DECFREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017  (1994 -Official Website -DEC-PT4-2017 )-- DEC FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2017

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2017

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

*
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU FILE

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU FILE

 

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2017
 

THE REAL

[NASTY]

 HATE MONGERS

The real hatemongers: A tiny bunch of zealots called ... by GUY ADAMS- Daily Mail

 

 November 25,2017
 

A tiny bunch of zealots called

STOP FUNDING HATE

are trying to gag Britain's

FREE PRESS.

But this devastating expose' reveals the

loathing vile abuse and incitement to violence spewed out by

THEIR SUPPORTERS

against

TORIES and BREXITEERS

 

The real hatemongers: A tiny bunch of zealots called Stop Funding Hate are trying to gag Britain's free press. This exposé reveals the vile abuse and incitement to violence spewed out by THEIR supporters against Tories and Brexiteers

By Guy Adams for the Daily Mail

 November 25, 2017

Like most social media trolls, Sheila Sullivan chooses Twitter as her preferred medium for spreading bile across the internet.

A vehement supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, she’s posted almost 12,000 messages in the past two years (that’s around 16 per day), many attacking Conservative politicians, and those who vote for them.

For example, she refers to Theresa May as ‘Cruella De Vil’ [the evil woman in One Hundred And One Dalmatians], says Chancellor Philip Hammond ‘looks like he has died and been dug up’, and calls George Osborne a ‘slimy git’. For good measure, she has frequently attacked Conservative voters (who totalled 13.6 million in June’s General Election) as ‘f***ing thick’ [she did not use asterisks] and saying she would ‘disinherit’ her children if they married one.

Tories aren’t the only group of people the charmless Ms Sullivan, from Manchester, appears to hate. Like many a Corbynista ultra, she has it in for Jews.

 

Social media troll and vehement Jeremy Corbyn supporter Sheila Sullivan refers to Theresa May on Twitter as ‘Cruella De Vil’ [the evil woman in One Hundred And One Dalmatians]. Last weekend, Sullivan was one of a few hundred self-appointed activists who joined a campaign to silence Britain’s free Press

This month, she urged her online followers to look at a vile YouTube film entitled ‘Why the Rothschilds want Syria controlled,’ which propagates the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that a shadowy cabal of Jewish financiers secretly orchestrate Western foreign policy.

It was created by a fake news outlet called ‘Exclusive Good News’, whose other recent handiwork includes a revoltingly racist video which claims to have ‘proof’ that Michelle Obama is a man.

Sadly, such unpoliced offensiveness is typical of the new Wild West of the internet — a world where anyone is free to spread disinformation, lies and repellent views, or to abuse people they dislike. Ms Sullivan, in common with many others from the angry fascist Left, is now using another technique to further her political agenda via social media.

 

Last weekend, activists persuaded High Street retailer Paperchase to apologise for offering free wrapping paper to Daily Mail readers. This group’s campaign was organised by Stop Funding Hate, a small lobby group seeking to censor popular newspapers whose editorial lines it disagrees with. In recent months, one such activist branded Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg (above) a ‘f***ing tw*t’

Last weekend, she was one of a few hundred self-appointed activists who joined a campaign to silence Britain’s free Press, which is enjoyed by millions, and force it to promote their views.

Together, they persuaded the High Street retailer Paperchase to apologise for offering free wrapping paper to Daily Mail readers.

This group’s campaign was organised by Stop Funding Hate, a small lobby group seeking to censor popular newspapers whose editorial lines it disagrees with.

On a daily basis, it urges people to use Twitter and Facebook to send complaints against any company which advertises in the Daily Mail, Sun and Express newspapers.

The aim is to persuade firms to withdraw advertising. Stop Funding Hate’s founder declares: ‘The end point for us is a media that does the job we all want it to.’

In other words, a handful of zealots want newspapers to reflect only their values, which, of course, may very well be unpalatable to the values of the millions who chose to read them.

Stop Funding Hate seems particularly concerned that the Press discusses subjects such as immigration and gender politics.

And freedom of expression can, apparently, go to hell in a handcart.

Not surprisingly, the Advertising Association, the ad industry’s trade body, has accused it of ‘intimidation’ which will ‘put our free and competitive free Press at risk’. Happily, major retailers such as John Lewis and Marks & Spencer won’t be cowed by such bullying by this small band of zealous Corbynites and Remainers.
 

Stop Funding Hate claims it is ‘not linked to, or aligned to, any political party’. Funny, then, that it only campaigns against newspapers which endorsed the Tories at the last election. Unsurprisingly, in this context, its founder, 42-year-old writer and NGO worker Richard Wilson (left), supports both the Remain campaign and Jeremy Corbyn

Indeed, John Lewis pledged to resist them. It says: ‘Withdrawing advertising on the basis of editorial coverage would be inconsistent with our democratic principles, which include

freedom of speech and remaining apolitical.’

 

However, some smaller firms — such as Paperchase — with less experience of handling hostile social media, have caved in. On Saturday, the stationer received about 500 messages (many anonymous or from abroad) criticising its Daily Mail promotion. Two days later, it issued a grovelling statement saying it was ‘truly sorry’ for having associated with this paper, which has four million readers.

For Stop Funding Hate, this was a major victory in its war against newspapers which it claims are ‘spreading hate’ and ‘fuelling hate-crime on our streets’.

Yet behind this pious bluster lies an extraordinary hypocrisy.

The fact is that many of its most active supporters, such as the deeply unpleasant Sheila Sullivan, are themselves prolific spreaders of hate.

Stop Funding Hate insist its campaign is ‘all about polite and friendly customer engagement’ and, to be fair, the social media messages sent on its behalf to advertisers are usually reasonable in tone.

But many of those who targeted Paperchase have used the internet on other occasions to troll politicians, journalists, celebrities and other public figures — while also spreading vile slurs about political groups they despise.

Typical is someone called Gary Cook — as with many users of social media, this may be a fake name or his real one — who claims to be a designer from Enfield in London. He Tweets under the pseudonym @honeypotdesigns.
 

Stop Funding Hate seems particularly concerned that the Press discusses subjects such as immigration and gender politics. And freedom of expression can, apparently, go to hell in a handcart. Not surprisingly, the Advertising Association, the ad industry’s trade body, has accused it of ‘intimidation’ which will ‘put our free and competitive free Press at risk’

In recent months, he has called Tory minister Andrea Leadsom ‘f***ing scum’, said Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is a ‘worthless piece of scum,’ branded Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg a ‘f***ing tw*t’ and said the 17 million people who voted Leave are ‘xenophobic retarded sheep’.

Not to be outdone, Matthew Whibley, a blogger from Manchester who tweets as @nythe_one, said Mrs May ‘looks like a rabid gerbil’, calls Tories ‘filth’ and ‘d*cks’, and recently contacted the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer to say she is a ‘knob’. Both men were to be found on Saturday lobbying Paperchase on behalf of Stop Funding Hate. Ms Hartley-Brewer, who has publicly criticised the lobby group, is a regular recipient of such nastiness from its supporters.

Mel Greenwood, a Corbyn supporter who lobbied Paperchase and Tweets as @byeckitsparky, has, for example said Ms Hartley-Brewer is ‘a shameful f***ing excuse for a human being!’

What extraordinarily offensive remarks, for people who profess to be worried about ‘hate’!

Yet in the Orwellian world of Stop Funding Hate, it seems that spreading hate is frequently permissible — provided your views accord with those of this tiny motley bunch of Left-wing Twitter warriors.

A Hackney-based Stop Funding Hate activist called Phil (who tweets as @goodlegs) has used Twitter to say ‘f*** off’ to, variously, the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister Liam Fox, anti-EU Labour MP Kate Hoey and Home Secretary Amber Rudd.
 
 

Matthew Whibley, a blogger from Manchester who tweets as @nythe_one, recently contacted the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer (above) to say she is a ‘knob’. Whibley was to be found on Saturday lobbying Paperchase on behalf of Stop Funding Hate. Ms Hartley-Brewer, who has publicly criticised the lobby group, is a regular recipient of such nastiness from its supporters

Meanwhile, a self-styled poet who tweets as @weakling9191 joined the lobbying campaign against Paperchase last Saturday, just days after using Twitter to share two highly offensive poems suggesting that it might be nice to physically harm Mrs May.

One read: ‘Theresa May is f***ing lifeless / Dodging tax and such / I wish she’d go to Belarus / Get shot up by some thugs.’ The other: ‘Theresa May is a tw*t / Let her play with other rats / Shove her right in the back / Throw her on the torture rack.’

He seems oblivious to the hypocrisy of saying this while supporting Stop Funding Hate in its campaign against newspapers for apparently ‘funding hate’. Kind-hearted Phil has also called former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith a ‘f***ing scumbag’ and contacted Tory MP Alec Shelbrook in June to call him ‘Tory Scum’.

Then there is a prolific anti-Brexit campaigner and Stop Funding Hate activist called George Dukesh, who tweets as @the_flaneur16.

He recently said of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson: ‘I have met this f***ing toad. He is not charming. He is a vile scheming sh*t.’ He’s called Jacob Rees-Mogg a ‘vile f***er’, Environment Secretary Michael Gove a ‘f***ing little worm, makes my skin crawl’ and says Tory MP Bob Stewart is ‘an unpleasant pompous c**t and a bully’.

He’s also shared the ‘joke’: ‘What’s the difference between computers and Brexiteers? You only have to punch information into a computer once!’

Imagine Stop Funding Hate’s rage if a newspaper columnist ever wrote so insultingly about Labour politicians (which, of course, they never would) or called for people with whom they disagree about politics to be punched. The bile posted by Stop Funding Hate’s supporters peaked during the last General Election campaign, when a 29-year-old Labour supporter from Newcastle, who tweets as @captain_pyjamas, passed on the message: ‘Voting Tory just once increases your chance of sudden death by a punch to the face by 800%.’
 

There are ample examples of Stop Funding Hate activists who have directed virulent abuse at those who led the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Dr Vicky Forster, a research fellow educated at Durham, contacted Ukip’s Nigel Farage via Twitter shortly before the referendum to say ‘you make me embarrassed to be British’ and more recently called him ‘a scumbag on pretty much every imaginable level’

In other posts, she’s said ‘Theresa May looks like a face at the window at night in a horror movie’ who would ‘slap a toddler for a 2p coin’.

Another of her Stop Funding Hate comrades tweets as @drdanstreetment. Joining the campaign against Paperchase, he said: ‘I shall walk straight past your shop until your policy changes.’

A few months earlier, this supposed opponent of hatred used Twitter to contact George Osborne, saying: ‘You’re a lying, coke-snorting posh boy who has no idea how real people live’; and ‘you, sir, are a c**t. And the sir is just good manners!’

All of which leads to several important points: predictably, a huge proportion of Stop Funding Hate supporters only target Conservatives, almost certainly don’t read the Mail and probably don’t shop at Paperchase.

For example, another Paperchase-baiter last weekend was @jc4pmnow, an anonymous pro-Corbyn Twitter feed. Just days earlier, it posted images of posters which used language of the sort utilised by Nazi propagandists — saying Tories are ‘destructive parasites’ who ‘spread diseases’.

Another Corbynist in their ranks, @janfelicity, referred to ‘blood sucking Theresa May,’ while Steve Rice (@stevericetweets) said Mrs Rudd is ‘quite hard and vile’.

Is it a mere coincidence that such trolls have joined Stop Funding Hate, which only campaigns against newspapers guilty of generally endorsing the Conservatives?

Is it also a coincidence that they have hitched their colours to the mast of an organisation which almost exclusively seeks to silence newspapers that supported Brexit?

Doubtless they may exist, but the Mail has been unable to find a single Stop Funding Hate activist, out of the hundreds who contacted Paperchase on Saturday, who said they were among the 52 per cent of British voters who backed Brexit.

Meanwhile, there are ample examples of Stop Funding Hate activists who have directed virulent abuse at those who led the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Dr Vicky Forster, a research fellow educated at Durham, contacted Ukip’s Nigel Farage via Twitter shortly before the referendum to say ‘you make me embarrassed to be British’ and more recently called him ‘a scumbag on pretty much every imaginable level’.

With regard to anyone who has ever voted for Ukip — that is about 15 per cent of the British electorate — she describes them as ‘the most gullible, easily led people on the planet’.

Then there’s Becca Miller, an interior designer from Leeds, who described Ukip as Mr Farage’s ‘scum of a party’.

Ms Miller, who professes to be aghast at the ‘hatred’ she encounters in popular newspapers, also used Twitter during the London riots some years ago to share messages about ‘Tory scumbags’, saying, perhaps in jest: ‘I guess we should go set some things on fire and put some windows through.’

In case you hadn’t guessed, she is a Labour voter. As are almost all of the Stop Funding Hate supporters who contacted Paperchase last Saturday and who’ve previously expressed a political allegiance on the social network.

Indeed, the Mail was unable to identify a single one who had publicly endorsed the Conservatives. Perhaps they exist. But again, if so, they are keeping hidden.

For the record, Stop Funding Hate claims it is ‘not linked to, or aligned to, any political party’ — and claimed in a statement this week to ‘have supporters from a wide range of backgrounds and political viewpoints’.

Funny, then, that it only campaigns against newspapers which endorsed the Tories at the last election.

Unsurprisingly, in this context, its founder, 42-year-old writer and NGO worker Richard Wilson, supports both the Remain campaign and Jeremy Corbyn.

He has ‘liked’ or endorsed Facebook groups supporting the ‘Council of Europe’, ‘New Europeans’, ‘Better In than Out’, ‘I’m Voting Remain,’ ‘UKtoStay’, ‘Campaign to Remain’, ‘We are the 48’, ‘Environmentalists for Europe,’ ‘Scientists for EU’ and ‘Jeremy Corbyn for PM’.

He’s also ‘liked’ the misleadingly named Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, which supports the anti-newspaper lobbyists Hacked Off.

Despite his current campaign against this newspaper, Wilson has been more than happy to accept money from associating with the Mail in the past. In 2006, when a book he wrote about the murder of his sister in Africa was published, serialisation rights were sold to the Mail for £1,000.

A second senior Stop Funding Hate figure is Rosey Ellum, who, in 2016, came up with the idea of founding the organisation at a dinner party attended by Wilson. A 31-year-old vegan, who is both an NGO worker and a professional cat-sitter, she divides her political allegiances between Labour and the Green Party.

Her Facebook ‘likes’ include ‘Women against UKIP’, ‘The struggling Vegan’. ‘Hackney Greens’, ‘Fat Gay Vegan’, ‘Sassy Socialist Memes’, ‘Womens Equality Party’ ‘John McDonnell’, ‘Tower Hamlets Green Party’ and ‘Jeremy Corbyn for PM’.

On the morning of the 2015 Conservative election victory, Ellum declared on Twitter: ‘So sad and depressed today. For selfish reasons and for people worse off than me. We’ll keep fighting the good fight!’

She’s also campaigned against what she calls Israel’s ‘illegal occupation of Palestine’, using Twitter to share petitions on behalf of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which counts Corbyn among its patrons.

A third director of Stop Funding Hate is Cate Taylor, a solicitor at law firm MacFarlanes and a long-standing Labour activist who took a year out of her job to work as Political Adviser to Labour’s then Shadow Scottish Secretary.

Needless to say, Stop Funding Hate rejects suggestions its campaign is in any way politically motivated. It also dislikes being described as ‘far Left’.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that some of its supporters who lobbied Paperchase have trolled a range of people who are not Conservatives.

For example, earlier this year, one who Tweets as @spinningmule and claims to be a professional spin doctor called the then Lib Dem leader Tim Farron ‘a God-bothering homophobe’.

Another, David Morley, who tweets as @sussexran, remarked this week during an episode of ITV’s I’m A Celebrity, in which former footballer Dennis Wise is a contestant, that he had ‘completely forgotten how much Dennis Wise’s face makes me want to leap up and punch the TV’.

Another, who calls himself @actuallynotmatt said this month that the actor James Corden ‘is a despicable insensitive c**t.’

All this from supporters of an organisation which supposedly campaigns against ‘hate’.

Many Stop Funding Hate activists have also targeted political commentators with whom they disagree.

In June, one @appledaft Tweeted that Times columnist Iain Martin was ‘lower than vermin’. The same journalist was told to ‘f**k off’ by freelance TV director called Eddie Knicker (@eddieknocker) who has also called Piers Morgan ‘a right-wing tw*t’.

That said, they tend to save the most vile slurs for Conservative politicians.

To that end, a female activist called @iamdbrian recently shared a Tweet calling Boris Johnson an ‘idiot’ who is ‘f***ing awful at everything’.

Helen S, who calls herself a ‘proud European green socialist’ and Tweets as @futurestand, told Paperchase last week that the Mail (which has more than two million female readers) ‘puts women down’.

Just a few months earlier, the same Helen S Tweeted about Theresa May: ‘I wish she would stand down now, as her mental health is clearly suffering. This could be a learning point for empathy.’

Speculating about mental illness. What kind of sisterly ‘empathy’ is that?

But then supporters of Stop Funding Hate — blinded by their all-consuming self-righteousness — seem incapable of understanding just how vile and offensive their own behaviour often is.

 

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115651/Stop-Funding-Hate-trying-gag-Britains-free-press.html#ixzz4zRWLwtxE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

'Say what you want without vicious rancour'

 

 

H.F.1391
WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 

NNot since WW2 has there been a greater need for politicians to pull together. Fat chance when they're so lacking in PUBLIC SPIRIT says

Daily Mail: 2017-07-11 - WHERE'S THEIR SENSE OF DUTY?

 
 

WHATEVER you think of our vote to leave the EU there is no doubt that we face some of the most critical months in our nation's modern history.

Most observers, whether Leavers or Remainers, agree that extricating ourselves from

BRUSSELS

and charting a newly

INDEPENDENT COURSE

will be

A COLOSSAL CHALLENGE,

YOU MAY HAVE  HOPED, THEREFORE , THAT OUR NATION'S POLITICIANS WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THE MOMENT, PUTTING ASIDE PETTY DIFFERENCES AND COMING TOGETHER IN THE

NATIONAL INTEREST.

What better sign that we are all

PATRIOTS.

and that, like our forefathers,

WE STAND OR FALL AS ONE

UNITED KINGDOM?...

Bickering...

 

Patriot

Under Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, the Labour Party has given itself over completely to an increasingly strident politics of moral posturing, its litany of hysterical complaints leavened only with the ruinously expensive bribery of voters too young to remember the

CHAOS OF THE SEVENTIES

It says a great deal about the historical illiteracy of Mr Corbyn's supporters that they like to present their hero as Clement Attlee's heir. In fact, they could not be more different.

Attlee

was above all a

PATRIOT,

a man who put country ahead of party. He would have regarded Mr Corbyn and his allies with with

UTTER CONTEMPT.

Like so many men of his generation, Atlee had worn his country's uniform and seen action at first hand, in his case, on the hellish desert front of Mesopotamia in World War I.

And like Churchill, his great rival and colleague, he knew national solidarity meant far more than petty partisanship.

  But there was something even deeper than the shared

SACRIFICE OF WAR

Neither MacDonald nor Baldwin had seen action, but both saw POLITICS as a kind of

NATIONAL SERVICE.

They had grown up in an era when collective duty meant more than

 INDIVIDUAL AMBITION

and when there was no greater honour than to devote yourself to

KING AND COUNTRY.

One anecdote says it all.

In 1921, horrified at the huge rise in Britain's debt during the World War I, Baldwin secretly donated a fifth of his fortune-a staggering £150,000, worth £6  million today-to the Treasury.

He wrote a letter anonymously to The Times, appealing to the wealthy classes

to tax themselves  and help reduce the

WAR DEBT

saying he wanted to show

' love of country than love of money'

he volunteered 20% of the value of his estate. It was only many years  later that the correspondent was identified as Baldwin.

 

*

Sneer

And he took that attitude into Westminster. Love of country mattered more than love of office, the lust for power or even the ties of party.

Could you imagine many of today's politicians doing that? Can you imagine, say ,George Osborne, donating his inherited wallpaper millions to pay  towards our crippling annual deficit? No, me neither.

The irony is that almost the only modern frontline politician with Baldwin's sense of duty is our Prime Minister. And it says a great deal about our times that Mrs May's reticence and quite decency are treated as handicaps, when previous generations would have seen them as virtues.

Not even Mrs May's greatest admirers would claim her past few months have been a triumph, and her time in Downing Street may now be numbered in weeks rather than years. Even so, I suspect history books will be kinder to the Prime Minister than the snobs, pygmies and hypocrites who love to sneer at her.

The tragedy, however, is that Britain is drifting towards a shambolic exit from the EU and a wretched beginning to our new journey as a

INDEPENDENT TRADING NATION.

Not since World War II has there been greater cause for our politicians to pull together an the

NATIONAL INTEREST.

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED

JULY 11-2017

 

 

 

H.F.1252 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 

FREE SPEECH-RELIGIOUS OPINIONS- TOLERATION -HOW FAR SHOULD WE GO?

 

In the Times on 9th November 2004 an article by Neil Addison a barrister has evaluated an important principle which an Australian case involving an allegation of religious vilification, which if successful will in the words of the author: -

 The Religious Crime Moderates Will Soon

Loathe.

 

‘It is wrong-headed to insist that all spiritual ideas are created equal.’

“Do you believe that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God?” would normally be regarded as a theoretical rather than as a theological rather than a legal question.

 

Yet it was asked of a witness at a recent trial that demonstrates the dangers inherent in David Blunkett’s proposals to create a crime of ‘incitement to religious hatred”.

 

The Australian case involves an allegation of “religious vilification” brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) against Catch the Fire Ministries and two of its pastors, Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah. It relates to a seminar they presented in March 2002.

 

The event lasted a day and dealt with the concept of jihad, the history of Islam, and its future in Australia and whether it was compatible with Western concepts of democracy.

 

The seminar involved quotations from the Koran and references to the life of Muhammad and the Hadith (traditions)- [That part of it which reports custom and precedent is called Sunna; that which preserves sayings of the Prophet is Hadith, “ in a narrower sense. Tradition”] of the Prophet that together form the basis of Sharia. Present during parts of the seminar were three Australian converts to Islam who reported back to the ICV, which brought the case under section 8 of the Victoria Racial and Religious |Toleration Act of 2001, which came into effect in 2002. That section says: “ A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.”

 

The claim asked for damages and also that the defendants be ordered to “acknowledge” that remarks at the seminar were incorrect, “retract” the statements, “sincerely apologise” for the offence caused and be prohibited from “further publication or distribution directly or indirectly of any material containing statements, suggestions and implications to the same or similar effect.” If such an order was made, any breach would be contempt of court punishable with imprisonment.

 

In their defence Catch The Fire Ministries argued that seminar accurately reflected Islamic teaching and history, it was an exercise in free speech and reflected their personal religious beliefs. During the case it became apparent that the converts had been deliberately sent to the seminar with a view to bringing a case.

 

Both pastors were known to have strong views about Islam and Sharia but these were based on knowledge and experience. Scot is a Christian from Pakistan who had gone to Australia to escape prosecution, and Nalliah had worked in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of Christianity is a criminal offence. At one point Scot was asked whether he believed that Muslims and Christians prayed to the same God and the question was allowed by the judge.

 

The trial was scheduled to last three days. It actually extended over seven months and the judgment is still awaited- [November 2004]. Meanwhile another case has been launched by a witch who claims that her religious beliefs have been vilified. Whatever the ultimate decision these cases demonstrate the dangers inherent creating a crime of incitement to religious hatred.

 

Proposals to criminalize religious hatred or vilification draw comparisons with existing race crime legislation. However, there is a fundamental difference between being a member of a racial group and being a member of a religion.

 

Race: - is something you are and cannot change

 

Religion: - is something you choose and you can change.

 

A Jew who becomes a Christian still remains a Jew, but a Christian who becomes a Muslim ceases to be a Christian.

 

Jews who had converted to Christianity were still gassed by the Nazis because of their RACE, not their religion. Belief in a religion is belief in an IDEA and in particular historical figures whether Muhammad, Christ, or Joseph Smith. The life of historical figures and the religion they established must be open to examination, to question and indeed to ridicule. To say “all IDEAS are created equal” is idiotic.

 

The danger with creating these special types of religious offence is that they stimulate feelings of divisiveness, create “thought crimes” and lead to show trials where judges, or juries, have to make decisions in areas where historians and philosophers have been unable to agree for centuries. [Or ever].

 

If the Law makes it impossible to argue about religion in any meaningful way then only the extremists on either side of a debate will benefit.

 

Or as Amir Butler, executive director of the Australia Muslim Public Affairs Committee, has said:

 

“Who after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can exist only if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?”

 

The author is a barrister in New Bailey Chambers at Liverpool and Preston.

 

[Font altered-bolding used-comment in brackets]

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

 

 

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell - John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 

‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty?

She needs no policies, no stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious:

Those are the shifts and defences that Errors use against her power.

Give her but room and do not bind her when she sleeps.

When God shakes a kingdom it is not untrue that many false teachers are busiest, but yet more true it is that God then raises to his own work men of rare abilities and more than common industry to gain some new steps in the discovery of Truth.’

 

John Milton (1608-1674)

 

* * *

 

*

 

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

 

FEBRUARY 5-2016

H.F.1392

Brought forward from February-2005

FREEDOM of SPEECH -A FREEDOM, which cannot be abused – IS NOT WORTH HAVING.

 

[In the Daily Mail on Friday the 18th February 2005 a timely article by their columnist Andrew Alexander on the most important issue to be raised in a true democracy, which is Freedom of Speech for without it, a People are deprived of the very means to find the TRUTH.

 

Though at times the means to achieve this may lead to differences of view which after all is what it all means to speak one’s mind.  There is already protection in British law to curb those who wish to encourage violence. Affray and disorder. When others put this basic right of comment under threat then who is there to defend the Principle of Free Speech.]

*          *        *

We all have a Right

to

Freedom of Speech

 

Ken Livingstone should not apologise.  He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, certainly not mine, but the issue has now become one of freedom of speech.  The possibility that a government-appointed body could suspend him from office is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard.

What he said to an Evening Standard reporter was something no gentleman would say.  But so what?   Politics, local or national, has never been distinguished by gentlemanly behaviour and never will be.   Newspapers can play it rough, too.  Both sides expect to give and take hard knocks.

 The real villain of the piece is an item of legislation entitled-soporifically-The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct)  (England) Order 2001.  Under ‘General Obligations’, we find the astonishing subsection, which says that councillors ‘must treat others with respect’.

Note the word ‘must’- not ‘should’ or ‘would be wise to’ or ‘wouldn’t be nice if all councillors were to’.  No, politeness is mandatory.

Consider also the ludicrous word  ‘others’, not voters, officials, fellow councillors or anything so narrow. ‘Others’ can mean anyone on the planet, from David Beckham to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

How on earth, you may wonder, did this preposterous threat to free speech creep in?  It seems that when the legislation in question was introduced, the Conservatives concentrated their fire on the excessive regulation of parish councils, which was then being established.

The Tory promise was that, if it returned to power they would abolish the bureaucratic Standards Board for England (SBE)_ a collection of nonentities chosen by the Government-and leave sorting out of councillors’ problems about conflicts of interest and the like to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Opposition made no move to oppose the wretched 2001 Order when it came along-no protests, not even a demand for a vote.

This sinister threat of censorship, which should be fought to the last ditch, passed on a nod, leaving the SBE [Standards Board for England] with the power to bar someone from office for up to five years for breaching the code.

The matter of Livingstone’s words has been referred to the SBE by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a disgraceful move.  It does British Jewry’s reputation no good to have the Deputies leading a campaign against freedom of speech.

Livingstone’s remark about a reporter behaving like a concentration camp guard has, also absurdly been dubbed ‘racist’.

It may have played harshly on the target’s sensitivities, but by no stretch of the imagination did it belittle or attack a race.

The only thing this sort of exaggeration shows is how far the rot of ‘anti-racism’ has taken us.  We are becoming like the U.S. where the obsession about ‘race’ has reached the proportions of a national mania.

 

No doubt, we shall hear the commonplace retort from those accused of trying to curb free speech that of course they are all in favour of freedom, except where it is abused.  This is nonsensical view.

A Freedom, which cannot be abused, is not worth having.

The threat to Livingstone comes in the wake of another threat to free speech in the Government’s new legislation to ban remarks, which stir up religious hatred.  Freedom of speech, if it means what it says, involves the right:

To Irritate

 

Annoy

 

Dismay

 

And Shock

 

Anyone who Listens.

The only sensible limitation should be on speech designed to lead to violence, affray or disorder.  But that has always been enshrined in British law anyway.

I can’t help recalling from my youth, in relation to this whole issue, the harmless joke in one of those monologues wonderfully recited by [that great entertainer and loveable gentleman] Stanley Holloway-the Lion and Albert, and all the rest.

 As some readers may remember’ one explained how the barons of old descended on King John when he was having tea’ on Runningmede Island in t’Thames’ and made him sign the Magna Carta…’but his writing in places was sticky and thick through dipping his pen in the jam’.

 

The verse concludes:

 

‘In England today we can do what we like

So long as we do what we’re told’

 

How I laughed then, I would not have believed that this joke could one day be transmuted to:

‘And that is why we can talk as we like

So long as we talk as we’re told.’

A final touch of absurdity is added by the claim that Livingstone’s remark may jeopardise London’s attempt to host the Olympic Games.  If it did, it would be one good outcome.  The cost, the upset, the dislocation, the sheer waste of effort if London is chosen is too appalling to contemplate.

 

But if his comment really threatened London’s Olympic bid, it would show what a silly solemn people make up the International Olympic Committee.

 

It might have been a nice thing if Livingstone had originally apologised for having been gratuitously rude.  But the issue has gone beyond that now.  For him to retreat in the face of a threat to freedom of speech is in no one’s interest.

 

Andrew.Alexander@dailymail.co.uk

                          

 

THE DEATH OF ANDREW ALEXANDER WAS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A TRUE DEMOCRACY-HE WILL BE MISSED BUT NEVER FORGOTTEN.

R I P

 

PATRIOT AND TRUTH SEEKER

 

ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH

A Great Poet, a Puritan Parliamentarian, and Secretary to Oliver Cromwell – John Milton, during the Civil War wrote the following lines on Freedom of expression: -

 ‘ Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.  Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to misjudge her strength.

Let her and Falsehood grapple!

Who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty

 

 MAGNA CARTA

 

FEBRUARY 2005

*          *          *

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

 

H.F. 1325.

Magna Carta

As a copy of the historic charter of rights goes on sale, PETER OBORNE says we need an updated version to protect us from an overweening State.

 ONE OF the very few surviving copies of the

MAGNA CARTA

the  famous document that is the foundation of ENGLISH and later British liberty  - has come up for sale in New York.

Experts say this copy of the charter will sell for as much as £6 million. BUT the protection written out in the

Magna Carta

back in 1215 are priceless and never in our  history have they come under such sustained and ruthless attack as during the ten years of this Labour Government.

In the 13th century , it was the

MONARCHY

, and in particular feared tyrant

King John,

that was the enemy of

FREEDOM and LIBERTY

 

In the 21st century, the power of the STATE

is the menace.

