Translate

Showing posts with label disability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disability. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

A really stupid exchange with a libtard about the disabled who thinks she won the argument



[SNIGGER] Should this libtard have the vote?

at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 3 December 2012

What my detractors so hysterically condemn me for proposing is already happening in UK hospitals

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/httpwww.html has a certain gun and flag photogrpah of me being circulated by people who want me expelled from the Conservative Party, which I have recently joined.

I feel bound to point out that this photograph was taken in April this year before I was a member of the Conservative Party.

The reason why I had it taken was simply to challenge anyone predictably claiming that I am a Nazi to state which Nazi policy they think I support.

It is of course impossible for me to be a Nazi.  For me to be a Nazi, four conditions would have to be satisfied:

1.  I would have to be German-speaking.
2.  I would have to be Aryan.
3.  The Nazi Party would have to be in existence.
4.  I would have to be admitted to the Nazi Party and I really cannot see that happening under Hitler.

I am no more a Nazi than anyone photographed standing outside a police station is a policeman.

Of course, it is the wish of my detractors that I be condemned to obscurity and forced to retire from politics after being expelled from the BNP for saying what I said at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html

When you have read that link, you will realise that I have at no time proposed the systematic extermination of the disabled, though this is what my more virulent detractors are now hysterically and libellously proclaiming.

The most I have said was that unviable disabled unwanted infants could be "let go" by their parents if that is what their parents wish and what their doctors advise, without getting into trouble with the law and being charged with infanticide.

This is in any case already happening, as you will have to acknowledge once you have read http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

So I am not as revolutionary as my detractors have made me out to be, after all!

As I understand it, the Conservative Party is a broad church and its constitution so undemocratic that it can contain most trouble-makers.

[I have had my membership cancelled on 20 December 2012.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html ]

My intention is certainly not to cause trouble for those who are social conservatives in the Conservative Party and therefore genuine conservatives as far as I am concerned, but to help Tories articulate and define what is meant by Conservatism so that its policies and principles become less what the leader says they are, but what they are really meant to be.

While I have said things critical of Cameron in the past, this by no means suggests that my presence in the Conservative Party would necessarily be bad for him politically.

I would venture to say that my presence would add interest to the party and assist in the generation interest in what Conservatism is or ought to be.  Even a Whateverist like Cameron would find my presence helpful as regards attracting favourable attention to the Conservative Party when it finally begins a serious ideological examination of its principles and policies.

Conservatism ought not to be an unquestioning defence of the status quo, whatever that status quo is.   Otherwise, we would find ourselves defending human sacrifice just because our ancestors have been practising it for generations, would we not?

Reform to survive, as articulated in Robert Peel's Tamworth Manifesto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamworth_Manifesto still continues to make sense in the 21st century, and this is what I propose is considered by all right-thinking honourable members of the Conservative Party who are not mere party hacks and lobby fodder toeing whatever line they are told to toe.








HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour

Would you like me to the be the Most Powerful Woman in Britain?
Do you want to annoy the feminazis at Woman's Hour?  Then you know what to do: nominate me!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/womans-hour/power-list/
(They won't let me win, but they will definitely get annoyed if the nominations keep coming in!)
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, 2 September 2012

Why would a blind man go to the Opening Ceremony of anything except to be awkward?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196644/DAVID-BLUNKETT-Im-PC-proves-attitudes-STILL-need-change.html

More passive-aggressive tyranny and whingeing from the disabled.

What were David Blunkett's achievements in office?  Can anyone tell me, apart from being known for being blind and having an adulterous affair with Kimberly Fortier?   
at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 21 June 2012

Why nationalists should discuss eugenics


It is disgusting how doctors spoil the pregnancies of women by mistakenly telling them that their foetus might have something wrong with it, or even causing a perfectly healthy baby to be aborted because it was wrongly identified as Down's Syndrome or having some foetal abnormality.

If the law allowed infanticide by the parents of an unwanted and disabled baby then this disgusting practice of spoiling the pregnancies of women would end.

My cousin, an older mother, was offered an amniocentesis. She declined and was given a terrible time. In the end she had a healthy child, but her pregnancy was ruined by anxiety and fear.

While people condemn me for proposing this, they display no compassion and respect at all for the mother whose pregnancy is ruined by negligent medical personnel who are gagging to perform intrusive and unnecessary medical tests on mothers at the expense of the taxpayer.


My proposal would be cheaper and better for all concerned, but the benighted and hypocritical British are too irrational to even accept my reasoning.

