Is feminism dangerous to your liberty?

Feminism is dangerous to your liberty if it is indeed true that feminism causes

false rape accusations to be successfully prosecuted in courts where a defendant is no longer treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

in a country where the Director of Public Prosecutions is female,

where the Chairman of the Bar Council is female,

where the Home Secretary is female,

where the Prime Minister is also female

and where most female MPs are for gay marriage and against leaving the EU.

The more promiscuous the women, the more shameless the women. The more shameless the women, the more likely they are to report rape.

The more promiscuous the women, the stupider they are. The stupider they are, the more likely they will be pumped and dumped.

The more women are pumped and dumped, the more likely they will be angry and bitter about being pumped and dumped.

The more angry and bitter women are about a lifetime of being pumped and dumped, the more likely they are to falsely accuse a man of rape, especially if a successful conviction entitles them to £11,000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7555299.stm

Is feminism even more totalitarian than a theocracy that guarantees the freedom of belief the way Islam does at quran.com/2/256?

Is it not the case that all anti-discrimination legislation is in fact thoughtcrime passed by feminists and their running dogs?  

In the UK the Equality Act 2010 contains most of the thoughtcrime passed by our matriarchy which is clearly unIslamic under 2:256 of the Koran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts

It is quite a thought, is it not, to discover that Islam actually gives taxpayers more liberty than feminism? 

Is patriarchy less restrictive on your liberty than feminism because it gives you the constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate tax of 20%?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums

Is it fair enough that those who do not pay taxes do not vote?

Is it not fair enough that the low-waged should not be subject to the burden of being taxed nor the burden of voting?

http://commonsensegovernment.com/the-tytler-cycle-revisited/

Would not a patriarchy - a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers - be more lightly governed than a matriarchy - a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers with illegitimate offspring whom they badly parent?

Is it not abundantly clear that patriarchy is what all rational and moral citizens both men and women should choose while booting out our degenerate matriarchy that was built on decades of feminist legislation which could be repealed at the stroke of the pen?

Has feminism turned our male MPs into spineless worms afraid of their own shadow, terrified of being divorced under the rules of no fault divorce by their entitled wives, accused of a historic sexual offence or deprived of their matrimonial home and children in the family court whose judges are mostly female?

Claire Khaw in conversation with John Collins on 27 August 2017

9:00  Women in the workplace got John Collins sacked from his job.


28:00  John Collins thinks Millennial Woes had a girlfriend who was complaining about him to a male friend of hers who was looking to move in on her.  This man will be her next victim, he thinks.


31:00 Depression and Millennial Woes.


33:00  Women who say "I need a new husband/car/house/holiday etc" and get one but are still miserable when they get it.


43:00 John Collins: "If feminism were given its proper name, feminism is the borderline personality disorder acceptance movement."

49:00 John Collins disputes the claim of Millennial Woes that the academic left are planning the destruction of the West. Greg Johnson prepared to use the death of anyone at a demonstration to further the message of the alt-right.


50:00  "Violence will be seen as the only solution if ....  "


52:00  Millennial Woes not prepared to discuss how civic nationalism can get ethno-nationalists what they want.



53:00 John Collins comments on Millennial Woes' position on National Socialism.


54:00  Pogroms  All the countries who conduct them feel sheepish about them afterwards.


55:00  John Collins: "There is no political will for a white ethno-state."


58:00  THOUGHTCRIME and the Equality Act 2010


59:00  John Collins says he has been demonetised because he is a friend of Matt Forney.

1:00  Jews have been around for longer than the Chinese.

1:05  The failure of Christianity in maintaining morality in the West


1:06  Islam is about making the rules clear.


1:07  Jews and Muslims respect marriage and the family, Muslims in Rochdale.


1:13  Narcissism


1:16  Religion and the narcissist eg LGBTs


1:17  Homosexuality and child abuse


1:21 Nostalgia, the narcissist, Millennial Woes and Manichaeism


1:26  The Cerebral Narcissist


1:28  Sam Vaknin
https://www.youtube.com/user/samvaknin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vaknin


1:31  Power, authority and Hillary Clinton

1:32  Trump

1:33  Israel


1:35  Communist infiltration, organised criminality, CIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs._Spy

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/perverse-subjection-of-men-to-women-in.html


1:35  Communist infiltration, organised criminality, CIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs._Spy

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/perverse-subjection-of-men-to-women-in.html


1:40 According to John Collins, Millennial Woes is simplistic, childlike, dangerous to young people appealing to their sense of victimhood and in and out group preferences. His leadership qualities are also untried. Race war, Rochdale, child abuser who lived across the road from John Collins who operated in the 1980s and went on in the 1970s, dirty mac flashers, Cyril Smith, KGB, CIA, MI5. Muslims gangs simply exploited this state of affairs that had been going on for decades. Gillick Competence.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence  Under-age sex.

