UK Jihad | War booty

13 01 2011

If you are told that you are the Chosen People, backed up by the lunatic ravings of a Satanic Prophet, you can be as sure as the nose on your face, that everyone outside of their holy group are treated as subhuman.

And so it is with the teachings of the Satanic Book of the Koran.  So it isn’t any wonder why they see our children as meat.

Yet I do not blame the invaders, I blame their enablers.  Be they subversives unhappy at the lack of revolutionary spirit amongst the native Britons or those apologists seeking warm and fuzzy feelings, not forgetting the deluded fools who wish to make amends for perceived injustice they had nowt to do with.  And I haven’t even mentioned the Corporate Powers that use immigration to keep wages low.

Never mind the victims in these schemes.  They are just collateral damage.  Acceptable losses in the eyes of the power merchants.

What if this was YOU though:

Or if this was YOUR child:

Every cultural group has it’s misfits, that is true.  The main difference between native nonces and Muslim ones is the former has no ideological basis for their behaviour, while the latter seem to have entire chapters proclaiming infidels are nothing more than cattle, to be used and abused in any which way they please.

That is the main difference.  And until our Government faces up to that fact, sadly, more of our children will fall prey to these animals.

You voted for this shit.  You sit in it.

Advertisements




Musical Crime | Another half-truth blackout

11 01 2011

Music are sounds in emotion.  Certain styles have the power to invigorate, inspire and sooth the soul.  So if that is possible, surely the opposite can be achieved.

Now I’m not going to cast assertions on which style of rhythm is worse, for musical taste varies from person to person.  However, this pipped my interests in the local paper.

Cops are linking an increase in phone thefts with the type of band playing at a town centre’s music venues.

Lambeth police reported the “correlation” last week but remained tight-lipped on the styles of music that attract the most “organised criminality.”

I very much doubt Simon Cowell’s God awful acts are involved, although personally, every time I hear one of his tart creations I feel suicidal, but not once have I thought about robbing someone.

Now, there are two reasons the Police are keeping quiet on naming which music scene is the main culprit.  The first is definitely race relations.  It is a fact that most street robberies in South London are committed by Rudeys (nice way of saying black criminals).  The second reason is to protect the Corporates business interests from bad publicity.

So instead of the Police warning the public of hot-zones like our Home Office does to would-be Briton tourists travelling abroad, it instead muddies the water so you don’t know which scene is more prone to crime.

Worse of all, it increases assumptions instead of fact on the one hand and on the other, ignorance and thus lowers defensive instincts.  Both are as dangerous as the other.

Take the assumption recently made by the Controlled Media in relation to the leftarded wingnut who shot an Arizona politician.  This will definitely bite them on their arse soon enough, and I very much doubt even the Messiah Obama will be able to shake it.

Next, let us move to the ignorant, those that choose to not let their instinct get them the better of them and walk past a group of Rudeys ending up in their local newspapers as victims of robbery, rape or murder (sometimes all three).

Back to this matter, I lament at the stupidity of our Thick Blue Line.  It seems an uninformed public is defenceless without the facts and cannot take necessary precautions to protect themselves.  And all this just so the Police can keep protecting the Multicultural Nightmare that has exasperated tribalism and the Corporates who help pay for it.

When the law doesn’t protect you, what then?





UK Police | Hand’n’Hand with the ones they arrest

10 01 2011

Police want to get results.  But instead of doing it the old-fashioned way and deterring crime, they infiltrate and encourage it.  From the Diamond Heist in 2000 to the Ecoloon Brigades of today.

A reminder of how intelligent the police were in their successful capture of the Diamond Heist gang, check out the Guardian’s point-by-point timeline.  All I will say is that it was set-up from the word go.  Without Police involvement, there would not have been an attempt.

But I don’t want to bring up the muck of the past, especially one where the officers involved all received big shiny medals for a set-up well done.  Why would I when there is a much recent one to bemoan.

Trial against environmental activists dropped after undercover Met police officer switches sides

A trial against six environmental activists has been suddenly dropped after an undercover police officer switched allegiance and offered to testify on their behalf.

The Ecoloons allege that the UC in their midst not only helped recruit new members but also help plan out the never-materialised crime.

What is worse in all this, PC Mark Kennedy spent nearly a decade, at our expense, shaping this group, and when push finally becomes shove, offers to undo his work.  How many millions was wasted on pursuing this bunch of idealistic persons?  And would they even have gotten so far without the help of the copper?

Alas, so much easier to catch crooks when the Police help plan the crime, I doubt the Thick Blue Line will cease these sting operations.





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)





State-snooping | Just maybe…

5 06 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Labour | More financial mastery

5 06 2010

Another day and another disclosure of the previous Labour Government’s criminal mishandling of the public purse.  This time to the tune of £1.8bn being ferried to various ‘consultants’ in another extension of the money-merry-go-round.

It isn’t a rabbit hole we’re peeping into, it is an intricate, air-conditioned, Fort Knoxesque-locked, sharks with frikking laser beams attached to their heads’ moated tunnel network that makes the Vietnam era ones look like a badgers nest.

Labour ministers spent £1.8bn on consultants in ONE YEAR, public spending records reveal

By Gerri Peev, Daily Wail.  Last updated at 4:48 PM on 4th June 2010

Labour ministers spent an astonishing £1.8billion on consultants in a single year – double the amount of the previous 12 months, it was revealed today.

The figure was unveiled in the first publication of the government’s entire expenditure. For the first time ever, the Treasury released a massive database which details spending line by line.

