Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Politically correct translations

Asylum Seeker - economic migrant, a person who moves to a foreign country in order to use it as a resource for income and healthcare.
The Commisssion for Racial Equality - The Commission for Black Power
Discrimination - Common sense
Diversity - The dilution or erosion of an indigenous population by immigrants who refuse to integrate, leading to the erosion of the local dialect, loss of social cohesion and an increase in local violent crime.
Enrichment - The rise in crime observed in those areas where there is an infestation of non-whites. Usually rises in proportion to the amount of non-whites in the area. Tends to cause the indigenous whites to evacuate the area.
Equality - Black power
Equal Opportunities - Black Power
Human Rights - Black Power
Inclusive - Relating to those aspects of society where ethnic minorities are given a leg up or head start at the expense of white people. For example: the British Police force is now an inclusive organisation.
Institutional racism - A term used by the modern day PC inquisition in relation to any organisation that does not bow at the altar of multi-culturalism. It is used as an attempt to stifle any opposition to the destruction of national institutions
Non-discriminatory - Any favourable treatment or advantage given to an ethnic minority group. For example: we adopt a non-discriminatory policy towards recruitment.
Political Correctness - The strict, Stalinist repression of free speech. Is frequently used as a tool to stifle any debate on immigration issues.
Race Relations - Black Power
Racism – Disagreement with the multi-cultural experiment. (see also “racist”)
Racist - 1. Any person who disagrees with the multi-cutlural experiment. 2. anybody who is winning an argument against a Marxist or black person. (see also “racism”)
Social science degree- Communist indoctrination course.
Underrepresented - Too thick and stupid to work here on merit alone. For example: We welcome applications from the Asian community, who are currently underrepresented by our company.
Multiculturalism - A form of mental illness characterized by the fallacious belief that haphazardly mixing all of the worlds ethnicities and cultures together into a predominantly white society creates a greater single culture of cohesive unity, harmony and strength.
Vibrant - {adjective} - A whole heap of battling sub communities thats so jumbled and out of control it looks lively. Warning: Causes blindness to the underlying facts and can infect the dumb with an inane grin when spoken.
Community Relations - The bending over backwards like a contortionist for ungratefull colonisers who relish in making the people they want to replace PAY for thier own removal. See "Sucking Up" and "staving off trouble for an easy life"
Community - {noun} - Any section of society thats not white native, or any specialist group of misfits. Predominantly used for muslims. Examples include {Muslim} Community, and {Gay and Lesbian One Handed Juggler} Community. Not to be confused with "community" which meant the local area of fellow white people that you live around in about a mile radius.
Diverse- {adjective} - A description of a mass of sub communities and races/religions thats used (by people who dont actually know the categories) as a tool not to leave any fragment of society out in fear of them being offended. Compulsary to be used in conjunction with "Vibrant" when attempting to brainwash the native population.
Human Rights - A term to describe the insanity of allowing terrorists responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of people to set foot on the shore and claim they will be tortured for thier crimes if they are sent back to face the consequences. Also used to cater for every little whim anyone sees fit to drive a bigger wedge in a healthy homogenous society. Also See "Mug".

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

The wonders of multiculturalism coming to a stamp near you

So it seems the post office or the government are trying to brainwash us into thinking that multiculturalism is great. They don't seem to be shouting about it though. They are doing it subtly by designing six wonderful new stamps to celebrate diversity. How wonderful of them.
Does anyone here feel like they don't want to be brainwashed with this crap or is it just me? The stamps show different cultures enjoying different meals of a different culture. I think this is your chance to laugh now or is it? is this a joke or are they seriously ignorant of the fact that people of different cultures do not mix with other cultures. When was the last time you saw a committed muslim eat none halal food or drink alcohol? When was the last time someone of a different culture celebrated christmas the way the police were celebrating the festival of Eid with the muslims a couple of months back?
Cultures intermingling rarely happens and to make those stamps is utter stupidity and utter hypocrisy.
The failure of aid

Yesterday in The Daily Mirror we again found about the failures of giving aid.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of aid for Africa became "phantom funds" wasted on luxury hotels and meals, it was claimed yesterday.
The Government was accused of spending more than £700,000 of taxpayers' money on expenses for US consultants.
A BBC investigation alleged a huge chunk of cash for a relief project in Malawi, the world's 10th poorest country, was squandered.
The US consultancy agency spent £586,423 on hotels and £126,062 on meal bills from a £3million donation from the UK Department for International Development it was said.
As we can see when we give aid a lot of the aid is just wasted anyway and when it isn't wasted it is useless anyway because it doesn't get to the people and when it does it can do more harm than good and when it does good it is only good for the short term as over the years africa has received half a trillion in aid and they have yet to get any better.
As I have said in a previous entry into this blog aid in the majority of cases does more harm than good. In the year 2000 World Bank aid destroyed the Mozambique cashew and sugar industries. Mostly, though, aid is simply wasted, producing nothing of value for anyone. The developing world is littered with the wreckage of ill-conceived aid projects, such as the salt mine in Uganda financed by the European Union. The site was so isolated, no one would live there and no salt was ever mined.
even some aid recipients are asking for an end to aid. In February, the New York Times Magazine published a fascinating interview with Yousif Kowa, leader of a poor tribe living in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, possibly the poorest nation on Earth.
Mr. Kowa rejected foreign aid for his people because he said it would destroy their self-reliance. He said he had seen many cases where previously productive farms were destroyed by food aid and did not want to see it happen to his people.In other cases, the withdrawal of aid has been a blessing.
In May, the Atlantic Monthly reported that Mogadishu, Somalia, has boomed since aid was cut off in 1995, due to the breakdown of civil government. Without governments, both foreign and domestic, mucking things up, local entrepreneurs were able to make things happen without interference. The reporter was forced to conclude that "the lack of large-scale foreign aid might have benefits as well as drawbacks."
This is why we should cut off aid. It isn't good for anyone. The third world should start relying on themselves and not anyone else so that they can progress by themself and we can stop wasting our money on useless aid projects.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Evidence of media brainwashing

So did anyone see the news on the GCSE results, where we watched the teenagers open their marks? did anyone notice that the ones picked to open their results for the camera were overwhelmingly none white?

now to the other issue:

Did anyone notice the news about teenagers taking drugs and drinking beer? did anyone notice that almost all the people interviewed that took drugs and got drunk alot were white?

