would understand

• With politicians working hard to seem amiable, it's refreshing to be reminded that they rarely leave home without the iron fist within that velvet glove. That realisation must be dawning on that horrible controversialist Claire Khaw – who was expelled from the Tory party earlier this year when party bosses discovered nasty things she had previously said about the disabled. You are not our type, the Tories said. Which seemed fair enough. But Khaw, being Khaw, went to the high court and applied for judicial review. Cue a letter from the Tory party lawyers – and it's a beauty. We "strongly advise" that you take legal advice "before taking any further steps", it says. "Your application for judicial review will fail." You can't challenge our disciplinary committee because we are essentially a "private members'" association. Even if you could, the decision was a sound one. We have to respond to your application by 22 July, they say. We will fight and we will win, and make you be liable for costs. "You have a choice. Withdraw your claim and prove that you have done so by 1200hrs on Thursday 18th July. If you do this our client will not seek to recover its legal costs from you." If you don't, on your own head be it. No surrender, says Khaw. I'd rather risk legal fees, if they are reasonable. Reasonable legal fees? She is odd, isn't she?

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/hugh-muirs-diary-mps-chelsea-flower-show

It won't be a big legal bill because they are saying my claim is so crap that they just have to tell the court it is crap and the court will agree with them pronto and refuse me permission, in which case that will be the end of the matter.  If I have to pay their costs at all, then it would be for the cost of the Conservative Party instructing its solicitors to file a defence saying that my claim is utterly without merit and should not be entertained for one moment by any High Court judge in his or her right mind.  

What I am asking for is in fact really very modest. The Conservatives have no principles (or mistakenly think that their principles are contained in David Cameron's Foreword of their 2010 General Election Manifesto at http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf). I just want them to publish a formal Statement of Principles.

My theory is that the reason why Western governments are now foundering is because none of parties that are supposed to promote social conservatism - such as the Conservative Party - have a Statement of Principles.  Because social conservatism is never defended and the need for it not properly understood, extremist liberalism and feminism and their irresponsible social policies have caused social problems that will not be dealt with, let alone solved, for a few generations.

I will be suggesting to the Conservatives that they might like a principle along the lines of "The principle of the Conservative Party is to conserve the long-term national interest."

The national interest could be defined as, for example, solvency and social stability which would mean the promotion of fiscal prudence and marriage (between a man and a woman only) for social stability.

I know people will find it very difficult to grasp, but what I am suing the Conservative Party for is this:

For claiming that I have said and done things that were 'wholly inconsistent' with their aims, objectives and principles AND THEN BEING UNABLE TO TELL ME WHAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE.

To judicially review a decision of a public body you have to cite the following legal grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Grounds_for_review

I recognise that my legal action may fall at the first hurdle, because their lawyers have already claimed that the Conservative Party is not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body and are instead "a private members' association".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_on_Take-overs_and_Mergers,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc is the case that I will cite that argues that any organisation that can make decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large will be deemed to be a public body, whether it likes it or not.

This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatisation" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Cameron could not have become Prime Minister if he had not joined the Conservative Party.

Now that he is PM and proposing to legalise gay marriage, this would clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

Organisations such as

The Marriage Foundation http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Default.aspx

Christian Concern http://www.christianconcern.com/

Christian Institute  http://www.christian.org.uk/

Coalition for Marriage http://c4m.org.uk/

and anyone else who is against gay marriage and the way the Conservative Party is running this country should really be supporting me in this.

This would include UKIP and the BNP and any organisation that considers itself Libertarian eg

The IEA  http://www.iea.org.uk/

The Libertarian Alliance  http://www.libertarian.co.uk/

Adam Smith Institute http://www.adamsmith.org/

If the court is minded to favour my arguments, then it will be what lawyers call a landmark case.

I expect anyone who is a member of any political party to take an interest, because this case highlights really how powerless the individual political activist is and how likely his rights will be abused by the leaders and his cronies with impunity by his abusers.  Any complaint of ill-treatment will be treated with indifference by one's friends, family and associates because everyone hates politicians and think they deserve to suffer for presuming to tell them what to do.