I would expect a man to see my reasoning, but these days most of them have turned to women with their knee-jerk responses to the liberal imperative to be compassionate at all costs.

It is worse when they are supposed to be NATIONALISTS, and a nationalist is supposed to care about the long-term national interest.

Actually, these days a nationalist is someone who is just wants the other races to leave their country, even if it is AGAINST the national interest to do so.

The long-term national interest is not served by making parents bring up unviable babies at the taxpayers' expense when most of the British are now DEGENERATE, ie they are stupider, weaker, illegitimate, have mental health issues, suffer from obesity and are pretty much educationally subnormal when compared to other countries whose people are mostly NOT singly-parented, who are always being invited by the UK government to come here and do the jobs the white working classes cannot do because they are too busy claiming welfare and knocking up the next generation of illegitimate and unemployable NEETs.


If I had a severely disabled baby I would not demand that my husband pay to bring it up out of his taxed income.

If I had a severely disabled baby I would want a husband capable of telling me he doesn't want it, if I am too maternal and irrational to say so myself.

Perhaps that is why so many of the British are now disabled, mentally unstable, obese, welfare-dependent and unemployable.

British employers will understandably not want to hire disabled workers, but the British Nationalist does not care, as long as they can demand that I be expelled from the party just for saying I do not want to bring up severely disabled offspring who will NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING OR MAKE ANYTHING OF THEMSELVES.


I would say that the white working classes are even less able to bring up their disabled children than the middle classes.

I think most British nationalists expect the taxpayer to pay for the disabled children of the working classes.

But how can you be working class if you are disabled?

Why should ANYONE else pay for the disabled children of the working classes who will never be able to work if their parents cannot do so themselves?

It is completely INSANE.

The British nationalist probably thinks nationalism is about giving the white working classes who don't like immigration exactly what they want, whether it is good for the long-term national interest or not.

I beg to disagree.

Too bad Nick Griffin is too scared to tell them any differently. Otherwise, he will be completely on his own after having been abandoned by the BNP core supporters whom he will have fatally offended.

Most people who think of themselves as working class no longer work because no sane British employer would want to hire them. Why don't we just be honest and call them the LOWER CLASSES?

Why is British nationalism about representing these people? What hope can there be for nationalism if it only identifies itself with angry losers who cannot compete with foreign labour even in the field of unskilled manual labour??

The problem about British nationalism is therefore the problem of CLASS.  If UKIP were all racist they would probably get away with it because of their class.

What the voting public cannot stand is the idea of voting for a party that is both lower class and racist even if they agree with most of their policies.

It is therefore interesting to know that anyone genuinely patriotic who joins the BNP will find UKIP membership forever closed to him, leaving him with no other option but the useless and anodyne English Democrats and the even more untouchable and socially retarded NF who still insist on repatriating non-white British citizens.

For this reason the BNP should go civic nationalist, but Nick Griffin will do no such thing because he knows that this restriction from joining UKIP will make anyone of any talent still in the BNP less likely to challenge him on anything.


After all, anyone who crosses him will be finished in nationalism, and they will be expelled from their social club which they mistakenly think is fit for the purpose of being a political party.

The problem of British nationalism is therefore easily solved.

Go civic, discuss eugenics (ie reconsecrate the institution of Marriage by denouncing the evil and irrational  destructiveness of anti-eugenic feminism) and have me as your leader.  This would attract the educated, firm of mind and well-healed who do not flee and cower, like UKIP, the moment the R word is used against them.

I will transform the image of British nationalism and turn the British into a people who are rational, robust and resourceful, as their ancestors were, rather than the race of obese, sexually-diseased, fertility-impaired, mentally ill, learning and physically disabled illegitimate sex-addicted PC homosexuals they have now become.  All these problems can be laid at the disgraced and degenerate door of FEMINISM.

Satirical references have been made about my resemblance to Davros by my political ally David Jones, but I regard that as a compliment.



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

If we form a party we will call it the Herbert Spencer Party of British Nationalism, so people will know exactly what we stand for.


Do not believe any stories about me being racist.   I do not have a single racist bone in my body.  If you are a voting citizen of this country and think that the lunatics are already in charge, I urge you to get in touch if you want to be involved in the establishment of a rationally small government, with lower taxes and fewer laws, which will herald the return of male and parental authority and end the rule of insane anti-eugenic feminist harridans.   

