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.

Now, I realise that the number of Muslims in the UK who would want to behead me (at this moment in time) for my beliefs is probably fairly small, pending further radicalisation of the youth, and an increasingly larger islamic proportion of the population due to further immigration and a higher fertility rate than the mind-controlled “two’s plenty” majority. I agree that there is a certain amount of home-grown bigotry and hatred conducted for its own sake and out of ignorance, apparently wherever you go. Coming from the west of Scotland, I know that this most commonly occurs between the religious wings of Rangers and Celtic Football Clubs! What I do not accept is this from Warsi:

One of the most important aspects of our [British] identity is our belief in equality before the law.

But deep, entrenched anti-Muslim bigotry challenges that tradition…

…because it implies that one section of society is less deserving of our protection than the rest.

What is she talking about? We continue to witness the politicians, police, judges and media as well as schools, universities and local councils falling over themselves to be favourable to Muslims. So much so that the CPS thought it was a good idea that a Christian couple should face trial after a private conversation with a Muslim woman on their own property.

Can you imagine it happening the other way round – either a Christian being that petty or the police and CPS taking any interest in the “case?”

Can you imagine the police warning Muslims not to enter a “Christian area?” Can you picture the opposite situation to this:

The pair [of Christians] claimed the PCSO warned them to leave the area as they were committing a hate crime by trying to convert Muslims.

To show just how un-islamophobic the UK is, in 2008 Tayside Police sent out postcards announcing their new non-emergency telephone number, but had to apologise to “the Muslim Community” because it featured a puppy. I’m afraid you cannot come to live in the “nation of dog-lovers” and expect everyone to act like our canine companions are “ritually unclean.”

Last year, the Christian Institute reported that Christians in Britain are being unfairly targeted for hate crime prosecutions.

The Civitas report contrasts Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, the couple I have already mentioned who were prosecuted for the hate crime of discussing religion with a Muslim on their property, with a Muslim man who escaped prosecution for a hate crime despite defacing a war memorial with slogans such as “Islam will dominate the world – Osama is on his way”.

The CPS ruled that the man’s actions were not “racially” or “religiously” aggravated, and he was instead charged with a lesser crime of criminal damage.

It seems clear to me what is happening. Actual crime – real criminal damage – in your face, pre-meditated vandalism – is a “lesser crime” because free speech is considered the greater danger – or the only danger.

However, when hatred is clearly a motivating factor, the police often seem to let it go, especially when Muslims publicly express hatred for our country and armed forces, so Warsi is right, Muslims aren’t being treated equally, just not in the way she means.

Warsi adds,

The deeper Islamophobia seeps into our culture, the easier becomes the task of the extremist recruiting sergeant.

So, it must be our fault – the vast majority of us who just want to get on with our lives in our own country and don’t actually hate anyone. Bending over backwards to accommodate them hasn’t been enough. And it is not hard to see why – for some we can never, ever, give enough ground to suit them, unless that means going all the way and submitting to their demands that the UK be turned into an islamic republic and the monarch be turfed out of Buckingham Palace so it can be turned into a mosque.

And what of all the moderate Muslims we hear about? What are they doing, other than trying to pin the blame for their bad image on the rest of us? Apart from the fact that islam is not moderate by definition, I suggest that most of those who consider themselves to be “moderate Muslims” are too afraid to speak out. Perhaps they know that global domination is islam’s goal and feel it is destined to be realised regardless and so there is no point putting themselves in a potentially difficult situation by confronting fundamentalists.

Quiet Man has searched out some worrying statistics. Four out of ten Muslims in Britain want sharia law introduced in parts of the country. And a YouGov poll from 2008, found that extreme Islamist ideology has a profound influence on a significant minority of Muslims on campuses across the country.

This poll again showed that 40% favoured sharia law, but also a third backed the notion of a worldwide islamic caliphate based on sharia law and a third believed killing for religion is justified. These are, presumably, the (near) future lawyers, teachers, journalists and politicians.

Meanwhile, students breast-fed on equality and diversity have been trying to force Christian Unions to have non-Christians in positions of leadership, as they think it is unfair that a Christian group should have only Christians involved with running it, and of course, their adherence to traditional sexual morality doesn’t go down well.

The 150-strong Christian union in Birmingham was suspended this year after refusing to alter its constitution to allow non-Christians to address meetings and to amend its literature to include references to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and those of transgender sexuality.