1:51  While John Collins was having his heart attack, suppressed memories from his childhood surfaced. "The things you don't do shape the person you are." 15 and 16 year old girls blackmailing a drug dealer, his niece and her classmates, cat-fishing and blackmailing men who had unknowingly had underage sex with them. Sex with 27 men.

2:00  Millennial Woes plays the victim to elicit sympathy to manipulate you into protecting him and his race - a feminine stratagem. Millennial Woes is more dangerous than Richard Spencer as a recruiter. John Collins says Millennial Woes is like Fagin. Followers of Millennial Woes drawn to the alt-right because they are drawn to father figures and strong men, having been deprived of their fathers by their mothers.


2:05  John Collins: "Millennial Woes is not that self aware. He is being seen as a father figure by a generation of lost boys."


2:08  Greg Johnson says he is hedonist, according to John Collins.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/jack-donovan-philosophical-fascists-of-the-gay-alt-right.html

https://altright.com/2017/06/01/greg-johnsons-attacks-and-how-to-deal-with-them/


2:10  Davis Aurini discussed. According to John Collins, he is a poor judge of character, is a co-dependent and has issues with his father.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/livestream-with-claire-khaw-feminism.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/my-disappointing-evening-with-davis.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/a-pagan-odinist-questions-effectiveness.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/would-you-like-me-on-davis-aurini-again.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/sex-and-strategy-with-davis-aurini-and.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/davis-aurini-calls-claire-khaw-white.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/davis-aurini-asks-me-why-i-am-obsessed.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/youtubers-complain-about-claire-khaw.html


2:11  Matt Forney

The British Thought Police widens its definition of thoughtcrime

Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation. Vituperative statements made in anger, such as calling someone "an arse" during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

What is not even a civil wrong has now become a crime in matriarchal Britain.

In the days of the patriarchy, there was free speech, but no longer in our demented matriarchy.

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

"Out of the corruption of SLUTS proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

"Out of the corruption of TOLERATING SLUTS AND BASTARDS proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

It is possible to be a woman without being a slut, whore or feminist

The study monitored the use of the words “slut” and “whore” by UK Twitter users over three weeks from the end of April. It found that 6,500 individuals were targeted by 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets in that period.

Internationally, more than 200,000 aggressive tweets using the same words were sent to 80,000 people in the same period – and according to the study, more than half of the offenders were women.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse?CMP=twt_gu

1. Not every woman is a whore, so to call a woman a whore if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic.
2. Not every woman is a slut, so to call a woman a slut if she is one is not necessarily misogynistic. 
3. Surely feminists are able to accept that it is possible to be a woman without being either a whore or a slut?
4. All feminists without exception support the right of women to have premarital sex, ie to fornicate ie be sluts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin  http://quran.com/24/2
5. The definition of slut should be tightened up. An interesting discussion of how many sex partners a woman has to fornicate with before being called a slut can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XVgioi29I from 1:21. A matter to be decided by philosopher, perhaps. The woman in question confessed to having 50 to 60 sex partners and suggested that a slut should be a woman who has had sex with upwards of 100 men.  
6. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw expressions of social conservatism? 
7. Is it the intention of feminazis to outlaw slut-shaming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
8. Is it the intention of feminazis to desecrate the institution of marriage which can only be supported by shaming sluts? 
9. Is it the intention of feminazis to abolish traditional marriage, because it is the foundation of all patriarchies?
10. If more than half of the offenders who tweeted aggressively used "whore" and "slut" were women, then why can't men use those words too? 
11. Are feminazis suggesting that only women can use the words "slut" and "whore", but not men? 
12. Would it be an idea to have a men's, women's and unisex section of Twitter so everyone can just say what they want within the rules of their respective groups? 
13.  It is surely only misogynistic to say, for example, "I hate women," but why are the feminazis presuming to tell us whom we may or may not hate? That would be THOUGHTCRIME.
14. Are feminazis trying to define misogyny as "anyone women - who are mostly sluts and whores - hate"? 
15. The corruption of language is the corruption of thought, and the corruption of thought leads to error, evil, disaster and doom.