It poses an ever-growing threat to the

LIBERTY of THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

IN MANY CASES SEIZING ON NEW TECHNOLOGY TO

MENACE OUR FREEDOM.

 TODAY ,in SEPTEMBER ,2007, THE SITUATION IS SO BAD THAT WE ARE IN URGENT NEED OF A

NEW

MAGNA CARTA

-ONE THAT ENSHRINES THE

FREEDOM

of the

BRITISH CITIZEN

FROM

STATE OPPRESSION

*

Here the Mail's political columnist outlines the ten basic freedoms this new document should contain...

 

1.   FREEDOM OF SPEECH

 

2.   RIGHT TO PROPERTY

 

        3.   RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

 

4.   MAKE THE HOME OF A BRITISH CITIZEN SACROSANCT

 

5.   PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

6.  RIGHT TO PRIVACY

 

7.   THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

 

8.  HABEAS CORPUS OR FREEDOM FROM UNLAWFUL DETENTION

 

9.   TRIAL BY JURY.

 

10.  FREEDOM FROM SUMMARY JUSTICE.

*          *          *

 

THESE ARE ALSO THE AIMS OF THE

friends of england

 

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY

 

 

1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH

THE ability to speak our mind is a key freedom that distinguishes British citizens from those in countries which are tyrannies. In modern Britain, this freedom is slowly being eaten away. Often the motive is virtuous -for example part of the anti-terror legislation or to prevent racism. nevertheless, free speech is under threat as it has not been for hundreds of years.

The reality is that political correctness, though well-intentioned, is turning into a totalitarian monster that can censor any debate and distort argument about burning issues such as mass immigration and multiculturalism.

*

OUR COMMENT

[We believe that the FREEDOM of SPEECH  should NOT have been tampered with under any circumstances.

It is as we have said so often one can always find a reason to curb free speech. It was the government which made illegal war on Iraq and interfered in Afghanistan. TO VOICE ONE'S ANGER AT GOVERNMENT MISDOINGS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THAT FREE SPEECH ACTUALLY CALLS FOR VIOLENT ACTION AND NOT PASSIVE ACTION THAT THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN. THOUGH EVEN HERE IF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY BETRAYED THE PEOPLE THEN AS HAPPENED IN OUR SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CIVIL WAR BETWEEN PARLIAMENT AND THE KING VIOLENCE WAS THE ONLY SOLUTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ANCIENT RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE.

The poet John Milton who was secretary to Oliver Cromwell during the seventeenth century civil war between Parliament and the King uttered the following words in his famous call for freedom of printing and speech in "Areopagagita"

'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties'

 

*

2. RIGHT TO PROPERTY

AS ALMOST all political philosophers have recognised, the right to private property is a key protection against tyranny. One of the reasons why King John was hated in the 13th century England was the high taxation he levied on his subjects. THIS BURDEN on the ordinary citizen has risen to previously unheard of levels in the past 100 years.

While everyone accepts taxation is necessary to pay for

DEFENCE

[NOT ILLEGAL WARS]

PUBLIC SERVICES

[NOT WASTE OF RESOURCES]

and other amenities of the STATE, today it is close to punitive.

TO GIVE ONE EXAMPLE: People living in quite modest dwellings are caught with massive inheritance tax bills, which force them to sell their family homes.

*

OUR COMMENT

 

We have ALWAYS maintained that Governments should have a fixed budget at the commencement of their term of office which would make them hesitant to spend on projects which were unreliable or too costly as we have with VARIOUS databases and CCTV cameras and other surveillance activities. Major projects should be matters for an independent panel in the HOUSE.

A FAMILY HAVE TO BUDGET SO SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT.

 

*

 

 

3.  RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

THIS basic principle of human freedom was not enshrined in

MAGNA  CARTA

Instead , it was fought for over centuries by minority religious groups.

TODAY, however, all religions are under threat from militant secularism.

FOR EXAMPLE: Charities for the Christian, Muslim and other FAITHS face discrimination and withdrawal of

STATE FUNDING

which is made lavishly available to secular organisations,

In another encroachment on RELIGIOUS BELIEF, CATHOLIC adoption agencies are forced to act against their consciences by placing children with HOMOSEXUALS.

*

OUR COMMENT

ONLY when religious groups are a danger and threat to the community and country should the government interfere. When our nation was the custodian of an EMPIRE we made illegal a number of practices which entailed loss of life and in other areas where it was prudent to do so. Because of our NON-INTERFERENCE in other matters the question of the CASTE SYSTEM in INDIA of which has been hidden from view by those from the Sub-continent who have tarred our nation as a racist nation and who's representatives no doubt led the Commission for Racial Equality but should have stayed behind to RIGHT THE WRONG in THEIR OWN BACK YARD .We mentioned this matter a number of years ago but was ignored by THE PRESS.

 

4.  MAKE THE HOME OF A BRITISH CITIZEN SACROSANCT.

UNTIL recent times, the POWER of the STATE to enter a subjects home has been very

LIMITED. But new legislation has awarded public bodies numerous powers to enter private homes WITHOUT CONSENT.

TODAY, there are no fewer than

266

Statutory provisions and ministerial orders that allow entry to private dwellings, often

WITH THE OPTION TO USE FORCE.

*

OUR COMMENT

It is our political system which needs change because to all intents and purposes we have in

OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS

ONE

 

POLITICAL PARTY

 

We have said for some time that TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUM

[Each word underlined has a separate bulletin]

should have some

COMPETITION and ONLY

 PR-Proportional Representation

WILL REDRESS THE BALANCE.

[We looked with our Search facility to find out how many times we have mentioned PR-Proportional Representation over the past five years possibly longer - it runs into 100's.

BUT AT NO TIME HAVE OUR FREE PRESS PICKED IT UP TO HAVE A GO!

 

A further change should be that NO MP should serve more than ONE TERM of each PARLIAMENT to enable many subjects from across our society to SERVE THEIR COUNTRY. It is because many MPs have found it a cosy number and not intent on rocking the boat when misplaced legislation is raised in the HOUSE that has led to OUR TROUBLES. They would rather toe the line rather than risk their comfortable jobs, perks and gold-plated pensions at the next GENERAL ELECTION.

Those members of Parliament that show distinction and courage at the present time under difficult circumstances because of the anger of their colleagues should be offered the position of belonging to

AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE of PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY

 which will in future protect the future direction of

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

*

 5.  PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

ALL British citizens are presumed

INNOCENT until proven GUILTY

But this Ancient Right is under

THREAT

from a

GOVERNMENT

promise to introduce

IDENTITY CARDS

forcing us to carry a document we can present to the authorities

ON DEMAND.

The ID card threatens to become a massive weapon in the hands of

AN INTRUSIVE STATE

Another flagrant attack on the

 

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

concerns

DNA

samples taken from suspects.

It used to be the case that the police would destroy the fingerprints of those who were either acquitted or never charged.

Under new proposals, they will be able to retain DNA profiles in all circumstances.

*

OUR COMMENT

How have we got into this mess?

EASY

The Government of the Day takes away the first protection of the householder

'THE BOBBIE ON THE BEAT'

So that all local intelligence over years in each neighbourhood by the local Bobbie is lost and the subject to subject relationship of cooperation and confidence is destroyed.

WHAT DOES THIS DO?

CRIME ESCALATES OUT OF CONTROL

Which gives the very reason for the Government's reaction of more control from the CENTRE.

 

HOW DO YOU MAKE IT WORSE?

You refuse to build more PRISONS and you go soft on the PUNISHMENT OF CRIME and make it very difficult for the

VICTIMS OF CRIME

by instead of arresting the criminals but arrest

THE VICTIMS

to discourage others from reporting

CRIME.

EASY DON'T YOU THINK?

*

 

6. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The British STATE, and also large corporations, are constantly seeking to discover more information about our private lives and to monitor our actions.

For example, Britain has now become the

CCTV CAPITAL

OF THE WORLD

with approximately 20 per cent of all closed -circuit television cameras based

IN THIS COUNTRY

*

 

OUR COMMENT

 

As explained above the loss of the full-time 'Bobbie on the Beat' has meant that criminals now have the streets to themselves and therefore the Government has by its own negligence turned to CCTV to fight crime because police officers are now occupied for much of their time filling in forms. Added to this we have a cheaper version of our intrepid police force who are mindful of

WHAT THEY CANNOT DO

to make their inferior services not even worth the money they are paid.

 

*

 

7. THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

The traditional British citizen has enjoyed the ability to

PROTEST AGAINST GOVERNMENT

ACTION

One effect of the recent anti-terror legislation has been to curtail this

RIGHT

MASSIVELY.

Though nobody doubts that it is necessary to give government powers to combat terrorists often these powers have been used in  very heavy-handed ways.

One famous example came in 2005, when the anti-war protester Walter Wolfgang was held under anti-terror laws for heckling Jack Straw at the Labour Party conference.

Another case concerned Maya Evans, victim of a ban on unauthorised protests in

WESTMINSTER

when she was arrested for reading out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq, near the Cenotaph.

 

*

8.  HABEAS CORPUS, OR FREEDOM FROM UNLAWFUL DETENTION.

 

THIS was set out in the original Magna Carta, and survived intact for eight centuries, but is now under ferocious attack

Habeas Corpus is the single most fundamental freedom of the

BRITISH SUBJECT

one which distinguishes us from tyrannical countries such as

BURMA

 CHINA

NAZI GERMANY

or the former

SOVIET UNION

where citizens can be seized

at whim by the police and held without trial.

In rare times of national emergency, such as World War II and the most violent phase of Northern Ireland troubles, British governments have temporarily suspended

THIS VITAL PROTECTION.

Habeas Corpus translates literally as

 

'thou shalt have the body [in court]'

and enshrines the  right

TO A FAIR TRIAL.

 

However, Tony Blair tried to get rid of it altogether by introducing legislation which would enable the

STATE

to hold suspected terrorists for

90 days

without being required to give reasons.

This was fought off in the COMMONS, but Gordon Brown appears to be intent on mounting a fresh assault.

*

 

OUR COMMENT

This Ancient right of the English people does not fit in with the European Union's system as is the case for Trial by Jury and this is WHY pro-EU politicians here wish to do away with it as they have with many of our historic County regiments and others distinguished in battles of the

BRITISH EMPIRE.

As the aristocrat Francis Fulford has said:

England is f****d

*

9.  TRIAL BY JURY

THIS principle , like 

HABEAS CORPUS was, was enshrined in [English Law by Magna Carta and later its principles into British law]

                                It survived for eight centuries before coming under venomous attack by modern governments which dislike its inefficiency and expense.

 The right to jury trial means that British citizens, unlike those of foreign dictatorships, are entitled to demand to be tried by

'12 good men and true'

rather than convicted by an arbitrary tribunal.                         

 

A GOVERNMENT BILL in 2006 tried to take away this right for complex cases, but the proposal was blocked in the

HOUSE OF LORDS.

*

OUR COMMENT

 

As with Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury, the pro EU BRITISH GOVERNMENTS  which have been all governments since the passing of the 1972 Accession Act to the then supposed EEC need to destroy these FREEDOMS in order that we fit the pattern in the European Union.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE

And this attitude applies to anything which reminds the EU of Britain's past whether it is our historic regiments or what ever.

If it had not been for our long troublesome

HOUSE OF LORDS

our freedoms would have been spirited away by NOW!

*

10. FREEDOM FROM SUMMARY JUSTICE

ALONGSIDE

 the attack on

JURY TRIAL

modern British government has sought to move away from formal justice to an improvised system of

EXECUTIVE JUSTICE

thus sidestepping the

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

which has been the defining feature of the

BRITISH SYSTEM.

This kind of casual justice has been introduced for a variety of offences, for example hooliganism and shoplifting. The resultant move to fixed penalty notices means the suspects can buy their way out of the formal process of

PUNISHMENT

by paying a FINE.

As a result, shoplifting and some other offences are subject to

TAXATION

rather than

 CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.

 

*

 

IN a famous passage, the great 20th century historian AJP Taylor wrote that

'in August 1914, a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the

STATE

beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live were he liked and as he liked. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.'

ONLY 90 years have passed since he uttered those words and today the

OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

The growth of the

STATE

intrudes everywhere upon our lives and our

LIBERTIES

We must set boundaries

NOW!

or our

ANCIENT FREEDOMS

-the very things which define us as

 British

[ENGLISH]

-will be lost for ever.

 

*

 

OUR COMMENT

 

We need to take measures to dismantle the excessive interference of the

STATE

In other words reduce the numbers and the excuses for those millions to interfere in our lives.

Our HOUSE OF COMMONS should NOT BE FOR THE FEW it should be for the MANY. We advocate that MPs serve ONE TERM in PARLIAMENT thereby enabling thousands of people from ALL WALKS OF LIFE to SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.

 

The achievement of success should be judged on

LESS LAW

and

MORE COMMON SENSE.

Our parliamentary system  consists of  many members of parliament who look on the HOUSE as their bread basket and will do whatever they can to increase their share of the wealth and privileges of membership.

Of course there are a select few who are a credit to the hallowed chamber and they must NEVER be forgotten. But in the main our self-servers need to see some competition and many put out to grass.

ONLY

 

A change to a ONE TERM period of OFFICE will defuse the power grabbers and enable many to

SERVE THEIR COUNTRY

AND

 

PR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Will enable more subjects to serve their country not in their own interests but for their fellow subjects and

QUEEN and COUNTRY.

 

We in ENGLAND are at the crossroads of history in our nation's future as an INDEPENDENT NATION STATE we can either take account of our long illustrious history and remain FREE and have the ability to serve not only our own country but EUROPE and the WORLD.

or become just a PROVINCE of a supposed EUROPEAN UNION which is already showing signs of collapse after over 50 years.

For us and millions of subjects in our country the last option can NEVER be accepted. And if we must fight to protect that which is dear to us then

SO BE IT!

 

Our challenge will be the ancient call from

our northern neighbours who have their own historic moment in history when in

 1320

in their

Arbroath Manifesto

Sent by the nobles and Commons of Scotland

to the

Pope

stated:

 

'We fight not for glory, nor for wealth, nor for honour but for that freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.'

 

*

And over centuries and particularly over the past 100 years millions of our fellow subjects have laid down their lives rather than submit to

TYRANNY.

 

 

WE MUST NOT BRING SHAME ON THE SACRIFICES OF THE PAST.

 

*          *          *

 

A NEW REFORMATION

IN

EUROPE

 

Milton's Faith in England

 

No English writer in any age has ever expressed his faith in England with more impassioned ardour and greater eloquence than Milton...

Inspiring almost all that he wrote was his passionate concern for

LIBERTY

and second only to that love was his faith in the English people as having for many generations striven more valiantly to win

FREEDOM

and  valued it more highly than any other modern people. When a young man in Italy his Italian hosts professed to envy the

ENGLISHMEN'S FREEDOM

he "took it as a pledge of future happiness, that other nations were so persuaded of

ENGLAND'S LIBERTY" (B., II,82)

On his return to England in the summer of 1639 the great struggle for

CIVIL and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

was already imminent, and he was soon engaged on controversial writings. His prose treatises have long lost much of their topical interest.

 [until the advent of Tony Blair and his cohorts of destroyers of everything English and his successor's refusal to keep a promise

TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.]

... he bids the two nations English and Scots,

"never to be disunited" but to make common cause "settle the pure worship of God in his church, and justice in the state" (407)

..he asked his readers not to forget "what numbers of faithful and freeborn Englishmen" had gone overseas to find religious freedom which was denied them at home.

[In 2007 we can look back over ten years and see the flood of the English leaving their once free homeland for the freedom elsewhere in the world which the English and later the British had laid the foundations of liberty by their sacrifices in two World Wars in the 20th century and by their ancestors example in the years of the preceding centuries.]

The treatise ends with an eloquent prayer that God who did

"build up this Britannic empire to a glorious and enviable height, with all her daughter - islands about her," and had scattered the Spanish armada, may now, "stay us in this felicity" and

DELIVER ENGLAND FROM TYRANNY AT HOME.

[And that is our wish in October , 2007]

 

As a nation we have always turned our attention to tyranny abroad and have on many occasions in our long history either militarily or on many occasions used our respected diplomacy to achieve the good end and help those in need wherever they may be.

However , over the past decade the foreign policy of England has been poisoned by a man who few now wish to remember with his five wars and his illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Which returning to the work of Milton in his Epic

"PARADISE REGAINED"

'..what do these Worthies

But rob and spoil, burn and slaughter, and enslave

Peaceful nations, neighbouring, or remote,

Made Captive, yet deserving freedom more

Than those thir Conquerours, who leave behind

Nothing but ruin wheresoe're they rove

And all the flourishing works of peace destroy?'

(III,74.)

 

Today many of us have on our minds the tragedy of the Burmese people who have suffered the tyranny of Military Dictatorship for over four decades. Here again we call on John Milton to express in his own words on the barbaric happening to the protestant subjects of the Duke of Savoy in 1655.

 

'When they refused to quit their homes, the troops were sent to expel them, and the villages were laid waste and many of the inhabitants brutally murdered, while the survivors took to the snow-covered mountains.  The news of this cruelty stirred England profoundly.

The Protector [Oliver Cromwell], forgetful of the savageries practiced by his soldiers, five years before at Drogheda and Wexford, came forward as the champion of the Pietmontese.

...Partly as a result of Cromwell's representation and threats and partly French interposition the Duke restored the ancient rights by a treaty signed on 18th August, 1655.

Milton as poet [even though secretary to Cromwell] could vent his strong feelings in the most passionate of all his sonnets.

'Avenge, O Lord, thy Slaughtered Saints"

[We in England in October,2007 would not disagree with this statement. How much more we can do if we remain a FREE and INDEPENDENT NATION STATE than as a PROVINCE of EUROPE with our voice drowned by the multitude in BRUSSELS and BERLIN.]

 

Here, more than in the Latin letters Milton expressed the English mind, of his day and of posterity.

*

 

 

[Milton and the English Mind

by

F.E.Hutchinson

D.Litt., F.B.A.

HODDER  & STOUGHTON LTD

1946]

 

[The works of one of our greatest poets and prose writers John Milton are shown in countless places amongst our 1600 bulletins. We have many additions from Shakespeare; Wordsworth, and writers such as Samuel Johnson, John Wilks and many others who have played a great part in a

DEFENCE of ENGLAND.

*

Our last words are from John Milton and are prescient at this hour in a nation's story.

'Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant Nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her , invincible locks: methinks I see her as an Eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam; purging and unscaling her long-abused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly radiance; while the noise of timorous and flocking birds, with those that love the twilight, flutter about, amazed at what she [England] means, and in their envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms. (94.)

 

In his treatise Of Reformation (1641) he had written:

 

'The best-founded commonwealths and least barbarous have aimed at a certain mixture and temperament, partaking the several virtues of each other state...There is no civil government that have been known, no not even the Spartan, nor the Roman...more divinely and harmoniously tuned, more equally balanced as it were by the hand and scale of justice than is the commonwealth of England; where under a free and untutored monarch

, the noblest, worthiest, and most prudent men, with full approbation and suffrage, have in their power the supreme and final determination of highest affairs. (B.,II,408).

 

*

In his day John Milton commented:

Liberty had been put " like a bridle into the hands of the Parliament and Assembly.

also

Faction and favour carried the day, justice was delayed and then denied, and though there were some "men of wisdom and integrity" in Parliament, "the greatest part" proved unworthy of the confidence placed in them.

[sounds familiar to us in 2007-don't you think?]

Milton held that there was "in number little virtue, but the weight and measure wisdom working all things"

 

FREEDOM is,

 as always Milton's unremitting concern, but his experiences , both personal and political, have taught him that the only

FREEDOM WORTH HAVING is in obedience to the VOICE of REASON

 

'yet know withall,

Since thy original lapse, true Libertie

Is lost, which always with right Reason dwells

Twinn'd and from her hath no individual being:

Reason in man obscure'd, or not obeyed,

Immediately, inordinate desires

And upstart Passions catch the Government

From Reason, and to servitude reduce

Man till then free

(XII,82.)

And as it is with individuals, so it is with nations.

Yet sometimes nations will decline so low

From vertue, which is reason, that no wrong,

But Justice, and some fatal curse annext

Deprives them of thir libertie

Thir inward lost.'

(XII,97.)

As we are aware the past decade has seen a continuing slide into the abyss of the general moral degeneracy of our people from Politicians to the Public broadcasting to Business and the People at large and to top it all outside observers have concluded we are the unhappiness peoples in Europe and possibly in much of the World. The recent Daily Mail  COMMENT on the matter was an apt reminder and a warning. Milton was against censorship but he did believe that GOOD should be given a fair hearing as his works particularly his Epic work testifies. Some might say it is no longer fun to SIN because everyone is doing it . History has on record the decline of many nations who ignored -the writing on the walls -or something of that nature.

 

He further stated:

It was more just "that a less number compel a greater to retain their liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel the less, most injuriously to be their fellow slaves "

TIME WILL TELL IF WE WERE

as a people to ignore the warnings from our greatest war leader

 Winston Churchill

 

TOO LATE!

 

And in John Milton's words who like Samson in his "Samson Agonistes" , he had taken  impulsively a wife from the Philistines, he was afflicted with blindness, he had championed the deliverance of his people who in the end would rather have

"bondage with ease than strenuous liberty"

WE HOPE THIS IS NOT TRUE OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE IN OUR DAY

  9th November 2004

*          *          *

 

H.F.1393/1

 

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

By A.n. Wilson For The Daily Mail

 September 30- 2017

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

£520 BILLION

That's how much UK's mountain of

DEBT has COST

in

INTEREST

ALONE

in the past 17 years.

 
 

Britain's debt cost taxpayers £520 billion in interest

 by Hugo Duncan-Deputy Finance Editor

 | Daily Mail Online.

November 18,2017

 

Britain's colossal debt mountain has cost taxpayers £520 BILLION in interest payments since country last balanced the books
  • The national debt rose nearly six-fold from £317 billion to £1.8 trillion since 2000
  • Debt interest payments have cost about £21,000 per household in Britain
  • Figures pile pressure on Philip Hammond ahead of next week's crucial Budget 

 

Britain’s colossal debt mountain has cost taxpayers £520 billion in interest payments alone since the country last balanced the books nearly 20 years ago.

Profligate Chancellors have embarked on a borrowing binge since Britain was last in surplus in 2000-01 – pushing the national debt up nearly six-fold from £317 billion to £1.8 trillion.

Debt interest payments have totalled £520 billion over that period – or about £21,000 per household – leeching much-needed resources away from public services.

 

The figures pile pressure on chancellor Philip Hammond to control the nation's finances

The Government is due to spend another £41.5 billion servicing the debt this year – nearly as much as it spends on defence and more than the entire transport budget.

The figures pile pressure on Philip Hammond to get a grip on the nation’s finances in what is shaping up to be a crucial Budget for the Government next week.

The Chancellor is struggling to return Britain to the black by the middle of the next decade – leaving Britain facing the longest period of deficits since Napoleonic times. 

He is facing a barrage of demands for extra cash to increase funding for the NHS, give public sector workers a pay rise, ease the burden on students and kick-start housebuilding.

The Treasury is thought to have already rejected calls from Communities Secretary Sajid Javid to sanction a £50 billion housebuilding programme given the parlous state of the public finances.

But on current projections that money will be spent on debt interest payments in about 15 months. 

Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: ‘These figures make for depressing reading and reveal just how ineffective the Government’s attempts to get the public finances under control have been. Ever-accumulating debt is not the way to achieve a healthy economy.
 

The Treasury is thought to have already rejected calls from Communities Secretary Sajid Javid to sanction a £50 billion housebuilding scheme

‘The Government must ensure that fiscal responsibility is strengthened so future generations are not saddled with a mountain of debt.’

John O’Connell, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The Government’s addiction to overspending has been out of control for far too long. The scale of the debt is now so great that more than £40 billion will have to be spent on interest payments alone this year.

‘That’s money that could have gone on new hospitals, or scrapping beer duty and inheritance tax. Philip Hammond must ensure that his Budget puts Britain back on the path of sound finances.’

With the national debt spiralling towards £2 trillion, the Government is forecast to spend another £200 billion of taxpayers’ money on interest over the next five years.

But it is feared the debt bill could be even higher as high levels of inflation push up the cost of index-linked bonds and the Bank of England raises interest rates.

Mr Hammond has previously indicated he will aim to balance the books ‘by the middle of the next decade’.

But this means Britain may not run a surplus again until 2025, marking the longest period of consecutive deficits since the country was stuck in the red between 1793 and 1817.

Some fear the Chancellor could be preparing to use the Budget to give himself more time by indicating the public finances may not be back in balance before 2027.

Experts at the Institute of Economic Affairs warned earlier this year that the ‘irresponsibility cannot continue’.


 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5094829/Britain-s-debt-cost-taxpayers-520-BILLION-interest.html#ixzz4zXad1chn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

NOVEMBER 18, 2017

H.F.1395
 
WHAT

is the

POINT

of

ARCHBISHOP WELBY? 

 

What IS the point of Archbishop Welby? QUENTIN LETTS questions why the Church of England leader is giving his views on the economy rather than filling emptying pews

By Quentin Letts for the Daily Mail

September 6, 2017

 

Finding hope amid despair, a flicker of light in the blackest tunnel, is a key Christian virtue. Even so, for us proud Anglicans yesterday’s news about the latest churchgoing habits was pretty bleak.

The British Social Attitudes survey found the number of people who belong to a religion has for the first time dropped below half of the population.

Only 47 per cent of us now align ourselves with an organised religion and only 15 per cent say we follow the Church of England. Fifteen per cent!

As the U.S. novelist Raymond Chandler nearly said, it’s enough to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained-glass window. If only they would.
 

Cliches

Unfortunately, today’s bishops are too wet to be stirred to such action.

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, he only seems interested in issuing Left-wing cliches about Brexit and egalitarianism.

The fundamentals and the mysteries of belief never seem to pass the lips of this outwardly dull ex-oil executive.

Yesterday’s statistics suggest the C of E is in a dire state.

Here is a once mighty civilising influence, an institution which from the time of Henry VIII has helped mould our sense of national identity and the British character.

It has for 500 years helped the poor and spread ideas of mercy and justice. Its Book Of Common Prayer and King James Bibles are wonders of world literature. This most lyrically Protestant of Churches has for half a millennium defined laws and inner horizons on morality and mortality.

Now barely one in six of us admits to being an Anglican and more than half of us set our faces against any organised idea of the spiritual and transcendent.

In other words, when our loved ones die, more than 50 per cent of us stonily refuse to countenance any glimmer of optimism that their souls may have passed elsewhere, and accept some cold, ultra-rationalist view that we humans are no more than a mere bagatelle of skin and gristle, extinguished at death as surely as a guttering candle.

How did Archbishop Welby respond to yesterday’s depressing social attitudes figures?

I wish I could say he met this crisis head-on, saying he understood or disputed the findings. I wish I could tell you he knelt in Trafalgar Square in public penance, or issued a fire-and-brimstone sermon, or told a joke, or issued a blood-curdling curse on all our houses.

Today’s bishops are too wet to be stirred to such action.

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, he only seems interested in issuing Left-wing cliches about Brexit and egalitarianism.

The fundamentals and the mysteries of belief never seem to pass the lips of this outwardly dull ex-oil executive.

Yesterday’s statistics suggest the C of E is in a dire state.

Here is a once mighty civilising influence, an institution which from the time of Henry VIII has helped mould our sense of national identity and the British character.

It has for 500 years helped the poor and spread ideas of mercy and justice. Its Book Of Common Prayer and King James Bibles are wonders of world literature. This most lyrically Protestant of Churches has for half a millennium defined laws and inner horizons on morality and mortality.

Now barely one in six of us admits to being an Anglican and more than half of us set our faces against any organised idea of the spiritual and transcendent.

In other words, when our loved ones die, more than 50 per cent of us stonily refuse to countenance any glimmer of optimism that their souls may have passed elsewhere, and accept some cold, ultra-rationalist view that we humans are no more than a mere bagatelle of skin and gristle, extinguished at death as surely as a guttering candle.

How did Archbishop Welby respond to yesterday’s depressing social attitudes figures?

I wish I could say he met this crisis head-on, saying he understood or disputed the findings. I wish I could tell you he knelt in Trafalgar Square in public penance, or issued a fire-and-brimstone sermon, or told a joke, or issued a blood-curdling curse on all our houses.

Instead, he gave us his views on . . . the economy. He was putting his name to a report by a Blairite think-tank about economic justice and telling us (not that anyone was listening) Britain’s ‘economic model is broken’ and ‘we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need’.

Oh, and he was writing an opinion article for the Financial Times. That’s really going to bring in the faithful.

The report promoted yesterday by Welby had all the usual buzzwords and phrases of the London centre-Left: social commission . . . gap between rich and poor . . . new vision for the economy . . . zzzzzz.

If there is anything deader than the Church of England it is the language of our patronising, technocratic, liberal Archbishop Welby, fiddling as Christian England burns.

As a deputy warden of a (healthy) Herefordshire church and the husband of a country-church organist, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry or rage, like some helmeted Crusader, at my Church’s travails.

Most of my fellow congregants will probably just fall back on the numb hope that in due course, as has been the way in history, churchgoing attitudes will change and the British people will again start asking themselves questions about death and the daunting hereafter.

It happened in the Dark Ages and in the 19th century, when congregations revived. But history does not always repeat itself and this is no time for complacency. If trends continue, we could face the effective disappearance of Christianity from these islands. What will replace it? Islam?

The Anglican hierarchy should formulate a plan to stem this decline in church attendances, but is pathetically ill-matched to the task.

Some might ask: what is the point of the Church of England? But it boils down, in the short term, to something more awkwardly personal: What is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I have never met Justin Welby. I suspect he is a godly and devout and honourable man.

The tragedy is he cannot radiate those qualities. I know it is uncharitable to say, but he is proving a dud. A non-event.

He’s a Blairite/Cameroon archbishop for a Brexit/Trump/Corbyn age.

His activities yesterday said it all. Instead of concentrating on his day job — trying to fill emptying pews — he was filling his time with the Institute for Public Policy Research, a Centrist Establishment body loved by New Labour.

 Snooty ...
 

Woeful...

 

The bishops are out of step with many Anglican churchgoers on Brexit. After last year’s EU referendum, one Sunday we were lectured with an episcopal letter saying what a disaster it was.

I don’t suppose a single person in church that day agreed with our bishop on the matter — yet we had this political view rammed down our gullets in the name of religion.

What the heck has Brexit got to do with religion?

Margaret Thatcher (another churchgoer snobbishly alienated by senior Anglicans) said if you stand in the middle of the road, you will be run down from both directions.

The same is true in ecclesiastical leadership. In recent decades, top Anglicans have been terrified of being outspoken, one way or the other. Apologised almost for their own shadows. They have wrung their hands instead of wringing our withers.

And how topsy-turvy things have become. Even yesterday, while Welby droned on about the economy, Tory ex-leader Iain Duncan Smith and 43 other MPs were talking about a need for Britain to devote more importance to family life. We seldom hear such forthright words from the priesthood.

