Straw Jack | Trees and Acorns

9 01 2011

Mr Straw is coming into some flack due to his utterance that Pakistanis see white infidels as easy-meat.  The Meeja are determined to muddy the waters and refuse to see the main fault.

It is the constant and willing collusion between those who proclaim themselves defenders of the truth.  The Government, the Police, the Media, even Charities were in on the act.

If they are willing to mislead us on these important issues, how on Earth can we even begin to trust them on the small issues.

Multiculturalism and the fragmentation of society into large semiautonomous groups have reverted Britain back to the tribal mentality that Pax Britannia had once stemmed.

Each new tribe has a new rulebook, each has their own outlook and it was inevitable that after being allowed to abuse British hospitality in other areas, it was only a matter of time before they pushed into other abominations.

When do we say enough?  Do we wait until we begin to experience what Congo does?  If that is too far from you, have a gander at Norway.  Should we wait until that then?

Jack Straw is from a family of  arseholes.  From his perverted brother to his dopey son, the man is a charlatan.  Slagging off the English one minute, slagging of the Joey’s next, the man has no loyalty except to his controllers.

And people vote for this shite?  They must have had a right old chuckle when they gave the plebs the vote.

Advertisements




Convict Chaytor | tip of the iceberg

8 01 2011

WARNING This is a long read.  If it takes you half as long to read as it did for me to write it, I can only apologise in advance.  To make up for it, see a showcase of the most offensive cartoon ever created HERE

A sentence of 18 months.  Meaning he’ll be out in 9 months.  Probably only spend 2 months in a naughty prison then the rest stuck to Ian Huntley.  Best we can hope for now is when he is released, he’ll need to get expensive reconstructive anal surgery.

I still feel he got off lightly.  All that pussyfooting around, bending the law, trying to surpass the law, then trying to blame it weather conditions, the constant moaning about the constant hounding from the cruel and mean public…  and he gets just 18 months porridge.

The ACPO‘d and Common Purpose‘d directed Filth Police had their arms twisted and looked for the least offensive thing they could charge the corrupted Chaytor with. That said, why only the few bent Parliamentarians???

Blighted in Blighty

The more I think about it, the more I feel we’ve been Royally shafted with a 30ft barge pole with extra splinters.  Hundreds of elected Members of Parliament were dirty.  Probably thousands more complicit partners in return for preferential government job agreements.

Cannot forget that seeing how probably thousands of journalists knew of this vast scam, they were either silenced by their Editors, and then remained silent due to the threat of losing jobs and leads, or worse, were criminally involved in the mess.

Also, for the love of God, the Telegraph were trying to boost their Sales Figures!  They weren’t doing that graft as a Public Service!  In all honesty, you would have a story as important to the public and as big as ExpenseGate would have spurred the Media Giants to pool their resources?  Rhetorical question there, of course they wouldn’t, another reason they are aptly sneered at as the Controlled Media.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of willing workers, those who know what they do is immoral but, understandably, need to feed their families and can ill afford to ruin those promotion prospects.  They boss the lower level pit bosses and stewards.  These then coerce the one below them, ad infinitum to the lowest organism leaving nowt out.

Worse of all, they prepare the future generations to accept even more crap, sponsoring the indoctrination of our children with what once was called education.  Multiculturalism good, Nationalism bad, Hetro-sex, Gay-sex, jeez, no doubt they skirt around the issues of bondage and role-play, all the while highlighting you have rights (so long as it is Multiculturalism’ approved behaviour).  And if some spoil-sport comes along and reminds you about duties and responsibilities, remind the “faschistic stasi pig” of said rights.

Of course, financing it all takes more than our cattle taxes.  Needs lots of money and hard cold cash to monopolise national governments, unions, charities, religious and educational institutions.  That is where the Top-Collar Criminal Class come in, not the petty pimps or thugs that infest Blighty, nor any of those score-a-wrap dealers down the rubber dub.  The Drug Kings (usually Lords or ‘Special Military Men’, always State-sponsored), the Corporate Kings of the Circus, ahem, entertainment industry (Billionaires and Millionaires), and worse of all, the international Merchants who dabble in all and whose finest skill is trading Nations’ Peoples like pieces of meat.

If this isn’t a conspiracy, I truly do not what is.  Or is a conspiracy okay when several hundred thousand Secret Club members benefit from the misery of millions???  When has the dilution and Our Nation’s Blood at home due to a lack of political defence, preferring pandering tactics against an ever-increasing army of colonists justified???

For that matter, how can we continue to allow the waging of diversionary wars, at great cost to Our Nation’s Name and worse, wasting Our Nation’s Blood, ever be justified for personal financial benefit???  Or is fine and dandy for the Nation’s future prosperity to be abused to feather their own nests???

Where have all the Grand Saviours gone?  Do not we deserve Leaders who can Lead by example?

It isn’t the rotten apples in the barrel alone that is the cause of woe, oh if only so.  Unfortunately, the very source of these apples is a private orchard surrounding by a shark-infested moat, walls 20ft thick, interspersed with constantly manned machine-gun nests with additional anti-armour weaponry, along with a ring of steel with anti-air defences.  Yet over the impregnable perimeter is when the Corrupting Powers of Mankind tend to a twisted and perverted Tree, whose roots suck at the very essence of not only my beloved Britannic Islands and Her Peoples, but the whole World.

I might be paranoid, yet if you had the power to change the world to as you see fit, wouldn’t you?  If yes, then why not those who actually do possess the power.  It has been proven time and again that history is shaped by the few who were led the many.

From the pre-Biblical myths and tales to the modern ages, Man has surpassed himself, civilisations treading up the right path flourished, those that err tp the side, perished.  Some have been Good.  Some have been Bad.  Many were just fortunate.

That leaves it to us, the forunate, to promote the Good that is National Inclusion and reject the Bad that is Multicultural Sectarianism.  Otherwise, we will continue to repeat the Tower of Babylon fable.