Just a case of subtle antiwhite brainwashing. If you have noticed any other brainwashing then please tell me.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

One million manufacturing jobs lost

Tony Blair has to be the worst leader in the history of British leaders. The Guardian has reported that the manufacturing sector's share of the economy has fallen by almost 30% since Labour came to power in 1997 and now contributes only half as much to output as financial and business services.

The latest official data shows that the manufacturing sector has diminished in importance in every year between 1998 and 2003, with an especially sharp decline following the global recession in the early years of this century.

With output from Britain's factories stagnating during Tony Blair's period in Downing Street and the economy growing by 2-3% a year on average, manufacturing's share of the economy has dropped from just over 21% in 1997 to just under 15% in 2003, the latest year for which the Office for National Statistics has data.

Since Labour came to power in May 1997, around a million jobs have been lost from the manufacturing sector.

Can Blair get anymore incompetant? Blair has watched the demise of our manufacturing industry and the losses of around a million jobs. Britain once had one of the best manufacturing industries in the world but successive Labour and Conservative governments have destroyed all that.

It is time for Blair to go and allow a leader with ability to lead us as Blair just doesn't have what it takes to lead us.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

MCB Watch

I have come across a great blog dealing with the muslim council of Britain. I would make it blog of the month for next month but that is too many days away and I think this needs to be known now before the MCB episode isn't talked about anymore and is swept under the carpet.

You can find the blog here.

Monday, August 22, 2005

British tyranny

One of the things which marks a tyrant...or a tyrannical FEAR.
FEAR of individuals saying and writing things which the tyrant or the government do not want the people to hear or read.
Thus it is such tyrants and such tyrannical governments make it ILLEGAL..a criminal offence..for individuals to say or write certain things,that is,they introduce laws which curtails and restricts FREE SPEECH.

This is exactly what has happened in BRITAIN,over the past 30 years,the various governments have introduced laws which takes away our right of FREE SPEECH,which restricts what can be said or written.
And more than that,they have made mere possession of certain literature,certain writings,a criminal offence.
That is,a person can now be sent to prison for several years if it be proved that they merely possessed literature which the government finds offensive.

This is tyrannical;this is a denial of FREEDOM.

Of course,tyrants and tyrannical governments use clever propaganda to try and persuade the people they rule over that these tyrannical laws are " necessary ",some go further,even to claim that such denial and suppression of FREE SPEECH is " morally justified " because the views they have outlawed,they have made ILLEGAL,are " abhorrent " or " evil " or whatever.

This is exactly what successive British governments have done.
They have introduced tyrannical laws to suppress FREE SPEECH on the grounds that any and all views those governments do not like..any and all political views which the government does not want the people to hear or read about have been and are said to be " abhorrent " and " evil " and so are banned because they might " upset " or " hurt " or " offend " someone.
That is, these governments have taken away the power of the people to make their own judgements about,their own decisions concerning,certain political matters,because the governments has decided that such views,such political opinions,might or will or could " upset " or " hurt " or " offend " someone.

In effect, the government have said,and are saying,to the people : WE regard you,the PEOPLE,as CHILDREN who must be protected from words or literature that we consider might upset you.
WE want you to hear and read only the nice things we have permitted.

These governments go on to say," We are determined to keep treating you,the PEOPLE,like CHILDREN.
So we have banned..and will continue to ban..all those political words or political literature or political writings we consider might offend you,and we will lock away in PRISON all those nasty grown-ups who say or write such nasty political things that we consider might offend someone.
We certainly will never allow you to listen to these nasty grown ups or read their writings and literature because we never want you to make you own your own mind up about politics.
We have taken care of all that for you.
NOW CHILDREN,isnt that NICE of us..

Our tyrannical governments have gone much,much further than the tyrants of history,so far,in fact,that what they have created is very similiar to the repressive Stalinist government which existed in Russia not many decades ago.
People are kept under surveillance,their mail is opened,their telephone calls monitored,and if the government suspects ( note...suspects ) a person may have done something,or said something or written something which that government does not like or has made ILLEGAL,then the person will be subjected to a dawn raid,by the police,their home searched,the person arrested and any dissident literature seized.

There then follows a SHOW TRIAL...where the accused has to rely on..because of the legal jargon and the lagal complexities of the case and the very nature of the Courts themselves..some barristers to represent them,and where the TRUTH of any statement made by the accused in the ILLEGAL literature is ruled to be " irrelevant ",that is THE TRUTH OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID,OR WRITTEN,OR PUBLISHED IS NO DEFENCE.
If what has been said or written is deemed ILLEGAL,then the person will be sent to Prison whether or not what was said or written is TRUE.
And the government call these trials FAIR and the verdicts JUST....

The way our government have suppressed opposing politucal views..the means whereby they have outlawed political views and opinions they do not like and do not want the people to hear..was and is by using the claim that such views,whether spoken or written about,involved " Incitement " to " Hatred "

To incite is to " urge;to stir to action";while hatred,properly defined,is " dislike,ill-will;strong aversion towards ".

What is particularly tyrannical in such laws as these is that to be found GUILTY,NOTHING actually has to happen " in the real world " no people have to be physically hurt,or physically harmed in any way.
That is,the person is found GUILTY on the basis that was said or written might or could lead to such things.
The so-called INTENT of the person is all that matters.

