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




Leftarded Fallout | They cannot make up their mind

9 01 2011

With the media circus that has flared up around the issue of certain sections of society preying on defenceless children, the Left do not know where to look.  As Rod Liddle points out…

A bizarre report on the Asian child abuse court case on the BBC last night, which spent most of its time attempting to exonerate the Pakistani community as a whole, including clips of Pakistanis saying “actually, we probably shouldn’t abuse kiddies” and a white child abuse campaigner saying hey, look, it’s not Pakistanis who are the problem, etc etc.

This was broadcasting as a form of crowd control; undiluted propaganda. The fact is that some Pakistani men think it perfectly ok to abuse white girls and there are still gangs out there right now doing so. When Nick Griffin mentioned this fact, many years ago, they tried to prosecute him. When Radio Five covered the story five years ago they were eviscerated for it.

The praise the Left give towards Wikileaks verges on Sainthood, yet God damn those who expose any non-approved fact.  The indignation they display to the public to counter distasteful information stresses the concept of Controlled Media.  All this fallout amongst them shows just how vain and contradictory their ideals are.  And so, they are lashing out at anyone who might try to make political capital out of it, be racist, even the beloved Stooge of Labour, Straw Jack!

Most telling though is the one man you’d think the Controlled Media would be trying to hose down would be Nick Griffin, currently lending a hand to Derek Adams campaign in Oldham.  Instead, we have his views regurgitated, twisted and manipulated by those apologists and appeasers.

A recap of what has so upset the meeja darlings from the spectrum I’ve found are running with; Former home secretary says gangs of Pakistani men see young white girls as ‘easy meat’ (Independent);  Jack Straw, the former home secretary, has sparked a fierce row over his claim that some British Pakistani men regard white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse (Telegraph);  Labour MP Vaz says it is wrong for former home secretary to stereotype entire community over sexual assault case (GulfNews)

This is where I despair at all the criminologists.  The majority of crime victims, no matter what the crime, be it robbery or rape, are usually chosen for their perceived weakness and wrongs.  And the ones doing the choosing are by a large, opportunistic degenerates whose only resemblance to bravery happens when in a gang (or getting the Police or Armed Services to do it).

However, with rape and other sexual offences, it doesn’t help if the Koran advocates treating non-believers as fair-game.  Nor does if help with the constant promoted degradation of women by the Satanic Gods in the Meeja Industry (From Hollywood to Fleet Street).

It would be wrong to isolate this as an immigrant problem, yet the biggest immigration problem is that whenever they have a problem, it’ll be oppressive to point it out.

See where I’m going.  The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in a MULTICULTURAL environment.

They keep going around and around in circles asking is this the result of one thing when it is a combination of many aided by Cultural Marxism disguised as Political Correctness.

(((Click image to enlarge)))

Never forget what Harriet supports!

Never forget what Hodge was head of!

The enemy is not outside the gates no more.  They were imported here by the Enemy to divide us, making it easier to destroy Our Heritage and replace it with a New World Perversion.

Just say NO!





BNP | Battle of Barking

2 12 2010

An honest review from a commentator named Overlord of the ‘Battle of Barking‘ documentary by that recently aired on More4.  Found this in the comment section at the bottom of the drivel Benji Wilson sprouted.

I watched the battle for barking last night, and frankly it disgusted me.

The filmmaker obviously was trying to portray Hodge in the better light but honesty I think the BNP came off better.

It is true that they did come across as a bit thick and lonely, but they have genuiene grievances about what has been inflicted on this country. It seemed to me that most of the white people filmed seemed to support them. Hodge herself seemed to admit this, when she told her team to ask constituents whether they would go for BNP or Labour. If they admitted BNP, she said it was best to focus on other voters. Ignore the BNP voters.

Then the only campaigning we saw from Hodge was meeting ethnic groups either in their churches or mosques. Her grovelling in the mosque was sickening. She would talk to the odd white person on their doorstep, but the group diplomacy seemed to be reserved only for ethnics.The only time she met white people in any sort of a group was the multicultural street party in the photo above. And obviously there were lots of ethnics there too.

Some of the things she said to people about the BNP were very dodgy and bordered on lies or incitement. She told a group of Africans in church that the BNP would send every one of them home. She said something similar to a the mother and baby in the picture above. Then came a white man with an asian wife. There she did not say they would send her home but they would cause her trouble.

Then we saw groups of youths aggressively attacking the BNP with impunity. If not actually hitting them they would be shouting and swearing aggressively right in their faces. Calling them “white C###s”. Spitting at them again and again. Spitting is assault. Throwing fruit at them. A few punches were definitely thrown at the BNP too. Serious violence was only averted by the BNP constantly moving location. They were not free to stand where they chose. Much of this was in the build up to the fight that was reported in the news just before the election. That news report made out that the BNP were to blame. From the documentary it is clear that the youths were spitting at and goading them all day long.

