This award goes to every MP who voted against the people of the United Kingdom.

Q. What is the difference between Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom?

A. The politicians in Denmark, France and Ireland rejected the votes of the people on matters concerning the European Union and the people of the United Kingdom are rejecting the votes of the politicians on Monday night.

The mainstream media gives the impression that there were 111 ‘rebels’ who voted for a referendum. I say that there were 483 who rebelled against the British people by denying us a vote.

I could write about how the richest countries in Europe are outside the EU or the damage that EU regulations cause British industry or the dangers in losing our sovereignty or a hundred other issues, but frankly, it would be a waste of time because it has all been said already and politicians just won’t listen.

I think some MPs are traitors, while others are far too naive for the positions they hold. The only solution that I can think of is to start trials to determine which ones are the traitors and remove them and deal with them in an appropriate fashion and send the naive ones onto pastures new where their ignorance of economics and history can no longer threaten the rest of us.

Already, there is a new petition for a referendum with nearly 4,000 votes in a day. Here is a list of how the MPs voted on Monday.

MPs really must learn who it is they work for.

[Picture by Max Tasker]

Please vote on Monday to allow the people of the United Kingdom to have a say in OUR future. We demand the right to a referendum on EU membership, denied for so long and promised by Labour and Tory.

The time is now. Please don’t believe the following two common misconceptions:

1) The EU has brought peace to Europe.

2) We would suffer economically outside of the EU.

The truth is that the European Union has only existed since the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty 18 years ago. The EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty) has been in effect for less than two years. Before this, were such groups as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC) or “Common Market”.

There has been ‘peace in Europe’ since WWII largely because of the vast numbers of allied troops stationed in Germany. And of course, this has nothing to do with the EU.

As far as economics are concerned, we should be better off out of the EU, just like two of Europe’s three richest countries, Norway and Switzerland. The former has oil and the latter has a major banking industry.

The UK has both, and tons more beside, yet inside the EU, we are poorer than the only two main Western European countries that never entered the EU or its predecessors. We have been over-regulated and impoverished by the organisation which we are *still* led to believe by some that we cannot live without. The delusion has to end for all our sakes, right across political divides and right across the Continent.

There seems to be a growing number of MPs in the Labour and Tory parties who are now tuning in to this reality and understanding the dangers of our continued EU membership.

But David Cameron wants to whip his MPs into obeying orders. He is bought and paid for by his masters in Brussels. He is happy for us to continue being part of a repressive regime with a President none of us voted for, or even had the opportunity to vote for, and which we pay through the nose to sustain in contributions and through other losses (and as in all tyrannies, corruption is endemic), and now after being forced to have this debate on the EU, he refuses to allow a free vote as if he also is an unelected president with dictatorial powers.

Where does the will of the people enter into the equation in our so-called democracy?

Ed Miliband has used the upcoming debate to attack the Tories. He has written on his website, “They are looking inwards. They are out of touch. They are squabbling about Europe and not fighting for Britain.”

Does he really not understand that ‘fighting for Britain’ means exactly that – fighting for Britain, not laying down and allowing ourselves to be controlled like some vassal state of old, whose people are kept in serfdom for the economic benefit of the parasitic invader.

I urge you, as a loyal citizen of our country, to vote to allow the people of our country to decide on its future. This is the very least we deserve and a referendum now would finally honour the promise made in Labour’s 2005 General Election Manifesto, and the promises and sentiments expressed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg before the 2010 General Election would also be honoured.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Stewart Cowan

————————–

Further reading:

Why the European Union MUST be dissolved

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

Marxist-founded Demos is terrified that schoolchildren are questioning the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Government front group Demos, an integral part of the British establishment which was founded by Marxists, is terrified that children are using the Internet to question what they are taught in school, and has vowed to abolish any such critical thinking to reinforce the education system’s role as a tool of indoctrination.

A BBC News report reflects Demos’ panic at “conspiracy theories” (ie any critical thought that questions the official consensus) being brought into the classroom.

