Published in full
hat tip: DP111
Published: December 12, 2007
Britain's Lessons in Cultural Suicide
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1385864
Adrian Morgan
Lesson 1: Don't Fly The Flag
Imagine, if you will, that you had served your country in the U.S. military for 22 years, and viewed yourself as a patriot. To this end, you have tattooed on your arm a small image of the Stars and Stripes and the words "U.S. Army'. When preparing to retire from the army, you then decide to join the police. How would you feel if you found yourself turned down for the job, because you are told your tattoo of the national flag could be seen as "racist"?
Fortunately for Americans, such a scenario could never happen in the near future. Yet for British soldier Sgt. Ivan Ivanovic, his patriotic tattoo prevented him from joining a police force in the north of England. Because Ivanovic has a two-inch Union Jack flag tattooed on his arm with the words "British Army", he was not even considered for employment by Cumbria Constabulary. He said: "I can't see why anyone would think that the flag of the country might be seen as racist."
Sergeant Ivanovic had served Queen and Country in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and in Iraq, yet the national symbol of the country he served was deemed "racist". Ivanovic should not have been surprised. Since May 1997, Britain's Labour government has been undermining almost every aspect of British heritage in a misguided drive to foist its leftist policies of "multiculturalism" onto an unwilling public.
When in 2002 Derek Stone stood as the Conservative candidate for mayoral elections in the London borough of Lewisham, his posters bore a Union Jack. For this act, he was condemned by his opponents as "racist".
A precursor of the Union Jack first appeared on April 12, 1606, when James I (formerly James VI of Scotland) was king. This flag incorporated the Saltire or cross of St Andrew (Scotland's patron saint) and the cross of Saint George, patron saint of England. The modern design of the Union Jack - which also includes the cross of Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was drawn up in 1801 by the College of Arms, to celebrate the "Act of Union" officially unifying Scotland and England.
Wales has its own language (my Welsh father did not learn English till he was seven) yet was not regarded as a separate country when the first Union flag was created. Wales had been incorporated into the union by two acts passed in 1536 and 1542, and was not included in the design of the Union Jack.
How did a flag which symbolically represents "unification" become associated with racism? A report on racial and inter-religious disturbances in Britain, which took place in northern England in 2001, stated: "The Union Jack, the flag that 'represents' Britain is seen as a racist flag the symbol of colonialism and the BNP... Ordinary people can no longer display the flag without being labeled right wing racists."
It is true that in the 1970s the far-right (and racist) group called the National Front adopted the Union Jack as its political logotype. The British National Party (BNP) also briefly adopted the flag. The Union Jack has been a symbol of national identity for 200 years - and continues to be a visible sign of Britishness, despite the attempts by extreme nationalists to hijack it.
In 2003, one British supporter of multiculturalism tried to reintroduce a revamped version of the Union flag where black lines were added to the design, to represent the non-white citizens of Britain. This individual, Nigel Turner, said: "If I flew the union jack from a flagpole in my garden, many people would see it as a racist statement." The issue of Britain's flag being viewed as racist seems to be a notion beloved by multiculturalists and leftists.
In the 1990s, I designed publicity for an art exhibition in the London Borough of Hackney. The work was by young black artists. One item was a massive screen print of the Union Jack in red ink. It was comprised entirely of the names of black people who had contributed to British culture, from Olaudah Equiano and Mary Seacole to contemporary athletes, broadcasters, writers and actors. My layout, intended to be placed on Hackney council's magazine, featured this artwork sized down to only an inch and a half wide. When the magazine was published, there was a hole in the design. I rang the council, and was told the Union flag image had been removed, as it was seen as "racist".
The report on the northern England riots of 2001, where Muslims and white British fought running battles in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley observed that: "as others have noted in relation to the 1998 (soccer) World Cup the St George's flag was felt to represent a multi-ethnic Britain, whereas the Union Jack is associated with colonialism and white racism. The obvious irony of course is the St George's flag's older historical symbolism of the crusades, of an earlier conflict between Christian Europe and Islam. Yet British Muslims readily took it up as a symbol of a component of their identity, as a symbol of their belonging within and support for England."
The St George's flag, national flag of England since the 13th century, has not escaped controversy. For many people living in England, irrespective of race, it is seen as a national flag when England competes in a sporting contest. In June 2006 a senior officer in North Wales Police warned during the soccer World Cup that flags of St George would lead to racism and violence. He felt that Welsh citizens would be offended if they saw the St George's flag displayed on vehicles.
In Hounslow, west London, the local council had previously displayed the Palestinian flag on its civic center, but decided in February 2005 to refuse to allow the flag of St George, as it was deemed "socially divisive". A motion to hoist this flag on St George's Day (April 23) was almost unanimously defeated by council members.
When in 2006 Jackie Meldrum, Labour-supporting deputy council leader of Lambeth Council in south London, commented that the St George's flag was a symbol of "multiculturalism", she received racist hate mail. One letter read: "Cllr Meldrum you are an anti-white, racist shit. I hope every member of your family dies as slowly as Britain has been dying from your poisonous anti-white propaganda and I know millions of others would agree. Long live Britain!"
Though Lambeth Council's Labour spokespeople believe the St George's flag is a sign of multi-ethnic values, the Liberal Democrat borough council of Pendle, Lancashire, believes that the same flag is "racist". Matthew Carter works as a refuse collector for the council, and as he has dreadlocks, he uses a bandana to tie back his hair when he works. Mr. Carter, who is black and comes from Barbados, had been using a St George flag for this purpose. In June this year, Mr. Carter was banned from wearing the St George flag. He said: "I received a verbal warning. They told me the St George's Cross was not allowed to be seen on any clothing we wear because it could be considered offensive and racist."
Anne Owers is Britain's Chief Inspector of Prisons. In 2005 she wrote in a report that officers in Wakefield jail in Yorkshire had been seen wearing St George tie-pins. These items were in support of a cancer charity. Owers claimed that such symbols should not be worn, as they could be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.
For some fanatical Muslims, the sight of a St George's cross is a sign of the Crusades. During the 2006 World Cup, a chain of pubs banned any displays of the flag, following threats by extremists linked to the outlawed group Al-Muhajiroun. Cable company NTL and the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency also banned the flag.
In June this year, Islamists connected with Al-Muhajiroun burned handmade St George's flags at Regents Park Mosque. They were protesting at the knighthood that was given to author Salman Rushdie. Other protesters carried placards stating "God Curse the Queen."
Lesson 2: Divided We Fall
With Britain's populace uncertain whether its national flags represent unity and inclusiveness or division and racism, the Labour government has nonetheless widened the fault lines dividing Britain. The most obvious sign of this came in the form of setting up parliaments for Scotland and Wales, while allowing English citizens no such regional body.
When the Labour government came to power in May 1997, it had promised devolution for Scotland and Wales in the form of creating regional parliaments. For Scottish citizens, a referendum was held on September 11, 1997. This gave approval for the formation of a Scottish Parliament, a measure which became enshrined in the Scotland Act of November 19, 1998. This Act allowed for the parliament to have 129 elected members.
Welsh opinion was evenly divided over having a separate parliament. A referendum held in September 1997 found 50.3 percent in favor, and 49.7 percent against. The Government of Wales Act of 1988 ruled that a National Assembly for Wales (NAW) should be created, with 60 elected members. The NAW has less powers than the Scottish parliament.
The Scottish parliament began operations in May 13, 1999 in a temporary location in Edinburgh, while construction began on a purpose-built edifice at Holyrood. In October 2004 the new Scottish parliament building finally opened. This had taken five years to complete, at a cost of $900 million - ten times the original estimate. Scotland has introduced laws that require the state to fund the care of the elderly. In the rest of Britain, the elderly must first spend all their assets above $41,000 before they receive free nursing care. The Scottish elderly care scheme is now in chaos.
Though designed to give people greater say over local issues, devolution has not reversed the decline of national feelings of pride. The Union - once the bedrock of British identity which allowed people from any part of Britain to feel some sense of collective belonging - has lost support in England, Scotland and Wales. People in all regions feel less proud to be British than they did in the 1980s.
Gordon Brown had been the Chancellor since Labour came to power in 1997 and cannot evade responsibility for the damage that Labour has done to Britain's national identity. Shortly after he assumed power in June of this year, Brown ordered that all public buildings in Britain should hoist the Union flag for 365 days a year. In Scotland, whose parliament is governed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish culture minister affirmed in July that the St Andrew's flag, or Saltire, will have precedence over the Union flag.
Under Labour, more and more power has also been devolved to Europe. With increased treaties and directives agreed by an ever-expanding European Union, Britain's citizens have lost many of their traditional rights. In 2003, shopkeepers were banned from displaying measures of produce in pounds and ounces, and were obliged by law to display only metric measures.
In 1998, Labour introduced a Human Rights Act, which made all of Britain's laws subservient to the European Convention of Human Rights, originally written up in 1950. Russia also signed this convention, but has never allowed the convention to interfere with human rights violations. Britain's 1998 law has prevented the deportation of terrorists and those already convicted in their home countries from being deported. On May 1, 2006, a European Union law, the 2004 Free Movement Directive, came into force. This ruling similarly prevents deportation of foreign-born criminals.
Labour's biggest blow to cultural cohesion has been to allow uncontrolled immigration. Since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.7 million new jobs were created. According to a recent report, 81 percent of those new jobs went to foreign-born workers.
Since 2001 Labour has stuck to a mantra that immigration is good for the economy, based on one report made at that time. Last month, a new report cast doubt on the accuracy of that statement. At the end of September 2007, Britain's left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published the findings of an economic profile on British immigrants. The report maintained that overall, immigration was good for the economy. However, it also found that among immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia, more of these people were unemployed than in work.
The IPPR report notes that Polish immigrants were well-represented in the workforce. However, the amount of legal immigrants from Eastern Europe over the past three years has escalated dramatically, arriving at twenty times the annual rate that was expected by government. Since 2004, there have been 700,000 Eastern European immigrants. This massive influx has led to housing and public services becoming severely stretched. Other EU countries imposed strict limitations on the numbers of migrants from Eastern Europe. Britain was the only EU country which did not impose limits.
A government report from July this year on Eastern European migration was not intended to be published publicly. It was leaked, and revealed that the government was alarmed at the sale of migration, and the strain it was placing on services and social cohesion. The report's author, Joan Ryan of the Home Office, also noted that Britain's policy of not paying such migrants welfare benefits if unemployed could be illegal under European Union law.
In July and again in September of this year, prime minister Gordon Brown pledged to create "British jobs" for "British workers". In October, a parliamentary study claimed that Brown's pledge to create jobs for British citizens could be illegal under European Union law as it discriminated against migrant workers from the EU. Under the EU treaties approved by Labour, these migrants who come predominantly from Eastern Europe must "enjoy equal treatment".
Many migrants bring their children, and as a result, it was revealed in September last year that one in eight schoolchildren speak English as a second language. Few schools can compare with the Isambard Brunel School in Portsmouth on Britain's south coast. Here, teachers struggle to educate pupils who come "from 41 countries who, between them, speak 58 different languages, but often little or no English."
Any American politician who wishes to destroy his or her nation's identity is unlikely to copy most of Labour's policies, primarily because the United States does not belong to a disparate coalition of 26 nations such as the European Union. The egalitarian/communistic nature of the EU allows each of its member states to have a say in policy. Its two latest arrivals are Bulgaria and Romania, both economic basket cases struggling to implement real democracy. Turkey is attempting to join as it lurches further towards Islamofascism.
However, the United States has exercised scant control over its southern border, and consequently has a burgeoning population of illegal migrants. In Britain, the government estimates that there are 570,000 illegal immigrants in the country, though the true figure is more likely at least 800,000.
In Britain, there have been rallies by leftists and bleeding-heart liberals to give amnesty and eventual citizenship to Britain's illegal immigrants. In 2006, the leftist think-tank IPPR recommended an amnesty for illegal migrants.
Such amnesties have already been allowed in Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus, all EU member states. Currently, the Liberal Democrat party, which has little chance of winning an election, supports an amnesty.
Last year, George W Bush was criticized for supporting a virtual amnesty plan for illegal migrants. One American politician who supports the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants is Hillary Clinton. With her plans to introduce a health system not unlike Britain's cash-devouring National Health Service, Hillary is almost a token European.
Lesson 3: Trash Your Traditions
America is protected by a written constitution. Britain has no such document, though the latest European Union Treaty which Gordon Brown has thitherto supported is regarded as a "European constitution". With no written constitution, it was easy for Tony Blair to remove some of the hereditary peers who sat in Parliament's Upper House, replacing them with individuals of his own choosing.