I perhaps do propose one or two idealistic pipe dreams, but I’m in no doubt that most would be a pipe dream the Gods would bless.  No doubt that is what every well-meaning sod have thought, from the Divine Autocratic Rulers of old to the Gunboat and Subverted Masters that we suffer today.

To prelude this particular pipe dream, I’ll like to illustrate my point of Corrupted Officialdom by suggesting what should have happened.

ExpenseGate; a golden opportunity wasted

The moment the Telegraph had those files, the MET should have assigned an Anti-Fraud Squad to the Newspaper’s office and photocopied every file the reporters had.  Once done, an operation room should have been handed over to a lead Peace Officer who would then lead the investigation on the simple basis:

Even ONE discrepancy shown in the un-reducated receipts counts as CAUSE FOR ARREST.

The charge:  Corruption in a Public Office resulting in Treason against; and Theft from; every single man, woman, child and embryonic conception conceived at the time of the crime who love to call Britain home.

Now we all now that probably a baker’s dozen were Angels out of the bunch in the whole charade.  That would mean hundreds of arrests and the suspension of Parliament (which happens already every Christmas and Summer holiday Parliamentarians have so it wouldn’t be that bad).  Due to an instant ‘bringing in the Houses of Parliament into dispute’ card, they shall be stripped of their posts with the promise of instant reinstatement if validated.

With that in mind, there would be a need for a Special Task Force to do the job, and the Riot Officers of the infamous Territorial Forces would be a lovely and justifiable choice.  Not only footsoldiers are needed though, but experienced detectives and investigators, even if they have to be drafted in from the Armed Forces.  With the previous in place, all the accused can be arrested with and then transported to a convenient Holding Station for the investigating Team.

While this is happening, search warrants and confiscation orders can be issued against all the accused.  Homes and offices, even the boxroom one in the Commons most share with another, searched.  All items catalogue and marked confidential.  Bank accounts frozen and phone records collected, even lists of known associates should be compiled for later questioning.

I wouldn’t even mind the Police doing door to door knock and greet on the off-chance of finding someone with information regarding dirty Parliamentarians.  So long as they don’t enquire about the exotic smell, I’d be glad to put Harriet Harperson in the proverbial.  I’d even do a ‘politician’ and make up a fable of debauchery involving her and a Alsatian named Bojo.  What?  More believable than anything she has had to say the last twenty years.

Now, considering that trialing them separating through the court system would be too long-winded and expensive, instead, just one mass trial could be commissioned, where a mass examination of all the facts could be had in an open and recorded environment (again be done before, namely Nuremberg).

Of course, every single individual charged would be entitled to a fair hearing but it should be before a panel consisting either of, and, or, several unaligned judges (no Masons), a few high-ranking military officials, perhaps a few dozen constitutional experts as well as the cherry on the cake, a jury of their peers to decide the sincerity of the accused (oh, how we could have shown those filthy dogs real cruelty and meanness).

Those found GUILTY of hoodwinking the public should be punished accordingly.  If a serial crook, a stretch of the neck by hanging would suffice.  Those who just dabbled, a lesser charge could be life imprisonment, meaning natural life, no parole and definitely no compassionate leave possible.

Those found NOT GUILTY should be hanged just in case.  Nah, just kidding.  They shall receive a full reprieve and instantly be reinstalled in their previous post.

Now, this is by no means the end of the matter.  These are just the puppets us plebs get to argue about, the Democratic Tools of our Enemy, the hammers, the spanners and the screwdrivers.  If we just punish them, those reelected will be sponsored by the same cretins.  So each and every disgraced parliamentarian convicted should be given the chance of a reprieve.  Call it an Act of Retribution for their Sins against Man if you want to poetic about it.  But If they, given their inside knowledge of their Backers, name names and can point to areas of interest to the Task Force, the Guilty could not only keep their life, they could be granted the chance of parole.  All depends on success of course.

And considering the vast scale of such an operation, and the ever-present danger it is, a full-time Anti-Corruption Squad would be justified to carry on the campaign. Those found guilty of corrupting the officials will face the same fate.  They shall also be given the same option.  Even if we end up at Satan’s doorstep, we must never cease in ironing out those who would sacrifice us for their vision.  For too long the population has been led by the nose down the thorny broken path of introverted progressive word-twisting politics.

This isn’t an argument for an all-powerful State to have the green light, dealing out death indiscriminately to all and sundry.  Not at all, rather more of an appeal for a purer one, Holy you could say, a population on the path to advancement, where those who make a true contribution are rewarded to encourage the next.

Even those that have wronged however, those who have willingly and happily profit from Satanic hegemony and misery, I’d rather their repentance and spare the necks.  I truly seek the villains and the fools repentance, for only then can we all share in the glory of righteous salvation and soldier on defeating the real battles that face our way of life.

Back to Earth

Why is it, no matter how grand, how magnificent, how glorious Idealistic Institutions such as the State and all her apparatus, even the God damned Church, after so much evolution, loses all self-control and begins crumbling into corruption?  Is it the natural order of things.  We individuals begin life with so much potential yet every year, it ebbs away, all until it’s broken completely, then the slow shuffle to the inevitable exit.  Could it be the same for Institutions, just the shuffling along takes many times longer?  Like creator, like created?

All variables considered, the Bastards’ that Be, that’ll be the true owners of the Earth, according to their very legal paperwork, have the best hand possible.  They have their little drones and stooges in the nooks and crannies of every organisation.  Sometimes they finance both sides of the argument, possibly to hedge bets or possibly a counter-measure, keeping your audience looking elsewhere is an art in itself.

Never forget, it wasn’t only the past decade our parliamentarians have been scoffing their faces.  Ever since the unlawful enactment of surrounding British Sovereign Rights to a foreign power, the mass of Judas’ inspired political whores and traitors have regularly been paid off with their thirty pieces.