To me the documentary showed that the establishment stoked a deliberate campaign of intimidation against the BNP. The BNP were demonized and dehumanized. Ethnic minorities were wound up with claims they would be deported, and it was made clear that the BNP were fair game for the youths. The BNP could not fight back as they would instantly be labelled thugs, and no doubt actually be arrested, unlike the youths.

The establishment media always make much of Griffin’s minders. They are used a proof of his thuggishness. However, as the documentary showed, if Griffin did not have security, he would likely be dead. And no doubt the police would miraculously have no leads on the suspects.

Some bloody democracy.

Too right, some bloody democracy.  All I saw was the State-sanctioned illegal actions of everyone BUT the BNP.  From the immigrant to the political whore named Hodge, I was sickened by the depths plunged by the Labour Party, although not surprised, and the Battle of Barking is a very appropriate title considering the amount of dirty tactics employed by the Red Machine.  From soliciting BIGGER donors to employing THIRD-PARTY GROUPS to denounce their opponents’ cause…  Labour’s campaign should be investigated by the Fruad Office.

Even worse is the official declaration (Kudos GV) of the “England doesn’t exist in the EU” malarkey.  We’re nothing but cattle, although don’t taste as good, can be milked all the same.

Another sore spot must e the Lord Nelson pub located in Brighton that will soon be opposite a Mosque due to the Somali influx, which will no doubt increase racial tension, yet do the council give a damn?  Do they fuck (source HERE).

And I wish I could leave you on a lighter note, except Brian Gerrish, the thorn in Common Purpose’s paw has loads (seen six so far) of speeches regarding that political Beast that can be found HERE.

Stay angry, one, it’s good for the heart rate, and two, it’ll keep you warm.  The more we’re nibbled at, the more difficult it will become to remain gentlemanly, and then the fireworks.  Just hope the riots wait til the summer cos I don’t fancy stepping out in this weather.

Damn, only good thing about snow is seeing the face of some of my newly arrived equatorial neighbours.  Damn, only good thing about my equatorial neighbours is their dress sense.  Come Sunday, it looks like a walking forest of bright-colored floral curtain-like wraparounds with contrasting heads poking out.  Jeez, some of ’em even smell of coconut, which is damn better than the usual BO encountered by supersized Africanoes, main reason I avoid public transport in the summer.





OWG | Agenda 21 and Diet

22 10 2010

James Delingpole is oh so more eloquent than myself in the writings of rage, that I shall direct you to his piece in the Telegraph regarding the ideas thrown around about our collective, and that word is important, diets.  I won’t cut and paste it all but just highlight the third from bottom paragraph and one phrase in particular.

‘Let them eat vegetables’ says the Eton Grocer’s eco-fascist quango

Apart from being riddled with false assumptions – the main ones, of course, being that “Greenhouse Gases” need to be controlled in the first place; that their effect on “Climate Change” is anything to worry about; that any of this is any business of the Food Standards Agency anybloodyway – the document is really just a means of further advancing the cause of the Quangocracy, Big Government and the UN’s Agenda 21.

Now, just what is the UN’s Agenda 21?  Well, according to the following video, just another step towards One World Governance resulting in property rights suspended, collectivism imposed, and just a general corporatisation of the entire globe under one roof.  One glove fits all.  Or possibly one iron gauntlet to keep all in check.

The official plan can be read HERE, yet unsurprisingly, once more the authors deliberately skirt around the written bush, using all sorts of soundbites that no sane human could reject, yet what one says they are going to do and what they actually do, are two very different things.

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.

(source)

Redistribution of wealth which of course will be handled by a respected banker who of course wouldn’t dream of skimming some of the top…  whose ever heard of an untrustworthy public servent 1US??? 2UN??? 3UK???

2.4. Governments recognize that there is a new global effort to relate the elements of the international economic system and mankind’s need for a safe and stable natural environment. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.

(source)

Consensus-building usually means “We’re right, you’re wrong and if you step outta line, we’ll smack you one“, or worse, ‘blow you up‘ as if the below was an innocent mistake.  (warning, those with a nervous disposition should not view this as this is uncensored)

I could go on but it’s best if you skim through the whole thing yourself, and I say skim otherwise it’s like reading any governmental release, mind-numbingly protracted bullcrap that actually has the ability to make you vomit.  When something looks too good  to be true, it is usually bullcrap.  And after all them years finessing this art, the political masters and their puppets in the world do a splendid job of smoke and mirrors and top of the range bullcrap.

Even the best intentions can have the worst consequences.  And every time I hear the UN and various whores mention sustainability, I can’t help but picture euthanasia on tap.  Remember our business partners in the Chinese government’s approach towards over-population.  No problem with murdering an unborn soul to sustain their economy.  How long before the UN adopts this stance as a way to save the planet?  And why, in the age of equality restrict this barbaric and sadistic measure to those conceived yet not received?  Why not the over 50s?  Or the unemployed?  Or the disabled?  Or those on low incomes?  Or anyone else that doesn’t tag along?

