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.


Diversity | Jonathan Katz essay

21 05 2010

Plucked from one of the commentators over at the crazy Clown’s place regarding the celebration of diversity.  The following article was written over a decade ago and from the perspective of a university professor, shines a light upon the mindset of the head-strong multiculturalist.

Diversity is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

Jonathan Katz, Thu May 13 12:39:11 CDT 1999

The air is full of talk of  ‘diversity’ meaning the ethnic and racial composition of populations, workforces and (especially) student bodies at universities. This is shorthand for concern about how many members of various “racial” groups are present. Most biologists doubt that race is meaningful in describing people, unlike dogs or cattle, but in everyday life the term ‘race’ is used as a proxy for physical appearance.

It is remarkable that the harder it is to evaluate accomplishment, and the less accomplishment matters to an institution, the more concern there is with diversity. In the absolute meritocracy of a used car lot, all that matters is whether a salesman can ‘move the iron’, and no one talks about diversity. In large corporate bureaucracies, government and academia, in which accomplishment is hard to measure and has only distant effects on the success and survival of the organization, diversity is always on the agenda.

The concern for ‘diversity’ can be an obsession. For example, at some universities the administrators appear hardly ever to think of anything else. Every public statement must drag in diversity, no matter how irrelevant. No platform or program is complete without a nod to diversity. The majority of public lectures concern diversity-related issues, with all the other areas of human knowledge and concern, from Shakespeare to molecular biology, confined to a minority (at my institution this was true for some years, but is now [2004] less so). Even the old-fashioned Southern racist occasionally stopped to think about the price of cotton.

Why am I so concerned about universities? Partly because I am a professor, so I see a university close-up every day. Most university faculties have less diversity of thought than the trio of Cotton Mather, Roger Williams and William Penn. But they don’t count, because they belonged to the wrong ‘race’. And partly because we subject our impressionable young people to them, as their first environment as adults.

University admissions are important because they are crucial to social mobility. That is where a young person with ability and character, but no special advantages or connections, ought to be able to leave his (or her) background behind and join an aristocracy of talent. The more university admissions are clogged with irrelevancies such as diversity, the less opportunity there is for the talented outsider, and the more the ideal of fair play is corroded. At some institutions only 10% of the places are open to applicants who are not members of some preferred group. Former presidents of Harvard and Princeton recently published a book (The Shape of the River) advertising the great advantages in life conferred by degrees from those institutions. Prejudice should not affect the award of this privilege.

In the diversity business what matters about people is their ‘race’, which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans.

Most university administrators would object to the suggestion that they obtained their philosophy from Mein Kampf. So, let us consider a different hypothesis. University administrators are generally failed or bored academics who have chosen the camaraderie of the committee room over the rigors of the library or laboratory. Their proper task is to improve the quality of research and teaching at their institutions. But this is hard to do, and even harder to evaluate. Worse, the competition is trying equally hard; some institutions will rise in the pecking order, but others must fall, and their administrators are then failures.

Diversity offers a way out. It is easy to proclaim as a goal, and easy to achieve—simply meddle in the procurement, hiring and student admissions processes until whatever goal has been chosen is reached. Then congratulate yourself on your success, and announce that you will do even better next year. Even the most incompetent administrator can be a winner!

When someone talks about ‘diversity’ he is changing the subject from his proper responsibility—doing his job better. At a university that is improving the quality of teaching and research. At a government agency it is serving the public. In a foundation it is carrying out the donor’s wishes. And in a profit-making corporation it is making money for the shareholders. The next time you hear or read ‘diversity’, substitute ‘Americanism’, another right-sounding (but now unfashionable) slogan. Both of these are excuses for not doing one’s proper job.

Diversity has another attraction. It offers the pygmy Napoleons of adminstration a chance to interfere in every decision made—procurement, hiring and (at universities) student admissions. It keeps them busy and justifies their existence. It is a protection racket—give them a percentage or they will prevent you from hiring or admitting the people you need, or awarding contracts to the lowest or best bidders. It provides administrators plenty of opportunities to do favors for their friends, a natural human desire which, in other circumstances, remains under an ethical cloud. It often amounts to breach of fiduciary responsibility, violation of a public trust, or theft. It is the fashionable form of patronage.