They just haven’t the decency to stop.





Wow | Couldn’t have said it better myself

24 06 2010

Have not been in a fit state of mind to waffle lately due to the prolonged illness of a chest infection which has affected my ability to articulate my thoughts in any meaningful way.  Hard to slag off the world and her sister when coughing up sludge that belong in the depths of hell.

So have slowly been reading what others have posted and am happy to reproduce an excellent essay from Paul Weston regarding the failed ideology of multiculturalism.  I say happy as it saves me the bother of producing my own version, which in my state would have included more profanity than a Southpark cartoon.

Multiculturalism – Merits and Debits

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism – with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

If we are to genuinely hold an intense debate on multiculturalism, then it must be warts and all. Hiding behind a wall of well-intentioned words is of little use when our lives are under threat every time we board a bus or train. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, yet even now these negatives are never allowed to see the light of day. These criticisms are real words about real effects and as such transgress the idealistic and unrealistic worldview held by our liberal elites.

The first issue to look at is what does multiculturalism actually mean? It is a word of such obtuse generalisation that one has to assume it is merely camouflage for an underlying agenda. It is also a word that was unknown a few decades ago, only coming to prominence with the simultaneous rise to political power of sections of the liberally inclined baby boom generation.

The educational and media led definition of multiculturalism is that all races and cultures are equal, that immigration enriches us culturally and economically and given an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect differing races and religions will benefit one another when intermingled within the same territory. This is the prevailing and generally accepted definition across the West.

However, this is not the way it is taught in our schools, nor disseminated by our media. Indigenous children are indoctrinated into the belief that Western civilisation is guilty of historical and present day inequality and oppression, in short, brainwashed into shame of their race and culture. Conversely, ethnic children are both encouraged to take pride in their own race and culture and to feel victimized by the majority white society they live amongst. This version of multiculturalism is force-fed with a fervour almost religious in its intensity, despite it being a recipe for balkanization and resentment rather than assimilation.

Multiculturalism in not some type of fixed entity, it is constantly evolving and means different things to different people. For example, to the 1960’s cultural revolutionaries and their ideological progeny, multiculturalism is simply a tool with which to bash Western civilisation. The white working class had become too affluent to be used as political pawns, ergo, import a new, “oppressed” revolutionary power base. It is not coincidental that multiculturalism white activists are politically of the hard left and that they deliberately divide Western countries along imported racial and religious fault lines.

To the naive white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquillity. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.

To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.

When one race invades the homeland of another race it does so in order to acquire territory and to impose it’s own culture. Conversely, the invaded group resists in order to preserve his race, his territory and his culture, not simply because he is a racist and dislikes the skin colour of the invader. Or at least that is historically how things were. The people of the West today are ceding territory, tradition and culture and do so in the face of evolutionary imminent minority status, whilst the incomer makes no pretence of his intentions in his avowal of Islamic mono-cultural superiority. To resist is to be called a racist, yet no one was called a racist in 1939 when we went to war with a different race and culture that wished to enter our homeland, overthrow our elected government, murder the Jews and homosexuals and consign our remaining citizens to second class status.

Multiculturalism, when viewed through the conservative prism of racial reality rather than the liberal prism of a multiracial and multi-religious utopia can draw only one logical conclusion, to whit, Western countries are in the process of unopposed invasion and are submitting in their entirety. Multiculturalism as practiced in the West today is an ideology of territorial and political aggression by the anti-Western invader and the submissive ideology of state sanctioned white European appeasement.

Democratic societies require balance if they are to remain democratic. Multicultural societies have drawbacks – as listed below – and if we are not to slowly slide into dictatorship or civil war then the following negative points must somehow be balanced by the positives of multi-racial, multi-religious societies.

Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip feed propaganda) still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.

Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.

White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the worlds population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.

Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Multi-religious countries have a history of internal violence, the outcomes of which tend toward a reversion to mono-religion after bloody civil wars. When India was partitioned in 1947 seven million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan whilst a similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in a religious majority. Whilst partition stopped a full-scale civil war some half a million people were killed. Europe has had its Protestant/Catholic religious wars so to introduce into its peaceful midst the fanatical religion of Islam is an act of breathtaking irresponsibility.

Multicultural societies have present day tribal conflict. The UN currently has sixty thousand peacekeepers engaged in fifteen peace missions around the world. These are not cross border wars; they are internal, inter-tribal/religious conflicts. Only Western, liberal minded elites, be they Labour or Republican, could suppose that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would all kiss and make up. The chaos in Iraq is multiculturalism in the form of religious tribalism – without the benefit of a ruthless dictator to hold it together – exposed in its stark reality.

The white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. They are in the main, middle class suburban or rural dwellers of majority white enclaves. One peculiarity of white liberals is that whilst they embrace the ethnic colonisation of the West they are repulsed by the history of white colonisation in the East, thereby showing that their political views have less to do with colonisation per se and more to do with a hatred of Western civilisation. Trying to find a working class man in a gritty and diverse part of town who supports this peculiar ideology is akin to discovering a conservative at the BBC or a democrat in church. Put simply, Western liberals, feminists and homosexuals, who for reasons known only to themselves support multiculturalism, do not choose to live in Riyadh yet hold up Islamic culture as equally valid.

The non-white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. The Middle East is monocultural, as is Pakistan and India. The idea that Europeans in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for practicing Christianity whilst Saudi money is financing thousands of radical mosques throughout Europe is perhaps the best example of multiculturalism’s rank hypocrisy.

Multiculturalisms belief that all cultures and races are equal is simply not true. Their evolutionary capacity for equality may well be so, but when the Romans left Britain the indigenous Brits forgot all about aqueducts, under floor heating and democracy and immediately sank into the dark ages. If white Europeans became extinct next Friday the entire world would similarly revert to the dark ages. The world flocks to the West, there is no reciprocity as would be the case if we were truly equal.