I believe the Church of England will survive and prosper. It will do so from two ends of the spectrum — its evangelical and its traditional wings, which both offer a clear view.

The one part of Anglicanism doomed to failure, alas, is the Centrist element personified by its current leader,

*
Full article

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4856284/What-point-Archbishop-Welby.html#ixzz4s0OvT4UB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*

[ADDITIONS ARE OURS!]

 

 

 

*

 

 

'The distinction between Christianity and all other systems of religion consists largely in this, that in these others men are found seeking after God, while Christianity is God seeking after men.'-

THOMAS  ARNOLD

 

*

 

'Christianity is the basis of republican  government, its bond of cohesion, and its life-giving law.-More than the Magna Carta itself the Gospels are the roots iof English liberty.- That Magna Carta, and the Petition of Right, with our completing Declaration, was possible only because the Gospels had been before them.'-

 

R.S.Storrs-   American clergyman (1821-1900)

 

 

*

'Christianity is not a theory or speculation, but a life; not a philosophy of life, but a life and a living process'-

 

COLERIDGE

*

'Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.'-

De Tocqueville

*

'Give Christianity, a common law trial; submit the evidence pro and con to an impartial jury under the direction of a competant court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favour.'-

 Chief Justice Gibson

*

'There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness as the Christian religion doth,-

BACON

*

'Christianity is the only system of faith which combines religious beliefs wity corresponding principles of morality.-It builds ethics on religion.'-

A. PHELPS

*

 
  A MESSAGE FROM 1938 AS TRUE TODAY IN 2017

ENGLAND

EPILOGUE

WILLIAM RALPH INGE - DEAN of ST PAULS

1938

Christianity is the generic name of a number of different religions, some of which have only an adventitious connexion with the Gospel of Christ.  Genuine religious revivals occur from time to time, and have a starting, but short-lived, popular success. They are difficult to predict, and they seem more congenial to the so-called Celtic temperament, for example in Wales, than  to the more stolid character of the English. There are no signs at all that any outburst of religious enthusiasm is likely to occur in England in the twentieth century.  Superficially, the organized religious  bodies seem to be slowly losing ground.  The emancipation of women, and the education which they now receive, have assimilated their mental outlook to that of men, and this has been injurious to the interests of institutional religion, much more in the north of Europe than in the Latin countries, where the position of women has changed less.  These tendencies have led many  to expect a gradual disappearance of religion from its age-long position as one of the most potent factors in social life.  In much of our most modern literature it is simply left out of account.  But a serious thinker, whatever his personal convictions, will be slow to believe in such a rapid and subversive change in human nature.   He may even doubt whether the decay of Christianity has not been much more apparent than real.  The essence of Christianity is, as Nietzsche said, a "transvaluation of all values," a conviction about the position of man in relation to the unseen Divine Power who made and governs the universe.  It is essentially a religious idealism, which traces its origins to a historical revelation. It appeals very strongly to those who are susceptible to such a call, but, as its Founder repeatedly warned his disciples, it is never likely to be acceptable to the majority.   The Believers were to be the salt of the earth, or like leaven hid in three measures of meal.

 "The Spirit of Truth" is a Spirit whom "the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not neither knoweth him."

The Church, however, was not long content to appeal to the anima naturaliter Christiana, or to the penitent sinner who often has the makings of a saint.   It issued irreligious appeals, in the form of lurid threats and gorgeous promises, to the irreligious, and by a means of unholy alliances with the secular arm became, at least nominally, the creed of everybody.   But it is the law that a religion which gains power by non-religious methods [ As do Muslim Fundamentalists in Mosques in England in 2017 with their aim of a ISLAMIC STATE] invariably uses it for non-religious ends.  Church history in the so-called ages of faith presents a most unedifying spectacle.  What  has happened in our day (1938)  is  that these non-religious appeals have lost their cogency.   Partly from discoveries in natural science, but still more from the growth of the scientific attitude in weighing evidence, the materialistic pictures of bliss and torment, which once produced a certain effect, are now either rejected or interpreted in a very symbolical sense.   Deprived of these weapons, the Church has proceeded to secularize itself, and to present the Gospel as ca prophecy of " a good time coming" in this world. 

 But this is quite obviously not Christianity, and the laity do not like  the priest in politics.

So the Churches against their will, are thrown back upon their real message and their own business.

There  is no reason to think that the strictly religious appeal of

CHRISTIANITY

is less powerful than it ever was; but , as always, it is an appeal which does not attract the majority.

The proper attitude of the Church is frankly to accept this position, which is that of the Founder himself, and to find its usefulness in steadily holding before the nation a heroic and noble ideal of belief and conduct, in contrast with the secularity, greed, and hypocrisy of society in general.  So purified from extraneous accretions, Christianity may in the future exercise an incalculably beneficent influence upon the life of the nation, and may win the allegiance of many who at present stand aloof from it.

(Pages 299/300.)

 

H.F.1303

 

How BRITAIN is turning

 CHRISTIANITY into a CRIME.

*

Daily Mail

Thursday, September 7, 2006.

 

How Britain

Is turning

Christianity

Into a CRIME.

by

Melanie

Phillips

 

AS AN EVANGELIST IS ARRESTED FOR HANDING OUT BIBLE VERSES.

 

HOW long will it be before Christianity becomes illegal in Britain?

This is no longer the utterly absurd and offensive question that on first blush it would appear to be.

 

An evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green was arrested and charged last weekend with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

 

So what was this behaviour?

 

Merely trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a gay rally in Cardiff. So what was printed on these leaflets that was so threatening, abusive or insulting that it attracted the full force of the

LAW?

 

Why none other than the majestic words of the 1611 King James Bible.

 

The problem was that they were bits of the Bible which forbid homosexuality. The leaflets also urged homosexuals to ‘turn from their sins and you will be saved’.

 

But to the secular priests of the human rights culture, the only sin is to say that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Admittedly, Mr Green is not everyone’s cup of tea; other Christians regard him as extreme. But our society is now so upside-down that by doing nothing more than upholding a fundamental tenet of

Christianity-

 he was treated like a

Criminal.

 

And yet at the same time, the police are still studiously refusing to act against Islamic zealots abusing British freedom to preach hatred and incitement against the West.

 

Prejudice.

THE Bible is the moral code that underpins our civilisation. Yet the logic of the police action against

 Mr Green surely leads ultimately to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible itself is ‘hate speech’ and must be banned.

This bizarre state of affairs has arisen thanks to the Human rights culture which automatically champions minorities against the majority.

 As a result, no one can say anything disobliging about a minority which out being accused of prejudice or discrimination.

 

The problem for Christianity is that it holds that homosexuality is wrong. This, however, it is no longer allowed to say because it treats a minority practice as sinful.  So it can no longer uphold a central tenet of its own faith without being accused of prejudice.

 

This dilemma is currently tearing apart the

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

- itself. But it is also turning our whole notion of

JUSTICE

 -on its head.

 

Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents.

 

The former leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, also had his collar felt by police after he said that homosexuality was harmful.

 

Notably in his case the matter was swiftly dropped. If there’s one thing that terrifies our PC police even more than being called homophobic, it’s being called Islamophobic – even though Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people.

 

If this wasn’t all so frightening, it would be hilarious.

 

Christians by contrast, get very different treatment. An elderly evangelical preacher Harry Hammond was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality.

 

Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted.

 

And Lancashire pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts were interrogated by police for 80 minutes about their ‘homophobic views after they had merely asked their local council to display Christian literature alongside gay leaflets in civic buildings.

 

Bullying

 

Christianity is fast becoming a creed that dare not speak its name. It is being written out of the national script by ideologies seeking to hasten its disappearance.

Yesterday, the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said in a radio interview that Britain was ‘no longer a Christian country’ because people no longer went to church.

 

Local authorities and government bodies are systematically bulling Christianity out of existence by refusing to fund Christian voluntary groups on the grounds that to be Christian means that they are not committed

 - to ‘diversity’.

 

Thus local and central government refused to replicate the vocational training provided by the Highfields Happy Hens Centre in Derbyshire for young offenders and pupils excluded from school despite its impressive record of success, simply because it was run with a clear Christian ethos.

 

Norfolk County Council objected to the inclusion of the word ‘Christian’ in the constitution of Barnabas House in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which houses homeless young men.

 

And the Housing Corporation the major funder of Romford YMCA in Essex which looks after hundreds of needy young people, objected to the fact that only Christians were board members – It said, that the YMCA was not capable of ‘diversity’, even though it was open to all faiths and none.

 

THE ‘diversity’ agenda, in other words , is a fig-leaf for an attack on

CHRISTANITY.

And to cap it all, we can no longer rely on our future monarch to hold the line, since

PRINCE CHARLES

– has said that when he becomes King he will no longer be

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

 - but ‘defender of faith’

 

BUT Christianity is STILL the official religion of this COUNTRY.

 

All its INSTITUTIONS, its HISTORY and its CULTURE are suffused with IT;

Britain would loose its IDENTITY –its VALUES and its COHESION without IT.

 

BUT ‘MINORITY RIGHTS’ are now being wielded against it like a wrecking ball.

 

What started as a commendable desire to ban hatred of the gay minority has morphed into a hatred of the

CHRISTIAN MAJORITY.

 

Behaviour which was previously considered to transgress the moral norms of the BIBLE has now instead become the norm – and it is as biblical values that are treated as beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour.

 

THIS IS NO ACCIDENT.

 

The sacred doctrine of human rights – which explicitly sets ITSELF up as the RELIGION for a GODLESS age – is the means by which SECULARISM is steadily attacking the

CHRISTIAN roots of OUR CIVILISATION.

 - on the basis the religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive.

 

Christianity has been dethroned as this country’s governing creed on the basis that equality demands equal status for minority faiths [Including Devil worship and other cults] and secularism. As a result, it is being marginalised as no more than a quaint cultural curiosity.

 

Offensive

 

It is a process before which the Church of England has long been on its knees, going with the flow of moral and cultural collapse in accordance with the doctrine of

MULTICULTURALISM

And then wondering WHY its churches are so empty, while those of uncompromising evangelicals such as

STEPHEN GREEN

- are packed to the rafters.

 

As a result, Christianity is being steadily removed from the public sphere. Various councils have banned

CHRISTMAS

-on the grounds that it is ‘too’

CHRISTIAN

-and therefore ‘offensive to peoples of other faiths, and are replacing it with meaningless

‘WINTER FESTIVALS.

 

This ATTACK on CHRISTIANITY is not merely something that seems straight out of

ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

 

It is not merely a threat to

FREEDOM of SPEECH

AND

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ONSLAUGHT ON THE

NATIONAL IDENTITY

AND

BEDROCK VALUES

OF THIS COUNTRY

AND AS SUCH WILL

DESTROY

THOSE

FREEDOMS

WHICH
CHRISTIANITY

ITSELF
FIRST

CREATED.

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

SEPTEMBER/06

 

 

*          *          *

 

[Though our viewers will be of many FAITHS or NONE the threat to the hard won right to Freedom of Speech and Expression must be safeguarded for ALL who protest peacefully. With the recent persecution of Stephen Green of Christian Voice for distributing verses of the Holy Bible and for the many others under threat for preaching the Gospel of Jesus we bring to you the words of the saintly Thomas a Kempis.

 

‘Carry the cross patiently and with perfect submission; and in the end it shall carry you.’

(1380-1471)

 

A recent survey of EU countries showed that Catholic countries had a happier population though not all being among the richest nations. Their priorities where in the

FAMILY and the CHURCH.

 

Britain was well down the list.]

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

SEPTEMBER/06

H.F1369-B483   Brought Forward FROM SEPTEMBER/06

If this article makes you angry how can you argue that Multiculturalism is not designed to polarize society?

E Pluribus Unum?

 

This is banned but separation is not

Multiculturalism is the policy of encouraging the separate development of several cultures within a nation state. It is not about having Curry Houses and Balti restaurants, these just make for a varied national culture, it is not about hip hop or the Chinese New Year, multiculturalism is about encouraging people from different backgrounds to develop separately from the rest of society. Multiculturalism is not about diversity, it is a political movement with a clear and deliberate policy of deconstructing national cultures in favour of many separate cultures. It is a sad truth that 90% of those who say they support multiculturalism are actually anti-racist and pro-diversity: they have got no idea that when they say they support "multiculturalism" they are supporting a subversive political and philosophical movement within Western countries. It is probably the support of this ignorant faction that has allowed Multiculturalism, which is another word for "separate development" (in Afrikaans 'apartheid'), to become so embedded in Britain.

 

 

Multiculturalism in Britain was a policy implemented by New Labour with the intention of creating a revolutionary tension and change in society. It was a Soviet policy that was released in instruction packs distributed to the various, subversive, university "socialist societies" in the nineteen seventies, at the height of the Cold War. The policy was intended to destabilise the West. (See The Roots of New Labour). It failed in its primary objective because the British are a tolerant culture. It is amazing that British journalists, especially in the television media and BBC, have supported this policy with such zeal although this is probably due to the fact that many of these individuals also have roots in the British left wing movements of the 1970s and that multiculturalism is now seen as an 'answer' to how to accommodate nationalities within political unions such as the EU, Russian Empire and Chinese Empire.

Multiculturalism was more fully characterised in the work of the philosopher Jacques Derrida who proposed that the polarization of society should be an objective of social policy. Derrida was a malevolent force in modern philosophy whose ideas were largely designed to damage social structures. Curiously governments have permitted the appointment of post Marxist post modernists who support the ideas of Derrida to chairs in sociology and education in western universities so that social policy is now being guided by many people who believe that the objective of social policy should be the destruction of a structured society.  Political commentators have not realised that socialism now relies on racial tension, not class war, to exacerbate political difference and create conflict (see Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism).

Apart from the obvious ill-effects of polarising people into ghettoes and opposing groups Multiculturalism also has some serious adverse effects that result from the fact that almost all non-western cultures have not undergone the changes that result from exposure to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Examples of the adverse effects of multiculturalism are: failure to identify with society at large, socialising solely with your co-religionists so depriving others in the neighbourhood of society, supporting the caste system and caste attitudes so that the poor are kept poor, excluding people from outside your culture from work, girls wearing restrictive clothing in school so that they cannot participate in the full range of lessons, forced marriage, setting up schools to teach Intelligent Design or Koranic ideas on biology so depriving children of a truthful education, supporting foreign powers against your own country so endangering our security etc. All of these adverse effects of multiculturalism and many, many more are evident in British life. The socialist elite argues that separate cultures within the UK should be encouraged to exercise these "freedoms" but each freedom that is encouraged within a separate culture deprives the whole of British society of other freedoms. Those who support multiculturalism generally just deny that these adverse effects will occur but some, such as the effects of restrictive clothing in young girls and the effects of a caste system etc. are simply inevitable because they are in the nature of those "freedoms".

Multicultural policies are apparent in a variety of institutions and exist wherever the intention is to increase the polarization and separation of people rather than to reduce it. The teaching of history in British schools has been heavily infiltrated and oriented towards polarization, for instance British children are taught about slavery and colonisation rather than about emancipation and the explosive development of European states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They are taught about the US Civil Rights movement, which has nothing to do with the British but upsets black people, rather than the peaceful decolonisation of much of the British Empire. They are taught about the persecution of the Jews rather than the heroic struggle of the British and the global British cultural zone against the Germans, Russians and their allies that saved the Jews. Some of the legislation that treats groups of people as minorities and victims also polarizes society. The recent extensions to Equalities legislation in the Equalities Act that outlaw political discussion about belief are also designed to polarize society.

The social tension caused by multiculturalism must now be repaired and wholesale immigration into the UK, which is already overcrowded, must be stopped (See The benefits of immigration to the UK economy). Multiculturalism has already caused the outbreaks of terrorism associated with Londonistan (many of the 9/11 terrorists stayed in the UK and the 7/7 terrorists were British) and will lead to worse problems as time goes on.

The coalition government has taken a sensible stand against multiculturalism (see State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron). The government should be supported in this stand and the New Labour appointed BBC governors and current affairs staff should be quietly removed to prevent the distorted coverage of the issue. Governments should oppose both institutional multiculturalism and institutional racism because apartheid is both a cause and a symptom of racism.

Many races in one culture is workable and may be desirable but separating the races into cultural ghettos will polarise society and cause perpetual strife, though not a full blown revolution and totalitarian government, as the originators of multiculturalism once hoped. It is time to finally cauterise the damage done to the social fabric of Britain by the Cold War and to move on to realist, liberal politics.

Multiculturalism has recently been adopted by those who are in favour of large scale political unions such as the EU as a desperate approach to the problem of the free movement of labour and how to contain multiple nationalities within a single state. This problem could be resolved by simply unwinding the EU back to the EEC without the destructive effects of multiculturalism.

If we continue with Multiculturalism we will end up with tribalism with all that that entails from corruption to nepotism to gangs, riots and terrorism.

The whole point of a modern nation with one culture was to stop these evils. Nations are the unit of cultural diversity and this must be respected.

See also:

 The Roots of New Labour

Labour confirms that multiculturalism is bad

 Diversity in the UK

 A ranking of social evils 

Multiculturalism and truth

 Nations are the unit of cultural diversity  

The Benefits of Immigration to the UK Economy

Against racism

 The aims of Localism

 

 

 

 

 H.F.718/MULTICULTURALISM

 

 

 

Why standing up for Christmas 'will help defeat extremism

by Steve Doughty-

Daily Mail-Social Affairs Correspondent

September 9-2016

' Miss Casey finally said in the article above: '

I have become convinced that it is only the upholding of our core British [English] laws, cultures, values and traditions that will offer us the route through the different and complex challenge of creating a

 COHESIVE SOCIETY.

Full article

 

 

 CHRISTIANITY AND MARRIAGE AND THE STATE**** GAMBLING AND ETHICS****CHRISTIANITY,THE PEOPLE, AND ETHICS****IMMIGRATION POLICY**** CHRISTIANITY IS MORE THAN A RELIGION_IT IS THE MAIN CULTURAL FORCE_WHICH MAKES US WHAT WE ARE****CHRISTIAN BELIEFS UNDER ATTACK BY EU'S PARLIAMENT IS INTELLECTUAL NAZISM**** A DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY BY A ONCE AGNOSTIC****WHO CARES ABOUT MORALITY****DEMOCRACY WITHOUT MORALITY AND RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUALITY IS DESPOTISM****THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO MANY RELIGIOUS CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE****THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE BACKBONE OF CHRISTIANITY****CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN SPEAKS ON TAX BILLS-FOREIGN POLICY-PEACE-AND THE POWER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS****OURS MIGHT BE A STRONGER AND HAPPIER SOCIETY IF CHRISTIANS WERE READIER TO DEFEND THEIR VALUES****SUNDAY SCHOOL CAN SAVE CHILDREN FROM DELINQUENCY-SAYS BISHOP****OUR CHRISTIAN FESTIVAL OF EASTER WHICH MANY KNOW SO LITTLE AND SOME NONE****

AN AGE WHEN ALL FAITHS ARE EQUAL-EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY****

LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN-by -MICHAEL NAZIR ALI-BISHOP OF ROCHESTER-DEC-2006****

 

WHY WE MUST REMAIN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY

 

 

O COME ALL YE FAITHFUL…

EXCEPT CHRISTIANS.

 

 

 

*   *   *

 

FREEDOM

 

 

[At the REFERENDUM  the greater number of REMAINERS  in WALES and SCOTLAND... voted in effect to LOSE THEIR IDENTITY because being within the nation state destroyer  - Hitler's planned EU - would see eventually by the devious art of gradualism, the lose of much they hold dear. If there was one nation which should have stood against the EU then Scotland gave its answer in the year 1320 in their Arbroath Manifesto sent by the nobles and Commons of Scotland to the Pope in Rome.

'We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor for honour but for that freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.'

Even in 1707 many Scotsmen were against losing their heritage but they retained their LAWS and KIRK and greater possibilities for TRADE  the TREATY was signed.

In JUNE 2016  the majority in Scotland voted to stay within the

CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC EU

and the attitude no doubt was simply

WHAT CAN I GET OUT OF IT?

We have always stated in our

 EDP policy

'That all the NATION STATES within the BRITISH ISLES should be FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES with FOREIGN POLICY and DEFENCE the matter for a SUPREME ISLAND COUNCIL...']

ALFRED- CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-

*

Why can’t we have the right to be

English?

 

by

 

Paul Johnson

 

 

ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ON SHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY

 

Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND? ****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WHERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****    ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY / ****    ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/****ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ON SHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****  THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

SEPTEMBER 9,2016

H.F.971 BREXIT NOW

You Can’t Separate Politics and Morals.

*

Daily Mail

Thursday, May 11-2006.

by

Stephen Glover

 

TONY BLAIR’S Cabinet reshuffle is predictably already running into difficulties. Ruth Kelly, who has taken over John Prescott’s several ministerial responsibilities, is being attacked on two fronts.

 

On the one hand, it is pointed out that her criticism of middle-class families who resist government plans to build new homes sits unhappily with her opposition to a string of new housing developments in her own constituency. As Local Government Minister, Ms Kelly is now in charge of planning regulations.

 

At the same time, she is attracting even greater flak from the gay lobby. For reasons difficult to fathom, in addition to her local government portfolio she is also described as Equality Minister. This means that she is supposed to ensure that we all have equal rights.

 

Because she is a member of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic movement that has explicitly criticised homosexual liaisons, it is suggested that she is unlikely to give homosexuals a fair crack of the whip.

 

There is little doubt that Ms Kelly accepts the opus Dei line on homosexuality. When asked whether it is a sin, she has refused to give a straight answer. In the Commons, she has missed a total of 12 votes on homosexuality since 1997.

 

In May 2002, she voted for an amendment to a Bill that would have allowed unmarried heterosexuals couples to adopt while excluding same-sex couples.

 

Millions of people will be secretly, or not so secretly in agreement with Ms Kelly’s views. Until 40 or 50 years ago, they would have been held by the vast majority. The Gay lobby is too eager to paint her as an antediluvian nutter.

 

BUT what concerns me are not the rights or wrongs of her views BUT her defence of them. On Radio Five Live two days ago, she again refused to say whether she considered homosexuality a sin. This is what she said:

 

‘I don’t think its right for politicians to start making moral judgments about people…What I think the question is, is what are my political views…As a politician I think everyone should be free from discrimination.

 

IN OTHER WORDS, Ms Kelly is specifically separating politics from morals. She has her moral views, and she has her political ones. Morally, it is pretty clear she is opposed to homosexuality. She could hardly not be, given the position of Opus Dei, indeed of current Roman Catholic Church teaching. According to Jack Valero, a spokesman for Opus Dei in Britain:

 

‘Homosexuality is a condition that people can’t help, but the homosexual act is sinful.’

 

YET while holding this moral view Ms Kelly also says that she believes homosexuals should enjoy equal rights.

 

Why does she think this?

 

The likely answer is because it is a political necessity for her to do so if she is to retain HIGH OFFICE.

 

She believes one thing; she then acts in a way at odds with that belief.

 

Many of us have conflicting views in our minds at the same time, or behave in a manner that is at variance with our beliefs. It is certainly common for people who have moral misgivings about homosexuality to treat individual homosexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals.

 

This is partly a question of politeness and partly a matter of social survival. We could hardly get by in life if we were to get on our moral high horse every time we encountered people of whose behaviour we might privately disapprove.

 

But what might be forgivable, or at least understandable, in our own relations with others cannot be so easily excused in a high politician who wields great power.

 

A minister who believes that morality and politics are separate and mutually exclusive activities is liable to act in a bad and possibly dangerous way. At its most extreme, this sort of dislocation enabled a man like Albert Speer, who certainly had a moral sense, to condone or ignore the barbarities of the Nazi regime in which he was a senior minister.

 

In an admittedly far less dramatic way, isn’t this divorce of the moral from the political one of the defining features of New Labour?

 

Tony Blair presents himself as a highly moral, Christian person whose well-thumbed copy of the New Testament [let alone the Koran] is never far from his side. YET he displays a love of wealth that is hardly a central tenet of Christian belief; and, as this country has learnt to its cost over Iraq, he has a very contingent attitude to TRUTH.

 

MORALITY, for Blair and Ruth Kelly, is conveniently a private affair. In the harsh light of political reality, both of them are ready to disregard their moral precepts or, most spectacularly in the case of Mr Blair, to act counter to them while still - preposterously- claiming the MORAL HIGH GROUND.

 

OF COURSE, I do not say that politics is only a matter of MORALITY, only that the two should not be treated as though they have nothing to do with each other.

 

There are many humdrum political issues, which seem far removed from moral concerns:

 

Ms Kelly’s belief that we should build more houses in the [already] overcrowded South East cannot be said to be more or less moral than the opposing view.

 

Other issues more obviously engage our moral values.

 

Should there be a Death Penalty?

 

Should we alter the Abortion Laws?

 

Is the re-distribution of Wealth desirable?

 

When is War justified?

 

In all these cases there is scope for equally moral people to disagree, or even to arrive at opposite conclusions. What we can ask of OUR politicians, though, is that when they confront these issues they should do so in a way that is consistent with THEIR sense of MORALITY.

 

If Me Blair had done this, he would NOT have taken us to WAR over IRAQ on a massive LIE, or worshipped at the shrine of the appalling Silvio Berlusconi.

 

And it is surely an indication of some sort of MORAL lapse in Ms Kelly for her to propose a policy, namely the relaxation of building controls and the building of more houses, after objecting to similar developments near her own home on many previous occasions, the last as recently as April 2004.

 

We are entitled to change our minds, but when a minister so suddenly revokes her previous approach, we are bound to suspect her of acting out of low political motives.

 

Whether she is right or wrong about homosexuality is not the issue.

 

Ms Kelly believes that homosexual acts are wrong. She therefore presumably believes that homosexuals CANNOT enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. And YET she is required in her new office to ensure THAT THEY DO SO.

 

This suggests to me either that Ruth Kelly is rather stupid, which in view of her high intellectual attainments may seem an unlikely theory. OR, more plausible, she is potentially dangerous, and characteristically Blairite, sort of hypocrite, holding to one set of beliefs while she gaily - no pun intended- contradicts them in the pursuit of power.

 

* *

 

Over 100 years ago a Prime Minister of England - William Ewart Gladstone was acclaimed for his

Moral stance, which were ingrained into his character. The following words are from John Morley’s Life of Gladstone.

 

‘He was one of the three statesmen in the House of Commons of his generation who had a gift of large and spacious conception of the place and power of England in the world, and of the policies by which she could maintain it. Cobden and Disraeli were the other two’.

 

On his day after his death, in each of the two Houses the leader made the motion, identical in language in both cases save the final words about the financial provision in the resolution of the Commons: -

 

 

That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be interred at the public charge, and that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster, with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment and of the high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in parliament and in great offices of state, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

*

The language of the movers was worthy of the British parliament at its best, worthy of the station of those who used it, and worthy of the figure commemorated. Lord Salisbury was thought by most to go nearest to the core of solemnity: -

 

What is the cause of this unanimous feel? Of course, he had qualities that distinguished him from other men; and you may say that it was his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, and the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and convictions of his contemporaries

 

But these things, which explain the attachment, the adoration of those whose ideas he represented, would not explain why it is that sentiments almost fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas were not carried by his policy.

 

My Lords, I do not see the reason is to be found in anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and controversial questions of the policy of the day. They had nothing to do with it.

 

Whether he was right or whether he was wrong, in all measures, or in most of the measures which he proposed - those are matters of which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate here; they are really remitted to the judgment of future generations, who will securely judge from experience what we can only decide by forecast.

 

It was on account of considerations more common to the masses of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any controversial questions of policy that men recognised in him a man guided - whether under mistaken impressions or not, it matters not - but guided in all the steps he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal.

 

What he sought were the attainments of great ideals, and whether they were based on sound convictions or not, they could have issued from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he is honoured by his countrymen, because through so many years, across so many vicissitudes and conflicts, they had recognised this one characteristic of his action, which never ceased to be felt.

 

He will leave behind him, especially to those who have followed with deep interest the history of the later years - I might almost say the later months of his life -he will leave behind him the memory of a great Christian statesman.

 

Set up necessarily on high - the sight of his character, his motives, and his intentions would strike the entire world. They will have left a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be remembered not so much for causes in which he was engaged or the political projects which he favoured, but as a great example, to which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian man.

 

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE

 

Feb 18 -1897- Returns to London from Cannes

 

Feb 22- Goes to Bournemouth

 

March 22- Death of Mr Gladstone

 

March 26, 27- Lying in State in Westminster Hall

 

March 28 -Burial in Westminster Abbey.

 

 

* * *

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

MAY/06

 

H.F1346-B450----Brought-Forward from MAY/06

Multiculturalism: not only a Fraud- but also Dangerous.

 

All cultures are not equal, insists Dr Frank Ellis, University of Leeds. To pretend otherwise, he argues, is destructive of Order and Prosperity.

*

The following article appeared in the Politics section of the Freedom Today-Vol 23 Issue 1 in February 1998. The Chairman was the late

Norris McWhirter

 sadly missed by many last year and who was the standard bearer of Freedom Today with others who have taken on the supreme mantle of the voice of the Journal of the Freedom Association. (www.tfa.net)

[A representative of the EDP was present with Norris McWhirter at the  handing over to a representative of the Queen at the rear of Buckingham Palace  the PETITION of 900,000 signatures-later increased to 1,000,000 requesting that the 'Peoples Voice 'would be heard?-IT WASN'T!]

 

Before we proceed with the article we find in the same issue of Freedom Today of the York protest programme-the Anti-Maastrict Alliance which we attended 19 and 22nd March with many other demonstrators to voice our grave displeasure to such an intended Treaty.

 

Unique co-operation

 

All the British anti-federalist groups including the Freedom Association co-operated in the York ECOFIN events. Meetings were held to co-ordinate the activities of all the organisations taking part -as they do today under the ‘Battle for Britain’.

 

Lord Tebbit and( the late) Lord Shore

 

The main event organised by the umbrella group, the Anti-Maastrict Alliance met in the evening of Thursday 19 March 1998. Lord Tebbit, Lord Shore and other distinguished speakers, addressed the meeting at 7pm.

 

* * *

Returning to the subject of Multiculturalism, which has now at the eleventh hour, has been now disowned by many in the Labour camp (details on our web-site) we continue:

 

For too long we have had the touchy-feely platitudes of multiculturalists stuffed down our throats, so Lord Tebbit’s remarks at the last autumn’s Conservative Party Conference (1998) were a welcome dose of bitter lemon to counteract the saccharine.

 

Multiculturalism is a fraud. It is an extension of Marxism, based on the assumption that all cultures are more or less the same, and that no single culture can, or should, be held in greater esteem than another.

 

This relativistic proposition totally ignores the massive discrepancy in achievements and success among various cultures. Judgment of any kind is, of course, to be feared, since judgment separates the wheat from the chaff.

 

Senior position.

 

All cultures are not equal. There is a hierarchy of excellence, and western culture occupies the senior position. Currently it has no serious rivals. Whether the West will still occupy the senior position in a hundred years is another matter entirely.

