A Film Offends

It would seem as though we live in a really fucked hypocritical society these days, and I can't quite fathom the 'outrage' surrounding this, when everything is put in context.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brad-pitt-war-film-bosses-2719016

So today, it appeared in news reports across the UK that an upcoming film set in WWII continued to film on Remembrance day, involving scenes of US and Nazi soldiers fighting one another amid explosions and so on. According to the Mirror, locals in the village of Shirburn, had pleaded with the director to cease filming for remembrance day out of respect, but, well, they carried on obviously. 

MP Kevan Jones made a thing out of this saying “I’m astonished producers would not consider it to be ­inappropriate to film such scenes on Remembrance Sunday. And it is ­outrageous appeals from locals to reconsider plans to film on such an occasion were ignored.”

Colonel Richard Kemp, added: “At the very time a nation pays tribute to those who gave their lives to stop Nazis rampaging across our land it seems grossly ­insensitive to impose such scenes on villagers."

Hypocritically, one of the local extras dressed up as a German even said: “This was grotesquely disrespectful and offensive. I can’t believe I wore an SS uniform on Remembrance Sunday." (Its not exactly like someone put a gun up to their hea... or maybe they did, I dunno.) 

All jokes aside though, I understand why people are annoyed or even a little upset by this, but its still only a film. The marketing team are probably rubbing their hands together because as the addage goes, 'there is no such thing as bad publicity.'

The insinuation that it was more wrong just because it had Germans in it too was a bit puzzling. I mean Germans died too, I don't understand why we should pay them any less respect than an allied serviceman who died in service to their country. Ideologies of the Government in power at the time of a war shouldn't effect the respect given to an individual, but I digress. 

What worries me is that it only seems to be on remembrance day that anyone gives a shit.

Those Allied servicemen who died in WWII gave everything for the notions of freedom and democracy, and look what society has become. We have no say on the most important aspects which effect our nation (read EU,) we have no freedom of speech any more on anything unless it happens to be politically correct, we are monitored constantly by foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Now it seems even private companies like Google and Facebook are free to gather information about you and sell it on to the highest bidder, yet hardly anyone gives a shit. 

Look at all the regulations we have to live our lives by these days whilst banks and financial institutions run riot without any (although regulation that is put forward today is all about integration of markets as per UN directive.) Then you have all the jobs worth cunts who make life unbearable for everyone.

How about the fact that the Politicians have successfully made the war veterans great grandchildren minorities in their own lands. Or that they've isolated many of the elderly folk who refuse to move out of urban areas by completely changing the face of society around them. 'I feel like a foreigner in my own country' is a regular thing you hear if you take the time to talk to them about it, and many try to avoid going outside because of it. Of course they have reason to be fearful of going outside too since foreigners are mostly responsible for the violent crimes being committed. Violent crimes by the way, which a lot of the time are directed at vulnerable people including, of course, those war veterans they care so much about once a year on Remembrance day.

What about the fact that in many cases the elderly are left to die in quite shocking conditions whilst under NHS care (possibly a case of ridding the system of the dead wood perhaps) whilst we spend millions in aid to other countries which have their own fucking space programme. 

Lets think how many elderly people there will be that will be unable to pay for their heating bills this year with all the price rises ultimately forcing them to freeze to death. Sorry Cameron, but when your 96 putting on an extra jumper just won't cut it, wanker. Not that you have to worry when politicians heating bills are all paid for by us muggins'.

Finally, lets come to the realisation that half the graves of those who fell in battle remain completely untended and forgotten about, as this article pointed out.

So yeah. Lets all get enraged by the fact that some prick of a director disrespected Remembrance day whilst the rest of the year we continue to allow our veterans legacy to be all in vain.

Immigration Essential For Left's Continued Genocide

Over the past few years I've read my fair share of pro-immigration bullshit, but never have I had to endure an article from a mainstream paper which states its 'facts' in such a arrogant or dismissive fashion.

A few days ago, The Guardian (shock horror) released an article written by Dean Burnett, a Neuroscientist who somehow manages to also work as a (not so funny) comedy writer. In the article, he discusses why Immigration is 'essential', and proceeds to reel off a ton of links trying to back up his pathetically left-wing agenda. 

For a start, he is a Neuroscientist not a sociologist, so his opinion on immigration is as valid as anyone else's, secondly he writes for the Guardian which is the most left-leaning daily paper out there, and so the article is always going to reflect what the (middle-class, brain-dead lefty) reader wants to hear. 