The quest for diversity leads to another poisonous idea, that all decisions should be controlled by a central authority. No power is delegated, no subordinate individual or independent institution is given responsibility, or can act on its own authority, because it cannot be trusted to arrive at sufficiently “diverse” results. This is a fundamentally totalitarian idea, that power should be centralized rather than dispersed, and diversity is the rich manure in which this poisonous seed is growing.

In 1964 Congress passed, and the President signed, a Civil Rights Act which forbade racial discrimination in most areas of American life. Recently, on dubious grounds, the Supreme Court partially suspended this act for 25 years. The list of submitters of amicus curiae briefs in favor of suspension was remarkable. It included leaders of business, labor (odd bedfellows!), government and academia. Why?

The Act attempted to establish an individual right not to be subject to racial discrimination. This would increase the rights of individuals in opposition to the power of institutions. Is it surprising that the leaders of those institutions would argue in favor of increasing their power and against the rights of individuals? This is why the people of California passed by initiative Proposition 209, outlawing racial discrimination by their state and local governments, over the opposition of leaders of both political parties and most large institutions.

The diversity movement is racist at its core. When dealing with people we should be concerned with intellect, talent, character and accomplishment. People aren’t dogs or cattle; race matters only to racists.

Someone who talks about diversity is probably a scoundrel.

Postscript: The February 13, 2004 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education contained an article by one of the prominent advocates of ‘diversity’ (a man named Stanley Fish, an administrator and formerly an English professor–surprising, in view of his self-proclaimed limited vocabulary–see the article for details). He asserted that there is no place for intellectual diversity at a university. This Fascist idea, that only one kind of thought is acceptable, is unfortunately very influential in many universities today. Thus, as Orwell predicted, fascism comes calling itself anti-fascism. In contrast, I assert that intellectual diversity is the only kind of diversity that has any relevance to a university’s mission.

Oh, by the way, the only diversity I celebrate it that of my own.  Anything that is alien to me, is by very definition, alien.  C’est la vie.

Incidently, Prof. Katz is part of a team put together for the Gulf oil spill clean-up operation and described as “the wild card of the group, having published provocative essays entitled “Don’t Become a Scientist,” “In Defense of Homophobia” and “Why Terrorism is Important” on his personal website“.

Blimey, sounds like a renegade when painted like that.  Reason why I love scientists, they’re usually the first to question the unquestionable.  Still wouldn’t hang about with them though, most who have obtained a PhD usually come attached with added smugness.

BNP | Fulltime Anti-BNPers

16 05 2010

A campaign of hate directed at the British National Party in Barking, sanctioned by the Establishment, coordinated by Searchlight, promoted by the Mirror and performed by the deluded is the main reason why there was no political earthquake.

Since last June, when 1,000,000 Britons decided to use their democratic right and voted for Mr Griffin and Mr Brons in the EU elections, Searchlight’s chief Nick Lowles has organised the undemocratic use of subversion, indoctrination and incitement to hatred to oppose them.

So how did they do it?  From the dreaded Hope Not Hate blog hosted by the leftarded news-polluter, the Daily Mirror:

We have had brilliant support from pensioners, black and Asian voters, white voters, young voters, women and men. On Monday 385 people delivered 55,000 leaflets and even on polling day we had 175 people out knocking up the vote.

So saturating the area with anti-BNP literature for the run-up to the election and, with 175 people manning the polling booths, it’s no wonder the BNP polled so little.

Nick Griffin was belittled, vilified, treated like dog dirt and told he was a third-class citizen who wasn’t wanted in Britain.

Argumentum ad hominem it’s called, attacking the person instead of the argument and has worked throughout the centuries as people are too stupid or lazy to see the motive behind the comments.

The world is upside down.  That or there is definitely something in the water.