 

If the collective frauds perpetrated in the name of equality are not arrested and reversed, then the chances are that the West, as a cultural and intellectual entity, will fall to pieces, or be torn to pieces by bitter internal divisions, or will succumb to external foes (written in 1998).

 

Those who hate the West and its stunning achievements, and American and British universities are full of such types (curiously they are sometimes referred to as ‘intellectuals’), naturally hope to see the whole Western cultural enterprise fall apart. They were bitterly disappointed about the outcome of the Cold War and their bitterness and self-loathing fuels their advocacy of multiculturalism. They know full well that multiculturalism is destructive of order and prosperity, which is why they back it.

 

Incentives to achievement.

 

Cultures can indeed be judged. Successful ones are open to new ideas. They respect historical fact and maintain accurate records. Property rights are recognised and secure. Financial services and products are developed. Finally, they provide powerful incentives to individual achievement.

 

In their early stages, economic and scientific progress is extremely vulnerable to the vices of envy and the prerogatives of rulers, tribal elders and shamans who feel threatened by innovation and discovery. It is the outcome of this clash between the collective and the individual, which determines whether cultures are able to exploit individual achievements, the basis of all scientific and intellectual progress.

 

Cultures which are driven by superstition, which are nepotistic, corrupt and do not punish failure will be no match for rivals which are energetic, entrepreneurial, and open to new ideas- and which respect and reward individual achievement.

 

When an individual of energy and some modicum of talent, who in India was born in the wrong caste, and is thus doomed to go nowhere, comes to Britain, he has chances for personal advancement way beyond what would be possible in India. Multiculturalists being at heart unrepentant Marxists, hate the idea of such an Individual’s success.

 

For once an Indian or black African succeeds on his own merit without the white mischief of affirmative action and equal opportunities, then there is one less person to whom appeals of collective self-pity and special pleading will be attractive. That individual is Free.

 

Multiculturalists hate individual achievement and success. They have a vested interest in failure. Toleration of individual dissent has been one of the hallmarks of the West (above all the Anglo/Saxon West) and the basis of its great prosperity and intellectual achievements.

 

But let us be clear about what we mean by toleration. Tolerating unusual views, which have been closely argued, subjected to independent verification and based on evidence is, however, not the same as validating behaviour such as homosexual life styles and the proliferation of anti-intellectual cults through the mechanism of their uncritical acceptance.

 

Deviant behaviour is, of course, nothing new, and may yet play a decisive role in our cultural fate. What is new is the way in which we are now expected to react to it. Again, we are called upon to abandon our moral and intellectual judgment in the name of thoroughly spurious notions of ‘Fairness,

 

The American experience with multiculturalism is no solution to Britain’s at present, altogether milder problems. Billions of tax dollars, some 30 years of equal opportunity and affirmative action policies have not produced ethnic and racial harmony. Far from it. The effects on American universities have been disastrous.

 

The peddling of grotesque lies and evasions about black achievements are routine, and a sense of simmering racial resentment is palpable on many American campuses. Outside of the university America remains sharply and bitterly divided along racial lines.

 

Two conclusions can be drawn from the failure of multiculturalism.

 

FIRST: Policies based on lies will not work. (This should be obvious to our ‘intellectuals’) The day of reckoning can be delayed, but not avoided indefinitely.

SECOND: Beyond a certain limit, ‘difference’ and ‘diversity’, particularly, if they encourage and perpetuate customs which are intellectually and economically inferior to the host culture itself. By then, it may be too late to stop the rot, at least by the standards and methods conventionally employed in liberal democracies.

 

Intellectual cowardice masquerading as tolerance thus creates a situation in which we all suffer. Multiculturalism does not to ‘fairness’ for some; it leads, ultimately to misery for all.

 

Lord Tebbit deserves our gratitude for speaking out against the dangers of multiculturalism, and many other ills, which assail us besides. Those in the Conservative Party who argue that he should just fade away miss the point. Leadership (as opposed to management) civic courage (as opposed to shutting up when you know something is wrong) and clarity and openness of thought (as opposed to political- correct speak and evasion) are timeless qualities.

 

Without them the Conservative Party is Finished.

 

The author: A former soldier, Dr frank Ellis is a lecturer in Russian at the University of Leeds. He has published articles on Soviet war literature and the Soviet media. His monograph on the Soviet Russian writer Vassily Grossman: The Genesis and the Evolution of a Russian Heritic, was published in 1994. He has recently completed a second book, From Glasnost to the Internet: Russia’s New Infosphere, which is published by Macmillan.

 

Freedom Today, February 1998.

 

[Fonts altered-bolding &underlining used]

 

 

Click here for Bulletin 66

 

[Multiculturalism is no longer right for Britain -says CRE Head Trevor Phillips.]

 

 *          *          *

JAN/05

 

*

 

H.F.1348

 DAILY MAIL

 

 

 

 

I DESPAIR OF BRITISH MUSLIMS

 

WHO CHOOSE TO LIVE UNDER

 

VIRTUAL APATHEID

 

 

 

 

 

by Dr Taj Hargey

 

is director of the MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL CENTRE of OXFORD and IMAM of the OXFORD ISLAMIC CONGREGATION

 

+

 

DECEMBER 6-2016

 
 EXTRACT

AT LONG LAST, a senior government official has the gumption to warn about the devastating effect of MASS IMMIGRATION on LOCAL COMMUNITIES, highlighting the SEGREGATION, DIVISION and TENSION it causes in SOCIETY.

Such is the scale of the problem that in a report into our increasingly fractured communities, Dame Louise Casey, the Social Cohesion tsar, has called for all migrants to

SWEAR AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO BRITAIN

Currently, immigrants do not have to make any formal commitment to integrating with the

REST OF SOCIETY

Unless they are actually applying for

UK CITIZENSHIP

Even then it is a facade.

To live here, no newcomer need make any promises at all to be productive stakeholders in BRITISH SOCIETY

Dame Louise's suggestion of an

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

is a step in the right direction.

 BUT IT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.

Every single person who comes

HERE

to live should be obliged to sign up, in writing to the

BRITISH WAY OF LIFE.

Think of the UNITED KINGDOM as a prestigious golf club, the kind where membership is keenly sought after.

Anyone who wants to join will be expected  to

OBEY THE RULES

-all of them, not just the one's that confer

BENEFITS.

Applicants who refuse to sign to this will be turned away at the door, and members who f

FAIL TO HONOUR THE PLEDGE

will be swiftly

EXPELLED.

 No one forces the new members to apply to join in the first place - it's entirely their free choice. But there    should be no option other than abide by the rules, and no pussyfooting around with anyone who transgresses them. Otherwise, the club will fall apart and a

GREAT INSTITUTION WILL BE DESTROYED

...Supremacist

*

...Segregated

*

 

... Irrational

 

Above all, we must accept it is not racist to face up to the nightmare of the failure of

MULTICULTURALISM

To claim that some immigrants, because of their origins should be exempt from the common duties of

INTEGRATION

-THAT'S RACIST.

It is idiotic to champion the view that all cultures are equal when some endorse misogyny,  homophobia, honour killing and so forth

To say that some people because of their  religion or the colour of the skin, can ignore BRITISH VALUES of -RESPECT-PATRIOTISM DEMOCRACY-TOLERANCE and EQUALITY-THAT'S RACIST and IRRATIONAL.

 

We need to be FORTHRIGHT and ROBUST about THIS. If IMMIGRANTS are NOT prepared to FULLY INTEGRATE into BRITISH SOCIETY, arguing that it means sacrificing their religious identity, they can head to places such as

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Sudan.

In other words, if newcomers and other immigrants are NOT HAPPY in the UNITED KINGDOM and DO NOT WISH TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART of this VIBRANT DEMOCRACY,

THEY SHOULD LEAVE.

 

*  *  *

[A BRILLIANT CONSTRUCTIVE AND COURAGEOUS AND NECESSARILY BLUNT ANALYSIS GETTING TO THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM BUT HAD THIS ARTICLE BEEN IN PLACE DECADES AGO IT WOULD HAVE FORCED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY TO PUT IT IN PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY ,TIME IS NOT ON OUR SIDE AND THERE IS LITTLE ENTHUSIASM BY GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH  A DARING BOLD AND MOST NECESSARY  NATION STATE SAVING AGENDA.   WE HOPE WE ARE PROVED WRONG ,BUT ,UNLESS WE ACHIEVE A PARLIAMENT OF PATRIOTIC -HONEST-MEMBERS  IN THE SHORTLY COMING GENERAL ELECTION THERE WILL BE NO EFFECTIVE CHANGE POSSIBLE AND THE SETTLED PEOPLE OF ENGLAND WILL PAY THE ULTIMATE HEAVY PRICE! OF A TOO DREADFUL TO CONTEMPLATE

 FAILURE.]

 

*

 

 

Full article

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS!]

DECEMBER 6-2016

H.F.1048 BREXIT NOW
 
 
 

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW
 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 
 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

      9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA
LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND
SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND
100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

 THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 
  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
    •
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with BRITAIN would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro

By James Slack Political Editor For The Daily Mail



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

*

Brexit will let us rediscover role as trading power | Daily Mail Online

Theresa May's Brexit speech puts Cameron to shame | Daily Mail ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Commons and Lords get ...

 

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Full reports and analysis

 

A great nation is reborn: Quitting will let us rediscover our role as a ...

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.
 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

  WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

  WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

  WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

  

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

 *		 7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

  WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

  WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW
Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

[THE LESSON THAT HAS FAILED TO BE  PURSUED OVER 12 YEARS!-AS WITH SO MANY OTHER MAJOR ISSUES WHICH GOVERNMENT ARE STILL IGNORING-ON IMMIGRATION-FOREIGN FIGHTERS-FAT CATS-CITY OF LONDON FRAUD AND A BRISK EXIT FROM THE FRAUDULENT-GREEDY -EXPENSIVE-COLLECTIVIST-SOON SUPER STATE CALLING ITSELF A EUROPEAN UNION WHICH MANY ACADEMICS AND OTHER  SUPPORTIVE CLAIMANTS RICHLY ADORE.-added Nov.4-2017]

 

*

 

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

PUTTING extra police on the beat, cuts violent crime, robbery and burglary, figures showed yesterday.

 

The areas of London flooded with officers after the July terror attacks recorded a drop in such offences.

 

Experts said the data proved that increasing Bobbies on the beat deters criminals.

 

In the wake of the attacks, the Metropolitan Police put up to 4,000 officers on the streets of Central London at one time, including 3,000 who are armed.

 

Dramatic cuts in street crime and burglary were logged for these areas in July, compared to the same month last year.

 

In Camden, robbery was cut by 12.2 % and burglary by 8.2%.

 

Westminster recorded a 30.2% cut in burglary and a 6.9% drop in robbery.

 

This compared with increases in the London area as a whole, where violence was up 4.1 %, robbery up 22.8% and burglary 4.7%.

 

Crime expert David Green director of the Civitas think-tank, said the police response to the terror attacks had provided an ‘accidental experiment.’

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said:

 

‘The problem is that the numbers put on the streets following July7 are simply not sustainable. What we need now is a huge increase in police’ [Bobbies on the Beat]

 

Mr Brennan added that slashing police paperwork could also boost numbers on the beat.

 

Government statistics show police are spending 53% of their time on frontline duties.  The rest is spent stuck behind desks or attending court.

 

Mr Green added that the figures showed officers could not be concentrated in one area. Six outlying London boroughs had a 50 % jump in muggings in July compared with last year.

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

[The above figures prove what we have been saying for many years that there is a need for the local bobbie to be returned to the beat where he CAN become familiar with his patch and prevent crime, which some Chief Constables say, is NOT possible.  But the events in London since 7/7 show a different picture.]

 

To continue:

 

-       Officers were shifted from those areas to boost police numbers in Central London.  [No Police –Greater Crime]

 

Commander Simon Foy, the Met’s head of performance, said:

 

‘After the 7 July and 21 July attacks we had a responsibility to have a huge police presence in Central London.’

 

[We ask the WHY the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said after the bombings that the 3000 officers sent to Edinburgh to protect the most protected man in the world had NOT been a problem for London at the time.]

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

‘We never abandoned the suburbs and we have been determined to get the ground back’.

 

[This statement contradicts itself-if the Suburbs were NOT abandoned WHY is there NOW a DETERMINATION to GET THE GROUND BACK]

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission announced an Independent Inquiry last night into the leaks from the Jean Charles de Menezes investigation.

 

Bill Taylor, formally Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, will look into how documents from the Commission’s inquiry found their way into the media.

 

It follows the publication of letters to the Home Secretary from the Police Federation calling for an inquiry into the leaks.

 

[What we are sure is far more interesting to receive will be the Report on the run-up to and aftermath of July 7 in respect of the actions or otherwise of the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair and others under his command.]

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

 Daily Mail on September 6, 2005  from a concerned citizen in Essex.

IN HIS first statement on arriving in Office in July, our new Police Chief told criminals visiting Essex to

 

‘Bring their toothbrushes because they won’t be going home’ (Mail).

 

He ordered his officers to arrest at least 600 criminals in his first week in charge.

[JULY]

 

On Thursday, August 4, after 11pm, a young man was stabbed as he walked home.  Fleeing from his attackers, he arrived at our front door, cornered by a gang of youths. 

 

My husband managed to get him inside as his assailants kicked at our front door shattering the glass with a heavy plant top.

 

My husband was threatened through the broken window, but managed to hold the door shut.

 

Meanwhile, I relayed all this to the 999 operator, explaining that we had two young children in the house.

 

The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and my husband had no doubt that had he not opened the door that night, this 17-year old boy would have been seriously injured or killed by the gang, who ran off once they realised the police had been called.

Half an hour after the incident, we had a phone call from police to say there had been a sweep of the area but no one was found.

TWENTY MINUTES later another phone call said there was ‘concern for welfare’ in Benfleet and we would have to wait longer.

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

By which time my husband had taken the young man to Accident & Emergency.  The two officers spoke to me briefly of ABH, GBH, even attempted murder, I pointed out possible evidence on the front door.

 

I wasn’t expecting Helen Mirren and her swarm of forensic experts

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

Weeks later no one contacted my husband and no one had been to see if there is any evidence on our front door.

*

[Sounds familiar in Blairdom –where talk and spin are the order of the day and the concern for the victim is the last think that concerns them.

 

With the LAW & ORDER in a shambles possibly the only way to improve things is to have an elected Sheriff to toughen-up Law Enforcement]

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used –comments in brackets]

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

WITH BILLIONS WASTED ON ILLEGAL WARS- AND THROW AWAY FOREIGN AID AND MP'S ENJOYING THEIR  SPLENDID EXPENSES AND SALARIES - COST OF BENEFITS -NHS-HOUSING...FOR MILLIONS OF REFUGEES AND ILLEGAL MIGRANTS .     WITH A POPULATION OF OVER  51 MILLION IN ENGLAND WE NOW HEAR THAT OUR GREEN BELT WILL NOW BE BUILT ON.    LOOKING AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST DECADES IT COULD BE BETTER IF ONE JUST CHOSE ANY 600 PEOPLE (AFTER BOUNDARIES CHANGE) OFF THE STREETS TO LOOK AFTER THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS. THEY COULD HARDLY DO ANY WORSE THAN THE SHOWER WE HAVE HAD IN PARLIAMENT-WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. THEY STAYED TOO! LONG! A ONE TERM SERVICE BY MORE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THEY WOULD BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR PATRIOTISM AND COMMON SENSE THEY WOULD GIVE 5 YEARS SERVICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND THEN RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE  OF AN INDEPENDENT MIND THAN WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THESE PAST YEARS AND MORE DEMOCRATIC FOR A COUNTRY OF ENGLAND WITH ITS DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS GIVEN AWAY IN 1972 BY LIES AND DECEIT LEAVING OUR COUNTRY IN THE WILDERNESS OF A DEMONIC CREATION PLANNED BY HITLER IN 1943 IN ORDER FOR GERMAN DOMINATION OF EUROPE. OUR ENEMY OF TWO WORLD WARS WITH A HISTORY OF CONFLICT AND CARNAGE THROUGHOUT THE AGES!-

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1342
 

 

DAILY MAIL

 

 

[A MATTER

 of

 TREASON]

 

 

News for DAILY MAIL-

A city slicker, a Brazilian crumper and the danger of riots in the streets

by

Richard Littlejohn

 

November 4-2016
EXTRACT

THERE may not be any tanks on the streets, but be under no illusion:

WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS AN ATTEMPTED COUP DESIGNED TO OVERTHROW THE

WILL OF THE [ENGLISH] BRITISH PEOPLE.

[ONLY the English people voted overwhelmingly for FREEDOM and BREXIT.]

Yesterday's decision by the three unelected judges to side with the sore losers who want to scupper Britain's departure from the

 EUROPEAN UNION

is a constitutional outrage. It is a victory for vested interests and the enemies of

DEMOCRACY

The fix  has been in since June 23, when

17.4 MILLION VOTERS

handed the Government the biggest single mandate in history.

There was no ambiguity about the question on the ballot paper.

 Did we want Britain to REMAIN in the EU or LEAVE?

NO ifs, no buts.

By a clear majority of 52per cent to 48 percent, the

VOTE TO LEAVE

[THE CORRUPT-UNACCOUNTABLE-UNDEMOCRATIC-OVERBEARING-COSTLY-GODLESS]

EUROPEAN UNION

Fanatical Remainers were never going to accept the decision and are resorting to any means available-putrid propaganda, parliamentary obstructionism and now judicial activism-to keep Britain locked into the EU.

First they smeared Leave voters as moronic racists, too stupid to understand the consequences of their decision, and demanded a second referendum.

Then they claimed that the result was only'advisory' and not binding on PARLIAMENT.

They also started to pretend that there was a choice between a 'hard' BREXIT, which would result in financial ruin, and a 'soft' BREXIT- effectively not leaving the EU at all.

The so-called 'soft' option would commit us to accepting FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT and remaining subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice-the very things

WE VOTED AGAINST

Simultaneously, MPs insisted they should have the FINAL SAY on triggering Article 50 which gives formal notice to quit the EU within two years, and be allowed to dictate our negotiating stance.

They maintain that they are entitled to do so because what the referendum was really about was restoring the

SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT.

And they'd have a point if MP's hadn't voted 6-1 in holding a 

REFERENDUM.

, the result of which Prime Minister David Cameron promised unequivocally to

RESPECT and IMPLEMENT.

Indeed, Call Me Dave said during the campaign that if the popular vote was to

LEAVE

he would invoke Article 50 the very next day.

That pledge went out of the window when Cameron resigned in a fit of pique-an ignominious departure for a man who claimed during the campaign that

'BRITS DON'T QUIT'

Even though he was quickly replaced by Theresa May, who vowed to

HONOUR THE RESULT'

the Remainers realised that all bets were off and the game was now afoot. As soon

she made it plain that she wouldn't be rushed into invoking

 ARTICLE 50

the anti-democratic forces sensed their

OPPORTUNITY.

[This is a very extensive article and to find out more- see;-

Full article

*  *  *

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

NOVEMBER 4-2016

 

h.F.1019 brexit now
July 19, 2016

5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe

By 509 comments

Recent killings in Paris as well as the arrival of hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees in Europe have drawn renewed attention to the continent’s Muslim population. In many European countries, including France, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, concerns about growing Muslim communities have led to calls for restrictions on immigration. But just how large is Europe’s Muslim population, and how fast is it growing?

Muslim population in EuropeUsing the Pew Research Center’s most recent population estimates, here are five facts about the size and makeup of the Muslim population in Europe:

1Germany and France have the largest Muslim populations among European Union member countries. As of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany (5.8% of the country’s population) and 4.7 million Muslims in France (7.5%). In Europe overall, however, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims (10%) is the largest on the continent.

2The Muslim share of Europe’s total population has been increasing steadily. In recent decades, the Muslim share of the population throughout Europe grew about 1 percentage point a decade, from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. This pattern is expected to continue through 2030, when Muslims are projected to make up 8% of Europe’s population.

3Muslims are younger than other Europeans. In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.

4Views of Muslims vary widely across European countries. A Pew Research Center survey conducted this spring in 10 nations found that in eastern and southern Europe, negative views prevailed. However, the majority of respondents in the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands gave Muslims a favorable rating. Views about Muslims are tied to ideology. While 47% of Germans on the political right give Muslims an unfavorable rating, just 17% on the left do so. The gap between left and right is also roughly 30 percentage points in Italy and Greece. 

5As of 2010, the European Union was home to about 13 million Muslim immigrants. The foreign-born Muslim population in Germany is primarily made up of Turkish immigrants, but also includes many born in Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Morocco. The roughly 3 million foreign-born Muslims in France are largely from France’s former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 15, 2015. 

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Europe, Muslims and Islam

  1. Photo of Conrad Hackett
    is a demographer focusing on religion at Pew Research Center.

509 Comments

 

H.F.1027 BREXIT NOW-NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU FOR GERMANY TO DOMINATE EUROPE AND ENGLAND.
 A MATTER OF FACT!

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years.

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH LIBERTIES and COUNTRY.

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

 

 

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT! MEANS BREXIT!

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charchol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by hid handlers to lead them - and that he did all this on behalf of a

FOREIGN POWER.

which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

 

[PDF] 

The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

H.F.937 FREEDOM NOW

 

 

EU

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****  HOW HITLER'S ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS PASSED THROUGH YOUR WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT BY 8 VOTES****   REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****     THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****      FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/****     A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/ ****     A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/****     THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/ ****  WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/****    50 YEARS OF SURRENDER/ **** BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENT SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL.****NAZI PENETRATION OF GERMANY'S POST WAR STRUCTURES****WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED?****AN ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT BILL? PART2****Former Nazi Bank Bank of International Settlements To Rule The Global Economy

*

Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

 

*

 

A further article from the ONLY sole INDEPENDENT world-wide respected International Currency Review under the heading:

 

*

 

*

CAN BRITAIN WITHHOLD ITS EC CONTRIBUTIONS?

 

PERTINENT LEGAL ADVICE BY LEOLIN PRICE, QUEEN’S COUNCEL

 

The following Legal Opinion was provided by the distinguished veteran constitutional lawyer, Leolin Price QC, in response to a request to consider the following questions:

1. )  Can ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of UK taxpayers’ money (i.e., of UK Government funds) by the European Commission and/or European Union; and

2. ) Can Britain withhold its contributions to the EC budget on the ground that UK taxpayers’ funds are being misused (embezzled, defrauded, misappropriated, misallocated, misrepresented, etc)? But in reality, these questions are themselves superfluous since, as exposed in this issue [of International Currency Review-Vol 30,4 dated October 10-2005, cstory@worldreports.org

 

  Britain’s EU membership was procured fraudulently, so that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Britain has every right to leave the EU unilaterally and to cease payment.

 

1.    I preface this Opinion by acknowledging that I am not aware of any precedent for the sort of proceedings in court against Ministers of the Crown, whether civil or criminal, which I am asked to consider.

2.                  But there are two relevant principles of English law to be borne firmly in mind: first, that the King (or Queen) can do no wrong [We must make it clear at the outset that this does not include King Tony-whatever he may think]; secondly, that every subject of the Queen is subject to the RULE OF LAW and equal before the law.  There is no special privilege or status for Ministers or other officers of the Crown.

 

They are vulnerable and ought to be answerable in our courts if something which they have done is not properly authorised by law, infringes the rights of individuals and causes damage.

3.There is also learning about when an officer of the Crown can plead, as a defence to a claim by someone who has suffered from some act of that officer, that what was done was an ‘Act of State’.  A British subject cannot sue the Queen (because the ‘Queen can do no wrong’); and if an act, of which a British subject complains of, is in civil law, a tort, the officer cannot assert that the act complained of was an act, which had been authorised by the Crown (in reality the Government).

 

The Act of State is not available to the officer in that situation.  He must, if he can, show that what was done was a lawful exercise of some power lawfully conferred by

Act of Parliament

Or

Otherwise:

 

See, for example, Johnson v Peglar [1921] 2AC 262.

 

4.)             But a somewhat different line of modern authority R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p Smedley [1985] AC657 recognises that a person – in ex p Smedley, a British taxpayer and elector – may have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring judicial review proceedings against Government authorities and Ministers.

 

·    Can Ministers of the Crown be held culpable for the misuse of taxpayers’ money (i.e. of UK Government funds) by the European union?

5.)             This is the first – and primary – question on which I am asked to advise [Leolin Price, Queen’s Counsel]

6.)             My answer is that our Courts will not recognise that any direct responsibility is imposed by Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the subsequent application, by the Commission of the European Communities Act or the EU, of our taxpayers’ money which is paid over in accordance with the established legal procedures for making our contributions to the European Union.

7.)             But the history and circumstances of fraud, at the centre of the European Union and in ‘Member States’, and the conspicuous failure of the Commission or the European Union to establish any proper (and obviously necessary) accountancy controls over what happens to the money which is provided by ‘Member States’, has produced a situation in which the British elector and taxpayer may reasonably consider that it is a failure of duty for the Government, Chancellor of the Chequer and treasury to go on handing over our money to what he may reasonably consider is an organisation which is incapable of doing and unwilling to do, anything effective about the corrupt and fraudulent diversion of EU funds.  The history of incapacity and unwillingness includes the following:

(1)    The resignation of the whole Commission upon its acknowledgement of collective responsibility for corruption and fraud.

(2)    In spite of that admission of collective responsibility, the continuation in office of all but one of the resigned Commissioners.

(3)    A continuing failure to establish a minimum of accounting controls over the Commission’s expenditure of money at the centre or within ‘Member States’

(4)    Failure by the Commission, in response to acknowledged and massive misuse of EU money, to establish any regime with a minimum of efficiency and designed in accordance with modern accountancy standards to monitor the expenditure of EU money and to minimise its misuse.

(5)    The apparent inability of the Commission to prevent, or reasonably to combat and control, the corrupt and fraudulent misuse of EU money, including contributions from the United Kingdom.

 

8.           Faced with that history, a UK elector and taxpayer could reasonably expect his Government to suspend, wholly or partly, the further contribution of money from the United Kingdom to the European Union in the continuing absence of proper EU accountancy and controls to combat and contain fraud and corruption and other misuse of EU money; and could reasonably expect English Courts to support his claim for such suspension.

9.           In the circumstances, and before the next instalment of the UK contribution to the EU is to be paid, a UK taxpayer could apply for permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the making of the payment on the ground that no responsible Minister of Department of OUR Government could regard it as appropriate to pay over money without any reasonable expectation or even hope that the recipient EU institutions have made any reasonable arrangements to avoid its being, with other EU money, misused.  Experience, especially experience since the collective resignation of the Commission [in 1999], indicates that the money so contributed will be at serious risk of not being used for the purposes for which our Treaty obligations and our law require it to be contributed [sic].

10.  Will such judicial review proceed -ings be successful? The practical and realistic answer is that the [English] Courts will be reluctant to permit the review; but there is a presentable argument, and although there is no previous reported case which provides a precise precedent, it represents a logical development of what has been recognised in reported cases; and the continuing scandal about misuse of EU money provides ground for seriously contending that judicial review ought to be, and is, available to stop exposing UK money to the obvious risk of EU failure to avoid misuse.

11.      The withholding of Treaty-required contributions, which are at serious risk of not being properly used for Treaty purposes, is not-or arguably, is not- a breach of Treaty obligations. [Editor; However as is shown in this issue – of International Currency Review Vol 30,4 the treaty obligations themselves are not applicable,

since the

British Accession Treaty, and collective treaties, were signed for corrupt reward by agents of a Foreign Power.]

12.  The argument will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a Crown servant, is a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it is a breach of the duties involved in that guardianship to pay over money which, in the hands of the recipient Commission and the EU, will be at such serious risk of misuse.  The First defence will be that the payment is required by our Treaty obligations and by Acts of Parliament; but the answer to that is that the Treaty obligations and Parliament provide authority for payment to support Treaty purposes and NOT to expose the money to established and substantial risk of misuse.

13.   An alternative form of proceedings might be criminal proceedings against the Chancellor for misuse of public money under his control.  The argument for this is that the payment is a serious breach of public duty:  it condones and encourages and facilitates the misuse, and the misuse is foreseeable.  Those instructing me may consider it worthwhile attempting such a criminal case; and it may be that the launching of such a criminal case will achieve judicial discussion of the public duty and its breach.  It is, nevertheless, my opinion that such criminal proceedings will not be successful.

14.      , The better choice of proceedings is judicial review.

 

19th October 2004.

Leolin Price CBE QC,

10 Old Square,

Lincoln’s Inn,

London.

 

 

[Font altered-bolding & underling used-comments in brackets]

 

*         *          *

NOV/05

 

For more details of Corruption and Skulduggery and Treachery in the EU and in the United Kingdom before and since the Second World War.

 

www.worldreports.org.

E-mail cstory@worldreports.org

 

And on the EDP bulletin board

 

Bulletins 308 & 309 which are consistently among our top essays with viewers since their launch on October 10-2005 in line with the release of the details in the publication by the respected and Only INDEPENDENT International Currency Review journal which has been in existence since 1969 during which time it has acquired a World-Wide reputation for uncovering Conspiracies which have blossomed

with their dangerous fruit for well over 60 years, which has infected many of our supposed politicians in the arts of Treachery-Corruption and Deceit - still to this day.

 

Many will say we have heard this all before but what they fail to realise is that the media –particularly the Press are owned in the main by individuals who have acquired great power of influence world-wide and are able to direct events their way.

 

So when there are attempts to demolish a conspiracy theory you can bet that the major players in the press and media are no doubt involved.  What you have to ask yourself is which side of the argument is most likely to be believed taking into account what has happened in Europe and America over the past 60 years.

 

We are involved in a catastrophic war in Iraq which we now all know was illegal and that our King Tony was only too pleased to follow his buddy George Bush and exclaim that they had now given Democracy to Iraq when in reality a civil war is now in progress which will lead to the fragmentation of Iraq into three separate nation States which will go against the grain with our federalist King Tony so keen on a United States of Europe who now appears to have trouble with his own rebels –which we are delighted to witness in a country once the home of the Mother of Parliaments until New Labour had other ideas.

 

*           *          *

NOV/05

H.F.937-Brought forward from NOV./05

Brought forward from 2009

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU

By Adam Lebor
Updated: 22:30, 9 May 2009

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.
 
Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with I. G. Farben

Plotters: SS chief Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with Nazi-backed company I. G. Farben

The three-page, closely typed report, marked 'Secret', copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany's economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.

The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire - but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.

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.

Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 - and it paints an extraordinary picture.

The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.
 
Auschwitz

Death camp: Auschwitz, where tens of thousands of slave labourers died working in a factory run by German firm I. G. Farben

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. 'It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.' Such defeatist talk was treasonous - enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo's cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.

But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to 'make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion'.

The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.

They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.

But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the industrialists were to 'prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis', using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a 'secure post-war foundation in foreign countries', while 'existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat'.

In stage three, German businesses would set up a 'sleeper' network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.

'The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,' Bosse announced.

'Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.'

