Sunday 31 January 2010

Ripping a baby from its mother's breast: just an ordinary day for the eugenicist social workers

The eugenics agenda may have gone underground since Hitler gave it a bad name, but it shows itself alive and well in the sickening case of Kerry Robertson, who first came to public attention when social workers prevented her marrying her boyfriend on the grounds that she wasn't intelligent enough. The couple went on the run to Ireland, fearful that the Fabian ghouls would take her child away (she was pregnant at the time), believing that the Irish authorities were not quite as evil as their British counterparts. Alas, her baby has now been kidnapped by the state.

Kerry has committed no crime, unless the love of a mother for her own child is now forbidden by this monstrous Fabian regime.

Hat tip: Freedom Theory UK

Hen's teeth

I like Clare Short. Honest politicians are few and far between. Her views of Tony Blair's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry are worth hearing, as are her recollections from inside the Cabinet. When someone is honest, even if you disagree with them, at least you can have a proper debate, rather than a rhetorical point-scoring contest.

Clare Short reminds me of what Labour meant in my family. Not the control-freak social engineering of Fabianism; just ordinary people sticking together against the rich bastards. No doubt this instinct of self-preservation through solidarity has been exploited and harnessed in negative ways, but it is not wholly unjustified.

Medical Inquisition: "Wakefield is a heretic - burn him!"

Be advised: health scares are only permitted when they are sanctioned by the government and make obscene amounts of money for the pharmaceutical corporations. Health scares that threaten big pharma's bottom line are VERBOTEN.

With that understood, it is no surprise that the medical establishment have pursued their vendetta against Dr Andrew Wakefield, for having the temerity to investigate something that shouldn't have been investigated, namely autism and the possible link with vaccination.

Hat tip for video: Fausty

The headline that epitomises the New Labour era: 'New Rules'

New Labour. New rules. New taxes. New schemes to prey upon the public and suck the blood out of business, or what's left of it. According to this report from the BBC:

"From April, all businesses and public sector organisations that use more than a certain amount of energy must register for the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme and, from next year, pay for the carbon they emit."

CRC? That stands for what, I wonder?

"The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme requires businesses to cut consumption or face stiff fines."

And meanwhile Ed 'son of a red' Milliband, the Energy Secretary, warns that "recent rows over scientific data must not damage efforts to control climate change."

But Ed, you cunt, what you call a recent row was when the public learnt that the scientific data was a fraud. You can't just carry on as if nothing's happened. Oh, sorry, my mistake, you can. Ed says:

"It's right that there's rigour applied to all reports about about climate change but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there."

Rigour? A mistake made? Well, I suppose you could call it a mistake. They got caught committing scientific fraud. As for the overwhelming picture, it ain't overwhelming once you realise that it was painted by the fraudsters.

Saturday 30 January 2010

Fabian state snoopers target five-year-olds

The Big Brother control freaks are going after five-year-olds, making them fill in questionaires about their home life. The information will be entered into a database and parents will be targeted for re-education.

As usual these sickos are able mask their agenda in the language of moderation. They will 'encourage' parents to meet with the local SS (Social Services). It is not difficult to imagine that failure to comply with such 'encouragement' will be viewed very dimly.

New Labour's army of do-gooders are fundamentalists, upon whom rational argument is wasted. These people, who in a free society could be viewed with ridicule, are, when empowered by the force of the state, very dangerous indeed. They have no concept of individual liberty, and, worse still, they have absolute faith in the righteousness of their poisonous creed.

Tuesday 26 January 2010

New Labour paedo nazi scat-munchers push on with tyrannical agenda

New Labour, the worst government in this country's history, a government dreamt up by George Orwell at the height of tuberculosis-induced fever, a study in limp-wristed tyranny, are rushing ahead with their destruction of all vestiges of freedom in our benighted country.

So we learn Transport Commissar Paul Clark has stated that passengers cannot refuse to be put through the DNA-frying perv-scanners being set up in airports around the world. We'll see about that, you perverted nazi cunt.

Paul Clark is a terrorist. He employs terrorism to advance a political agenda.