It’s a delicious irony that we’ve highlighted many times before and it underpins the entire education system. While complaining that children are not engaging in “critical thinking,” Demos, a government front group, is abolishing any notion of critical thinking by telling students that they should only believe what the government and the mainstream media tells them is true – the same establishment that has been caught proliferating lies time and time again.

In reality, it is the very fact that students are increasingly engaging in “critical thinking,” ie questioning the official version of events, that has the likes of Demos so petrified.

Having been caught lying and covering-up all manner of scandals, from the WMD farce, to Climategate, to the death of Dr. David Kelly, the British establishment and its sycophantic media cheerleaders like the BBC are losing credibility fast, that’s why young people are turning to alternative sources of information to try and get the truth, something deemed intolerable by the system.

While young people are being intimidated out of critical thinking, they are simultaneously being bombarded with the likes of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which was sent by the government to British schools in 2007, a documentary found by a British high court judge to contain nine significant errors while making claims in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”

It seems believing in “conspiracy theories” is only acceptable for the likes of Demos and the British government if those “conspiracy theories” are generated by and supportive of the state.

Indeed, a University Professor in the United Kingdom recently conducted a comparative analysis of a BBC documentary on 7/7 “conspiracy theories” and an independent documentary in which the official story behind the London bombings is questioned. The Professor concluded that the documentary produced by “conspiracy theorists” was more accurate and more likely to be a truthful representation of the events of 7/7, but don’t expect the government to recommend it be included on the curriculum any time soon.

Other government front groups have also launched state-funded projects to “demolish conspiracy theories” about events like 9/11, or in other words ‘abolish’ any critical thinking about the event and reinforce official propaganda through the school curriculum.

Demos is a front for the insidious Common Purpose network, a group that Lt Cdr Brian Gerrish has exposed as playing a fundamental role in the advancement of Britain’s role in the new world order. Julia Middleton, Chief Executive of Common Purpose, sits on Demos’ advisory council.

The group has waged war on “conspiracy theories,” particularly the suggestion that 7/7 and 9/11 involved state complicity, and has urged the government to “fight back” by infiltrating conspiracy websites to spread state propaganda. Demos has also characterized people who question the official fable of 7/7 and 9/11 as extremists and terrorist recruiters.

The strategy mirrors that advocated by White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 white paper similarly called for conspiracy websites to be infiltrated and undermined in order to dilute their influence. In the same report, Sunstein also called for taxing conspiracy theories (any viewpoint that differs with the official version) and outright banning free speech of which the authorities disapprove.

Demos was founded in 1993 by marxists Martin Jacques and Geoff Mulgan, and was closely affiliated with Tony Blair’s Labour government. Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. Current British Prime Minister David Cameron also works closely with Demos and has given speeches at the group’s events.

Demos has routinely acted as a platform for elitists who wish to drastically alter society, eliminate freedoms, and sacrifice British sovereignty in pursuit of global government. On August 9, 2006, British Home Secretary Dr John Reid, another former marxist, gave a speech at a Demos conference stating that Britons “may have to modify their notion of freedom”, claiming that freedom is “misused and abused by terrorists.”

Demos is partnered with numerous other globalist organizations from government and industry, including IBM, The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Shell International. The organization’s logo includes an all-seeing eye within its design.

Although the group poses as an independent think tank, Demos is little more than a public relations firm for the British government and security services. Its efforts to demonize conspiracy theories in order to “increase trust in the government,” as its own report states, is a transparent ploy to do the bidding of its masters, by demonizing anyone who challenges a corrupt, lying state and its nefarious activities as an extremist and a potential domestic terrorist, while infiltrating schools and acting as thought police to ring-fence what ideas children can and cannot entertain.

WTC Building 7 fell several hours after the Twin Towers. It collapsed onto its own footprint in near freefall speed. NIST concluded that fire brought it down.

This was my guest post on Subrosa’s blog this morning..

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, “To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all.”

In Cheney’s new book, which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA ‘asset’ in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO “stay-behind” operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren’t afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones.

I just had a look at Leggy’s blog after writing that first paragraph and saw that he has written about some of the things I was about to write about. My dilemma now is whether to suggest you just read his post, try to write my own without copying bits from his, or forgetting it altogether and sticking on one of my classic comedy DVDs and relaxing.

