The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

The full wording is: Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

You are probably thinking the same as me: why are Muslims wanting to make an international law that will criminalise more Muslims than anyone else? Which ‘religion’ is as intolerant towards others as Islam? Which ‘religion’ is responsible for the murders of thousands of people of other religions throughout the world every year? It’s Islam, of course. But this law won’t apply to Muslims, because only Islam can be disrespected.

I cannot see such an ‘international law’ being adhered to in countries like Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, where Christians by the hundred have been murdered recently just for being Christians (there’s religious hatred for you), but I can envisage the trembling hands of the ‘infidels’ in the West signing up to this in order to criminalise their own people for speaking out against Sharia law, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, Muslim rape gangs, poppy-burners and the rest of the sickness that goes wherever Islam goes.

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step foward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

As I have said so often before, the same agenda is being put in place all over the West.

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

They even want our ‘democratically elected politicians’ to be silenced (those few who still speak up). And the last thing the leaders of the Islamic world want is integration. That’s not how their global caliphate will come about. They must remain separate in order to dominate.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

I am just going to reproduce these examples of what has already happening in Europe after people have done nothing more than told the truth about Islam…

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason’ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

So, you would think that criticising Islam is already a crime in Europe without any further effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The United Nations is still seen as a highly reputable and invaluable organisation to most people, rather than what it really is. If our politicians lack the strength of character to deal with the EU on most matters, how do you think they will react when expected to adopt laws that try to prevent us saying things like, ‘Well, actually, I don’t think it’s right that Muslim girls should have their genitals mutilated’?

If this happens, what a devastating blow to freedom. We will literally become dhimmis in our own country. Even more so than we are already, with the halal food being dished up to an unsuspecting public and the dismantling of our Judeo-Christian values and culture.

If we don’t stand up for our country and our freedom and commit ourselves to the values of our fathers and grandfathers, we will fall to Islam. And soon. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a minority in Europe; the powers that be have dealt them a winning hand. At least, this is what they want us to believe, but it will only be a winning hand if we fail to realise that they are bluffing, therefore we must not throw in our hand because this rotten game is there for the taking if we stand strong against this tide of insanity.

FURTHER READING: ‘Proud to be a British Muslim’ (a lesson in mind-control)

Sometimes, Alex Jones and his guests set out the globalists’ agenda so clearly, it is awesome. Here he is, talking to our own Paul Joseph Watson about the armed troops who burned down homes and killed children in Uganda to evict them in the name of climate change.

This full spectrum analysis includes the topics of mainstream media silence, climate change and humanitarian scams, neo-colonialism under the guise of protecting against climate change, land grabs, and UN and Big Pharma eugenicists working towards population reduction as part of a global regime. Watson writes,

Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

Villagers told of how armed “security forces” stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

“We were in church,” recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. “I heard bullets being shot into the air.”

“Cars were coming with police,” Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. “They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets.”

“But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming,” reports the New York Times.

An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.

“I no longer own any land. It’s impossible to feed my children – they have suffered so much. Some days all they eat is porridge from maize flour. When people can’t eat well their bodies become weak – there have been lots of cases of malaria and diarrhoea. Some days we don’t eat anything at all,” said former farmer Francis Longoli, whose land was stolen by New Forests.

As we have previously documented, the manufactured threat of man-made global warming is being used as a tool of neo-colonialism in the third world, not only through the seizure of land and infrastructure, thereby preventing poor nations from using their resources to develop, but by literally starving poverty-stricken people to death.

Climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death, with the population being forced to live on mud pies.

Read the rest of Watson’s article here.

I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.

The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.

Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.

I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age.

I’m really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country, in my view. We need to recapture this, or Europe is finished.

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

“I am referring 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.”

Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien’s question whether the member countries of the EU didn’t join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. “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. 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.”

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents “show very clearly” that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements 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” “Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.”

“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, “the Soviets came 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.”

In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing is supposed to have stated that: “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 Eastern European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.” As Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 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]? It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?”

Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book of hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected.” “The Constitution will have to be given its second chance.” He said the French people voted No out of an “error of judgement” and “ignorance”, and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.” “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.” Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. “People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake,” he said on a possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye’or, is “just a conspiracy theory” should read these statements by Giscard d’Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working for decades, indeed from the very beginning.

From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.” Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for years, at least from the 1920s, had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.” In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North calls the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public.

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.” As one of the signers put it: “We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.” According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.” “Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”

Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that 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.” “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?” He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. “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 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,” which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.

Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas, has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. “When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.” “It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.” “Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”

Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays. But the so-called “tan ban” was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels with washing instructions. But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don’t have the labels. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy clothes.

These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, “Eurabian” federal ideology promoting Multiculturalism, denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level as “xenophobes” and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as “racists.” A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as “Islamic terrorism.”

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.” Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected”. Such steps could materialize through various mechanisms, “and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN”, he said. He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that “I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, vowing “to reach out… to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.” Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used by Mr Solana as “shocking.” Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself later was trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech codes apparently did not strike him.

Journalist Nidra Poller, commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands. “The Euro-Mediterranean “Dialogue” is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism… that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of “Dialogue,” what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word “Constitution”?”

Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and England and the Need for Nations, warns that: “We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the British and the Italians to say ‘we’ and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited sovereignty and law.” “The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it.”

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, “increased the EU’s democratic deficit.” He warned that “The EU has continued – at an accelerated speed – to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities.” Mr Klaus also stressed that the nation-state “is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).”

According to Vladimir Bukovksy, “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.” “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.” “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.”

Richard North writes that “If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes.” In the book he co-authored with Christopher Booker, the authors conclude: “Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato’s Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those countries who knew how to ‘work the system’, among whom the Irish and the Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with some “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if “stability” means a steady course towards Eurabia, I’ll take some instability any day. I can’t see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.

Some would hope that we could “reform” the EU, keep the “positive” aspects of it and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ. I was naïve, too, once, and thought there were positive aspects to the EU. There aren’t, or not nearly enough to keep any of it.

The EU is all bath water, no baby.

Which is why, as Bukovksy says, “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.”

The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy, Brutus and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante were alive today, he’d probably make some room for Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his Eurabian cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound together by some vague references to a “shared Greek heritage.” Instead, they are creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of Rome.

Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union.

Labour’s warmongering, with Tory backing, is well known. If Tony Blair had been dictator of a tinpot county, he would have been dragged to the court in The Hague years ago, and we would all have applauded. Now it seems that William Hague is calling for the UK to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, without a UN resolution and even if it means the UK goes it alone.

Someone should point out to the ConDems that Britain no longer rules the waves, or the air – or even Britain. And we must question the sanity of these politicians who desire to police yet another country, at the same time as announcing that thousands of servicemen and women are to lose their jobs and two Tornado squadrons are to be disbanded.

It shows to what extent our governments are prepared to take their orders from their elitist masters in their efforts to change the planet geopolitically.

And when it comes to the very serious crime of treason, it is becoming clear that Cameron, Brown and Blair are equally guilty. When Cameron was trying to get our votes in the 2009 European Elections, he made it very, very clear why it is imperative we have an EU referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty includes a massive transfer of powers from the nation states of Europe to Brussels.

He said, and went on to expand on that by painting a very bleak picture of the UK’s future being stolen by the EU. He also said that,

The best way to get that referendum is to vote Conservative.

The politics of the so-called “modern democracy” seem to be very similar to “good cop, bad cop”. At the moment, the Tories are the baddies, with the cuts and failure to deliver a referendum on our EU “participation” (for want of a better word).

Labour are now the good guys by opposing the cuts, even though it was their gross mismanagement – when it was their turn to be the bad guys – which has necessitated them. Some in Labour now have the nerve to say that too much power is being siphoned off to Brussels. They couldn’t say it when they were in power when they could actually, maybe, have done something about it – something really drastic, perhaps, like express their opinion – but they had to wait until it was their turn to be the good guys again.

It is an amazingly simple con trick, which still gets nine out of ten cats voting LibLabCon at each election. Really, a four year old could spot the con. They probably do, but then say to themselves, nah – grown-ups can’t possibly be that stupid; I’m just a kid, so I must learn from them why it is good to vote for liars and cheats all the time.