They are of course claiming I am a very bad egg: an antisemite and a Nazi for one thing, and for daring to discuss controversial subjects in a way that has caused great offence to liberals and feminists.

My intention is to prove that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi and deny that I am an antisemite.  I will however put my hands up to discussing controversial subjects. One goes into politics precisely because one has a view about controversial subjects. Discussing controversial subjects and expressing controversial opinions should not be a reason for expulsion from any party, should it?

It is shocking that no political party will defend the right of any of its members when they say something liberals and feminists dislike.

I have a made a point of not saying anything that is logically, morally and intellectually indefensible, but it seems that these rules of rational discourse are unknown even to what passes for the intelligentsia in this land.

No one is interested in discussing whether something is moral, practicable or rational, only that it is offensive in this easily-offended and morbidly feminised country.

The Truth is ugly, boys and girls, and I think it is time that you were told that this is a fact of life.   Santa Claus does not exist and Mummy and Daddy (if you have one) will not be around forever to look after you and bail you out.

Surely political activists are allowed to discuss controversial subjects without being vilified and their political careers ruined, in what we fondly imagine to be a society which is supposedly free because the principle of free speech is upheld  by the state?

Is there anything at all in the Conservative Party constitution that forbids a member from discussing the disabled in terms that they or their parents might find offensive?  I rather suspect not.

Just because one is not taken out and shot for saying something found to be offensive by the easily-offended - usually women - does not mean one has free speech.   Many are easily intimidated and the threat of a much lesser punishment, such as loss of a Facebook friendship, loss of status, is usually enough.  Many men fear being considered odd by women with whom they wish to have sex and so toe the feminist line in order not to offend the women whom they hope to fuck.  Men, as we know, will do anything for sex, and telling a few lies, or, more likely, refraining from criticising feminism during courtship in order to gain sexual access to women, is easily done.

All this is enough to make self-censorship the rule in this supposedly free country.

Probably, China has more free speech than Britain.   
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 3 June 2013

White Guardian-reading BBC-employees just a bit neurotic and illogical about race?

Despite his heartfelt contrition, that Nick Robinson error continues to fuel discussion. We hear from Claire Khaw, the activist-philosopher shunned by both the BNP and the Tories for being a bit too out there. Why apologise, ponders Claire. "Of 'Muslim appearance' could just mean that the person of whatever race was wearing clothes Muslims wear." This is why Claire doesn't work for the BBC. She has also been reflecting on the Sergio Garcia controversy. The golfer hit trouble after racially stereotyping Tiger Woods, suggesting the American legend – a bitter rival – might crave fried chicken. "I like fried chicken," notes Claire. "Am I black?" Sorry Claire. It's not that easy.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/29/hugh-muir-diary-waterboarding-bbc

Why is it offensive to say that a black man might like the kind of food black men are known to like?

Is it offensive to say that the British like chips with everything?

Or that they like a good roast dinner?

I certainly would not be offended if you suggested that I like Chinese food because I am Chinese.

Let us keep trying this.

The Spaniard was on stage at the European Tour's gala players' awards dinner, where he was questioned by the Golf Channel's Steve Sands. García, who has been embroiled in verbal battles with Woods since the Players Championship at Sawgrass this month, was asked in jest if he would have the American round for dinner one night during the upcoming US Open. "We will have him round every night," García said. "We will serve fried chicken."

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/22/sergio-garcia-remark-tiger-woods-row

I am Sergio Garcia.  I say of my English opponent:

"We will have him round every night.  We will serve him fish and chips."

I am Sergio Garcia.  I say of my Chinese opponent:

"We will have him round every night.  We will serve him sweet and sour pork."

I am Sergio Garcia.  I say of my American opponent:

"We will have him round every night.  We will serve him burgers and hot dogs."

I am Sergio Garcia.  I say of my Indian opponent:

"We will have him round every night.  We will serve him curry."

I am Sergio Garcia.  I say of my Jewish/Muslim opponent:

"We will have him round every night.  We will serve him kosher/halal food."

Isn't it a bit racist to suggest that we cannot say such similar things to black people?

I imagine that you would be offended if Garcia was proposing to serve you food you in fact dislike, but who on earth dislikes fried chicken?