 
Enlarge   The 1944 Red House Report

Extraordinary revelations: The 1944 Red House Report, detailing 'plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity'

The exported funds were to be channelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.

Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report's author notes: 'Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.

'Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party's plans for its post-war operations.'

The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.

During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.

A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: 'By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.'

Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.

As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad's gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.

By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf's ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS's massive pan-European economic empire after Germany's defeat.

Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany's defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.

But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilising the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS's economic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilisation through a stable currency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.

The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.

War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 - despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments - the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.

Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism - the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.

But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.

The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp company soon became one of Europe's leading industrial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400million at the time.

'For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,' says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.

'The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.'

Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany's most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically 'Aryanised' Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank's wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank's representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany's most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis' chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben's bosses hedged their bets.

During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard's research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III - but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany's post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a 'strong German empire' was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today's European Union.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid - reconstruction funds - to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany's economic recovery.

Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.

Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today - on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralisation. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.

That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe - was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.

To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today's drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich - an economic rather than military imperium.

• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor's thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

Full ARTICLE


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html#ixzz4oiNwdrtt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

H.F.1270 -BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

 

FOREIGN AID SQUANDERED IN MILLIONSON INANE FOREIGN PROJECTS ABROAD WHILE THE NHS CANNOT AFFORD DRUGS...TO SAVE LIVES.

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

SHAMED: Foreign aid fat cats

 

 

 

who built £1.4billion ...

 

 

- Daily Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../SHAMED-Foreign-aid-fat-cats-built-1-

 

4billion-empire-tax-money.html

‎

23 May 2015 ... Money wasted: The share of Britain's foreign aid budget delivered by contractors
tripled in two ... her life to this cause, working on projects often supported by
British ... corporation tax, while a second paid less than one per cent of profits in
tax. .... Yet DAI Europe could afford to pay staff an average salary of ...
 

British aid money is funding corruption overseas, damning new ...

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../British-aid-money-is-funding-corruption-

overseas-damning-new-report-finds.html

‎

31 Oct 2014 ...

 

British taxpayers' money is funding corruption in foreign countries,

 

an official ...
 

 

One development project in Nepal encouraged people to forge

 

gain grants while police stations in Nigeria linked to British aid

 

were ... revealed
 

in documents by Amnesty International, according to the Daily Mail.
 

[WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE COMMON SENSE AND ACTION  TO SAVE THE PEOPLES HARD EARNED TAXES FROM BEING FURTHER SQUANDERED ON INANE  AND WASTEFUL FOREIGN PROJECTS?

ON OUR TV SCREENS WE SEE ALMOST DAY AFTER DAY REQUESTS TO PROVIDE A MONTHLY DONATION OF £3 TO PROVIDE A REGULAR WATER SUPPLY FOR PEOPLE IN DISTRESSED AREAS IN THE WORLD.

BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED BECAUSE BEING IN THE EU FOR THE PAST 45 YEARS HAS CREATED A LAXITY TO PRUDENT MONEY MANAGEMENT. AFTER ALL THERE IS MASSIVE CORRUPTION IN THAT EXCUSE FOR AN HONEST ADMINISTRATION   AS ITS ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED FOR 19 YEARS.  BILLIONS HAVE GONE MISSING OVER THE YEARS AND WE ALL KNOW THAT LAVISH PAYOUTS AND PENSIONS ARE A FEATURE OF THAT CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-GODLESS SUPPOSED EUROPEAN UNION.

WE ARE NOW LEAVING THAT CORRUPT SOULLESS MONSTER AND ITS ALIEN LAW SYSTEM BUT THE LONG CAPTIVITY  HAS TAINTED OUR  ONCE PRUDENT ADMINISTRATION WHICH WILL TAKE TIME TO CLEANSE AND REPORT CLEAR OF EU PRACTICES AND INFLUENCES.]

'A century or so ago men went  into politics when they had made their personal fortunes. They were unbribable because  they were rich. They had all the money and power they needed. They wanted recognition, immortality and respect. They also wanted (and today , sadly, this sounds strange) to serve their country.

Today's politicians, the ones who are selling England and our freedom, go into politics because they are ill-suited for anything else. They go into politics to make money. They are easy to bribe. They are always on the lookout for ways in which they can make money after they leave government. Today's professional politicians are brought up in a world where deception is everything and perception is not just more important than reality-it has replaced reality and is, to them, the only thing that matters.'

Vernon Coleman

'When we build the house of Europe the future will belong to Germany.'

HELMUT KOHL (GERMAN POLITICIAN)

*

THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

'Children are being taught that the EU is essential for England's future and that the euro offers the nation's only chance of future security. Both claims are lies-but even if they were true these are issues which need to be discussed not simply fed into young minds through-INDOCTRINATION. The EU gives GRANTS to areas where children are properly INDOCTRINATED about the value of the EU.' (2002)

WE clearly saw the result in the Referendum on June 23 ,2016.

Foreign aid: These countries are the most generous | World ...

 

*

 

AUGUST 5-2017

H.F.1273 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 

 

[WHAT ENGLAND IS

 ESCAPING FROM SINCE JUNE 23, 2016.]

 

*

 

 

EU DICTATORSHIP EXPOSED - no codex genocide!

 

                        EUROPEAN DICTATORSHIP

 

                                The Treaty of Rome

 

          The Final Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire

 

 

In the words of Winston Churchill and in reference to Stanley Baldwin who was Prime Minister at the time (exporting Rolls Royce aero engines to Germany) prior to the outbreak of World War II he spoke the following words:

 

“Whose in charge of the clattering train?   The axels creak and the couplings strain; the pace is hot and the points are near and sleep has deadened the driver’s ear and the signals flash through the night in vain for death is in charge of the clattering train”

                          

 

The Take-Over of Britain

 

On 1st January 1973, Conservative British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the European Common Market.   Heath reassured Parliament and the British people at the time that British sovereignty would not be affected and that we were just joining a trading partnership.   His 1971 government White Paper stated the following:

 

“There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty…  The British safeguards of habeus corpus and trial by jury will remain intact.   So will the principle that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty.”

 

Subsequent papers came to light, which unequivocally show that Edward Heath recognised that he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal Europe.

 

In a 1975 public referendum, reassured by their politicians and a politically biased media that all was well, the British voted 67% to 33% to remain inside the Common Market.   Later, it emerged that many sections of the British media were involved with promoting only favourable stories about the common Market.  Few opposing views were given an airing.

 

The post-war move towards European integration was to strengthen a devastated Europe as rapidly as possible and prevent any Soviet incursion.

 

The first form of collective integration among nations in Europe occurred in March 1951 with the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community, which established a single market for steel, iron, coke and coal among the six participating nations:  France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Holland and Belgium.

 

This union was later expanded by the Treaty of Rome into the European Economic Community, which set up a ‘Common Market’.   This treaty’s subtitle has always been ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’.   Politicians have always understood this to mean the destruction of their nations’ sovereignty and the eventual formation of a United States of Europe.   Even their populations are clear on this issue.

 

British politicians, both Labour and Conservative, have not been so forthcoming.   They have consistently misled the British people by repeatedly claiming that our involvement was trade-based only, and would never lead to the destruction of Britain as a sovereign nation.

 

Today, the UK’s three leading political parties are all in support of dismantling Great Britain.   At no general elections in the past 25 years have the British people ever been given a clear choice on Britain’s European membership, with all the options, including withdrawing from the EU altogether.  

 

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Greenland are not members of the EU and are doing very well on their own today.

 

Later amendments to the Treaty of Rome gradually stepped up the transfer of power and control of Britain from Westminster to Brussels.   These further treaty amendments were:

 

                   The Single European Act   -1986

                   The Treaty on European Union (‘Maastricht’) – 1992

                   The Amsterdam (Consolidated) Treaty – 1997

                   The Treaty of Nice – 2000

 

Through these further treaties, the original Common Market has gradually been changed into the European Union of today.   The British people have never given their consent, nor have properly understood the implications of the European Union.  

 

Today, Britain has been part of the European Union and its forerunner structures for a little over 30 years, yet there are few realistic benefits we have enjoyed for the massive expense and damage our membership has cost us.

 

The burdensome value-added tax was set up in Britain in anticipation for our forthcoming membership to the Common Market.   Most don’t know that VAT is an EU levy and not a national tax.

 

Your Citizenship

 

Upon signing the Maastrict Treaty, John Major declared that there would be  “…no further surrender of sovereignty.”  However, as soon as his ink was dry, millions of us ceased being British and became citizens of the European Union.

 

With this came all the rights and privileges of being a European citizen (not explained to the British people) as well as the duties and obligations of European citizenry according to the laws of Brussels.

 

In the blink of an eye, the British lost the right to do anything they please, as long as it was not forbidden by British law, and henceforth are only able to do those things specifically allowed by European directive and regulation.

 

While it is true that these laws are not currently being stringently enforced by Brussels, who’s prepared to wager that after the cooling-off period, the screws won’t be tightened slowly but progressively as time passes?    This is the way the European Union has historically operated.

 

Defence

 

Maastricht also articulated the EU’s desire to forma a common European Army.  Once more, the wording was weasely and circumlocutory and talked of a ‘common defence policy’.   Then we see the formation of something called a ‘Rapid Reaction Force’, supposedly only for operations outside the European Union.   Today, this has morphed into the ‘European Army’.   With the command restructuring of British troops under foreign officers underway, this will also mean foreign troops and police on British soil.

 

Law

 

Maastricht introduced far-reaching changes to our judicial system.   After Maastricht, Britain’s supreme court ceased to be the House of Lords and became the European Court of Justice (ECJ).   Once again, the transfer of power and visible jurisdiction has been slow and non-threatening, but today, European law has 100% legal supremacy over British law and Burssels holds almost all the law-making powers applicable to our nation.

 

 

 

Single Currency – Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)

 

Maastrickt also laid out a schedule for complete European economic integration (known as Economic and Monetary Union – EMU) using a single currency, formerly known as the European Currency Unit (ECU), now known as ‘the euro’.   The increased drive towards establishing a single currency across the Euro zone is perhaps one of the most significant factors to emerge from Maastricht.   Since 1992, the pound’s days have been numbered.   Yet Harold Wilson had sought to reassure the British public in a 1975 pamphlet that…

 

“There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union  [EMU].   This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk.   This threat has been removed.”

 

Britain joining the euro will be the final step towards the destruction of our country as an independent, sovereign nation.   All the while Britain remains this side of EMU, she is still able to recover full independence should a majority of the country desire it and compel their politicians to act in accordance with the wishes of this majority.   If Britain adopts the euro however, the final three bricks drop out of the crumbling wall of British independence, and we will ultimately and at this time:

 

        Surrender the remainder of our gold, silver and dollar reserves to

        Brussels;

        Surrender the last of our economic control over our own nation;

       And surrender the last of our independent political power to govern

       Ourselves.

 

After this, there will be no turning back, short of war.

 

Joining the euro will be irreversible.

 

Regionalisation

 

The much touted ‘devolution’ process, which gave Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland their own assemblies, is simply the Maastricht regionalisation policy being implemented by stealth.   Today, the EU’s full title is ‘The European Union of the Regions’.   Planners in Brussels have divided the current EU land-mass into 111 regions, with Britain having 12. Each region across the Euro zone will henceforth be run from Brussels.

 

Regionalisation is an effective way to destroy the concept of a nation with national boundaries.   The EU has been very active for years in forging links at the local government level throughout the UK to bring this about.

 

One method Brussels has used to get co-operation from local councils has been the promise of funds for development projects in their local communities.   There’s nothing like EU cash (which British taxpayers provided in the first place) to build useful things in the community to enhance a local or even a European politician’s popularity with their public.

 

Another forerunner program implemented to soften up the British to the idea of accepting closer ties with their Continental neighbours is the town and village twinning scheme.

 

EU Democracy?

 

The EU Parliament has been directly elected by the citizens of the European Union since 1979, which all sounds democratic, but there are some fundamental problems.   Unlike the British Parliament, the EU Parliament cannot introduce, modify or initiate new laws.   It cannot elect a government.   The functions of EU government are performed not by the EU Parliament, but by three powerful EU forums (the EU Commission, the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers), in conjunction with the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank.   The EU Parliament is widely recognised as toothless – rubber-stamping legislation that is put before it with no informed debate on these new laws.

 

There are currently 626 seats in the EU Parliament with the following breakdown:  Belgium 25;  Denmark 16; France 87; Germany 99; Greece 25; Ireland 15; Italy 87; Luxembourg 6; Netherlands 31; Portugal 25; Spain 64; United Kingdom 87; Austria 21; Sweden 22 and Finland 16.  

 

Under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty, the number of MEPs is not to exceed 700.   The European Union is due to be enlarged by another 10 members, mostly East European, ex-Soviet satellite states, on 1st May 2004.

 

Voting is performed by MEPs at tremendous speed.   One session saw MEPs vote on 187 pieces of legislation in just one hour.

 

The EU Parliament has the appearance of democracy, but upon closer inspection, the truth is very different.   It is a beard for another type of regime that really calls the shots from Brussels:  one that is fundamentally unaccountable, undemocratic, unelectable and corrupt.

 

Qualified Majority Voting

 

In 1975, the public was reassured by Harold Wilson that Britain would always be able to use her national veto in Brussels to reject or vote down any measure that was perceived to be a threat to her national interests.   Under the Single European Act however, a new system, known as Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), was introduced which effectively put the clock on Britain’s right to exercise her veto option.

 

Since Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1985, QMV has gradually taken over and pushed the national veto out.   It takes 62 votes under QMV to pass a law and 26 votes to block one.   Britain has 10 votes under QMV, which means, given the current allegiances between countries in the EU, that Britain is powerless to refuse in many major areas of policy today, since almost everything the EU implements is decided by qualified majority voting.   Britain has a problem mustering sufficient votes from any EU allies to gain the number required to overturn any damaging legislation.

 

With Britain’s current EU voting powers in European elections, the British people can only vote out 14% of MEPs (unlike 100% of them at Westminster).   This will dwindle to less than 10% once the EU is enlarged further on 1st May 2004 to admit ten further member states.  Later, there could be no British Members of the European Parliament representing our country, as future MEPs need not be British.   At this point, our national government at Westminster will be redundant, since Britain has already been divided into 12 Euro-Regions, each of which is increasingly ruled directly from Brussels.   Soon there will be no further need for any national political candidates.

 

Immunity from Prosecution

 

All members of the EU’s governing structure, together with the tens of thousands of bureaucrats and civil servants who run the union, have been granted a lifetime immunity from prosecution.   This also goes for the new European police force, Europol, and the commanders and soldiers of the new European Army.   All buildings, offices, records, archives and minutes belonging to the EU and its institutions are inviolate.   They cannot be entered or inspected.   All personnel serving the EU are above the law, as declared in treaties which our successive politicians have signed on our behalf.

 

Funding of Political Parties

 

Under article 191 of the Treaty of Nice, the EU has been granted the power by its member states to withdraw funding for any European political party it deems inappropriate or unsuitable for Europe, which, of course, raises the spectre of the banning of political parties that criticise the European Union.

 

Human Rights

 

Perhaps most disturbingly, we see a continuation of the erosion of human rights under Article 52, which states:

 

“the EU may limit all rights and freedoms enumerated in that charter where necessary in order to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.” 

 

This means that the state can limit/withdraw (abuse) the human rights of the individual at whim and is not answerable to anyone for doing so.   This is about as alien to the British way of life as it gets.

 

When coupled with the frightening powers now being bestowed upon upon Europol and the European prosecutor, perhaps the first the British will truly learn of what their country has become is when summary arrests of citizens are made in our country and those detainees are then shunted out of Britain to be held without charge on the Continent, if necessary for up to nine months, before being tried, not by a jury of the accused’s peers, but by a tribunal of professional, politically appointed foreign judges.

 

There will be no presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no prima facie evidence presented to a court within 24 hours.   The full weight of the state’s prosecutory apparatus will be brought to bear against the prisoner, who is burdened with the hopeless task of having to prove he is not guilty.   There will be little hope of an effective appeal.

 

Why Britain Does Not Belong to Europe

 

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is  happening.   This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”  -  Jean Monnet, one of the EU’s founders

 

Britain was the first maritime power, so historically she has always traded globally, especially with her erstwhile colonies and international allies, whilst her trade with Europe has been secondary.   For this reason, Britain’s economy is more in step with those of America, Canada and her other allies, than it is with Europe.  For example, Britain conducts more trade with the USA than she does with France and Germany combined.

 

The intention to bring Britain’s economy under control of Brussels and somehow ‘harmonise it’ with those of the Continent will be a disastrous move for us and, as we shall see, is a strategy deliberately designed to break the United Kingdom as a historical, economic world power.   The priceless spoils of Britain’s wealth are to go to other European nations under control of Brussels.

 

“But Britain is a part of Europe geographically!   So why wouldn’t we want to be a part of Europe politically in order to keep the peace?”    

 

Peace has been kept in Europe for the past fifty years, not through attempts at creating a unified Europe, but through the willingness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to act as a universal European military watchdog.   NATO is a military alliance of nations dominated by the two leading powers formerly comprising ‘the Allies’ during World War II – the United States of American and Great Britain.

 

The Americans spend more on the defence of Europe than all the eurozone nations put together.

 

The European Union is planning a new European arm capable of taking strategic action independently of NATO.   This new European army will threaten the balance and stability NATO has given to the Continent and hand over military jurisdiction in Europe once again to the two nations who have historically abused it and gone to war for their own economic interests.

 

Wars chiefly happen over issues of economics.   By creating a single currency throughout Europe and hamstringing less fortunate member states to join at unfavourable exchange rates, the EU is creating an alarming new climate of inflexibility and impending European instability.   The expected problems of the weak new single currency – the euro – are already becoming apparent.

 

Britain is an economic powerhouse, is the fourth largest economy in the world by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and has the greatest financial trading centre in the world centred in London.   It is sheer nonsense to maintain that Britain somehow needs the European Union to survive.

 

Britain is the European Union’s biggest customer.

 

The Terminal Power-Play for Britain

 

Is the real agenda being worked out against Britain by Brussels designed to dismantle the UK, plunder her of her historic wealth and resources, and then politically chain her so she can never again be free to operate in her traditional role as a world trading power?

 

There are a number of reasons, in the eyes of those running the EU, why Britain must cease to be a major world player and be dismantled for the future good of Europe.   Today, as we shall see, every effort by the EU towards Britain is undertaken with this eventual goal in mind.   From the destruction of the UK’s once proud fishing industry to the victimisation of her farming communities to render the UK dependent on EU food, the pressure is on for European bureaucrats and politicians to expedite this baleful agenda before the British people full awaken to what is happening.

 

So Why is it Happening?

 

History reveals that Continental politics have always spelled trouble for Britain.   We have always had a different destiny from the rest of our Continental neighbours for one simple and straightforward reason.   Britain was the nation which became the first industrial and maritime world power.

Britain was the first to develop and use her huge merchant and military navies to annexe foreign territories and then open trade with them around the world.

 

While nations in Europe still pursued parochial trade with their immediate neighbours, the cutters of the British East India Company carved their wake through the oceans, bring all manner of exotic materials to British shores.

 

Britain extended her Anglo-Saxon heritage into the Americas, Canada, India, South Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, as well as building strategic military bastions in Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other areas to protect her interests.   During the 18th and 19th centuries, her economic and military influence grew exponentially.

 

Magna Carta (1215) and subsequently the Declaration of Rights (1689) recognised our rights and freedoms and are contracts between the sovereign and the people which cannot be abrogated even by an elected parliament.

 

In Britain, we have enjoyed the freedom to engage in any activity so long as it isn’t prohibited by law.   In Europe, a citizen is only allowed to do those thing expressly permitted by the state.   Hence the need for a blizzard of directives to tell the citizen what he can and cannot do.

 

The EU is protectionist.   The British, on the other hand, positively encourage free enterprise, sensible risk-taking, and actively nurture individual spontaneity and entrepreneurial endeavour.   These are “freedom ‘ traits, which reaped the Empire and her citizens an enormous collective wealth in their day, and which even still entice a huge amount of inward investment capital and foreign corporate endeavour today.   The famous British eccentricity, celebrated and loved in countless movies, is the hallmark of this individuality.

 

Britain – an Economic Threat to the Continent

 

Nazi economist Professor Horst Jecht, of Berlin University, firmly believed that Britain was the single greatest obstacle to Germany fulfilling her historic aim of dominating Europe economically as well as militarily.   Jecht puts his case in his 1942 essay,  “Developments towards the European Economic Community”:

 

“The foundation for this remarkable development of England was laid back in the period between the 16th and 18th centuries where maritime superiority was gained and a global, colonial empire acquired.   By the end of this period, countries outside Europe accounted for 40% of England’s export trade.   This development continued until World War 1.   In 1913, these countries accounted for 56% and 65% of her imports and exports respectively.   Foreign capital investment levels in these countries also started to grow significantly.

 

Since modern times, England’s economy has developed more and more away from Europe and not only during the period of English free trade.   It became even more pronounced when there was protection and closer economic and political union with the nations of the empire, particularly at the time of the Ottawa agreements of 1932.   British trade became even more concentrated overseas and, like the figure of 1913, in 1937 British exports outside Europe reached 64%.

 

In this essay and subsequent address to the Berlin economic conference during the Second World War, Dr Jecht concludes by explaining that Germany’s true role is to lead the future new economic order of Europe after the Second World War hostilities end.   Germany’s eventual defeat in 1945 however changer her immediate destiny, but not her post-World War II desire eventually to dominate Europe, a role she is well on the way to achieving today.

 

Facts:

 

The European government now has its own parliament, flag, supreme court, currency and anthem and is currently setting up its own written constitution, foreign policy, armed forces, federal police force and legal system.

 

The new European Army is headed up by a German general.

 

Europol is headed up by a German police officer.

 

The EU treaties which bind Britain to Europe take precedence over Acts of Parliament and are binding ab initio.  This means that if we are outvoted in Brussels on a proposed piece of legislation, that new law must nevertheless be implemented in Britain, no matter the cost or damage involved, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court.

 

Our national veto, once held out as the carrot, giving Britons the impression that they could always say no, has now been withdrawn in almost every area.   In plain English, if Britain doesn’t like any encroaching Brussels legislation which she believes will harm British interests, economy and culture, there is nothing she can do about it.

 

Under the current EU voting system, 62 out of 87 votes are required to pass a law, 26 votes are required to block one.   The UK only has 10 votes under the Qualified Majority Voting System (QMV), and can rarely must the support needed to increase her votes over 26 to block legislation that can be harmful to Britain.   This is one of the main tools of the acquis communautaire – ‘the ratchet’ – the mechanism that decrees that once Brussels has acquired power from the nation states, that power can never be given back.   This is the method by which Britain has already been extensively damaged by our European ‘partners’ who do not share our cultural or global trading perspectives.

 

The EU treaties do not contain any exit clause and so do not provide for any member state to reject any law, or even their entire European membership AT ANY TIME.   The idea that Britain can somehow ‘renegotiate’ her terms of membership, or pick and choose which parts she goes along with and which she rejects, is completely false.

 

John Major discovered this when he believed he had renegotiated a measure of national independence for Britain at Maastricht in 1992.   He later found that his wishes were cynically ignored through a technical loophole in the third line of the agreement had had signed.

 

The question of whether Britain should remain in the EU has scarcely featured in any general election campaign during the past 25 years.   This option is avoided at all costs by almost all politicians and simply not made available by any of the three major political parties in Britain.

 

 

SELLING BRITAIN BY THE POUND

 

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.   Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance.” – Thomas Jefferson, at the Constitutional Convention, 1787.

 

“Monetary union is a path of no return.   No subsequent revision or withdrawal of any kind is either legally or politically provided for.”  -  Hans Tietmeyer, the German Buindesbank

 

“If the House of Commons by any possibility loses the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.”   W.E. Gladstone, 1891

 

“By a continuous process of inflation, government can confiscate secretly and unobserved an important part of the wealth of their citizens… The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does so in such a manner that only one man in a million is able to diagnose it.”  John Maynard Keynes,  The Economic Consequences of Peace

 

Smoke and Mirrors

 

Today, Britain is being lured into joining the European single currency with lies, false promises and deceit.   Politicians attempting to pass this off as an economic issue to the public know full well that the euro is about nothing less than the complete surrender of the Uks economic and political sovereignty to a foreign power.   Which is why the debate on the euro is almost never entered into publicly by those who push it.   Greg Lance-Watkins of Silent Majority tells us why:

 

“It follows that by joining the single currency, member states hand over total control of their economy to Brussels.   Individual policies are subsumed within the (one size fits all) system of the EU.   This will apply even where the overall EU policy is disadvantageous to a particular or number of individual states.   In other words, the economic control of a country is taken out of the hands of the national government and given to unelected officials in Brussels.   At the same time, all gold and dollar reserves, apart from a small ‘working balance’, are given up and handed to the European Central Bank.”

 

How many British pro-euro politicians have told the British people that one of the first ignominous acts we would have to commit as a nation in joining the euro would be to hand over $48 billion-worth of our total gold and dollar reserves to the European Central Bank, along with our control over setting interest and exchange rates that suit us?   In fact, the great gold transfer got underway when British Chancellor Gordon Brown sold more than half of Britain’s holdings in gold to prop up the euro.   Who in Britain cared anyway?   Notice that these moves behind the scenes would also prevent Britain from backing out of the euro at some future point and having sufficient gold and dollar assets to underpin a re-launch of the pound. 

 

 

How accountable is the European Central Bank with all this money of ours?   As with other EU institutions, the ECB is famously about as scrutable as a battalion of Mongol horsemen.   The Financial Times advises:  “ECB intends to make decisions in secret, using forecasts it will not reveal, to achieve objectives it does not need to justify.”

 

No Turning Back

 

Sir Edward George, former governor of the Bank of England, reminds us, the euro has less to do with economics as it does with politics.   Britain ditching its traditional, strong, independent sterling currency may rightly be viewed, in the yes of her old enemies, Franc and Germany, as her final defeat.

 

Article 109L.4 of the Maastrich Treat declares that the process of monetary integration with Europe is ‘irrevocable’.   This means that if the British people don’t like the euro or the interest rates compelled upon us during the integration process, too bad – we’re stuck with them.   This would be a very costly mistake for the British people to make.   Only a successful war of disassociation/secession would enable Britain once again to re-establish her national independence from Europe.

 

To fight a war, you need troops, equipment, money and people willing to sacrifice their lives for the independence ideal.   Perhaps the British won’t lack the desire to regain their independence once they have been a part of the EU’s version of an integrated Europe for a few years.   Getting some serious fighting kit together however would be an entirely different matter.   By this time, Brussels would own our country’s army, navy air force and law enforcement, lock, stock and gun barrel.

 

Even if Britain succeeded in forcefully breaking away from the EU after it had integrated (a doubtful prospect), how could Britain then re-launch her old currency if her gold, silver and dollar reserves have been seized?

 

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

 

The Economic and Monetary Union concept (EMU) is vitally important to the european federal architects, for the euro IS federal Europe.   Having control of the one currency means that the EU Commission and its central bank control everything.   This is a frightening prospect when considering the corruption and lack of accountability within the EU, and secondly, that Britain would have only a marginal say in how she would be governed in the future.

 

The idea of running one centrally controlled, Soviet-style economy throughout Europe is not a new idea… but it IS a disastrous one.   What similarity does the humble economy of Portugal have with the mighty colossus of German?   How does Britain’s global monster economy in any way compare with the parochial tailings of Greece?   One economy throughout Europe means one set of interest rates, uniformly high tax rates, VAT on everything and a deluge of laws and directives controlling the lives of the Euro-citizen down to the finest detail from birth until death.   Socialism indeed.   Then there will be the tax hikes to pay for it all.

 

Tax Increases for all, Especially Britain

 

For Britain to join the continental monetary union, her income tax rates would need to be significantly raised in order to harmonise with those of the remainder of the Eurozone.   Estimates say the UK tax rise could be as much as 20%.  Big socialist government is always hungry for cash to run its endless departments, so VAT in Britain is expected to be expanded to include everything from books to food and could be hiked to a standard rate of 25%. 

 

If these rises are put forward as Single Market legislation, Britain will almost certainly be outvoted, as Europe desperately needs our cash.   We can, of course, appeal to the Luxembourg Court and try to have the measures overturned.   But we know what the outcome of that will be, don’t we?

 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has been tracking the downside to Britain’s existing membership of the European Union, states in his briefing document  ‘Better Off Out’  that areas tremendously hit with increased costs, restrictive and asinine Euro directives and meddling from Brussels include our air space, armed forces, boat building industry,  cheese-makers, civil service, chocolate, dairy farmers, duty-free shopping, freedom of religion, hedgerows, alternative/natural medicines, legal system, the trucking industry, market gardeners, oak trees, pheasant shooting and the rights of countryside dwellers, ponies, postal service, sexual discrimination, taxis, waste disposal, water, whisky, the working week, the roast beef of Old England and the London bus.

 

The British Support the Euro?

 

Michael Howard declared:

 

“Tony Blair, Jack Straw and their colleagues repeatedly said during the general election campaigns of 1997 and 2001 that those elections were not about the euro.   The euro would put at risk jobs, homes and livelihoods.   It has never been endorsed by the British people.”

 

In 1997 Tony Blair vowed:  “The final say will be with the British people in a referendum.”

 

Speaking in Edinburgh in 2001 during his election campaign, he stated:  “It is you, the British people, who will have the decision in your hands in a referendum.”

 

Eurosceptic Labour MP Ian Davidson declared that Mr Straw was trying to Breathe life into a corpse.”

 

He asked:  “Why do we, with low unemployment and high growth, want to join an economic zone that is a disaster, that is not working collectively?”

 

Europe adopts a highly regulated and restrictive, zero free-market approach with inflexible movements of labour, no doubt hampered by the diversity of language and culture.

 

Enlarging the Union

 

Following the Copenhagen Summit, the EU will admit 10 more economically weak candidates as of 1st May 2004:  Malta, Cyprus, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

 

The sordid, penny-market haggling over the subsidies and cash hand-outs to be made available to the new members was typical of the economics of the EU madhouse, the same amateur economics ordinary citizens around the Euro zone have been waking up to since the euro went solo on the streets at the beginning of 2002.

 

New Labour

 

Mr Blair is intent on proving himself one of the Euro-faithful by rebutting euro-dissenters with all the spin and duplicity of a medieval Italian town:

 

“Britain turning its back on Europe would be an error of vast proportions.   Be under no doubt:  if the economic tests are met, Britain should join the single currency.   For Britain to be marginalised in Europe when soon the EU will have 25 members stretching from Portugal to Poland and the largest commercial market in the world, would not just be economically unwise, it would betray a total misunderstanding of the concept of national interest in the 21st century.”

 

Yet as a junior minister in 1982 Mr Blair declared:

 

“Above all, the EEC takes away Britain’s freedom to follow the economic policies we need.   ~We will negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed our jobs.”

 

Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, explained that Tony Blair’s personal eminence and influence in Europe has only been secured by trading off a staggering amount of EU integration over the past five years.

