UK | State-Sponsored Hate at the Gate

14 01 2011

By accident, I have come across some sort of government-sponsored guide for those wishing to partake the citizenship test and to be honest, I cannot believe that this is possible.  Talk about setting the scene for the NuBritons.  No wonder everywhere these migrants look they see racism, it seems to be our only defining feature according to these composers.

Word for word with my highlights, from the horse’s mouth.  Well, webshite:

Racism in Britain

Assessing how these immigrants have been welcomed in Britain since the 1950s is a complicated task. There was, and still is, a minority of hardcore racists, with policies based on the idea of ‘keeping Britain white’ and banning all immigration. Groups such as the British National Party (BNP) have remained on the extremist fringe of British politics. It is also true that black and Asian immigrants faced various degrees of hostility and racial prejudice in postwar Britain. Surveys conducted in the mid 1960s, for example, revealed that four out of five British people felt that ‘too many immigrants had been let into the country’.

This view has expressed itself in racist violence relatively rarely – the flashpoints in Britain during the past 50 years have largely been confined to poor areas where local white and black communities compete for scarce jobs and housing. But it has frequently been represented by more casual and insidious forms of racism. Anti-immigrant feelings have also been inflamed, both directly and indirectly, by agitation for tighter immigration controls – usually proposed when there is not an acute labour shortage.

If you don’t believe me, go here:  Postwar immigration.  It’s even called Brave New World for Christ’s sake!  How creepy is that?  Painting the Nationalist as xenophobic racists, for forget about the words British and Party, the authors have made their intentions clear, and in the same paragraph, give the very reason for it;  we never wanted them.  Then in the next, it is explicitly written that these racial flashpoints as the call them, are confined to the poor.

All those times imbeciles of the Leftarded Armies of Doom have had to ask me why I feel the way I do, THIS IS THE ANSWER.  We are never listened to.  Time and again we are ignored.  Survey after survey.  And if we ever dare march, the traitors and stooges amongst soon break it up from within.

Yet every media outlet regurgitates the same old bullcrap, as if their words will be enough to satisfy us natives.

Immigration is too high, say four in five Britons (Today)

Four out of five Britons want immigration capped, poll shows (Six months ago)

Could ‘Record four out of five jobs going to foreigners between May and June‘, published by the Telegraph four months ago have something to do with it?

Brave New World infuckingdeedy.

BACK-UP: Just in case the wording on the governmental-webshite ever changes in some type of Orwellian rewriting, have captured the entire screens.  Gov AGov BGov C.  Yes it is a little bit paranoid but as my father use to say, “shut the fuck up, the little green men can hear ya”, so you can never be too careful.

PERSONAL NOTE: Every Labourshite and Con’dDemselves that I ever have the pleasure of ranting at, be it with the technological prowess of fibre-optics or through the art of mime, I will make it my duty to remind them they are ignorant fools Satan would be proud of.


CBeebies | Islamic Bullcrap

29 08 2010

More indoctrination of how evil Whitey is comes from the CBBC, which is just like the bullcrapping BBC, except this time aimed at children.  And with all my years of experience with children, my mother being a registered childminder, know that most of what is pumped out to kids is either to sell some plastic monstrosity of a toy or, which is worse, indoctrinate the youth with warped versions of self-value.

Kudos to Vlad Tepes for the upload.

DeMOCKracy | The GTC

2 06 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World | Corporate Media Manipulation

26 05 2010

We have 24hrs of constant gossip regarding the sex lives of charlatans and scoundrels pumped through the main stream media not just to entertain (although how anyone can be entertained by Piers Morgan I don’t know) but to divert our attention, shape our opinions and pervert our morals. Yet what matters most to us is distorted or hidden between who’s slept with whom, how much so and so is on and the fake furore over the soon-to-be Mrs Cole (call me!).

Our media institutions are hand in hand with our True Political Masters.  Without the need of a real beating, everything can be played out before our eyes by whip, just the constant promotion of a certain stereo-type to harmonise the herd.

Everything we hold dear; Family, friends, community and nation. All to be sacrificed for the benefit of the few powerful oligarchs whose only desire is to corporatize the world.

Nationalism is a prime example of how the Corporate Media twists the motives behind such movements.  With the constant barrage of how Nationalism causes wars, starvation and inequality while hiding the fact that it is Internationalism that profits from such things.

It is the Multi-National Corporations that make the weapons, transport the food and promote financial inequality. Another example is the copious amount of sex on TV today in programmes such as Eastenders, the constant exchanging of partners and the degradation they bestow on traditional families. These programmes are watched by millions (many who are kids) who then go about to copy their idols.

Sport, once the prime pastime of the masses has also been corporatized making it no more a battle of strength and skill but a corporate battle over a market share for fans, merchandise and players. Just look at our own FA who are more interested in making money from advertisers by playing Beckham than getting a team together capable of winning a tournament. All the while advertisers pay mega money to convince us we need the new mach 5, another loan or a nice holiday in the sun.