BNP | The New Crucifixions

15 05 2010

I thought the campaign was to Kick Racism out of Football, not a legitimate political party.  Yet in today’s world, the mere sign of opposition to cultural transformation via endless immigration can be a good enough excuse for a lynching.  And mentioning a preference for the BNP is to be condemned to Crucifixion with absolution only granted if apologies are offered and the sinner reaffirms their commitment to the cult of diversity.

And with the constant propaganda against Nationalism, it isn’t any wonder why the deluded do what they do.  For the barrage of disinformation and half-truths is nothing more than State-sanctioned Hate and fear mongering.  Think Orwell and the theme of ‘Hate Week‘.  The indoctrination, subversion and manipulation of the masses, cultivating the hatred inside and then directing the venom not at themselves who caused the mess, but those who report it, and God forbid, change it!

The undemocratic nature encouraged by the Establishment is more suitable to the jungles of the Congo than my beloved Blighty.

The most recent victim of the State-sponsored Hate Unit is a professional footballer who in a discussion about the General Election, revealed that he voted BNP.  This of course demanded an instant rebuttal, for how can someone dare use their democratic right and vote without considering everyone else first.

Leicester City star Wayne Brown forced into grovelling apology over BNP stance

EXCLUSIVE By Neil Moxley, Daily Mail.  Last updated at 11:22 PM on 14th May 2010

Wayne Brown has been forced into making a grovelling apology to his Leicester City team-mates after admitting that he voted BNP in the general election.

The Foxes defender sparked fury among several of his colleagues last week during a dressing-room debate turned sour and now he has been forced to ask for forgiveness.

A number of his team-mates — principally winger Lloyd Dyer and veteran defender Chris Powell — were particularly upset and rounded upon the former Hull City man.

Reports of a dressing-room punch-up appear wide of the mark but several of the Foxes’ squad were unhappy and told him so.

Matters became so heated that when Brown reported for duty ahead of the weekend’s play-off game against Cardiff City he was told to leave the club, having been suspended for the two fixtures against the Bluebirds.

Brown was told that he needed to apologise on Thursday after Leicester’s season effectively ended following a penalty shoot-out defeat at the City of Cardiff Stadium on Wednesday night.

It is unknown as yet whether he has had the opportunity to do so as the Foxes’ squad were allowed a day off following their heartache in south Wales.

A Leicester source said: ‘There was no punch-up. But Wayne has been asked to apologise to anyone he may have offended.

‘It seems as though there was a discussion and he disclosed how he had voted.’

Now wasn’t there something called the Human Rights Act that the previous Government hailed as the best defender for peoples’ beliefs, religious and political?  Or is this once more the hypocrisy of the State and Her children?

Mr Dyer and Mr Powell should have a good long think about their undemocratic actions.  Either you believe in the democratic rights for all, or you do not believe in them at all.

Another fine example of where State-sponsored hate can lead to.  And an even better one to vote anyone but Establishment.  Preferably the Party they all fear most, the BNP.

GE10 | BNP analysis

15 05 2010

It has been near enough two weeks since the result of the election and finally we are finding out how the Establishment fended off the Nationalist advance in Barking.

Thanks to the leftarded Guardian, find out it was not policy or personality that smashed the BNP in Barking but an Obama-style campaign of PR and intimidation coordinated by the Establishment’s agents.

The answer is a tale of determined activism by Griffin’s opponents, aided by the antics of his self-harming party. That activism began to develop a sharp focus two weeks after those Euro elections, when Lowles chaired a meeting of MPs, anti-BNP campaigners, church groups and trade unionists. He gave them a detailed breakdown of the BNP’s support. The message was stark.

“A decision was made to draw a line in the sand,” says one Labour party figure who was at the meeting. “The coming general election was going to be the defining moment. Everyone knew that if they won then, it would be almost impossible to remove them in the future.”

There was never a single anti-BNP campaign in Barking. There were meetings, events, leafleting initiatives run by Hope Not Hate – which coordinated much of the activity – and also by Labour and Unite Against Fascism. Hope Not Hate set up a base in derelict premises, and volunteers travelled across the country to prepare it for the coming battle; putting up a new ceiling, plumbing in toilets and setting up a print room. Some slept on the floors.

