Thursday, 26 February 2009

Sympathy for the Compassionate Conservative

Westminster mourns after Cameron's loss

What the Financial Times describes as a "shocked Westminster" was
yesterday united in expressing its sympathy with David and Samantha Cameron following the sudden death of their son, Ivan.

The six-year-old, who suffered from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, died in hospital on Wednesday morning.

The normal exchanges of prime minister's questions were put on hold as Gordon Brown led the Commons in expressing sympathy."I know that in an all too brief young life he brought joy to all those around him," said Brown."I know also that for all the days of his life he was surrounded by his family's love."Ann Treneman in the Times says the prime minister "managed to find exactly the right words and tone for this most unusual and sudden of Commons occasions".

While my first instincts would be to smothered any such a child of mine at birth, I would also have realised that we live in the sort of Britain where it would profit me to look after it for the rest of its hopefully short life, in order to reap the "Man of the People, formerly a toff", "sleeping on hospital floors, reading nursery rhymes to other less privileged children at all hours of the day", "at ease with public services" kind of kudos he is now getting as a result of his 6 year "investment", at the expense of the NHS.

I would still have smothered it at birth, though. Sorry.

I am hoping you will congratulate me for my honesty, but I know you will rail at me for my callousness.

Instead of praising me for my forbearance from imposing the needs of my hopeless hypothetical child on the NHS and at taxpayers' expense for 6 whole years knowing it would die anyway without ever speaking or walking or in any way acknowledging my existence, you will condemn me for proposing infanticide.

This is the sort of Britain we live in.

Saturday, 21 February 2009

Islamic justice begins in Scotland?

Killers to pay for victims' funerals

That is an excellent idea and, if I may say so, rather Islamic. The idea of restorative justice through "blood money" - of victim compensation by the perpetrator - would be fairer than small awards from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Choosing to pursue someone through the civil courts for compensation - where the burden of proof is lower - has been done before. The O J Simpson case comes to mind.

I do not myself see why other taxpayers should compensate the victim for a crime when they were not at fault.

Can someone explain to me why the current system is supposed to be better than making the wrongdoer himself personally compensate the victim?

If someone cannot adequately compensate a victim, then that might be a good reason for bringing back slavery. This would also solve the problem of obtaining cheap indigenous labour.

As Britain bobs uncertainly in a sea of bankruptcy, there is actually a huge potential of slave labour which could be humanely harnessed - with the possibility of manumission

once they have paid off their debt - for the good of the nation ...

Friday, 20 February 2009

British schoolchildren taught by 5th columnist BNP activists?

More distressing school stories!

School receptionist faces sack because her 5 year old daughter frightened another child claiming it would "go to hell" if it did not believe in Jesus.

If I had been the headteacher I would have said:

"There, there. Not everybody believes there is even a hell. The
worst thing that will happen to you will be in this world. Dying full of
regrets and unforgiven for all your sins will be quite bad enough.
Afterwards people will still talk about you for a while and discuss the things
you did that were right or wrong, and then it will be well and truly over,
unless you are famous, like all the characters from history you have already
learnt about such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela

These days you cannot even let your child bring in a peanut butter sandwich for lunch in case another child with a nut allergy might steal your child's sandwich, eat it and die. This is because under health and safety regulations teaching staff must protect our obese, allergic, neurotic and pregnant children from all foreseeable danger. Otherwise, they will just fall over and die if they come across anything as threatening as a peanut butter sandwich, a Home Truth, a Hurt Feeling or a Great Disappointment.

Remember the story about the teacher fired because she told her 10 year olds Santa did not exist?

Here is yet another distressing school story to show why this country is going to the dogs because taught by fools or the malicious and the vicious, who want to turn them into foul-mouthed promiscuous pregnant intoxicated illegitimate illiterate innumerate Santa-believing unemployables.

They will of course be voting BNP when they find themselves unable to compete with foreigners, even in the McJobs they are currently being made fit for.

Children as young as 5 will be given sex education.

Is there a 5th columnist of BNP activist-teachers in British secondary schools bent on turning our children into CHAVs, in order to recruit the next generation of BNP voters?

I think we should be told.