The only fixed constitutional item in Britain is the figurehead of the monarch. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II has fulfilled her "constitutional" role admirably since 1953, attending official and ceremonial functions without showing political favor. The British monarch is also the head of the Anglican church, carrying the title "Defender of the Faith". Her successor as monarch and "Defender of the Faith" will be Prince Charles, who famously imagined himself as a tampon belonging to his then-floozy, Camilla Parker Bowles.
Despite his marital infidelity and bizarre ruminations, Charles declared in 1994 that he wanted to abandon the title of "Defender of the Faith". This sobriquet has been held by every British monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Prince Charles wanted to replace it with the title "Defender of Faiths", to make Muslims and other non-Anglicans feel "included". He has since claimed that he wishes to be called "Defender of Faith". Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, contends that the title of "Defender of the Faith" is not negotiable, nor is it subject to Charles' personal whims.
Two months after 9/11, Charles condemned what he perceived as anti-Muslim attitudes in America. He claimed: "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational." At the time, Charles was accompanied by Iqbal Sacranie, who notoriously said after Salman Rushdie's death-fatwa that "death is, perhaps, too good for him." Sacranie has also called Osama bin Laden an "Islamic scholar".
Charles may wish for more understanding between faiths, but he has patronized some insidious organizations, such as the Saudi-funded King Fahd Academy in west London. This institution uses Saudi textbooks which call Christians "swine" and Jews "apes and pigs". Interfaith understanding is not assisted by pandering to religious bigotry. In March 2006, he attended Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a speech praising Islam. The same university has educated Salafists who preach hate, including Abdullah el-Faisal. Faisal served time in a British jail after calling for the murder of Jews and Hindus.
Since the 1980s, Britain's Labour-controlled local councils have promoted policies of multiculturalism. So-called "representatives" of minority ethnic groups were given cash hand-outs to set up their own groups, with little critical analysis of these groups' roles. In the mid-1990s, Muslims who had previously been fellow-travelers on the racial rights bandwagon began to demand that their religion be granted "special status".
In universities, Muslim extremists from Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun campaigned to win the "hearts and minds" of students. Often, these groups used violence to force Muslim women students to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. In 1995, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir killed an African student at an east London college. At that time, no action was taken against the group as a whole and its then-leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, continued to preach hate and intolerance.
When Labour came to power in 1997, policies which had thrived in so-called "looney left" councils became embedded in the government's ethos. Instead of governing the economy and enforcing existing laws, Labour set out to engage in changing society artificially by social engineering. In this climate, local councils grew bolder in their efforts to be politically correct. In 1998, Birmingham City Council decided that the term "Christmas" was potentially offensive to non-Christians. As a result, it renamed its celebrations and seasonal illuminations "Winterval".
In 2001, Luton Council decided to call its seasonal celebrations "Luminos", which bizarrely featured fictional apprentice wizard Harry Potter. In 2005, Lambeth Council expunged the word "Christmas" from all literature describing its Christmas illuminations. Instead, the terms "winter lights" and "celebrity lights" were employed.
Such skewed thinking has infected schools. Last Christmas, the head teacher of Walter Street Primary School in Brierfield, Lancashire decided to remove any mention of the Virgin Mary from the school's Christmas cards. She said: "We mention the birth of Jesus, but we cut reference to the Virgin Mary to just Mary because Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God."
Twenty percent of the pupils at Oakwood school in Rotherham are Muslim, but for its 2006 Christmas meal, the school decided that all the chicken to be served should be halal. Halal meat must be slaughtered ritually by having the animal's throat cut and the blood drained. Naturally some parents and teachers rebelled. Eventually, the school relented, and decided to offer a choice of halal and normal chicken.
In fairness, it should be noted that many of these bizarre decisions to downgrade the Christian aspects of Christmas are mostly the work of non-Muslims. Walter Street Primary School, 90 percent of whose pupils are Muslim, was condemned by Muslim spokespeople for banning the word "virgin" from its Christmas cards. Last year, Muslims complained that the town of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire had replaced the words "Christmas Greetings" in its Christmas light displays. Instead, the council had chosen the "neutral" slogan "Season's Greetings".
Jews have thrived in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, but no British institutions have ever attempted to worry about whether images of pigs would offend Jewish sensibilities. In recent years, British individuals and institutions have made utter fools of themselves to appease what they consider to be Muslim sensibilities. In October 2005, two major banks in Britain decided to ban all images of pigs from their branches. The Natwest and Halifax banks announced that no images of piggy banks should appear in any of their promotional material. I lived in an Orthodox Jewish area of London in the 1980s to 1990s, and used the local Natwest branch. I never noticed any Jews appearing offended by posters of piggy banks.
At Ramadan in 2005, Dudley Council in the Midlands ordered its staff not to display any images of pigs in its offices. A Muslim councillor had objected to the sight of pig-related items on workers' desks, including a tissue box emblazoned with a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. The edict was later reversed.
Schools have been affected by pig prohibitions. In 2003 Barbara Harris, headmistress at the Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, West Yorkshire, banned all books containing pig stories from classrooms. As the majority of her pupils were Muslim, she decided on the ban in case any were offended.
In March this year, Honley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire was preparing to partake in a June music festival with other schools. The festival organizers decided that their performance, entitled "The Three Little Pigs" should be altered to "The Three Little Puppies" in case Muslims were offended. The performance was a section from Roald Dahl's verse play, Little Red Riding Hood. The decision to rename the performance was subsequently overturned.
The issue of potentially offending Muslims means that non-Muslims are made to "opt in" to Islamic appeasement plans. In Brixton prison in south London, no prisoner need worry about answering calls of nature and offending Allah. In April 2006, all of the toilets in two newly-constructed lavatory blocks at the prison were designed so that they did become aligned with Mecca.
In Nottingham, even in death one's body can be buried in an Islamic direction, appropriately aligned towards Mecca. High Wood Cemetery opened in July last year. Only 15 percent of the graves to be dug there will be occupied by Muslims, but it was Nottingham City Council's desire that all bodies be buried in the same direction. It was felt more convenient to align all tombs to Mecca. Only if a relative makes a specific request will the coffin be aligned East/West in traditional Christian manner.
Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 by a Labour government, a product of post-war socialist idealism. Now the NHS relentlessly swallows taxpayers' funds and has become a haven of political correctness. In September 2006 a Lancashire branch of the NHS introduced a hospital gown for Muslim women, designed to mimic the burka. The NHS should be concerned about health, and not pandering to Islamism, especially when burkas have been linked with a resurgence of rickets in babies. This is being caused by pregnant Muslims who wrap themselves up and starve themselves and their unborn babies of vital Vitamin D, created by sunlight. The most recent reported outbreak of rickets has affected 56 individuals from Lancashire.
In August 2007, a department of the NHS in Lothian, Scotland, announced an edict. Hospital staff were told not to eat food at their desks during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, in case they offended Muslims who were meant to be fasting.
The latest example of NHS multiculturalism is happening in Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust. Here, nurses have to move the beds of Muslim patients five times a day at prayer times, so that the beds are facing Mecca. Initially, the move was made for all Muslim patients, to create "a more comfortable stay in hospital." A few days later, after receiving criticism, the ruling was amended so only the beds of terminal patients would be moved to face Mecca.
I could continue, with tales of young non-Muslim schoolchildren being made to copy out the Shahada, the oath made by those who convert to Islam, as a handwriting exercise or a teacher sacked for stating the truth that most suicide bombers are Muslim. I could mention how Britain's Channel 4 TV decided in 2006 to have its Christmas message delivered by a burka-clad Muslim woman. When the woman pulled out of the engagement, another shrouded Muslim woman was brought in to replace her. This individual belonged to an extremist sect.
In April 2007 the Judicial Studies Board ruled on a legal case that had been stopped when the judge could not hear the voice of a lawyer, as her mouth was covered with a niqab or face-veil. The ruling allowed for face-veils and burkas to be worn in British courts. In August a woman lawyer mentioned the April ruling, and argued that judges should never wear a face-veil. She stated: "The United Kingdom is not a sharia state." Her comment was branded as "astonishingly offensive". Fatim Kurji wrote "this is what I call 'the BNP argument'."
This is Britain today, throwing away all of its traditions and heritage, constantly moving the goal-posts to conform to the alien and alienating values of "multiculturalism". A multiracial society is a positive and achievable goal. A multicultural society is not a single society but a mess of competing societies, a haggler's market where the loudest complainer gains the most.
And did I bother to mention that only 3 percent of Britain's population are Muslims?
Friday 14 December 2007
Thursday 13 December 2007
Can someone explain to me why?
Following on from my previous post, today I read this.
BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member
By Chris Brown ⋅ December 13, 2007 ⋅ Email this post ⋅ Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Joan Martin, a UKIP member, and former PPC for Winchester has produced a most interesting piece of research, and by so doing has answered questions such as these:
“Why is Gordon Brown so determined to force this treaty down our collective necks when it is clear that he has no mandate to do so, there seems to be a huge majority of people against it and he appears to be in danger of committing political suicide by doing so?
Can someone explain to me why? What is so worth throwing away 1000 years of “we the people” culling our freedoms and rights, such as they are, from an uncaring aristocracy just to give it away to an uncaring bureaucracy? “
Yet, UKIP, her own Party, has not bothered to publish the research, no doubt its leader, Nigel Farage
,
has been too busy, pointlessly grandstanding inside the EU Parliament building to notice. Or is it that Mr Farage, friend of the BBC, does not want you to know of the plan? We couldn’t possibly comment.
The responsibility to publish Joan Martin’s research has therefore fallen to the BNP.
Joan Martin’s research is set out below:
“A WORLD COUP d’ ETAT IS PLANNED TO BRING ABOUT WORLD GOVERNMENT
The time-line explained:
KARL MARX.1818-1883
Marx was a German Jew with radical views.
In 1842 he became a member of the Hegelians an anti-religious, radical group with Satanic interests.
In 1843 he left Germany and went to Paris where he met Engels who helped him financially.
In 1845 he was expelled from Paris.
In 1848 went to live in Brussels were he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
In 1849 Marx moved to London and lived there for the rest of his life.
In 1864 following the establishment of Working Men’s Association. Marx worked for many years on the affairs of First International.
“Das Kapital” was published 1867.
MARX died in 1883 in London and is buried in Highgate.
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO INCLUDES.
The Abolition of Private Property
The Abolition of the Family.
The Abolition of Countries and Nationalities.
The Abolition of all Religions, morality and Religious Liberty, this shows the Hegelians Idealism.
The Abolition of Freedom of conscience. In a Democracy people believe in the freedom to choose.
The word Communist covers anyone who aspires to World Government.
Marxism works towards achieving World Government and World Dictatorship.
MARX WITH HIS FRIENDS
Marx and his friends Engles and Balunin received their ideas from Moses Hess the founder of the German Social Democrat Party. Moses Hess taught that to gain a World State it could only be brought about by a revolution using class and racial hatred. He said race struggle is primary, class struggle is secondary.”
Mikhail Balunin said “That what ever the name or label of those who aspire to world government they must be prepared to awake the devil in people and stir their passions for them to act.” Passion as with football hooligans, vandals and various peace groups and the race groups.
THREE REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A MARXIST
Marx wrote three requirements for those who wished to join the fight for World Government.
1 To read the Communist and Revolutionary teachings of Marx and associates and work accordingly.
2 To work to destabilise nations both morally and financially.
3 To work to gain political control of the MONEY supply and the ASSETS of each Nation and put them BEYOND the REACH and CONTROL of each Government by ensuring that nations become INTER-DEPENDANT on each other for FOOD, MACHINERY and through LOANS.
Marx also said, “Steps should be taken to provide a master race to produce Leaders and Dictators”
(2007.Could the first or second generation now be in place.?)
RUSSIA. 1917.
The Bolsheviks needed a good military base to succeed in their bid for world government.
In the 19th Century the Bolsheviks tried to taker-over Russia and failed. In 1917 under cover of the First World War they started their second Campaign against RUSSIA, this time from a good military base. They seized control of BANKS and THE MONEY SUPPLY and STOCKS of FOOD.
As the food ran out the people became too weak to fight the Bolsheviks terrorists. (They are now called Soviets) They are one arm of an organisation which seeks to bring about a one world state.
When Russia fell to the Bolsheviks. LENIN who was the LEADER of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY became the first DICTATOR of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. Many of the countries surrounding Russia also became Communists states.
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.1928.
In 1928 The Communist International presented a three-stage plan for world government.