“The response was truly overwhelming,” says Lowles. “On one day of action, we had 541 people; on another, 385; and even on election day itself, 176 people came out to help get the vote out.” Many of the volunteers had not been involved in political activity before. “We had teenagers travelling up from Kent, old ladies from the other side of London turning out. It felt like a liberating experience for people who felt like we were doing something politically important.”

The Hope Not Hate campaign was supported by Joe Rospars, chief digital strategist for Barack Obama from 2007 until his inauguration, and his company Blue State Digital.

Rospars said it was the “best example” of a British organisation applying the lessons of the US presidential elections. “We are seeing a genuine community-based organisation, with people coming together around a common purpose,” he said.

Campaigners were able to identify the key groups least likely to vote for the BNP – women, pensioners and people from ethnic minorities. They built up an online volunteer force of 140,000 people, and Rospars advised on how to use them for maximum impact. In the month before election day, Lowles says more than 1,000 volunteers descended on Barking, delivering 350,000 specially tailored leaflets and newsletters.

At the same time, the Dagenham MP John Cruddas, and his neighbour who seemed most under threat, Barking MP Margaret Hodge, were fighting a parallel ground war against the BNP. Hodge escalated the effort she had begun some four years earlier to reconnect with voters Labour had lost to the BNP. Their rise in Barking had seen the then culture secretary heavily criticised by many inside her own party. For her, this election result represents a triumph for decency, and personal redemption.

“When Griffin announced in September that he would stand, that gave me a real scare,” Hodge says. “My husband had not long died, and I was still in grief. It was a tough period. I was quietly confident that I would win, but I really wanted to smash him. And I was really concerned about the prospects for the council.”

Hodge, with the help of volunteers from Unite Against Fascism, turned to the politics of shoe leather, knocking on doors and listening to people’s concerns. “‘What do you want to talk about?’ I would ask. It was up to them.”

Most talked about street cleaning, wheelie bins and antisocial behaviour, but inevitably many raised the BNP trump card of immigration. Even black residents raised the issue with Hodge. “I would say to them: ‘I can’t turn the clock back, but this is why the borough has changed, and we must make it work for all of us.’ Some people hated that. Some would understand. But they came to feel I was listening.”

Of  course the internal problems of the BNP didn’t help but the mobilisation and coordination between the Establishment and Vested Interests would put Robert Mugabe to shame.

And you still believe you live in a democratic country?

Hippy Central | Peoples’ Republic of Southwark

2 05 2010

I can’t help but think how similar the Peoples’ Republic of Southwark is to the Peoples’ Republic of Chinese.  The name I mean, although their was once a bright pink tank parked up near the overpass.  Now to be crushed by a tank is painful enough, to be crushed by a giant pink one would be embarrassing.  Alas, the Republic couldn’t afford that and the Arts and Crafts.

You think I’m joking?  With so much deprivation and despair, is it any wonder why Sarf London is a haven for Community groups.  Once famed for their brazen bare-chested brawling, since the cultural displacement an ideological wasteland.  With such a large variety of souls to please, seems most effort is invested in ensuring we ‘play nice’.

People’s Republic of Southwark, the story

Written by Liliana Dmitrovic.  Monday, 01 March 2010 18:08

How we came to be is quite organically – there was an obvious need for a platform of sorts, a space for people to share their skills and knowledge of socio-environmental issues. A lot of good people were doing a lot of good things around Southwark, but there seemed to be a lot of ‘Judean People’s Front’ and ‘People’s Front of Judea’ thing going on.

We wanted to help change that.

In April 2008, we set up the website then spent a year ‘on the road’, starting with the first and only Freecycle Southwark event in August 2008. We ran monthly events at different free places around Southwark, such as, for example, the Spike in Peckham, Nursery Row Park in Walworth, Stave Hill Ecology Park in Rotherhithe, the Library House in Myatt’s Fields. The events included a free shop, seed swap, art, information about local groups and issues, Invisible Food (the Spike), planting (Nursery Row Park), making ladybird houses (Stave Hill), etc.

We went, we talked, we listened, and we had fun.

A year and a bit later, we drafted a constitution as we want to have a more permanent physical space to continue the sharing and learning.