Arrest Judge David Boulton

Words can't really express the depths of my fury, but here goes:

Same story, another young life scarred, because a fucking useless shit-eating judge can't do his fucking job, and thinks raping little girls is a minor matter.

On your head, Judge Boulton, on your account is this crime. You are guilty and I hope you get what's coming to you, and the same goes for all you paedo-loving, rapist-loving, burglar-sympathising cock-suckers who masquerade as judges.

Wu Tang it ain't

Economic rap battles don't come bigger than this. Hat tip: Reason amongst others.

Monday 25 January 2010

Hypocrisy or irony: you decide

David 'that cunt with the spivvy moustache' Milliband, the Fabian, the atheist, the son of a communist, is sending his son to a Church of England school two miles from his home, despite having a secular one 80 yards from his front door. Apparently he's been attending the church for the last couple of years, so his child can escape the worst excesses that his Fabian creed has wreaked on the state-run schools.

Sunday 24 January 2010

The murder of Dr Kelly: truth to be revealed in 2080

The government has put a gag on all information relating to the murder of Dr David Kelly for 70 years. This is because they need to protect their ludicrous cover story that Dr Kelly committed suicide from any kind of scrutiny. This is also why the government stepped in and stopped the inquest.

I don't know who killed Dr Kelly, and I don't know why, but he was murdered and the government is complicit in covering it up. Hutton, Falconer and the rest of you; y'all a bunch of murdering scum.

Bloom on the offensive

Godfrey Bloom cuts to the chase. Hat tip to Infowars.

Back to the old country

Not my old country of course, I come from Surrey. Here is the Kuban Cossack Choir.

Silver Bird

This is cool. Hat tip to Disinter, who calls it 'anarchy in action'.

Pierrots Anglais de la Paroisse

I'm not gonna tell you what this is, unless you ask.

UPDATE: 8th April, 2011. The embedded song doesn't work any more, so I removed it. I couldn't remember what the hell my cryptic title referred to, but it was a track named 'English Sparrows' by Paul Parrish, which I can't recall. So there you have it, folks.

My ballot still up for grabs

With the election coming this side of midsummer, I am surely not alone in pondering my vote. The choice is as follows:

1) The double bluff - don't bother voting

Don't give 'em the oxygen of legitimacy. Let it fall. One vote doesn't make any difference anyway, does it?

2) Spoil the ballot

This is a less nihilistic version of the above. No bad language, mind - don't oppress the tellers with obscenity, lest you lose the moral highground.

3) Vote UKIP

Don't know if they're standing my way. Ditto times two the Libertarians (these latter really should lose the bastard griffin - I've got a way better symbol for the party, but would they listen?)

4) Vote for some other minor party or independent

Maybe they'll have no chance of winning, but help them avoid losing their deposit.

5) Vote Tory

NOOOOOOOOO! I can't do it. I can't pretend they're the answer. I know the change they offer is an illusion - like a hit of smack on desolation row, we'll still be lying on the piss-stained mattress.

6) Vote Lib Dem

Fuck off. No way.

And that is all the options available.

Bizzaro world of the Church of Atheiology

I had the misfortune, though we learn from our sufferings, to come across 'Nerdstock 2009' on someone else's telly - some kind of godless Christmas event, billed as "a variety show featuring a stellar cast of comedians, musicians and scientists". The assembled product however is not so much stellar as Trans Neptunian Object (See below).

The funniest thing (and believe me this is funnier than the comedians on stage) about Dawkins and his crowd is their inability to see how they have unwittingly created their own religion, with its own dogma, its own legends of martyred saints, its own insulating comforts and it's own slightly paranoid sense of superiority.

Thus we get this strange and empty celebration, abysmal music (some of the worst songs I've ever heard), unfunny comics, some pat-yourself-on-the-back-for-being-so-clever crap, one or two decent moments (I admit I quite like the rapper and the guy reading stories he wrote as a young boy) but generally a bunch of bollocks.

Still, watch it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Eight Trans Neptunian Objects, that the Lord made

Saturday 23 January 2010

The real reason for the Second Amendment

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp eloquently defending the Second Amendment and explaining (last few seconds) what its purpose actually is (hint: it ain't about duck hunting).