After all the BNP are also known as the CHAV Party. There is already a clear connection.

It is also very interesting that the BNP continue to bleat about bringing back grammar schools.

As some of us are aware, grammar schools are full of the pushy middle classes. In the urban areas grammar schools are populated mainly by non-white children of even pushier parents who have been having their children tutored for their 11+ since Year 4. (It is well known that non-white parents are far pushier than white parents.)

We all know that the typical urban white working class won't even have a look in. Most of them will not even have heard of grammar schools. If they have they would think "It's not for the likes of us."

BNP education policy is just as much a slap in the face to the white working classes as Labour's.

At least David Cameron has now said he would send his children to the local comp - the only courageous thing he has said so far.

Thursday, 19 February 2009

A religion that gets round to defining who is thy "neighbour"


YUSUFALI: Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;-

PICKTHAL: And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful,

SHAKIR: And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful;

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

What sex has to do with the state of the nation

"What connection there may be between the sexual partners we choose and current levels of immigration I really do not know. I would surprised if you are able to establish that one is actually the cause of the other."

Let me explain then.

Our schools teach the children it is OK to have sex once they have reached secondary school.

11 year old mother, 13 year old father stories are not uncommon.

Society and schools make excuses for their behaviour and dumb down education to bend over backwards to accommodate the kind of children these child-parents are going to bring up.

This would explain the uselessness of state education.

The uselessness of British state education makes British employers avoid indigenous workers.

Immigrants keep coming because they know most Britons are congenitally incapable of being made employable because their "education" system that is such a national and international disgrace.

Government dare not stop this in-flow because employers would start complaining that they cannot get the staff and the economy would come to a grinding halt.

Teenage mums and dads are perhaps not so blameworthy because they are but minors failed by their parents and the state because they are not really warned not to have sex.

On the contrary, they were mostly given contraceptives by their schools to encourage them to practice "safe" sex.

Their parents weren't bothered because they knew the state would pick up the tab.

Perhaps we are to blame, to use an old-fashioned liberal refrain.

If some of us dare not tell our children that we would rather not have illegitimate grandchildren - as so many middle class parents dare not, for fear of appearing old-fashioned, censorious, judgemental and all the other deadly liberal sins of intolerance, then it is not surprising that we country is full of broken families with the next generation of under-achieving and promiscuous Fiona McKeowns, Scarlett Keelings and Alfie Pattens bringing up another generation even more degraded than themselves.

Since we are not allowed to criticise single mums, and the only solution they can think of is to give primary school children sex education lessons from 5 onwards, we know what's going to happen, don't we?

The Muslims will take over ...

They are going to take over and start a new British export of its people, so dumbed-down and degraded by their slavery to the god of their appetites, or, if you prefer, the Seven Deadly Sins of

1 Lust (Latin, luxuria)
2 Gluttony (Latin, gula)
3 Greed (Latin, avaritia)
4 Sloth (Latin, acedia)
5 Wrath (Latin, ira)
6 Envy (Latin, invidia)
7 Pride (Latin, superbia)

8. Self-Pity (a new eighth one which deserves a special mention - Its Latin version cannot be found in my English-Latin dictionary. This suggests that the concept was unknown to the Romans, or was perhaps so unRoman as to be actually absent from their vocabulary.)

that they will be only fit for the white slave trade, except for those who have converted to Islam to avoid such hubristic sinning.

This actually sounds like quite a good plot for a political thriller of a futuristic Britain under a Britannic caliphate, come to think of it ...

A religion that explicitly specifies the death penalty ...


YUSUFALI: Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

PICKTHAL: And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped.

SHAKIR: And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

Friday, 13 February 2009

The Religion of War and Peace; the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian

Islam is of course a religion of both peace and war. That is the beauty of the Koran, in my opinion. An argument for every conceivable situation. I don't know why the Muslims don't just come out and admit it. Nothing to be ashamed of, particularly as it regulated the treatment of prisoners of war with something not dissimilar to the Geneva Convention.

A little truth would be more disarming than hypocritically insisting that it is all about peace.

The peace they talk about is the peace you get after submitting to Reality and the Truth.

Of course many Islamophobes mischievously talk about it being a religion of subjugation.