1 To level the economies of all nations by introducing a single currency.
2 To bring about REGIONAL UNION between various groups of socialist Nations.
3 To amalgamate all these REGIONAL groups into the finale World-wide Union of Socialist States.
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL 1938
In 1938 in the Communist International there appeared an official statement.
It said “Dictatorship can only be established by the victory of Socialism in different countries. Then the joining of all the other republics could complete the UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLICS.”
1942 STALIN’S COMMUNIST GOAL. A WORLD MADE OF REGIONS.
Stalin defined the Intermediate goals of Communism necessary for the final take-over of the World.
1 TO CONFUSE, DISORGANISE AND DESTROY THE FORCES OF CAPITALISM AROUND THE WORLD .
2 TO BRING ALL NATIONS TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE WORLD SYSTEM. REGIONALISM.
3 Force advanced Countries to pour prolonged finance into under developed Countries.
4 Divide the world into REGIONAL groups at the transitional stage to total World Government, then populations will more readily abandon their loyalty to their countries and accept loyalty to their REGION instead. Later the REGIONS can all be brought together into WORLD DICTATORSHIP.
5 We will indoctrinate the youth to embrace Marxism (under other labels ) as the correct and political social viewpoint.
6 Neutralise youth against religious influences of home and all other concepts of rigid morality which might interfere with the acceptance of Marxism and communist doctrine.
1942 at the same time STALIN was co-operating with nations in the West to lay the foundations for the United Nations Organisation.
1943 A PAN NATIONAL ORGANISATION. THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION.
1.The formation of the United Nations Organisation was a necessary preliminary for the Russian Soviets.
2.In 1943 it was agreed that the post of Secretary General and Political Affairs should always be held by a nominee of the USSR.
3.The United Nations Buildings in New York contains a Satanic Chapel. This reflects the same theme.
4.In 1947 a Document was published “Design for Europe” promoting a United Nations Army. The army was eventually inaugurated in 1993.
The creation of the EEC, The Treaty of Rome and the Treaty to Establish the European Union has been absolutely crucial for the plans for Communism and World Dictatorship.
THE DESTABLISATION OF THE BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM.
In 1946 THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION gained influence into the Sovereignty of the UNITED KINGDOM by THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT ACT.1946 and three weeks later the UNITED NATIONS ACT 1946 which was brought before the HOUSE OF COMMONS when most Members had gone home. These two Acts ensured that the COMMUNIST wishes of the UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT and UNESCO are implemented in this country without making it obvious.
HAROLD WILSON signed an agreement with Soviet Union committing the British Government to back plans for a WORLD GOVERNMENT DICTATORSHIP.( Command paper 5924.)
2007 THE WORLD GOVERNANCE GROUP IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 2007.
An all Parliamentary Group for World Governance met in the House of Commons on 12 June 2007.
The Group’s purpose is to promote democratic reform of the United Nations, Global Institutions and International law. Chairman Dr Gavin Strange, Vice Chairmen, Dr Nick Palmer and Joan Wally.
AFTER 1946 SOME TREATIES WERE DIFFERENT THEY CAME WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
Since 1946 there has been a lack of substance to some of the Treaties made with Great Britain they became thin and ambiguous to be filled out later.
In 1996 John Major complained in a letter to Jaques Santer that after the Maastricht treaty was published he found it was not as he, or the British Government had intended, or signed for.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s Ministers made trade visits to Russia and under treaties and agreements they exchanged goods and materials. Many of our industries where closed down or given away. Car and steel making. ships and shipbuilding.
In 1964 the Treaty with the USSR signed by Fred Mulley and Wedgewood Benn did not actually mention the words Nuclear Power. Yet under that treaty the whole of Britain’s nuclear know-how was given away to the USSR.
In 1968 another treaty signed by Goromy Roberts paved the way for the run down of Britain’s Merchant Navy and the handing over of ships and our shipping routes to the USSR. The terms of this Treaty were so outrageous that it was not printed until after the statutory period for prosecutions for TREASON had expired. This Treaty had been implemented right away.
THE COMMUNIST HIDDEN AGENDA.
Infiltration from the top.
In Britain in 1940 at a meeting in Oxford the speaker Harold Wilson explained to the understanding audience how they could help make World Government happen. They should not join the Communist party they should join the Conservatives or Labour parties and lean to the Right and Left of those parties, so that when the time was right they must then create a smoke screen and come together as a party of national unity. He said confidently that one day he would be Prime Minister and so he was.
BRITAIN’S APPLICATION TO JOIN.THE EEC.
In 1972 The British Government applied to join the EEC. Prime Minister Edward Heath assured the British people that they would not lose their sovereignty, although his friend Lord Kilmuir had warned him in a letter that it could happen. Under articles 189 and 191 of the Treaty of Rome the EEC Commissioners are empowered to formulate Directives and Decisions that take precedence over Britain’s national laws.
In October 1972 Mr Heath attended a meeting in Paris to negotiate with M.Pompidou (a former employee of Guy Rothschild) the conditions of Britains entry. This included that Britain’s Fishermen should fish under the EEC. quota system and that our maritime limits should be surrendered.
In 1972 Edward Heath invited Victor Rothchild to head-up and choose members for the Central Policy Review staff. Victor Rothschild wrote a white paper on research and development, since that time official Treasury policies have included eradication of our aircraft, shipbuilding, Coal mining, car making, steel making, machine-tool industries and others.
Speaking at a meeting at the time, John Davies the then Secretary of State for Industry said that Britain had agreed with the EEC that UK technology should be merged with European Industry.
In 1962. At Dounray in Scotland a fast breeder reactor power station was begun, it was the first of its type in the world and after 15 years it was closed in 1977. At the same site a second type of fast breeder reactor was begun in 1974 and closed in 1994.The Specialist teams of scientists were dispersed and the nuclear know-how given to France. The Rothschilds acquired much of the available Uranium.
Britain agreed to run down Stirling. Mr Heath agreed to renounce national sovereignty and for Britain to become part of a Federal Europe. He agreed to change the local government structure from counties to Regions also to reorganise Government departments so that the British Parliament could be replaced.
GAINING CONTROL OF THE FOOD SUPPLIES
In 1998 at a meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels the EU’s long term plans for Britain were unfolded They said; Live stock farming in the Britain would be abolished and changed to Arable farming. This would take place without the consent of the British people.
FORWARD PLANNING
The abolition of our Abattoirs .
In the 1990s many British abattoirs were closed because they did not reach EU standards. A few larger ones were built instead; this is why animals have to travel long distances for slaughter.
BSE IN CATTLE. This disease is not a contagious disease between animals and man. In Britain BSE in cattle is caused by painting Organo Phosphate nerve poison onto the heads and spines of cattle at four times the normal strength. The poison was laced with oil to help it penetrate the skin to stop warble-fly damage. This EU practice only took place in BRITAIN and Switzerland, but has now been discontinued. Starting in 1986 this poison was also used in sheep-dip but not in the same strength. Hundreds of farmers have become ill from contamination. 200 have died. This poison was also used in the Gulf War with similar effects.
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
Early in 2001 the British Press reported the Government Laboratories at Porton Down had lost phials of Foot and Mouth virus. Soon after, came the outbreak of Foot and mouth disease in England resulting in 14 million animals being killed and buried or burnt. Only three million animals were diseased the other 11 million lived within the contamination zones. This is not a killer disease in animals or man. It is a recoverable disease. Vaccination could have been used to save 11 million healthy animals. The Cull was managed from Brussels. Four areas on the map of England had a high concentration of cases, the Solway Firth, Wales and the Midlands and Devon. These areas are shown on a UN map for re-wilding. The Farmer blamed for the outbreak was exonerated in 2007.
In 2007 came a second outbreak of Foot and mouth in England. The Virus was found in the land drains around Government laboratories at Pirbright in Surrey. The outbreak began on a farm 3 miles away to the south west of Pirbright. Local people on TV stated that the water table drains naturally from the Farms towards the laboratories. Not the other way around.
When Foot and mouth has finally run its course there will be fewer farms or farmers left to raise Cattle and sheep and arable farming is a whole new Industry. Grain can only be grown on the flat land of eastern Britain. Western Britain is hilly sheep country and unsuitable for growing crops.
2003. A GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE reported that. “THE ROLE OF RURAL ENGLAND AS A FOOD PROVIDER FOR THE NATION IS NO LONGER AN ESSENTIAL ONE.” To put the Nation’s food supply in the hands of a Foreign government is TREASON. As an Island nation we must ensure that we grow and raise our own food supply. Britains population is estimated to grow to 70 million by 2050. Already we are vulnerable; our milk supply is an important part of our diet for the young and elderly. YET, for years the EU have only allowed our farmers to produce 60% of our requirement the rest must be bought from abroad.
BY STEALTH BRITAIN HAS BEEN EASED INTO THE CONTINENTAL SHOE
In 1973-1975 John Prescott was a delegate to the Council of Europe and from 1975-1979 he was a member of the European Assembly.
In 1999 John Prescot introduced his 30 year old Dream for EU Regions in Britain. Under the EU plan Britain has been divided into 12 Regions. Scotland is a Region, N.I, Wales, London and England. ENGLAND has been divided into eight EU Regions. THEN ENGLAND’S NAME WAS TAKEN OF THE EUROPEAN MAP IN 1997.
In 1998/99. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescot handpicked 60 people in each of the EIGHT ENGLISH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES to direct the building of 3 Millon new houses. .
Sixty-six volunteer local Councillors were invited to become Members of the ASSEMBLY along with 40 Stakeholders or Partners. Together all three groups are known as the Regional Assembly. There is a support office of Civil Servants.
In 2004 the voters in the Northeast of England voted ‘NO’ to ELECTED. REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES. So the unelected Development agencies combined with one layer of local council will be the new Regional Government. These new Regional Assemblies will work with the “Committee of the Regions”in Brussels, cutting out national Parliament giving the EU Commission direct access to all Regional Assemblies in Europe. All things traditional will be abolished; All sovereignty will pass to BRUSSELS bringing a Foreign government nearer to the people.
STOP PRESS.15 NOVEMBER 2007. On Friday David Miliband strode into this story bringing it full circle back to the sleeping giant Russia.
In a Speech today he said “THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD WORK TOWARDS INCLUDING RUSSIA, THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE NORTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES. He continued THAT THE E.U.WOULD NOT BECOME A SUPER POWER BUT SHOULD BE A ROLE MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.
THE EU COULD BE A MODEL OF POWER FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION, DEDICATED TO FREE TRADE. THE ENVIRONMENT AND TACKLING EXTREMISM.”
David Miliband’s Grandfather Samuel Milliband fled to England from Belgium before the war and at first was refused the right to remain. David’s father Ralph Miliband was born in Belgium he came to England and joined the Royal Navy. Later he became a Professor of Politics at Leeds University and lectured at the London school of Economics.
Our Common law is being eradicated and the 1972 Act gives precedence to Community law.
UNLESS BRITAIN RESCINDS (1) THE 1972 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT.(2) THE 1946 UNITED NATIONS ACT AND (3) THE 1946 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT, BRUSSELS WILL GAIN ACCESS TO BRITAIN’S SOVEREIGNTY AND EU LAW WILL BE SUPREME.
For the first time in over a Thousand years, Britain will be ruled by a Foreign Power.
Joan Martin.”
Discussion
2 comments for “BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member”
Very interesting item and it shows how much sense Tony Benn spoke when opposing the entry into Europe.Now of course Benn loves Europe as his grand-daughter is set to become the fifth member of the Benn family to enter Parliament rather in the same way that the Tories have jessica lever who wants to be the future Chancellor of the exchequer.jessica is a grand-neice of Milton Friedman who had policies which Thatcher followed as did Blair/Brown to the ruination of this country financially whilst making a lot of money for a few people mainly foreigners and bankers.
Milband and his brother have been raised from the cradle to be politicians whilst never having roots here.ralph Miliband changed his name when he returned here with his family after the War ended despite the rules which said refugees could not stay.His stay plus all his family staying was made possible by a senior Labour member of Govt after the War.ralph is the name he took to appear British.When he arrived here as a 17 year old refugee he went straight away into a college for three years whilst British lads that age were being called up to fight.Why was he so different?
Raplph Miliband like his father and Marx were communists.
Posted by David Little | December 13, 2007, 4:49 pm Please go http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/
This is a petition to the PM demanding a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty.
Of course, as we no longer live in a democracy, it probably won’t make any real difference, but at least it will allow you to voice your opinion.