For my mother

Ain't put any music up for a while, and I rarely update my tastes, so here's George and the boys from Funkadelic (pic found here).

Friday 22 January 2010

'The wealth of nations is the product of freedom, not of tutelage'

James Higham got me thinking about the great John Taylor Gatto, who speaks for me, when it comes to education (sorry about the poor sound). Read his book 'The Underground History of American Education' here.

Crony capitalism

"An entire political system has been built on the myth of a Republican Party defending business interests and a Democrat party defending workers' interests. In fact, both Parties are defending themselves to stay in power, and the loser is the constituent and the little guy. They're in league to retain power for themselves and its a nice story to tell that they're at war every day over these deep issues but they are really in collusion to stay in power."

Denis Calabrese, speaking to John Stossel on the subject of crony capitalism (last few moments of the clip, slightly paraphrased). See the rest of the show at UK Libertarian - hat tip in that direction.

Tuesday 19 January 2010

No guns for negroes

Interesting film, revealing the racist roots of gun control laws.

Hat tip: Infowars

Protectionism: a heretic speaks

The fate of Cadburys has provoked much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It seems beyond doubt that its take-over by Kraft will lead to redundancies in Britain, and production shifting overseas. Some will point out that this merely continues an existing trend in the company. Gordon Brown, pitifully (if he thinks anyone believes him) declares that British jobs must be safe-guarded. Empty words from a moral vacuum.

What the take-over illustrates, and sadly is likely to illustrate further, is the consequence of globalised free trade. When the same product can be made in a factory in one country or another, and the only difference is the massive wage disparity between the workforces in those two countries - the wage bill being the single largest cost, a company will be forced to shift production to the cheaper country. It will not be able to compete if it does not, and the only measure that can reverse the flow of jobs out of our country is to put in place protectionist tariffs. With a tariff in place, which nullifies the wage disparity, our domestic manufacturers can compete. Without one, jobs will continue to haemorrhage.

Preposterous! cry the free-traders. That argument was lost long ago, they will remind me, which is true as far as the political world is concerned, but free trade is a utopian ideology, not a scientifically-established fact. Look at the countries which have dragged themselves up - Germany and Japan in the post-war period, the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries and China today. This was not achieved through free trade, but protectionism.

Free trade brings great benefits, they will say: cheaper products for the consumer. Who would want to pay an extra 50 pence for a chocolate bar, or £500 for a television?

Sure, under free trade we pay less for products, but the government takes half of everything we earn! Cheap products, high taxes. If the government shifted its revenue-raising efforts to tariffs, an immediate and commensuate reduction in our taxes would be possible. Cut the government down to size, and taxes could be reduced still further.

Others have made the case better than I can, notably Sir James Goldsmith at the time of the GATT negotiations. Free markets; yes. Free trade; only between regions and countries with similar wage levels.

The main reason that tariffs and protectionism are resolutely off the table is that they require something that the elite have laboured throughout the 20th century to demonise, dismantle and destroy: national sovereignty.

Polybius on government

In connection to the post below on democracy, here is a classical view of the different forms of government, taken from Polybius:

'Most of those whose object it has been to instruct us methodically concerning such matters, distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they call kingship, aristocracy, and democracy. Now we should, I think, be quite justified in asking them to enlighten us as to whether they represent these three to be the sole varieties or rather to be the best; for in either case my opinion is that they are wrong. For it is evident that we must regard as the best constitution a combination of all these three varieties, since we have had proof of this not only theoretically but by actual experience, Lycurgus having been the first to draw up a constitution — that of Sparta — on this principle.

Nor on the other hand can we admit that these are the only three varieties; for we have witnessed monarchical and tyrannical governments, which while they differ very widely from kingship, yet bear a certain resemblance to it, this being the reason why monarchs in general falsely assume and use, as far as they can, the regal title. There have also been several oligarchical constitutions which seem to bear some likeness to aristocratic ones, though the divergence is, generally, as wide as possible. The same holds good about democracies. The truth of what I say is evident from the following considerations. It is by no means every monarchy which we can call straight off a kingship, but only that which is voluntarily accepted by the subjects and where they are governed rather by an appeal to their reason than by fear and force. Nor again can we style every oligarchy an aristocracy, but only that where the government is in the hands of a selected body of the justest and wisest men. Similarly that is no true democracy in which the whole crowd of citizens is free to do whatever they wish or purpose, but when, in a community where it is traditional and customary to reverence the gods, to honour our parents, to respect our elders, and to obey the laws, the will of the greater number prevails, this is to be called a democracy.