 

“…The abolition of sterling, in principle;  the EU-wide arrest warrants for felonies, including thought crimes such as xenophobia [a dislike of foreigner]); a proto FBI/CIA rolled into one at Europol;  the Social Chapter, which has subtly overturned our trade union laws and forced Britain to adopt a disturbingly large number of Germany’s labour-market rigidities;  anti-discrimination laws that force employers to prove their innocence in court, contravening a core principle of our common law [that a person is innocent until proven guilty];  the Charter of Fundamental Rights – an insidious misnomer – containing a clause authorising suspension of all civic rights, if necessary, in the ‘general interest of the Union’; and now a European constitution, switching our final jurisdiction from the House of  Lords to the European Court.”

 

Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)

 

In October 1990, the Conservative Government of Margaret Thatcher committed Britain to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), a forerunner experiment to the euro and monetary union, which effectively locked the pound into other EU currencies.

 

During the 23 months of chaos that followed:

 

·        British business suffered its worst recession in 60 years.

·        100,000 UK businesses went to the wall.

·        Unemployment doubled from 1.5 to 3 millions.

·        More bankruptcies were filed than in any previous 2-year period EVER.

·        Repossessions of property increased seven times to 32,000.

·        By 1993, 511,000 were at least three months in arrears on their mortgages.

·        Britain lost estimated reserves of £68 billion.

 

 

To avoid total economic collapse and national bankruptcy, Britain was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16th September 1992, Black Wednesday.   Although the damaged caused by the ERM was not permanent, this will not be true for Britain joining the euro.   There will be no ability to exit the arrangement, whatever the damage caused.

 

Joining the euro will be irreversible.   If something goes wrong there will be no provision available for Britain to re-launch the pound.   To launch a currency requires considerable gold, silver and dollar reserves – the very reserves our politicians have been talked into handing over to the European Central Bank.

 

Europe has amassed unfunded pensions liabilities amounting to a staggering $1.2 trillion.   If Britain joins the euro and full monetary union with the Continent, our share of this huge debt could be £30,000 for every British man, woman and child, according to media financial reports issued in October 1996.

 

Abolishing the pound is about abolishing Britain’s independence and control over her own affairs.   Adopting the euro could be the worst and perhaps final mistake Britain would make as an independent nation.   It could amount to permanent fiscal damnation and cause us to inherit all liabilities and debts of Europe while handing over all our assets and reserves.

 

 

Britain – A Sterling Place to do Business

 

The Bank of England’s governor, Sir Edward George, stated in early September 2002 that interest rates could be set at the wrong level for Britain if we joined the euro, resulting in a potential and permanent disaster for our economy.

 

Britain has been thriving outside the single currency, which only demonstrates that the whole euro issue is not about generating wealth which we already enjoy, but about scrapping our national sovereignty.

It is political as distinct from economic incompetence that has fouled up our economy within the past 50 years.   The evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

If the euro is supposed to stabilise the spending of the member states of the Eurozone, as well as offer a credible currency to rival the dollar, then supporters of the single currency need to explain the observable reality of a euro that is struggling to stay afloat ever since its inauspicious birth, and why Britain even needs to change at all.

 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch advises in his ‘Better Off Out’ pamphlet:

 

“Brussels’ dictates are inflicted upon the whole of our economy, so the real point is that only some 10% of our Gross Domestic Product are involved in trade with the EU (declining and in deficit).   Rather more than 10% of our GDP goes to the rest of the world (growing and in surplus).   The remaining 80% of our jobs and GDP depend on our domestic economy.   So the insignificant 10% tail is wagging our healthy 90% dog.”

 

Brussels Moves the Goal Posts … Again

 

Germany, France, Italy and Portugal have not been punished for contravening the deficit limit, as the Pact dictates, but instead have been given an extra two years and told to balance their books, something not even the EU has been able to do with its own accounts.

 

This leniency has been shown despite the fact that other EU member governments have dutifully tried to carry out measures to conform to the Pact which have been politically damaging for them at home.

 

Some analysts see this caving-in by Brussels as an unmistakable sign that the amount of debt accruing within the Union is becoming critical and the currency is in danger of losing its credibility and could eventually collapse.   Brussels is seen to be frantically avoiding a confrontation which could alienate her two leading players, France and Germany.

 

What About all those EU Rebates?

 

Most in Britain think the EU is handing Britons large sums of Eurocash in return for its membership.   Some people reason that the aggravation Britain gets from Brussels is worth tolerating if we are supposed to be getting the cash.

 

The idea that the EU gives Britain anything beneficial is ridiculous.  Figures show that we paid the EU £8.96 billion in 2000, and received back around £5 billion through EU spending in the UK and our ‘rebate’.

 

So here’s the real situation.   We give Brussels around £9 billion of our own hard-earned money, only to have them give £5 billion of it back and tell us how to spend it – this, based on the pretzel-twisting logic that the EU somehow knows better than we do how to spend our own money – of course, with all the EU restrictions on what we can and can’t do with our own wealth!

 

Meanwhile, the other £4 billion goes towards:

 

·        Enriching French farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP);

·        Decommissioning British fishing boats so that Spain and other nations can fish our waters instead;

·        Baling out the poorer EU countries;

·        Paying bureaucrats to draft an insane quantity of regulations that routinely damage Britain’s economic and strategic interests…

 

That is, if the money doesn’t take a one-way dive into the £6 billion part of the EU’s annual budget that disappears in fraud and corruption every year.

 

Conversion to the New Currency

 

Parking meters, cigarette vending machines, tills, the entire banking system, credit card systems – all will have to be dismantled, modified or reprogrammed.

 

Predictably, we have been told by Europe that these costs must be borne by the British taxpayer.   Tony Blair announced that he would earmark some £3.5 billion to fund the changeover of currencies in the public sector.   The ultimate cost of converting the entire country however has been estimated at a staggering £30 billion-plus – that is hundreds of pounds for every man woman and child in the UK – all to be borne by the business sector and their customers.  

 

Corruption and Fraud

 

AAt least 10% of the European Union’s £60-plus billion budget disappears in fraud and mismanagement every year!   The corruption and double-dealing going on in Brussels alone should be enough to compel Britain to leave the EU immediately.  But who is speaking up?

 

Paul van Buitenen did.   He was the EU-appointed auditor who brought down Jacques Santer’s Europ0ean government on fraud charges by highlighting the worst financial scandal in Euroland’s history.   Van Buitenen was able to show that billions of euros had been ‘misappropriated’ by members of the EU elite, such as French commissioner, Edith Cresson, whose live-in dentist became an unlikely beneficiary.

 

Because of his revelations, the EU swung ponderously but predictably into action.   Van Buitenen was subsequently suspended without pay by the EU Commission, the very target of his corruption investigations, for doing his job, while the officials he had accused of serious crimes were themselves suspended on full pay.   Van Buitenen was later vindicated when a further panel upheld his accusations, resulting in the resignation of Santer’s entire EU Commission in 1999.

 

Yet, such is the extent of the corruption, mediocrity and incompetence going on within the EU that the fraud has continued without check under Mr Prodi’s successive regime.   Later, van Buitenen published his best-seller, ‘Blowing the Whistle’ but Europe’s citiz43ns remained, as always, apathetic and careless at the revelations.

 

The last straw for van Buitenen was the Gestapo-like treatment of the Eus chief accountant, marta Andreasen, who had the temerity to declare that the EU’s £60 billion-plus budget was simply ‘out of control’ and ‘massively open to fraud’.   Figures could be altered ‘without leaving any trace’, she reported, and the EU’s accounting system didn’t even used double entry book-keeping, the basic standard of accounting accuracy throughout the world. 

 

Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock is a good example of how the lure of Brussels can tempt politicians wishing to avoid the professional wilderness in their own country to extend their shelf life.   Neil Kinnock never gained the confidence of the British people and so was never elected to office in the UK.   Neil Kinnock was one of the Brussels commissioners for Britain, appointed by Conservative opponent John Major.  Tony Blair would do the same to rival Chris Patten, no doubt to get them off the opposing benches at Westminster.

 

Mr Kinnock, in his role as the officially appointed EU sleaze-buster, offered any whistleblowers protection from ‘adverse consequences’ if they came clean, then promptly reneged on his offer of ‘protection’ in the case of Ms Andreasen, and even stood by and approved her sacking by the Commission, which again was the very target of Ms Andreasen’s corruption concerns.   Mr Kinnock was thus able to give the public another opportunity to see for themselves how much his word is really worth.

 

Mr Kinnock knows full well that financial irregularities in the EU’s accounts have prevented accountants at the Court of Auditors from signing them off for eight years in a row.   In fact, in a report issued a few weeks prior to Andreasen’s professional execution, the Court waqrned of massive failings in the system which could not even record how many billions of pounds were being wasted through fraud each year.   Even Britain’s own National Audit Office found ‘persistent weaknesses’ in fraud checks by EU states earlier in 2002.

 

Shadow Deputy Prime Minister David Davis was outraged:  “Is there or isn’t there a double-entry accounting system?   Because if there isn’t, then it is unlike any other accounting system in the world that anyone respects.”

 

But why should any of this concern Neil Kinnock?  His own professional shortcomings haven’t prevented him from being very comfortable today.   At the time of writing, the EU earns his family up to £500,000 a year, taking into account his salary as the Commission’s vice-president, his luxury three-storey home in Belgium’s capital, all the perks, expense accounts and the salaries of his wife Glenys, his son Stephen, and Stephen’s wife, Helle, a Danish MEP.   All paid for, courtesy of the Euro-taxpayer.

 

Above the Law

 

Under Article 12 of Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU, a blanket, life-time immunity has been extended to all officials like Neil Kinnock and their servants of the institutions, which reads as follows:

 

“In the territory of each member state and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall… be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words (spoken or written).  They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office.”

 

So, in 1999, when the entire EU Commission was found to have been involved in fraud, not one individual could be prosecuted.   How’s that for accountability?

 

Article 1, Chapter 1, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EC) states that “…premises and buildings of the Communities shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation, and their archives shall be inviolable…”   Thus no buildings or offices, filing cabinets, archives or bottom drawers belonging to the EU, wherever they are located, can be searched or inspected… ever.   These two exemptions alone place the people and premises of the EU completely above the law, which flies in the face of the basic principle of British or any decent democracy that ‘no-one is above the law’.

 

Drawn and Quartered

 

(Art. 198a Maastricht) The full title of the European Union is “The European Union of the Regions’.   Within the EU there are, at present, 111 separate regions, due to be expanded with enlargement due on 1st May 2004.   In many of the continental countries, a form of regional government has been common for decades, especially in France, Germany, Spain and Italy.

 

The British Government has, for the past few years, encouraged so-called ‘devolution’ within the UK, transferring regional power from Westminster to Wales,  Scotland and Northern Ireland.   How coincidental is it then that the ‘devolved’ regions in Britain exactly match the map of the regions of the European Union?

 

EU Document 501 PC0083 “sets up the nomenclature of statistical units as a single, coherent system for dividing up the EU’s territory…”   All twelve EU regions in the UK are classified by the letters ‘UK’ plus a further letter to identify the individual region, thus:

 

North Eastern  (UKC)

North West  (UKD)

Yorks & Humberside (UKE)

East Midlands (UKF)

West Midlands (UKG)

East  (UKI)

London (UKI)

South East (UKJ)

South West (UKK)

Wales   (UKL)

Scotland (UKM)

Northern Ireland (UKN)

 

The

‘devolution’ process which saw Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland setting up their own parliaments was, in reality, merely the EU’s  usual way of giving with one hand while taking away with the other.   The landmasses of Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Irish Republic, are already established regions of the European Union, now increasingly ruled directly from Brussels.

 

England must be broken up into 9 regions.   The United Kingdom, as a sovereign union, will officially cease to exist perhaps as early as 2008.

 

This is all going to lead to a nightmare of control, corruption and cynical unaccountability fostered by national governments and their comfortable politicians who care not one jot about the citizens of Europe, let alone the people of Britain?

 

Justice for All

 

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is located in Luxembourg and is based on the American Supreme Court blueprint.   It was largely the inspiration of one of the founders of the EU, Jean Monnet, and his friend and confidante, US Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter.

 

·        No appeal is available in the ECJ.   Its decisions are absolute.

 

·        The all-male judge teams are both unelected and unaccountable under EU law.   They are free to do whatever they please and there is no legal comeback.   Further, the judges are not required to have any judicial experience whatsoever.   Most do not.

 

·        The kernel of the ECJ’s power is derived from the Treaty of Rome, Article 249.   The wording is deliberately generalised, enabling Brussels to extend the widest possible interpretations to these, and other clauses of the Treaty:  “A regulation shall have general application [what does ‘general’ mean?]    It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States…”

 

·        Thus the European Court of Justice has been given powers ‘with no restriction’ over the member states.   This effectively places British citizens under the control of a foreign power and is intended to remove forever Britain’s right to govern herself.   This represents the abandonment of our nation.   Any British politician currently allowing this, or who has participated in orchestrating these efforts in the past, has committed treason under the Treason Act of 1795 and the Treason Felony Act of 1848.

 

·        National parliaments are now mere rubber stamps for all the legislation pouring out of Brussels.   Legally elected British MPs can turn back none of it.

 

·        The EU is abolishing trial by jury under the new European corpus juris system being introduced in Britain.  Once the system is in place, an indicted individual will have to prove his innocence against the combined machinery of the state.

 

·        The European Union is abolishing havaeas corpus, the supreme British legal safeguard which declares ‘no imprisonment without fair trial’, instituted under Article 39 of Magna Carta, 1215.

·        Under British law, a law enforcement officer or the public prosecutor must place evidence before a court within 24 hours of a citizen’s arrest, detailing the charges being brought against them.

 

·        Unpaid lay magistrates, representing the people and drawn from the people themselves, are being replaced after more than 600 years.   They currently hear over 90% of criminal cases.   The new EU-wide justice system will be enforced by inquisitorial courts (no injury).

 

·        British judges are already imposing European law upon British citizens.   Take the ‘metric martyr’ episode in 2001, when a market trader was convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed  using British imperial measures (pounds and ounces).   British District Judge Morgan, in passing judgment upon the unfortunate grocer, stated that the British were now living under ‘new constitutional powers’.

 

·        Compare this with Edward Heath’s comment on the same treaty which gave Judge Morgan these powers:  “There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty…”

 

·        British police will henceforth report to Brussels and be immune from prosecution.

 

·        The ECJ has already granted powers to Europol to intercept mail and e-mails with the excuse that it is fighting the drug menace, money laundering and the ‘War on Terror’.   The latter can naturally be extended to include actions against those who do not support the EU.   Under new legislation, actions pursued by those who disagree with the EU can be labelled seditious, treasonous and even blasphemous.

 

·        The ECJ is removing the ‘double jeopardy’ safeguard.   For centuries, British law has held that if a person is found not guilty of committing a crime, he cannot be tried again for the same offence.   Henceforth, under corpus juris law, the ECJ has given itself the ‘right’ to come back at an individual time and again with the same charge, using all its considerable ‘legal’ apparati, until it secures the required conviction.   Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, has already given prosecutors the right to appeal against not-guilty verdicts handed down by jurors.

·        A British citizen will henceforth be liable to summary arrest and extradition to a foreign country without any evidence being presented to a court.   No prima facie evidence will be presented either to the court or its victim to support such charges.

 

·        In the EU’s apparent attempt to combat football hooliganism, the legal framework already exists to arrest a person even on suspicion that they may have committed, or might in the future commit a crime.

 

·        Under ECJ law, past offences committed by the accused will be raked up against him and used to justify why he committed the crime for which he is accused.   Under British law, this is illegal.   Such information on prior convictions is only made available to the court after the verdict, in order to secure a fair trial.

 

·        Under Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, members of the new federal ‘Europol’ are “immune from legal process of any kind for acts performed…in the exercise of their official functions.”   Thus, no Europol officer can be charged or brought to trial for false imprisonment, violence against a suspect, the destruction or seizure of private property, or harassment of any individual.

 

·        Europol has been given powers to operate anywhere within the Eurozone, including Britain, with complete impunity.   They have the power of summary arrest and extradition, in spite of current British laws, which specifically prohibit such actions.   Under the power of international treaty, British law is superseded by European law.

 

·        Ironically, or perhaps not, Europol’s centre of operations, housing 300-400 officers at present, is located in the old Gestapo headquarters building in the Hague.   Plans are well underway to expand this force to many thousands more, all to be armed and granted unfettered access to all regions of the EU.   Europol has been run by a former German police officer, Jorgen Storbeck, since its inception in 1994.

 

·        Britain’s representation of Europol is quartered with the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) at its HQ London.

·        Europol has been amassing computer records on hundreds of thousands of European citizens.   None of this information is ever made public.   Europol has the power, under EU law, to instruct British police authorities to investigate anyone in Britain the EU deems a danger to law and order.

 

EU Justice – No Checks and Balances

 

Any British government endorsing the above measures, as successive British administrations have done, is signing away freedoms guaranteed to the British people in perpetuity.   Such actions have paved the way for a once democratic Britain to be handed over to a new European-wide, potentially totalitarian regime run by Britain’s former enemies.   The Blair government has been instrumental, via Home Secretary Jack Straw, in accelerating this process, and then convincing the public it is all being done in their best interests.

 

An entity like the European Union, which has gone to great lengths to remove all public scrutiny of its affairs, all media reporting of its forum meetings and which has expeditiously granted lifetime immunity from prosecution to all its personnel and officers for their future actions, what can any government possibly want with such powers?  Can such an entity not reasonably be expected in the future to exercise this awesome might and do bad things to its citizens knowing it will be able to get away with it?   History repeatedly shows that these are the same powers all totalitarian regimes grant themselves before going to war with their own people and those of other countries.

 

This process may still be reversed by a unified and angry response from millions of Britons, clamouring for Britain to reject her EU membership and regain her independence, and compelling her government to take the appropriate, official action.   Time is running out as more statutory instruments are prepared in order to force Britain to remain in the EU.

 

Gone Fishing

 

By Greg Lance-Watkins  -   www.SilentMajority.co.uk

 

Two examples of the way  the European Union has dealt disastrously with Britain will illustrate the methods used to destroy countless British lives.   In this chapter, researcher Greg Lance-Watkins summaries the EU assault on the British fishing industry:

 

·        Unbeknown to the British electorate, Prime Minister Edward Heath made a deal with the EEC and gave away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters.   Up to that point ‘fishing’ had not been included in any treaties (it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Rome) but was later added at Maastricht (Articles 38-47).   EU officials were astounded when Heath unilaterally gave British fishing away with no preconditions.

 

·        British territorial waters are now ‘a shared European Union’ resource, and that means everything in them too.   This has given Brussels the right to allocate quotas to different member states who can now fish in British waters.

 

·        Due to the predictably harsh EU quotas imposed upon Britain’s fishing industry, millions of tons of fish, all dead but accidentally caught, are required (under EU law) to be thrown back into the sea.   EU law means that more fish are thrown back by British boats than are actually landed, for fear of incurring fines for over-fishing.   This is the result of the European Union’s conservation policy, which can cost lobster fishermen also, if they land a creature that is even one millimetre too small.   Fines of up to £50,000 can be levied against larger trawlers landing even one box over quota.

 

·        Thousands of boat boardings and inspections are carried out each year by EU representatives to ensure that the law on fishing is being upheld.

 

·        By 2004, the fishing fleets of other nations within the EU will be able to work right up to the shore, with Britain’s traditional 6- mile and 12-mile limits due to be abolished.   The quotas allocated by the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU mean that Spanish trawlers are allowed to fish cod in the Irish Sea while British trawlers are forbidden from putting to sea at all.

 

·        Although Maastricht was not signed until 1992 (in which Britain’s surrender of her fishing waters was formally acknowledged), foreign fishing fleets were using Britain’s waters for many years prior to that time.

 

·        Britain was allowed to fish only between 10% and 15% of her own stocks until 1st January 2003, when even this was cut back further.   The whole British fishing industry, on land and sea, has thus been effectively destroyed.   The quota system was brought into effect to accommodate the Spanish fishing fleet which had more boats than all the rest of the EU put together, but no good fishing grounds.

 

·        This law is being rigidly enforced with British waters, and is fast becoming a major pollution factor as well as helping to destroy remaining fishing stocks.   The previous EU arrangement gives Britain control up to six miles offshore and part control up to twelve miles.   This arrangement ended in 2002, and from 1st January 2003, EU boats have been able to fish right up to Britain’s shores.   (EU Regulation 3760/92).

 

·        The British government was forced to pay over £100 million in damages to Spain for preventing their fishermen from fishing British territorial waters.   The European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1988, passed by legally elected Members of the British Parliament to protect British fisheries, was illegal and contrary to EU law.

 

·        EU fisheries policy has been such a success that as of November 2002, British waters have become so depleted of cod fishing grounds in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the north coast of Scotland.

 

·        Total number of British fishing livelihoods wrecked as a result of EU interference:  1 million.

 

 

 

Gone Farming

 

By Greg Lance-Watkins

 

How the European Union has destroyed British farming:   

 

·        Britain came under the EEC’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome.   Under the CAP’s ‘Community Preference’, Britain must purchase any goods from EU countries first, and not from her former trading partners or Commonwealth.   Thus Britain is forced at inflated prices to purchase, for example, some of France’s huge surpluses, while French farmers are compensated through the Common Agricultural Policy, a part of which Britain funds, to grow food no-one wants.

·        The CAP’s agricultural interference and draconian regulation has thus deliberately despaired and wrecked the British farming industry.   Food prices have been drastically affected as the more expensive food Britain is compelled to buy from Europe, rather than from her cheaper Commonwealth sources, finds its way into the supermarket and corner store.   UK Government estimates in 1998 put the unnecessary and unjustified increase in British food prices at over £6.5 billion.

 

·        Britain keeps pouring billions of good money after bad by continuing to fund her share of the CAP, knowing full well that nothing but more British agricultural hardship will come from it.   The CAP represents European cronyism and protectionism of the worst order.

 

·        Today some British farmers are bing paid to do nothing with their own land.   Those who are still farming actively in Britain are compelled to conform to asinine EU regulation that has drastically driven up their operating costs.   Little wonder that British farming has taken such a beating in the past twenty years as the full terms of the CAP have begun to cut in.

 

·        Other colossal increases in costs affecting farming include EU inspections of meat facilities and withdrawal of previous subsidies to British farmers which are then given to farmers in France, Spain and Greece for farming tobacco.

 

·        The Common Agricultural Policy currently consumes over half the EU’s total income.   It is also responsible for a major part of the legislation flowing out of Europe.   Even by the end of 1996, 8,956 farming laws had already been passed.

 

·        By signing up to the CAP in 1972, the British effectively lost control of up to 90% of their land mass (the area currently related to agriculture), as well as handing over total control of all our farming practices to Brussels.   As with fishing, this has resulted in the downfall of the farming industry due to the following:

 

 

     1.   Over-production within the EU brought about by liberal subsidies.

 

2.        Britain being flooded with food imports, against which the British government finds itself powerless to protect the British farmers, due to EU rules.

 

3.        Prices (to farmers, not consumers) have tumbled and thousands of farmers are now facing ruin.   Again (because of EU regulations) there is nothing the British government can do in the way of financial help or a policy of protection.

 

4.        Milk quotas were brought in to level out production across the EU.   British farmers were more efficient and productive than their Continental counterparts and so had to be restricted.   Britain is now forced to import 20% of its milk needs from France, whilst British farmers pour milk down the drain and steadily go bankrupt.

 

5.        An over-abundance of EU legislation is stifling whole sections of the industry into extinction.   Pig, sheep and cattle farmers, as well as the industries that depend on them (packaging, slaughtering, etc.) are all being forced to close.  For example:

 

6.        Since 1990, slaughterhouses in Britain have diminished in number from 1,400 to 400 due to EU regulations on ‘cleanliness’.

 

7.        Farmers have been, and are continuing to be paid for doing nothing with their land (the policy of ‘set-aside’).    The richer the land, the more subsidy the farmer receives for not farming it.   This policy is the land-based version of the de-commissioning of Britain’s fishing fleets.

 

·        The deliberate run-down of the British farming industry is taking place and, because of it, British farmers can no longer feed the citizens of these islands.   This places the country at the mercy of the EU and foreign imports.

 

·        The following is an indication of government (EU) policy:  On 3rd May 2000, the Government Rural White Paper – 7th report of the Environment Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Vol. 1 – contained the following opening paragraph:  “The role of rural England as the food provider for the nation is no longer an essential one.”

 

·        Beef:  In a typical move which openly flouted EU law, the French government maintained an illegal 3-year ban on British beef, even though Brussels had ruled that the product was safe.   The continued blockade was imposed by France’s previous, beleaguered socialist government in an attempt to appease the powerful French farming lobby and its consumers.   The illegal ban is thought to have cost British farmers a staggering £600 million in lost exports, not to mention tainting the reputation of British beef globally, resulting in 40 other countries currently maintaining blockades of their own against us.  Under EU law, France could have amassed a potential fine of up to £100 million for disobeying a direct order from the EU to lift her illegal ban.   France is unlikely to pay a cent however as she is one of the two tails that wags the EU dog.

 

The Great Deception Behind the Rebate Row

 

By Christopher Booker (January 2006)

 

Tony Blair was quite right to point out that, without the UK rebate, Britain would be the largest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 15 times more than France.   It was precisely this imbalance which prompted Margaret Thatcher to fight for the rebate.   It was never properly explained, however, why this ridiculous anomaly arose in the first place.

 

One of many remarkable episodes which Richard North and I were able to bring to light in our book,

The Great deception,

 just republished in a new updated edition, was the bizarre story behind the setting up of the Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960’s.  This was triggered off by the crisis facing France, through the runaway bill she was paying to subsidise French farmers for producing food nobody wanted.

 

President de Gaulle was terrified that this would bankrupt the French state, provoking social collapse.   The French therefore cunningly devised a CAP to get other countries to buy their surplus food and foot their subsidy bill.   The real reason why de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry was that it was vital first to get these arrangements agreed.  Otherwise Britain could have sabotaged a system deliberately designed to benefit France, from which Britain, because she imported, but with a smaller farming sector, she would also get fewer subsidies.

 

Only in 1969 did France get her way, at which point she needed Britain in and Edward Heath accepted the absurd arrangement.   Within a decade, with the CAP then taking up 90 per cent of the entire budget, Britain would become the biggest contributor.

Hence Mrs Thatcher’s fight for her rebate.   But even this was only a partial solution, because Britain’s farmers have continued to receive dramatically small subsidies than their competitors, contributing to the crisis which in recent years has brought much of British agriculture to its knees.

 

Thus are we still living with the problems created by that French stitch-up of 40 years ago, for reasons now almost lost in the mists of time.  For the full story refer to

The Great Deception:  Can The European Union Survive?, published by Continuum at £9.99.

 

The Sunday Telegraph, 4th December 2005

 

Blair Will Pay for his Betrayal in Brussels

 

When it comes to international negotiations, possession is nine tenths of the law.   A country may be under any amount of pressure, but as long as it is profiting from the status quo, it has nothing to fear from a breakdown.  It is instructive then to compare the behaviour of the EU at the Hong Kong trade talks with that of the United Kingdom at the Brussels summit.

 

In Hong Kong, the EU represented by its Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, was determined not to open its markets to developing countries.  Its stance was wrong-headed and ethically indefensible.

 

Euro-protectionism drives up prices, erodes Europe’s competitiveness and causes much poverty in the Third World.   But despite the pleas of the southern hemisphere nations, and despite a general American initiative to cut tariffs, Brussels remained intransigent, secure in the knowledge that no deal would mean a default to the existing situation.

 

Britain’s position in Brussels was even stronger.  No mechanism existed to reduce the British rebate without Tony Blair’s agreement.  Here, a failure to reach terms would mean not a continuation of the status quo, but something even more attractive:  a drying up of the budget.

 

Britain – which, for almost the entire period of its membership, has been one of only two countries to make any net payment to the EU – would thus have been spared its annual tribute of £12 billion, and might have used these savings to (for example) give us all a two thirds cut in council tax.

 

Why, then, was Mr Blair so determined to find an accommodation?  Why did he climb down from his own position that there would be no reduction in the rebate without a commensurate dismantling of the CAP?   Because his Europeanism has never really been based on a computation of Britain’s national interest.

 

For him, being pro-EU is about being a modern internationalist, not about securing specific gains for his country.   This is, of course, the worst possible frame of mind in which to enter negotiations.

 

More to the point, though, Mr Blair has failed in his own terms.  A generous internationalist might indeed believe that Britain ought to give money to needier countries.   But the EU budget is not a mechanism for doing so.  Its largest per capita beneficiary is Luxembourg.  By failing to secure CAP reform, Mr Blair has, in fact, done immense damage to the world’s truly deserving states.

 

Make no mistake:  the sums of money involved are immense - £7 billion, the amount Mr Blair has handed away, is roughly the entire police budget for England and Wales.  At the last election, Mr Blair claimed Tory plans for a £4 billion tax reduction would mean savage cuts in public services.   Never again will he be able to level such an accusation.

 

From now on, every time they are asked where they would find the money for tax cuts, the Tories can reasonably reply:  from Brussels.  Mr Blair has betrayed his word and his electorate.   His budget surrender will be hung, albatross-like, around his neck and invoked every time he raises taxes. 

 

The Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2005

 

Vitamins

 

There is a mass-migration of income from the medicine and pharmaceutical industries into the huge diversity of companies comprising what is known as the ‘alternative health industry’ has not gone unnoticed by the powers-that-be.   Today, British and Continental citizens are finding that new legislation from Brussels is seeking either to ban or strictly limit the availability of a wide range of traditional remedies and supplements that have been used by the public for decades, and in some cases centuries, for their well-being.  Something sinister called Codex Alimentarius is casting its Big Brother shadow across the Eurozone.   Americans and other world populations are looking on with apprehension as they know they are next!

 

The EU Supplements Directives

 

There is a European move to regulate the alternative health industry’s supplements.  

 

On 12th March 2002, the European Parliament voted and passed regulations which limit the public availability and upper intakes of hundreds of nutrients to ridiculously low levels – in certain cases,  1/50th            or  even less of what many nutritional doctors recommend as therapeutic doses.

 

Like Germany and France, many are now facing the prospect of not just severe censure in the amounts of these nutrients they can take, but what they can buy at all.  For, hidden within the Trojan Horse ‘harmonisation’ proposals used to justify entering the launch codes against the alternative health industry, the realisation is dawning that anything not on the EU positive list of ‘accepted’ supplements is now in for an outright ban.   Manufacturers who wished to field anything ‘new’ will be required to spend millions proving benefit through exhaustive ‘drug testing’ – a state of affairs guaranteed to bankrupt even the most stalwart of the green corporations.

 

For 13 years, European pharmaceutical conglomerates have been contemplating a standardised market for vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements.   Various attempts to harmonise the industry have met with a huge and sustained opposition, not least from the UK and its vitamin consumers.   In January 2000, the Brussels Commission, during one of those rare, brief periods in which it was not being found guilty of fraud and accounting corruption, table a White Paper on Food Safety.  A later document, 500PC0222 (what monster invents that kind of archiving system?), concluded that a wide disparity existed on alternative medicine dosages, and proposed legislation to correct the imbalance.   In France and Germany, for instance, no products containing more than one times the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) may be sold without a drug licence.