It is AGAINST the whole tradition of WESTERN JUSTICE.

There does`nt have to be anyone,anywhere who is actually offended,all there has to be is a BELIEF.

And even if a person or persons do claim they are offended or upset or hurt by WORDS,written or spoken...SO WHAT.
That is,and always has been part of LIFE,of being an ADULT.
What kind of person can claim they have been so offended or so hurt by some words,written or spoken,that they want to see the person who said those words or who wrote those words put in Prison ?
Perhaps a churlish,surly,unruly,vindictive child.

What kind of world is it where the majority of people DO NOT care that their government is TREATING them like CHILDREN.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Watched the panorama special on MCB

After watching the Panorama special which I mentioned earlier it is now obvious that the Muslim Council of Britain are full of liars and terrorist supporters.

Iqbal Sacranie who has become famous for speaking for the MCB was part of muslim mob who wanted to kill Salmon Rushdie for printing things insulting to the paedophile prophet muhammed. It is clear that Islam is not compatible with democracy and freedom of speech.

If you missed the show you can see it here but be quick because I don't know how long they will keep it on.
Muslim council of Britain NOT peaceful

The muslim council of britain, a supposedly peaceful organisation has been shown for what they really are. A group of lying antisemitic terrorist supprters. They claim they are moderate muslims. How much more lies are people going to take from them?

Tonight on the BBC on Panorama at 2220 they will be shown for what they really are.

Mehbood Kantharia was a member of the MCB's central working committee between 1997 and 2004, but has since left the organisation.

He told Panorama: "It is my personal view that because they are in a state of denial they cannot become real, you know, sort of like, forthright, really forthright about wanting to do something about the kind of extremism that prevails."

An investigation by Panorama reporter John Ware found groups affiliated to the MCB promoting anti-Semitic views, the belief that Islam is a superior ideology to secular British values and the view that Christians and Jews are conspiring to undermine Islam.

In an interview with Mr Ware, Sir Iqbal refused to disown a group known as Al-e-Hadith, which says the ways of Christians and Jews "are based on sick or deviant views" and that "imitating the Kuffar [non-Muslims] leads to a permanent abode in hellfire".

Commenting on the group, Sir Iqbal said "we must accept the reality" of the diversity within the Muslim community in the UK.

He also praised the work of the Islamic Foundation, which promotes the teachings of Jamaa'at Islami founder Sayid Mawdudi.

Mr Mawdudi wrote Islam was a "revolutionary ideology which seeks to alter the social order of the entire world".

In a wide ranging interview, Mr Ware also tackled Sir Iqbal on his decision not to attend the Holocaust Day Memorial and his attendance of a memorial service for Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who supported suicide bombers in Israel.

In a separate interview, a senior spokesman for one of the MCB's main affiliates, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), appeared to condone the glorification of suicide bombers.

How can we trust the MCB when they are supporters of groups that are antisemitic and how can we trust him when they are supporters of the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin? How can we trust them when they support terrorism in Israel?

What Iqbal Sacranie says and does are completely different. Could he actually be supporting terrorists and hiding it? I think that is a possibility. It is not time not to trust any muslims because even the most peaceful like Sacranie are supporters of terrorism. Could he really be peaceful though? could he be deceiving us. Here are a couple of verses from the Qu'ran that tells them to deceive:

Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

Qur’an 8:30 “Remember how the unbelievers plotted against you (Muhammad). They plotted, and Allah too had arranged a plot; but Allah is the best schemer.” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.”

Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’”

And when you journey in the land, you are not at fault if you shorten the prayer for fear that the unbelievers will harm you. The unbelievers are your manifest enemies.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Racial differences

For decades liberals have been saying that the races are just the same under the skin and call people racist who say they are wrong.

I am here to prove that they are wrong and race is not just skin deep. The following "article" probably won't be that good as I have so many facts that it might make it look sloppy so sorry in advance.

Recently it has come to light in the news that only 1% of organ donors are black. Why is this a problem if we are all the same? surely we can share our organs? Apparent not because transplant success is helped if the donor and recipient are from the same ethnic background. So now we find out that we can't even have the same organs eventhough we are supposed to be the same. How surprising is that.

Thats not all their are more physical differences like that. For example blood group B is more commonly found in black African/Caribbean populations and U negative - a rare sub-group - is only found in these communities.

In addition, 25% of Asians are blood group B compared to 9% of western Europeans.

So as well as having organs that we can't transplant into different races the majority of the time we can't share blood with other races too.

This is not all. Black people have a special talent, a talent for sports. It is a fact that in most of the 15 most common running events common running events, from 100 meters to the marathon, every world record is now held by an African or someone of African descent African descent.

In baseball, basketball and football, blacks are represented in numbers far greater than their share of the population, and many, if not most, of the superstars are black.

In sports we now have facts that show whites are inferior to blacks at sport but if you are white don't be so glum because black have the least intelligence. On IQ test scores the average for a black person is 85. The average for a white person is 100 and the average for an oriental is 106. You can see the differences for everything in the table here.

The table shows black people have a higher chance of having twins while orientals have the least chance of having twins. Black people also have higher hormone levels which may be responsible for them wanting sex more which makes them more prone to AIDs. Infact black people have on average 3 to 19 percent more testosterone than white men but that could be just because they have larger sexual organs which makes them have sex more often. The higher testosterone may be the cause of their higher aggressiveness which may be the cause of their high crime rate

Also as we can see from the table that I provided earlier skeletal development is earlier for black people and longer for orientals. This shows that black people heal far quicker however black people also have the shortest life span. There is more at the table if you look.

It is interesting to know that race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they mature faster as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or Orientals. This means more explosive energy, which gives Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting.

On average, Black children are born with smaller brains than White or East Asian children. Pointing this out is not constructing stereotypes, it is simply observing facts as they are. Both science and justice call for us to seek and tell the truth, not to tell lies and spread error.

