Many will believe the craft could have been hijacked by Klingons or some other intelligent life because decades of sci-fi television and films have opened their minds to all sorts of ‘possibilities’. Such is the power of suggestion that millions of Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens. Is it just a coincidence that the average American spends hours every day in front of the telly?

People who believe in evolution theory will also be far more inclined to believe that if the impossibility of intelligent beings developing from slime can happen on Earth, it can occur on any number of other planets in the Universe.

There is a conspiracy theory that the world’s ‘elite’ are going to announce an ‘alien invasion’ in order to take complete control of the planet. They have been putting together a few dummy runs, like 9/11, to see how gullible the public is. The resulting ‘War on Terror’ has given governments more control over the people, but not nearly as much as the globalists lust after. Global climate change laws and taxes will increase their influence in nation states, but only up to a point, albeit a large point.

If and when the aliens are declared to have ‘landed’ and your neighbours follow every instruction the government issues, terrified of having their brains sucked out through their noses, what will you be doing? Following or thinking?

Hat tip for Aussie link: Infowars

A businessman has been jailed for three years for masterminding a scam which saw tens of millions of battery hen eggs sold as free-range or organic.

Keith Owen, who admitted three charges under the Theft Act, was told by a judge at Worcester Crown Court he had abused “well-intentioned” public trust.

Folk pay twice the price for free range and even more for organic. I am one of them. String him up.

The eggs were sold in supermarkets and other stores across England.

And nobody from the supermarkets was sent to check their suppliers?

Owen, 44, of Warbage Lane, Dodford, Worcestershire, has been ordered to repay £3m, plus £250,000 in costs.

Eggcellent!

Judge Toby Hooper QC told him he had to settle the confiscation order within 12 months, or face a further six-and-a-half years in prison.

He deserves to be locked up for this length of time anyway. Preferably in a cage just larger than himself, just like all those chooks whose eggs he sold as free range.

Earlier this month Owen, who ran Heart of England Eggs Unlimited, admitted providing false information for accounting purposes to firms in the egg supply sector between June 2004 and May 2006.

Officials estimate that as many as 100 million eggs were falsely labelled.

The court heard he sold battery and “industrial” eggs imported from France and Ireland to suppliers.

They were told the eggs were British, free range, organic or that they met the RSPCA’s Freedom Food welfare standards.

This joker seems to have been trusted by everyone. Why?

Judge Hooper said Owen’s business had made very substantial profits at the expense of consumers who believed they were buying free-range eggs.

He paid as little as 35p per dozen and sold the same eggs on to suppliers and supermarkets for more than twice that amount.

He said: “Imprisonment there must be, because the offences are plainly so serious that only a sentence of imprisonment will suffice.

“This was all a carefully-planned and executed fraud by false accounting.

It is nice to see that some judges take crime seriously.

“By greed, you have corrupted and destroyed the once-legitimate business which you have known all your life.”

Looks like he has killed the hen that laid the golden egg.

After Owen was jailed, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which brought the prosecution, urged consumers to report any concerns they had about free-range eggs and promised to weed out unscrupulous suppliers.

Tell the supermarkets to check their supply chain and the RSPCA to investigate the claims of suppliers.

I left a reply there, but like he says about his comments, he didn’t want to waste them on someone else’s blog!

Ian seems to have some peculiar ways of looking at this. He says that conspiracy theories tend to say more about the theorists than the alleged conspirators. While this might be true of bizarre and unfounded notions people sometimes have, when there is lots of evidence for a more believable answer to issues like the attacks on 9/11, it is those who refuse to believe anything other than what the government and mainstream media tell them that need to get out more.

Ian says, I’m going to approach the examples cited by asking two questions- If the theorists are correct, what do the conspiracists get out of it? and Why might the theorists want to believe in this particular conspiracy? Very basically, most people want to know the truth and like to see justice done. Theorists don’t necessarily want to believe in conspiracies just for the sake of it.

Even the word conspiracy suggests mental illness to some people, but the reality is that the world is full of conspiracies. People read about them in newspapers every day!

Conspiracy ‘theorists’ don’t invent things they want to happen – they think something is amiss with the official story and look for other possibilities – based on evidence, testimonies, motives, logic, common sense and lessons from history.

Anyway, I told Ian I was going to demolish his arguments faster than a controlled demolition on 9/11.

The numbered items in bold were my five original proposals, and underneath each are Ian’s replies in italics, followed by my thoughts.

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

What do the conspiracists get? Errrrm. What do they get? According to the theory the mostly white, mostly christian engineers of this massed social change get a country where they lose a lot of their privileges because their constituents are less like, and less likely to vote for, them. And we know how willing MPs are to give up their privileges.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Because they’re racists? Because they don’t like immigration? Possibly, as a great many of them claim to be christians, they’re scared by falling church attendance and don’t want to have to fight for believers with a younger, louder religion.