If you have children - whether legitimate or illegitimate - you would want a better future for them with a better quality of partner than you yourself have managed to find, would you not?

How can you have a better future when no political party dares to discuss the abysmal quality of the British gene pool?

Even the Muslims have become degenerate because they are so disgusted with the depravity of the locals that they refuse to breed with them and feel forced to marry and breed with their first cousins, which leads to birth defects that the NHS has to deal with.

This is a message to all the British citizens of all races who want the country turn over a new leaf from their slut and bastard ways and want to have in charge politicians to be capable of discussing difficult moral issues publicly, who know the meaning of free speech (which will be protected under the new constitution I have in mind) and are prepared to stand up for it.

Get your country back from the lunatics, SMASH FEMINISM.  

Go and discuss feminism with someone.  That is all you need to do.  Get this shit ideology exposed for the shit ideology that it is.   
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 16 December 2011

Why I have won the argument on disability on grounds of Kant's principle of UNIVERSALISABILITY


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

If every woman did what my school friend did the human race would die out.

So game, set and match to me.

Too bad the BNP aren't familiar with these concepts and did not see fit to give me the opportunity to explain it to them.

Imagine, if I had been allowed to explain this to the liberal media and gave the impression that the dunces and dunderheads of the BNP had heard of Kant's principle of universalisability.   Wouldn't that bring the party into repute?

Wouldn't it have been glorious to beard the liberal lion in its lair?

But the BNP has made it a principle of practice to emulate the liberals in all their cowardice and hypocrisy and that is why they will continue to falter and fail, until and unless they make me Press Officer.

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 5 July 2010

My trip to Sainsbury's

The price of celery these days! 97p at Sainsbury's. I was so shocked I asked the supermarket employee to check again. It was only 68p a few months ago.  Soon all the poor people in this country will be thin again.  


I saw a young man with one of those wheelchair attachable trolleys with his carer as I went round the aisles.


I found myself behind him and his carer at the check-out.  I noticed his carer letting him take two items from the trolley and painstakingly and slowly place it on the belt.  It took him a great deal of effort, but he was very determined.


To my surprise, the carer was paying with the young man's credit card, asking for his PIN, which he repeated audibly enough for me to hear before keying it in on his behalf.  

The young man seemed very alert and assertive for someone incapable of speaking; I saw him making his carer stop to give his credit card back to him.  


This of course suggested he had not always been like that, which made his condition even more pitiable.  I asked the woman at the check-out if she knew what had happened the young man and she supposed he must have had an accident.  


My friend with whom I went shopping said he saw his carer hugging and kissing him (perhaps his father?) while they were going round the aisles. 


I am no doctor, though I am related to one and come from a family of proud hypochondriacs, but he reminded me a little of Stephen Hawking, and so I am inclined to think it was motor neurone disease.  The check-out lady called him "young man" but it seemed to me unintentionally patronising.  But how would such a person in such a condition wish to be addressed?  By their name, I suppose.
at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 24 November 2008

More babies being born with Down's syndrome

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/3506668/More-babies-being-born-with-Downs-syndrome.html

This curious phenomenon suggests the following of British society:-

  1. Increasing numbers of couples view the having children as similar to having pets. (We expect nothing of our pets except their ability to be obedient, grateful, forever dependent and never leave us. Pets, you see, have no use except to gratify the ego of the pet-owner and to stave off feelings of loneliness and uselessness that we all might have from time to time.)
  2. These parents expect very little from their children, because they appear to have the luxury of being able to treat their children as pets.
  3. The waste and purposelessness of such an unrewarding venture - that of bringing up a child who will never achieve full independence and who will always be a source of worry, particularly if they do not predecease their parents - is not being questioned enough by parents, because of the cushion of a welfare state.
  4. More mothers are having children later and later.
  5. The greater willingness of parents now prepared to bring up children with Down's Syndrome is indicative of the unwisdom of indiscriminate compassion that now pervades British society. This may be due to the fact that we now live in a society that is morbidly over-feminised.
  6. A society that unquestioningly encourages the unproductive at the expense of the productive in the name of compassion will find itself burdened with the unproductive and unable to compete with societies unburdened by such policies.
  7. Insanity is but fundamental error compounded by persistent irrationality.
  8. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

"It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

at 9 comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God created evil eg idolatry so Christians can reject it with their reason

Atheists claim their beliefs are based on facts and logic.  1:00  The problem of evil 2:00  Do Christians really understand and believe in t...