In summary, the same racial pattern would not occur so consistently all around the world and over time if race were a mere social construct. If it were a meaningless construct, it would have no power to predict phenomena like brain size, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability. Other evidence also shows that race is a biological reality. For example, coroners in crime labs can identify race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can even identify race from blood, hair, or semen. How could they do this if race was only a social construct? The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra “race is just skin deep” is a case of deep denial.

We should stop denying each race is different and embrace our strengths and weaknesses as even if we are physically weak we are intelligent and if we are intellectually weak we are strong. We should embrace these facts about us before racists hijack them. In the end if liberals do not admit the differences racists will hijack the facts and the people willturn to them for telling the truth.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Nanny state Britain

Britain is turning into a nanny state more and more. Today in The Daily mirror it was reported that the council have threatened parents to remove paddling pool for children because it didn't have a lifeguard.

Katie Joyce and other mums chipped in for the 10ft plastic pool to give their children a holiday treat.

But when they set up the £50 inflatable on a council-owned communal green without permission, they were warned it would be removed on safety grounds.

Bosses at Warwick district council feared a child could get hurt although the water was only 12 inches deep.

They told families on the Fallow Hill estate in Leamington Spa not to let children use it.

The letter added: "Permission has not been granted for its use. The council cannot be held liable and persons using the pool are not insured. The council are considering removing it."

Residents say the council was unhappy because there was no lifeguard or first aider. But angry parents claim they watch the children and there are never more than six in the pool.

Am I the only one in this sorry excuse for a country that feels that this is ridiculously over the top? This has to stop. Parents have to start taking responsibility for their own children and councils have to start letting them take responsibility.
Something interesting

Found something interesting regarding racist attacks:

280,000 race crimes in 1999

Estimates from the British Crime Survey (2000) indicate that the number of incidents, which were considered by the victim to be racially motivated, fell from 382,000 in 1995 to 280,000 in 1999 (down 27%).

98,000 of them against non-whites

The British Crime Survey (2000) found that the number of racially motivated incidents committed against ethnic minorities fell from 143,000 in 1995 to 98,000 in 1999 (down 32%).

280,000 Racial crimes.

White population is 91%
Ethnic population is 9%

98,000 or 35% of crimes committed against ethnics
182,000 or 65% of crime committed against Whites

9% of the population are causing 65% of racial crimes which is 7.222 times more than what they should be.
91% of the population are causing 35% of racial crimes which is 0.384 times what they should be.

Thursday, August 18, 2005


We all know that sooner or later Blair is going to get us to have a referendum on the Eurocon but do we really know what it is all about? Blair is unlikely to tell us so we will be left wondering.

Well you don't have to wonder any longer. I have found the text of the eurocon for you all to read. It is 325 pages long and you can see it here.
Blair to be sued

Tony Blair the traitor is to be sued by the families of 17 of the soldiers who died in iraq. The families of the 17 are trying to launch a campaign to secure an independent into the legality of the iraq war.

Prime Minister Tony Blair , former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith are being "sued" and named as first, second and third defendants.

Mr Blair could be forced to give evidence on oath. Relatives accuse the three of lying about the justification for war. Reg Keys, whose military policeman son Ton, 20, was one of six Red Caps killed near Basra in June 2003, said: "Mr Blair misled Parliament and we want to make him accountable for his misdemeanours.

Personally I hope that the families get their inquiry and that blair himself has to pay compensation and then step down. The stepping down would be a small victory as he is going to step down in 2 or 3 years anyway.

I wonder if the families of the 17 have started an online petition which we can sign? I would gladly sign it and list it on this website if there was one as something has to be done with the traitors we have in government.
Minuteman org to be criminalised

It turns out that not only are the British government traitors but the American government are also traitors too. Not only do the American government fail to secure the boarders they are also thinking about banning the patriotic common sense approach of the minutemen as they are going to make "border vigilantism" illegal.

This comes days after New Mexico declared a border emergency in four counties along the Mexican border that he said have been "devastated" by crimes such as the smuggling of drugs and illegal immigrants.

The declaration said the region "has been devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property and the death of livestock.

The people in the minuteman project are a bunch of patriotic people who only want to protect their homeland because of the inaction from the government. To think they could be criminalised is outragious. Who else is going to protect the boarder if the government won't and the public can't?
Political correctness strikes again

Political correctness has struck again. This time it has struck at a wedding.

A COUPLE were banned from playing the Robbie Williams hit ANGELS at their civil wedding - in case it offended non-Christians.

Howard Monks, 47, and Julie Sagar-Doyle, 36, wanted the star's 1997 song played as they took their vows, because it is "their tune".
But just 15 minutes before the ceremony, politically correct bureaucrats barred the tune by Robbie, as it contains the word heaven - giving it "religious connotations"

It is now clear that the sovietisation of Britain is moving faster and faster and unless we elect a government that will drop this crap we will probably in the near future have a minister of religion dictating what we can and cannot have at our wedding from food to songs. It is also clear that white christians are now second class citizens in this country.
Blog of the month

The blog of the month is finally upon us. The blog of the month this month is Simon Rigelsford's blog. He is a 16 year old british nationalist who is great at writing in his blog. He gets a 9 out of 10.

You can see his blog here.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005



During the last 60 years we have been brainwashed to believe we are progressing. These are all lies. I will expose these lies for what they are.

Decades ago liberals decided to give the scum in jail human rights and stopped capital and corporal punishment. Since then criminals don't fear jail. They don't care if they are caught because now they get playstations and satellite TV while their victims are left with emotional misery.

Teenagers now run rampant and they cannot be stopped but instead of punishing them they are given trips to go on.

If that is progress I want nothing part of it. I want nothing to do with a society that give more rights to the criminal than the victim.