Posted by true_brit58 | December 13, 2007, 6:00 pm Post a comment
BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member
By Chris Brown ⋅ December 13, 2007 ⋅ Email this post ⋅ Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Joan Martin, a UKIP member, and former PPC for Winchester has produced a most interesting piece of research, and by so doing has answered questions such as these:
“Why is Gordon Brown so determined to force this treaty down our collective necks when it is clear that he has no mandate to do so, there seems to be a huge majority of people against it and he appears to be in danger of committing political suicide by doing so?
Can someone explain to me why? What is so worth throwing away 1000 years of “we the people” culling our freedoms and rights, such as they are, from an uncaring aristocracy just to give it away to an uncaring bureaucracy? “
Yet, UKIP, her own Party, has not bothered to publish the research, no doubt its leader, Nigel Farage
,
has been too busy, pointlessly grandstanding inside the EU Parliament building to notice. Or is it that Mr Farage, friend of the BBC, does not want you to know of the plan? We couldn’t possibly comment.
The responsibility to publish Joan Martin’s research has therefore fallen to the BNP.
Joan Martin’s research is set out below:
“A WORLD COUP d’ ETAT IS PLANNED TO BRING ABOUT WORLD GOVERNMENT
The time-line explained:
KARL MARX.1818-1883
Marx was a German Jew with radical views.
In 1842 he became a member of the Hegelians an anti-religious, radical group with Satanic interests.
In 1843 he left Germany and went to Paris where he met Engels who helped him financially.
In 1845 he was expelled from Paris.
In 1848 went to live in Brussels were he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
In 1849 Marx moved to London and lived there for the rest of his life.
In 1864 following the establishment of Working Men’s Association. Marx worked for many years on the affairs of First International.
“Das Kapital” was published 1867.
MARX died in 1883 in London and is buried in Highgate.
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO INCLUDES.
The Abolition of Private Property
The Abolition of the Family.
The Abolition of Countries and Nationalities.
The Abolition of all Religions, morality and Religious Liberty, this shows the Hegelians Idealism.
The Abolition of Freedom of conscience. In a Democracy people believe in the freedom to choose.
The word Communist covers anyone who aspires to World Government.
Marxism works towards achieving World Government and World Dictatorship.
MARX WITH HIS FRIENDS
Marx and his friends Engles and Balunin received their ideas from Moses Hess the founder of the German Social Democrat Party. Moses Hess taught that to gain a World State it could only be brought about by a revolution using class and racial hatred. He said race struggle is primary, class struggle is secondary.”
Mikhail Balunin said “That what ever the name or label of those who aspire to world government they must be prepared to awake the devil in people and stir their passions for them to act.” Passion as with football hooligans, vandals and various peace groups and the race groups.
THREE REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A MARXIST
Marx wrote three requirements for those who wished to join the fight for World Government.
1 To read the Communist and Revolutionary teachings of Marx and associates and work accordingly.
2 To work to destabilise nations both morally and financially.
3 To work to gain political control of the MONEY supply and the ASSETS of each Nation and put them BEYOND the REACH and CONTROL of each Government by ensuring that nations become INTER-DEPENDANT on each other for FOOD, MACHINERY and through LOANS.
Marx also said, “Steps should be taken to provide a master race to produce Leaders and Dictators”
(2007.Could the first or second generation now be in place.?)
RUSSIA. 1917.
The Bolsheviks needed a good military base to succeed in their bid for world government.
In the 19th Century the Bolsheviks tried to taker-over Russia and failed. In 1917 under cover of the First World War they started their second Campaign against RUSSIA, this time from a good military base. They seized control of BANKS and THE MONEY SUPPLY and STOCKS of FOOD.
As the food ran out the people became too weak to fight the Bolsheviks terrorists. (They are now called Soviets) They are one arm of an organisation which seeks to bring about a one world state.
When Russia fell to the Bolsheviks. LENIN who was the LEADER of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY became the first DICTATOR of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. Many of the countries surrounding Russia also became Communists states.
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.1928.
In 1928 The Communist International presented a three-stage plan for world government.
1 To level the economies of all nations by introducing a single currency.
2 To bring about REGIONAL UNION between various groups of socialist Nations.
3 To amalgamate all these REGIONAL groups into the finale World-wide Union of Socialist States.
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL 1938
In 1938 in the Communist International there appeared an official statement.
It said “Dictatorship can only be established by the victory of Socialism in different countries. Then the joining of all the other republics could complete the UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLICS.”
1942 STALIN’S COMMUNIST GOAL. A WORLD MADE OF REGIONS.
Stalin defined the Intermediate goals of Communism necessary for the final take-over of the World.
1 TO CONFUSE, DISORGANISE AND DESTROY THE FORCES OF CAPITALISM AROUND THE WORLD .
2 TO BRING ALL NATIONS TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE WORLD SYSTEM. REGIONALISM.
3 Force advanced Countries to pour prolonged finance into under developed Countries.
4 Divide the world into REGIONAL groups at the transitional stage to total World Government, then populations will more readily abandon their loyalty to their countries and accept loyalty to their REGION instead. Later the REGIONS can all be brought together into WORLD DICTATORSHIP.
5 We will indoctrinate the youth to embrace Marxism (under other labels ) as the correct and political social viewpoint.
6 Neutralise youth against religious influences of home and all other concepts of rigid morality which might interfere with the acceptance of Marxism and communist doctrine.
1942 at the same time STALIN was co-operating with nations in the West to lay the foundations for the United Nations Organisation.
1943 A PAN NATIONAL ORGANISATION. THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION.
1.The formation of the United Nations Organisation was a necessary preliminary for the Russian Soviets.
2.In 1943 it was agreed that the post of Secretary General and Political Affairs should always be held by a nominee of the USSR.
3.The United Nations Buildings in New York contains a Satanic Chapel. This reflects the same theme.
4.In 1947 a Document was published “Design for Europe” promoting a United Nations Army. The army was eventually inaugurated in 1993.
The creation of the EEC, The Treaty of Rome and the Treaty to Establish the European Union has been absolutely crucial for the plans for Communism and World Dictatorship.
THE DESTABLISATION OF THE BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM.
In 1946 THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION gained influence into the Sovereignty of the UNITED KINGDOM by THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT ACT.1946 and three weeks later the UNITED NATIONS ACT 1946 which was brought before the HOUSE OF COMMONS when most Members had gone home. These two Acts ensured that the COMMUNIST wishes of the UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT and UNESCO are implemented in this country without making it obvious.
HAROLD WILSON signed an agreement with Soviet Union committing the British Government to back plans for a WORLD GOVERNMENT DICTATORSHIP.( Command paper 5924.)
2007 THE WORLD GOVERNANCE GROUP IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 2007.
An all Parliamentary Group for World Governance met in the House of Commons on 12 June 2007.
The Group’s purpose is to promote democratic reform of the United Nations, Global Institutions and International law. Chairman Dr Gavin Strange, Vice Chairmen, Dr Nick Palmer and Joan Wally.
AFTER 1946 SOME TREATIES WERE DIFFERENT THEY CAME WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
Since 1946 there has been a lack of substance to some of the Treaties made with Great Britain they became thin and ambiguous to be filled out later.
In 1996 John Major complained in a letter to Jaques Santer that after the Maastricht treaty was published he found it was not as he, or the British Government had intended, or signed for.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s Ministers made trade visits to Russia and under treaties and agreements they exchanged goods and materials. Many of our industries where closed down or given away. Car and steel making. ships and shipbuilding.
In 1964 the Treaty with the USSR signed by Fred Mulley and Wedgewood Benn did not actually mention the words Nuclear Power. Yet under that treaty the whole of Britain’s nuclear know-how was given away to the USSR.
In 1968 another treaty signed by Goromy Roberts paved the way for the run down of Britain’s Merchant Navy and the handing over of ships and our shipping routes to the USSR. The terms of this Treaty were so outrageous that it was not printed until after the statutory period for prosecutions for TREASON had expired. This Treaty had been implemented right away.
THE COMMUNIST HIDDEN AGENDA.
Infiltration from the top.
In Britain in 1940 at a meeting in Oxford the speaker Harold Wilson explained to the understanding audience how they could help make World Government happen. They should not join the Communist party they should join the Conservatives or Labour parties and lean to the Right and Left of those parties, so that when the time was right they must then create a smoke screen and come together as a party of national unity. He said confidently that one day he would be Prime Minister and so he was.
BRITAIN’S APPLICATION TO JOIN.THE EEC.
In 1972 The British Government applied to join the EEC. Prime Minister Edward Heath assured the British people that they would not lose their sovereignty, although his friend Lord Kilmuir had warned him in a letter that it could happen. Under articles 189 and 191 of the Treaty of Rome the EEC Commissioners are empowered to formulate Directives and Decisions that take precedence over Britain’s national laws.
In October 1972 Mr Heath attended a meeting in Paris to negotiate with M.Pompidou (a former employee of Guy Rothschild) the conditions of Britains entry. This included that Britain’s Fishermen should fish under the EEC. quota system and that our maritime limits should be surrendered.
In 1972 Edward Heath invited Victor Rothchild to head-up and choose members for the Central Policy Review staff. Victor Rothschild wrote a white paper on research and development, since that time official Treasury policies have included eradication of our aircraft, shipbuilding, Coal mining, car making, steel making, machine-tool industries and others.
Speaking at a meeting at the time, John Davies the then Secretary of State for Industry said that Britain had agreed with the EEC that UK technology should be merged with European Industry.
In 1962. At Dounray in Scotland a fast breeder reactor power station was begun, it was the first of its type in the world and after 15 years it was closed in 1977. At the same site a second type of fast breeder reactor was begun in 1974 and closed in 1994.The Specialist teams of scientists were dispersed and the nuclear know-how given to France. The Rothschilds acquired much of the available Uranium.
Britain agreed to run down Stirling. Mr Heath agreed to renounce national sovereignty and for Britain to become part of a Federal Europe. He agreed to change the local government structure from counties to Regions also to reorganise Government departments so that the British Parliament could be replaced.
GAINING CONTROL OF THE FOOD SUPPLIES
In 1998 at a meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels the EU’s long term plans for Britain were unfolded They said; Live stock farming in the Britain would be abolished and changed to Arable farming. This would take place without the consent of the British people.
FORWARD PLANNING
The abolition of our Abattoirs .
In the 1990s many British abattoirs were closed because they did not reach EU standards. A few larger ones were built instead; this is why animals have to travel long distances for slaughter.
BSE IN CATTLE. This disease is not a contagious disease between animals and man. In Britain BSE in cattle is caused by painting Organo Phosphate nerve poison onto the heads and spines of cattle at four times the normal strength. The poison was laced with oil to help it penetrate the skin to stop warble-fly damage. This EU practice only took place in BRITAIN and Switzerland, but has now been discontinued. Starting in 1986 this poison was also used in sheep-dip but not in the same strength. Hundreds of farmers have become ill from contamination. 200 have died. This poison was also used in the Gulf War with similar effects.
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
Early in 2001 the British Press reported the Government Laboratories at Porton Down had lost phials of Foot and Mouth virus. Soon after, came the outbreak of Foot and mouth disease in England resulting in 14 million animals being killed and buried or burnt. Only three million animals were diseased the other 11 million lived within the contamination zones. This is not a killer disease in animals or man. It is a recoverable disease. Vaccination could have been used to save 11 million healthy animals. The Cull was managed from Brussels. Four areas on the map of England had a high concentration of cases, the Solway Firth, Wales and the Midlands and Devon. These areas are shown on a UN map for re-wilding. The Farmer blamed for the outbreak was exonerated in 2007.
In 2007 came a second outbreak of Foot and mouth in England. The Virus was found in the land drains around Government laboratories at Pirbright in Surrey. The outbreak began on a farm 3 miles away to the south west of Pirbright. Local people on TV stated that the water table drains naturally from the Farms towards the laboratories. Not the other way around.
When Foot and mouth has finally run its course there will be fewer farms or farmers left to raise Cattle and sheep and arable farming is a whole new Industry. Grain can only be grown on the flat land of eastern Britain. Western Britain is hilly sheep country and unsuitable for growing crops.
2003. A GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE reported that. “THE ROLE OF RURAL ENGLAND AS A FOOD PROVIDER FOR THE NATION IS NO LONGER AN ESSENTIAL ONE.” To put the Nation’s food supply in the hands of a Foreign government is TREASON. As an Island nation we must ensure that we grow and raise our own food supply. Britains population is estimated to grow to 70 million by 2050. Already we are vulnerable; our milk supply is an important part of our diet for the young and elderly. YET, for years the EU have only allowed our farmers to produce 60% of our requirement the rest must be bought from abroad.