Our very own Government blew £540m a couple of years’ back on advertisements from telling us to watch our intake of salt to the gentle reminders from Martha Stewart to return our tax returns.  Thankfully I have avoided the mention of the last media budget, I know it’s bad so no need confirming it.

We’re well on our way to a Brave New World at this rate, a world not for people but for soulless Corporations. Time to turn off, tune in and cop-out of the Corporate World and to try to attain personal independence as best we can. We have a lot of work ahead of us to break free from the media matrix of misinformation but freedom is rarely free, just never knew it’d be such so tedious.

Argh!!!  What the heck is wrong with this world, everything is upside-down.

Rebranding Britain | Rt Rev James Jones

22 05 2010

With the ConDem coalition speeding along at a rattling rate,the Telegraph are pulling out the big guns.  Liverpool’s very own bishop the Rt Rev James Jones is no stranger to the geo-political world, even managing a pray for God’s help against Climate Change:

The Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones said, “I urge all Christians to pray for the earthing of Heaven on this day of prayer. Each day I make my own prayer with these words, ‘Holy Jesus, Son of Man, come in glory and renew the face of the earth’.”

Still, this is not about the climate, although I must say, the bishop really is an appeaser with the following apology offered to the pink community:

“I deeply regret this episode in our common life. I still believe it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr John and his partner.”

He called for Anglicans to “acknowledge the authoritative biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender most notably in the relationship of Jesus and his beloved [John] and David and Jonathan”.

Today’s post is about how the Rt Rev Jones perceives Blighty and the future action we should take.  If you decide to click the following link, the photo is very multicultural and sets the tone for the whole article.  Not once is poor whitey mentioned, not once.  Always us who have to make the extra effort, always us who have to please.  Argh!

Rebuilding Britain: six pillars to strengthen our society

Telegraph, published: 4:03PM BST 20 May 2010

Our culture has its foundations in historic Christian values. We must respect them as we negotiate our future, says the Rt Rev James Jones

Rebuilding Britain rests on the six pillars of family, freedom, friendship, faith, fairness and the future of the earth. These are the columns that need strengthening if the edifice of our society is to withstand the winds of change. They have their foundations in the historic Christian values of our society. We are in danger of cutting ourselves adrift. And, as Lord Hailsham once warned, “cut flowers never produce seed or fruit”.


The failure of public policy on the family is that it has focused mainly on child poverty, when the biggest problem facing children is not economic hardship but emotional deprivation. This blights children of all classes. Many children are growing up in Britain today deprived of emotional and moral nurture.

We have created an economic culture in which both parents feel forced to work outside the home. We need to restructure the tax and benefits system in favour of those parents who take responsibility for the nurture of their children. This is not about bribing people to get married. It’s a matter of justice. A household where two people are earning and where there are no dependants ought to be taxed differently from a household of three, four or five where there is only one income and one of the parents has chosen to work in the home to nurture the children.

There are still areas of material poverty in Britain today. Some children are being brought up in areas of consolidated poverty. The present strategy of Children’s Centres and Sure Start programmes is helping but not reaching the most needy parents. We must learn from countries that use “conditional cash transfers” that bring some of the most hard-to-reach into programmes that help them to become more responsible parents. Graham Greene wrote: “There’s always a moment in childhood when the door opens and lets the future in.” The doorkeeper should be the parent, not the teacher or the social worker.


From its genesis, Christianity has championed the right to freedom of speech as a fundamental value. This human right is now threatened under a welter of legislation. Governments have a duty to strike a balance between national security and personal freedom. As with a spirit level, they need to get the air bubble in the middle, but many feel that it is tilting away from freedom.

So while I applaud the intention of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act to protect good relationships between faith communities, I fear it does the opposite. It plays into the hands of zealous converts and zealous officials wanting to assert themselves on the diversity agenda. Religion should not be singled out and protected. It exercises huge power which can easily be abused in relation to women and children. Religion should not be beyond criticism or even ridicule.


Future world stability depends on good relationships between the faith communities at both local and international levels. It’s why I agreed to become patron of restoring the oldest Islamic Prayer Room in Britain, which is in Liverpool. Despite some key doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity, I accepted the invitation to help turn it into a cultural centre for British Islam because the second great commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself. We need to cultivate friendship between the faith communities to create a peaceful Britain. We cannot turn back the clock. With the right political and religious leadership we can develop a tolerant plural society.

There is no contradiction between emphasising the rightful place of faith communities and affirming the established role of the Church of England. Looking locally, the bishop often acts as the convenor of all the faith communities; the parish church provides the cohesion in rural and urban areas abandoned by banks, post offices, schools and pubs; the Anglican bishops offer continuity to civic leadership as mayors and others come and go; the Church celebrates our common life in sorrow and in joy at local and national level. The Church of England is too modest about its achievements!


Some public bodies try to marginalise Christianity as just one religion in a plural society. This is to fly in the face of our history and constitution. It also ignores the wishes of faith communities whose leaders value the Church’s role as defender of faith in the public realm.