In fact, it is quite clear that Islam while perceived to be authoritarian, ie an ideology under which one is expected to do what one is told, is in fact more liberal and humane than anything to be found in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Its principles are also clearer and easy to remember, unlike the New Testament.

It can easily be shown that Christianity is a totalitarian religion, ie an ideology under which one is expected to think as one is told, or else.

The Holy Trinity "explains" the divinity of Christ. To not believe in Christ's divinity means one is no longer Christian and it is one of the Mysteries that must not be questioned if one wishes to remain Christian, and also in order to avoid being burnt at the stake as a heretic, in the bad old days of the Inquisition and the Reformation.

Which is the more reasonable and improved version of monotheism I shall leave to your judgment.

Such a pity then that Muslims tend to give their religion a bad name, and make unattractive what is in fact attractive, by stubbornly associating it with beards and burqas ....

Geert Wilders and a missed opportunity for the Muslims

How disappointing that Wilders' did not make it past Heathrow to be present for the filming of Fitna

The Islamic response to that can be found at

Islamic scholars, aggrieved Muslims and British Islamophobes of all races, classes and parties could have been fitted into a BBC studio. The ruckus of witnessing a heated debate where entertainment and enlightenment might have been possible could have been enjoyed by the British public.

Unfortunately, it was not to be, with both the government, the BBC and the Muslims lacking a more imaginative and adventurous response.

Perhaps an invitation extended by Muslims to their mosque for a post-screening debate after a nice curry dinner would have been just the thing to bring about world peace and mutual understanding.

Promises from the Muslims guaranteeing his safety so that he would emerge from such an invitation alive and unbeheaded might have been necessary to induce him to attend, but it is possible to imagine that that such an event could have taken place yesterday, and might indeed take place one day in the not too distant future.

The Sacred Cow that the British worship


This BNP film is another conspiracy theory used by them to blame "traitors" and foreigners.

Instinctively preferring the cock-up theory to the conspiracy one, I find it astonishing that so many of us have not yet worked out that family breakdown is caused by the easy availability of extra-marital sex.

Most of us are conscious and unconscious worshippers at the shrine of sexual freedom. The idol of the Sacred Cow we worship is the Slag, Slapper and the Single Mother.

I am proposing that she be slain, metaphorically, of course.

But try saying that in mixed company and you risk being slain yourself!

There is no need for any violence or butchery, merely -

1) the withdrawal of child benefit for mothers unable to produce a marriage certificate

2) the end of no-fault divorce, which is what we in effect have in this country

3) the repeal of the Sex Discrimination Act 1972 (as well as all the other "thought-crime" anti-discrimination legislation)

The break-down and low birth-rate of Western society can be traced to consumerism, sexual liberation and the pill, as well as the welfare state's role in preventing individuals from suffering the consequences of their sexual liberation. (The promiscuity and simultaneous incompetence in the practice of contraception of the typical worshipper of Sexual Freedom would be laughable if it were not so tragic.)

Since it is sexual liberation that has turned Britain into a Nation of Illegitimate, Illiterate and Innumerate Losers whom British employers would rather not employ, it is time that we asked ourselves what is to be done.

The matter has now become urgent, since it has a knock-on effect on state education, which is increasingly affected by the behaviour of badly-parented children. Instead of teaching children what every British school-child ought to know to become employable, they are now devoting considerable resources and time to socialising them, at the expense of real education and Britain's ability to compete internationally.

Yet, what does the BNP do but bleat on about bringing back grammar schools and the Christianity that has yesterday so decisively rejected them? Anglican clergymen are now banned from joining the BNP. Grammar schools are full of the children of pushy middle classes parents. In urban areas, there are actually more children of non-white pushy parents than there are of white pushy parents.

I would be very surprised if there is a even one child in a grammar school today whose parent(s) can be said to be working class.

What does the BNP say about single-parenthood, no-fault easy divorce and feminism? Nothing! Because these "brave" British nationalists fear the withdrawal of "normal service" from their WAGs.