European union
They said that being part of international organisations like the EU was progress yet I don't see anything progressive about it. We spend 9 billion pounds per year on europe which can be spent on hospitals, schools, transport, agriculture, industry and jobs right here.

Wouldn't better hospitals and schools alone be progress?

If the EU is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that gives its national sovereignty away and puts the EU before the education and health needs of the nation. Supporting the EU is treason and I want nothing to do with a treacherous nation.

Immigration and multiculturalism
They say immigration and multiculturalism enrich our society so it is progress. How is this progress? Where are the benefits? I would like to see them. I see no benefits whatsoever in allowing an alien people with alien ways to take over.

Immigration does more harm than good. It is a myth that immigrants will only do the jobs that the natives won't do. It is a fact that immigrants will do the job for less money. Natives would do the job if they weren't paid slave wages. Why should native britons be stopped from working just because they don't want to be slaves?

If immigration is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that makes their people work as slaves or stops them from working altogether if they don't become slaves.

There are very little benefits from immigration. The only benefits that I can see is we get the educated of the third world but even that has consequences. The educated should stay in their home countries to help build them up. Whole parts of africa have no health professionals.

To argue that Britain needs economic migrants because of their alleged energy, talent and skills, is to ignore the flip side of that coin which is that the country they came from is going to be deprived of their energy, talent and skills. Every economic migrant who comes here is depriving his or her country of their ability, and is prolonging their own country's agony. It is irresponsible and immoral to deprive countries in this way. Economic migration on these terms is a form of piracy, which should be outlawed!

If stealing health professionals from the people who desperately need them is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that steals from the poor to help the rich while the poor suffer with diseases and don't have a chance at a proper education.

Some say we need immigrants to keep the health service running and immigrants are progress for the NHS. The only reason nurses from Asia are being imported is because we don't, and won't, pay a living wage to nurses from this country. This is a new form of 21st century slavery.

If keeping health staff as slaves is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that treats their health professionals as slaves.

Some say we need immigrants to pay our pensions but that is wrong. Immigrants age too so we are just delaying the inevitable and making things worse than what they will be.

If delaying the inevitable and only having one solution is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want to be part of a society that is just making things worse in the long term.

Some say that companies couldn't survive without immigrants. My answer to that would be So what! If the company is only employing immigrants then what good is it doing for anyone other than immigrants?

If putting foreigners first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that puts the wellbeing of foreigners above the wellbeing of the citizens.

Why else is immigration bad? Well according to the Optimum population trust the UK's sustainable population level in the 22nd century may be as low as 30 million.

If destroying our society by overpopulation is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is going to destroy itself.

They said multicuturalism was progress but all it does is breed hate and repression of women. It was the cause of the London attacks and it has been the cause of the antiwhite violence antiwhite violence. In the attempt to stop us from debating the dangers of Islam the government gagged our freedom of speech with the religious hatred law.
If multiculturalism is so good why can't we debate it without fear of arrest? In islam women are separated from men in the mosque. Women are made to wear burquas so their faces cannot be seen. This is repression of women.

If repression and less freedom is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows repression and takes away our freedom to debate issues.

They said compulsory education was progress but compulsory schooling is just a part time prison. It destroys individuality and was invented by the rich so they could get the population ready to be employed by them so they wouldn't want anything else. Why should the young be forced to do something they don't want to do? Education should be a choice and not something you have to do.

If repressive forced education is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that locks the youngsters up for hours at a time 5 days per week, punishing them because they aren't intelligent then wondering why they misbehave in class.

They said that free trade was progress but what good has free trade ever done? Was it good for MG Rover? NO! It is a fact that because of free trade companies are heading to foreign countries because they can make things cheaper and sell it cheaper here which makes people stop buying british goods and putting british people out of business.

If putting foreign workers first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't help british companies and british workers.

They said free healthcare for all was progress. I have yet to see it. Free healthcare helps the people who do not deserve it. Free healthcare helps those who continually drink themselves to a liver disorder like George Best.

Treating smoking-related illness costs the NHS £1.7billion a year. Why should we give free healthcare to people who know its harmful to their health? Why should the tax payer be forced to hand out money to care for people who are knowingly killing themselves?

The same with alcohol, it costs the NHS £3 billion per year to help people with alcohol related problems. Why should we help those poisoning themselves? I am not saying that we should ban alcohol and tobacco but we should not help those that are poisoning themselves. If they want to poison themselves and live they should pay for the treatment themself.

If progress is taking money from people with common sense to help those that are continually poisoning themselves I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that penalises healthy people with common sense by taking money from them to help the idiots.

They said allowing women to have abortions was progress but how can it be progress when the public are funding the destruction of 180,000 unborn babies per year in britain alone. In 2002 abortions cost the NHS £38.2 million. It cost less the years before according to this table.
If we add them together and estimate that from 2003-2005 abordtion cost the same as 2002 we come to the figure of 183 million. Why should the public have to finance other peoples mistakes?

If financing the destruction of unborn babies is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want anything to do with a society that finances the destruction of unborn babies.

The free press
They said freedom of the press was progress but the people who own it continually try to brainwash us from the government (bbc) to private newspapers.

Take Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of News International which owns much of the media in the UK.

What many people don't know about Rupert Murdoch is that he is in the pocket of Tony Blair. Rupert Murdoch has effectively paid no tax in the UK since 1988. Why is this? Well it is the fault of our corrupt governments. During 1988 until before the 1997 election the tory party was in charge and Rupert Murdoch donated money to the tory party and had his newspapers support the tory party so the tory party had no reason to stop him as he was helping them.

Just before the 1997 election he suddenly switched sides to labour and had his newspapers support labour and when the labour party were elected Tony Blair didn't do anything about the tax issue eventhough he meets Rupert Murdoch every 6 months.