The treason not only stems from politicians throwing away the sovereignty and freedom bought by the blood of millions, but also from the attacks on our culture, traditions and moral values. I never tire of linking to this post: Treason like this deserves the gallows.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

This is also part of the crime of the genocide of the British. If you think I am over-reacting, this is what the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

When you consider the extent to which Labour in particular succeeded in “radically chang[ing] the country,” i.e. basically destroying what it means to be British, and especially English, then this is certainly an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national or ethnical group through:

* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group**

** This has been achieved through modern eugenics disguised as women’s rights, family planning and sex education. The result is that the British fertility rate is below the replacement figure of 2.11 children per family.

Of course, continued interference by the EU will increase our assimilation into the United States of Europe, or whatever it will be called next, by carrying on this agenda of national destruction with the collusion of the “British” Government.

And David Cameron should fully understand that he could be a future Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi, because his “services” are no longer required and his crimes grave.

Blair and Brown and all others remotely connected with this collusion should also be quaking in their Quisling boots.

Their time will come too.

I don’t expect this to be a lengthy post because I think these “revolutions” have been orchestrated to a large degree. I’m not saying there aren’t millions of people who are elated at the thought of freedom from tyrants like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi (who wouldn’t be?), but it looks suspiciously like U.S. regime-change that’s going on.

Yet again.

I don’t think it bodes well for the Egyptians to have the George Soros funded Mohamed ElBaradei in charge and the Libyans won’t be so happy when their globalist lackey leader, whoever it will be, hands over the oil production to the West.

Kurt Nimmo writes that Barack Obama announced yesterday that “the government of the United States will soon intervene in Libya with its globalist partners under the threadbare cover of humanitarian aid and respect for human rights.”

There is even a handy al Qaeda “Islamic emirate” already, so no excuses for not bombing the life out the country if need be.

And next door,

Opposition leader Mohamed El-Baradei warned Sunday that all the gains of Egypt’s revolution will be lost if elections are held too soon because supporters of ousted president Hosni Mubarak will get back in power. He said polls should not be held until at least a year from now.

You wouldn’t want the people to give the “wrong” answer. Not in a “democracy.” Not like the Irish, Dutch and French voted the wrong way in EU referenda.

That’s all I have to say about it at the moment, other than my thoughts and prayers are for those caught up in the trouble there.

I spotted two related stories. In the Mail,

SAS troops could be deployed on the streets alongside police as fears grow of a Mumbai-style terror attack on Britain, it emerged today.

More likely, the ConDems fear a spread of North Africa’s uprisings.

And this report reveals that the US administration gives hundreds of millions of dollars to repair and kit out mosques in Egypt and many other countries. They claim they are fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Muslim leaders. A former Muslim woman says that trying to buy respect is US appeasement and that Muslims are laughing all the way to the bank.

It’s insane.

It’s all insane!

I want to expand this whole idea to encompass an entire country – how the beliefs and behaviour of a people determine the quality of life for everyone. Alex Jones pleaded with his audience on Monday’s show to try to reverse the degradation of American society or face the consequences.

Many people would think, “what degradation?” If you don’t have time to listen to this whole segment, slide forward to 12:18 and listen to 16.56.

He talks about the plan to give Obama the internet “kill switch” in case of a cyber attack. They just want the power to do the same as the tyrannical Egyptian regime has done, but under the pretext of keeping us safe from bearded men in caves with wi-fi access.

Historically, after a culture has peaked, the resulting hedonism and decadence have a destroying effect. Alex mentions our violent culture: the computer games and television, tens of millions of abortions and a million dead Iraqis.

“You think the Devil’s sexy,” he says.

They say that Satan’s greatest trick is convincing people that he doesn’t exist. Maybe he goes one better and convinces people that he does exist, but he’s sexy and fun. You wouldn’t want to spend eternity in Heaven with those stuck-up neighbours who go to church and listen to Cliff Richard in their car now, would you? Except, who says they are going in the “Up” elevator? You might just find you are chained to them in eternal torment. I expect the Devil has a “wicked” sense of humour. Not that you’ll be laughing.