How to prevent radicalisation

http://fox59.com/2015/07/16/active-shooter-incident-reported-at-tennessee-naval-center/

The only way to prevent radicalisation is to stop people from thinking and forming their own conclusions about the evil criminal enterprise that is Western foreign policy.

The radicalised are divided between those who would never commit violence in pursuance of a political cause and those who would.

Young men are more prepared to do this kind of thing than senescent and effeminate men of the West, but this sort of thing is not unheard of in the white atheist male, if you can remember Anders Breivik.

Eventually, Western governments will make themselves so unpopular that they will be overthrown and an alternative form of government will replace the stinking shit that is liberal democracy.

You see, these radicalised Muslims have worked out that Western foreign policy is the result of Western democracy, and they have formed the very rational conclusion that they must destroy Western democracy to effect a change in Western foreign policy.

What is Western democracy but the declared indifference of Islamophobic Western voters to Western foreign policy?

Quite a few of them unashamedly say they want to kill Muslims for being Muslims and seem to be of the view that their NATO God of War can do no wrong and that American Exceptionalism is justified.

These Muslim terrorists, if they speak to non-Muslim Western citizens at all, would know how much the Western political classes are already despised.

Soon, our government will want to prevent us from forming the conclusions I have formed and disseminating these conclusions.

When Western governments ban free speech and criminalise views, Western civilisation as we know it will have been destroyed by the degenerate effeminate political classes who are currently run government and politics.

When they do this, it will be a signal for dissidents to rise up against the government.

The degenerate political classes are hoist by their own petard having painted themselves into a corner of policy contradictions and ideological inconsistencies. Indeed, it is nothing short of political and ideological dementia and a sign of mass and collective insanity. Every move they make puts them in check or checkmate.

Even if these degenerates go so far as to conduct a pogrom, expel or execute all Muslims in the West for being Muslims, close down every mosque, burn every Koran they can lay their filthy degenerate slut-stained hands on and ban Islam, THEY WILL HAVE LOST.

They will have lost because if they ban free speech and abolish the principle of religious freedom, then Western civilisation as know it will have ended.

Abolishing free speech and religious freedom would be the equivalent of Muslims giving up two of their five pillars of Islam.

These degenerate white men even get brown women to fight their filthy wars.

Meet the Kurdish Women Fighting ISIS in Syria

The female Kurdish pop star with assault rifle rings who inspires troops with her songs about destroying ISIS

ISIS beheads Kurdish female fighter “Rehana”

That is of course conclusive evidence that Western men no longer have any masculine pride and are no longer capable of feeling shame.

But then what can we expect of men who are lower than sluts, who don't mind being lower than sluts and who will continue denying that they are lower than sluts because they have taken on the feminine vice of denial?

These men white men are now so demented that they have now agreed to pay a foreign woman woman lots of money to prosecute and persecute them for years and years.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/child-abuse-inquiry-judge-pay-package-lowell-goddard

Today, on BBC Woman's Hour at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b061twpp female MPs were whingeing about the fact that there has never been a female Defence Secretary. That would be just too demoralising and insulting to the Armed Forces and would result in a coup d'etat, probably.

We already have a female Home Secretary in the position of wishing to wound but being afraid to strike about the water cannons so thoughtfully purchased by the London Mayor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33538171

As I have pointed out many a time already, ISIS is the international patriarchy declaring war on the international matriarchy.

The world is now divided between those who think extramarital sex is a human right, and those who don't want this kind of degenerate shit because they have seen what it has done to the white man.

How do you know if your society is degenerate?

By these signs:

1. Most voters are degenerate bastards and sluts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html who care more about having their right to have extramarital sex than in supporting the institution of marriage. 
2. No one will acknowledge that the only way to support marriage is to have laws that support marriage which punishes extramarital sex or to have a religion that makes people think they will go to hell if they have extramarital sex.
3. No political party will support marriage because they know most voters are sluts and bastards
4. Most people won't know what degeneracy means because most people are degenerates. 
5. Most people will deny they are degenerates because they degenerate.
6. Most people will say degeneracy doesn't matter because degenerates would say that, wouldn't they?

It would be the easiest thing to discourage thought and the forming of reasonable and logical conclusions from undisputed facts from a society of degenerates who would never stand up for any principle, truth or viewpoint.

UKIP disciplines MEP candidate for saying she would repeal the Equality Act 2010

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/ukip-councillor-donna-edmunds-women-gay-people

UKIP claim to be a libertarian party.

Is it too stupid or too scared to acknowledge totalitarian THOUGHTCRIME legislation when it sees it?