These engineers aren’t ‘Christian’. If they were, they wouldn’t be dismantling our Judeo-Christian laws and culture. Because this has been key to our success as a nation, it is being dismantled to your detriment and mine.

If you think only Christians will be affected by Islam, you’re kidding yourself.

BTW, this re-engineering has been ADMITTED! You have a problem with facts and admissions on record.

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

What might the conspiracists get? They’d get to pay more tax. Which I’m sure they really want to do. The scientists will get to keep the funding which pays for their research. Even though they could be better off working in the private sector. I have a problem with the repeated line about paying more tax. The people who’ll pay more tax are the ones who are too dumb to find ways to make their lives more efficient. Those who cut their carbon emmissions will find they’re paying less money to corporations, and the government, so they will have more money for themselves and be financially more secure.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? See the last bit above about people too dumb to make their lives better.

You think only dumb people will pay higher taxes? I wouldn’t like your tax bill then (sorry, obvious joke). The FACT (not theory) is that a world government is being set up to collect taxes and make laws. This means that very soon, this global government scam plus the EU means that the British will have practically no say at all in how we are governed.

And you think they will not tax you heavily. I would laugh were it not so tragic.

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

What might the conspiracists get? The licence fee cut by the next Conservative government. Though that will probably happen anyway.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Because Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

Which is the reason I don’t pay for a TV licence. Anyway the BBC has ADMITTED to certain biases and prejudices.

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

What might the conspiracists get? The satisfaction of having turned real life into the opening sequence of the first X Files Movie.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Racism? Brown people couldn’t possibly have organised something this big, it has to be the work of the Illuminati and/or the Jews. (An early 9/11 conspiracy theory had all Jewish workers in the World Trade Centre being called up and told not to go in to work that day.) An inability to grasp reality. Given all the genuinely horrible, stupid, illegal and dangerous stuff the Bush regime did, why on Earth do some people need to make stuff like this up?

Racism? Let me guess, you had a New Labour/BBC “education”. If you’re not following the political whims of the day, you’re a ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘homophobe’ or ‘xenophobe’. It’s difficult to argue with people who don’t have an argument.

As for TV, did you know that the CIA plants storylines into popular programmes? E.g. that bloke out the X-Files, also did the Lone Gunmen, Dean Haglund, admitted this. One episode of the Lone Gunmen is about a hijacked jet heading for the twin towers and it was aired shortly before 9/11. It’s how they operate – by putting notions into people’s minds so that when the real thing happens, they are more likely to accept it – even something so obviously fake as the official 9/11 report. Again, CIA involvement in the media is well known.

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

What might the conspiracists get? Confused, given that modern discoveries strengthen and refine the Theory of Evolution.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Fear that science, and increased understanding of it, will undermine their religion. Inability to visualise a simple and elegant theory. The writer of the post is a Creationist, so this is a favourite subject of his. He claims masses of evidence for his belief, but can never present any that stands up to scrutiny.

The inventors of this theory could never have imagined how complex life is. They thought a living cell was just a blob of goo, rather than something as complex as a city.

If scientists understood the *limits* of evolution, i.e. that changes can be made by random mutations, but not in such a way that, for example, new organs are created, then they would have to ditch the theory. But it is as ingrained in our society as Islam is in Saudi Arabia. If you want to talk about “new religion” it is evolution theory or climate change.

Humanists/’atheists’ like to think that, as non-believers, they are enlightened, but they have to believe in something regarding who they are, where they came from and where they are going, even if it makes no sense.

ERROR: The details you have entered are either incorrect or you may have already enrolled for this service.

The ‘help’ line wasn’t much. A disinterested woman said she couldn’t really help, so I continued trying to find a solution myself. There wasn’t one. So, £100 fine no doubt.

I still have three hours left, as I type, but I’m afraid I have conceded defeat. I have taken various screen captures so hopefully I will get treated fairly. They have been fair in the past.

Thank you Father in Heaven for the Christ Child, who grew up to be slain for the sins of the world, that all who believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Christmas in Iraq

It is now Christmas Day for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wishing them joy and peace at this time and also for their loved ones back home. May they soon be reunited.

I didn’t realise until this evening that Nestlé, among other companies, also rely on slave labour and enslaved children to harvest their cocoa in the Ivory Coast. The company recently announced it would be launching a fair trade 4-finger Kit Kat, probably to try and attract some good publicity for a change. Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:

Nestlé is already using a Fairtrade mark on a token product representing just 0.02% of its coffee purchase to try to divert criticism of its trading practices, which have been blamed for driving down prices for millions of coffee farmers. While the coffee and cocoa farmers in Fairtrade schemes should benefit, if proper independent audits are done, that provides little comfort to the vast majority of suppliers outside the schemes. Legal action has been taken against Nestlé in the US over its failure to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain, despite public claims that it is doing so, and we have already seen it trying to divert this criticism by, for example, sponsoring an event on the abolition of slavery at the Labour Party Conference.

