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.

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.

"Oh, my Gordy will be hanged in a golden chain. 'Tis not the chain of many."

Dear Gordon,

Gold touched £1,000 (that’s pounds sterling) an ounce earlier in the week. You sold half our reserves at under $300 (yes, dollars) an oz when you were Chancellor of the Exchequer.

When the Bilderbergers instructed you to destroy the British economy, you obliged big time. I’m sure the IMF top job will be yours one day.

If I had the money and/or legal expertise, I would have you tried for your treason. Don’t sleep too soundly, though, because a trial is your destiny and the end of your freedom your reward.

Shame on you.

Stewart Cowan

Take a look at this map. In the early 1940s, Britain “stood alone” against Nazi Germany. (Hitler had entered into a non-aggression pact with Stalin, which ended when he invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.)

Many would say that the “New Europe” could not have another Hitler or Napoleon in charge, but why shouldn’t it? Power-crazed despots have risen to power throughout history, and will do so again – GUARANTEED – unless you believe that EU legislation can supersede the law of averages! And with the EU, the next dictator will have a ready-made Empire. Those of us who study the political goings-on in Europe cannot but see the similarities with the infamous dictatorships which blighted the lives of those living in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, hence the European Union has earned the nicknames, The Fourth Reich and EUSSR.

US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 was written in November 1944 and describes top German industrialists meeting to decide the future of their country when it looked like they would lose the War, and that the “Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire – but not just German”.

The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Paul Joseph Watson wrote,

The European League for Economic Co-operation developed policies for European integration that almost mirrored those proposed by Nazis just years previously.

In his book “Europe’s Full Circle,” Rodney Atkinson provides a list of policies proposed by Nazis and their similarity to today’s European Union.

Europaische Wirtshaftsgemeinschaft
European Economic Community
European Currency System
European Exchange Rate Mechanism
Europabank (Berlin)
European Central Bank (Frankfurt)
European Regional Principle
Committee of the Regions
Common Labour Policy
Social Chapter
Economic and Trading Agreements
Single Market

Even Hitler’s anti-smoking legislation has been embraced and expanded upon throughout the European Union!

In another article, Watson writes,

Leaked documents from the 1955 Bilderberg Group conference held in Germany discuss the agenda to create a European Union and a single EU currency, decades before they were introduced, disproving once again debunkers who claim that Bilderberg has no influence over world events.

One of the group’s principle founders was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a former Nazi SS officer.

With plans underway for single EU armed forces and police, the obvious question needs to be asked – who will be able to “stand alone” against the next European dictator?

The benefits of European Union membership to the United Kingdom are often overrated anyway, but the dangers in losing our ability to operate as a free and independent country cannot be overemphasised.

The European Union is a danger to every nation that signs away its future to it.

If you are still unsure about whether the European Union is a good idea or not, look at the map above then the one below and consider that this “Fourth Reich” has been delivered by stealth and has not been created for our benefit AT ALL!

——-

(Maps from Wikipedia and mapsof.net)

When English taxes are being used to subsidise services we apparently can’t afford for ourselves, I don’t discriminate between Scottish student paying nothing for uni or having their council taxes frozen and Greeks civil servants retiring at 53.

In another comment, Jim Morgan mentions the fact that we no longer have prescription charges in Scotland (as of this Spring).

Now, I think it is wrong that the devolved parts of the United Kingdom get these benefits and England doesn’t when we all pay the same rates of tax. It isn’t fair, but I think it is counterproductive to blame Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, especially as of the 650 Westminster parliamentary constituencies in the UK, 59 are in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. England has a whopping 533 MPs, allegedly representing their interests, so why not blame them when they clearly do not care about the “equality” most of them always bang on about?

Why blame a couple of million Labour voters in Scotland and Wales for the UK’s problems, while ignoring the larger number of Labour voters in England? This has bemused me for some time. I guess it is easier to blame others than to accept any responsibility for your own lack of action. Why hold your own elected representative to account when you can rant at the telly as News At Ten announce free prescriptions north of the Border?

The really stupid thing is that, while people get upset about tuition fees and prescription charges, the far weightier matter of treason has gone largely unnoticed and completely undealt with. Labour’s admitted re-engineering of society should have millions demanding trials for a number of anti-British villains who have skulked among us and slither through the corridors of power still.

Jim Morgan also writes,

England is governed by anti English British establishment.

Yes it is, but it is not a case of the rest of the UK ganging up on the English, giving them Chinese burns and stealing their pocket money so that we don’t have to pay for our prescriptions. The anti-British establishment hates us all equally, but the English are the dominant party and so they are the ones who have been earmarked for cultural genocide first. Likewise, our Judeo-Christian laws and customs are attacked because they are mainstream and have made us strong. The traditional family is undermined because it is the building block of a stable society. What is normal is being denormalised. Right becomes wrong and vice versa.