Take Vere Harmsworth. Daily Mail and General Trust plc was owned by Vere Harmsworth, third Viscount Rothermere until his death in 1998 and has since passed to his son. Just before his death he had started sitting on the labour benches in the House of Lords. Why should someone who has a political agenda be allowed to sell newspapers when it is obvious that they are going to put a spin on the news?

That is not all but those are only two examples. 90% of the newspapers in britain have some connection to blair or labour from donating money to the labour party so they can break monopoly laws to fancying a member of the labour party. Just look it up. Find the people who own the newspapers newspapers.

If progress is for our government to allow big business to brainwash us because they bribe the government with money and good press then I want nothing to do with that society. I want nothing to do with a society that allows brainwashing.

They said allowing labour unions was progress but the leadership of those unions are fascists who only represent the interests of the political opinion that they agree with and they expel those that they don't agree with.

Unions also have far too much power. They routinely donate money to political parties (mainly labour) which means that if the labour party do not do what the unions want they can hold money back which the parties need. This means unions can blackmail the party into doing what the union leadership want and not what is best for the country. Its exactly the same with the rich.

If progress is allowing people with money to dictate what should happen then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows money to have more weight than the views of the people that elected them.

They said British democracy was progress but we don't have a real democracy. In the last election labour became the government yet were only elected by 36% of the votes. How is this democracy when the minority get to rule over the majority?

If progress is allowing the minority to rule over the majority then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't listen to the views of the majority.

They said privatisation of our energy companies (gas, electricity etc) was progress yet I have seen no progress. Companies are only interested in money. They don't care about peoples lives, all they care about is profits. If they cared about peoples lives would they allow between 20,000-50,000 pensioners to die in winter every year because they couldn't heat their homes?

If progress is allowing the elderly to die because they couldn't afford to heat their homes I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that places profits before peoples lives.

They said privatisation of our banks was progress but where is this progress? All I see is people getting loans and paying up to 40% more back. How is that progress? How is it progress when they can almost stop a party from running by banning them from having an account with them? Barclays did this with the BNP and they have just survived. HSBC also did the same yet they are prepared to hold an account belonging to a London based terror group which has close links to al-Qaeda.

If progress is trying to ban a perfectly legal political party but helping terrorism I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that promotes terrorism and hates democracy.

They said sending aid to third world countries would lead to progress and it hasn't. Aid in the majority of cases does more harm than good. In the year 2000 World Bank aid destroyed the Mozambique cashew and sugar industries. Mostly, though, aid is simply wasted, producing nothing of value for anyone. The developing world is littered with the wreckage of ill-conceived aid projects, such as the salt mine in Uganda financed by the European Union. The site was so isolated, no one would live there and no salt was ever mined.

Now, even some aid recipients are asking for an end to aid. In February, the New York Times Magazine published a fascinating interview with Yousif Kowa, leader of a poor tribe living in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, possibly the poorest nation on Earth.

Mr. Kowa rejected foreign aid for his people because he said it would destroy their self-reliance. He said he had seen many cases where previously productive farms were destroyed by food aid and did not want to see it happen to his people.
In other cases, the withdrawal of aid has been a blessing.

In May, the Atlantic Monthly reported that Mogadishu, Somalia, has boomed since aid was cut off in 1995, due to the breakdown of civil government. Without governments, both foreign and domestic, mucking things up, local entrepreneurs were able to make things happen without interference. The reporter was forced to conclude that "the lack of large-scale foreign aid might have benefits as well as drawbacks."

Between 1980 and 2002, the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Association provided $68.2 billion (in 1995 dollars) in development assistance to the48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa to spur development in the region. This is a huge investment, particularly when the relatively small sizes of the recipient countries’ economies are taken into account. Despite this development investment (often at extremely subsidized interest rates and with generous repayment schedules), sub-Saharan Africa has performed dismally. Of the 45 sub-Saharan African countries for which per capita GDP data are available from 1980 to 2002:

Twenty-three experienced negative compound annual growth in real per capita GDP (constant 1995 U.S. dollars);
Seven experienced marginal compound annual growth of less than 1 percent in real per capita GDP; and
Fifteen experienced compound annual growth of more than 1 percent in real per capita GDP, but only three achieved per capita growth over 4 percent.

In 2001 Britain gave $4.7 billion in foreign aid which should have been spent on our own country. Since 2001 the amount has been increasing. In 2004 it was $7.8 billion. How can our government justify this when it never helps in the long term and in some cases actually harms the country?

If progress is what I talked about above I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is destroying another society by "helping".

Now that I have exposed the lies and shown that we really haven't progressed as much as we think I will attempt to give solutions most of which will be harsh but they are common sense. I will be killing multiculturalism but also embracing it in other ways. You don't think that is possible? oh it is. haha.

Punishments will get harsher. These punishments will be something that is a benefit from Islam because torture will be involved.

This is what I would change in the law. I would make it so there were 4 levels in crime:

Level 1- Non violent non financial crimes (except not paying fines). These people just go to jail.

Level 2- Violent crimes that don't result in death or it wasn't intended to result in death.

Level 3- Financial crimes

Level 4- Crimes that result in death or were supposed to result in death or sex crimes.

This would be the punishments:

Level 1-Community service or a couple of months in jail with 1 day per week of hard labour. Will never receive torture

Level 2-

First offence-Jailtime with 2 days of hard labour for first offence

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Fourth offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fifth offence-Death penalty

Level 3-
First offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fourth-Death penalty

Level 4-
First offence-3 days of hard labour and 3 days of torture

Second offence-Death penalty

Torture will start 25% of the way through the sentence or 1 year into it. Whichever comes first.

Also the sentence given will just be a minimum amount. When sentence is up the criminal will head to a panel to see if they should be released. If criminal has done anything wrong while in jail they will stay in longer. Every one month after that they will head to the panel again to see if they should be released. If they are still considered a danger or the panel thinks they will do the crime again then they will not be allowed out.
Also if they stole property and the police never recovered it they will stay in jail until they tell the police where it is.