 

And this is a problem.  Vitamin C’s RDA is 40-60mg.  Yet the therapeutic dosage of C begins at 500mg and goes up beyond 10,000mg.  So if you wish to treat yourself with mega doses of C complex for your cancer, best visit B & Q and buy up a wheelbarrow in readiness to haul all those expensive, tiny vitamin pills back to base-camp.

 

Opposition is to No Avail

 

Most UK Members of the Euro Parliament (MEPs) voted against the food supplements and herbal initiatives, which nevertheless passed.   In spite of some 400 million pieces of mail, e-mails, faxes and sky writings thrown at Brussels vociferously protesting this attack on human rights, along with the predictable media black-out, the legislation was approved with no House debate at the usual tornado velocity, with 383 MEPs in favour and 139 against.  Considerable resources had been expended by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby members for their vote.  The public’s outrage was ignored.

 

Where are we Now?

 

There is an intervening period currently occurring which is designed to allow member states to pass laws aligning themselves with the new directives, which also strictly limit the availability of herbal medicines.   Products formulated with ingredients not on the EU’s parsimonious list of approved substances will not comply with the directives and will be banned after 1st June 2005.   Upper safe limits have been arbitrarily allocated to such a conservative list of nutrients, over which supplement dosage will be regulated, that the vast majority of other, more specialised nutrients not included on the list will be effectively cleared from the shelves of most UK, Dutch and Irish health stores, along with even the common stuff, such as vitamins C and B6, which are always sold in potencies exceeding the EU mandate.

 

Unless a concerted effort is made en masse by the affronted citizenry to pull Britain out of the European Union, the Euro juggernaut will have its way again.   A few short years from now, the Darth Vader vitamin police will screech up outside your vitamin shack and clear your shelves of the designated ‘contraband’ nutrients.  And there won’t be a thing you will be able to do about it.

 

Strategies

 

Many alternative health organisations are blanching at the thought of losing significant revenues over this new legislation to the drug industry and their huge retail conglomerates, and have formed alliances to ‘fight the Food  Supplements Directive’.  However, they do so in woeful ignorance of the simple fat that, with the European Union, they are no longer operating on a democratic, accountable field.   Their mistake, and this is the crucial point being missed, is that they are confusing Brussels with people who actually care about what the public think.

 

Brussels do not care about your supplements!   Brussels are closing loopholes, working to standardise everything across Europe, and responding to corporate lobbying and plain paper envelopes from the drug industry in their usual way, all the while ruling their new fiefdom from behind closed doors.  The public are not considered.

 

Brussels do not recognise that you even have a right to complain.   This is the new system taking over Europe as well as Britain.  There is nothing you can do about any of this through what you perceive as traditional parliamentary channels.   They simply don’t exist any more.   Your politicians have been too cowardly to tell you that this is now the state of affairs governing Britain.

 

Uneasy Bedfellows – The Great Immigration Disaster

 

Today, Britain is being successfully invaded for the third time in its 1,000 year history.   The first time, it was William of Normandy who invaded our southern shores and ended up running the country after King Harold was struck in the eye with a French arrow at the ill-fated Battle of Hastings in 1066.  The second occasion was when the Americans invaded us in a friendly way prior to the Allies launching Operation Overlord (D-Day) against the Nazis on 6th June 1944.

 

These days, Britain is being invaded with ‘asylum seekers’, most of which are not political refugees fleeing tyranny in their own countries at all, but economic migrants seeking to better their lives by choosing a new country in which to live.  And guess which is their first country of choice?  Not Germany, not France, nor Italy or Greece but Britain!

 

The United states has the Mexican immigrant problem in her south west corner.  Australians are trying to hold the Indonesians at bay to the north.  New Zealanders have the Pacific Islanders and citizens of other south-east Asian nations trying to get in.   This is economic migration.

 

Into this mix we stir the concerted plan by global socialism striving for its New World Order to homogenise national populations in order to dilute the hated national identity and thus marginalise the appeal of the nation state.   Mass, unchecked immigration is the perfect weapon to accomplish this.   The nation, like the family, is believed by the socialist today to be the root cause of all wars and woes respectively, which is why socialism is always working tirelessly to kill off both.   Actually, while nationalism has certainly been one of the reasons war has broken out in the past, it is not the main reason.   The chief motivation that triggers a country to go to war is actually the belief that it can get away with it.

 

Nations provide a check and balance system against government abuse and tyranny.  Truly democratic nations are the largest social unit that can still be directly controlled by the majority of their inhabitants.   When one nation gets too big for its boots, others can band together and sort out the renegade country.   Refugees fleeing the tyranny can also hope to find sanctuary in another land.   Nazi Germany and Japan were brought to account during the last war by this check and balance system, although the cost was ugly and extremely high.  A world containing a democracy of independent nations still provides for this control system to operate effectively if someone gets out of line.

 

But set up a global government structure not answerable to its peoples, or even a continental federation like the EU, place all the power into the hands of a few, unelected, unaccountable committees, and the check and balance system is lost.   One of course lives in the hope that such a mega-government will be benevolent.   But it it isn’t?  What can you do about it now?  Where will you flee?   Who will bring the tyranny to account?

 

Our neighbours on the mainland have suffered enough at the hands of their extremists and ideologists.   No countries deserve peace and a chance to rid themselves of their power-hungry political cliques more than France, Austria, Germany and Italy.   It is for this reason that the European Union poses the greatest danger to European and hence world peace, not just because it is run by a group of fifth-rate, financially corrupt nest-featherers, but because there is no accountability to the public.   This is especially true with Britain, where the safety net has been removed just as we are about to be persuaded to take our own one-way, high-wire walk into European integration.   The European Union has already shown itself capable of:

 

·        Corruption on a Herculean scale.

·        Removing its citizens’ human rights if it so chooses.

·        Ignoring mass protests of its citizens over the measures it introduces.

·        Imprisoning people for periods without fair trial.

·        Equipping the state with all the instruments of repression.

·        Rendering immunity from prosecution to all its officials.

 

Open Door

 

From 1950 to 1990, the total population of Caribbean and Asian immigrants in Britain went from around 80,000 to a little over 3 million, mostly concentrated in the south-east of the country and the major cities.  Since the early 1990’s, the immigrant population, comprising both legal entrants and those sneaking in, has exploded exponentially.  Figures released by the Home Office show that just under 30,000 illegal immigrants claimed asylum in a three-month period in the summer of 2002.  Nine out of ten had their cases thrown out, yet only 3,565 were subsequently deported.

 

The mass, unchecked immigration sanctioned by the present and past British governments has deeply offended the British.  Needless to say, the immigration issue is hardly about ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’, or ‘populism’, except when these labels justifiably apply to politically correct liberalists who seek to stifle the honest outrage of the majority.  Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be any immigrants.  The reason the British are so upset is because they were simply never asked who they wanted to come to live with them….and how many.

 

Immigration is ever the hot issue it always was.  Even to discuss the problem is to invite a torrent of hate-filled abuse and cries of ‘racist!’ and ‘Nazi!’ from the socialist nation-wreckers.  This of course is their intention:  to keep free speech suppressed, all the while allowing their damaging, dangerous policies to proceed unimpugned.  One such shameful issue has been the catastrophic failure of our political class to admit the disaster of Britain’s immigration policy.

 

·        According to government sources, genuine asylum seekers fleeing political persecution make up a mere 3% of those attempting to get into Britain.  The vast majority are illegal economic immigrants.  People are attempting to enter Britain in such numbers because they see the real chance of a prosperous future for themselves here.

 

·        The government mechanism for curbing immigration and ensuring only valid cases are passed appears to have completely broken down.  Very few asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down at the time of writing are actually being deported.  Many are either just released into the community or disappear into British society.

·        British taxpayers are having to foot the expense of providing camps, healthcare, social security, education and housing for tens of thousands of economic migrants every month!

 

·        Under new government guidelines, four-star hotels and holiday camps are being set aside to house illegal immigrants.

 

·        Asylum seekers have also been benefiting from hand-outs from the politically correct National Lottery Community Fund.  In 2001, illegal immigrants received a staggering £20 million to the outrage of other groups, such as the Victims of Crime Trust, who were passed over.  Clive Elliott of the VCT called for a boycott of the Lottery, remonstrating:  “I accuse the Community Fund of being biased and prejudiced and even exhibiting institutionalised racism when choosing its priorities.”

 

·        Today, one in 20 of London’s population is either an ‘asylum seeker’ or a refugee.

 

·        Asylum applications can involve long and expensive legal processes, again paid for by the British taxpayer.

 

·        Unchecked illegal immigration provides easy opportunity for terrorists to enter Britain undetected.  One refugee leader, Dr Mohammed Sekkoum, believes that at least 100 Algerians who are known terrorists in their own country have entered and are living secretly in Britain.

 

·        Communities in south-eastern England have found themselves literally overrun by illegal immigrants.

 

·        It appears that Britain has lost control of her own borders.

 

·        The white population of Britain is reproducing itself far more slowly than the immigrant populations, with the inevitable effect of changing the racial mix of the country.

 

·        Illegal immigration allows a nation state’s identify to be diluted as other cultures homogenise with the domestic population.

 

·        Illegal immigration provides more justification for EU state interference and control.

·        Publicising illegal immigration will more likely cause the acceptance by the public of EU security measures, such as the introduction of a continent-wide ID card, which the citizenry normally would not tolerate.  Will Europe once again hear:  “Your papers, please”?

 

·        Cultural diversity has historically caused deep-seated and long-term problems with stability and control, as we have seen with Northern Ireland, Africa, Yugoslavia and Britain and many other examples throughout history.  Yet ‘multiculturalism’ still remains the weapon of choice for EU socialists for four main reasons:

 

1.        It wrecks a nation’s national identity and customs;

 

2.        It improves socialism’s standing with the immigrants who will henceforth vote for their benefactors;

 

3.        It creates problems which can only be solved with the state taking on more powers, e.g. the issuance of  ID cards and other security measures;

 

4.        No indigenous citizen is able to complain about the effects of this ‘unchecked’ immigration for fear of being labelled a ‘racist’.

 

·        In ancient times, when the Assyrian empire invaded a nation, it would     deport the indigenous population and settle foreign peoples into the conquered land, such as with the Samaritans into northern Israel.   This sweeping measure prevented the germination of nationalist resistance movements among the conquered race.

·        In 1998, the EU set up a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna.   Neither ‘crime’ was defined, leaving each open to wide interpretation, one of the EU’s favourite tactics.

 

·        While unacceptable ‘racist’ views are deplored by most, a free society must allow freedom of speech, however objectionable.  Otherwise, who determines what is acceptable to think about and say, and what isn’t?  The EU?

 

Are the British Racist?

 

A cataclysmic weapon has been deployed against Britain in the form of mass, unchecked immigration, coupled with the drafting of new legislation which will actually make it illegal to voice your opposition to EU policies of the day.

 

But are the British who speak up about such matters ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’, or are they not justified  in feeling apprehensive and nervous about what is going on around them?  The future may yet see Islamic fundamentalism take to the streets in Britain to propagate its own violence, since radical Islam, by its own admission, refuses to assimilate into Britain’s new secular society, let alone the previous Christian one.  This may already have begun to happen.

 

Logging on to You

 

After the forthcoming ‘enlargement’ of the EU in May 2004, the aim is eventually to have all 450 million inhabitants registered on the central Europol database with an ‘entitlement’ (read ‘identity’) card, fingerprints, DNA-typing and dozens of fields of information on political and sexual preferences, arrest records, tax data, religious beliefs and other demographic denominators.  Misbehaviour by any individual will incur a withdrawal of ‘entitlements’ (privileges granted by the state) and the full machinery of the state’s oppressive law enforcement apparatus being arrayed against them.

 

Another problem is that terrorists can gain access to Britain relatively easily in order to wreak havoc on soft targets, as we almost saw with the ricin episode in North London.  Such terrorist events, while grotesque and macabre to the public, in fact greatly serve the ends of the socialist architects.  Another high-profile terrorism shooting, for instance, provokes the usual round of gun-control legislation, further disarming law-abiding citizens, while at the same time ensuring that the police become more heavily armed and the serious weaponry is left in the hands of hardened criminals and troublemakers.

 

Old Soviet

 

Anatoly Golytsin, a Kremlin staffer, defected from the USSR in 1984 and published his book, New Lies for Old.   In it, Golytsin described how, a few years into the future, a series of political events would occur in Russia which would lead the world to believe that Communism had collapsed.  This in fact happened with the breaking up of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The West was indeed lulled to sleep, according to Golytsin, trusting that the Cold War was over.  Meanwhile, was a more powerful and better organised regime forming beneath Western nations in Europe after decades of careful planning and execution?

 

The political left in Britain endorses any move that contributes towards the break-up of the state and its acceleration into their utopia of either a pan-European super state or global federation.  Reckless immigration, along the lines we are seeing today, appears to be deliberately encourage, through inaction, by the government of the day, even as it was by previous administrations, regardless of party politics.

 

Britain – a Cultural War-Zone

    

The woman in the street and the man on the Clapham omnibus, born during the 1920’s into a Britain of deference, respect and long-established British values, have both received a rude awakening.  The Britain they once admired and loved has ceased to exist.

 

There was once a Britain where citizens regarded themselves as having the highest ideals of decency and justice.  But the character of today’s Britons, occupying the same place on the globe as their empirical predecessors, would be as alien to those old adversaries Gladstone and Disraeli as the dark side of the moon.

 

To the old soldiers, sailors and airmen of World War II, the country they loved and fought for is unrecognisable to them today, and so are the inhabitants.  Forbidden by law to say anything about what is going on around them, they choke on the ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘cultural diversity’ gags that have been stuffed in their mouths.  Bitter resentment and anger seethe in their hearts that no one asked them whether they wanted all the changes the socialists forced upon them anyway.  They came from an era when everyone seemed to care.  Today, how shocked they are to find that it is they are viewed as the enemies of ‘tolerance’ and ‘progress’.

 

While millions of the silent majority resent what has happened and seek a lawful, political solution from one of their major political parties, not one speaks for them.  The Big Three, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, are all pushing for the death of Britain.  New Labour waved the Union Jack at the Queen’s Jubilee, while chortling inwardly at its coming demise.  The soft and vacillating Conservative right rubberstamps a multiculturalism it secretly hates, grinning sheepishly up at the British Tower of Babel which hideously offends it, just to appear relevant with the trendy modernizers of Blair’s Third Way’.

 

Are the British institutionally racist?  Well if we are, you’d be hard put to explain why British army and civilian personnel went native in India.  Africa and a hundred places in between during the empire years, even as they do today.   Millions of Brits over the centuries have married foreign spouses, incorporated foreign cuisine and adopted foreign ways and brought all those great foreign words into our tremendously versatile language. 

 

Today the huge contributions the British have made to the world are still venerated in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, America, New Zealand and a hundred other countries.  Certainly not much of an indication that the British culture is at war with the natives.  In fact, name another empire that has ever withdrawn from its power and still enjoys the kind of relationship we do with most of our former colonies today?

 

So Britain is to get the destiny she deserves.  Lenin is to have his day.  The state is God.  Multiculturalism and political correctness became the new faith and morality for Britain round about the time the nation realised it had lost God in the mud somewhere between the guilt of Passchendaele and the shame of the Anglican Lambeth Conferences.

 More!

 

*  *  *

                                        ---------------

-------

 

['FORTUNATELY ,WE ARE NOW LEAVING THE  CORRUPT-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC GODLESS BEAST IN BRUSSELS-AND ABOUT TIME TOO! WE AS MANY OTHERS VOTED NO! IN 1975  AND HAVE CONTINUED EACH DAY TO FIGHT THE BATTLE FOR ENGLAND'S FREEDOM EVER SINCE.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 AUGUST-2017

 

H.F.1266-BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER
 

 

Brexit

– Britain Challenges Covert Fourth Reich & its Secret Space Program

Written by Dr Michael Salla on . Posted in exopolitics research, Space Programs

Britain Challenges Covert Fourth ReichFrom June 17, 1940 to June 22, 1941, Great Britain stood alone against the Nazi Third Reich which had blitzed mainland Europe and forged an alliance of convenience with the Soviet Union in splitting Poland asunder. Now, 75 years later, with the June 23 decision to leave the European Union, Great Britain has issued a clear challenge to a secret ‘Fourth Reich”, covertly established by breakaway Nazi groups in South America and Antarctica, who during WWII had established an advanced space program, and later exerted an increasingly powerful hidden influence over the European Union.

The roots of the infiltration of the European Union and its predecessors by breakaway Nazi groups after WWII can be traced to a decision taken by Deputy Fuhrer Martin Bormann on August 10, 1944 soon after the Allied armies landed on the beaches of Normandy. Bormann had secretly brought together leading German industrialists and told them the war was lost.

A U.S. Military Intelligence document called the “Red House Report,” dated November 7, 1944, describes how German industrialists were told to evacuate all available assets to neutral countries using thousands of shell companies designed to hide the massive out-flow of Nazi capital and industrial resources.

Red House Report

The source of the secret orders, according Paul Manning, author of the book Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile, was Bormann whose influence over the Nazi Party increasingly grew as Hitler became increasingly despondent over impending defeat.

Bormann was explicit that the financial assets sent out of Germany would be subsequently used to establish a Fourth Reich by covert economic means as relayed through his emissary Dr. Scheid:

From now on also German industry must realize that the war cannot be won and that it must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign. Each industrialist must make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion. Moreover, the ground would have to be laid on the financial level for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after the war.
 

The report went on to describe Bormann’s plan for the emergence of a new German Empire, a Fourth Reich:

[I]t was stated that the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was practically lost but that it would continue until a guarantee of the unity of Germany could be obtained. German industrialists must, it was said, through their exports increase the strength of Germany. They must also prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party which would be forced to go underground as Maquis (in Gebirgaverteidigungastellen gehen). From now on the government would allocate large sums to industrialists so that each could establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the Party so that a strong German Empire can be created after the defeat.
 

What gave significant muscle to the covert project to establish a Fourth Reich by economic means was a secret space program established in Antarctica during World War II.

A number of credible whistleblowers have come forward to describe the building of a Nazi secret space program in Antarctica, which achieved incredible success in launching missions to the moon, Mars and elsewhere in deep space even while hostilities were occurring in mainland Europe.
 

Dark Fleet Base on Moon

Alleged Moon Base built by Nazi Germany and now belonging to a secret “Fourth Reich” space program called the “Dark Fleet”. Graphic: Sphere Being Alliance

Many of these whistleblower testimonies are described at length in the book, Insiders Reveal Secret Space Programs and Extraterrestrial Alliances (2015). Since its publication, another witness, William Tompkins, has come forward to describe his participation in a covert US Navy program to penetrate the Nazi’s top secret aerospace programs during WWII, discover what they were doing in Antarctica, and to disseminate this information to U.S. think tanks and industry.

Tompkins has supplied documents to confirm his incredible testimony. Furthermore, two retired U.S. Navy officers have come forward to validate his expertise regarding “special projects,” which Tompkins ran from 1985 to 1999, involving advanced aerospace technologies related to to both Nazi and U.S. secret space programs that he had acquired during his career in the aerospace industry and covert Navy service.

Tompkins’ testimony confirms that the Nazi’s secret space program hidden in Antarctica beat back successive attempts by the British and the U.S. to eradicate the Nazi’s subterranean bases in both Antarctic and South America. Admiral Byrd’s Operation Highjump 1946/47 was the most publicized effort, but the British had also staged their own unsuccessful attempts using special forces in the Antarctic summer of 1945/46.
 

By 1952, the Nazi secret space program based in Antarctica had developed to the extent that they could now conduct overflights of major U.S. cities, including Washington DC., to pressure the Truman and Eisenhower administrations to negotiate a treaty.

The principal figure in the secret treaty negotiations was the then chief of CIA covert operations, Allen Dulles. In 1950, he was recruited by the CIA Director at the time, General Walter Bedell Smith, to become Deputy Director of Plans and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence – second only to Smith. Dulles was promoted to CIA Director in February 1953 upon Smith’s retirement.

During WWII, Dulles was the head of the Office of Strategic Services based in Bern, Switzerland, and specialized in forming secret deals with Nazi German officials for a negotiated end to military hostilities. “Operation Sunrise”, where Dulles negotiated with Waffen SS General Karl Wolf over the surrender of German troops in Italy, is the most well known of these secret negotiations.

What is not well known is Dulles’ involvement in a number of secret deals, with the approval of British Military Intelligence (MI6), which allowed prominent Nazi officials such as Adolf Hitler, Martin Borman, etc., to leave Europe for refuge in South America. Harry Cooper’s, Hitler in Argentina, provides extensive evidence that both Hitler and Bormann had indeed escaped to Argentina. In exchange, the Nazis facilitated the process by which some of their scientific expertise and technologies in Europe would be handed over to the Americans and British.

Surprisingly, Dulles himself hinted at the truth of such claims to Paul Manning regarding his research for Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile. In his acknowledgements, Manning wrote about his personal meetings with Dulles prior to his death in 1969:

To Allen W. Dulles, for his encouragement and assurance that I was “on the right track and should keep going” after reading my German research notes in preparation for this book, during the afternoons we talked in his house on Q Street in Washington, D.C.

The extraction of 1500 Nazi scientists to the USA after WWII in Project Paperclip, and a similar removal of Nazi scientists to Britain, was merely one aspect of the secret agreements negotiated with the Nazis by Dulles and others.

Project_Paperclip_Team_at_Fort_Bliss

Project Paperclip Nazi Scientists at Fort Bliss, Texas in 1946

What the U.S. and British intelligence communities were aware of, however, was that the Nazi’s most advanced weapons, scientific expertise and aerospace projects were hidden in Antarctica, and outside the scope of the secret agreements forged by Dulles and British Intelligence with Nazi officials in Europe.

In 1951, six European nations established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), aimed to foster free trade and to prevent a future European war. The ECSC would provide an ideal platform for the Nazis to covertly begin establishing a Fourth Reich through economic means, as Bormann had planned back in 1944.

Nazi capital could now be strategically moved to take over companies both in the U.S. and Europe that would covertly re-establish Nazi influence. According to Tompkins, this was especially the case in the U.S. aerospace industry where Nazi scientific expertise was highly valued by the Military Industrial Complex.

Tompkins has privately confirmed to me that some Project Paperclip scientists were allowed to secretly travel to Antarctica to learn about the latest technologies in the breakaway German space program. He said that the U.S. intelligence community hoped the Project Paperclip scientists would learn things that would help the emerging U.S. space program. Instead, the Project Paperclip scientists helped the breakaway Nazi groups sabotage and slow down U.S. efforts which began in the late 1940’s.

In the early 1950’s while employed with Douglas Aircraft Company, Tompkins began designing kilometer long spacecraft for a future U.S. Navy space program.

Tompkins-Spacecraft Carrier

Dulles and the CIA were instrumental in creating the Bilderberg Group, which held its first meeting in May 1954. It would be an important tool for encouraging the development of a European super state, which would be gradually infiltrated and eventually taken over by a covert Fourth Reich.

The European Union was designed to accumulate power behind faceless bureaucrats, who would follow the dictates of leading European industrialists, who were increasingly being influenced by Nazi interests associated with the Fourth Reich. This concentration of power was achieved through the European Commission, which comprises a single representative from each member state – currently 28.

The European Commission website describes the Commission as the “EU’s executive body” whose main role is to “propose legislation,” and “enforce European law.” The European Union Parliament, the only truly democratic institution in the European Union, is described as a “co-legislator” with the authority to adopt or reject proposed laws.

Who then proposes ideas to EU Commissioners for new laws? Robito Chapwin, writing for the popular website Collective Evolution, provides a startling answer:

They come from the The European Round Table of Industrialists. The ERT consists of “around 50 Chief Executives and Chairmen of major multinational companies” and the ERT was formed with the express intention of shaping and furthering EU integration.
 

Chapwin’s answer is supported by what we know about the Red House Report where Bormann explicitly referred to German industrialists as the mechanism by which a covert Fourth Reich would be established after WWII.

Significantly, in 1983, the CEO of Volvo, Pehr Gyllenhammar, initiated the creation of the European Round Table of Industrialists. Volvo and its controllers, were identified by Dr. Steven Greer, head of the UFO Disclosure Project, as part of a shady international system managing advanced technology issues involving extraterrestrial life and secret space programs.

Here is the welcome message to the The European Round Table of Industrialists by its current chairman, Benoît Potier:

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) is a forum bringing together around 50 Chief Executives and Chairmen of major multinational companies of European parentage covering a wide range of industrial and technological sectors.  Companies of ERT Members are widely situated across Europe, with combined revenues exceeding € 2,135 billion, sustaining around 6.8 million jobs in the region. They invest more than € 55 billion annually in R&D, largely in Europe.
 

Thus the European Union was designed to concentrate power in arcane bureaucracies, rather than the parliamentary institutions created to represent the will of the European population.

Consequently, the European Parliament became at best a rubber stamp that approved decisions taken by European Union bureaucrats placed in power by behind the scenes deal making. The European Parliament became a charade for representing the will of Europeans, but was nevertheless lauded as a model for regional integration in other areas of the world.
 

Eventually a future World Union, featuring a Parliament and governing institutions modelled on the EU, would have been introduced, heralding the final stage in the covert plan for a ‘global’ Fourth Reich.  

The decision by Britain to end its participation in the European Union puts an end to the fiction that the EU genuinely represents the will of the European populace. Brexit, furthermore, represents a major setback to the covert plan to establish a global Fourth Reich where the European Union would have been offered as a viable model for a “World Union”.

There should be no confusion that Brexit represents a major challenge to a covert Fourth Reich with its own secret space program, significant industrial assets spread around the world, and its long term plans for global dominance through covert economic means.

It does not appear coincidental that the year-long political process leading to the Brexit vote, occurred at roughly the same time a space war is reportedly being waged against the Fourth Reich and its allies, in Antarctica and Deep Space. If such reports are correct, as a May 26 letter by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Congress suggests, then Britain may once again, as it did 75 years ago, be leading the way in confronting a resurgent Nazi Reich as a global threat. 

© Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Notice

[Update: 6/28. An earlier version of this article mistakenly identified Volkswagen and Volvo as the same company. The article has been revised to remove the error.]

Further Reading

Subscribe: SpecificFeeds

 

(Visited 13,281 times, 4 visits today)

Comments

Tags: Adolph Hitler, Allen Dulles, Brexit, European Commission, European Round Table of Industrialists, European Union, Great Britain, Martin Bormann, Nazi Germany, Red House Report, Volvo

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 H.F.1239

H

 
 

SO WILL BRITAIN ONE DAY BE  MUSLIM?

by

Ruth Dudley Edwards

SATURDAY ESSAY

 

[Daily Mail-May 5-2007]

 

*

Our failure to have children.

Welfarism.

Political Correctness.

And a

LACK of WILL

 to fight Islamic extremism

 

 

 

THIS WEEK has been another terrible one for those of us who want a society in which all races, religions and cultures mix to their mutual advantage and

ENRICHMENT.

On Tuesday, five men were sentenced to life in prison for plotting to use a huge fertiliser bomb in what would have been the UK's largest mass murder.

Omar Khyam, Salahuddin Amin, Anthony Garciaand Jawa Akbar -first and second generation immigrants - responded to the tolerance of the British people

BY TRYING TO KILL AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE.

It is absurd to hope that the exposure of their evil after a 13-month trial which cost an estimated

£50,000,000

-has finally provided the wake-up call that this slumbering country so badly needs?

I'm one of those old-fashioned immigrants to this country who feels passionately grateful, is proudly British (as well as Irish -having been born in Dublin) and believes that immigrants have more duties than rights. And further, that one of those is to adjust to British society rather than expecting it to adjust to them. [ has been the practice for some decades but more so during the Blair years.]

However, one aspect of contemporary British society which I refuse to adjust to is its weakness in the face of the

ENEMY WITHIN

In my many conversations with like-minded people about the threat that radical Islam poses to the

 BRITISH WAY OF LIFE

-And indeed, to European civilisation -we frequently end by despairingly agreeing that the

WEST

-seems intention committing

POLITICAL and CULTURAL

SUICIDE.

When we look starkly at the demographic statistics, the wimpishness of our

ESTABLISHMENT

-in the face of the

THREAT

-the perversions perpetuated by

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

-and our passivity, it's hard to avoid the

CONCLUSION

-that within a couple of generations

ISLAM

-will be in

CONTROL of EUROPE

And before anyone says that there nothing wrong if this happened, since the vast majority of

MUSLIMS

are tolerant people who would not dream of interfering with

OUR WAY OF LIFE

-it's necessary  to point out that in

MUSLIM COUNTRIES

, it's usually the radicals and extremists

MULLAHS

-who regard

TOLERANCE

AS A VICE

-WHO MAKE THE RUNNING.

This occurs too in microcosm in

MUSLIM GHETTOS

around

EUROPE

We saw the frightening fundamentalist fringe of

ISLAM

-marching, threatening and perpetuating violence over the cartoons depicting

MOHAMMAD

IN

DENMARK

while the majority of Muslims - who, yes, of course are tolerant and decent - kept their mouths shut and stayed at

HOME

YES, Islam may be a great religion. BUT

-in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in

EUROPE 

-they will

THREATEN OUR VALUES

such as

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

and

SPEECH

and the spirit of intellectual inquiry that made

EUROPEAN CIVILISATION

Great and Prosperous

 

The danger of ending up like these poor, despotic and medieval

Islamic States

-in which millions live miserably is the prospect that

CHRISTIANS

HINDUS

MODERATE MUSLIMS and NON-BELIEVERS -should be uniting

TO PREVENT

 

BUT THE TRUTH IS WE ARE DOING LITTLE TO STOP IT.

Consider first a few chilling statistics.

EUROPEANS ARE FAILING TO REPRODUCE

[Yet in our own island millions of potential citizens have been 

SLAUGHTERED AT BIRTH

thanks to David Steels -Abortion Bill of 1965?

It is still taking place in 2007 though there is NOW an  growing awareness of the tragedy to the potential mother and to society in general that many more doctors today are refusing to condone the

MURDER.

Recently the sight of full grown foetuses being deprived of their lives has now brought the horror and injustice of the action to destroy life.

In an age of contraception of many devices and anti-life pills it is unbelievable that any potential mother was unable to take the necessary steps to prevent conception.

David Steels Bill was to prevent back-street abortions and he himself a few ears ago voiced his concern as to what has happened over the years since.]

*

Consider  first a few chilling statistics.

Europeans are failing to reproduce. Just to keep the population steady, you need 2.1 births per women

[This is a case for Government action by offering cash and other vital services to enable the reluctant mother to do her best for her community and country.]

However in 2005, the European average was 1.38.

In Ireland it was 1.9

France it was 1.89

Germany 1.35

Italy 1.23

Britain scored in the middle of this range with 1.6

BUT

That was because - like France - we have a large

MUSLIM POPULATION

with a high birth rate. Indeed,

MUSLIMS

are out breeding

 non-Muslims

through out

 EUROPE

 

 

[Many of whom have absolutely no intention of integrating -

Thank you very much Mr Blair -we don't think so.]