We should therefore assert that there are six kinds of governments, the three above mentioned which are in everyone's mouth and the three which are naturally allied to them, I mean monarchy, oligarchy, and mob-rule. Now the first of these to come into being is monarchy, its growth being natural and unaided; and next arises kingship derived from monarchy by the aid of art and by the correction of defects. Monarchy first changes into its vicious allied form, tyranny; and next, the abolishment of both gives birth to aristocracy. Aristocracy by its very nature degenerates into oligarchy; and when the commons inflamed by anger take vengeance on this government for its unjust rule, democracy comes into being; and in due course the licence and lawlessness of this form of government produces mob-rule to complete the series. The truth of what I have just said will be quite clear to anyone who pays due attention to such beginnings, origins, and changes as are in each case natural. For he alone who has seen how each form naturally arises and develops, will be able to see when, how, and where the growth, perfection, change, and end of each are likely to occur again. And it is to the Roman constitution above all that this method, I think, may be successfully applied, since from the outset its formation and growth have been due to natural causes.'

Polybius: Histories, Book VI

Martin Turner, you piece of trash, I'm calling you out!

Like so many wannabe politicians, one Martin Turner of the Lib Dem Party has turned his hand to blogging. But, as usual, there's something missing. That's right - comments. You can submit them, no problem, but don't expect them to appear.

I'm not claiming I have a right to express my views on his dull blog, it's not a freedom of speech issue, but at the end of Turner's flaccid 'why I don't deign to respond to the Albion Alliance' - MORON! What do you think your stoopid post is, if not a response? - he says:

"if you want an honest answer, then ask an honest question, and if you want a sensible answer, then ask a sensible question.."

Therefore I commented:

"The reason for the formation of the Albion Alliance is because Labour and Lib Dems betrayed clear manifesto commitments to hold a referendum, and lately the tories jettisoned their commitment. Hence our desire to pin you politicians down. It doesn't mean to say we believe you'll be true to your word, but at least we'll know where we stand.

You want an honest question? A sensible question? Okay, here's the question:

Will you push for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU?

Let me remind you Nick Clegg called for this during the 'debate' over the Lisbon Treaty. If my question is not honest or sensible, please explain why.

So if you're passing Martin Turner, why don't you answer the fucking question? Too difficult for you? I doubt it. YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER BECAUSE A TRUTHFUL ANSWER WILL REVEAL YOU TO BE AN UNPRINCIPLED PRICK.

I hope nobody votes for you.

Monday 18 January 2010

Is this democracy?

DK is having one of his periodic pops at democracy, which is all very well, if for no other reason than to turn attention on a very important political concept, and one for which the coinage has Justify Fullbeen greatly debased. DK's criticisms are mostly correct, as far as they go. Democracy has certain flaws, which are worth being reminded of, if only to draw attention to what the word actually means, being so over-used and vaguely defined. But DK seems to be attacking, not democracy, but our present political system, which I think is inaccurately defined as such, for reasons I will expand upon.

Regarding the abuse of language, common in politics, Orwell writes:

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.'

From the essay 'Politics and the English Language'

I am not suggesting DK is employing this latter technique, but it seems the case that a debate on the subject in hand will involve sometimes as many definitions as participants. Insofar as DK wishes to attack our present political system, I will generally agree, but not when he attributes it to a surfeit of democracy.

My contribution to the comment thread was as follows:

"Most modern politicians have studied politics as an academic subject, and thus will know that ours is not a democratic system, but rather a mixed system, such as the constitution of the Roman Republic or Sparta, which combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. This is seen by classical writers such as Polybius and Livy as the best form of government, as the different elements hold in check the others from lapsing into their Mr Hyde alter-egos, being tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule. In our case, the system seems to be breaking down, but I don't think this can be attributed solely to the democratic element mis-functioning."