BY STEALTH BRITAIN HAS BEEN EASED INTO THE CONTINENTAL SHOE
In 1973-1975 John Prescott was a delegate to the Council of Europe and from 1975-1979 he was a member of the European Assembly.
In 1999 John Prescot introduced his 30 year old Dream for EU Regions in Britain. Under the EU plan Britain has been divided into 12 Regions. Scotland is a Region, N.I, Wales, London and England. ENGLAND has been divided into eight EU Regions. THEN ENGLAND’S NAME WAS TAKEN OF THE EUROPEAN MAP IN 1997.
In 1998/99. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescot handpicked 60 people in each of the EIGHT ENGLISH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES to direct the building of 3 Millon new houses. .
Sixty-six volunteer local Councillors were invited to become Members of the ASSEMBLY along with 40 Stakeholders or Partners. Together all three groups are known as the Regional Assembly. There is a support office of Civil Servants.
In 2004 the voters in the Northeast of England voted ‘NO’ to ELECTED. REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES. So the unelected Development agencies combined with one layer of local council will be the new Regional Government. These new Regional Assemblies will work with the “Committee of the Regions”in Brussels, cutting out national Parliament giving the EU Commission direct access to all Regional Assemblies in Europe. All things traditional will be abolished; All sovereignty will pass to BRUSSELS bringing a Foreign government nearer to the people.
STOP PRESS.15 NOVEMBER 2007. On Friday David Miliband strode into this story bringing it full circle back to the sleeping giant Russia.
In a Speech today he said “THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD WORK TOWARDS INCLUDING RUSSIA, THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE NORTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES. He continued THAT THE E.U.WOULD NOT BECOME A SUPER POWER BUT SHOULD BE A ROLE MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.
THE EU COULD BE A MODEL OF POWER FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION, DEDICATED TO FREE TRADE. THE ENVIRONMENT AND TACKLING EXTREMISM.”
David Miliband’s Grandfather Samuel Milliband fled to England from Belgium before the war and at first was refused the right to remain. David’s father Ralph Miliband was born in Belgium he came to England and joined the Royal Navy. Later he became a Professor of Politics at Leeds University and lectured at the London school of Economics.
Our Common law is being eradicated and the 1972 Act gives precedence to Community law.
UNLESS BRITAIN RESCINDS (1) THE 1972 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT.(2) THE 1946 UNITED NATIONS ACT AND (3) THE 1946 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT, BRUSSELS WILL GAIN ACCESS TO BRITAIN’S SOVEREIGNTY AND EU LAW WILL BE SUPREME.
For the first time in over a Thousand years, Britain will be ruled by a Foreign Power.
Joan Martin.”
Discussion
2 comments for “BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member”
Very interesting item and it shows how much sense Tony Benn spoke when opposing the entry into Europe.Now of course Benn loves Europe as his grand-daughter is set to become the fifth member of the Benn family to enter Parliament rather in the same way that the Tories have jessica lever who wants to be the future Chancellor of the exchequer.jessica is a grand-neice of Milton Friedman who had policies which Thatcher followed as did Blair/Brown to the ruination of this country financially whilst making a lot of money for a few people mainly foreigners and bankers.
Milband and his brother have been raised from the cradle to be politicians whilst never having roots here.ralph Miliband changed his name when he returned here with his family after the War ended despite the rules which said refugees could not stay.His stay plus all his family staying was made possible by a senior Labour member of Govt after the War.ralph is the name he took to appear British.When he arrived here as a 17 year old refugee he went straight away into a college for three years whilst British lads that age were being called up to fight.Why was he so different?
Raplph Miliband like his father and Marx were communists.
Posted by David Little | December 13, 2007, 4:49 pm Please go http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/
This is a petition to the PM demanding a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty.
Of course, as we no longer live in a democracy, it probably won’t make any real difference, but at least it will allow you to voice your opinion.
Posted by true_brit58 | December 13, 2007, 6:00 pm Post a comment
Wednesday 12 December 2007
"TOO LATE, TOO LATE!!!!" shall be the cry
I wonder, do you think we are all pawns on a big big chessboard?
Major treaty signing tomorrow in Lisbon, we are apparently not allowed to have a say in, we are just the electoral what the heck do we know about treaties anyway.
If this was a contract regarding your house you would not touch it because it is clearly not in your interest, but its only about your nation and identity so no big thing, right.
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
By Paul Belien
Created 2006-02-27 22:13
Bukovsky and Belien
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSRIn his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky
Listen to it here
Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.
According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.
PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?
VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.
PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.
VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.
PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?
VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.
PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.
VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.
Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech
Listen to it here
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”
The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.
According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.
In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.
In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”
This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?
Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.
It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.
If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.
Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.
It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.
Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.
I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.
This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.
We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.
More on this topic, see:
Czech President Warns Against Europeanism, 27 August 2005
Attachment Size
bukovsky-interview.mp3 1.76 MB
bukovsky-speech.mp3 7.11 MB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
Major treaty signing tomorrow in Lisbon, we are apparently not allowed to have a say in, we are just the electoral what the heck do we know about treaties anyway.
If this was a contract regarding your house you would not touch it because it is clearly not in your interest, but its only about your nation and identity so no big thing, right.
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
By Paul Belien
Created 2006-02-27 22:13
Bukovsky and Belien
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSRIn his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.
An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky
Listen to it here
Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.
According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.
PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?
VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.
PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.
VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.
PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?
VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.
PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.
VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.
Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech
Listen to it here
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”
The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.
According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.
In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.
In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”
This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?
Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.
It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.
If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.
Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.
It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.
Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.
I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.
This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.
We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.
More on this topic, see:
Czech President Warns Against Europeanism, 27 August 2005
Attachment Size
bukovsky-interview.mp3 1.76 MB
bukovsky-speech.mp3 7.11 MB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
Friday 9 November 2007
A WELL UNDERSTOOD PROBLEM
A must read if you are still having doubts.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Islam-West-Razzia.htm
Islam and the West
One Enormous Razia
by Warner MacKenzie
20 Jul, 2007
The recent phenomenon of Islamic terrorism against the west, and certain unwelcome aspects of the increasing Muslim presence in Western countries, seem new to us but, in reality, owe more than just a passing nod of acknowledgement to the Arab Bedouin tradition of the plundering raid (ghazwa or razzia.). The razzia, with its opportunistic seizure of spoils (anfal) was undertaken by a desert people who were unable or unwilling to contribute to the creation of their needs; so the Bedouin, who neither grew nor made anything, simply pillaged what they wanted from others. Likewise, Muslim emigrants keep their “eyes on the prize” when choosing a destination country and seem to find nations that are devoid of generous welfare systems and high standards of living, singularly unappealing.
Migration for financial betterment is neither reprehensible nor new, and has been a primary motivating factor for many former immigrant groups; however, no group in the past has sought to bend the host country to its will, rather than assimilate, as have those of the Islamic faith. Unprecedented concessions have been made to Muslims and will continue to be made as they persistently chip away at the Western edifice. We can expect that any concessions granted will do no more than embolden the petitioners and encourage even more, and greater, demands in the future. If the demands are resisted or denied, and their numbers are sufficient, there will be civil disruption and confrontations as we see regularly in the media. The foreign policies of several European countries have been, or are in the process of being, modified to prevent a Muslim backlash, either physical or electoral.
It’s evident that a two pronged pincer manoeuvre is well under way, with one faction of Islam softening us up by threatening to blast and terrorise us into submission, and the “good-cop” wing, represented by the various national Islamic councils and other Muslim interest groups, who are “grooming” us with assurances that, by dealing with them, we can avoid all the unpleasantness and bloodshed by acquiescing and “going along quietly”. Option “B” is merely option “A” by stealth, with a sugar coating; both lead to an identical outcome; and that is an influence on our way of life disproportionate to their numbers. Our governments have warmed to the sweeter, soft option without realizing it is merely the other side of the jihadi coin. Rather than recognising and confronting this insidious and incremental erosion of our culture, our leaders have decided that it’s easier to retreat a yard than advance an inch.
Recently, a British survey found that : “According to a poll of 1,003 Muslims, 37 per cent of 16- to-24-year-olds said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, the same number of young Muslims said they would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools while 74 per cent said they preferred Muslim women to wear the hijab headscarf in public and a small overall minority, (7 per cent,) said they "admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West".
The European Union and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a pathetic and obvious concession to the Muslim community, declared that the words “Islam, Islamic and Muslim” must not, under any circumstances, be used in conjunction with any mention of terrorism.
The familiar modus operandi of strike―withdraw―regroup―pause― strike again, is a feature of the time honoured Middle-Eastern stratagem of deceptive triangulation. Analogous to the story of the “slowly boiled frog”— which is unable to detect the gradual increase in water temperature—the West, in a very short period of time, has been lulled, beguiled and manipulated into a position of passive acceptance. Reports of terrorist acts no longer surprise us and the hypocrisy of “lowered expectations” toward Islam and Muslims forces us to put up with all manner of absurdities and irrationality from them. We’re like rabbits mesmerized in their headlights and all we can offer up is the plaintive whine “why do they hate us”
They hate us because we are their antithesis. Everything about us reminds them of their failings and shortcomings. We are the embodiment of post-enlightenment rationalists; generous, compassionate, the innovative and industrious creators and discoverers of everything the Muslims rely on every minute of their day. Every communication system, all forms of travel and transport, medical devices and procedures, pharmaceuticals and synthetics. Everything, in fact, down to their wristwatch and even the process that prints their Koran; all are a living testament to the infidel’s ability to organise his thought processes, to strive, through co-operative effort, with others in the development and constant improvement of the products of his disciplined, inventive mind. The chaotically fractious, nepotistic, corrupt and violent nature of what passes for a civil society in Islamic countries is, by contrast, their legacy. Like an insect trapped in amber, Muslim countries are museums, little more than a static display of seventh century pre-rational tribalism.
They adore the trappings of modern technology but having a cell phone up to the ear doesn’t mean there’s a twenty first century mind on the other side of the eardrum.
Having concluded that it is impossible for them to catch up to, let alone compete with, the rest of the modern world, they seek to force us back to their benighted state.
In the same manner that we are accepting the “good-cop” alternative, the sedentary rural and artisan communities of Arabia came to accept Bedouin brigandage and rapine as an unavoidable fact of life, for at any time and without warning, a camel mounted raiding horde could swiftly descend on their defenceless settlements and in a frenzy of sword brandishing, blood-curdling ululations and dust, the Bedouins, within a matter of minutes, would have made off with whatever they wanted—valuables, goats, chickens, produce and young women— decamping into the sandy wastes as rapidly as they had appeared. The only way to avoid these raids was to enter into a servile agreement to surrender a percentage of the annual date or grain crop and livestock to the marauders.
Despite being born an Arab in what is present-day Tunisia, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) lived for a number of years in the city of Granada in Muslim Spain. In his master work, al Muqaddimah,(written in 1377) Khaldun describes the nature of the desert Arab in, what to us, would seem to be extremely uncomplimentary terms. Despite this, Arabs, generally speaking, identify strongly and proudly with the uncompromising “black and white” absolutist Bedouin outlook. This hard-line attitude of the desert was spread with the expansion of Islam. An Arabocentric emphasis with its seventh century Arabian values eventually came to be superimposed on the more contemplative religious, and tolerant cultural traditions of Asia.
Khaldun also suggests, and history appears to support him, that an advanced civilisation steadily loses its asabiyya, i.e. its group identity, filiations and cohesion, through leading a soft, sedentary lifestyle. The citizens no longer need to be constantly fending off invaders in order to survive, the over indulgent society, having lost its martial skills, then degenerates to a point where it becomes unable to defend itself from a determined attacker or “Trojan horse” insurgents. Civilisations then tend to become vulnerable, their group-identity becomes diluted and weakened and finally non-existent. The challengers succeed by retaining the wild-animal hunting pack ethos; they still have that most primeval sense of belonging to a common and cohesive identity, their asabiyyah, complete with a single-minded determination to further the self-interests of their tribe, and their tribe only. I would suggest that the Muslim world, despite its manifold schismatic divisions, is far more conscious of its asabiyya than we, in the West, are of ours. With indistinct, blurred, and polarised populations coupled with subversive and seditious fifth columnists, we no longer know what we believe in. Our common heritage and history are no longer taught in schools for fear of offending those late arrivers who do not share that heritage. To what extent are we prepared to abandon and sacrifice those values that made us what we are, on the altar of inimical interlopers? The West will only recover its lost asabiyyah when nations recognise that whilst they can certainly prosper as multi-racial societies, an original core majority culture must be the dominant identifying factor and the divisive policy of multiculturalism will need to be abandoned as a flawed concept and failed experiment based entirely on how some utopian, well-meaning “progressives”, would prefer Western society to be, rather than accept, and more importantly, support and celebrate how it is in reality.