I agree with Alex that we will be drinking from the cup of abomination and we have brought it on ourselves. He says,

The gates are now being opened. Everything that America wants, dearly in their Satanic heart, they will now get… because you hate yourselves deep down and you want to be punished and you will be.

He calls us to repent. He says, “You want Satanic government, you got it.”

He is right. Despite all his evil, Hosni Mubarak never implemented the globalists’ call for legalised abortion in his country.

What judgment awaits us in the west, who have allowed the genocide of the unborn and so much more intense evil?

I believe we all have a part to play, no matter how insignificant we might think we are, to try to reverse this situation that we are all in together.

And Alex Jones is usually right. That’s why I put my money where his mouth is and bought some gold coins in 2007 at less than half of today’s price.

I need a food storage as well. Sensible people have been doing this for a while since the writing has been on the wall. Poverty, slavery, starvation, treason from within and oppression from outsiders: this is the very near future of our dying society which needs to repent, because the only alternative is to drink from the cup of abomination.

Two MSPs have given these well known “ecofascists” their time and attention – and a conference in the Scottish Parliament. Unsurprisingly, Greenie Patrick Harvie is one. The other is the SNP’s Dr Ian McKee.

One campaigns for homosexual and environmental issues and the other is a retired medical doctor and Deputy Convener of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill Committee.

They both think a lot of people need to be wiped off the earth.

That’s what I love about “democracy” – you have the chance to vote for such lovely, lovely people.

The radical group is urging First Minister Alex Salmond to launch a Government campaign to curb family size, using the slogan “two’s plenty”.

OPT is calling for Scotland’s population to be cut by a quarter.

Dr McKee, whose wife organised the Holyrood conference, insisted: “The world has finite resources and we can’t go on growing at the current rate. This is a taboo subject for politicians but I think it is something the Scottish Parliament should be discussing.”

I guess getting rid of people to satisfy Gaia is still kind of taboo, but the media and state “education” have made so many other taboos appear normal, like abortion, homosexual acts and increasingly, Dr McKee’s area of interest, bumping off old and sick people, that it’s probably just a matter of time before sacrificing live infants to appease the gods of nature is once again seen as acceptable.

[Dr McKee] added: “I think the Government could encourage families to have less children.

“There is a lot of societal pressure to have children. I think it seems very sensible to put forward the case that people should consider carefully limiting the size of their family.”

Either the man is stupid or, em, no, he is stupid. The fact is that Europeans and North Americans aren’t even having enough children to sustain the population. “Family Planning” has, for decades now, been extremely successful in convincing the public that they only need two children. Feminism has convinced millions of women that they should be separated from their one or two children at an early age to go out to work.

That part of the agenda has already been carried out: mission accomplished for the eugenicists.

[T]he OPT believes Scotland and Britain must do their part to stabilise the world’s population, which could rise to more than nine billion within 40 years. They want the UK population to fall to as low as 30 million, with Scotland playing its part in the reduction.

Can you imagine what needs to happen to achieve this? And these people have been allowed to hold a conference in Parliament.

On immigration, the OPT believes there should be a zero cap on net immigration, meaning numbers would be strictly limited to replace those leaving the country to live elsewhere.

In order to halve the UK population with no net migration, a strict one child policy over decades would be required, like in China. Here too would be a land of forced abortions and sterilisations.

Look who some of the patrons of the Optimum Population Trust are…

Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE – the naturalist we grew up to love and trust.

Dr Jane Goodall DBE, Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, and UN Messenger of Peace. (Yes, eugenics is peace!)

Susan Hampshire OBE (remember her?), Actress and population campaigner.

Professor Aubrey Manning OBE, President of the Wildlife Trusts and Emeritus Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh – another naturalist who would rather cuddle a dung beetle than a human.

Jonathon Porritt CBE – of course. Another friendly face who would rather you were dead and buried. Or is cremation more environmentally-friendly (if you extract the mercury fillings first, obviously)?

Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG KCVO, Chancellor of Kent University, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute, and former UK Permanent Representative on the United Nations Security Council.

After I posted those Alan Watt videos on eugenics, Frank Davis pondered upon the likelihood of major world events being predetermined by a global elite, and largely decided against it.

If you look at those involved with the OPT, you can get a glimpse into how things work. Alan Watt explained that he had come to the conclusion that there had to be an elite leading the world because “the big players” like Henry Kissinger, the Huxleys and Lord Bertrand Russell belonged to the same institutions and history had panned out according to what they had called for in their writings.

This little OPT humanity-hating cabal consists of everyone they need to change the UK’s attitudes and laws. They have the nation’s most recognisable authority on the earth – a broadcaster who receives almost unrivalled respect. They have two UN representatives, and of course the UN supports China’s one-child policy. They have scientists and professors who can talk up the agenda to their naive university students and their equally naive colleagues. They will write for major newspapers about why we need a one-child policy to save the earth.

And notice how the majority of patrons have been “honoured” with British Empire medals. One of these is Sara Parkin OBE, who is “Founder Director and Trustee of Forum for the Future, Chair of the Richard Sandbrook Trust, Board member of the European Training Foundation“.

The ETF is the EU agency which supports education and training in countries surrounding the EU. Eugenics is a global agenda, not just for us lucky ones in the EU.

Forum for the Future is also concerned with “global challenges” like climate change and population growth. Look how they are getting their agenda across,

Since 1996 our Masters in Leadership for Sustainable Development has been training the sustainability leaders of the future. Last year we celebrated the graduation of our 165th student, and many graduates are already making their mark as think-tank directors and government advisers.

Scared enough yet? This is how they do it. They use the mass media; they train the young to be “leaders”; they are involved with their fellow eugenicists at the UN.

That Scotsman article ends with this,

A recent paper by the OPT claimed that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

That’s what children are to these monsters: a waste of air. Useless eaters. Parasites.

But they are the parasites, attaching themselves to every broadcaster, school, government department, and everywhere else they can, to promote their sickness and kill off sane and measured debate.

This is why it doesn’t matter which main party you vote for – the politicians aren’t in charge.

Our Dave has appointed himself chief supporter of Turkey’s entry to the EU. Instead of offering us a way back out from behind the New Iron Curtain, Cast-iron Cameron wants an EU with another 70 million Muslims in it.

Dave considers Britain’s best interests, and is as in tune with public opinion, as Gordon Brown at his best worst.

Although 37% of those surveyed would be ‘happy’ to go on holiday to Turkey, only 14% of the public would like to see the country join the EU, while double that number (28%) would ‘definitely not’ like to see Turkey join. These findings clearly indicate that PM David Cameron’s views on the matter are not shared by the general British public.

I would love to visit Turkey and see as much of the fascinating historical remains as possible, but I don’t want my taxes paying for their upkeep, while the Turks come here and take our jobs while demanding special treatment – or rather, given special treatment by British cowards terrified of losing their jobs or facing humiliation for saying or doing the “wrong” thing.

The debate about the EU has to move away from an economic one. “We would be worse off out, financially” say the EUrophiles. Even if that were true, which I doubt, “so what,” is what I say. What’s the use even of being a millionaire if you are serving a life sentence in jail?

David Cameron is just the latest globalist puppet defending Airstrip One against the powers of truth and freedom. Sovereignty will continue to leach out to the EU, UN and envirofascists as the government tries to get away with handing over our money to any EU or global institution demanding we pay for everything from renewing infrastructure in Eastern Europe to paying penance for the alleged climate change damage done to third world countries due to our industrial success.

The giant transnational corporations must also be made fatter. The corrupt WHO/UN just has to say the latest ‘flu scare is a “pandemic” and the government will order 50 million shots from Big Pharma. As with climate change, facts won’t matter. Someone in Brussels, Geneva or Washington will shout, “Jump” and Cameron will reply, “how high…would you like the British people to pay this time?”