In any case, you can find the article right here.

Lets just go through some points he raises and counter this blatant rubbish...

At the beginning of the article, he begins by explaining that all humans are the same, and that race doesn't exist at all because genetics doesn't vary that much citing an article from organisation known as the 'Council for Responsible Genetics'. This organisation (shock horror) is a left leaning organisation funded by the Ford Foundation, which itself assists with the pro-migration agenda and overall assimilation of all cultures into one melting pot. Its so left-leaning it doesn't recognise Israel's legitimacy, which is a bit of a bonus I suppose.

Thing is, this idea of race not existing goes against other scientific data which suggests, for instance, that Indo-Europeans and Far-East Asians both have some degree of Neanderthal DNA in them, which according to some reports is as high as 7%. Now obviously, seeing as how different racial groups are able to produce fertile young, this is clearly scientific evidence that we are all indeed the same species, but race is akin to breeds of dog, or the difference between domestic and wild cats. Race, if we needed a proper description for those who will always ask annoyingly what is "race", is the display of different phenotypic variations within a single species.

In all the left's attempts to make any of what I've just said appear racist, they fall into their own trap in insinuating that race isn't something real after all. If it doesn't exist, how can you be 'ist' against it, fool!

Our left leaning chum Burnett then goes on to say how we can take in more people here in the UK because only 2.2% of the country is built upon. Apparently then, land is infinite it doesn't matter that England is already the most crowded country in Europe, and we do not need any space to actually grow our own food on, and especially seeing as immigration is pushing the population up by ten million within the next few decades, and we are only 60% (and declining) self-reliant when it comes to feeding ourselves, perhaps we shouldn't be inviting more people over here to come and live. I mean, surely as a scientist this is common sense you gargantuan cock. We are an island nation, any sign of problems in the world and our shipping industry and we'll be starved to death. 

The next point that the author (tries) to make is that immigrants help us economically. I don't really know how he comes to this suggestion seeing as even the link he provides us with states “neither a significant gain nor drain for the public purse” through migrant workers. 

Its his insinuation however that our infrastructure and economy is owed to migrants because some companies are owned by foreigners that really gets me, citing an article about how our rail network is owned by foreign companies and investors. 

So lets get this straight. We get immigrants here who work for a pittance, I can almost see how that's a good thing, but surely gloating about how this country is so quick to sell off all of our most important industries is the most brainless point you could possibly make on this argument. Blindly accepting globalisation without a second thought is ridiculous.

To top things off, he goes on to say:

"It makes little logical sense in either case. Anyone willing to leave their country of birth, travel thousands of miles and go through the process of gaining citizenship probably has a work ethic that wouldn't settle for £50 a week. And as for taking your jobs, if you lose out on a job to a recently arrived individual from a war torn country who can't speak English, perhaps your own CV needs some serious updating?"

Excuse me!? What a predictably middle-class privileged wanker thing to say, from his safe position as a writer of left-wing twaddle. 

Immigrants are as much the victim in this process as are the original inhabitants of this island. The economic benefits are to companies (mainly large ones at that) that are wishing to reduce their wages expenditure, not the fault of any British person who through no fault of their own was born in a country where the Government would rather import thousands of migrant workers instead of actually providing a decent education that would set them up for their working life.

No, its much more profitable if you are a wealthy privileged dick-head, to help your friends in big businesses and simply overlook the social ramifications of forgetting about an entire section of society whilst importing foreign cultures which do not always rub up well with the indigenous one. The sneering attitude pointed at working class people is the most maddening aspect of this entire article.

Next is the subject of 'culture'.

The author begins this section of his bollocks by linking a leftie satire piece about immigration. Great to see that you are actually taking this whole thing seriously, its not like its having a negative effect on thousands of peoples lives here in the UK or anything. Laugh it up you pretentious, cunt. I mean, even the Guardian covered this for fucks sake whilst speaking with a member of the Labour party!

Apparently, Britain has always been a nation of immigrants. According to data in this article that was linked, they postulate that British Bronze age people travelled to Africa, consumed some stuff, then moved back to Britain where they died with African minerals inside their teeth. I'm sorry, but that's seriously unlikely unless they were involved in inter-regional trade, which is quite feasible. 

To boot, the usual anti-British 'oh but your ancestors had the British Empire so its ok that we completely change your society because you did the same to our people' kind of shit gets mentioned too, but quite frankly that is getting an incredibly boring defence which I can't be bothered to even get into.