“When Nestlé is on the record as saying that charitable contributions should benefit its shareholders, we should not be too excited by one of the world’s most boycotted companies pursuing something like this. We will continue to include Kit Kats on the list of boycott products and recommend that anyone who is concerned about promoting real change for people in developing countries support the boycott and buy their products from companies with positive business values, not just token initiatives. There are companies whose entire output is Fairtrade certified after all. Nestlé systematically violates baby food marketing standards, undermining breastfeeding and contributing to the needless death and suffering of babies around the world – the changes we have been able to force on Nestlé are because of the boycott and it will continue until Nestlé brings its policies and practices into line.

When the fair trade Kit Kats were announced, Ekklesia reported,

Campaigners have welcomed the news that chocolate giant Nestlé UK will announce on Monday (7 December) that its Kit Kat bars are to be ‘slavery free’ or fairly traded from January 2010.

But Stop the Traffik say the good news is only partial, as this will only apply to their ‘four finger’ product.

‘Two finger’ Kit Kats and all of their other chocolate products “will continue to exploit the chocolate slaves of the Ivory Coast from where Nestlé source most of their cocoa” they said in a statement.

Whilst both the Church of England and the Methodist Church have sought to profit from multi-million pound shareholdings in the company, Stop the Traffik campaigners have put pressure on the big chocolate manufacturers around the world to eradicate the worst forms of child labour on the cocoa farms of Ivory Coast in West Africa where thousands of young children are trafficked, enslaved and abused to harvest the cocoa that makes over a third of the world’s chocolate.

Earlier this year, Cadbury launched fair trade Dairy Milk in the UK and Ireland. As global campaigners continued to demand this policy be applied globally, the Dairy Milk fair-trade certification spread to other parts of the world.

Weeks later Mars capitulated after Stop the Traffik’s “March on Mars” campaign, promising that their Galaxy range will be Rainforest Alliance certified in 2010 with their whole product range traffik free by 2020.

Sources inside the industry say that these changes are directly due to the pressure that Stop the Traffik has exerted at community level, say the campaigners.

Since summer 2009 Stop the Traffik has also turned the heat up on Nestlé – which is says is a global giant with a poor human rights record – and in recent weeks has launched a new and hard-hitting Christmas campaign designed to bring the giant company to task.

So in the meantime, I will keep boycotting Nestlé and I invite you to do the same. It feels good.

You can easily add a logo to your own site.

It is true enough that the country has its own individual form of popular democracy – and that it is home to only 320,000 Muslims, between 4% and 5% of the population.

Wikipedia states,

In 2009 there were an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, accounting to around 5% of the total population.

But regardless of exact figures, trust a BBC journalist to use the word “only” in this context. The UK is ‘only’ 3% Muslim and look at the characters we have! Even worse is the home-grown institutionalised hatred of things traditionally British due to the ‘fear of causing offence’. Or the fear of being charged with a ‘hate’ crime. Or the fear of being considered a ‘racist’. Or the fear of being labelled a crusty old dinosaur or Little Englander.

But it is not just in Switzerland that the presence of growing Muslim communities has polarised opinion.

I’m sure everyone realises that!

A series of controversies from the Rushdie affair 20 years ago to the more recent row over Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad have reflected the unease that many Europeans feel about this relatively new Muslim presence.

Yes, and the rest.

This is not confined to a few tabloid newspapers or a few xenophobic right-wing parties.

In other words, it’s not just the Daily Mail and the Tories: normal people also have reservations.

It is an Islamophobia driven by a variety of factors.

Ah! He’s used the “I” word. If you are concerned about the issue, it means you have a psychiatric illness.

Since the attacks of 9/11 in the United States, and the bombings in Madrid and London, Muslims have often been regarded as a security threat.

I wonder why. More of that islamophobia, probably. Of course, those of us who believe in US Government involvement on 9/11 and have looked at the very dodgy circumstances surrounding both Madrid and London, are generally more worried about the government.

They are seen as not just resistant to integration, but determined to impose their values on the Christian or post-Christian societies of the West.

They are ’seen’ this way because it’s the truth. D’oh! Of course, some of the so-called moderate Muslims will fit in, but they’re not the ones trying to change society for everyone else.

For governments anxious to maintain social harmony at home and good relations with Muslim governments abroad, this poses a set of difficult dilemmas.

The rubbishing of our culture and Judeo-Christian beliefs is what threatens social harmony. As for maintaining good relations with Muslim governments, well, I guess it all boils down to money. Kowtowing at home and abroad seems to be the British way now.

And for many of the estimated 15 million Muslims in Western Europe, the Swiss vote will be seen as one more sign that – whatever governments may say – they are simply not welcome.

Welcome or not: what do you think?