My reliance on classical writers (see above) is mocked by one Ed Rose, evidently some kind of savant, who tells me that "just because classical writers wrote something, doesn't make it true." He also finds fault with my assertion that our political system is a blend of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy rather than a straight democracy. This seems obvious to me. Our Head of State is an hereditary monarch. We have a bi-cameral Parliament, the more powerful of which, the Commons, is democratically elected, the lesser, the Lords, traditionally a bastion of the aristocracy. This latter is no longer the case, as the hereditary peers have been mostly driven out and replaced by appointees from the political class that dominates the Commons. This could be seen as the democratic element usurping the aristocratic, thus throwing off the checks and balances of the mixed constitution advocated by Polybius, and if we view our Monarch as a powerless rubber stamp for whatever the current government desires, DK's description of our present system would seem to stand.

However, I don't think this really is the case. Our present system does not resemble mob rule. Our nation is one of the most ordered in the world. Our governments are amongst the most stable. The present government probably enjoys the support of 15 to 20% of the population, and much of that grudging. No doubt the government can be assured of widespread passivity. But this is borne not only from a lack of interest or concern, but also a sense of alienation in the people, who disbelieve that change is possible through the so-called democratic system, and as the expenses scandal illustrated, the people view the politicians as cut off from us, out of our reach, almost untouchable.

So, what of the aristocracy? Certainly in terms of the hereditary peers, we can see a diminution of their political clout. But although this bloc has receded, we are not short of individuals and entities that wield power out of proportion to their size, and enjoy the licence once enjoyed by the nobility. By strict definition, aristocracy is government by the best. Oligarchy, it's degenerate alter-ego, is government by the few. The former, I have no doubt, has fled the field, but the latter I see everywhere.

This is getting over-long, so I'll cut to the chase. The main problem with our political system is not that democracy has got out of hand, but rather that the political class has slipped its democratic anchor, corporations and financial institutions now stand in place of the aristocracy, and the monarchy has transformed into on one hand a tabloid soap story and on the other a secretive and autocratic executive. The checks and balances of our mixed constitution are being removed, and power is thus fusing into one, Borg-like entity. Not democracy, but crypocratic oligarchy.

Beyond parody: Fabian Ed Balls accuses the tories of 'social engineering'

What can you say about Ed Balls, a key Fabian operative in the Brownist junta, accusing the tories of 'social engineering'?

Surely this is the highest praise, coming from the mouth of a Fabian? Their whole agenda is based on social engineering. Indeed, their spiritual guide George Bernard Shaw went as far as to advocate the use of gas chambers to rid society of undesirables, which is close to the ultimate in terms of social engineering. Is he complaining perhaps that the tories are stealing labour clothes? In fact, no. He is actually criticising the tories, on the basis that social engineering is a bad thing - at least when practiced by non-Fabians.

So what social engineering is he opposing? Why, supporting married couples and families. Naturally, he tells us what we all know, that the best upbringing for a child is to be raised by two married parents, but any attempt to support this traditional family is wrong, because it will 'stigmatise' those children who are not so lucky.

Right, so to support married parents is social engineering which will (in a zero sum game) be to the detriment of single parents and their children. Does this not mean that Balls and his Fabian pals have been attempting social engineering in the opposite direction? Intentionally seeking to break up and denigrate married families?

Yes it does. Why? Because that is what the Fabians have always wanted.

Thursday 14 January 2010

"A criminal manifesto of absolute tyranny"

The verdict of Alex Jones is correct. White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein's 2008 paper on conspiracy theories reveals both the monstrous Orwellian mindset of the Establishment and its fear that it is losing the infowar. That's right, fuckers - no lie can live forever, and every day more people figure out who the real criminals are. Hence this open discussion of subversion, provocateuring and cointelpro.

Here's a little taste:

"What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."

Hat tip: Prison Planet

Wednesday 13 January 2010

More evidence of GM food dangers

From a report published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences:

"... in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded."

Via the Huffington Post

Sunday 10 January 2010

"One of the greatest medical scandals of the century"

These are the words of Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, who accused big pharma of influencing the WHO into declaring a pandemic.