You might offend a Chinese person by telling him you propose to serve him dog stew when it is the last thing he wants, but is there any suggestion at all that Tiger Wood dislikes fried chicken?

Would it be racist to say that Guardian-reading BBC employees who are white really are getting just a bit neurotic about the issue of race?

Just stop being nervous and apologising for everything.  It really does you no good at all.

Never apologise, never explain, especially over some harmless remark.  It is a sign of weakness and contemptibly effeminate.

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 4 April 2013

If the Guardian hired me as a columnist and paid me less than its rivals, I believe would make that sacrifice of income

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, 11 January 2013

My open letter to Tom Walker of the Socialist Workers' Party

Martin Smith AKA Comrade Delta - cleared of rape allegations


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html

The SWP is likened to a "socialist sharia court" - this is delicious!  Schadenfreude, anyone?

The allegations came from an unnamed female party member who claimed she was assaulted over a six-month period between 2008 and 2009 but did not want to go to the police.

To be fair to the SWP, what can you do if the woman claimed to have been raped for 6 months but refuses to go to the police?  Convict anyway?

Now that would be really crazy.

Sounds like she put up with the sexual attentions of Comrade Delta for 6 months then decided it wasn't worth it.  This is what feminists these days call Rape in Retrospect, which goes along the lines of "If I knew he was going to be such a loser and a bastard, I never would have let him fuck me."

Should we allow men to divorce their wives when they lose their youth and figure and start to nag? After all, he could easily say "I never knew being married to to you could be so shit, or I never would have married you. Let's call the whole thing off and pretend we never had the kids or ever met each other.  I'll just leave you with the house and the bills, yeah?"

Is this the way things are heading in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland?

It seems to me that the SWP came to a fair and sensible decision.  It would be crazy to convict anyone of a criminal charge without a criminal standard of proof - beyond all reasonable doubt in a trial by jury.

I must say I am rather conflicted.  On the one hand I believe the SWP were sensible in exonerating Comrade Delta, but on the other, it seems that the manner in which they reached their decision was unfair or oppressive, according to Tom Walker.

I think all parties are guilty of this high-handed treatment of members by the leader and his cronies, and something should be done.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning


Hi Tom

Your resignation from the SWP

Some years ago I bumped into some of your colleagues at an event to do with T3 and remembered them even then complaining about the lack of democracy in the SWP.

I have for many years been saying that the problem with this country is that the rights of those who participate in politics in their respective parties are not at all protected.

I hope this link will explain what I mean and what I propose to do about it.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html

While our politics are not in harmony, I trust we can work together in making the point about how crucial it is for enlightened government that free speech - especially the free speech of those who participate in politics - is protected.

Regards

Claire Khaw

PS   I have been mentioned by The Guardian by Hugh Muir twice last week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/02/hugh-muir-diary-bnp-conservatives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/04/hugh-muir-diary-nigel-farage-card

It is possible that he may wish to give this project further publicity if we can work together on this.



Some of you will be interested to know that the Conservative Party appear to be refusing to give me a reason why they have cancelled my membership.   The exchanges can be seen at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html

Even the BNP gave me a reason when they expelled me!
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, 25 May 2012

An Act of God humbles Guardian journalists



God (if He exists) may not look kindly upon Guardian journalists who deny His existence and scorn His Word



An insurance broker says:

"Unless Will Self had a bespoke warranty free high net worth contract for his buildings it’s unlikely this will be an Insured event. Most household policies are written on a “perils” basis whereby there is a specified list of perils that are Insured against – fire, lightening, explosion, impact, malicious damage etc. The damage at Mr Self’s home has been caused more due to “sudden and unforeseen” circumstances which, even if his Insurance does extend to cover, will most likely have an exclusion for extreme temperature or climatic causes. 

DO ALL THE HOUSES WITH COLLAPSED PARAPETS HAVE GUARDIAN-WRITING AND GUARDIAN READING OWNER-OCCUPIERS?  I think we should be told.