And you thought universities were places where people could meet without fear and where opinions aren’t suppressed? I don’t suppose that any Muslim groups have been suspended for not having non-Muslims in positions of leadership or for not promoting homosexuality. And I wonder, are the universities’ LGBT groups promoting views other than their own? Are they being threatened with suspension unless they also promote family values and chastity?

Warsi talked about islamophobia, anti-Semitism and homophobia, but she neglected to mention the fact that the youth of today have been brought up to despise their own people and their own country and traditions. To insist that a non-Christian should lead the Christian Union is as absurd as demanding that a chronic hay fever sufferer be promoted to the judging committee of the flower-arranging society. It is totally devoid of sense. The only motive seems to be the determination to try to silence people whose opinions differ from their own.

40% of Muslim students want sharia law which, if implemented, would mean death to practising homosexuals, but that must be acceptable to these students, seeing as they prefer to target Christian Unions whose members, like so many other people, just want to return to a less hedonistic society.

It will be most interesting to discover the reactions of, especially, students, politicians and the BBC when muslims feel confident enough to more vigorously express their opinions of homosexuals. At the moment, most Muslims seem to be happy being the poor downtrodden minority, like the homosexuals. Pretending to be weak has worked wonders for them. When the Muslims start chanting “death to homosexuals” on Britain’s streets, will the students still be targetting peaceful people whose only “crime” is to have traditional values?

Will Stonewall members continue to persecute Christians who just want to run their businesses in good conscience, while ignoring the Mohammedan elephant in the room?

I have just found this on a Telegraph blog:

Dr. Emmanuel Tanay (German Professor) summarised the way many on MyT feel in an essay called “A German View of Islam”, which I shall quote now:

“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.”

He continues:

“The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 40 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery and ethnic warfare. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

* Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
* Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
* Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”

And we cannot possibly underestimate the treason of our fellow countrymen who saddled us with multiculturalism for the purpose of selling us out.

I had thought that Muslims were 3% of the population, but it seems to be more than that now. The 2001 Census records the Muslim population of Great Britain being 1,588,890, or 2.8% of the total population of 57 million.

The UK’s figure for 2010 has been estimated at 2,869,000 – 4.6%.

This represents a 64% increase in slightly under a decade. If this rate stays the same, the Muslim population of Britain will be 7.5% in 2020, 12.3% in 2030, 20% in 2040, 33% in 2050 and Muslims will be the majority in about 45 years time.

If this seems hard to swallow, it shouldn’t, especially when you consider that the Muslim population of the UK just before World War II was 50,000. This figure doubled in the following twelve years.

The United Kingdom: Estimates for the Muslim population increased from 50,000 or 0.1% in 1939, to 100,000 or 0.2% in 1951, to 750,000 or 1.2% in 1971, to 1.25 million or 2.2% in 1981, to 1.5 million or 2.6% in 1991. According to the 2001 census, the total population was 58,789,187, out of which 1,591,000 or 2.71% were Muslims.

My projected figures for the whole UK will be slightly out as I used the 2.8% Great Britain figure rather than the 2.71% UK figure, but you certainly get the idea of what could happen quite soon. The Muslim proportion of the population will continue to rise the way things are going, and could take another large leap if David Cameron succeeds in getting Turkey admitted to the EU and allows unlimited migration. The future could be more dramatic than I have suggested.

Even in Australia, despite Muslims being warned if they don’t like it they can leave, the story seems much the same,

ISLAMIC preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon points heavenwards to emphasise his message for the governments of Australia — there is no God but Allah and only his laws should be obeyed.

“My attack is on the Prime Minister of Australia,” he said yesterday. “I hate the parliament in Canberra. I want to go straight for the jugular vein and advise the parliament that they have no right to legislate. They should immediately step down and let the Muslims take over.”

An Australian-born convert to Islam, Siddiq-Conlon is the self-anointed leader of a group called Sharia4Australia, which is pushing for the introduction of sharia courts as a first step towards achieving Islamic law.

This highlights yet another problem. As Christianity gets undermined in the West, people are turning to Islam. The woman who took the Vogelenzangs to court for allegedly insulting islam was a white British Muslim convert.

As with the UK, the irony is that Australians have been under pressure not to tell the truth about islam by being threatened with so-called hate laws. In 2002, pastor Daniel Scot spoke at a seminar regarding Islam, sponsored by Catch the Fire Ministries.