If we read the following excerpts from the Muqaddimah we can see just how well ibn Khaldun’s assessments of Arab cultural propensities have stood the test of time over the last six hundred plus years.
For all intents and purposes, Khaldun’s words could have been written in 2007 rather than 1377. It contains some sobering advice for those who would take our dealings with Arab culture, and its accompanying religious zealotry, lightly.
[“On account of their savage nature, (the Arabs) are people who plunder and cause damage. They plunder whatever they are able to lay their hands on without having to fight or to expose themselves to danger. They then retreat to their pastures in the desert. …Every stronghold or (locality) that seems difficult (to attack); they bypass in favour of some less difficult (enterprise). They do not attack it. Tribes that are protected against (the Arabs) by inaccessible mountains are safe from their mischief and destructiveness. The Arabs would not cross hills or undergo hardship and danger in order to get to them.
Flat territory, on the other hand, falls victim to their looting and prey to their appetite whenever they (have the opportunity of) gaining power over it. Then they raid, plunder, and attack that territory repeatedly, because it is easily (accessible) to them. Eventually, its inhabitants succumb utterly to the Arabs and then they are pushed around by them. Eventually, their civilization is wiped out.”
Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.
“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization”
“Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.”
[“Since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.”
“The Arabs are not concerned with laws. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further. For this (reason), greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws. [ those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education and instruction in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude.”
“Under the rule of (the Arabs), the subjects live as in a state of anarchy, without law. Anarchy destroys mankind and ruins civilization,
Furthermore, (every Arab) is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his father, his brother, or the eldest (most important) member of his family…. Civilization, thus, decays and is wiped out.”
“It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live, is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria.”
“Every Bedouin who is attracted to city life quickly shows himself unable (to compete) and is disgraced.”
Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, found no need to explain or justify his unprovoked looting raids which suggests that the attitude of, “it’s there for the taking” and the lure of “something-for-nothing” was already well established and accepted as normal behaviour. This barbarous and predatory conduct may have, in time, changed—as it did with the Vikings— had it not been for Islam. Muhammad’s divinely sanctioned marauding of booty-laden merchant’s caravans became the imprimatur that entrenched opportunism and predation as, not only legitimate, but in fact exemplary, thereby immutably casting the die for eternity.
With Islam’s belief that all is preordained, where even the most minute detail in day to day life only happens because Allah has previously willed it, (the inshallah mentality), it doesn’t require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive that, in the Muslim mind, Allah has permitted Western society to develop, succeed and prosper so as to present the “faithful” with a ready-made “walk-in-walk-out”, “under new management” takeover, complete with a functioning infrastructure and a populace steadily retreating into an ever increasing degree of subservient “dhimmitude”.
Only an identity ‘reconquista’ can provide us with a defensive moat against this opening ghazwa of the third great jihad.
Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah can be read online at: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm ........end
the comments are also well worth reading.
For me , the heading for this blog says it all.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Islam-West-Razzia.htm
Islam and the West
One Enormous Razia
by Warner MacKenzie
20 Jul, 2007
The recent phenomenon of Islamic terrorism against the west, and certain unwelcome aspects of the increasing Muslim presence in Western countries, seem new to us but, in reality, owe more than just a passing nod of acknowledgement to the Arab Bedouin tradition of the plundering raid (ghazwa or razzia.). The razzia, with its opportunistic seizure of spoils (anfal) was undertaken by a desert people who were unable or unwilling to contribute to the creation of their needs; so the Bedouin, who neither grew nor made anything, simply pillaged what they wanted from others. Likewise, Muslim emigrants keep their “eyes on the prize” when choosing a destination country and seem to find nations that are devoid of generous welfare systems and high standards of living, singularly unappealing.
Migration for financial betterment is neither reprehensible nor new, and has been a primary motivating factor for many former immigrant groups; however, no group in the past has sought to bend the host country to its will, rather than assimilate, as have those of the Islamic faith. Unprecedented concessions have been made to Muslims and will continue to be made as they persistently chip away at the Western edifice. We can expect that any concessions granted will do no more than embolden the petitioners and encourage even more, and greater, demands in the future. If the demands are resisted or denied, and their numbers are sufficient, there will be civil disruption and confrontations as we see regularly in the media. The foreign policies of several European countries have been, or are in the process of being, modified to prevent a Muslim backlash, either physical or electoral.
It’s evident that a two pronged pincer manoeuvre is well under way, with one faction of Islam softening us up by threatening to blast and terrorise us into submission, and the “good-cop” wing, represented by the various national Islamic councils and other Muslim interest groups, who are “grooming” us with assurances that, by dealing with them, we can avoid all the unpleasantness and bloodshed by acquiescing and “going along quietly”. Option “B” is merely option “A” by stealth, with a sugar coating; both lead to an identical outcome; and that is an influence on our way of life disproportionate to their numbers. Our governments have warmed to the sweeter, soft option without realizing it is merely the other side of the jihadi coin. Rather than recognising and confronting this insidious and incremental erosion of our culture, our leaders have decided that it’s easier to retreat a yard than advance an inch.
Recently, a British survey found that : “According to a poll of 1,003 Muslims, 37 per cent of 16- to-24-year-olds said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, the same number of young Muslims said they would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools while 74 per cent said they preferred Muslim women to wear the hijab headscarf in public and a small overall minority, (7 per cent,) said they "admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West".
The European Union and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a pathetic and obvious concession to the Muslim community, declared that the words “Islam, Islamic and Muslim” must not, under any circumstances, be used in conjunction with any mention of terrorism.
The familiar modus operandi of strike―withdraw―regroup―pause― strike again, is a feature of the time honoured Middle-Eastern stratagem of deceptive triangulation. Analogous to the story of the “slowly boiled frog”— which is unable to detect the gradual increase in water temperature—the West, in a very short period of time, has been lulled, beguiled and manipulated into a position of passive acceptance. Reports of terrorist acts no longer surprise us and the hypocrisy of “lowered expectations” toward Islam and Muslims forces us to put up with all manner of absurdities and irrationality from them. We’re like rabbits mesmerized in their headlights and all we can offer up is the plaintive whine “why do they hate us”
They hate us because we are their antithesis. Everything about us reminds them of their failings and shortcomings. We are the embodiment of post-enlightenment rationalists; generous, compassionate, the innovative and industrious creators and discoverers of everything the Muslims rely on every minute of their day. Every communication system, all forms of travel and transport, medical devices and procedures, pharmaceuticals and synthetics. Everything, in fact, down to their wristwatch and even the process that prints their Koran; all are a living testament to the infidel’s ability to organise his thought processes, to strive, through co-operative effort, with others in the development and constant improvement of the products of his disciplined, inventive mind. The chaotically fractious, nepotistic, corrupt and violent nature of what passes for a civil society in Islamic countries is, by contrast, their legacy. Like an insect trapped in amber, Muslim countries are museums, little more than a static display of seventh century pre-rational tribalism.
They adore the trappings of modern technology but having a cell phone up to the ear doesn’t mean there’s a twenty first century mind on the other side of the eardrum.
Having concluded that it is impossible for them to catch up to, let alone compete with, the rest of the modern world, they seek to force us back to their benighted state.
In the same manner that we are accepting the “good-cop” alternative, the sedentary rural and artisan communities of Arabia came to accept Bedouin brigandage and rapine as an unavoidable fact of life, for at any time and without warning, a camel mounted raiding horde could swiftly descend on their defenceless settlements and in a frenzy of sword brandishing, blood-curdling ululations and dust, the Bedouins, within a matter of minutes, would have made off with whatever they wanted—valuables, goats, chickens, produce and young women— decamping into the sandy wastes as rapidly as they had appeared. The only way to avoid these raids was to enter into a servile agreement to surrender a percentage of the annual date or grain crop and livestock to the marauders.
Despite being born an Arab in what is present-day Tunisia, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) lived for a number of years in the city of Granada in Muslim Spain. In his master work, al Muqaddimah,(written in 1377) Khaldun describes the nature of the desert Arab in, what to us, would seem to be extremely uncomplimentary terms. Despite this, Arabs, generally speaking, identify strongly and proudly with the uncompromising “black and white” absolutist Bedouin outlook. This hard-line attitude of the desert was spread with the expansion of Islam. An Arabocentric emphasis with its seventh century Arabian values eventually came to be superimposed on the more contemplative religious, and tolerant cultural traditions of Asia.
Khaldun also suggests, and history appears to support him, that an advanced civilisation steadily loses its asabiyya, i.e. its group identity, filiations and cohesion, through leading a soft, sedentary lifestyle. The citizens no longer need to be constantly fending off invaders in order to survive, the over indulgent society, having lost its martial skills, then degenerates to a point where it becomes unable to defend itself from a determined attacker or “Trojan horse” insurgents. Civilisations then tend to become vulnerable, their group-identity becomes diluted and weakened and finally non-existent. The challengers succeed by retaining the wild-animal hunting pack ethos; they still have that most primeval sense of belonging to a common and cohesive identity, their asabiyyah, complete with a single-minded determination to further the self-interests of their tribe, and their tribe only. I would suggest that the Muslim world, despite its manifold schismatic divisions, is far more conscious of its asabiyya than we, in the West, are of ours. With indistinct, blurred, and polarised populations coupled with subversive and seditious fifth columnists, we no longer know what we believe in. Our common heritage and history are no longer taught in schools for fear of offending those late arrivers who do not share that heritage. To what extent are we prepared to abandon and sacrifice those values that made us what we are, on the altar of inimical interlopers? The West will only recover its lost asabiyyah when nations recognise that whilst they can certainly prosper as multi-racial societies, an original core majority culture must be the dominant identifying factor and the divisive policy of multiculturalism will need to be abandoned as a flawed concept and failed experiment based entirely on how some utopian, well-meaning “progressives”, would prefer Western society to be, rather than accept, and more importantly, support and celebrate how it is in reality.
If we read the following excerpts from the Muqaddimah we can see just how well ibn Khaldun’s assessments of Arab cultural propensities have stood the test of time over the last six hundred plus years.
For all intents and purposes, Khaldun’s words could have been written in 2007 rather than 1377. It contains some sobering advice for those who would take our dealings with Arab culture, and its accompanying religious zealotry, lightly.
[“On account of their savage nature, (the Arabs) are people who plunder and cause damage. They plunder whatever they are able to lay their hands on without having to fight or to expose themselves to danger. They then retreat to their pastures in the desert. …Every stronghold or (locality) that seems difficult (to attack); they bypass in favour of some less difficult (enterprise). They do not attack it. Tribes that are protected against (the Arabs) by inaccessible mountains are safe from their mischief and destructiveness. The Arabs would not cross hills or undergo hardship and danger in order to get to them.
Flat territory, on the other hand, falls victim to their looting and prey to their appetite whenever they (have the opportunity of) gaining power over it. Then they raid, plunder, and attack that territory repeatedly, because it is easily (accessible) to them. Eventually, its inhabitants succumb utterly to the Arabs and then they are pushed around by them. Eventually, their civilization is wiped out.”
Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.
“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization”
“Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.”
[“Since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.”
“The Arabs are not concerned with laws. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further. For this (reason), greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws. [ those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education and instruction in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude.”
“Under the rule of (the Arabs), the subjects live as in a state of anarchy, without law. Anarchy destroys mankind and ruins civilization,
Furthermore, (every Arab) is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his father, his brother, or the eldest (most important) member of his family…. Civilization, thus, decays and is wiped out.”
“It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live, is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria.”
“Every Bedouin who is attracted to city life quickly shows himself unable (to compete) and is disgraced.”
Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, found no need to explain or justify his unprovoked looting raids which suggests that the attitude of, “it’s there for the taking” and the lure of “something-for-nothing” was already well established and accepted as normal behaviour. This barbarous and predatory conduct may have, in time, changed—as it did with the Vikings— had it not been for Islam. Muhammad’s divinely sanctioned marauding of booty-laden merchant’s caravans became the imprimatur that entrenched opportunism and predation as, not only legitimate, but in fact exemplary, thereby immutably casting the die for eternity.