I think I'll leave out the scientific mumbo jumbo under the sub-heading of 'life' in which he is clearly trying to appear more intelligent than he really is by trying to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with him is somehow on the wrong side of science.

On the last sub-heading entitled 'Scapegoat', I finally begin to agree with him to a certain degree. The general public is often goaded into bringing on an anti-migrant stance against the newcomers themselves to the point where it becomes an argument of for or against. Of course this is (if the author truly understood how Imperialism worked and continues to work) divide and conquer, and keeps the attention away from the perpetrators who are fucking both sides over the barrel.

Lets think: you have multi-trillion pound industries who steal resources from places like Africa and leave the inhabitants in war-torn countries living in their own excrement. You have massive corporations moving their manufacturing to developing nations like India and China where they use millions of labourers paid a disgustingly low wage to build shit, poorly produced items for us to buy and waste our money on. Then the migrants who want a better life in said shit-holes come here, and are given jobs at minimum wage to act as modern day slaves whilst dragging the rest of the populations wages down in the process - thus once again, only assisting those wealthiest businessmen who already own Tesco and Next among other massive companies.

Simultaneously, the political class has for a long time now considered white English working-class people as below them, and have done their utmost to destroy them with uncontrolled migration and deliberately poor education. Groups like the Fabian Society which have set out specifically to create a coffee coloured 'untermenchen' bottom feeding class to ensure that their social echelon always remains the privileged few. Its called 'social Darwinism', in case you were wondering, and social engineering is what they are all about. 

 If this isn't true, why would Labour have flooded us with migrants, and you really have to question this when known English haters like Jack Straw held such high positions of power, too.

The advantage is always the wealthiest few, whilst we argue and bicker about the small details the elite class are rubbing their hands together at the fact that we haven't worked out we've been played for decades. 

The end result of all this PC crap is that Britain is about to get absolutely destroyed by massive population increases owed by rampant migration which will be, essentially genocide.

So yes, I'am anti-immigration, I'am to a certain degree basing someone's cultural relevance of being British on the colour of their skin or their families ancestral history, but I do not blame migrants for coming here, neither do I hate them. This polarised yes and no argument serves no one but political classes, big businesses and cunts like this self-opinionated author who by some random mistake has been set loose writing for a national newspaper.

Children: Property Of The State

Back to work, cunt!

Just when I thought the '1984' and 'Brave New World' analogies had finally worn thin, here comes Baroness Sally Morgan with her fantastic idea of sending all children over the age of two to school. According to her, this will stop poor children from doing so badly in education, but given that she is a Labourite (who worked with Tony Blair whilst he was in office) this idea stinks to high heaven of an excuse to even further undermine and brainwash the working classes.

This news comes not long after the announcement that free childcare is set to double next year, yet even still, there are still calls from various groups to up this even more (which would, one would assume be tantamount to full-time education anyway.) The argument laid out for the benefits to this system seems to be of the understanding that Mothers can then go and find employment with longer hours (if they can find a job at all,) but at the detriment of society and the family. Ironically of course, a lot of Mothers by working will then lose their benefits anyway and will then have to begin paying taxes on their meagre salaries effectively paying for their child's enforced mind-rape from early development up until the age of eighteen anyway.

On first appearances, you'd be forgiven for believing that these ideas are out of some genuine concern the Government has for hard-up families, but this is a worrying trend that ultimately only ends up making things a whole lot worse. 

For example, years ago it was generally accepted that only the man of the house needed to work and the whole family would essentially rely upon the breadwinner for their upkeep. The feminism movement however (after the backers of feminism successfully used women in factories during the world wars) was all about convincing women that they could work and have the career they always wanted. Feminisms desire to work corresponded with a new marketing shift (such as tobacco companies) which aimed material possession at women to get them wanting their own jobs and thus to aid in the break up of the nuclear family whilst providing various companies with a huge labour boost.

At this point, I'd just like to make it clear that I don't have a problem with women working or having successful careers if that is what they actively choose, but nowadays some women are frowned upon by the child-hating feminist brigade if they choose not to work and stay at home to raise the children (if their family can afford it.) Its this victimisation of anyone that wants a traditional life which is the problem.

Trouble is, with household costs so high these days, both parents often do have to work full time hours, a direct result of inflation which can be partly attributed to the fact that both sexes now work (and therefore the labour is worth less by comparison.) Sending young Mothers back to work early then will simply bring a temporary relief to the overall collective until it becomes the social norm and ultimately a further detriment to us all.