The roof did not fall IN, as was claimed by careless journalists with apparently no eyes to see.  However, the parapet did indeed fall OFF.   Perhaps imbecilic leftist journalists these days mix up "roof" with "parapet", carelessly thinking they are indistinguishable anyway, in the same idiotic way they think the meaning of marriage can be extended to pander to gay people who have no need for that sort of thing anyway.  It is not surprising then that parapets fall off the homes of morally confused leftist journalists, for apparently no reason at all.  Such an event could be likened to God tapping you on your shoulder and waiting for you to give an explanation of yourself, after you have gotten over the shock and surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet
One thing I did consider however is the fact that his seems to be the only house in a very large residential area filled with very similar houses that has been affected. It does beg the question as to whether the roof was correctly maintained or indeed if in the past he had had a chimney breast or a supporting wall removed???

I hope for his sake his Insurers will be footing the bill as it looks like it’s going to cost a lot to repair."

Will Self, humbled by an uninsured peril that was an Act of God




at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 11 March 2011

Abu Zufayr should sue The Guardian for defamation

http://www.savemasjidtawhid.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution


http://www.facebook.com/abdullah.andalusi/posts/10150099057897517?cmntid=10150100001052517

It has been alleged that Abu Zufayr has made a death threat against Usama Hasan over the latter's deliberately provocative position on Evolution.

A wiser person such as I would have said "God created everything and He must therefore have created Evolution" to reconcile the two positions, but he did not, in order, perhaps, to be deliberately provocative and attract attention to himself.  

It seems Usama Hasan was suggesting that he has received a death threat and that death threat came from a certain Abu Zufayr.  Those present said that while Abu Zufayr certainly called him a "kuffar" they heard no death threat.

It seems that the death threat was contained in a leaflet at http://peacebruv.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/charges-of-kufr-against-usama-hasan.pdf  

Does giving someone a leaflet saying "In the good old days you would have been killed for doing and saying what you did" amount to a death threat?

Not to any reasonable person, I would have thought.  But then who said The Guardian is read or written by a reasonable people?  It is read by the liberal Muslims, who are walking oxymorons so messed up in the head by double-think that you wonder that their heads do not explode with so many internal contradictions.

Nevertheless, The Guardian, who wanted a "another Muslim extremist issues yet another death threat over something silly" decided to run this story.

I hope Abu Zufayr gets damages for this outrageous slur on his reputation, if indeed the facts are as I have stated above, and that he in fact made no statement that could reasonably be interpreted to constitute a death threat.  Poor journalism should be seen to be punished when it has the effect of ruining a man's reputation and stirring up racial and religious hatred.   
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Muslims and BNP have yet another thing in common: washing dirty linen in public

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_187296237972197&id=187309341304220
Defend Usama Hasan -- Support Freedom of Conscience and Oppose Intolerance was started by Yahya
Birt.

I have been deleted from this group on the grounds that I am a BNP member when all I said was that  this incident sounded like mosque politics and a storm in a teacup.

Usama Hasan alleges that a death threat was made against him but nowhere does the actual form of words this death threat took appear anywhere.  The form of words would of course be crucial in deciding the guilt of anyone accused of issuing a death threat in a court of law.  The vagueness of the Guardian account of events, and the failure of the journalist in question is a shameful testament to journalistic standards these days.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution

I said on the group yesterday:

"Shame the Guardian didn't see fit to quote the wording of the leaflets allegedly containing the death threats. It is well known that East End Asians like boasting about the death threats they receive. If you ain't got no death threat, you ain't done or said nothing worth your salt as a politician."



http://www.savemasjidtawhid.com/

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=238

It does appear to me that Muslims, just like the BNP, are fighting amongst themselves, washing their dirty linen in public and giving themselves a very bad name indeed.

The Koran advises us to avoid pointless disputation, particularly about such things as evolution.  We can't know because we weren't there.  And even if we were no one would believe us anyway.  So why don't we just agree to disagree?

I would have said that

(1) God created Evolution

and, to appease the atheists, whisper to them that

(2) Man created God.

Sorted.

I think I would make rather a good imam if I were Muslim and a man with my tact and my reputation of being a unifier.

Yahya Birt who cannot get over the fact that a BNP member does not mean Muslims harm is a very silly man with an obvious liberal agenda.