Clearly.

When will it stop fucking apologising??!!!

The day it stops apologising for the views of  most of its members it will start doing well.  Until then it is  just a mangy cur deserving only to be shooed away like the pariah it is.

The mangy cur that is UKIP.  

STOP FUCKING APOLOGISING AND LOOKING APOLOGETIC, YOU PATHETIC APOLOGETIC FUCKER.
Apologetic Fucker says: "Whilst we are a libertarian party this kind of ultra-libertarianism really goes beyond what is acceptable," he said. "Society has to have rules and it is certainly not Ukip's policy to allow people to refuse service to each other on the grounds of race, sexuality etc. This debate has been unhelpful. It is a matter that will be discussed by our NEC."

If you're not fucking up to the job I'll do it.  

Where do you get your moral courage from?  Obviously not from your mother or your drunk of a father.  

UKIP too afraid of controversy to repeal the Equality Act, yet claims to be a party of libertarians

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:27  14/11/13
Hi Lynda.  Claire Khaw here.  Is Godfrey Bloom interested in raising his profile?  I have a few ideas.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:34  14/11/13
Hi, where are you from?  I suspect he isn't though ideas are always useful of course.

CK to Lynda Roughley  12:48  14/11/13
I am not a member of a party but a Eurosceptic blogger.  My view is that Farage should be more adventurous in pushing the envelope of debate on domestic matters.  I think talking about setting up a UKIP debating society nationwide would create interest.

Lynda Roughley to CK  12:51 14/11/13
We already do really, they are the UKIP branches.  Meanwhile we concentrate more and more on domestic issues.

CK to Lynda Roughley 12:53  14/11/13
Are there any plans to repeal the Equality Act 2010, Lynda?

Lynda Roughley to CK  13:01  14/11/13
We can't repeal anything till we are in power.

CK to Lynda Roughley 13:05  14/11/13
You could say in your manifesto that you would repeal the Equality Act if UKIP come to power!  Are there any plans to do so, Lynda?



After my response to her idiotic answer, I heard nothing further.

CK to Godfrey Bloom  13:24  14/11/13
Would you happen to know what the UKIP leadership's view is on the repeal of the Equality Act 2010?

Godfrey Bloom to CK  15:56  14/11/13
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.


It was at this event http://www.dashtory.org/2013/10/cfl-event-review.html that the libertarian Dan Hannan MEP answered YES to my question: Would he repeal the Equality Act 2010?

It is of course this legislation that contains all the hallmarks of Orwellian thoughtcrime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime, for what is discrimination but the active exercise of thought and what is hate but an emotion that can only be felt by thought?   And what is hate speech but the prohibition of the expression of certain emotions and thoughts?  

The London Metropolitan Thought Police are patrolling a neighbourhood and social network near you

Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk
Hate crime hurts us all. If you've been affected by someone else's prejudice find out how we can help. #SpeakOut http://soundcloud.com/metropolitan-police/speak-out-hate-crime?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=http://soundcloud.com/metropolitan-police/speak-out-hate-crime
 12:40 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Is "hate crime" not also #thoughtcrime? Do we now have the Thought Police telling us not to hate? What may I not hate, @metpoliceuk?
 12:44 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
What is hate crime anyway? Are we really not allowed to hate? Or say things about people we hate? What about free speech? @metpoliceuk
12:50 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Why can't we say that we hate something or someone? Why is that a crime? Or are we allowed to hate only certain people only? @metpoliceuk
12:51 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Please, @metpoliceuk what are the elements of a hate crime? Is it when I hate people or when I say something that makes people hate me?
12:52 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Doesn't the European Convention of Human Rights allow us to hate something and give us the right to express our hatred? @metpoliceuk
12:55 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Am I allowed to hate #SSMs, @metpoliceuk?
12:59 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Am I allowed to hate white people but not black people, @metpoliceuk ?
1:00 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Am I allowed to hate men but not women, @metpoliceuk ? #thoughtcrime
1:00 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Am I allowed to straight people but not gay people, @metpoliceuk ? #thoughtcrime #speakout
1:02 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Am I allowed to hate able-bodied people but not disabled people, @metpoliceuk ? #thoughtcrime #speakout
1:03 PM - 14 Nov 12

Claire Khaw ‏@1party4all
Please @metpoliceuk, tell us what I am allowed to love and hate. #thoughtcrime #speakout
1:04 PM - 14 Nov 12

I am a libertarian who hates Ayn Rand

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/02/pity-the-billionaire-thomas-frank-review?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

This is clearly a Guardian hatchet job against the Tea Party Movement by Nicholas Lezard, but I just want this on record, OK?