The seminar was attended by three Australian Muslims; two of them were asked to attend by May Helou who was an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) and an employee of the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria. The third person was asked to attend by ICV members whilst he was at the ICV office. The three Muslims, along with the Islamic Council of Victoria, later launched action under the controversial Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, claiming that the intent of the speech had been to vilify Muslims, rather than to discuss Islam itself.

I don’t know if it is possible to discuss islam in all seriousness without it being considered vilification by those who are keen to take professional offence.

Britain isn’t gripped by islamophobia, because a phobia is an irrational fear. Warsi’s speech was a hotchpotch of the usual clichéd ideas intended to try and convince us that we can all get along just fine if we stop discriminating, especially those ordinary British people who apparently turn fine upstanding young Muslim men into terrorists.

What people really need is to be properly educated about islam. They need to learn about the many brutal islamic regimes that exist today and realise that unless something changes in the UK – and very soon – we will become another one, along with the whole continent of Europe.

One thing we can do is stop paying the TV tax which funds the propaganda wing of islam in Britain.

In November, I posted a video on Muslim Demographics, which is worth considering.

25/1/11 LATEST NEWS…

Ethiopian Muslims Warn Christians to Convert, Leave City or Face Death

Washington, D.C. (January 25, 2011)–International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that Christians in the Ethiopian city of Besheno are being harassed and physically abused after Muslims posted notices on the doors of Christian homes warning them to convert, leave the city or face death.

Three Christian leaders were forced to flee the city and two Christians have been forced to convert to Islam. In the Muslim majority city, the entire evangelical Christian community consists of about 30 believers.

Evangelist Kassa Awano remains in critical condition after Muslims attacked him on November 29, 2010. A few days after the attack, nearly 100 Muslims surrounded a vehicle carrying Christian leaders on their way to negotiate for peace with Muslim leaders. Two men, Tesema Hirego and Niggusie Denano, were seriously wounded, and the other leaders suffered minor injuries. On January 2, Muslims assaulted Temesgen Peteros with a knife after he testified about the attacks on these Christians in court.

Christians in Besheno have been targeted by Muslims for many years. On May 21, 2004, Muslims murdered the 7 year-old daughter of Evangelist Tesfaye Hobe. Muslims continuously attack Christians for listening to Christian songs and watching Christian videos.

“We ask for our constitutional right [to freedom of religion] to be respected. We want this inhumane act to stop. We are unable to live in our own city due to the inhumane acts,” one of the Christian leaders who fled the city told ICC.

The local Muslim officials of the city refuse to protect the Christians. The officials ignore their appeals for justice, declining repeated requests for the building of a place of worship and a cemetery. On January 19, a Christian mother was forced to bury her deceased daughter in a town more than 20 miles from Besheno, due to the absence of a cemetery for Christians.

Besheno is a city located in the province of Alaba in Southern Ethiopia. According to the 2007 national census, 93.84% of the population of the province is Muslim. Christians make up 5.82 % of the population.

“We are alarmed by the posting of threats on Christian homes and the attacks against Christians in Besheno. We urge Ethiopian officials to bring the perpetrators of the attacks to justice, protect the Christians from further attacks and grant them permits to build a place of worship as well as a cemetery,” said Jonathan Racho, ICC’s Regional Manager for Africa.

Please contact the Ethiopian officials in your country and politely ask them to protect Christians in Besheno from the ongoing attacks by Muslims and grant them land for building churches and cemeteries. Ethiopian Embassies: USA (202) 364-1200 Canada (613) 235-6637 Germany 493077206 UK 020 78383897/020 7838 3898.

Channel 4 News tweeted a link to Samira Ahmed’s interview with Pastor Terry Jones last night about his invitation to speak to the English Defence League next year:

@channel4news Pastor Jones: “I’m a pastor, so we would definitely consider Islam evil” Video: http://ow.ly/3nUpQ.

From an almost nine minute piece, the most contentious quote was chosen for the tweet, even though there is no context. This is the first time I have heard this man speaking and I was surprised not to be met with the hardcore nutjob I was expecting. He actually said that moderate Muslims are welcome, just not the sort who call for the Queen to either convert to Islam or be expelled. He even says that Muslims should be free to build mosques, so he sounds more ready to accommodate them than the majority of Swiss people, as they voted to ban the construction of new minarets last year.