Perhaps that little turd cannot get his narrow white middle class liberal little head round this: I wish to promote an ideology called

Khavian Koranism AKA Secular Koransim AKA Anglican Islam

which encompasses the religious and secular, and which fuses Koranic principles with Anglican ways of worship that do not contradict the Koran.   In short, I wish to create a new state religion for the British people that the non-Muslims can see themselves embracing, that is far away from the soft soap of the Church of England which is now infested by feminists, socialists, liberals and communists.  It is the white working classes whose cultural identity consists of being "dipso, fatso, bingo, ASBO and Tesco"  who need this new religion most of all.

Below is a description by someone who was actually there from Abduall Al-Andalusi's Facebook walls:

Avas Asghar:  
"Most people here clearly didn't go to the event, relying instead on grainy videos clips which didn't do justice to the event. 

At this farcical event, Shaykh Suhaib came across poorly, as did Usama, as did the mob(!) But all those who feel Usama is a victimised, brave, courageous hero - then you should know this:

He came 50 mins late and the crowd waited patiently. In the meantime shaykh Suhaib (who on most occasions you can't help but love) set the scene with a slightly patronising speech (btw, giving one reason for Usama's tardiness and Usama upon arrival giving another). Then Usama spent 15 mins fiddling unnecessarily with the position of a projector (perhaps he was nervous). So after an hour of everyone waiting patiently without a word being spoken - the first thing Usama did was insult the crowd teasing them about projectors and how he hoped they didn't mind him using 'modern' technology.

What horrible start to the entire thing - you knew it was going to descend into chaos with Usama antagonising the crowd (and vice versa). If there was one thing you could, in the past, rely on Usama for - it was humility and keeping cool. Both those qualities were sadly absent. He came across as patronising and arrogant and for sure retorted back to all those who may have insulted him. It was tit for tat and embarrassing!

Then the crowd asked Usama to debate one of 2 individuals there and then (their names were shaqur & abu zubair - both 'traditional' Islamic students of knowledge, the latter from umm al qurra in Makkah I believe). Usama refused. The crowed implored him and asked him what he was afraid of. He refused claiming he wasn't prepared. (so what on earth was this event for?!)

Usama is thirsty for attention, sthing clear from his media appearances. In regard to evolution- he published one cif article in which he just insulted Muslims, and at some point gave a slide show presentation with a lacuna filled argument. How does that make him a spokesman for islam & evolution. In an act of terrible hypocrisy he asked one biologist at the event - who challenged him - to publish his ideas with peer review!!!! Usama isn't an authority in evolutionary biology and he's never published his ideas for them to be peer reviewed. Ever!

No one has actually bridged the Islamic and evolution narratives - certainly not Usama. And I stayed for the whole event - I didn't hear any death threats. 1 man walked out calling him shaytan; and a few may have called him kafir. But I don't remember clear death threats."

Shaheen Amin commented on Abdullah Al Andalusi's status.
Shaheen wrote

"I was at the event and Avas described it better than me. I was one of the people who requested Usama Hasan for a debate with brother Abuz Zubayr. But, Usama refused to our disappointment. On seeing brother Abuz Zubayr at close proximity - Usama spoke to the brother and not even one word of insult was exchanged between them; let alone a death threat from our brother Abuz Zubayr."

Characteristics that the BNP and Muslims share:

1.  a desire to support family values
2.  a liking for selective education ie grammar schools
3.  a disapproval of British foreign policy of intervention in the affairs of Muslim countries
4.  a tendency to support corporal punishment
5.  a tendency to support capital punishment
6.  a general concern at the alarming levels of uncontrolled immigration 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

Mark Vernon's piece of nonsense in the Guardian


"Mind may be more real than matter

Energy, information or something like consciousness may in fact be the real basic stuff of the cosmos"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/01/mind-matter-consciousness

While I already knew there was very little justice in the world, it is always shocking when a particularly egregious kind of person with a particularly egregious writing style is paid for something so egregiously bland, incoherent, nonsensical and sickeningly empty and futile that it makes you want to vomit, again and again.  

This ugly and dull orange and pink man, Mark Vernon - who calls himself a philosopher, no less! - who deleted my innocuous comments from his blog, is actually being paid to write his rubbish while I am ignored and marginalised, just because I dare to challenge the Liberal Left orthodoxy (whose time is coming to an end and whose cowardly, hypocritical and morally-challenged politicians have delighted us for quite along enough), and also because I am a member of the British National Party.  