I cannot abide Ayn Rand's prose for one thing.  

All who want a minimum state must concede that there must be some absolute minimum form of government to be aimed for that is consistent with human flourishing.  

Libertarianism is not a return to the law of the jungle where only might is right.  

The minimum of laws and principles of government I have in mind are the ones articulated in the Koran though I am an atheist, but an atheist who cannot find a guide for humanity better than the Koran.

How is the Koran libertarian?

It forbids compulsion in belief.

This means it forbids all thoughtcrime legislation.  

Bye bye, Equality Act 2010.  Bye bye, Equal Pay Act.  Bye bye, feminism.

How else is the Koran libertarian?

Khums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums could be interpreted to mean a flat rate income tax of 20%.  

Just because I believe in the morality of Libertarian Eugenics does not mean I am a complete shit.   

What UKIP should promise the voters of Corby to attract national attention

The Equality Act 2010 is THE THOUGHTCRIME ACT

UKIP should promise to repeal the disgusting and pernicious Equality Act 2010 AKA THE THOUGHTCRIME ACT 2010.

Corby described in the Blue Guide as "an ugly town created in the 1930s that survived the death of the steel industry" is BNP territory.  The BNP themselves would abolish the Equality Act if they could.  Get the BNP votes by promising this, Margot Parker!  There are no ideological reasons why UKIP cannot do this because UKIP claim to be a libertarian party.  What could be more offensive to a libertarian than the existence of thoughtcrime laws in your land?

To be in a position to influence national affairs, UKIP has to obtain as many or more votes than the LibDems in the next General Election

By declaring my support for UKIP, I trust I have done enough to signal to the BNP that on this occasion they should leave the field open to UKIP and keep their powder dry.

If they do not stand, there is a better chance of future co-operation amongst the Eurosceptic parties, which is absolutely necessary in this country if Euroscepticism and social conservatism is not to be seen as a dead duck.

If the NEC cannot agree to get this done, then they are not worth their salt.   If the leader cannot get them to agree to this, then he is not worth his salt.

If UKIP completely ignore this recommendation and refuse to discuss it openly then it is not worth its salt as a political party.

Will Margot Parker promise the repeal of the Equality Act AKA The Thoughtcrime Act when she campaigns in Corby? 

If you have had enough of the Nanny State then email UKIP at

mail@ukip.org

to tell them

1. you want the Equality Act 2010 repealed
2. you want them to admit me as a member
3. you want me to be their Director of Communications
4. you want me to be their Policy Consultant
5. you want me to help Margot Parker in her Corby campaign in November
6. to offer me hospitality in Corby and pay my travel expenses  (I will be content if I receive an offer of accommodation in her spare room together with a return train ticket to Corby.  It needn't be first class either.)
7. an invitation to address UKIP at their 20-12 September conference in Birmigham (and that you will join only UKIP if I am by then a member)    http://www.ukip.org/shop/product/view/54-ukip-2012-annual-conference-tickets

If you wish you can call them on

FREEPHONE 0800 587 6 587

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs058/1108299508071/archive/1110755576102.html

Hate crime is THOUGHTCRIME

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17029139

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC said: "All crime is unacceptable but offences that are driven by hostility or hatred based on personal characteristics are particularly damaging to any civilised society."

What is a CIVILISED society anyway? Does he mean a LIBERAL society?

A civilised society, to me, is a RATIONAL society. Reason tells me that there is no need for this thing called hate crime if you are already not supposed to be killing or harming people as a rule.

By having this special category of hate crime, you are making crimes committed against people of the non-privileged groups (eg those who are not disabled, those who are not homosexual, those who are not non-white, those who are not women) lesser crimes, which makes a nonsense of the idea of equality before the law.

The liberals presume to tell us whom we may or may not hate, thereby bringing the law into contempt.  I think they have delighted us for quite long enough.   

The pernicious nonsense that is the liberal concept of HUMAN RIGHTS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015cnys


‎"Human Rights", eh? Is there any other kind of right on this earth??  Animal rights?  Vegetable rights?  Mineral rights?

I would have thought that the most FUNDAMENTAL human right would be to have freedom of expression.

But liberals no longer believe in this FUNDAMENTAL LIBERAL PRINCIPLE.

What are fundamental liberal principles?