What to do? What to do?

Actually, some of these latest news stories are crazier than the things that happen in Fawlty Towers, George and Mildred and even Red Dwarf.

The other day, I finished watching all 112 episodes of Tales of the Unexpected. You may be wondering what heinous crime I committed to warrant such a cruel and unusual punishment. A few were excellent and some were woeful and the rest somewhere in between.

But not much is unexpected nowadays, so when the Liverpool Daily Post announces that,

A-Level results went up for the 29th consecutive year

It isn’t unexpected, because it has been obvious for years that it’s a stitch up,

…the number of A-level students getting top marks nearly doubled between 1997 and 2010.

The reasons for this are numerous – A-level papers have got easier, examination boards are more lax, teachers are better at teaching to the test – but few people believe it’s because our children have actually become more intelligent. If you compare the performance of 15-year-old British schoolchildren to their counterparts in other developed countries when it comes to reading, science and maths, they’ve got worse, not better.

Why does the government want to make youngsters believe that they are more intelligent than they are? It is right to encourage children and to praise them, but not to lie to them. Not to give them false hopes that they can go to university and get a degree and become a brilliant whatever it is they want do be, when the reality is that if they aren’t up to it they will end up deep in debt and unable to get a job that earns enough to pay it back. They will have wasted years of their lives when, if the system was run honestly, they could have learned a useful trade instead or been otherwise employed.

My feeling is that this whole charade has been devised to produce a shortage of workers as an excuse to increase migration and also to get as many people as possible into debt to prepare them for a lifetime of servitude to the ’system’ perhaps eventually to try and make them more compliant to being ‘chipped’ at some stage in order to keep getting credit and able to buy the necessities.

Whatever the ulterior motives, sending half of school leavers to further education – after they have already received twelve or thirteen years of education (allegedly) – seems no way to ensure we have a productive economy.

But we know that the economy doesn’t matter to the elite, because another thing they expect us to believe in is the manmade climate change fraud, which is just another way to de-industrialise us while squeezing out yet more money from us in “green” taxes.

So even more old folk will die of the cold in winter with increased electric and gas bills, but like the thousands of teenagers whose lives are blighted unnecessarily by debt, most politicians will turn a blind eye to it all.

And talking of climate change, the climate surrealists are now so desperate to sell their wares to an increasingly savvy public, that they have been coming out with even more hot air than Al Gore in his fantasy ‘documentary’ An Inconvenient Truth.

This was the film that was sent to every secondary school in Britain and which so upset Stewart Dimmock, a school governor from Dover, that he took the Government to court for brainwashing children with it – and won. I bet the BBC hated having to cover that story, because as the government’s propaganda arm, it has to perpetuate all sorts of myths.

One of Gore’s fraudulent claims in the film was the idea that:

for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”

But despite no evidence at all, how many people still believe that polar bears are drowning for lack of ice?

Now we are expected to believe that overweight people are responsible for climate change.

But first prize in the things they expect us to believe category must go to NASA, who are suggesting that aliens might destroy the earth – not because, as Leg-iron suggests:  “Perhaps the scientists are worried that aliens will see fat people from space” – but because our carbon emissions could be considered a risk to their civilisations.

Even though carbon dioxide levels were much higher in Earth’s past and even though any alien civilisation on some far-flung planet would not be affected in the slightest by our use of incandescent filament light bulbs, we are to be afraid of angry monsters from outer space.

Some people believe that governments will announce a fake alien landing in order to panic the public, thus allowing them to bring in martial law on a global scale. I wrote about the possibility of this last year, after another extraterrestrial claim by NASA which was nothing of the sort, but nevertheless, still helps keep the possibility of ‘alien’ life alive in people’s minds.

But to believe there are all sorts of aliens out there is to believe in something else quite unbelievable: The Theory of Evolution. Consider what I wrote at the time:

People need a paradigm shift here. I speak as a Creationist, of course, but I believe there are dangerous misunderstandings which surround evolution. I don’t think “life” can occur as readily as many people have been led to believe.