There is very little hope that things will change in the immediate future, while I plot to overthrow the government.  In the meantime, I can only register my protest as and when I find the time and energy to do so. 

Every little helps, as they say at Tesco.  
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Tory immigration policies get turned back

I copy this because I know I shall be constantly and referring to this to make a point.

From The Week - 29 October 2010 page 24 - politics & economics

In their manifesto, the Conservatives "promised a cap on immigration from outside the EU", says the Daily Express.  This "is now shown to be full of holes".  "A secret deal between the EU and India is being negotiated which would allow an unlimited number of Indian experts to take jobs in Britain without first making them open to British workers."  Sure, "if there's a shortage of specific crucial skills, attracting the best talent from wherever" makes sense.  "But allowing foreign companies here to recruit from home without limit is yet another case" of Britain being "captive to EU policies we neither like nor need".


Yet the problem with finding skilled workers isn't just confined to top-level jobs, says The Guardian's Bridget Anderson.  "Demand for migrant labour is deeply embedded in the British economy."  Training and apprenticeship programmes are well developed in many European countries, "producing workers with a wide range of transferable skills."   These staff do construction jobs in Britain "such as groundwork or foundation-building".  Social care also couldn't operate without migrant workers.  These jobs are low-paid and unattractive in some ways, but, even if they wanted to do them, "British workers may not have the hard skills for construction occupations, or the soft interpersonal skills required in many service sector jobs".

[This sentence means British workers are perceived to be the worst option.  A joiner from Essex I met in a pub assured me that he would never ever hire a local.]

Indeed, "trying to turn the Tory manifesto pledge into workable policy is proving as easy as grasping mercury", says Richard Ehrman in The Times.  "Rules and visas" will "no longer provide all the immigration answers, if they ever did".  Meanwhile, "millions of Britons are eking out their lives on benefits - an extraordinary indictment of the failure of our education system to provide many school leavers with the basic skills and motivation to get into work.  Barring productive non-EU workers isn't the answer.  Only benefit and education reforms will solve the problem."
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 24 September 2010

My disqualification as Jury Team London MEP candidate

I was was disqualified as Jury Team candidate on Wednesday 15 April 2009 on grounds of contravening the following rule:

"I agree not to support any policies discriminating on the basis of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, disability or religious or other belief."


The full text can found at http://www.juryteam.org/agreement.php

It came to the notice of Dillon Sharp the Press Officer that I was proposing to strike a bargain with the BNP. If they voted for me in sufficient numbers to secure me the nomination, I would vote for a BNP MEP on 4 June, I said.


This is all on record at the British Democracy Forum at

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/

where you will find my comments.

You may also be interested to know that Bob Bailey, the BNP MEP candidate in question, in fact agreed to ask his members to support me and said he voted for me.

If I am guilty of anything, it is of horse-trading, which is not in fact prohibited.

Re-read the term that I am alleged to have contravened, and you would see that "other belief" could include National Socialism, voodoo, human sacrifice, etc.

The person who drafted this term is clearly not a lawyer, or unfit to practice law. Sir Paul was obviously not paying attention when he approved that clause.

I have received neither an answer or an apology from Sir Paul after bringing this to his attention, only a guilty silence.

A request from one of my supporters to have his 25p returned to him after my unjust and unwarranted exclusion has so far not been acceded to.

Someone who declined to vote for me declared that it was probably a telephone scam.

Perhaps it is.

If you wish to acquaint Sir Paul with your views, his email is paul at paulrjudge.com and his website is at http://www.paulrjudge.com/

Dillon Sharp, the Press Officer who disqualified me may be contacted at

press@juryterm.org

call 07538 280 041 (24 hours a day)

Such high-handed and disgraceful treatment has made me even more determined to do business with the BNP, whom I believe would have an interest in promoting direct democracy, unlike the sham movement of Sir Paul, who which only allows Direct Democracy for those who do not contravene his incoherent and nonsensical rule.

Direct Democracy is also something that would be in the interests of Muslims too, even if they do not as yet know this.