But nevertheless, Jones has been labelled a “preacher of hate”. Naturally, threatening to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 hasn’t helped give him a more cuddlesome image in the eyes of the mainstream media. In the end he didn’t burn them, but he had already committed the thought crime.

In this age when we are expected not to say boo to a goose in case we cause offence, thereby threatening the great multicultural experiment (which failed some time ago anyway), there is a real danger that very soon nobody will be allowed to say anything which is not on a list of government-approved beliefs.

Jacqui Smith banned Geert Wilders from entering the UK in 2009 after he was invited by Lord Pearson to show his short film Fitna in the House of Lords. Now we have the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, saying she is ”actively” considering banning Terry Jones. Smith’s decision was overturned by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in London. I hope Theresa May won’t be so foolish as to ban Jones.

But that waste of trees, The Mirror, urges her to ban him because,

He will give encouragement to every racist in Britain whilst provoking fear amongst Muslim communities.

Try as I might, I just can’t picture “Muslim communities” quaking in fear.

Actually, this highlights one of the main problems with our country today. When I was growing up, we lived in the community. This was the South Side of Glasgow and there were very, very few immigrants. I remember the first time I saw a coloured person (as we called them then, out of politeness, only to be told later that this was rude. You can’t win). I can’t recall exactly what age I was, but I was in the car with my mum and an Asian man was standing at the shops. My mum told me he was an Indian gentleman and I wondered why he didn’t have a headdress and a bow and arrow.

When I was in my early teens, I suppose, Asians started opening shops in the area. We had a local Asian grocer’s shop. Before heading out to buy sweets or pop, we would ask, “do you want anything from the Paki’s?” No hatred was implied or intended.

He lived in our community: the community, not a ghetto like Labour’s immigration policies have produced.

The Telegraph continues:

[Pastor Jones] intends to preach ”against the evils and destructiveness of Islam” at an English Defence League (EDL) rally in Luton, Bedfordshire, on February 5.

Mrs May told Sky News’ Sunday Live: ”Of course the home secretary has the right to exclude people who are not conducive to public good or on national security grounds”.

A statement on the pastor’s website said: ”During the protest, Dr Terry Jones will speak against the evils and destructiveness of Islam in support of the continued fight against the Islamification of England and Europe.”

By definition, then, his visit would be conducive to public good. Mrs May said,

Pastor Terry Jones has been on my radar for a few months now.

You can just imagine the politicians and civil servants desperately looking for non-Muslims to accuse of “hate” to appease Muslims and try to equal things up a bit, considering Muslim “preachers” tend to have the monopoly on hatred.

Anti-extremist group Hope not Hate condemned the move and launched a petition calling for Mr Jones to be banned from the UK.

This seems rather an extreme view from alleged “anti-extremists.”

Here are some of Hope Not Hate’s views on the matter:

Pastor Jones’s appearance in the UK will only give ammunition to those Muslim extremists who argue that ‘Christian’ Britain is intrinsically an enemy of all Muslims. Do we really believe that they will sit back and allow Pastor Jones speak in Luton unchallenged? Only last month the head of the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit, the police group that monitors extremism, said that the EDL had become a recruiting agent for Muslim extremist groups. Pastor Jones’s visit will only boost the very groups that the EDL claim to oppose.

Rather than pin the blame of Islamic extremism with the Islamists, it’s someone else’s fault.

Extremism breeds extremism and Pastor Jones’s intervention will only add to the polarisation within and between communities, something that could have dire consequences.

This polarisation was the point of multiculturalism. We got what the politicians ordered!

I understand people are nervous about banning people and curtailing freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility and it is unacceptable for an extreme few to whip up hatred and violence against others. Just as the Home Secretary bans radical Islamist preachers so she must ban radical Christian preachers.

Except that I don’t think Jones will be calling for the death of the UK and the defeat of our troops. Those sort of people actually live here! We let them in and they stayed and they genuinely hate us.

The obvious difference is as lost on these do-gooders, as it was with another former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who said that “hatred” laws should apply equally from far right evangelical Christians, to extremists in the Islamic faith.

The Christian Institute said at the time,

The proposal appears to be a new censorship law which allows politicians to decide what is an acceptable religious belief and what isn’t.

Their Director, Colin Hart, neatly explained,

To equate evangelicals with terrorists is an outrage. I call on the Home Secretary to retract his implied assertion that evangelicals in the UK are calling for the murder of non-Christians.