When it is their second offense they will have the option to have their citizenship revoked and be sent to a foreign country as long as they promise not to return as long as they have served 50% of their sentence.

The poorest 50 nations will be asked to take them. For every person they take they will get 300 pounds. They can do what they like with the prisoners as it will be of no concern to us what they do with scum. When they go they can only take clothes. All their financial belonging will belong to the state to compensate the victim and pay the 300 pounds to the third world country.

We should also allow law abiding citizens above the age of 30 (by that time if they were going to commit a crime they would have probably already done it) to carry guns as long as they have a license. If they are threatened by thugs or have their house burgled they should be allowed to shoot to kill.

European union
Get out of the EU. Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world and only trading with the 17 countries in the EU is not going to advance our economy. We should get out of the EU so we can trade with the world and stop them from dictating laws to us. 80% of our laws come from the EU and our government have to pass them even if they could be stupid like stopping barmaids from showing cleavage because they could possibly get skin cancer.

We have never needed the EU and it is time for our corrupt and treacherous politicians to realise that.

Immigration has to be stopped. We must have the military patrolling our boarders at all times. Get our soldiers from iraq, germany, afghanistan and other foreign places were they are stationed. If that still isn't enough to adequately protect our boarders we should start the draft again making people from the age of 18 join up for 18 months.

If we catch immigrants and we don't know where they have come from (maybe they ripped up their passport) we will just do what we did with the criminals, send them to one of the poor countries that will take them possibly putting them in an even worse situation.

There should also be a boarder patrol police that goes around business and checks if the workers are illegal immigrants. If they are then the illegal will be deported within 72 hours and the business will be fined upto 10,000 pounds per illegal immigrant. Also for every 1 illegal found in that year the government will get 1% of the profits for a whole year.

Multiculturalism will be abolished and this is how:

Religion will technically be nationalised (lol) and this is how:

All religious figures (vicars, imams etc) will be employed by the government and need to get a license every year to preach.

In Turkey the Turkish government make up the sermons for the mosques and the imams have to read them. The imams are not allowed to do their own sermons. This is what we will do. A ministry of religion will be created and sermons for each of the major religions will be made every week.

If the religious figures make their own sermon then they will lose their right to preach and will lose their license and be replaced.

All sermons must be done in english.

Burquas will be banned in all public places.

Places of worship will be classed as public places.

The muslims "call to prayer" will be banned if more than 50% of the population of that town are none muslims.

Religious people who protest freedom of speech will be deported (sikhs rioting at that sikh play).

No more places of worship will be allowed to be built

In muslim countries they have a thing called dhimmitude and we will embrace that over here (embracing multiculturalism here). Dhimmitude is the oppression of none muslims. In saudi arabia it is made so none muslims pay more taxes which help muslim projects. In pakistan it is made so if a church is burned down it cannot be rebuilt. There are many more restrictions here. Therefore we will embrace dhimmitude on them by:

1. Stopping anymore religious buildings being built except for churches.
2. Banning the display of non christian symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship.
3. Banning the publishing or selling of non-Muslim religious literature.

Embracing dhimmitude will be embracing multiculturalism more than we do now. So whoever likes multiculturalism should like dhimmitude as it is from another culture and it may "enrich" us.


1. During primary and secondary school we should learn about our culture only. Our poets snd authors will be learned about in english. Our history and culture will be learned about in history. Christianity will be learned about in religious education. Our country will be learned about in geography for the majority of time (we don't have volcanoes). Our artists will be learned about in art. Our musicians will be learned about in music. If yoiu want to learn about other cultures and countries you will have a chance in college.

2. Education will not be compulsory from the age of 12. From then on you will have to sign up every year. If the child doesn't sign up their parents will lose child benefit for them.

3. Conspiracy theories will be taught in schools. They will not be taught if it it is the truth or not. This will make them think better.

4. School will be made more fun. See whyhere

Its time to stop free trade. We should put tariffs on all foreign goods that we are able to make in this country. As for telephone workers being offshored to India and other countries they should also be banned.

It is obvious to anyone even with half a brain that free trade is bad for the country.

If there is a shortage of jobs in the country the government should make jobs. If there is a lot of people skilled in manufacturing the government should start plants up and start selling products in britain and foreign countries making very little profit in britain but a normal profit selling in foreign countries. That way the government can employ people and get profits.

The same can be done for the people with no skills. The government can open supermarkets if ther is a lack of any. This will employ supermarket workers, lorry drivers and factory workers. The prices could be low enough that the poor can buy the products. This way big businesses won't have power over anyone because if they leave the government will just create jobs.

Healthcare should be free but only to the people who attempt to keep themselves healthy. Not one penny of the tax payers money should go to help people who harm themselves. This will show we have zero tolerance for people like this and if they want good health the burden starts with them. This might make people cut down on cigarretes and alcohol and make the populace healthier by making them take care of themself.

Also just like the dentistry people will have to have a medical checkup every 6 months. If they don't take the advice of a doctor then they should start paying for medical treatment themself. It has already been shown in the problem section of this piece that we would save billions of pounds doing this.

We would still help those who smoke, become obese and drink alot. We will pay for gym sessions and anti addiction sessions.

Eventhough abortion destroys 180,000 foetuses per year we should not ban it. Instead we should keep it legalised but make the mother pay for her abortion. Not one penny of tax payers money should go to pay for other peoples mistakes. If you want an abortion that is fine but don't expect the tax payer to foot the bill.

The press
It is time for newspapers and news channels to be nationalised. How would we do this? We would ban individual citizens from owning newspapers and news channels.
We would then nationalise the news so the government own it however they will not control it because the populace will elect an editor once per year. If the editor has an agenda the populace can then fire them after 1 year. The same should be done for news channels.