I have requested two fatwas on whether Direct Democracy could ever be unIslamic, but perhaps they are unfamiliar with the concept and unused to such a comprehensive question. I have asked for Tim Winter's but he is neither saying yes nor no. Perhaps he means maybe.

It is worth remembering that the most despised groups in the country, ie the Muslims and the BNP, who were against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, were right on this all along.

In fact, it would be in all our interests, if only enough people understood the concept through exploring it at http://www.1party4all.co.uk/

For those still worried about letting the loonies in by voting BNP, may I point out that the loonies are already in charge.

Michael White of The Guardian even agrees with me, bless him, and he was right all along that the Jury Team are a complete waste of time.

Apparently, MPs expect at least 4 or 5 BNP MEPs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/electoralreform-bnp-far-right

He also says that it would be a good thing for the country if the BNP do well. If the BNP are analogous to a stick, then the use of this stick to protest against the policies of the Lib-Lab-Con is the only option we have now of making our feelings known, whatever our race or religion.

Call it entering the British National Suicide Voting Pact if you must, but sometimes, suicide is the only honourable option.

I thank Sir Paul and his sham movement for making this ringingly clear to me.

Vote BNP in the Euro elections.
You know you want to.
at 12 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 29 April 2010

"Nasty rightwingers" mentioned in The Guardian by Stephen Bates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary

I am delighted that my idea about how to deal with illegal immigrants to the satisfaction of all merited a brief though scathing mention.

In case anyone's interested, Jeffrey Marshall's infamous comment about disabled children has its origins at:

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-context-jeffrey-marshalls-comments.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/02/sympathy-for-caring-compassionate.html

It all started when I ranted about the increasing sentimentality, emotionalism, irrationality and morbid over-feminisation of British politics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268317/Michael-Gilbert-Luton-family-guilty-Blue-Lagoon-torture-murder.html?ITO=1490 is probably what could happen to your mentally disabled child if you allow it to grow up while passing the care of it like a parcel to others, making it reliant upon the uncertain kindnesses of strangers, or more likely, the sadistic exploitation of others.

Are liberals aware of the concept of being cruel to be kind, or do people no longer "do things like that" any more?
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 30 October 2009

Dame Shirley Bassey and her BNP-esque views

From Guardian Weekend 24.10.09

Bassey lives in Monte Carlo. Yes, there's the tax she doesn't have to pay, but more important, it's easier to be private there. When she returns to Britain, she is shocked by the change. "It's sad that they just let it to rack and ruin, Labour." How? "Well, it's violent, isn't it? That's all we read in the papers and see on television. Why does she think this has happened? "We're letting in too many people. We're an island, for God's sake. And the Britishness seems to have gawwwnnne." She enunciates the word "gone" so poshly that it takes a while to work out what she's saying. "The English are emigrating all over ... there won't be any English left." She talks of a nation of bullies and paedophiles in which people live in fear. I can't help wondering what her Nigerian father would make of her assessment of modern Britain.

If you were prime minister, what would you change? "No, no, no!" she protests with a volley of laughter. "I knew I shouldn't have gone there. No, I'm not going there. Na nah nah. I would put family values back. Parents are afraid of their kids. The kids are out of control."


Snide comments by The Guardian writer abound in this interview, but you get the gist.

White people who complain about immigration are automatically racists.

Non-white people who do the same are reminded about their racial origins and told they have no right to express a view on immigration because they are foreign and non-white.

Such is the divide and rule method of verbal intimidation employed by the liberal pro-immigration faction. It is time we all wised up and told them where to go.

Buy The Performance, out on 9 November. It is bound to be better than any of Great White folk stuff the the BNP are promoting anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Wg6k9cWhM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3KdY_rm1SE&feature=related

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article6895666.ece

Dame Shirley, doncha just love her???!!!
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 4 August 2009

How to save The Observer

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6737876.ece

Why don't put all the best journalists in one amalgamated publication using The Guardian design but call it The Observing Guardian of The Times & Telegraph?

There would then be one national broadsheet but it would be a publication that prides itself on its diversity of views.

There would always be two leaders: one expressing the Libertarian View and the other the Puritanical View.