According to the Mail:

"This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease."

Keep digging Wolfgang. You'll never know what you'll find.

Mylene, only criminals are allowed to use knives

How dare Mylene Klass, home alone but for her two-year-old child, shout and wave a knife at some criminals attempting to break into her garden shed. What does she think this is a, free country or something?

I hope she didn't upset the poor chaps.

Shock! Consternation! the Met Office announces it'll be a barbeque summer... again

The fact that the Met Office is less accurate at predicting weather trends with £150 million than I am with a ten pence piece, using the 'heads it'll be a good summer, tails it won't' method does not deter them.

So, in the middle of winter, Doug Smith, one of their climate schmexperts, warns that 2010 will most likely be the 'hottest on record'. That may well be, especially if the Met Office is compiling the record, and won't let anyone else look at the data. He goes on to explain the influence of 'El Nino', to which the temperature spike of 1998 is attributed, and how the same thing could happen this year. Fine. So it's not the carbon dioxide then? Oh, it's the carbon dioxide as well? Okay.

I'm reminded of the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'. If the Met Office cries 'wolf' every year, no doubt they'll be right sooner or later. We'll get a warm year and they'll pretend they were right all along. As Warren Oates says in 'Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia'; "nobody loses all the time."

Take it away Eulalia!

I was round a friend's house and heard John Williams playing this tune, 'Sonata in D' by Mateo Albeniz, which led me to this version, played by Eulalia Palomero Saber. My pleasure is spoilt only by my envy for her talent.

Friday 8 January 2010

New airport security recruitment poster released

Hey guys, why not turn a hobby into a job? Airport security is looking to recruit fellas to sit in a room watching travellers go through the new 'security' scanners. Their privacy will be massively violated, but don't worry, there's a sign on the office door saying 'knock before entering'!

These new scanners are way better than sliced bread! See how you can make out the details of her pussy? Cool, huh. Sure, they'll be some ugly people too, but you can buzz them straight through, then take your time with the real 'suspects' - this one's definitely on my watch list! But that's me, whatever your particular preference you'll get your fill. Just remember to wipe the keyboard afterwards.

Big fucking joke, huh? Hat tip: Infowars

Geithner and the Goldman gangsters

Is the net closing on the Wall Street 'white-shoe boys' (as Gerald Celente calls them) for their rampant racketeering? Let us pray...

Hat tip: Fausty

Thursday 7 January 2010

GM poison - The New Green

The UK government's chief egg-head is obviously not earning enough from advising HM's ministerial mockeries, so he has to turn a trick or two for the bio-tech pimps. Thus he proclaims we must launch a 'newer and greener revolution' in agriculture - 'green' in this context being the very antithesis of what it is usually understood to mean. This is a new kind of green, whereby diabolical monopolists like Monsanto get to poison the planet with their unwanted, toxic, cancer-causing GM crops. But how can this be marketed to an unwilling public?

The article tells us:

"For six months the government has been preparing the way with a series of reports on consumer opinion. Announcements from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the summer also began to frame GM as a new moral imperative in feeding the world."

The usual global catastrophe crap, which the loving bio-tech industry is going to save us from, and please don't mention all those tests where the rats drop dead, or the stats that show the bio-tech industry's propaganda is a crock of equine fertiliser, or bring up Monsanto's legacy in Vietnam or Brofiscin in Wales.

Yeah right, professor. Because you're a scientist, I'm supposed to believe your words without question? GM crops are not safe and they are most certainly not 'green'.

My kind of women

Via Apocalype Nowish I come across this great collection of awesome beauties - and that's just the guns (ho ho). But seriously folks, it's good to see women who know how to take care of business as these do. What a shame my own nation has been indoctrinated into collective cowardice, because the content of this video is what strikes fear into the hearts of control-freaks and bullies everywhere.

Vive la difference!

Happy to undergo the naked scanners?

Before you allow yourself or worse still your children to be subjected to the new airport scanners, read the following from an article in Technology Review which discusses the potential harm they could cause:

"What of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion."

You think the corporations selling them give a fuck? You think the government will err on the side of caution?