Bet you don't know, because you are all fucking stupid. So here they are then:

1. The right to property

2. Freedom of expression

3. Freedom of association

4. Freedom of contract

5. Freedom of belief

Because you are all stupid, I bet you haven't noticed that:

Holocaust Denial is THOUGHTCRIME.

Incitement to racial hatred is THOUGHTCRIME.

Incitement to religious hatred is THOUGHTCRIME.

Not hiring someone because you think she is the wrong sex is THOUGHTCRIME.

Not hiring someone because you don't like homosexuals is THOUGHTCRIME.

Not hiring someone disabled because you would rather not is THOUGHTCRIME.

Not hiring someone because you think he or she is too young or too old for the job is THOUGHTCRIME.

Not hiring someone because you don't like his or her religion is THOUGHTCRIME.

Hating is THOUGHTCRIME, folks. These fucking liberals are presuming to tell us whom we can and cannot HATE.

And you stupid fuckers put up with this sort of shit like the stupid fucking sheeple you are.

And these liberals who started the crap at the European Convention of Human Rights insist on the rightness and necessity of their thoughtcrimes while fining your government for not giving prisoners the right to vote.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/04/prisoner-voting-convicts-human-beings

And nobody notices how fucking stupid this is.

By the way, did you know that the Koran states that "There is no compulsion in belief"?

Bet you ignorant idiots didn't know that the Koran is more liberal than liberalism.

2:256  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php
10:99  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/010-qmt.php
18:29  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/018-qmt.php

The reason why it doesn't seem that way is because most Muslims are too lazy and stupid to read the Koran, and too scared to question and discuss it with their fellow Muslims.

But are Muslims more stupid and lazy than Americans who don't know and don't care that their constitution has been flouted by successive governments?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B003B0W1US/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

The answer is NO.  Muslims are not more lazy and stupid than Americans who don't know and don't care that the US constitution is being flouted by successive US governments.   In fact, the US constitution is a damn sight shorter than the Koran.

I think being pussywhipped by Slut Single Mums makes you stupid, scared, skint, weak and despised, and white men are undeniably pussywhipped by Slut Single Mums.  The anti-immigration political parties are actually the most pussywhipped because they are so pathetically grateful that any woman should turn up to their meetings that they have decided that they want to court the female vote with a girly heart logo,




forgetting that it was courting the female vote was what brought the nation and Western civilisation to its current degraded and dumbed-down state.

This is what happens when men abdicate power to the weaker sex.

Hate Crime is Thoughtcrime

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

The liberal concept of hate-crime is laughable.

If you say anything against a specified group of people, what happens is that that group of people will hate you.

What the government  are punishing you for is for arousing the hatred of the people you have offended.

Yet if you don't mind people hating you, then why does the law have to be involved?
 

BBC: The Freedom Association is a 'slightly posher version of the BNP'

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/12/bbc-freedom-association-is-posher.html

http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2010/12/19/norris-mcwhirter-and-the-bbc-loose-words-cost-reputations.html?lastPage=true#comment10868740

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100068889/bbc-the-freedom-association-is-a-kind-of-sub-bnp/

So what if  it is?

The BNP is the other half of the Eurosceptic movement.

But perhaps those spineless, stupid, feeble-minded, feeble-spirited Eurosceptics who enjoy their occupational therapy of weakly whingeing but who keep voting for a Conservative Party run by a Commie Pinko think they are doing so well they don't need anyone else to join them.

If that is the case then clearly the Eurosceptic movement is dead in the water but just doesn't know it yet.  

The TFA should be proud of its association with Britain's bravest political party who will not run and hide under their beds whenever some smug stinking hypocritical liberal whispers "racist" in their ear, unlike the lily-livered Tories and UKIP.

Let us face the fact that middle class activists are almost without exception feeble of spirit and feeble of mind.

The TFA and UKIP are mainly made up of the elderly while the BNP membership remains youthful and energetic, and are not too stuck up to do the bread and butter work of political activism, ie leafleting.

The strength of the British proletariat to fight the disgusting and evil LibLabCon is required when so many members of the bourgeoisie are are so easily contemptibly easily to intimidate.

The strength of the BNP lies in the fact that the typical member has already crossed the Rubicon of refusing to shut up even when they are intimidated socially and politically for speaking what they believe to be the truth.

No other party has this quality of courage and determination.

What good are these so-called libertarians and UKIP for when they don't even recognise totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation even after it has repeatedly kicked them in the head?  I am of course referring to all anti-discrimination legislation passed by the liberal establishment over the decades the most recent of which is the Equality Act. 