They of course prefer to blame foreigners, especially Muslims, rather than acknowledge that their own womenfolk (ie their grandmothers, mothers, sisters and daughters) and of course their own preference for easy sex with no guilt, could perhaps be to blame.In fact, anyone who does not express disapproval of single parenthood, for fear of being seen to be judgemental, is to some degree culpable.

We are all to blame!

The Jeremy Kyle Show perfectly illustrates the degradation of the urban proletariat, also known as CHAVs, as a result of decades of toxic social policy and sex "education" as taught by British secondary schools.

This is what you become, when you do exactly what you want, and make a god of your appetites, is the moral to be extracted from the accelerating dementia, decline and degradation of the British people. This would of course apply to any people similarly in thrall to feminism, female promiscuity and who lack the backbone to condemn single-parenthood amongst their friends and family, in case they should incur social disapproval for being "judgemental".

There is no conspiracy and no requirement for any conspiracy to be in existence, for the British to continue destroying all that was once good about being British.

Monday, 9 February 2009

The New Model Comprehensive and Tory Education Policy

It remains to be seen if David Cameron's proclamation that he will send his children to the local comp is as brave as it sounds, and how much his proposals will be watered-down by the time he gets round to being in a position to do anything about the national disgrace that is British "education".

The New Model Comprehensive must have all of the following features:

1. Use a standardised national syllabus that apply to British schoolchildren, ie they should acquire the same body of knowledge and are tested in the same way

2. Have both subjective and objective testing for every subject, ie multiple choice/fill-in-the-blanks for objective tests, essays/projects for subjective assessment

3. Have marks out of 100 for both subjective and objective testing.

4. Stream on the basis of a child's average marks in all subjects

5. Have a termly report of the child's position in class.  

6. Be single sex to help prevent unwanted teenage pregnancy

7. Have the option of corporal punishment and expulsion to re-establish an atmosphere of discipline and respect for teachers

8. Have Schools of Correction for those who refuse or cannot adapt to Normal School

9. Rid itself of the personalised curriculum that is currently so fashionable but which has the effect of hiding the failure of the educational establishment in their purpose of educating our children. Personalised curricula dumbs down. Objective criteria to assess a child's knowledge of what "every schoolchild ought to know" is the only way for transparent and easy-to-understand grading and testing criteria that does not require two pages of notes to explain to already dumbed-down parents.

10.  Teach logic in schools.

The BNP golliwog

It seems that the BNP Merchandising Department have taken my advice. When just a few days ago only golly pens and badges could be obtained, they have now greatly expanded their range.

Thursday, 5 February 2009

The Queen and The Golliwog

I have always seen the purpose of the British monarchy insofar as it gives the British a right royal real-life soap opera that runs and runs.

However, The Queen's decision to withdraw the sale of golliwogs from the Sandringham Gift Shop is a very bad move indeed, and will arouse Republican sentiment far more than any misbehaviour on the part of the other royals.

In fact, this instinctive knee-jerk kow-towing to Political Correctness can be seen as a political gesture and will have the effect of politicising the owning and buying golliwogs, and in effect banning them.

A pang of regret that I no longer have my childhood golliwog - he had black woollen plaited hair, thick red smiling lips, a blue jacket and red and white striped trousers - deepens my gloom at PC totalitarianism, which it seems Her Majesty is bent on fueling.

I like to think that HM Queen has been badly advised - as was Prince Harry when he apologised for using "Paki" to describe his Pakistani colleague - and wonder if the pusillanimous advisers to the Royal Family are perhaps to blame.

It is well known that the Royal Family have not been very fortunate or wise in their choice of royal advisers over the decades.

If it was indeed her own decision, then I very much fear that, for the very first time, Republican wrath stirs within my breast.

If none dare buy and sell golliwogs, then I predict it will not been too long before the BNP Merchandising Department will be selling BNP golliwogs in defiance of this ridiculous fuss over a child's toy.

Why, it might be just the thing to ask for, this Christmas coming.

Wednesday, 4 February 2009

Totalitarian Britain - Carol Thatcher and BBC "values"

So, Carol Thatcher calling a tennis player a "golliwog" is more offensive than Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross leaving obscene messages on the answering machine of Andrew Sachs to the effect that Russell Brand has had carnal knowledge of his granddaughter, Georgina Bailie.