Our aims and objectives are to:

  • promote personal, social and economic interaction and development;
  • facilitate networking with other community groups within Southwark;
  • work with other groups and individuals to promote and campaign for increased spending, use and knowledge of best environmental practices and social enterprises;
  • promote continued learning for the benefit of community through workshops, forums and meetings;
  • promote interactivity between groups within Southwark;
  • work with other community groups to develop a sustainable and safe transport infrastructure which is not dependent on fossil fuels or fuels which create polution through manufacture;
  • proote social enterprise through providing information and contacts and helping with premises;
  • utilise arts and internet to have a larger proportion of the community within Southwark take an active role with one, or more, of the local groups;
  • be self reliant in that as many resources used will come from Southwark.

If you’d like to help with anything from events management/organisation to everyday administration, please email us at

No wonder they got rid of the tank, the only thing these idealistic folk want to do is get that exquisite self-satisfaction feeling of euphoria that only the smuggiest of acts can produce.  Something like promoting multiculturalism and deriding the patriotic BNP.  Did I mention they also make pretty pictures?

British National Party Nothing to do with being British but being indigenous caucasian Letters on a postcard if anyone knows what an “indigenous caucasian” is – presumably someone born in the Caucaus of Caucasian parents?

Apologies for the lack of a postcard but the internet is cheaper and more effective at getting the message across.

The British National Party are just another political party whose core belief is the Democratic Sovereignty of these Islands and Her Peoples.  You may feel the cultural enrichment is worth the hassle of displacing and disenfranchising the indigenous Briton, I along with others do not so will vote accordingly.

As for the lack of understanding of the English language, these Britannic Islands were settled and built over thousand of years by hundreds of millions of caucasian people.  Now caucasian is the terminology for skin pigmentation, and considering that Britons ethnically close to these islands are white, the term is valid.  Over time, they became the natives to these shores defended them rigorously against invasion.

From that little bit of natural history, an indigenous Briton must presumably be from that particular ethnic group, the aforementioned caucasoid. Of course, over time we have admitted immigrants into the Kingdoms, but on the understanding that we want people who wished to become British, in plain English, assimilate into the tribe.

But what we did not do was hand over hundreds of square miles to be colonised by 192 different tribes and cultures without so much as a thought for those natives that were inconvenienced and discarded.  No amount of hand wringing will change the past, and 90% of us should be grateful for what happened for we would not exist otherwise.  So instead of correcting the past, or in NuBritain’s case, rewriting it, we must learn from it.

Problem with celebrities and public figures all the way down to two-bit artists is their need for conflict.  The more conflict, the more people will seek a little bit of escapism, and the multi-trillion dollar entertainment industry are more than happy to provide.

Here in Peckham though, we can’t afford that so have to make do with the Peoples’ Republic of Southwark.

NuBritain | Thought Crime

2 05 2010

From the Australian, not an actual Australian but a Down Under News-Polluter, are doing a page-filler featuring Hal G. P. Colebatch’s ‘Blair’s Britain: British culture wars and New Labour‘.

Convenient for me they have a great definition of Blighty’s “walking on eggshells” condition.

Thought police muscle up in Britain

Hal G. P. Colebatch From:The Australian April 21, 2009

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution’s principal tasks was “to alter people’s actual psychology”. Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people’s psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”.

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher’s first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police!” Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form.”

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya “Paki” and “bin Laden” during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don’t bother to prosecute. This is nonsense.”

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children’s television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to “celebrate diversity”, the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. “What would Nelson have said?” is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.

The world is upside down.  In the quest to make all things equal and rid ourselves of discrimination, the law of unintended consequence has perverted justice to the extreme.  For centuries we have had laws that have perfectly coped with the degenerates who populate our collective ranks and, unless the perpetrator had money or a title, was treated equally and swiftly before the Law.

Today we have Courts that can’t tell the difference between morality and legality.  Jeez, I doubt many care so long as the cheddar keeps on rolling in.

The problem with Laws is the fact that many of em are thought up by Lawyers.  CONFLICT OF INTERESTS me thinks, mmm.