Multiculturalism breeds resentment. If we are all equal, as it supposes, then the only reason many non-whites fail to become CEO’s of multinational firms is perceived to be a consequence of white oppression rather than an innate lack of ability. Breeding resentment of course was always foremost in the mind of the culture wars liberal.

Multiculturalism brings with it an increase in violent crime committed at a ratio vastly out of proportion to the ethnic numbers. This also leads to an increase in low-level crime, which the police simply have no time to handle as they are too busy writing reports and recommendations in triplicate over the latest gang rape or racial murder.

Multiculturalism promotes dishonesty. Were the true facts of rape, murder and violence honestly reported it is possible that even the docile, TV addicted Brits might rise up. The facts are not reported however; censorship or self-censorship of the press and media lead to a road travelled upon in the last century only by totalitarian states.

Multiculturalism leads to propaganda and brainwashing. It is no coincidence that the majority of our young today display a conformity of politically correct thought diametrically opposed to that of their grandparents. In order to make a suicidally unnatural ideology acceptable it is necessary to resort to the indoctrination of children, so the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of the defeated peoples are hidden from view in the liberal establishment’s educational curriculum. Again, this has more to do with totalitarian dictatorships than democratic states, although having said that, it is very definitely a first whereby the state works to dispossess it’s own ethnic majority.

Multiculturalism leads to greater government controls. In the wake of Islamic terrorism in Britain the government has passed various control and anti-terrorism orders. In the main they have been used against terrorist suspects but they have also been utilised against the indigenous population when the government does not like what it hears or sees. One example out of many is the televised manhandling and detaining of an eighty two year old heckler, Walter Wolfgang, under anti-terrorism laws during the 2005 Labour party conference. Similarly, the EU’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, whilst purportedly seeking to criminalize genuine racism also suggests that criticism of the EU could be termed xenophobic! We no longer have freedom of speech and this type of restriction is liable to intensify as the ethnic numbers and ensuing tensions increase, until eventually control will by necessity be on a par with Tito’s Yugoslavia or Saddam’s Iraq.

Multiculturalism, if history repeats itself, will lead to a probable rather than a possible civil war. There are some three hundred and forty million ageing and demographically declining white Europeans in Western Europe and some twenty million Muslims whose reproductive proclivity will give them, varying from country to country, a numerical advantage amongst the traditional fighting ages of sixteen to thirty year olds within the next twenty to forty years. Mark Steyn in “America Alone” suggests that Islamic youth makes up forty-five percent of total French city youth today. If the forty percent of Islamic youth mean what they say with regard to wanting Sharia law and if Western youth has really absorbed the appeasing indoctrination of multiculturalism then the scope for bloodshed and carnage amongst hundreds of millions of peoples is something not even the veterans of WWII can begin to imagine. If Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey became involved the number of European Muslims today amount to approximately one hundred million.

Multiculturalism promotes a brain drain from Western nations. According to the Conservative Monday Club, one in two native Brits would emigrate if financially able to do so. They cited crime, education and overcrowding as the reasons but true to politically correct form never mentioned Islam or multiculturalism – only the consequences thereof. Young, middle class professionals with children are also bailing out of Europe in unprecedented droves. As this escalates the tax base will have to rise to support Europe’s welfare states, thereby driving further taxpayers abroad until Europe will eventually consist of an embittered white underclass and a simmering ethnic population, both competing for dwindling resources.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction to the West of tuberculosis, cholera and malaria, diseases previously thought eradicated. In Britain no medical checks are carried out on immigrants.

Multiculturalism has bought the British National Health Service to its knees. The cost of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV sufferers is some twenty five thousand pounds per year and as a great many sub-Saharan Africans have the misfortune to suffer from this virus it is unsurprising that they move heaven and earth to bring themselves and their infected families to Britain to benefit from free medical aid. Disapproving of this may sound inhumane but economic reality leads to a service for it’s own or no service for everybody.

Defenders of multiculturalism point out that the British health service would collapse without immigrant nurses and doctors. This may well be true but to import them from poor countries, which have stumped up the money to train them in order to tend their own populations is an act of extreme illiberalism.

Multiculturalism leads to a lack of cohesion. A successful nation is made from the bottom up. Individuals form families’ thence communities, towns, cities and lastly the Nation State. Cohesive countries tend to be monocultural, acting in the best interests of the group. The West today is being balkanised and tribalised and should we need to come together at some future point to defeat say, a 21st century Hitler, or more pertinently an Islamic France, it is unlikely that our Muslim communities would fight on our side.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction of slavery, euphemistically entitled “people trafficking”. Britain’s massage parlours generate close to a billion pounds per year from the enforced prostitution of five thousand predominately East European and Asian teenaged children smuggled in by Albanian and Turkish gangs.

Multiculturalism is a betrayal of our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died to preserve their countries and cultures. Many ex-servicemen I have spoken to tell me with great sadness that multicultural Britain was not worth their sacrifice or the deaths of their comrades. Indeed it is a double betrayal, young children today may well have to face submission or war in the coming decades.

The Jewish Holocaust was an act of such inhumane savagery that Western Europeans vowed it would never happen again. But multi-racialism/multi-religion is responsible for present day holocausts. The Islamic Janjaweed militias have killed one million non Muslim Sudanese Africans over the last decade. Does one million dead not count as a holocaust?

Multiculturalism betrays the low-income white child. Some schools in the poorer parts of London speak thirty different languages, hardly a place for poor white children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The result is that low-income white children are now at the very bottom of education league tables.

Multiculturalism restricts the freedom of both children and adults. I know many parents who refuse to let their children travel into central London and undertake said journeys themselves only if absolutely necessary. This is hardly surprising. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 claims that British secret services have thwarted five full-scale attacks since the July 2005 tube bombings and are actively tracking two hundred groups consisting of one thousand six hundred people. She admits these are only the ones that they know about and is concerned that one hundred thousand “British” citizens sympathise with terrorist suicide bombers. Well yes, so she should and so should we.