Why didn't Ross and Brand just leave an obscene message on the answering machine of Georgina Bailie, the Satanic Slut and burlesque dancer? This may be due to the operating fear that the feminists in charge at the BBC would have their balls for breakfast.

And so they picked on her grandfather.

So, in British society, it is considered more socially-acceptable to the grandfather of a slag and slapper than it is to call a slag and slapper a slag and slapper?

And calling someone "golliwog" is worse than either of the above?

These are the values the BBC are now propagating.

There is no need to ask yourself if the world has gone mad. It went mad as long ago as 1972, when the first of the series of thought-crime anti-discrimination Acts were passed.

The chickens have now come home to roost.

Tuesday, 3 February 2009

Replacing Holocaust Denial as a Concept

The elements of Holocaust Denial are (the questioning and ultimately) rejection of any of the following:

a) that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people;

b) that between five and seven million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies;

c) and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.

Note that is quite easy to be accused of Holocaust Denial should you point out that:

1) The Madagascar Plan (formulated in 1940) is evidence of an intention by the Nazis to expel rather than exterminate. The 'Wannsee Protocol', to a few, contains little that links the conference directly to the Holocaust. The statements in it are open to interpretation, especially the phrase 'final solution'. But very many believe that it was a very clear statement of intent and that the Holocaust followed on from this meeting and document. Hitler himself did not attend the Wannsee Conference of 1942.

2) The figures are in dispute and may be lower.

3) Bishop Richard Williamson and David Irving are convinced that, although there were gas chambers for de-lousing concentration camp inmates, to systematically exterminate Jews using cyanide gas would have required air-tight doors and be very dangerous for those who came to empty the chamber of corpses later. They have repeatedly stated that no such air-tight gas chambers have been found and doubt their existence.

4) No one is denying that many Jews died at the hands of Nazis. What is in dispute is whether they died of exhaustion, disease and the conditions of the camps, or whether they were systematically exterminated. If they were being systematically worked to death, then there is surely at least a slave-master's interest in keeping one's slaves alive so that they may continue working?

You may be very wrong if you think you can discuss these matters in mixed company and escape accusations of Holocaust Denial. Those who question or deny all or any of the above elements would be Holocaust Deniers according to the following circular logic:

If you are a Revisionist (one of those who question the Intentionalist Official Version) you are by definition a Reductionist (ie one of those who would wish to reduce the culpability of Hitler and the Nazis).

If you are Reductionist, you are by definition a Holocaust Denier and therefore an Evil, Racist, Fascist Nazi Sympathiser and Unfit for Decent Society.

You may be accused, convicted and jailed, as David Irving was, if you live in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. So beware when you discuss, if you dare, any of the points outlined in (a), (b) and (c) above.

(The BNP will not be touching that issue with a barge-pole because they do not wish their leader, if he were to become MEP, to be jailed. Why they would wish to spend time, energy and the hard-earned money of their hard-working donors in order to participate in an institution they have already declared a hostility to and a wish to withdraw from is of course one of The Great Mysteries of British Politics.)


THE INTENTIONALIST SCHOOL adheres to the "purist teaching" that was produced at the Nuremberg trials, which - to summarize briefly - asserts that the extermination of the Jews originated exclusively from Hitler's initiative.

THE FUNCTIONALISTS, however, hold the position that the alleged exterminations had occurred and progressively increased, as it were by force of circumstance.

"HOLOCAUST" originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Its Latin form (holocaustum) was first used with specific reference to a massacre of Jews by the chroniclers Roger of Howden and Richard of Devizes in the 1190s. Since the late 19th century, it has been used primarily to refer to disasters or catastrophes.

The biblical word SHOAH (also spelled Sho'ah and Shoa), meaning "calamity," became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s. Shoah is preferred by many Jews for a number of reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word holocaust, as a Greek pagan custom.

60 years on, isn't it about time we rationalised the terms of debate so that recent history may be discussed honestly and openly, without the cloud of Holocaust Denial hanging over anyone brave or naïve enough to attempt to do this?

Vote: Should we replace the concept of "Holocaust Denial" with "the Functionalist v Intentionalist debate"?