There is a Law of Biogenesis which states that, “life arises from pre-existing life, not from non-living material”.

To believe contrary to Louis Pasteur’s Law is hardly a new idea, “The ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones…”

This is especially interesting as we are again living in an age where Gaia worship is widely practised, this time in the form of devout environmentalism.

But I suspect that NASA will keep putting out “alien” stories, especially in times where money is tight, to keep the government funding coming through.

And it is vital to keep up the pretence if a government ever stages an “alien” invasion as a pretext to removing the remaining freedoms even the bin Laden fearmongering couldn’t reach.

And this brings me nicely onto my final topic, the attacks of 9/11 (Osama bin Laden was not considered a suspect by the FBI).

It amazes me how many people can watch the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 and think buildings fall this way due to fire. WTC7 was not hit by a plane yet came down on the afternoon of 11th September 2001 like a controlled demolition in near freefall speed onto its own footprint. I know people are in denial when they will not even admit that it looks peculiar. The only time they will ever have seen a building collapse like WTC7 will have been a controlled demolition using carefully pre-planted explosives. But to admit government involvement to themselves would be to acknowledge that the world is a scarier and more unpredictable place than they thought it was; than they want it to be.

But what is really scary are the consequences of not facing the truth. The consequences are exactly as we are seeing actually happening to us: climate change used against us to tax us even further and shut down our industry; a country and its people steeped in debt; unjust laws and restrictions put on us to fight the “War on Terror” – and a global government to oversee all these things.

It is best to face the truth sooner rather than later.

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.

Doublethink works, and has been an effective weapon in the globalists’ success in changing the way people think and behave.

“WAR IS PEACE”

The war in Afghanistan is to make us safer from terrorists – at the same time as allowing an unknown number of them to live here and turn their taxpayer-funded houses into bomb factories.

“FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”

Let the Government control your life, so you don’t have to bother.

“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

State education and indoctrination by the BBC since birth equips people to be experts on everything – in their own mind.

“Equality” and “Human Rights” thrive on doublethink – and hypocrisy – and, of course, the downright illogical. This is because an agenda has been set and the rules must fit, but made to look impartial.

So, when Trevor Phillips says that his Equality and Human Rights Commission will stand up for believers, anyone who knows anything about the man and his Ministry will instantly shudder. Or just laugh uncontrollably.

Just go.

Phillips starts by talking sense – these people need to talk some sense to be believable to even the most dimwitted prole. He talks about “fashionable atheism” and that “people of belief” feel that they are “under siege, that they are often disadvantaged, that they are looked at and considered in some way different and their faith makes them less worthy of regard.”

This is true, but of course, it is largely down to organisations like his, which he somehow has the nerve to deny.

He adds that, “There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it’s entirely a choice. I think that’s entirely not right.

I believe that the Christ died for me and that means a) spreading the Good News and b) trying to live as He directed. This means that keeping my faith private is not an option.

And why should it be in a free country?

The equality watchdog chairman said it would support believers who suffer discrimination because of their faith, and conceded there was a perception it had not done so in the past.

“That is slap bang in the middle of our anti-discriminatory work,” he said.

Are those guffaws I can hear? The man’s being serious.

“Being an Anglican, being a Muslim or being a Methodist or being a Jew is just as much part of your identity and you should not be penalised or treated in a discriminatory way because of that. That’s part of the settlement of a liberal democracy.

Did someone tell him that the UK is a liberal democracy? The correct definition is “constitutional monarchy”.

“Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.

“My real worry is that there are people who may well feel they’re being treated unfairly because of their faith and who actually in fact may be being treated unfairly because of their faith but for some reason feel they can’t get our support in getting justice.”

I know you are waiting for the “buts” and here they are.

The quid pro quo for standing up for individual believers is that churches and faith groups have to fall into line with the views of wider society to keep their charitable status, Mr Phillips signalled.

Yes, we must “fall in line” just like other dictatorships insist upon.

“People are being confused about the right of the individual to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and the freedoms of particular institutions or organisations.