With Islam’s belief that all is preordained, where even the most minute detail in day to day life only happens because Allah has previously willed it, (the inshallah mentality), it doesn’t require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive that, in the Muslim mind, Allah has permitted Western society to develop, succeed and prosper so as to present the “faithful” with a ready-made “walk-in-walk-out”, “under new management” takeover, complete with a functioning infrastructure and a populace steadily retreating into an ever increasing degree of subservient “dhimmitude”.
Only an identity ‘reconquista’ can provide us with a defensive moat against this opening ghazwa of the third great jihad.
Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah can be read online at: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm ........end
the comments are also well worth reading.
For me , the heading for this blog says it all.
Sunday 21 October 2007
WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTION
What is treason exactly? Why is it so important that it is more vile than murder? Who brings charges of treason?
I have been looking into this matter of treason and trying to answer these questions.
If treason has been committed by the powers temporally in charge of running the affairs of the nation , how does a nation put a stop to it?
From the following article by Booker it seems treason has been committed. How does one go about bringing the case to court, and can it be brought about on legal aid?
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
What is this poison? Of course there is a British Constitution
Matthew Parris recently wrote, “We are not hugely interested in constitutions. That’s why we don’t have one.”
What is this poison that drips incessantly into the public veins?
John Adams, a U.S. President and drafter of the American Constitution, called the English Constitution “the most stupendous fabric of human invention” in all history.
OF COURSE THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE COMMON LAW established by Alfred the Great in 871 and developed by British people for the next thousand years. The Common Law incorporates the Charter of Liberties (1100), which makes the Sovereign subject to the Common Law. It incorporates the Council of Westminster (1102), which ended slavery in England. It specifically states that any slave who sets foot in England becomes instantly free (Cartwright, 1569). It defends property rights and the right to be secure in one own’s home (‘his home is his castle’). It plainly states that judges are to be guided by stare decisis, "standing by things decided" – the rulings of previous cases.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1701, which states that the Common Law is the Birthright of the people and may never be taken away.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN MAGNA CARTA, which established that justice would not be sold, refused or delayed, that habeas corpus is our right, that if we are accused of a crime we have the right to a jury trial, and that we will be protected from fines so large that they consumed our livelihood.
The right to a jury trial is essential because it places justice in the hands of citizens, not of the state. Crucially, a jury always has the right to give a not guilty verdict even if it runs counter to the interpretation or logic of statute (Parliamentary) law. Thus the people have the power to decide that a law is unjust and overturn it.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE CORONATION OATH, which is the covenant between the British sovereign and the people of Britain. If the people freely and willingly affirm their Sovereign, the Sovereign in turn gives them a solemn promise - his or her Coronation Oath. First pledged by Edgar in 973, it binds King or Queen to deliver justice, equity, and mercy. Elizabeth II promised to uphold the respective laws and customs of the people of the United Kingdom.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE PEOPLE'S DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (1688) AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), when the Oath became an undoubted and express contract for the governing of Britain. Significantly this contract takes place not between Parliament and the Crown but between the people and the Crown.
This is why John Adams believed that the British people had brought “the great idea” of three separate branches of government described by Cicero to perfection. They had 1) an executive in the Crown, 2) a legislature in Parliament, and 3) an independent judiciary.
However, Adams warned that if the executive power is seized by “an aristocratical or democratical assembly, it will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron. . .and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone.”
This is exactly what has happened. Over the course of the 20th century, executive power has been taken by Parliament.
"It is the Sovereign’s duty to ensure redress and remedy and to protect the people. Should a breach of the Constitution arise through mishap or mischief it must be recognised as misgovernance and declared unconstitutional by the Sovereign." Yet today The Queen appears unable or unwilling to use her power of Royal Refusal and Royal Assent.
It may seem odd for an American, with an elected president, to see any positive qualities in an executive whose powers are inherited. But isn’t it a relief to have an executive who is not partisan, is not pushing for his party, who has a sense of history?
If the people agree to such an executive, and limit its powers, what is undemocratic about it? It may be eccentric or timeless or rich in ceremony, but it is not undemocratic, particularly when you consider that sovereigns who did not pass muster were sent packing, among them William II, John, Richard II, Richard III, Charles I, James II, and (by Brits in America) George III.
I have not mentioned the British right to bear arms (Bill of Rights 1689) or how the Common Law protects freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the right to silence, all won by extraordinary British men and women who were willing to die so that we might be free.
And for those interested in the EU, THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), which states "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm". According to the Bill of Rights, to give the EU authority over the British people is unconstitutional.
Yes, the written British Constitution is a bit long. But taking the essential parts I doubt you would find it much longer than the New Testament. It seems to me that if American John Adams could read and admire the British Constitution, the British might give it a try.
The British Constitution is plain and visible. It has been betrayed by the small men and women of Parliament and by those people who have yet to read it, stand up and defend it.
The Freedom Network and Your Own Choice have more.
May your week be good.
So we have from the above information a long history of legal protection, protections of the State and its peoples and on the other side a group of people who are removing those protections. Akin to robbery I would say. So surely there is a case to be made or is there.
Surely we have people capable of taking on this case, it would be the most important case in British law for more than a century. Is it not the case that law makers are obliged to up hold the constitution as it stands and are there to bring such cases to justice.
I have been looking into this matter of treason and trying to answer these questions.
If treason has been committed by the powers temporally in charge of running the affairs of the nation , how does a nation put a stop to it?
From the following article by Booker it seems treason has been committed. How does one go about bringing the case to court, and can it be brought about on legal aid?
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
What is this poison? Of course there is a British Constitution
Matthew Parris recently wrote, “We are not hugely interested in constitutions. That’s why we don’t have one.”
What is this poison that drips incessantly into the public veins?
John Adams, a U.S. President and drafter of the American Constitution, called the English Constitution “the most stupendous fabric of human invention” in all history.
OF COURSE THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE COMMON LAW established by Alfred the Great in 871 and developed by British people for the next thousand years. The Common Law incorporates the Charter of Liberties (1100), which makes the Sovereign subject to the Common Law. It incorporates the Council of Westminster (1102), which ended slavery in England. It specifically states that any slave who sets foot in England becomes instantly free (Cartwright, 1569). It defends property rights and the right to be secure in one own’s home (‘his home is his castle’). It plainly states that judges are to be guided by stare decisis, "standing by things decided" – the rulings of previous cases.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1701, which states that the Common Law is the Birthright of the people and may never be taken away.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN MAGNA CARTA, which established that justice would not be sold, refused or delayed, that habeas corpus is our right, that if we are accused of a crime we have the right to a jury trial, and that we will be protected from fines so large that they consumed our livelihood.
The right to a jury trial is essential because it places justice in the hands of citizens, not of the state. Crucially, a jury always has the right to give a not guilty verdict even if it runs counter to the interpretation or logic of statute (Parliamentary) law. Thus the people have the power to decide that a law is unjust and overturn it.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE CORONATION OATH, which is the covenant between the British sovereign and the people of Britain. If the people freely and willingly affirm their Sovereign, the Sovereign in turn gives them a solemn promise - his or her Coronation Oath. First pledged by Edgar in 973, it binds King or Queen to deliver justice, equity, and mercy. Elizabeth II promised to uphold the respective laws and customs of the people of the United Kingdom.
THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE PEOPLE'S DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (1688) AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), when the Oath became an undoubted and express contract for the governing of Britain. Significantly this contract takes place not between Parliament and the Crown but between the people and the Crown.
This is why John Adams believed that the British people had brought “the great idea” of three separate branches of government described by Cicero to perfection. They had 1) an executive in the Crown, 2) a legislature in Parliament, and 3) an independent judiciary.
However, Adams warned that if the executive power is seized by “an aristocratical or democratical assembly, it will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron. . .and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone.”
This is exactly what has happened. Over the course of the 20th century, executive power has been taken by Parliament.
"It is the Sovereign’s duty to ensure redress and remedy and to protect the people. Should a breach of the Constitution arise through mishap or mischief it must be recognised as misgovernance and declared unconstitutional by the Sovereign." Yet today The Queen appears unable or unwilling to use her power of Royal Refusal and Royal Assent.
It may seem odd for an American, with an elected president, to see any positive qualities in an executive whose powers are inherited. But isn’t it a relief to have an executive who is not partisan, is not pushing for his party, who has a sense of history?
If the people agree to such an executive, and limit its powers, what is undemocratic about it? It may be eccentric or timeless or rich in ceremony, but it is not undemocratic, particularly when you consider that sovereigns who did not pass muster were sent packing, among them William II, John, Richard II, Richard III, Charles I, James II, and (by Brits in America) George III.
I have not mentioned the British right to bear arms (Bill of Rights 1689) or how the Common Law protects freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the right to silence, all won by extraordinary British men and women who were willing to die so that we might be free.
And for those interested in the EU, THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), which states "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm". According to the Bill of Rights, to give the EU authority over the British people is unconstitutional.
Yes, the written British Constitution is a bit long. But taking the essential parts I doubt you would find it much longer than the New Testament. It seems to me that if American John Adams could read and admire the British Constitution, the British might give it a try.
The British Constitution is plain and visible. It has been betrayed by the small men and women of Parliament and by those people who have yet to read it, stand up and defend it.
The Freedom Network and Your Own Choice have more.
May your week be good.
So we have from the above information a long history of legal protection, protections of the State and its peoples and on the other side a group of people who are removing those protections. Akin to robbery I would say. So surely there is a case to be made or is there.
Surely we have people capable of taking on this case, it would be the most important case in British law for more than a century. Is it not the case that law makers are obliged to up hold the constitution as it stands and are there to bring such cases to justice.
Saturday 20 October 2007
TRAITOR
Is there a political solution?
Reading this posted on the comment section of the Express there is'nt one.
http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/22493
THE TYBURN TREE MAY FLOWER AGAIN!!
19.10.07, 8:34am
I read with a degree of wry amusement the assurance from Mr Broon that his "Red Lines" had been agreed and, therefore, we could all sleep soundly in our beds. One of these Red Lines was, according to The Great Leader, the preservation of our Justice System and Our Law Making Freedoms. Oh, Yeah? Not according to some VERY highly placed Constitutional experts. Read below to expose yet ANOTHER blatant lie from Broon.
In my researches on our Sovereignty and Constitution I had cause to write to Lord Falconer in August 2006 when he was Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I pointed out to him that, on the 29th September, The Rt.Hon.Alderman Sir Gavyn Arthur, then Lord Mayor of London, gave the 2003 "Denning Lecture" in Gray's Inn before a audience of distinguished and undoubtedly learned lawyers. His subject was "The City and the Law". As an introduction he gave a summary of our Common Law but then pointed out that there are TWO systems of law operating in the UK today and that since the enactment by Parliament of the ECA1972 there had been a quiet revolution in our legal system. He went on to say that it was not until the House of Lords handed down their judgement on the Factortame case that it became apparent that where English Law and the Law of the European Community(EC) conflicted that the EC Law prevailed. From that he drew the conclusion, (that had also been arrived at by many others that I can quote), that Parliament was no longer sovereign. (Sir Gavyn confirmed to me that there had been no dissent from his audience at his conclusion). From such a statement, and knowing that Parliament consists of Her Majesty the Queen who is the only person Sovereign in Parliament and the two Houses which are not sovereign of themselves, I could only draw the conclusion that the Queen had not been Sovereign since the moment She gave the ECA1972 the Royal Assent. She had effectively abdicated Her Sovereign status and surrendered up all constitutional power and authority on giving the ECA1972 the Royal Assent and the sovereignty of the British people had been surrendered to the EU. I was reluctant to draw such an awesome conclusion. I asked Falconer if he could confirm that I was wrong and that the Queen was still Sovereign and thus so was Parliament.
A Mr.J.Copeland replied on Falconer's behalf. This is what he wrote:
"I can confirm that the Queen is Head of State, Head of the Executive, Head of the Judiciary, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, as a result of a long period of evolution the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced. Minsters of the Crown in the name of the Sovereign govern the United Kingdom. The powers of the Crown, that is the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity - are executed almost exclusively by Ministers. The enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 has not altered this.". In point of fact no British Monarch has had absolute power though many tried to exercise such power. It was to prevent such an attempt at absolute power that the Magna Carta was brought into being in 1215 and which is a foundation stone of our Constitution. Article 61 states specifically the power held by the people if the Monarch departs from the lawful way."