Multiculturalism leads to a reduction of standards in our quota driven institutions. To take one example, entry requirements for the British police now consist of zero academic qualifications whilst minor criminal convictions are overlooked if the applicant is of the right colour.

Multiculturalism is a drain on the taxpayer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of diversity officers, equality officers and race awareness officers, all funded directly by the state.

Multiculturalism claims all faiths are equally valid yet in practice it is distinctly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic. It is thus partially responsible for the cleansing of Christianity from continental Europe and is totally responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism, particularly in France, which Israel now deems unsafe for Jews.

Multiculturalism is totalitarian. It brooks no opposition from its detractors and carries out campaigns against perceived heretics with a viciousness previously unknown in Western politics. The vitriolic campaign waged against the British headmaster Ray Honeyford during the 1980’s is a case in point. That his proposal of Muslim assimilation has now been vindicated is not to suppose he will receive compensation or apology. The irony, if irony is not too weak a word, is that multiculturalism, in its promotion of Islam, seeks to elevate the one single culture and religion with an avowed ambition of mono-cultural global dominance.

Finally, multiculturalism is treason. Not legally I grant you, but technically how can this not be so? If it is indeed the case that the West is undergoing a slow motion, unarmed invasion then any government that both condones the invasion and criminalizes those that oppose it must surely be guilty of treason. When the ancient treason laws were written it never occurred to the original drafters that any country would be foolish enough to open it’s doors to an Islamic Trojan horse, but we in the 21st century West are that foolish, we have opened the doors and the treason laws need urgent redrafting.

In conclusion, although this essay is entitled “Multiculturalism – Merits and Debits” I cannot in all honesty think of any merits important enough to outweigh the negatives above. That mass immigration from the third world is of supposed economic benefit is one, but Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK debunks this proposal, whilst a liking of spicy curry simply doesn’t cut the ideological mustard.

This essay, although slightly revised here, was posted on a British web site earlier this week. The reaction was one of incredulity that anyone could write such racist rubbish. I was accused of being either xenophobic or mentally unhinged. The web site was right of centre with a distinct anti-Islamic ethos, so either too much thinking about Islam and the West has finally done for me, or more worryingly the British have been so utterly brainwashed they can longer see the reality of their imminent demise. Many social commentators on American web sites are of the opinion that Britain is committing suicide. In further light of this article in today’s Daily Mail, I am inclined to agree.

© Paul Weston 2007. (Available to reproduce without financial gain)

Once more, for added effect, wow, couldn’t have said it better myself.

Multiculturalism – Merits and Debits

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism – with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

If we are to genuinely hold an intense debate on multiculturalism, then it must be warts and all. Hiding behind a wall of well-intentioned words is of little use when our lives are under threat every time we board a bus or train. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, yet even now these negatives are never allowed to see the light of day. These criticisms are real words about real effects and as such transgress the idealistic and unrealistic worldview held by our liberal elites.

The first issue to look at is what does multiculturalism actually mean? It is a word of such obtuse generalisation that one has to assume it is merely camouflage for an underlying agenda. It is also a word that was unknown a few decades ago, only coming to prominence with the simultaneous rise to political power of sections of the liberally inclined baby boom generation.

The educational and media led definition of multiculturalism is that all races and cultures are equal, that immigration enriches us culturally and economically and given an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect differing races and religions will benefit one another when intermingled within the same territory. This is the prevailing and generally accepted definition across the West.

However, this is not the way it is taught in our schools, nor disseminated by our media. Indigenous children are indoctrinated into the belief that Western civilisation is guilty of historical and present day inequality and oppression, in short, brainwashed into shame of their race and culture. Conversely, ethnic children are both encouraged to take pride in their own race and culture and to feel victimised by the majority white society they live amongst. This version of multiculturalism is force fed with a fervour almost religious in its intensity, despite it being a recipe for balkanisation and resentment rather than assimilation.

Multiculturalism in not some type of fixed entity, it is constantly evolving and means different things to different people. For example, to the 1960’s cultural revolutionaries and their ideological progeny, multiculturalism is simply a tool with which to bash Western civilisation. The white working class had become too affluent to be used as political pawns, ergo, import a new, “oppressed” revolutionary power base. It is not coincidental that multiculturalisms white activists are politically of the hard left and that they deliberately divide Western countries along imported racial and religious fault lines.

To the naive white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquillity. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.

To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.

When one race invades the homeland of another race it does so in order to acquire territory and to impose it’s own culture. Conversely, the invaded group resists in order to preserve his race, his territory and his culture, not simply because he is a racist and dislikes the skin colour of the invader. Or at least that is historically how things were. The people of the West today are ceding territory, tradition and culture and do so in the face of evolutionary imminent minority status, whilst the incomer makes no pretence of his intentions in his avowal of Islamic mono-cultural superiority. To resist is to be called a racist, yet no one was called a racist in 1939 when we went to war with a different race and culture that wished to enter our homeland, overthrow our elected government, murder the Jews and homosexuals and consign our remaining citizens to second class status.

Multiculturalism, when viewed through the conservative prism of racial reality rather than the liberal prism of a multiracial and multi-religious utopia can draw only one logical conclusion, to whit, Western countries are in the process of unopposed invasion and are submitting in their entirety. Multiculturalism as practiced in the West today is an ideology of territorial and political aggression by the anti-Western invader and the submissive ideology of state sanctioned white European appeasement.

Democratic societies require balance if they are to remain democratic. Multicultural societies have drawbacks – as listed below – and if we are not to slowly slide into dictatorship or civil war then the following negative points must somehow be balanced by the positives of multi-racial, multi-religious societies.

Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip feed propaganda) still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.

Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.