Hat tip:

Good for Iceland

England and Iceland have something to unite around: we all think Alistair Darling and his dysfunctional boss are cunts. I'm glad they've risen up and told their politicians to piss off.

Am I supposed to feel bad that they're refusing to pay back all that money? I don't. Not one penny of it was coming my way. Considering our national debt, it would be like throwing a thimble of water on a forest fire. And what does Darling threaten them with? "You can't join our EU club." Excellent. One more nation saved from the bureaucratic tyranny of Herman van Fuckwit and his crew of traitorous quisling scum.

What this country needs far more than Iceland's money is an example of a people standing up in protest against the hated political class and winning.

Pic: Bob Krist/Corbis

Wednesday 6 January 2010

Whitehouse considering intentional failings over underwear bomber

Webster Tarpley writes:

"WASHINGTON, DC -- Officials in the Obama White House are considering the possibility that the Christmas day attempt by Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Mutallab to blow up an airliner about to land in Detroit was deliberately and intentionally facilitated by unnamed networks inside the US intelligence community. This was the gist of a report by Richard Wolf delivered in this evening's edition of cable network MSNBC's Countdown program, hosted by Keith Olbermann (see below). This report comes on the eve of a special White House interagency conference convoked by Obama to deal with the massive systemic failure of US intelligence in allowing the Yemen alumnus Mutallab to board the Amsterdam to Detroit flight while allegedly carrying a PETN explosive device on his person. "

Cock-up? Turf War? or ... Tarpley continues:

"Obama and his advisors should be urged to consider a third explanation far more plausible than either of these. This third explanation would include the desire of a rogue network inside the US government to unleash a new wave of Islamophobic hysteria to rehabilitate the discredited "global war on terror" strategy in a new and more sophisticated form, while imposing a new round of outrageous and degrading search procedures at airports (such as the full body scanners peddled by the venal Michael Chertoff) to soften up the American people for heightened totalitarian control and political repression."

Mr President, you better watch out if you go down that particular path... don't be taking any open-top Limo rides.

Tuesday 5 January 2010

Gordon Brown want to photograph your child's naked body

Gordon Brown wants to change the law to force children into scanners which photograph every inch of their naked bodies. He doesn't give a fuck that these scanners damage DNA. He'll get his cut from the billion dollar contracts once he's kicked out of Downing street in five months, same as that murdering criminal Tony Blair, now a multi-millionaire.

Not just children, of course. Everyone. Old ladies. Pregnant women. Nazi Paedo New Labour don't care if an unborn baby gets damaged. It will be impossible to prove that the scanner caused the damage.

The airports are where the public is trained to give up all their rights and acquiesce in the tyranny over them. It doesn't matter that almost everything done to us is pointless and ridiculous. Nail clippers and tweazers are treated as offensive weapons. Women nursing babies are forced to drink breast milk to prove its not a bomb. Toiletries are put in clear plastic bags. Why? No one knows or dares to ask the praetorian guards, in case this is taken as a grounds for suspicion.

This cannot be tolerated. This must be resisted.

Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos & the poppy

I urge my readers to check out this article from Global Research, which examines the parallels between the current war in Afghanistan and earlier conflicts in Vietnam and more especially Laos, where the CIA waged a covert war between 1959 and 1974.

Fascinating, disquieting and very well-documented.

Saturday 2 January 2010

You don't need to attend Islington dinner parties to know state schools are shit...

...just take a bus around home time.

Schools czar professor David Woods has launched an attack on middle class people who complain about state education. The subtext is: shut up and take what you get, and don't dare try to buy your way out.

Fabians like Woods hate the middle class, even though he's obviously one of them. Parents must get the message that their opinion doesn't count. Children belong to the state, and its appointed experts have the sole authority to mold their brains any way they consider fit for the purpose assigned.

The article continues with more imbecility:

"Michael Pyke, of the Campaign for State Education (whatever that is) said: "Popular prejudice against comprehensives is a result of the hierarchical nature of our education system. We live in a society where sending your children to a private school confers status on parents."

Bollocks. A lot of parents scrimp and save to pay private fees only because the state schools on offer are terrible. If state schools were better they wouldn't need to do it. However, with the growing interference of the current fabian nazi regime, private schools can barely escape.