Copeland went on:
"However, as outlined in your letter, one of the most significant new sources of the British Constitution in recent years has been the EU. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome and passed the European Communities Act 1972, the superiority of European Law was accepted, and parliament was no longer sovereign (although the UK can leave the EU any time it wishes). As a result, British Courts now have the power to review Acts of parliament and in the light of EU legislation, suspend Statute Law.". Again here we have an assumption of power by the EU, with the agreement of Parliament, to write our "Constitution" for us! Why is there no argument in the Commons regarding the constitutional treaty? All parties had agreed our subjugation to the EU in 1972.
The incongruities and constitutional errors in these two paragraphs are self evident. However they plainly point to the fact that the British are no longer a Sovereign, independent and self governing nation. That the Queen is no longer our Sovereign, ( She is now subject to the superiority of EU Law), as She became on the death of Her Father George VI; as She herself confirmed in Her Declaration of Sovereignty before Her Accession Privy Council on 8th.February 1952 ;and as we elected Her to be on Her Coronation in exchange for Her Coronation Oath in which She declared how She would govern us. Our Sovereignty has been removed from us by an act of High Treason. However this situation will undoubtedly gladden the hearts of all LibLabCon adherents as this is precisely what Sir Arnold Toynbee said was the objective of the Fabians Socialists in 1932 in Copenhagen. He is reported to have said:"If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States.... The surest sign... that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord...at every step forward which we take...that the sacred principle of local sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.". In order to achieve the intended end he went to say "I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And at all times we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be... ostracised and discredited.". It is also High Treason.
Therefore it would seem to me that in all honesty the Fabian Society and the LibLabCon Pro-EU traitors should now be cheering from the rooftops the final achievement of Sir Arnold's stated aims. What a scoop for The Daily Express to have a front page spread
"THE QUEEN ABDICATED ALL OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN 1972. BRITAIN NO LONGER SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT OR SELF-GOVERNING". However I suspect LibLabCon deceit long ingrained in their activities will prevent such an admission that they are the ones who engineered the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy and, it would seem, with the tacit agreement of Elizabeth Windsor a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II.
With thanks to David Bourne, scholar and patriot
• Posted by: BlackBuck • Report Comment
Reading this posted on the comment section of the Express there is'nt one.
http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/22493
THE TYBURN TREE MAY FLOWER AGAIN!!
19.10.07, 8:34am
I read with a degree of wry amusement the assurance from Mr Broon that his "Red Lines" had been agreed and, therefore, we could all sleep soundly in our beds. One of these Red Lines was, according to The Great Leader, the preservation of our Justice System and Our Law Making Freedoms. Oh, Yeah? Not according to some VERY highly placed Constitutional experts. Read below to expose yet ANOTHER blatant lie from Broon.
In my researches on our Sovereignty and Constitution I had cause to write to Lord Falconer in August 2006 when he was Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I pointed out to him that, on the 29th September, The Rt.Hon.Alderman Sir Gavyn Arthur, then Lord Mayor of London, gave the 2003 "Denning Lecture" in Gray's Inn before a audience of distinguished and undoubtedly learned lawyers. His subject was "The City and the Law". As an introduction he gave a summary of our Common Law but then pointed out that there are TWO systems of law operating in the UK today and that since the enactment by Parliament of the ECA1972 there had been a quiet revolution in our legal system. He went on to say that it was not until the House of Lords handed down their judgement on the Factortame case that it became apparent that where English Law and the Law of the European Community(EC) conflicted that the EC Law prevailed. From that he drew the conclusion, (that had also been arrived at by many others that I can quote), that Parliament was no longer sovereign. (Sir Gavyn confirmed to me that there had been no dissent from his audience at his conclusion). From such a statement, and knowing that Parliament consists of Her Majesty the Queen who is the only person Sovereign in Parliament and the two Houses which are not sovereign of themselves, I could only draw the conclusion that the Queen had not been Sovereign since the moment She gave the ECA1972 the Royal Assent. She had effectively abdicated Her Sovereign status and surrendered up all constitutional power and authority on giving the ECA1972 the Royal Assent and the sovereignty of the British people had been surrendered to the EU. I was reluctant to draw such an awesome conclusion. I asked Falconer if he could confirm that I was wrong and that the Queen was still Sovereign and thus so was Parliament.
A Mr.J.Copeland replied on Falconer's behalf. This is what he wrote:
"I can confirm that the Queen is Head of State, Head of the Executive, Head of the Judiciary, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, as a result of a long period of evolution the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced. Minsters of the Crown in the name of the Sovereign govern the United Kingdom. The powers of the Crown, that is the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity - are executed almost exclusively by Ministers. The enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 has not altered this.". In point of fact no British Monarch has had absolute power though many tried to exercise such power. It was to prevent such an attempt at absolute power that the Magna Carta was brought into being in 1215 and which is a foundation stone of our Constitution. Article 61 states specifically the power held by the people if the Monarch departs from the lawful way."
Copeland went on:
"However, as outlined in your letter, one of the most significant new sources of the British Constitution in recent years has been the EU. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome and passed the European Communities Act 1972, the superiority of European Law was accepted, and parliament was no longer sovereign (although the UK can leave the EU any time it wishes). As a result, British Courts now have the power to review Acts of parliament and in the light of EU legislation, suspend Statute Law.". Again here we have an assumption of power by the EU, with the agreement of Parliament, to write our "Constitution" for us! Why is there no argument in the Commons regarding the constitutional treaty? All parties had agreed our subjugation to the EU in 1972.
The incongruities and constitutional errors in these two paragraphs are self evident. However they plainly point to the fact that the British are no longer a Sovereign, independent and self governing nation. That the Queen is no longer our Sovereign, ( She is now subject to the superiority of EU Law), as She became on the death of Her Father George VI; as She herself confirmed in Her Declaration of Sovereignty before Her Accession Privy Council on 8th.February 1952 ;and as we elected Her to be on Her Coronation in exchange for Her Coronation Oath in which She declared how She would govern us. Our Sovereignty has been removed from us by an act of High Treason. However this situation will undoubtedly gladden the hearts of all LibLabCon adherents as this is precisely what Sir Arnold Toynbee said was the objective of the Fabians Socialists in 1932 in Copenhagen. He is reported to have said:"If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States.... The surest sign... that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord...at every step forward which we take...that the sacred principle of local sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.". In order to achieve the intended end he went to say "I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And at all times we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be... ostracised and discredited.". It is also High Treason.
Therefore it would seem to me that in all honesty the Fabian Society and the LibLabCon Pro-EU traitors should now be cheering from the rooftops the final achievement of Sir Arnold's stated aims. What a scoop for The Daily Express to have a front page spread
"THE QUEEN ABDICATED ALL OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN 1972. BRITAIN NO LONGER SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT OR SELF-GOVERNING". However I suspect LibLabCon deceit long ingrained in their activities will prevent such an admission that they are the ones who engineered the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy and, it would seem, with the tacit agreement of Elizabeth Windsor a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II.
With thanks to David Bourne, scholar and patriot
• Posted by: BlackBuck • Report Comment
Wednesday 3 October 2007
GET UP STAND UP, STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Preacherman, dont tell me,Heaven is under the earth.
I know you dont know What life is really worth.
Its not all that glitters is gold;alf the story has never been told:
So now you see the light, eh!Stand up for your rights. come on!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Most people think,Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everythingAnd make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,You will look for yours on earth:
and now you see the light,You stand up for your rights. jah!Get up, stand up! (jah, jah!)Stand up for your rights! (oh-hoo!)Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)Dont give up the fight! (life is your right!)
Get up, stand up! (so we cant give up the fight!)
Stand up for your rights! (lord, lord!)
Get up, stand up! (keep on struggling on!)
Dont give up the fight! (yeah!)
We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -Dyin n goin to heaven in-a jesus name, lord.
We know when we understand:Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)
So you better:Get up, stand up! (in the morning! git it up!)
Stand up for your rights! (stand up for our rights!)
Get up, stand up!Dont give up the fight!
Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)
Stand up for your rights! (get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )Dont give up the fight!
(get up, stand up!)Get up, stand up! ( ... )Stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up!Dont give up the fight! / bob marley end
I remember these words, I was part of the scene at the time, I was 23 or 24 , I am jamaican born, living in jamaica at the time this song came out. Like Marley I have an English parent. He was shot at a few times, so was I. I watched the island change in a decade. Many people had to leave in a hurry, leaving behind a dream place to live. There was poverty but there was hope. There is dispair now, poverty is a lot worse, 2000 murders per year out of a population of 2.7 million.
How does that relate to Britain,
Politics, greedy, evil, unprincipaled, power hungry politics. People offered unrealistic, untrue and unworkable policies. Once that evil took hold it has been impossible to get back to a system of justice for all the people. Freedom, political freedom is gone. I was surprised how quickly it went, I am still feeling the effects today, people from many other countries have seen it go as well. Here in Britain we feel that it will never happen here, democracy is too strong, the people wont allow it, our politicians are patroitic, checks and balances etc..
From my time here in Britain since 1979 I can say that Britain is loosing their freedom. I never thought it would have been possible but it is well advanced. I defy anyone to do a normal days activities and see how many rules govern us here in Britain you break. It is almost impossible to be law adiding anymore, now the children are being oppressed as children. The State, cradle to the grave is in control. The laws are everywhere, in every thing you do, in the human rights act, in the anti terrorism laws, health and safety, but is there much justice or fairness?
Undemocratic PM, undemocratic EU, Undemocratic laws, unelected bodies and polical police. Certain legal political parties have to meet in secret here in the UK today.
We are maybe one election or treaty away from losing all of the laws accumalated by the experiences this country has gone through over hundreds of years for laws made without our consent.
When you will not fight when you can win, you may have to fight when there is no chance of winning. Freedom is not free, it needs to be fought for. There is always forces who will fight to take those freedoms from us and we must always be alert and ready to fight to hold on to our rights and freedom.
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Preacherman, dont tell me,Heaven is under the earth.
I know you dont know What life is really worth.
Its not all that glitters is gold;alf the story has never been told:
So now you see the light, eh!Stand up for your rights. come on!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!
Most people think,Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everythingAnd make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,You will look for yours on earth:
and now you see the light,You stand up for your rights. jah!Get up, stand up! (jah, jah!)Stand up for your rights! (oh-hoo!)Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)Dont give up the fight! (life is your right!)
Get up, stand up! (so we cant give up the fight!)
Stand up for your rights! (lord, lord!)
Get up, stand up! (keep on struggling on!)
Dont give up the fight! (yeah!)
We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -Dyin n goin to heaven in-a jesus name, lord.
We know when we understand:Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)
So you better:Get up, stand up! (in the morning! git it up!)
Stand up for your rights! (stand up for our rights!)
Get up, stand up!Dont give up the fight!
Get up, stand up! (get up, stand up!)
Stand up for your rights! (get up, stand up!)
Get up, stand up! ( ... )Dont give up the fight!
(get up, stand up!)Get up, stand up! ( ... )Stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up!Dont give up the fight! / bob marley end
I remember these words, I was part of the scene at the time, I was 23 or 24 , I am jamaican born, living in jamaica at the time this song came out. Like Marley I have an English parent. He was shot at a few times, so was I. I watched the island change in a decade. Many people had to leave in a hurry, leaving behind a dream place to live. There was poverty but there was hope. There is dispair now, poverty is a lot worse, 2000 murders per year out of a population of 2.7 million.
How does that relate to Britain,
Politics, greedy, evil, unprincipaled, power hungry politics. People offered unrealistic, untrue and unworkable policies. Once that evil took hold it has been impossible to get back to a system of justice for all the people. Freedom, political freedom is gone. I was surprised how quickly it went, I am still feeling the effects today, people from many other countries have seen it go as well. Here in Britain we feel that it will never happen here, democracy is too strong, the people wont allow it, our politicians are patroitic, checks and balances etc..
From my time here in Britain since 1979 I can say that Britain is loosing their freedom. I never thought it would have been possible but it is well advanced. I defy anyone to do a normal days activities and see how many rules govern us here in Britain you break. It is almost impossible to be law adiding anymore, now the children are being oppressed as children. The State, cradle to the grave is in control. The laws are everywhere, in every thing you do, in the human rights act, in the anti terrorism laws, health and safety, but is there much justice or fairness?
Undemocratic PM, undemocratic EU, Undemocratic laws, unelected bodies and polical police. Certain legal political parties have to meet in secret here in the UK today.
We are maybe one election or treaty away from losing all of the laws accumalated by the experiences this country has gone through over hundreds of years for laws made without our consent.
When you will not fight when you can win, you may have to fight when there is no chance of winning. Freedom is not free, it needs to be fought for. There is always forces who will fight to take those freedoms from us and we must always be alert and ready to fight to hold on to our rights and freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