Hope Not Hate continues:

The HOPE not hate campaign strives to bring communities together around shared experiences and identities. We believe that the majority of people want to live together in peace.

I thought this was when they got really silly. Multiculturalism was never about shared experiences or identities. How could it be when we are expected to live in our own “communities”? In fact, we are expected to do the opposite of shared values and instead celebrate the “diversity” which differentiates us.

The UAF have also thrown their weight about already,

Weyman Bennett, joint national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, accused Mr Jones of coming to Britain to ”whip up Islamophobia and racism”.

He said: ”We intend on calling a mass demonstration where everyone can oppose the growth of racism and fascism in this country.”

It gets boring, doesn’t it? The name-calling, I mean, as if that’s the argument won, so shut up. Racism? Cranmer writes,

Islam is not a race and restricting freedom of expression and denying freedom of speech are manifestations of the very authoritarianism by which fascism is defined.

Despite his call for Jones to be allowed into the UK, His Grace is not at all a fan. He says,

And His Grace is fully aware that Pastor Jones holds certain hateful anti-Muslim views which rather conflict with the exhortation of the Lord to love one’s neighbour.

At the same time though, we are commanded to resist evil, and let’s not kid ourselves, raw Islam is evil. The so-called “moderate Muslims” in the West have been softened up like the rest of us. When you look at what goes on in other countries, like Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria, where millions of Muslims live cheek-by-jowl, we see a very different scene – and it’s one which will be repeated in the UK if and when the appeasers have their way.

When was the last time you read about evangelical Christians burning a mosque and murdering those inside? Yet there are too many incidents of Muslims burning churches for our mainstream media to even bother reporting one of them, or so it seems.

To avoid any doubt, I am not endorsing Terry Jones’s visit to the UK because I don’t know enough about him or what he intends to do or say, but just what is the Christian supposed to do? “Nothing” isn’t the answer and neither is violence. Hope Not Hate give me no hope and Unite Against Fascism is an oxymoron.

Some people have become so obsessive about political correctness that they perceive any negative comment about a “minority” to be a symptom of “hatred.” I don’t hate any Muslim, not even Captain Hook who lives in Belmarsh Prison and who is wanted by both the USA and Yemen on terrorist-related charges. He has a human right not to face trial for his alleged crimes and has to stay here, while Terry Jones may be barred from entering altogether, even though all he wants to do is talk.

But then, words always were more dangerous to ruling elites than bullets and bombs.

Muslims in Britain…

“Protestors” breaking the Armistice Day silence in central London on Thursday.

Muslims circumventing our animal welfare laws because it is for “religious” reasons. Lamb, beef and poultry slaughtered according to halal procedures are now standard in some schools and hospitals. The 97% of non-Muslims must submit or go hungry!

Abu Hamza is wanted by the Americans and Yemenis on terrorism charges, but cannot be extradited because of his “human rights”.

The leader of the established church backs sharia law for British muslims.

Christians in Pakistan…

Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of four, was sentenced to death for ‘blasphemy’ against the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Asia Bibi, 45, is a married mother of three girls and a boy. Her son is Imran, 19, and her daughters are: Sidra, 15, Isha, 11, and Isham, 9. They live in a small Pakistani village called Ittan Wali Chack. Since their family is very poor, Asia worked as a labourer on a farm. Her son, Imran, works at a brick kiln and her daughter, Sidra, does embroidery work at home.

On June 14, 2009, Asia Bibi was working on a farm with her Muslim colleagues when a discussion about Christianity and Islam arose. During the conversation, the Muslims accused Asia of insulting the prophet Muhammad and beat her. Her Muslim colleagues then spread the rumor that Asia ‘insulted’ their prophet around the village. Five days later, a group of Muslim villagers, incited by her colleagues, severely assaulted Asia. When the police arrived, they arrested Asia and registered a case of blasphemy against her. According to Article 295-C of Pakistan’s criminal law, it is a crime punishable by death to blaspheme the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

On November 7, 2010, after more than a year of trial, a court in Pakistan sentenced Asia to death and fined her 100,000 Pakistani Rupees ($1163.) She has seven days to appeal the decision to the higher court.

This is a very important video detailing the rise of Islam in Europe. It has had over 12 million views on YouTube.