To destroy this country and keep us as a deprived backwater of the globalists’ empire, they need to do exactly what they are doing:

Bankrupt us economically, via: ludicrous membership fees to be dictated to by the EU; the use of climate change laws/carbon credits to relocate our industry to the third world; wars; low wage migrants; a huge underclass on state benefits; getting half of school-leavers into further education which will leave them unemployed and with huge debts, when many of them should have been working all along.

Bankrupt us morally, intellectually and as a society, via: mass immigration; promotion of promiscuity; dumbed down ‘entertainment’; state education replaced with indoctrination; fearmongering; creating barriers to people meeting together via such devices as the smoking ban and ludicrous health & safety restrictions.

How can Cameron not see this? How much is he wilfully complicit in the destruction of our country?

Conspiracy theories:

1) The theory: mass immigration is being used to re-engineer society.

Typical response: “Racist scum,” etc.

Now proven to be true.

2) The theory: climate change is not primarily manmade, but is a ruse to impose a world government which will tax and control us.

Typical response: “You climate change deniers will kill millions of people,” etc.

Data now shown to have been falsified for political reasons and that the planet hasn’t been warming for years. A world government is being set up to make laws, collect taxes and implement carbon trading which will impoverish and probably destabilise the West. As planned.

It is claimed that the large amount of land given over to the farming of biofuels has already caused millions to starve.

3) The theory: the BBC is a propaganda machine for liberals and socialists.

Typical response: “Get a life, you sad man. By the way, did you see EastEnders last night?” Etc.

As if it wasn’t obvious enough anyway, we have revelations about Dr Who being used to try and topple Maggie Thatcher. The BBC is admittedly anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. There is also admittedly a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the Corporation, which, of course, is evident in the output.

4) The theory: the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

Typical response: “You’re an anti-Bush, American-hating scumbag with no respect for the victims’ families,” etc.

While numbers who deny the official story are increasing, many still have to overcome their aversion to facing up to the terrible truth that buildings don’t turn to powder just because they are hit by planes. Building 7 wasn’t hit by a plane, yet also came crashing down into a neat pile of rubble. If it was science fiction you wouldn’t believe it, so why do so many still believe it when it is told in truth? Especially considering the history of false-flag operations carried out by Western governments.

5) The theory: the Theory of Evolution is a 19th Century misunderstanding, which is now clear from modern scientific discoveries.

Typical response: unprintable (based on replies to my posts on Richard Dawkins’ blog, from which I am now banned).

Not widely known as a conspiracy theory due to the alleged wealth of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. When supporters realise that evolution has its limits, e.g. that mosquitoes can become resistant to insecticides, but they never ever become anything other than what they have always been: mosquitoes, then we will get somewhere.

Here’s another part of the conspiracy: the Council of Europe want Creationism banned from science classrooms. Not just because they dispute the science, but because they reckon that, “If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights”.

And of course, nobody is allowed the ‘right’ to have access to all streams of thought and knowledge, only those which our masters graciously allow us access to, like fraudulent global warming claims and other distractions that would make the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, explode with ecstasy.

I would say this. We should enjoy the freedom to use the internet to discover the truth while we still have the opportunity.

Google has announced that, due to the recent attempts to hack into email accounts of Chinese human rights activists, it is no longer going to censor its search results for Chinese internet users. Brilliant news, I thought. Then I remembered what Google is actually like and I began wondering what their motive was.

For example, their Adwords have made them an absolute fortune. These are mainly on the right-hand side of the search results (and also sometimes above the ‘natural’ listings) and on many third party sites, including some blogs. Google makes money every time someone clicks on the ads. I noticed that they were accepting ads for really degenerate ’services’ like wives who also did prostituting. At the time, I was spending a few thousand a year on Adwords myself, and so I emailed their place in Ireland to complain and requested the email address of the CEO. I was refused. Twice.

The Christian Institute wanted to run anti-abortion ads, but Google blocked them, despite gladly advertising abortion clinics. The Institute had to threaten legal action and Google gave in.

Google has played along with Beijing’s censorship shenanigans thus far, so I am wondering if the bad name Google has in this area worries them enough to stand up to the Commies and risk having to pull out of China altogether and lose billions in advertising revenue.