Is it because they are stupid or because they are scared?

How typical of the easily-frightened middle classes to start talking about "BNP scum" the moment they are accused of having similar policies.

Pathetic, dishonorable and contemptible.

The truth is that the white middle classes hate the BNP much much more than the BNP are said to hate non-whites.

It would appear that those who like to think of themselves as Traditional Conservatives are more than prepared to let their nation die of the class divisions they are so apparently proud to live under.

The spinelessness, snobbery and stupidity of British men who wish to fight the LibLabCon has to be experienced to be believed.

A rapprochment between British Nationalism and Libertarianism?

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/nick-griffin-extract-from-his-essay-on-the-culture-war/#comment-30458

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/deadline-2014-convergence-catastrophes-and-what-bnp-needs-do-nick-griffin

BNP Chairman Nick Griffin praises Sean Gabb's book Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get it Back which can be obtained at Excalibur, the merchandising arm of the BNP http://www.buyexcalibur.com/shop/article_116/Cultural-Revolution,-Culture-War:-How-Conservatives-Lost-England,-and-How-to-Get-it-Back.html?shop_param=cid%3D64%26aid%3D116%26

About time too.  There is nothing inconsistent with an ideology of the British National Interest and an ideology that proposes fewer laws and lower taxes, as well as the repeal of all totalitarian liberal THOUGHTCRIME legislation.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-all-anti-discrimination-thoughtcrime-legislation/idea-view

While Holocaust Denial is not a crime in this country, people tend to  behave as if it were.  Any intelligent discussion of Nazi Germany invariably brings you to the controversial subject of how many Jews were killed and whether Hitler intended to exterminate them ab initio.  Before you get the chance to explain that Holocaust Denial does not in fact mean you deny that any Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, you will have been declared a social pariah and died a social death.  

A more detailed analysis of Holocaust Denial can be found at http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=127

Please do not attempt to engage the Chairman in discussion with this matter, however.  You will draw a blank for he does not wish to risk imprisonment.  His position as MEP requires that he visits Brussels regularly and this would put him in danger of imprisonment, and we all know that David Irving did time for this in Austria.

There is also the quaint concept of hate-crime. It would appear that it is now a crime to say something that would offend a protected group of people.  (This is called "hate-speech" - a species of totalitarian liberal legislation forbidding the feeling and expression of hatred of people in a legally-protected group.  Indeed, it is liberally decreed that one must love everyone and everything, not hurt anyone's feelings, and not cause anyone to hate you in return.  If you do say something that causes you to be hated by liberals, you cannot apparently drop the charges against yourself.  Something like that anyway. )

Unfortunately, these are not matters that can be discussed in academia, for we do not in fact have academic freedom.

Dennis Hayes, who fronts an organisation called Academics for Academic Freedom http://afaf.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
has, I suspect, warned a certain Rania Hafez http://www.uel.ac.uk/education/staff/raniahafez.htm off me.  James Panton of the Manifesto Club http://www.manifestoclub.com/about ("for freedom in everyday life")  has also defriended me.  I wonder if these academic idiots even see the contradiction in their behaviour, or are they just too scared or stupid with double-think to get it now?

Edward McMillian Scott, expelled for thoughtcrime and speechcrime offences by David Cameron

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8257926.stm

Imagine that David Cameron is already Prime Minister.

Imagine that the Conservative Party is the only political party in the UK.

Would David Cameron be considered a totalitarian dictator for expelling a member who committed the thoughtcrime and speechcrime of not toeing the party line and therefore deemed to be acting against the interests of the Conservative Party?

The Conservative principles that the Conservative Party claims to support in its party constitution has never been defined. They are whatever the leader and his cronies say they are.

Is this conducive to free speech and robust debate?

What do you think, dear reader?

Would you like such a man who is leader of such a party to be your Prime Minister?

Uncompassionate views not a disaster for the BNP - stand by yours Jeffrey Marshall!

Unlike others, I don't think it is a disaster at all that Jeffrey Marshall's comments have been exposed. Nothing the media say now will stop the BNP doing well.

There is a resurgence of the "Right" on the Continent as we speak, and there is no similar expenses scandal there.

http://sofiaecho.com/2009/05/24/724102_european-parliament-elections-2009-pleas-not-to-aid-extremist-parties

As far as I am concerned, I stand by everything I have said here and elsewhere, but am willing to apologise and withdraw any statement should the need arise and facts and events prove me wrong.