The video starts by explaining that for a society to maintain itself, the fertility rate must be at least 2.11 children per family. Most countries in Western Europe have rates below this replacement figure and so the native populations are in decline, while Muslims, with much higher fertility rates (although the 8.1 figure given for Muslims in France seems way out), will be the dominant force in Europe, especially considering future immigration and especially if and when Turkey is admitted to the EU, as David Cameron has been championing.

As the narrator says, “In a matter of years, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist”.

It has to be said that there are some wrong statistics in the video, not only the number of countries in the EU. The quoted figure of 25% Muslims in Belgium is actually the figure for Brussels, but isn’t that worrying enough?

Here is that information on the apparently bizarre claim that Germany will be an Islamic state by the year 2050.

Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.

The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today–that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.

The video ends with a call to action to spread the gospel to Muslims.

Let’s consider how we have arrived at this situation in the UK.

a) Mass immigration of Muslims – New Labour, especially, wanted to radically change the country and rub the right’s nose in diversity.

b) This radicalisation included devaluing our own customs and values so that everyone could be “equal”. This led to Christianity being marginalised. The media, especially the BBC, were glad to lend a hand.

c) The eugenics measure called Family Planning has produced a dramatic decrease in the number of children being born to British people. Sex “education” these days is about stopping “teenage pregnancy” and little else – no morality or family, because they aren’t to matter anymore.

d) The rise of feminism has encouraged Western women to deny themselves a family in order to pursue their “careers” which often end up being dead-end jobs and regrets that they didn’t start a family much sooner.

e) Other measures have been put in place which, deliberately or not, have had the effect of reducing the number of births. Encouraging half of school-leavers to go to further education obviously results in fewer marriages and children and the heavy debts they are left with, and often unemployment on leaving, make it difficult to think of having a family afterwards as well.

f) The rise of secular humanism, whose adherents are so blind that they cannot see that they are aiding the destruction of what they hold dear. They believe that with Christianity weakened, they will take over. Not with an influential Muslim population they won’t! And this is exactly what their efforts in attacking our Judeo-Christian heritage is achieving.

Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between what has been deliberately set up and what hasn’t. We know that mass immigration by Labour and family planning by eugenicists like Marie Stopes were deliberate attempts to a) increase the foreign-born population and b) decrease the native British population.

The best thing of all would be that Muslims would accept the Gospel, but with state education and the media obliging so well with the equality and diversity agenda, this is probably extremely unlikely, especially with a decreasing number of native Brits keeping the faith.

Is Britain destined to become an Islamic state in a generation or two? Maybe sooner?

The Mail On Sunday has discovered that halal meat is being served up as standard in a wide range of public and private establishments, from schools and hospitals to restaurants and pubs.

While the humanists and secularists have been attacking the Judeo-Christian heritage which gave them a decent society in which to live, and the freedom to protest, they have allowed an alien philosophy to gain influence by the back door.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society said,

We suspected that meat killed by the halal and kosher methods was being used for general consumption but we never imagined it was so widespread. It is disgraceful that ­people aren’t being told if the food they are being served is from meat that has not been stunned prior to slaughter.

You see? They never imagined it was so widespread. Too busy attacking Christianity, no doubt, like those dreadful schools which teach sound morals. In fact, the current masthead on their website states: Join Us… in the campaign against faith schools.

Meanwhile, they have been ignorantly tucking in to chicken, beef and lamb which have been slaughtered according to Islamic law.

Sharia law expressly forbids knocking the animal out with a bolt gun, as is usual in British slaughter­houses. Instead, it must be sentient when its throat is cut, and the blood allowed to drip from the carcass while a religious phrase in praise of Allah is recited.

Bon appetite, secularists. See what you have done?

I became aware of this issue last year and telephoned the local Indian and Turkish takeaways and found that they all use halal meat as standard. I love a curry, even without lager to wash it down, but I haven’t had a takeaway since.

These are indeed strange days, with the secularists demanding we completely change our ways and Islamists doing the same, but are even nastier sometimes…

They want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque. The Queen can either become a Muslim or leave the country. Why have these traitors not been arrested for this. Or these traitors?

How have we reached this uncomfortable situation?

Secularism and humanism have been growing for decades. Their adherents have managed to change attitudes; to convince people that our old ways were unfair. What was needed was equality and our traditional beliefs were incompatible.

Women had to be equal to men, by leaving their children and going to work. They had to be “empowered”. They had to be free to be sexually promiscuous and to kill their unborn children. These were their rights, appparently, which were denied them under the repression of a patriarchal, moral and ordered community.