What's interesting to note is that Baroness Morgan was the Minister of State for Women too, more than likely promoting the feminist bullshit we all see on a daily basis.

Disturbingly, throughout all of this shit about 'helping poor children's education' and 'helping poor families' there is very little consideration for the development of the kids themselves. Studies prove time and time again that children who spend time away from their parents and loved ones in nurseries go on to exhibit behavioural or developmental problems, and why wouldn't they? You are messing with thousands of years of natural human behaviour for the sake of a fake economy and a few years more of politically correct crap.

When you take all this information with the knowledge that the State essentially has the controls in place through social services to steal your kid off of you for any reason (and if they do, you are unable to talk about it publicly or protest the courts decision.)

For some reason I can really see David Cameron playing the role of
the child snatcher incredibly well.

Look at this case where a six month old kid was forcibly taken away from the parents because the mother was reported to have a learning difficulty and the father had at some point suffered depression (who hasn't.) Interesting then that mental health is given as an excuse to take children away from parents, won't be long before kids are taken away because of their parents climate change denial, caffeine addiction or even for the mother suffering PMT. Ok, so these are of course silly things, but it proves that anything can be changed and made to look like a mental health issue if needed, especially when the reasons may be a bit more political.

So basically, if you don't send your kid to be entered into the hive mind of the neo-liberal machine, and/or you have political opinions the state doesn't like, your child will be stolen from you and made an orphan. And probably raped by the politicians who indirectly stole your kid in the first place.

This is unfortunately just another step in the wrong direction as is practically everything these days, aimed to take control away from the masses, from families and from individuals. 

Ebay's Banning Of Holocaust Items

'The Daily Mail' did a piece last week entitled 'Ebays sick trade in Holocaust Memorabilia' to which Ebay has responded by apologising and offering a charitable donation of £25,000. (I wonder who exactly this donation went to.) Somebody please pass me the obligatory political correctness sick bag...
Aside from the fact that its illegal to sell these items in certain countries in Europe, I'd really like to know why these items are banned under Ebay's terms. Its a historical event, and whilst I understand that they are of a sensitive nature, I don't really understand how the buying and selling of Holocaust memorabilia is any different then, say, buying and selling pieces of equipment given to a 17 year old soldier.

Then you have the BBC article itself stating:
'Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their collaborators during the World War Two Holocaust. The Nazis also murdered and imprisoned millions of others, including Romany Gypsies, homosexual people, and disabled people.'
Its funny how all media has to try and justify the hysteria of anything to do with the holocaust, especially when there are so many conflicting evidences that suggests that perhaps the worlds Jewry behind most of the news sources and Government controls worldwide have been telling a little lie for nearly a hundred years. Yes, a hundred years, Don Heddesheimer propagated a '6 million Jews' mantra as early as WWI.

I thought it was 6 million?

Even the memorials to the Jewish dead seem to be unable to come to an agreement on the total number of deaths.

Ok. So maybe I'm wrong. Lets assume that all this hype is warranted and there is categorical evidence (without threatening anyone who dares question the official narrative with prison or death) that six million definitely did die in death camps. So why would you want to prevent these items from being available? Surely, if this really occurred and there is evidence for it, the best way to prove it to people is by showing evidence, not by politically strong arming any individual who dares question or show a different opinion on the subject.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't dispute that a very large number of people from a multitude of different backgrounds ended up in various camps under Nazi Germany, but what I do grow tired of is the constant guilt trip used against anyone who dares stand up for Europeans interests. That been said, I am suspicious of any event for which it is illegal to gather facts about without being labelled some degenerate cretin. There must be censorship for a reason.


To quote Voltaire: 'To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.'

Syrian Conflict Caused By Global Warming

I think by now that most know Prince Charles as being a bit of a cock, but his recent assertion that the civil war in Syria began because of global warming marks an all time low for human stupidity.

Yes Charles, climate change (which is by itself a questionably ambigious subject) has caused a civil war because of failing crops. Certainly not clutching at straws here to promote your ridiculousness at all, are you.

It definately has nothing to do with the various economic sanctions placed on Syria from America on behalf of Israel. It has nothing to do with the fact that America was de-stabilising the country by supporting opposition groups in Syria too.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Libyan mercaneries and weapons were shipped to the region deliberately to fight Assad's regime. Incidentally the Libyan fighters were also supported financially and physically by America and the West in general too via funds sent from Qatar and the CIA.

No, this all has nothing to do with it at all Charles you Grade A penis.