And of course, it’s our old friend, homosexuality, which is at the centre:

Mr Phillips says that the refusal to allow Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from laws stating homosexual couples could not be discriminated against was even more clear cut.

“Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You’re offering a public service and you’re a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.”

No, a corrupt and discredited government agency now decides right and wrong and our freedom only extends as far as the choices they allow us.

Equality laws should not impinge on the way that religious institutions are run, Mr Phillips said – meaning gay bishops and women priests are not a matter for his watchdog.

“It’s perfectly fair that you can’t be a Roman Catholic priest unless you’re a man,” he said.

“It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.

And yet it doesn’t. A church can get into trouble for not employing a homosexual as a youth leader.

Then Phillips starts losing the plot completely,

“At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It’s probably right.

“I’m not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don’t think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs.”

A string of high-profile legal cases involving Christians who feel discriminated against because of objections to homosexuality may be fuelled by evangelical activists who are seeking political influence – not helping their religion – he warned.

“I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian,” he said.

No, Phillips, it is about people who demand the right that others adhere to their standards on their property and the right to express their opinions without being arrested and to be able to adopt children without being forced to indoctrinate them with your PC garbage.

“There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don’t think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they’re constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn’t agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.

“I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn’t about the rights of Christians. It’s about politics. It’s about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they’ve chosen that particular ground.

Personally I don’t know why they don’t choose ground that really is defending Christian values. I wish they’d choose gambling or human trafficking or something.”

And we do, but we also defend other values, and our rights – including what we allow on our own property. That is a most essential part of liberty: for every citizen of this country.

in a highly provocative comment Mr Phillips said he believed Anglican and Catholic churches were seeing growing congregations from African and Carribean (sic) backgrounds with “old time” views which put them at odds with mainstream Britain.

“In the Christian and Muslim faiths migration has given some of the great faith institutions a massive shot in the arm,” he said.

“I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.

Now he is equating people who have traditional beliefs with murderers. YOU are the nasty one, Phillips, by a country mile. But I imagine that this is how you have kept your job for so long.

“I think there’s an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

And multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failure by most commentators, including himself. And anyway, the point of multiculturalism was that every “community” could get on with living the way it wanted.

“Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.

40% of Muslim students want Sharia law in this country. I suggest that Phillips is confused and that they are actually more keen to integrate with Saudi Arabia or Iran. Everyone knows that Muslims are the least likely group to try to integrate. I don’t think it would be unfair at this stage to call Phillips an outrageous liar.

“One of the aspects of that is essentially saying ‘whatever we feel about matter of sexuality we’re going to have to deal with the fact that most of our neighbours, most of our children’s friends, most of our work mates have a broader, more liberal view and we just have to live with that’.

And we’re back to sexuality: where all roads seem to lead eventually and why I have written about it to such an extent. That is because the perceived rights of those who wish to live contrary to good morals and good health have been allowed to impinge upon the rights of everyone else in the name of “equality”.

“Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don’t hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they’re trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they’re living in.”

He is saying that Muslims are good and Christians are bad. Being willing to accept alternative sexualities seems to be his only yardstick to “integration” and he conveniently avoids the fact that Muslims generally are vehemently, sometimes violently, opposed to homosexual behaviour. Not only in traditional Muslim lands, but also in the UK, where whole areas have been declared “gay free zones“.

But they aren’t “old-time” traditional Christians, so he lets them off.

Because the Religion of Peace is beyond reproach. It’s all everyone else’s fault that they cannot get along like every other known group of people in this country.

I call for the sacking of Trevor Phillips. It should have happened years ago.

As usual, I have dozens of tabs open on Firefox with news stories I was going to write about, but in a way, they don’t merit individual posts. The headlines are enough to make you sick. There is sometimes nothing more that needs to be said, because we all know the score by now. We know that the police don’t care much about catching criminals anymore and the judges don’t consider it their duty to deliver justice.

Moral relativism brings confusion (obviously) and very bad judgments are the natural result. Add to this “Human Rights” legislation and police targets and criminals have never had it so good.

Devon and Cornwall Police didn’t even bother to investigate 30,000 crimes last year.