Homosexual and even bisexual lifestyles had to be treated as equal to marriage, the basic unit of a stable society.

Now faith schools have to be abolished so that all children can be conditioned to accept the new order.

Secularists probably knew that most Christians would tut at best and accept the gradual changes in society. Socialists and liberals started calling this agenda progressive.

What they seem to have failed to realise was that Islam was also progressing in the UK. Despite Labour’s deliberate agenda of mass immigration to re-engineer society, the danger appears to have taken secularists by surprise, like a 100-1 outsider in the Derby which has come to join the favourite in the lead and well clear of the rest of the field and whose jockey hadn’t taken this no-hoper into account when planning his riding strategy.

But who will win the photo finish?

Neither needs to, if the majority demands a steward’s enquiry.

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?

Nick Griffin doesn’t expect gypsies, rap artists and veiled Muslim ladies queuing round the block to sign up, but says:

… several ethnic-minority supporters had been ‘begging’ to join the party because they supported its opposition to immigration.

Mr Griffin said that he is “happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British.”

…until it becomes a crime to be British, I suppose.

Could it backfire on the Establishment? I believe that even two-thirds of immigrants want an end to mass-immigration. It is not a ‘race’ issue, but a reality issue. The melting pot has become too hot to handle. Decades of appeasing Islam and adopting socialism have changed our own culture so much that the country is almost unrecognisable also to the people who came here to settle years ago because it was British and relatively civilised and free. Nick Griffin says,

Plenty of ethnic minorities agree with us. People came here in the 1950s and 60s specifically because this was a British Britain.

It seems the first new member could be:

Mr Singh, a 78-year-old retired maths teacher from Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, [who] came to the UK in 1967.

He was born in West Punjab, now Pakistan, where he says his father was killed by a Muslim mob during Indian Partition in 1947.

He has expressed his admiration for the BNP’s ‘tough stance’ on Islam and believes Muslims are trying to take over Britain.

Could the BNP attract a large Sikh and Hindu following for promising to resist Islam? Could the official end of racism in the Party encourage more white people to join too? Could Harriet Hormone and Trevor Phillips live to rue the day they first heard the word ‘equality’?!

Obnoxio the Clown offered up a link on Tom Harris’s blog to this article about an asylum seeker in Alan Johnson’s Hull West and Hessle constituency. He initially helped Emmanuel Njoya and his family stay in the UK by “making an impassioned “life and death” plea not to send Emmanuel back to the volatile African nation of Cameroon, where he had been tortured for being a member of opposition political party, the South Cameroons National Council (SCNC)”. Since becoming Home Secretary last year, he has been accused of betraying the family by withdrawing his support.

Jackie Fearnley, of human rights charity Justice First, who backed the family’s seven-year battle to stay in the country said,

Alan Johnson has not been able to answer the simple question of why, as Emmanuel’s MP, he could assert it would be dangerous for him to go back to Cameroon, but as Home Secretary, he could decide he was perfectly safe.

Just a hunch, but I propose that he is a duplicitous weasel. We read on,

St Aidan’s Church, where the couple were married, has been a pillar of support for the family.

Last May, members of the congregation picketed Heathrow Airport when attempts were first made to deport Emmanuel.

They successfully managed to persuade the pilot not to take him.

Is he wanting to smack down those bolshy Christians?

Speaking about Mr Johnson, the vicar said: “I am appalled anybody can change their stance so very quickly.

“To me, it appears he is someone prepared to put his career ahead of this family’s wellbeing.”

Well, quite. It is all the more remarkable when we consider that Alan Johnson “doesn’t lose any sleep” over the population reaching 70 million. It seems he would lose sleep over this particular family that has already been in the country for seven years and is a much-loved part of the local community.

It has been admitted that his own shameful government even allowed mass immigration to socially engineer the population.

The family has been sent back to Cameroon where it is reported they have slept rough in a park after being forced to flee their safe house when police officers came looking for them and their baby has since contracted yellow fever and had to be hospitalised.

Meanwhile, Captain Hook, Abu Hamza, who has cost the taxpayer nearly three million pounds in benefits, the NHS, police, lawyers and prison, is still snug in his Belmarsh prison cell complete with £650 taps that he can use with his hook (even though he could operate the old ones). The calls from Yemen and the USA for him to be extradited on terrorism-related charges have been ignored because of his Human Rights.