White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the worlds population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.

Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Multi-religious countries have a history of internal violence, the outcomes of which tend toward a reversion to mono-religion after bloody civil wars. When India was partitioned in 1947 seven million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan whilst a similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in a religious majority. Whilst partition stopped a full-scale civil war some half a million people were killed. Europe has had its Protestant/Catholic religious wars so to introduce into its peaceful midst the fanatical religion of Islam is an act of breathtaking irresponsibility.

Multicultural societies have present day tribal conflict. The UN currently has sixty thousand peacekeepers engaged in fifteen peace missions around the world. These are not cross border wars; they are internal, inter-tribal/religious conflicts. Only Western, liberal minded elites, be they Labour or Republican, could suppose that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would all kiss and make up. The chaos in Iraq is multiculturalism in the form of religious tribalism – without the benefit of a ruthless dictator to hold it together – exposed in its stark reality.

The white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. They are in the main, middle class suburban or rural dwellers of majority white enclaves. One peculiarity of white liberals is that whilst they embrace the ethnic colonisation of the West they are repulsed by the history of white colonisation in the East, thereby showing that their political views have less to do with colonisation per se and more to do with a hatred of Western civilisation. Trying to find a working class man in a gritty and diverse part of town who supports this peculiar ideology is akin to discovering a conservative at the BBC or a democrat in church. Put simply, Western liberals, feminists and homosexuals, who for reasons known only to themselves support multiculturalism, do not choose to live in Riyadh yet hold up Islamic culture as equally valid.

The non-white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. The Middle East is monocultural, as is Pakistan and India. The idea that Europeans in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for practicing Christianity whilst Saudi money is financing thousands of radical mosques throughout Europe is perhaps the best example of multiculturalism’s rank hypocrisy.

Multiculturalisms belief that all cultures and races are equal is simply not true. Their evolutionary capacity for equality may well be so, but when the Romans left Britain the indigenous Brits forgot all about aqueducts, under floor heating and democracy and immediately sank into the dark ages. If white Europeans became extinct next Friday the entire world would similarly revert to the dark ages. The world flocks to the West, there is no reciprocity as would be the case if we were truly equal.

Multiculturalism breeds resentment. If we are all equal, as it supposes, then the only reason many non-whites fail to become CEO’s of multinational firms is perceived to be a consequence of white oppression rather than an innate lack of ability. Breeding resentment of course was always foremost in the mind of the culture wars liberal.

Multiculturalism brings with it an increase in violent crime committed at a ratio vastly out of proportion to the ethnic numbers. This also leads to an increase in low-level crime, which the police simply have no time to handle as they are too busy writing reports and recommendations in triplicate over the latest gang rape or racial murder.

Multiculturalism promotes dishonesty. Were the true facts of rape, murder and violence honestly reported it is possible that even the docile, TV addicted Brits might rise up. The facts are not reported however; censorship or self-censorship of the press and media lead to a road travelled upon in the last century only by totalitarian states.

Multiculturalism leads to propaganda and brainwashing. It is no coincidence that the majority of our young today display a conformity of politically correct thought diametrically opposed to that of their grandparents. In order to make a suicidally unnatural ideology acceptable it is necessary to resort to the indoctrination of children, so the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of the defeated peoples are hidden from view in the liberal establishment’s educational curriculum. Again, this has more to do with totalitarian dictatorships than democratic states, although having said that, it is very definitely a first whereby the state works to dispossess it’s own ethnic majority.

Multiculturalism leads to greater government controls. In the wake of Islamic terrorism in Britain the government has passed various control and anti-terrorism orders. In the main they have been used against terrorist suspects but they have also been utilised against the indigenous population when the government does not like what it hears or sees. One example out of many is the televised manhandling and detaining of an eighty two year old heckler, Walter Wolfgang, under anti-terrorism laws during the 2005 Labour party conference. Similarly, the EU’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, whilst purportedly seeking to criminalize genuine racism also suggests that criticism of the EU could be termed xenophobic! We no longer have freedom of speech and this type of restriction is liable to intensify as the ethnic numbers and ensuing tensions increase, until eventually control will by necessity be on a par with Tito’s Yugoslavia or Saddam’s Iraq.

Multiculturalism, if history repeats itself, will lead to a probable rather than a possible civil war. There are some three hundred and forty million ageing and demographically declining white Europeans in Western Europe and some twenty million Muslims whose reproductive proclivity will give them, varying from country to country, a numerical advantage amongst the traditional fighting ages of sixteen to thirty year olds within the next twenty to forty years. Mark Steyn in “America Alone” suggests that Islamic youth makes up forty five percent of total French city youth today. If the forty percent of Islamic youth mean what they say with regard to wanting Sharia law and if Western youth has really absorbed the appeasing indoctrination of multiculturalism then the scope for bloodshed and carnage amongst hundreds of millions of peoples is something not even the veterans of WWII can begin to imagine. If Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey became involved the number of European Muslims today amount to approximately one hundred million.

Multiculturalism promotes a brain drain from Western nations. According to the Conservative Monday Club, one in two native Brits would emigrate if financially able to do so. They cited crime, education and overcrowding as the reasons but true to politically correct form never mentioned Islam or multiculturalism – only the consequences thereof. Young, middle class professionals with children are also baling out of Europe in unprecedented droves. As this escalates the tax base will have to rise to support Europe’s welfare states, thereby driving further taxpayers abroad until Europe will eventually consist of an embittered white underclass and a simmering ethnic population, both competing for dwindling resources.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction to the West of tuberculosis, cholera and malaria, diseases previously thought eradicated. In Britain no medical checks are carried out on immigrants.

Multiculturalism has bought the British National Health Service to its knees. The cost of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV sufferers is some twenty five thousand pounds per year and as a great many sub-Saharan Africans have the misfortune to suffer from this virus it is unsurprising that they move heaven and earth to bring themselves and their infected families to Britain to benefit from free medical aid. Disapproving of this may sound inhumane but economic reality leads to a service for it’s own or no service for everybody.