Up the road in Bristol, Marie Wastlund beat off three thugs who were throttling and kicking a woman, while two policemen sat in their vehicle twenty-five yards away. The Mail reminds us of some of the other pathetic inactions of the boys in blue (or should that be yellow?). Remember the two PCSOs who let a ten year-old boy drown in a pond because they were “not trained” to deal with such an incident? Their (in)action was defended by police chiefs.

Then there are the usual reports of people with decades of unblemished service in their jobs who are sacked after of a non-event. Ronnie Lane was head of the art department in Liverpool’s West Derby School, but the testimony of one unscrupulous individual ended it. He restrained a 15 year-old boy who repeatedly tried to scrunch up another pupil’s work and alleged that the teacher had left nail marks in his arm. The boy told him, “get off or I will stab your eye out.”

It seems that all some children learn at school is their “rights”. It’s bizarre when you consider that by honouring his alleged rights, the teacher has no rights to maintain discipline in his classes and the other pupils have no rights not to have their work ripped to shreds or to learn in a civilised, safe environment.

Meanwhile, another 15 year-old, Tom Clarke from Oxfordshire, was playing with a football in his garden when he accidentally lobbed it over the fence and through a pane of glass in next door’s greenhouse. A patrol car was on the scene half an hour later and the police helicopter was diverted to search for the culprit with thermal imaging. “Officers said the incident was not a formal caution or criminal conviction but would be ‘recorded for future reference’ and could be seen by future employers carrying out an enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check.”

Imagine falling into a coma in 1970 and waking up today, oblivious of how society has changed, then reading the newspapers. What would you make of the burglar who was freed from prison because being locked up breached his family’s human rights or another prisoner who demanded to be a dad and a Justice Secretary so out of touch with reality that he approved the decision to allow him to artificially inseminate his “partner”?

It is now clear that David Cameron’s socialist party is just as determined to give everything away that our forebears worked and fought for as the traitors in the Labour Governments did. The agenda is the same. The behaviour of this new wave of Quislings is only a surprise to those who were naive enough to fall for Cameron’s lies before the election – and they were lies. Blatant and deliberate lies and for that alone he should be stripped of office.

Why do people keep voting for these liars? Do they think that lying is part and parcel of politics and is acceptable? I think they must. Or maybe they are delusional. Perhaps they think that he is going to stop lying any day now and everything will be just dandy when that happens.

This treasonous government is giving away more money to bail out other countries, plans to “drastically” cut carbon emissions which will cut jobs and increasing military union with other countries.

The Daily Mail never disappoints with its scare stories. The latest “research” suggests that drinking too much coffee can produce hallucinations of Bing Crosby. The volunteers were made to listen to “white noise” and told that “there may be parts of the White Christmas song and if you hear it, press the button.”

There wasn’t any Bing, but regardless, the power of suggestion apparently made them hear him crooning. A bit like people think they have heard a “cast-iron” guarantee from David Cameron when it is really just white noise (propelled by hot air).

But how long, I wonder, until coffee addiction is used as an excuse to avoid being punished for a serious crime?

“M’lud, after drinking five cups of coffee and playing with the dial on his radio, my client heard Bing Crosby telling him to kill the victim…”

“Case dismissed.”

And as always, we are to be afraid of the terrorists – this time, poisoning our food. The warning comes from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure [CPNI].

That’s a new one on me. But the terrorists are already poisoning us with aspartame and GMO, it’s just that they are known as manufacturers and scientists.

But let’s all be scared of al-CIAda while we eat our delicious cancer-causing food.

If I do give up blogging, just read this post every day. The current news will just be the same, or even more unsettling and bizarre.

But I will soldier on. I believe that more and more people are waking up to how the world really works, and this awakening is something I want to be part of, so expect continued blogging, God willing.

The only way that 89 year-old Harold Camping will be correct in his timing is coincidence. Consider this,

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Even Christ doesn’t know the day, but Harold Camping does?!

That would make him God the Father. I doubt he realises that he could be accused of blasphemy. But it gets even worse, Camping has already predicted the Second Coming – that was in 1994 and I can reveal to you that he got it wrong. Even he must see that he is no prophet, but he’s having another stab in the dark anyway (even if he is convinced it is all mathematical).