There would be a national editor for the national newspapers and regional editors dealing with regional news.

This will get control of information away from the rich and elite who just want to impose their agenda onto us. Also think of the environment. One type of newspaper=less paper needed=less trees cut down=better environment.

Incase the news doesn't tell us what is really happening the rich and elite can still own newspapers however they can only bring them out once per month and they can only own one newspaper.

People will be saying that a free press is what shows we are a democratic society. Can it get anymore free if the people control the news?

Unions and big business
Its time unions started doing things for the workers and using the money that they get from their workers to actually do something for the union and not donate to political parties. Unions have no business getting involved in politics which is why they should be banned from donating money to political parties. This would stop political parties doing what is beneficial for the unions and not what is beneficial for the people.

To stop political parties doing things for big business and the rich and not for the populace they will only be able to donate a maximum of £25,000 per year to political parties.

At the moment we should keep british democracy mostly the same as it is and change it a little. It should be made so that if the winning party gets less than 50% of the vote they can only get in some of their policies freely. The rest have to be put into an election 1 by 1. So seeing as labour only got 36% of the vote in the last election they would only be able to get 36% of their policies through. The rest will have to be voted on by the populace.

Incase of something bad happening to the country the government will still be able to start emergency legislation to deal with the problem without getting the populace to vote on it.

This would allow for more and better democracy.

We should nationalise our water, electricity and gas companies. The resources of the people should not be in the hands of individuals. At the moment these companies make a lot of money from high prices. The government should make a small profit from it so the populace can have cheap energy and so that those 20,000-50,000 pensioners that die each year won't have to die from the cold.

As for banks they should also be nationalised and because multiculturalism is supposed to be beneficial we will have sharia law style bank accounts which will mean that people won't have to pay much interest on their loans.

I have already proven that aid is not beneficial, a lie that liberals continue to spew. Seeing as it is beneficial for none of us they will get limited aid and they will have to do something in return to get it like be part of our criminal and immigration policies (see above for more info).

I am sure if we did these changes we would have a more progressive society and we would have less taxes as we wouldn't be spending as much. I estimate atleast £10 billion would be saved. Which mean we would roughly each save £166 on our taxes.

I have finished now. Do you feel the same way as me? if so come and join my site if not why not debate at my site? I will have a kind of blog and forums.

Join here

If you don't already have an acornrack account you will have to sign up here first.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Nationalism and communism are the future

Most people think that nationalism is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing at alll. Infact for atleast the next two hundred years nationalism is the future. Nationalism does not cause wars. The leaders behind nationalism cause wars. That is like saying communism was responsible for 96 million deaths (more than hitler). That is wrong. The people behind communism are the bad guys. Communism is a good idea but it will never succeed for atleast another two hundred years and communism will not be voted in. We will eventually evolve into it step by step.

Nationalism is the future for now because it puts the nation first which is a good thing. We should not be giving aid to third world countries because it doesn't help them so it is a waste. Nationalism works. The past leaders of Britain knew this but they didn't care. From the 1950s onwards they overthrew nationalist regimes in the third world while they were helping annihilate poverty (read Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World). No other government type has succeeded in doing that yet the nationalist regimes were being successful. The democratic nationalist regimes of iran and egypt are two examples. Iran nationalised their oil because it would give them more of the profits to help the poor instead of the low income they were getting from the business. Britain didn't like this because it was a British company that owned that oil and the British government got part of the profits. The British government didn't care that it would help the poor and they helped fund a coup which to this day still has repercussions.

Until the third world can help themselves and stop continually getting aid from us they will never succeed so we should stop handing over aid to them and get them to get themselves out of poverty. Until that happens they should receive nothing from us because it shows that they just aren't civilised enough to be with the rest of the world.
If people want our governments to give aid the government should allow people to volunteer to give an extra 2% (or more) of their income in taxes to put in an emergency relief fund for disaster relief. Not one penny of my money should go to a foreign country if I don't want it to. If you want your money to go to a foreign country as aid you should be the one to finance it with extra tax money because my tax money should go to my country.

A world government is inevitable however until we are all equally capable in every country it should not happen. Only when the third world has become our equal should we even consider becoming a part of one government. This will take hundreds of years. If we do it before the third world becomes our equal they will drag us down and I do not want that and it will only be beneficial to the third world and no one else.

The only way to speed up the world to a one world government is to completely halt immigration from third world countries. This is so that their professionals of the future can build their country up. If they don't stay in their own country the third world will stay as bad as it is now with no relief ever. The architects, doctors, teachers and lawyers of the future will not have a future in the third world and the third world will not have a future at all.

In about two hundred years communism will begin to form the world. Most people say that people are too selfish for communism to work however that is exactly why it will work. Let me explain, most people would much rather have fun than work if they didn't have to pay the bills and pay for food so it will gradually happen. Communism will not be voted in. Society will evolve into it and this is how it will happen:

1. Like in England everywhere will get free education and healthcare provided free by the state.
2. Just like healthcare governments will decide that people should be guaranteed good health and be guaranteed food, water and heat so that will be paid for.
3. Machines will be made to do the job of man. This will mean that work will just be a national service like the army is today. The workers will most likely be on the production line.
4. The government will then decide that happiness should be guaranteed to the nation so fun will also be paid for.

As you can see, nothing in the end will need to be paid for, effectively negating the need for money which will make it a communist society and because it happened slowly people may not realise that it was infact communism.

Of course there may be some that want to work such as scientists who want to invent things to make our lives better but it will be solely out of choice.

If you haven't seen it yet you should know that only with nationalism can communism succeed in the future. Nationalism is for the hault of all immigration so the professionals of the third world can build the third world up making the third world our equals. This can only happen through nationalism because nationalism is the only government type that is serious about tackling immigration.