Defenders of multiculturalism point out that the British health service would collapse without immigrant nurses and doctors. This may well be true but to import them from poor countries, which have stumped up the money to train them in order to tend their own populations is an act of extreme illiberalism.

Multiculturalism leads to a lack of cohesion. A successful nation is made from the bottom up. Individuals form families’ thence communities, towns, cities and lastly the Nation State. Cohesive countries tend to be monocultural, acting in the best interests of the group. The West today is being balkanised and tribalised and should we need to come together at some future point to defeat say, a 21st century Hitler, or more pertinently an Islamic France, it is unlikely that our Muslim communities would fight on our side.

Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction of slavery, euphemistically entitled “people trafficking”. Britain’s massage parlours generate close to a billion pounds per year from the enforced prostitution of five thousand predominately East European and Asian teenaged children smuggled in by Albanian and Turkish gangs.

Multiculturalism is a betrayal of our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died to preserve their countries and cultures. Many ex-servicemen I have spoken to tell me with great sadness that multicultural Britain was not worth their sacrifice or the deaths of their comrades. Indeed it is a double betrayal, young children today may well have to face submission or war in the coming decades.

The Jewish Holocaust was an act of such inhumane savagery that Western Europeans vowed it would never happen again. But multi-racialism/multi-religion is responsible for present day holocausts. The Islamic Janjaweed militias have killed one million non Muslim Sudanese Africans over the last decade. Does one million dead not count as a holocaust?

Multiculturalism betrays the low-income white child. Some schools in the poorer parts of London speak thirty different languages, hardly a place for poor white children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The result is that low-income white children are now at the very bottom of education league tables.

Multiculturalism restricts the freedom of both children and adults. I know many parents who refuse to let their children travel into central London and undertake said journeys themselves only if absolutely necessary. This is hardly surprising. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 claims that British secret services have thwarted five full-scale attacks since the July 2005 tube bombings and are actively tracking two hundred groups consisting of one thousand six hundred people. She admits these are only the ones that they know about and is concerned that one hundred thousand “British” citizens sympathise with terrorist suicide bombers. Well yes, so she should and so should we.

Multiculturalism leads to a reduction of standards in our quota driven institutions. To take one example, entry requirements for the British police now consist of zero academic qualifications whilst minor criminal convictions are overlooked if the applicant is of the right colour.

Multiculturalism is a drain on the taxpayer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of diversity officers, equality officers and race awareness officers, all funded directly by the state.

Multiculturalism claims all faiths are equally valid yet in practice it is distinctly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic. It is thus partially responsible for the cleansing of Christianity from continental Europe and is totally responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism, particularly in France, which Israel now deems unsafe for Jews.

Multiculturalism is totalitarian. It brooks no opposition from its detractors and carries out campaigns against perceived heretics with a viciousness previously unknown in Western politics. The vitriolic campaign waged against the British headmaster Ray Honeyford during the 1980’s is a case in point. That his proposal of Muslim assimilation has now been vindicated is not to suppose he will receive compensation or apology. The irony, if irony is not too weak a word, is that multiculturalism, in its promotion of Islam, seeks to elevate the one single culture and religion with an avowed ambition of mono-cultural global dominance.

Finally, multiculturalism is treason. Not legally I grant you, but technically how can this not be so? If it is indeed the case that the West is undergoing a slow motion, unarmed invasion then any government that both condones the invasion and criminalizes those that oppose it must surely be guilty of treason. When the ancient treason laws were written it never occurred to the original drafters that any country would be foolish enough to open it’s doors to an Islamic Trojan horse, but we in the 21st century West are that foolish, we have opened the doors and the treason laws need urgent redrafting.

In conclusion, although this essay is entitled “Multiculturalism – Merits and Debits” I cannot in all honesty think of any merits important enough to outweigh the negatives above. That mass immigration from the third world is of supposed economic benefit is one, but Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK debunks this proposal, whilst a liking of spicy curry simply doesn’t cut the ideological mustard.

This essay, although slightly revised here, was posted on a British web site earlier this week. The reaction was one of incredulity that anyone could write such racist rubbish. I was accused of being either xenophobic or mentally unhinged. The web site was right of centre with a distinct anti-Islamic ethos, so either too much thinking about Islam and the West has finally done for me, or more worryingly the British have been so utterly brainwashed they can longer see the reality of their imminent demise. Many social commentators on American web sites are of the opinion that Britain is committing suicide. In further light of this article in today’s Daily Mail, I am inclined to agree.

© Paul Weston 2007. (Available to reproduce without financial gain)





Hiatus | Fever’d up with a dollop of nausea

14 06 2010

Been sick as a dog this last week and a bit so haven’t had the inclination to work, let alone blog.  Wish I could say I’m on the mend but still feel shitty-shitty-bang-bang.  Watching England’s fumble against the US didn’t bloody help either.  Alas, I’m fit enough to moan about a couple of things.

Firstly, over the river in Barking and the Islamic Ummah once again wish to provoke further intolerance by plastering up a British war memorial with pro-Islam messages.  And Muslims wonder why they are so distrusted?  For more on this, visit Derby Patriot.

If you hate Britain and love Islam, do us all a favour and fuck off.

Secondly, on my side of the river and the Police seem to be having trouble catching killers.  So much so in fact that they have enlisted the help of ‘orrid little Harman in the case of Sam Ogunro.  Yet the fact that 15 murderers are still walking the streets of my beloved borough doesn’t give much hope for the family of Ogunro.  Don’t fret though, the Police will add this case to the list.

If you hate eachother so much you are willing to destroy an entire family unit, do us all a favour and fuck off.

Apologies for the profanity but I am sick and tired of hearing the same old shit.  It isn’t rocket science.