But, the head of the Christian radio network Family Stations Inc has said that he is sure an earthquake will hit on May 21, sweeping true believers to heaven and leaving others behind to be engulfed in the world’s destruction over a few months.

“We know without any shadow of a doubt it is going to happen,” he said.

I am not laughing. I hope his followers haven’t given away all their worldly goods, as can happen when people fall hook, line and sinker for such characters.

But atheists are not convinced.

No! Really?

Some of you will know, and if you didn’t it may shock you, that I was a Mormon for a short time. I met a lot of very nice and kind people and if any of them are reading this I am not trying to be mean, but stating the facts as I see them.

I won’t go into the circumstances now, but when I started inviting the missionaries into my flat, I was of very low spirit (if you exclude all the alcohol I was consuming). I did believe that the Mormon “prophets” really were what they claimed to be, but fairly soon I started to wake up to reality.

I was given a thick tome about the “prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith by a missionary I got on well with. This particular Smith was the grandson of the brother of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith was the Mormon President from 1970 until his death in 1972, aged 95. In those days black people were not permitted to enter the “priesthood” and JFS wrote in the 1950s that they would never be allowed unless perhaps in the far distant future or on another planet.

It happened in 1978. On Earth.

I have just come across this interesting “prophecy,” which Joseph Fielding Smith announced to stake conference in Honolulu in 1961:

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.

The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

I don’t remember any Mormon telling me that they doubted that men have walked on the moon, so it is illogical for them to believe both this “prophet” and NASA.

Of course, most Mormons will neither know nor care about old prophecies which have been proven to be false, despite the Bible warning about false prophets many times. This is because they believe that whatever the “living prophet” says supersedes the errors of past “prophets.”

And if that sounds crazy, it’s because it is. But don’t laugh too hard, especially if you are a LibLabCon voter, as you are enticed by charlatans of the political variety!

If stories of the Second Coming serve any purpose, they remind us (if we need reminding) that we never know when that day will be and to be ready for it. The evil upon the earth today seems to be increasing all the time and the former civilised countries of the West are decaying badly. Satan seems to be making his final big push. He has plenty of willing angels in the filth-spewing media and politically correct governments.

Another thing to ponder upon is the question posed in the title of this post:

Is Christ really coming back later today?

One day, people will be saying. “Christ came back today, but I wasn’t ready.”

Robbo still believes the official story. He commented on my refusal to believe the (ever changing) White House narrative, “You are totally determined to be as stupid as possible and no evidence will sway you from it. Good going, old bean!”

What is the evidence?

There is no body. No photographs of the body. The videos purporting to be of him are years old.

Do you think an insurance company would pay out on the death of someone whose alleged body was quickly dumped in the sea and whose alleged DNA doesn’t necessarily prove who it was from or when it was taken?

A decade ago, bin Laden was undergoing treatment for serious kidney disease and was on dialysis, yet no life-preserving equipment was found in the house in which he had allegedly been living for years. A house which just happens to be very close to major military installations.

And none of his neighbours claim to ever have set eyes on him.

The only “evidence” we have is the word of US politicians who are known liars.

And I am “stupid” for disbelieving the US Government? Really?

Here are 10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax.

Not only is his death a hoax, but so is al Qaeda.

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice”…

They wanted a bogeyman in the mould of Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four to convince the American people to go along with never-ending wars and to scare them into giving up their rights. That man would be the CIA’s own Osama bin Laden,

Osama bin Laden was a well known, well paid CIA intelligence asset used over a long period by more than one US administration to fight their proxy wars. Originally he was recruited during the end of the Carter administration to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was subsequently used and armed to bolster the Muslim cause where it could be applied as a proxy force in civil wars, including Bosnia in the 1990′s.

I believe that the fraud is so obvious that I wonder if it has been deliberately designed that way. I just haven’t worked out why they would make it look so silly and unbelievable.

Maybe their contempt for us has reached that stage, and in a way, who can blame them when so many people will still slavishly believe whatever lies they come out with.