We are all entitled to our opinion and our views, BNP or not. There is no indication that Jeffrey Marshall is about to become dictator and institute euthanasia and mass extermination of whoever it is The Observer and others are trying to suggest he wants exterminated.

There is no stated policy of eugenics and mass extermination in the BNP manifesto or any danger of there being one.

If we want to get upset about something as peripheral as Jeffrey Marshall's opinion about whether the seriously disabled should be kept officiously alive in order to pay lip service to the political orthodoxy of indiscriminate compassion, then surely abortion is an issue that is more immediately relevant.

To say we do not care about those who will always be a burden on the state is not a hanging offence.

Jeffrey Marshall should stand by his comments unless he has changed his mind.
If his comments are indeed hanging offences, then we can ask them if we live in a "compassionate" totalitarian state where expression of anything that is not apparently compassionate-sounding is by definition thoughtcrime.

Perhaps they would like to send confirmation by return.

Racism and what it really means

Racism is our understandable wish to think we can judge a book by its cover. It is lazy thinking and the desire to embrace lazy generalisations.

"They/You are all the same" is a manifestation of this.

"You always do X (eg leave the toilet seat up)" is another.

"You are always being X (eg late)" is yet another.

It might be generally true but is not true all the time. A good example is the selecting of a spouse on the basis of his or her probable racial characteristics. On the other hand, they are not to be entirely discounted either.

We tread the thin line of a tightrope but would like a more secure and well-trodden path. For these reasons, we embrace broad generalisations and racial prejudice as a kind of comfort blanket, thinking that these rules will guide us in our assessment of the likely behaviour of a particular person or a group of people.

It amused me no end to see a cleaning agency proudly calling itself "Polish Cleaners" as if being Polish were a guarantee of quality, service and a keen price.

The point is that it is, as yet, NOT illegal to be racist, only to act on racially discriminatory reasons (which may be rational or irrational and have a happy or unhappy outcome).

Powell was dead against the Race Relations Act 1976 outlawing racial discrimination.

Being a Libertarian, I am dead against all anti-discrimination legislation, which are examples of totalitarian liberal legislation fulfilling all the conditions of "thoughtcrime".

How to get a legal definition of "racism"

Racism is now a term of abuse used against anyone who gives offence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, about other races or when someone treats different races differently and misjudges the situation. The "institutional racism" of the police, a phrase coined by Lord McPherson, is the grandiloquent and politically explosive term used to describe mere police incompetence and lazy thinking.

Traditionally, racism only meant the actual belief that some races are superior or inferior to others.

It is quite clear that nobody, not even members of the government or its opposite, knows what it really means.

Even the BNP does not know its own mind about whether it is a racist political party or not. Quite a few of their supporters are confused about whether they are or not (for some deny that they are racist and have friends who are non-white) and do not know whether to deny their racism or embrace it. Are they merely xenophobic (ie fearful of foreigners of any hue and nation, which is still allowed) or actually racist, whatever that means?

Does excluding someone from your party on grounds of race mean that you think they are inferior and that you are superior? Or is that just invoking the principle of free association?

Does disliking the physical and cultural characteristics of another race (who is perceived to be doing better or worse than you because of their alleged racial or cultural characteristics) mean you are racist? Or does racism actually require you to believe in your/their superiority/inferiority?

Does believing that another race is superior to yours (and praising that race) racism?

The law is undecided. On the one hand it criminalises discrimination on grounds of race, on the other it allows the BNP and NF (who wish to repatriate non-whites) to exist.

Much could be accomplished by the BNP if they started an action in defamation the next time a national publication that is worth suing describes a member of the BNP as racist. A case for libel is made out when a litigant proves to the satisfaction of a jury that, as a result of words published or broadcast, he has been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

This could run and run, folks!

Will the BNP do us all a public service and get us a legal definition of racism? Will they, hell!

Obviously, they would be helping themselves if they lifted their colour bar and removed any mention of their intention to repatriate non-whites from their constitution.

No doubt they will be saying they want to repatriate white Eastern Europeans too and will claim they are merely xenophobic - a state of mind that has yet to be labelled "thoughtcrime" in 21st century Britain.

(In case anybody has not yet noticed, it is of course already "thoughtcrime" to discriminate on grounds of sex, age, disability and sexual orientation.)


What are they for, I keep asking, if they will not even fund the litigation of members of their own party (and race) who are oppressed by Political Correctness - the ones who get unfairly or constructively dismissed from their jobs or expelled from their unions after going public about their BNP membership, the most recent of which is Mark Walker, a teacher?

Answers on a postcard, please.