State-snooping | Just maybe…

5 06 2010

News that the State Spying Machine is still in full swing.  I’m not stupid enough to believe that the Government or even Companies for that matter, wish to know your every move, and so only the most serious threats to their domination should be worried, the criminals slightly worried and the law-abiding very annoyed.

Annoyed due to the fact that your next-door neighbour who happens to be a nurse gets to gander at your progress at the wart clinic.  Annoyed as CCTV operator zooms in through your windows.  Annoyed so much in fact, that you may just bump yourself up into the two categories the Police State was meant to counter.

‘Big Brother’s’ little brother: Illegal snooping by town hall staff is up sixfold

By Jack Doyle, Daily Wail.  Last updated at 3:33 AM on 5th June 2010

More and more town hall bureaucrats have been caught snooping on private details held on a giant ‘Big Brother’ tax and benefits database.

Instances of unlawful hacking of the Customer Information System, which belongs to the Department of Work and Pensions and holds the personal records of 85 million people, have increased sixfold in a single year to more than two a week.

Council staff have looked at accounts belonging to their friends, family members, neighbours and even celebrities.

Some were dismissed as a result  –  but two thirds were let off with little more than a slap on the wrist.

Astonishingly, the DWP does not hold details of the number of its own staff caught doing the same thing.

This means the real level of unauthorised access could be much higher.

The revelations raised major questions about the number of people allowed to access the system.

In addition to workers at 445 local authorities across the UK, it is open to some 80,000 DWP employees and 60,000 workers from other government departments.

Civil liberties campaigners called for drastic cuts in those allowed to view the data.

Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, said: ‘This just goes to show that our private data is not safe with councils  –  the less they have of it, the better.’

The database holds a record of every single individual issued with a National Insurance number, including those who have died, each containing up to 9,800 pieces of information.

That includes details of their ethnicity, address, and tax status.

In addition, the system records the full income details of anyone receiving any kind of benefit, including 11.5million state pensioners, 2.65 million people on incapacity benefit and four million who claim pension credit or some kind of income support.

Freedom of Information Act requests revealed 124 security breaches by council staff last year, including those found looking at the accounts of friends, family, neighbours, or celebrities.

That is a sharp increase from just 20 in 2008/9. Of those 26 were dismissed and eight resigned during the disciplinary process. But 37 were given a written or verbal warning and 43 received no reprimand at all.

Officials at the department were so concerned about the scale of the problem that they contacted councils last year to warn of sanctions. But the scale of the problem increased regardless.

Organisations caught up in last year’s suspected breaches included London’s Islington, Barnet, Lambeth, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Westminster councils as well as Town Hall staff in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sunderland, Liverpool, Bradford, Middlesbrough, Cambridge and Plymouth.

Prof Peter Sommer, an information security expert from the London School of Economics said: ‘It is bizarre and deeply unfortunate that DWP appear not to hold these essential security breach statistics.’

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘DWP thoroughly deals with the risk to CIS by the small number of employees who commit unauthorised access.

– ‘DWP works closely with local authorities to investigate suspicions of unauthorised access enabling managers to consider disciplinary action where appropriate.’

– Every Google web search could be stored for up to two years under a controversial EU proposal that has the backing of more than 300 Euro-MPs.

‘Written Declaration 29’ is intended to be used as an early warning system to stop paedophiles.

But civil liberty groups say it is ‘completely unjustifiable’ intrusion into citizens’ privacy  –  and would not be effective because most paedophiles operate in chatrooms and private communication.

Not only that though, but also the leftarded Guardian are carrying a similar story.  This one feigning shock outrage at the anti-terror Police funding number-plate recognition cameras in Birmingham’s Muslim areas.  Considering that those who carry out Jihad usually do so due to an Islamic  religious persuasion, I would say that makes sense.  I’m just pee’d off that not only do the civil Police wish to do the job on the cheap, so do our anti-terror Cops.

On a side note, love how the preacher of the British multicultural paradise (so long as they don’t have to live in them) refer to British land as ‘Muslim areas’.  Where’s the diverse neighbourhoods we dreamed about?  Why all this segregation?  Is it natural?  And if so, why do governments seek to disrupt that balance?

We have been ruled by fools since year dot.  It will never change.





DeMOCKracy | The GTC

2 06 2010

For those who don’t know, the soon-to-be extinct GTC stands for General Teaching Council, which sadly/gladly is being resigned to the dustbin by the new ConDem Coalition.  The reasons given are short and swift apart from a long rant about the failure of the organisation to nail Mr Adam Walker to the cross.

“…this government wants to trust professionals – not busybody and patronise them.

“But when professionals do dishonour the vocation of teaching, action needs to be taken.

“And when the GTCE was recently asked to rule on a BNP teacher who had posted poisonous filth on an extremist website they concluded that his description of immigrants as animals wasn’t racist so he couldn’t be struck off.

“We need new proposals to ensure that extremism has no place in our classrooms and the bodies that have failed to protect us in the past cannot be the answer in the future.”

For those that need reminding, why not visit the BBC and see a nice biased conclusion of events and possibly the hidden reason for the GTC’s coming demise.  With such a slanted worded introduction and a classic ending shows that the Beeb just cannot help themselves.  Absolutely loved how Auntie Beeb made a dash for the anti-democratic protestors at the end of the clip.

Conditioning the nation 100% dandruff-proof.  Only problem is the amount of bullcrap that accompanies it.






Labour | NuOpposition

24 05 2010

In the last week, we’ve had a couple of Labour apparatchiks claim that the Iraq War was a mistake, with OH writing what we’re all thinking, the public-moneyed millionaire champagne socialist Neil Kinnock is backing one of the Millipede brothers in the leadership race and now Andy Burnham confirms what we already knew, that Labour deliberately tried to “stifle debate on immigration“.

Looks like the worst government I have ever seen will be followed by the worst opposition.