Labour’s spendthrift habit was laid bare across the 24 million individual entries for the year 2009-10.

Sources from the incoming government said they were ‘shocked’ at how much Labour had spent on consultants, particularly at the height of the economic crisis.

The Department of Health was the biggest spender, splashing out nearly half a billion pounds – £480,420,000 in one year alone.

It was followed by the Department for International Development, which spent £288,100,000 on consultants, despite its main aim being to provide aid to the world’s poor.

The scandal-plagued Home Office hired consultants to the tune of £194,116,000.

The £1.8billion consultancy bill is the equivalent of nearly a third of the cuts that will be felt across Whitehall departments and public services this year.

In 2007/8, the 16 biggest Whitehall departments spent £909million on consultants.

The Combined Online Information System  released yesterday has the apt acronym, COINS.

But the Con-Lib government’s claim that it heralded openness was met with some scepticism, as the database is too vast and unusable for anyone but computer and data experts to decipher.

Before they were in government, the Conservatives had talked up the prospect of the database creating a £6billion private industry which would crunch and analyse the data.

The party’s manifesto said: ‘Our plans to open up government data and spending information will not only help us to cut wasteful spending, but according to new research… it will also create an estimated £6bn in additional value for the UK.’

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said it paved the way for more transparency across government.

‘For too long, the previous government acted as if the public had no right to know where their hard-earned taxes were spent.

‘Today we have lifted that veil of secrecy by releasing detailed spending figures dating back to 2008.

‘This data is complex, but this is a major step forward and shows we are delivering on our promise to make this government more open and transparent while ensuring we deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

‘I hope people will take the opportunity to scrutinise carefully how their money is being spent – as I am doing every day in preparation for the spending review.’

‘We plan to release more data in the coming months that will be easier for the general public to understand.’

The Taxpayers’ Alliance welcomed the publication of the database, and  hailed it as a victory for its campaign to unveil the public finances.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The publication of the COINS database is another fantastic victory for transparency.

‘The TaxPayers’ Alliance has long campaigned for this level of openness about public spending, as the public have a right to know how their taxes are being spent.

‘It is right that this data is out in the public domain, saving departments time and money responding to Freedom of Information requests.

‘The next step is for this trend to continue, so that all information about government spending is available, allowing the public to call the government to account.

‘There is an army of enthusiastic, skilled amateurs out there who will gladly explore and use this information to suggest ways in which the Government can save money and improve public services.’

Former Labour minister Jim Knight, warned that there could be privacy implications however.

He said: ‘These days, people can mesh government data with commercially available data. That can give you data right down to the level of a few houses.

‘It won’t be hard to get down virtually to the individual. Some would argue that gets pretty scary.’

Love how the politicians love to claim privacy this and privacy that when it involves anything to do with our fight against political corruption but change their tune when it is the pleb’s privacy at stake in their war on terror, drugs and violence.

The first act of any new government is to hold the old one to account.  Sadly, that will not be done for it is exactly what the ConDem’s plan to do.  Over twenty-million deluded souls voted for the Status Quo.  For the continuation of the greatest scam ever conceived, government.

We’re doomed.





S**t-stirring Media | We’re all evil afterall

4 06 2010

No matter how much sensationalist or unpatriotic the bullcrap the Daily Wail produces, I will not evacuate their online version due to the fact that out of all the online news-polluters, I find the DM’s layout much more preferable than the rest.

Auntie Beeb gives you a choice of five other stories along with a dozen old ones about the one you just read.

Sky News is all funny blocks with the entire emphasis on video with a couple of paragraphs that takes 3 seconds to read which explains fully what the 3 minute clip intended.

The Telegraph is a funny old thing, even on the internet it is cumbersome to read, although I must admit, taught me a dozen fancy words, some even foreign!

And the guardian is so leftarded, every other story is about a gay lettuce.  Can’t be suffering that and usually only grace their pages if directed.

What I find special about the Daily Wail is the wide scope of stories highlighted.  If there is even a sprinkle of controversy involved, you can be sure as the nose on your face that the Murdoch News Wire will inform their sub-outlets of the s**t-stirring golddust found.  You could bet your whole damn face that the Daily Wail will pick it up, especially if most of the legwork has already been done.

Take the “Black man shot dead and his body dragged for ten miles in shocking U.S. killing” which was promoted in the sidebar simply as ‘White man arrested after black man is shot dead and then his body dragged for 10 miles‘.  Happened across the pond in America and yeah, it sure is a horrendous crime, but surely we have had enough bloodshed closer to home than what some British families who once holiday’d in South Carolina.

Of course, everyone knows that the Daily Wail calls anybody who is against immigration a ‘racist, fascist right-winger’ yet hardly any restraint is shown in their own propagation of “Immigrant on the run after murdering Belgian judge and legal assistant in courthouse in row over housing benefit“.

Anyone would think the Press want civil unrest the way they treat the news, using every opportunity to either praise or pour scorn upon the peoples.  In the end, another self-serving industry that needs news to survive, even if it is embeliished beyond belief.  Wouldn’t be much profit if things went right all the time, and a tool as powerful as mass media, well, no corporate giant would want to close down their biggest money-grabber.

And if the only solution is to transfer the Professional Hacks to the gossip columns, is that really a price worth paying?  Bad enough with the amount of Jordan now, couldn’t stomach anymore.  Although more of Kelly Brook wouldn’t go a miss, always had a thing for that little lady.  Still remember how she helped me up in the mornings when appearing on Channel 4’s Big Breakfast show.