It is all to divide and conquer to bring this country to its knees. This is why I believe we should fight our common enemies together and not allow ourselves to be divided by all these crude, yet highly effective, social re-engineering tricks.

A comment from Paul Kevin Wiffen sums it up,

This is why the EU will always win! You people fall out with each other just like the Judean People’s Front verses the People’s Front of Judea. It’s the way the EU works, Divide and Conquer (they got it from Caesar’s Gallic Wars) they promote devolution, the Scots then hate the English and the English hate the Scots and hey presto, no-one attacks the EU any more! Get wise, stop having a go at each other and face the common enemy Brussels/Strasbourg. Otherwise we’ll be in EU chains forever!

So where are we going in this country? Will we carry on being paranoid and continue to whinge about being “offended” at every turn and demand “rights” designed to get one over our fellow man before he gets one over on us?

Will we ever learn to grow up and stop fiddling while Britain burns?

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.

On the face of it, these differences would seem impossible to reconcile, but fortunately for the hideous-looking beast, the conservative side wasn’t conservative and the liberal part wasn’t liberal.

But whatever was to happen, the ConDem would surely be an improvement on the Brown Gorgon.

Or would it?

The beast soon fell passionately in love with the giant bloodsucking leech called EU. This came as no surprise, despite ConDem’s dad pretending to play hard to get before the election. The Dave part of this pushmi-pullyu clone soon forgot about his cast-iron guarantee and the Clegg head had always loved the idea of being dominated.

“Four legs good, two legs bad!”

Or as the first of the “Seven Commandments” in Animal Farm says: “Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.”

That sounds like a good summary of ConDem’s policy.

A llama in la-la land.

...FOR NOTHING?

As usual on an election day, I trotted off to the polling station to perform my “democratic duty”. The first of the three ballot papers I tackled was the one to elect the constituency MSP. With only four candidates to choose from here in the Galloway and Dumfries West constituency – the usual four north of the border – I had already made up my mind which one to vote for: none of them. For the first time ever, I “spoiled” my ballot paper by writing at the top (as there was no room at the bottom), “None of the below traitor parties.”

Bottom line: if you are in a party that favours handing powers to the EU, the last thing you will get is my vote.

The Tory won here (no, it really is Scotland). I met Alex Fergusson, who is the Speaker, after a church event a few years ago and overall he seems like a decent cove. I would probably have voted for him had he stood as an independent.

The regional list was far more interesting. I had the choice of the main traitor parties plus UKIP, the Greeners, the BNP and assorted others. I have voted for UKIP in the past two or three elections, but this time I went for the Scottish Christian Party. I wanted to vote for a party that stands against the abomination that is the abortion holocaust in this country. Nearly every abortion carried out in Scotland (99%) is for “social reasons” (i.e. not health-related). The figure for England and Wales is not much better at 98%. Abortion is not legal in Northern Ireland, despite Labour characters like Diane Abbott interfering in their affairs when none of the main parties over there support it.

The Scottish Christian Party is also realistic on the EU,

The Christian Party, in keeping with its stance on ‘big Government’, does not support Britain’s continued membership of the European Union as constituted under the Lisbon Treaty. The British people voted for a free trade area – a Common Market – not a European State.

I have reservations about voting for a party which calls itself Christian, but it has some policies to die for!

My final vote was the AV one. I did study the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that AV would have made very little difference, so voted “No”.

I had considered boycotting the vote in protest at the stupid waste of money it was.

Our next elections in Scotland are the local ones next year – unless Dave calls an election or the Queen suspends parliament and sends the traitors to the Tower.

I hope to comment on the SNP’s success shortly.

Firstly, here is proof that Obama is a liar. He previously said that no long form birth certificate exists then all of a sudden one is released – at a time of almost unparalleled financial meltdown in the US and wars on numerous fronts.

Whether or not the certificate is real (and if you look at it, it seems either to be a fake or to have been made to look dodgy, probably to keep the circus going), Obama is the winner here, as it has taken so much attention away from the more important issues. The phrase, “Nero fiddles while Rome burns” comes to mind.

Then Obama continues, in a joking way of course, to compare himself to a king. He certainly acts like King George III with his taxes and control freakery.

He is as shallow as they come. I love comedy as much as the next man, but I cannot abide to watch a man who is wilfully destroying his country have the audacity to behave like a stand up comic – and just after hundreds of his countrymen have been killed by tornadoes. It is shameful.

H/T Nigel Evans MP (who thought it was a laugh.)