At least we know the sort of person Alan Johnson would prefer made up the extra nine million people he doesn’t mind coming to the UK: people who hate us and divide society. Abu Hamza is a retarded chancer who was blown to bits by a land mine. I don’t know what Alan Johnson’s excuse is.

Mike McNabb writes on the Outside Left blog that former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is dredging up a discredited theme by revisiting Enoch Powell’s similar verbal stunt in 1968, calling for a limit on immigration because of the danger of violence and threat to our values.

The lengths to which the ‘left’ will go to bury their heads in the sand on the way to their Utopia is extremely worrying. The grinning menace that is our Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, imagines that we can accommodate many million more immigrants without losing any sleep over it. Okay, it’s hard to imagine these sorts having to count sheep unless they are in danger of being shunted off the Westminster gravy train.

Mr McNabb writes,

Yet, by accident or design, Lord Carey has managed to link the rise in population with immigration, an association that is both poorly thought-out and dangerous.

This is quite a bizarre statement. Even the BBC article he links to admits that,

Last year the Office for National Statistics said, if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033 – the fastest rise in a century.

Two-thirds of that increase would be caused, directly or indirectly, by migration to the UK, it suggested.

I suggest that, taking the declining birth rate of the native population into account, the net increase will be solely immigrants and their families.

And New Labour has already admitted that mass immigration was a deliberate policy to change society. They want the balance further tilted against the British so they can re-engineer society even more. Why the ordinary socialist in the street is so keen on this, I don’t really know. Is it simply envy? The notion that he has a ‘right’ to the same things someone else has?

As I wrote on Outside Left: why are you so keen to wipe out the source of our culture and values? Why do you imagine that some godless Utopia is around the corner? Give me one example of such a society.

Nobody has offered an example because there isn’t one. Socialism and related -isms produce dystopia, not Utopia. Sure, there is equality. The people in charge of these regimes tend to make sure of that: equality of poverty, ignorance and fear. Is there any other possible way to realise the kind of equality the ‘left’ espouses but to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator? Except for those in the inner party who get a few perks and the elite ones who live in the palaces and who are more equal than everyone else by a mile.

We see this in the UK more and more. We see the dumbing down of education in state schools and the propaganda against private education, even though the parents of many of our ’socialist’ policymakers paid to give their ungrateful sprogs a good education. As I write about from time to time, one of the last bastions of a good education – home schooling – is also in danger of interference from government.

This is equality of education – of intelligence.

Equality of income is also important, which means that the able-bodied lazy are paid to lounge around all day, while those who have worked and can afford a fairly nice home get hit with huge council tax bills. As if paying extra because you have an extension or garage isn’t bad enough (VAT has already been collected on these anyway), the ‘class war’ – the politics of envy – means that people who have slightly more income have to have it taken off them. The mindset of the socialist becomes clearer when we consider recent plans to punish people for having nice homes. Owners with:

architectural styles, fascias, sash windows or those who live in quiet roads, near a field or a golf course, will be targeted. Not to mention those who indulge in the luxury of a patio.

Conservatories will be out of favour – particularly if they are double glazed – as will people with two or more garage spaces. Views have also been broken down to sea (full/partial), hill (full/partial), lake (full/partial), field and golf course (full/partial!) – with residents being penalised accordingly.

How bitter with envy does someone have to be to think this way? What kind of government wants to discourage its people from improving their homes?

One that believes in ‘equality’: i.e. everyone being equally poor.

And fear. Why should it just be the criminals who fear the police? We can only be equal if we are all fearful all of the time, even to the extent that we need to be careful of every P and Q uttered and written in case a comrade grasses us up to the Stasi for inadvertently using a word which rhymes with one which is deemed criminal by someone who has been left brain-damaged after too much ‘diversity and equality’ propaganda.

Mr McNabb writes,

The real threat to Christianity is not from immigrants but from within.

There is a lot of truth in this. We can blame the ‘christians’ Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for bringing shame on the God they pretend to worship. We can also blame myself and the millions of others who profess to be Christian and who have hitherto done little or nothing to stop our country sliding out of control.

So shouldn’t socialists embrace Christianity?

Or have the ‘left’ abandoned God because they see Him as the preserve of the ‘right’? When socialists read that Christ told the rich man to give everything to the poor and follow Him, perhaps they think that he shouldn’t have benefited from his labour in the first place: that the government should have punished him at the first sign that his home was nicer than his neighbour’s.