What is it that makes us essentially British? It is our landscape, language, literature, learning, laws and liberty. These and our monarchy are our heritage. The genius of any civilisation is the way its heritage adapts to new insights and cultural influences. We need to recognise how – from our landscape, stone-studded with 13,000 churches and cathedrals, to our literature, infused with biblical imagery – this heritage has been shaped by the Christian faith. To forget this, either wilfully or by default, will produce a cultural amnesia that leaves us without a compass as we negotiate the future.


From William Wilberforce to William Gladstone to Keir Hardie, a moral sense of justice is one of the Christian insights that has shaped our political landscape. As the nation deals with debt both personal and national, which has never been greater in our nation’s history, we all know that the future will be painful economically. Political theories of justice have in the past concentrated on how to divide up the wealth. Now the challenge will be how to share the pain fairly. I fear for our society if the brunt is felt disproportionately by the poor.

The future of the earth

There is an African proverb: “We have borrowed the present from our children”. Adam Smith warned against profligacy. The earth is not a limitless larder, so we need a renewed sense of stewardship to shape our policies and our lifestyles. We cannot rebuild Britain without realising that how we live and treat the earth is inevitably an international issue. Our future is inextricably linked with the destiny of the planet.

It was Lady Thatcher who said that we are all but tenants with a full repairing lease on the earth. Although politicians are advised not to “do God”, I believe that democracy is in safer hands when political leaders have a sense of dual accountability to the electorate below and to the Creator above.

The Rt Rev James Jones is Bishop of Liverpool.

Comes with some handy stats though, a little out of date but pleasantly surprised to be reminded of the Jedi following.

Who we are and how we live:

UK population 61m

Projected (2031) 71m

Number of UK population born abroad 6.8m (11.3%)

Household composition

1 adult : 3.6m

2 adults: 5.2m

3 or more adults: 2.1m

1 adult with children: 1.4m

2 adults, 1 child: 1.8m

2 adults, 2 children: 2.1m

2 adults, 3 or more children: 0.8m

3 or more adults with children: 1m

Retired: 6.5m

(figures for 2006-07)

UK religions

Christian: 37m

None: 7.2m

Muslim: 1.5m

Hindu: 552,000

Jedi Knight: 390,000

Sikh: 329,000

Jewish: 260,000

(2001 Census)

Church attendance

Regularly (at least once a fortnight):

Men 13% Women 13%

Never or practically never:

Men 63% Women 52%

Single mother families with dependent children 1971 7% 2007 20%

Household debt as proportion of income

1998 105%

2008 169%

The longer we let the situation fester, the worse the solution will be.  The very reason behind the doctrines of diversity and multiculturalism aided by the mass importation of peoples is a deliberate attempt to gerrymander the Western World into accepting a Penal State.  The Establishment will make us scream for safety and when we do, and we will, the freedom-loving State will oblige.

And the deluded still believe we can all unite and hold hands, all 192 various cultures and the umpteen subcultures that accompany them with the additional dreams and nightmares on the 93,000 sq miles of land England possess?

It isn’t rocket science for Christ’s sake.

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.

Blighted | Cultural Marxist Indoctrination

19 05 2010

Frank Chodorov:  “The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as “free education” is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education – just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office – and cannot possibly be separated from political control.”

The Subversives that infect the Unions and the Establishment have perverted the education system for all Albion’s children, young and old, Nu and Tru, in the vain hope of making everyone equally dumb.  Explains where the twenty million turkeys in the last election came from.

Now PR PM Cameron from the ConDem Coalition had promised parental control of schools with funding, but this was when he was head of plain old Conservatives.  The NUT who have been busying themselves promoting the Fabian-inspired social engineering program are of course against such a move and so begins the demonisation of the evil middle-class Whiteys wishing to impose education apartied.  Thanks Auntie Beeb for my daily lesson.  Whitey wants better is bad.  Blackie wants better is good.

Yorkshire parents make bid for first ‘free school’

BBC, Thursday, 13 May 2010 20:38 UK

…turned down by Labour’s schools secretary Ed Balls after an independent report he commissioned concluded that paying for a new school in Birkenshaw would damage the finances of other state schools in the area.

Educational apartheid

Mike Foster Chief Education Steward of Unison which represents non-teaching staff in schools accused the parents of trying to set up a “middle-class educational apartheid system.”

“This is an area of fairly well-off, largely white residents who will have a place at this new school. Non-white children who live in adjacent areas will not have a chance to attend”.

“We are not social engineering” says Lesley Surman one of the founders of the Birkenshaw, Birstal and Gomersal Parent’s alliance.

“We were naive in thinking that our campaign would just be about parents wanting a good school for their children and now we find ourselves in the middle of a political argument.

“We are confident that we will get the go-ahead from the new Government”.

Wonder who the PR PM will side with on this one.

The middle-class parents and be labelled the punctured ConDems.

Or to the Unions and be labelled as Establishment.