NB: Libertarians want lower taxes and fewer laws, and Puritans want to tax everything in sight provided they are not the ones paying for it, and want to ban everything they disapprove of.

I really think this could work!
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 31 May 2009

IN CONTEXT: Jeffrey Marshall's Comments about the unproductive

Jeffrey Marshall, senior organiser for the BNP's London European election campaign. Following the death of David Cameron's disabled son Ivan, Marshall claimed in an internet forum discussion: "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose

In context:

Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:11 am

My mother came from a family of about 13 children, which was basically poor - although their fortunes gradually improved as a growing number of healthy young adults began to contribute their income to the family.

One or two children died early. In some photographs you can observe a baby boy who was ´always sickly´ apparently. No-one could afford the care necessary to keep this child alive. What happened to the child we do not know. No-one ever spoke of it. Perhaps he died of natural causes, perhaps he was assisted to the grave. The subject was never mentioned by anyone.

There was no welfare state in the 1930s. Whatever my grandmother did - if she did - was necessary and for the best.

We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it.


ANDROMEDA to WHITE RIOT at Feb 26, 2009 8:57 am :

No, my child would not have to be perfect, only healthy and normal. I would even put up with a degree of physical disability, but not anything mental. I would certainly keep a healthy Siamese twin, without even trying to separate them.

The Nazis may have done it, but so would the Ancient Greeks and
Romans.

I am sure many parents in poverty-stricken areas of the world - without an NHS - would have done exactly the same.

I wonder what YOU would really do, if you couldn't pass the cost of it on to the taxpayer and wallow in the sympathy you know you are going to get, as Cameron knew he would.

WHITE RIOT to ANDROMEDA
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:45 AM
Subject: David Cameron and the death of his six-year-old son,
Ivan.

"While my first instincts would be to smothered any such a child of
mine at birth" Isn't that the sort of thing that the nazi regime did. so
you'd murder your own child if it wasn't perfect, you vile bastard I only hope you don't have children. You other comment at this time were also the product of a sick mind.

Post at Voice of Reason on 26 February 2009

Westminster mourns after Cameron's lossWhat the Financial Times describes as a "shocked Westminster" was yesterday united in expressing its sympathy with David and Samantha Cameron following the sudden death of their son, Ivan.The six-year-old, who suffered from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, died in hospital on Wednesday morning.

The normal exchanges of prime minister's questions were put on hold as Gordon Brown led the Commons in expressing sympathy."I know that in an all too brief young life he brought joy to all those around him," said Brown.

"I know also that for all the days of his life he was surrounded by his family's love."

Ann Treneman in the Times says the prime minister "managed to find exactly the right words and tone for this most unusual and sudden of Commons occasions".

While my first instincts would be to smothered any such a child of mine at birth, I would also have realised that we live in the sort of Britain where it would profit me to look after it for the rest of its hopefully short life, in order to reap the "Man of the People, formerly a toff", "sleeping on hospital floors, reading nursery rhymes to other less privileged children at all hours of the day", "at ease with public services" kind of kudos he is now getting as a result of his 6 year "investment", at the expense of the NHS.

I would still have smothered it at birth, though. Sorry.

I am hoping you will congratulate me for my honesty, but I know you will rail at me for my callousness.

Instead of praising me for my forbearance from imposing the needs of my hopeless hypothetical child on the NHS and at taxpayers' expense for 6 whole years knowing it would die anyway without ever speaking or walking or in any way acknowledging my existence, you will condemn me for proposing infanticide.

This is the sort of Britain we live in.

JEFFREY MARSHALL on 25 February 2009:

I agree, although parliamentary business (Prime Minister's Questions) ought to have continued as normal.

This has become a nation which is unhealthily dominated by sentimentality.

From: (Brin J - BNP member)

Subject: David Cameron and the death of his six-year-old son, Ivan.

Date: Wednesday, 25 February, 2009, 2:50 PM

This really is so sad for the man and his family. Very hard to bear and we must all feel sad for them. Brin


The original post may be found at:

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/02/sympathy-for-caring-compassionate.html#comments

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/04/compassionate-conservatism-nicey-nicey.html

at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

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...