Just like UN Peacekeepers raping their way across Africa to the dodgy dealings with Saddam and the Oil for Food programs, I wouldn’t trust this bunch of despots with my shed.  Bet the UN is just one giant horse-trading show in which each representative tries to outdo the others in vying for the UN’s cushy jobs. Oh yeah, we’re the horses.  And oh yeah, the Owners of this planet appoint the cushy jobs;  for economic power can buy political power, ad infinitum.

The root of all evil is the love of money…  money buys many things, yet most sought, is good old-fashioned control.  And it doesn’t matter how well-off you think you are, compared to Earth PLC’s stockholders, you’ve got sweet FA.

All’s fair in love and war.





Blighted | Work til you drop

24 06 2010

Another day and another radical plan from the ConDem Coalition to fix the nation’s finances is the upcoming proposal to make us all work til 70 along with making it compulsory to finance your own pension fund.

Shit, I always thought my National Insurance contributions, VAT and the general fleecing through taxation was supposed to supply those who get by on less than £13 per day with meagre sustenance in their twilight years, yet lo and behold, no, the Government wishes to further my employment slavery and take my money for the pleasure while giving even less in return.

Well, f**k you all you lying cheating c**ts!

Not so long ago, one political fuckwit named Gordon Brown robbed the pension pot of millions so you will have to forgive my profanity and opposition to such a scheme that will make me poorer in the long-run with a slight gamble that I actually last 70 years and get to collect a pension.  And considering the lack of foresight in political circles, I doubt that very much.

“People are living longer and healthier lives than ever, and the last thing we want is to lose their skills and experience from the workplace due to an arbitrary age limit.  Now is absolutely the right time to live up to our responsibility to reform our outdated pension system and to take action where the previous government failed to do so. If Britain is to have a stable, affordable pension system, people need to work longer, but we will reward their hard work with a decent state pension that will enable them to enjoy quality of life in their retirement.

“That is why we are issuing a call for evidence on moving the state pension age to 66, and thereafter plan to take a frank look at the relationship between state pension age and life expectancy.”Ian Duncan Smith (failed leader of the Conservative Party).

No we are not, most are living in absolute agony due to the fact that our entire land is overpopulated, over-polluted and over-fucking-priced.  Keep this up and most of the population will resort to taking a noose around the neck to swing underneath a tree.

Not me though, instead, I will help every lying cheating scumbag of a politician into a noose of their own.  For when you have nothing left to lose…





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)





Earth PLC | Whose in whose bed

5 06 2010

Considering that every class and creed of people have their own favourite watering holes, it is surely no different for the Political Class.  Like celebrities like to hang around with fellow celebrities, so do the powerbrokers.  Problem with the powerbrokers meeting under Chatham House rules means the unmentionable is not only mentioned, but discussed in such a manner to make it seem as trivial as brushing ones’ teeth.

A wonderful snippet from the Daily Wail’s Tony Blair bashing piece gives us a link between the Gaddafi clan of Libya with the Eurocratic Club in the EU along with the supervision onf their bankers.

The social web that connects the rich and powerful

Saif Gaddafi sits at the centre of a remarkable social web that has ensnared both Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson.

The men are bound together by their interests in Libyan business and their friendship with the multi-billionaire financiers of the Rothschild family.

Lord Mandelson once remarked that he was ‘intensely relaxed’ about extreme wealth, a position he has justified ever since. It was only natural that he should share an interest in networking and wealth with one of the world’s oldest banking families.

But even the Rothschilds have probably never described him as a ‘killer of a man’.

That was Saif Gaddafi’s take on the former Business Secretary. After Labour’s election defeat, Mr Gaddafi said: ‘It’s bad news for the UK that he left because he is a killer of a man. It’s a loss for the UK.’

The two men met briefly last summer at the secluded cliff top mansion compound of the Rothschild family on the holiday island of Corfu.

Curiously, their stays overlapped by one night and came only a week before the announcement-that the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing could be released from prison.

They ‘fleetingly’ discussed the fate of the bomber Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi but Lord Mandelson’s spokesman said he was ‘ completely unsighted’ on the impending release.

Last November, Lord Mandelson spent more time in the company of Saif during a shooting weekend at Waddesdon Manor, Lord Rothschild’s mini-Versailles in Buckinghamshire. Cherie Blair was also a guest.

Earlier this month, the former business secretary was seen zipping around the Swiss ski resort of Klosters in Nat Rothschild’s £250,000 Ferrari convertible.

An Anglophile, Col Gaddafi’s likely heir Saif studied for a PhD at the London School of Economics. He has a £10million London home.

The International Money-Merry-Go-Round.  I wouldn’t mind so much if I got to see some of the cash, yet nine times out of ten, it is the underclass who carry the burden.

Nothing gets in the way of business, be it Libyan dictatorships or Burmese juntas.