'Just look at the development within Europe.'

said a triumphant Norwegian Imam a few months ago

'where the number of

MUSLIMS

is expanding like mosquitoes.

Every Western women in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim women in the same countries is producing an average of 3.5 children.

'OUR WAY OF THINKING WILL PROVE MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS' he said.

The big question this poses is:

WHY ARE WE NOT REPRODUCING?

There are many reasons, but probably the most important are the decline of religion and the liberation of women.

[The populations which have the stronger religious stance will be the eventual rulers of Europe. It can be a Christian Europe or a Muslim Europe. The Governments of Europe and the shrinking United Kingdom have to decide.]

In Ireland, when the Roman Catholic Church effectively ran society, sex for procreation, contraceptives were banned, the normal size for a family was around five or six children, bur 12 or 13 were not uncommon.

As the country embraced secularism in the 1980s, birth rates plummeted, exacerbated by the new -found confidence of women that made them choose careers rather than domesticity.

WHEREAS in the 1970s, I was regarded in both the UK and Ireland as odd for being married but voluntarily childless, these days, childlessness |

IS A COMMON CHOICE

It is a world where one-child families abound and to have more than two children is to be regarded as eccentric and probably environmentally irresponsible.

Moreover, the erosion of family life and the long - hours culture place a heavy burden on those prepared to rear the next generation.

Despite these social forces, even in the UK, devote Muslims and Orthodox Jews obey instructions to have large families.

Confronted with this demographic revolution and official statistics which showed there were too few young people to support an ageing population, European governments decided to embrace

IMMIGRATION

-as an inherent good without any thought for the consequences.

As a result, politicians and businessmen assured us that we had to have economic growth in n order to prop up ever greater public spending and that it could be provided only by importing large numbers of workers from abroad

BUT WHY WASN'T THERE A NATIONAL DEBATE

ABOUT

Whether it was wise to mortgage our cultural future for the sake of a mess of financial pottage?

[A recent report on the cost  and benefit of large scale

IMMIGRATION

estimated that the country benefited by

ONLY - 50p

 for each migrant]

Where were the politicians arguing against the doctrine of

MULTICULTURALISM

-which holds that upholding majority values is somehow

ILLEGITIMATE

Who among the liberal elite's commentariat were challenging the moral relativism that flew in the face of

SENSE and SENSIBILITY

-by insisting that the culture of

Shakespeare

The King James Bible

Keats's poetry

Turner's paintings

and

Elgar's music

-was no more important than - the cultures of other

IMPORTED MINORITIES?

 

We know the answer all too well.

Cries of racism drowned out rational argument - not just here but throughout

OLD EUROPE

As one gloomster put it:

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

which is thought what

SENTIMENTALITY is to COMPASSION

-means that the intelligentsia of the

WEST

-has disarmed itself in advance of any possible struggle.

The result of all this, as recent events have made tragically clear, was that

BRITISH CULTURE

-was

UNDERMINED and SOCIAL COHESION

DAMAGED.

Separated from mainstream society by geographical and cultural apartheid, which has been fostered by

MULTICULTURALISM

-many immigrants were denied the chance to

INTEGRATE.

 

AND, INSTEAD OF BEING TOLD BY THE HOST COMMUNITY

THAT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ADHERE

-to the values of a liberal, pluralist democracy, they should

RETURN HOME

They were asked how they would like

BRITAIN

-to conform to

THEIR VALUES.

THE STORY WAS VERY MUCH THE SAME THROUGHOUT EUROPE

The robust American political commentator Mark Steyn, a disillusioned Anglophile has already written us off. The thesis of his Blackly comic book,

*

America Alone:

The End Of The World As We Know It

*

-is that the U.S. will survive because the

RELIGIOUS RIGHT ARE CONFIDENT

 AND

 REPRODUCE

BUT

 THAT EUROPE IS FINISHED

Its not just demographic decline, he says, it's also the unsustainability of the

MODERN WELFARE STATE

-in which we depend so much on our own individual resources.

We are also, he believes, suffering from 'civilisational exhaustion':

CULTURAL DISINTEGRATION

-brought about by

BIG GOVERNMENT

[Or if you prefer BIG BROTHER]

-which has fatally

DESTROYED OUR SENSE OF SELF-RELIANCE.

 

MEANWHILE, we are importing large numbers of unemployed youths from abroad in order to maintain

OUR

STANDARD OF LIVING

Yet many of these newcomers have nothing

BUT

CONTEMPT

 FOR OUR

WAY OF LIFE

-and some even wish

TO DESTROY IT

Steyn sees this as a

CIVIL WAR

which

EUROPE

-is too timid even to acknowledge - let alone

LET ALONE WIN

[This is something the Tory Mr Oliver Letwin or as we have said on a number of occasions Mr Let-them-win -and they will, who appears to be out of touch with the real issues that matter to our country in the early years of the 21st century.]

Mr Steyn says:

'Islam has youth and WILL

Europe has age and WELFARE.'

It's hard not to agree with Mark Steyn, especially as every day seems to bring more evidence

THAT AS A SOCIETY

WE ARE TERMINALLY

MAD

For example, this week's fertiliser bomb trial had heard that the key plotters had been radicalised by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed whom the judge condemned as

'a master of cowardice -who works in the shadows.'

This was the same firebrand who as an asylum -seeker here, had pocketed

£275,000

-in Welfare benefits.

[It is the same mentality shown by

Lord Chief Justice Phillips and Lord Falconer and many others

-who instead of spending the £32 million allocated for building prisons a few years ago are now doing almost anything in order to keep thousands of criminals many repeat offenders and dangerous, out of prison and giving many early release so they can go back to torment their victims and as has happened in a number of occasions returned to have another go at their robbery or other offence knowing that the worst that might happen is either a holiday or community service or whatever  and as many prisons these days are very much like 5star hotels there will be no hardship encountered if they are so lucky to win the prison admission lottery -then it will be a nice break to see old friends and anyway they will be out before they have completed their degree in political science or whatever.

The victims of crime, many of them elderly - poor and lonely won't as a rule be free of fear of their tormentor returning for a second or even third try to rob them of the little they have  and as has happened even assault and kill the defenceless pensioner - but some victims even lose heart and end their own lives by depriving themselves of food because they have lost hope that they can be safe again and we have their so-called protectors such as The Lord Chief Justice Phillips and Lord Falconer the new 'Justice' Minister ? who says 'Jail's the wrong place for burglars' and others who are doing whatever they can to keep the criminals out of jail. If the Army can put up a temporary  barracks in double quick time then there would be spaces for all the thousands of criminals who should be

OUT OF THE COMMUNITY.

Of course there would be complaints that the conditions are not up to the standards of the 5star prisons that they have 'visited' over the years and anyway there is

Tony Blair's

1998 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

to keep them out of such uncomfortable surroundings which would not provide the 'key' service which has been introduced with their friendly solicitor providing a drugs service as an extra comfort.

THERE IS NO LONGER JUSTICE AS THE SENTENCE DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME

ANYMORE]

*

To continue:

Despite all this, I still believe there are grounds for hope - largely because Muslim hotheads have overplayed their hand by blowing people up, rioting in their neighbourhoods or broadcasting hate -filled speeches which alienate them from the host community.

*

 

[Well we are of the opinion that until the Government shows to the Muslim population that they will not give way on insisting that ALL newcomers and those already with us conform to

OUR RULE OF LAW

 

-and punish without hesitation any breaches of the Law and make it plain that anyone who is a threat to our country WILL BE extradited. BUT of course we have Tony Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act and articles within the 1951 British led Convention of Human Rights which will need amending.

It should be made quite clear that those who have no intention to

INTEGRATE

-should be reminded of their commitment which they gave when they where granted immigration or asylum status (which should be a legal requirement in the future)

Unless drastic action is taken by the next Prime Minister as a priority , future generations of the indigenous population will find themselves foreigners in their own country with their religion and culture under growing  threat. The evidence is before our eyes it is a warning of what the future will bring if action is not taken

QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY

Those moderate Muslims will at last feel secure in the knowledge that they are safe from the extremist influence which up to now they have had it all their own way. By our commitment

IT WILL BE SECURITY THROUGH STRENGTH OF PURPOSE AND THE MUSLIMS WILL BE WITH US

Continue as NOW and they will have nothing but contempt for our indecision and inadequate moral integrity.]

*

To continue:

The sharp-suited, soft spoken undercover agents of the

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

-the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osma Bin Laden -understand that power is best secured by

STEALTH

by infiltrating institutions and seducing the

MEDIA

Libya's Colonel Gaddafi once exemplified this policy

He said:

'There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -without swords, without guns-without conquests. The 50 million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.'

 

[AND THEY SURE MEAN IT]

 

 

[Our survival as a Christian nation can only be achieved by the Government reversing it's abhorrent legislation as to Religious freedom of speech and action because not to do so further emphasises to the extremist elements in our country that we are WEAK and AMORAL nation and therefore ready for conversion by stealth as their numbers obtain the victory while we ignore our Christian past at our peril.

Our close relations to America must be strengthened particularly in the moral arena so that our nations will gain the grudging respect of those who have a desire to replace our Christian heritage with their own.

There will be many who will say that we live in a secular environment and that the Government of the day should not concern itself but we have no choice we either support our Institutions and that includes our Christian inheritance which is ingrained into the very fabric of our nation or  lose that priceless heirloom the foundation of our IDENTITY and accept another more fanatical regime who do not believe in toleration but only in the observance of their one and only deliverer who will have no other faiths before it.

WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE

-because a vacuum must be filled and it is better that we know what contain.

The Choice Is Yours!

-but better it will be to retain our own heritage than be converted to another.]

*

But the violent extremists have provoked some signs of a backlash, not just among indigenous populations of Europe but among those tolerant immigrants who value the countries

THAT TOOK THEM IN

The Swedes, of all people, whom liberals claimed had produced a perfect society, are trying to row back on the

WELFARE STATE

-to encourage the

WORK ETHIC

and are demanding

THAT IMMIGRANTS INTEGRATE

 

Nyamko Sabuni a female, Muslim, African immigrant who is now the country's

INTEGRATION and EQUALITY

MINISTER

-insists that

ALL IMMIGRANTS

-should learn Swedish and find a job.

 

She is also intent on criminalising

FORCED MARRIAGES

CHECKING GIRLS FOR EVIDENCE OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

and

BANNING THE VEIL

as well as

STATE FUNDING

for RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

[This is an area that needs the new Premier Gordon Brown to put his attention as to make it plain that their is one

RULE OF LAW

in

ENGLAND

[NO EXCEPTIONS FOR MUSLIMS OR ANYONE ELSE IN OUR COUNTRY]

 

 

*          *          *

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

*

 

 

H.F.1300

Posts Tagged ‘Brexit’

 

European Commission President Says he Spoke to Leaders of Other Planets about Brexit

exonews, exopolitics research

Junckers Spoke with ET Leaders

In a speech before the European Parliament discussing the consequences of the Brexit vote, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the stunning comment that he had spoken about it to “leaders of other planets.” Juncker’s comment suggests that world leaders are in communication with extraterrestrials, which closely monitor global events and assess their geopolitical and ‘exopolitical’ impact.

Juncker’s speech was given on June 28 at an emergency meeting in Brussels by the European Parliament. Here is what he said in French along with the English translation:

“Il faut savoir que ceux qui nous observent de loin sont très inquiets. J’ai vu et entendu et écouté plusieurs des dirigeants d’autres planètes qui sont très inquiets puisqu’ils s’interrogent sur la voie que l’union européenne va poursuivre. Et donc, if faut rassurer, et les européens, et ceux qui nous observent de plus… loin.”

“It should be known that those who observe us from afar are very worried. I met and heard and listened to several of the leaders from other planets who are very concerned because they question the path the European Union will engage on. And so, a soothing is needed for both the Europeans and those who observe us from … farther away.”
 

 

The official transcript released by the European Commission has been edited to remove the reference to “leaders from other planets”. The transcript now reads:

J’ai vu et entendu et écouté plusieurs des dirigeants. Ils sont très inquiets ….
 

“I saw and heard and listened to several executives. They are very worried …”

Yet, when one listens to an audio loop of what Junker’s actually said, he very clearly includes the phrase “dirigeants d’autres planets,” which translates as “leaders of other planets,” as pointed out by native French speakers discussing Junckers speech, and also by Google Translate.
 

There has been clearly an official attempt to cover up Juncker’s admission to having spoken to “leaders of other planets,” and making it appear as though he was instead referring to “executives” concerned about Brexit. So what did Juncker have in mind when he said he spoke with “leaders of other planets”?

One possible interpretation is that he meant to say that he had spoken with “other planetary leaders” outside of the European Union, and made a simple grammatical error as some contend. If so, then why wasn’t the official transcript corrected to make it clear that he had misspoken? Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine a major world leader would make such a dramatic error in an important speech to the European Parliament without realizing it immediately and correcting that error on the spot.
 

Also, at several points in his speech, Junckers makes references to himself as a “human being” and not a robot or a machine, suggesting that some in his intended audience are not human as one native French speaker has noted in translating and interpreting his comments in a helpful thread on the Project Avalon Forum.
 

Taken on face value, Juncker’s speech directly raises the issue that “leaders of other planets,” or extraterrestrials, are very concerned by the Brexit issue and its implications for the European Union. It’s worth exploring why this might be the case. There are two scenarios I wish to raise here.

One is that extraterrestrials require global unity as a precondition for revealing themselves to humanity, or having their existence disclosed. If so, then the effect of  Brexit is one of slowing down the process of global political unification, thereby delaying any official announcement of extraterrestrial life.

If the above a scenario is correct, then what becomes important is whether the extraterrestrials are acting out of positive or negative intent in making global political unity a precondition for revealing themselves.

While it appears logical that global political unity is required for any planet to be introduced to wider galactic life, as popularly depicted in many Sci Fi shows, it does not follow that having a world government is necessary for open contact to happen. Here we need to distinguish between ‘global government’ and ‘global governance’. Our planet may already have achieved sufficient ‘global governance’ in terms of interlocking international treaties and institutions, thereby making ‘global government’ a moot point.

Nevertheless, if some extraterrestrial leaders genuinely desire global political unity before revealing themselves, then while Brexit does slow this process down, it appears disingenuous for aliens to make this a precondition.

The second scenario is that the European Union is a façade for a Nazi Fourth Reich which has secretly made alliances with a group of extraterrestrials called “Draconians.” A retired aerospace engineer, William Tompkins, has provided documents supporting his claims that he participated in a covert U.S. Navy program with 29 spies in Nazi Germany who had discovered that the Third Reich had made secret agreements with Draconians.

A result of the alien agreements led to the Nazi’s coming within a whisker of winning World War II, but had nevertheless been able to relocate much of their technological infrastructure to Antarctica before the War’s end. This gave the breakaway Nazis the time they needed to achieve a decisive technological superiority over the U.S. military, as demonstrated during Operation Highjump in 1947.

Subsequently, the breakaway Nazi groups established a Fourth Reich through covert economic means, which involved both the infiltration of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and the creation of the European Union. In such a scenario, Brexit is a clear challenge to the Fourth Reich as I have argued elsewhere.

There are other scenarios that may help explain why “leaders of other worlds” are concerned about Brexit, and why Junckers chose the European Parliament as the forum to “leak” this information. Most EU Parliamentarians are not part of the official loop on what would clearly be highly classified discussions with advanced alien civilizations, yet Junckers chose to reveal this to them. Why?
 

Many will be tempted to dismiss Junckers’ admission of having spoken with extraterrestrials as him simply misspeaking about confidential discussions with other world leaders. However, the clumsy attempt by the European Commission to remove the “leaders of other worlds” reference from the official transcript of his speech, no effort to clarify his real intent in the transcript, and overall context of his speech suggest otherwise.

Junckers speech needs to be taken at face value, and therefore provides startling evidence that we are moving from a world of ‘geopolitics’ to ‘exopolitics’ requiring new levels of analysis in understanding major political events on our planet such as Brexit, and the existence of extraterrestrial life.
 

© Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Notice

NOVEMBER-2017

H.F.1394
 

 
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 
 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 
THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 
 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 
 
Menu
 
 

2017-11-13

 

Khazarian mob takedown:  Hundreds of Saudi arrests followed by hundreds of U.S. arrests

By  White Dragon Society  282 Comments
The great purge of Khazarian mobsters continues as hundreds of arrests of Saudi princes, generals, and politicians is now being followed up with the 842 sealed indictments against senior Khazarian gangsters in the U.S., confirmed by Pentagon, CIA, and other sources.

https://twitter.com/damartin32/status/929601088570974208

Pentagon sources sent the photos below showing Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senator John “Daesh” McCain “in custody wearing orthopedic boots to hide GPS ankle bracelet on their right leg.”

The fact is that most politicians in Washington, D.C. have become very rich since joining politics, in ways that cannot be remotely justified by their salaries.  This means most have been bribed, and that is why most of them are going to go to jail.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been deliberately acting senile in public recently in order to have a medical excuse to avoid arrest, NSA sources say.

These same NSA sources are now saying the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on October 1 was an attempt by mercenaries working for the G4S security company (http://www.g4s.com/) hired by George Bush Sr. to create a distraction in order to kill U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Sultan (MBS).  Trump and MBS were meeting in secret at the suites in the Mandalay Bay Hotel, owned by MBS, to discuss the mass arrest of the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks, these sources say.

Both Trump and MBS were evacuated safely and the arrests have now begun in a way that can no longer be denied by the corporate propaganda media, multiple sources confirm.
As the arrests were taking place, Trump had a secret meeting in Vietnam with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Here is what a CIA source, who had eyes and ears at the meeting, had to say.

“There is a lot more than the ‘the sideline meetings and brief handshakes’ that the media has portrayed.  The three world leaders (Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping) met off the record.  President Jokowi [of Indonesia] was there as well (as a representative of the Soekarno M1 gold holdings).  Trump was informed that next month, Putin and/or the Russian Central Bank will
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 

2017-11-06

Purge of Khazarian mobsters intensifies as Trump is kept safe in Asia

By  White Dragon Society  302 Comments
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the worldwide purge of the Khazarian mafia now has reached a tipping point of no return, with arrests and purges in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

In the Middle East, Iran-linked Hezbollah now effectively rules Lebanon after Saudi puppet Prime Minister Saad Hariri was forced to resign.  His resignation was followed by the purge of hundreds of princes, generals, religious leaders, and others by de facto Saudi King Muhammad bin Salman.

This purge was especially important because it cut off one of the last major remaining sources of Bush/Clinton mafia money and power.  Many of the princes purged were homosexually bonded with members of the Bush family and their top lieutenants when they studied in the United States, according to confessions of Kay Griggs, wife of a Skull and Bones Society member, and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp_i1F-1lcA

This is how Pentagon sources described the unfolding crackdown:  “The Saudi purge of the Bush-Clinton pedo terror faction—including [Osama Bin Laden’s brother] Bakr bin Laden and anti-Trumper [Prince] Al-Waleed bin Talal—is timed to the Paradise Papers leak,

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/paradise-papers-leak-reveals-secrets-of-world-elites-hidden-wealth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_New_Post

…the arrest of Tony Podesta, and the surrender of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.”  Tony Podesta is a powerful Washington lobbyist whose brother John was campaign manager for Hillary Clinton (Rockefeller) and chief of staff for Bill Clinton (Rockefeller).  Al-Waleed bought large shareholdings of Rockefeller’s Citibank.

The ramifications of these leaks, arrests, and purges reach out in many directions.  Aftershocks, further arrests, and further purges are sure to be felt and seen in the Middle East, Japan, Europe, and the U.S. over the coming days.

Already, Trump Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (child) has been implicated.  So has Canadian magnate Stephen Bronfman, whose family made its fortune selling booze to Al Capone.  These names are just the tip of the iceberg.

The start of the purge was timed to coincide with Trump’s visit to Asia so as to be able to more easily protect Trump and his family from retaliatory action, say Pentagon and CIA sources.

However, in a sign that the battle is far from over, two separate warnings were conveyed to this writer last week concerning Trump.  One was a “source close to North Korea,” and the other a veteran CIA officer stationed in Asia.  The North Korean-linked source said that if Trump
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 
2017-11-02

About the Antifa Event of November 4

By  White Dragon Society  29 Comments
From a viewer.  Found two things of interest:

1. Attached is a complete list of planned locations for the 11/4 Antifa Event.

2. This is all conjecture and deductions based on known timetables, but I think I may have figured out the false flag purpose of the “coronal mass ejection drill” on 11/4.

Given that Trump’s going to be in Japan on 11/5, it would be logical for him to be airborne on 11/4.  That “drill” would go live, being used as a murder weapon in a plot to assassinate Donald Trump.  The plot would be easy to cover up without expertise in electronic forensics as an “unfortunate plane crash.”  The mastermind of this assassination is most likely Barack Obama.

Would this event explain the unusual UN troop sightings being reported country-wide?

 
2017-11-01

Benjamin Fulford interview with Winston Shrout and Cobra

By  White Dragon Society  0 Comments
Continuing with their “Uniting the Light” series of RoundTable interviews, Winston Shrout, COBRA, and Benjamin Fulford are featured in a Financial RoundTable discussion on the Global Currency Reset and the ascension of humanity via the transition of the world financial system.  Also discussed are who the key players are and what processes must occur to transition the planet to one of prosperity and higher consciousness for humanity.  Topics include CryptoCurrencies, the transition to the new U.S. Treasury Note and the Heritage accounts, the obstacles in the process, and what has to be done to remove those obstacles so humanity can ascend by Divine Decree.

https://thegoldfishreport.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/the-goldfish-report-no-150-financial-roundtable-with-cobra-benjamin-fulford-winston-shrout/

 

2017-10-30

Is Donald Trump too scared to name George Bush Sr. and P2 Freemasons as Kennedy assassins?

By  White Dragon Society  223 Comments
U.S. Corporation President Donald Trump last week announced he would release all records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, “other than the names and addresses of any mentioned person who is still living.”  In other words, it appears he is too scared to mention the involvement of George Bush (Scherf, Pecce) Sr. and the Vatican P2 Freemason lodge fascist New World Order faction.

Pentagon officials, however, say, “Trump muscled the CIA, Mossad, the FBI, and the Bush cabal to release ALL JFK files, since [then Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion wanted JFK dead, and the same perps also did 9/11.”

These are the people who aim to create a world fascist government controlled by members of European royal families who claim descent from the Caesars and from King David, as revealed by forensic research over a period of many years.  This research, including meetings with many members of this family group, has led us to the conclusion that these are the real “elders of Zion.”

Thanks to the confessions of Benjamin Freedman…
 http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

and others, John F. Kennedy became aware of a plot to start World War III, wipe out 90% of humanity, and turn the rest into slaves.  The Zionists very nearly succeeded in accomplishing this by triggering all-out nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.  That is why Kennedy decided to take away their main source of power—the ability to create money out of thin air.

George Bush Sr. (whose real family name goes back through Sherf and Pearce to the Roman aristocratic Pecce name) and the Zionists had Kennedy assassinated in order to prevent the nationalization of the Federal Reserve Board.

These people are still in control of the creation of U.S. dollars, Euros, and Japanese yen out of thin air.  Their main instrument of power in the U.S. these days is still the Bush/Clinton/Rockefeller Zionist Federal Reserve Board, truth researchers agree.

A very interesting example of how these gangsters distribute their fiat money can be seen in the article at the link below that shows how the rise in Amazon share prices matches the rise in central bank money printing and moves in the opposite direction of actual Amazon results.  There can be little doubt that Jeff Bezos is now “the world’s richest man,” because he has been selected as a premier distributor of fiat money.
 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-27/amazon

Forensic research has shown that most (if not all) major listed corporations are controlled, via hedge funds like Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity, etc., by this family group, known now to many as the Khazarian mafia.

In Japan, this writer has identified the quislings used by the Khazarian mafia, thanks to testimony by assassins formerly in their employ here.  These people are now vanishing one by one as their former hitmen turn on them, the assassins say.

The quisling politician Seiji Maehara played a key role in the recent theft of the Japanese election by Khazarian mobsters led by Rothschild agent Michael Greenberg and Barbara Bush cousin Richard Armitage.  Maehara is the son of the North Korean agent Son Tae Chuk, also known as Daisaku Ikeda.  Ikeda for years was the absolute ruler of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist lay group and controller of the Komeito political party, whose duped members are crucial to maintaining Khazarian control of Japan.  Ikeda has been in a vegetative state (probably dead) for several years, so Maehara is effectively in charge now, even though he ostensibly belongs to a different political grouping.  White Dragon Society (WDS) sources in Japan say Maehara regularly walks into the U.S. embassy in Tokyo and is never asked to show any ID.

The Khazarians stole the Japanese election because the Party of Hope led by Koike Yuriko was planning to nationalize the Bank of Japan, say sources close to the Japanese emperor.

With U.S. President Donald Trump scheduled to visit Japan November 5-7, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, the employer of Greenberg and Armitage) had big meetings this past weekend in Tokyo to discuss what agenda they were going to present to Trump.

Prior to this gathering, the CSIS sent a top agent to meet with a representative of the White Dragon Society.  At this meeting, the CSIS official, who personally does not approve of Armitage, said that he was sent by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 
 

 

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism

This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.

   The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany -- in his words: 'A Holy War'. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman's speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC.

  There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman's speech.

  The original transcriber had 'tidied up' Mr. Freedman's responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we've left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn't change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman's answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday.  -- Jackie --  April 8, 2003 

 

Here is our first update notice, about a year ago:

   The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete.  Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning - some within the body of the speech - and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting.  There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here.  Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands.  -- Jackie --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Truth will stand on its own merit

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks

by Benjamin H. Freedman

     Introductory Note  -- Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

     Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

     Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.  Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech.  This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war.  It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.  Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew.  He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

     What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity.  I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world:  the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.  

   Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 -- that was shortly before elections -- Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America.   In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

  In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

     Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.  

     You say, when will that take place?  The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place.  As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.  

     I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations -- and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them -- and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally. 

   And who will these people have supporting them, you ask.  Well, four days after President Kennedy -- or he was then Senator Kennedy -- made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

     Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their  homeland.  With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group.  That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite.  It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population.  Eighty percent of the world's population.  Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us.  And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.

  And what is the reason?  The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government.  For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this -- time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement -- the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.  

     Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were -- I don't want to wear that out --- let me show what happened while WE were all asleep.  I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep.  What happened? 

     World War I broke out in the summer of 1914.  Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out.  There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

     Within two years Germany had won that war:  not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply  facing her -- and after that, starvation.  

     At that time, the French army had mutinied.  They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme.  The Russian army was defecting.  They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar.  And the Italian army had collapsed.

     Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil.  Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany.  And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms.  They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis.  That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”   

    Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously!   They had no choice.  It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

    While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make  if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here.  You can yet win this war.  You don't have to give up.  You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany.  You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

    The United States was not in the war at that time.  We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful.  They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

     In other words, they made this deal:  “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us  is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

     Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever.   It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

      However, they made that promise, in October of 1916.   October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

       The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war.  So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar.   They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!”  But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

     Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal.  At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green.  Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good.   They were villains.   They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses.  They were cutting off babies' hands.  And they were no good.

     Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

    The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson.  We're getting from England what we want.  Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war."  And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war.  We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

     Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.   Now, that is something that the people  in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

    After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement.  Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.”   Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years.   So they started to work out a receipt.   The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about.   And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

    The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war.   So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill.   And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

     Now, that is where all the trouble started.  The United States went in the war.  The United States crushed Germany.  We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened.  Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.  I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?  

    The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?”  And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration.   So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game!  That's why the United States came into the war.”  And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

     Now, that brings us to another very interesting point.  When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it.  Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

     You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country.   You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family.  You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world.  The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that.  Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

    It was a sellout that I can best compare -- suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union.  And we were winning.  And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let's quit.  We offer you peace terms.  Let's forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union.  And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.  A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.

     Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese?  I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street.  There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

     Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews.  "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany.  And Germany gave them refuge.  And they were treated very nicely.  And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

    Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today -- they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them."

    The Jews themselves admitted that.  It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer.  There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political.  It was economic.  It was anything but religious.  

     Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema' Yisrael” or “Our Father.”  No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States.  Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible.  They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful.  They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

    You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 -- three hundred! -- small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth.  Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products.  And what happened?  What happened as a result of that?

     There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

     When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it.   But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed.  Not a single hair.  Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.

    They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well.  And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time.  And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

     Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact.  They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

     So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews].  They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could?  They shunned them.  The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

     Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam.  Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933.  And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler!  And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was.  You can't treat us that way!  And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.”  Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine.  So what did they [the Jews] do?

     They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . .  (You want to ask a question? --- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time.  they were called 'Social Democrats.)

     Well, I don't want to go by what they were called.  We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days.  In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

     Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former -- their status -- and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head.  The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.  

     Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany.  And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews.  And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money -- you know the way the Mark was devalued -- they bought up practically everything.

     Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States -- who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference --  and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany.  We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans.  And we are going to starve them into surrender.  We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

     And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported.  Their labor.  So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

     Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page -- a whole page -- in the New York Times on August 7, 1933,  Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense.  President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration]  -- which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

     Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.

     In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted.  If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler",  "murderer", and so forth,  and like -- something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

     R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany".  Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them.  So Macy!  I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS"  and "HITLERITES", and so forth.

     Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany.  There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

     Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill?  Who are they to do that to us?"  They naturally resented it.  Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

     Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be?  Well, it was ridiculous.

     That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany.  And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

     Now, for anyone to say that --  I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

     In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible".  And they started to re-arm.

     And there intention was -- by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 -- the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."  The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."  

     And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom?  Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

     Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination.  I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons.  A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT.  One million tons of TNT is a megaton.  Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT.  That was when they were first developed five or six years ago.  Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

     So, what do we face now?   If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished.  And why will it take place?  It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III.  Act I was World War I.  Act II was World War II.  Act III is going to be World War III.

     The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government.  Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.

     Now, what are we going to do?  The life you save may be your son's.  Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe.  Did you know it at that time?  Not a person in the United States knew it.  You weren't permitted to know it.

     Who knew it?  President Wilson knew it.  Colonel House knew it.  Other 's knew it. Did I know it?  I had a pretty good idea of what was going on:  I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

     I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.  So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

     Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.  And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.  

     Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs.  How can the United States -- about five percent of the world -- go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground?  How can we do it... send our boys over there to be slaughtered?  For what?  So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'?  They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

     Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct.   I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury.  If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

     Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

     The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews.  I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.  If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.  

     Now what happened?  The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

     They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia.  And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe -- and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe -- they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles.  Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

      Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy.  I don't want to go into the details of that now.  It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

     Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either  Christianity, Islam -- the Moslem faith -- or what is known today as Judaism -- really Talmudism.  So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe,"  he picked out so-called Judaism.  And that became the state religion.

     He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people -- 800,000 thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews.  There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time.  Not one of them!  And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:  

"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's  chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland,  It's your Christian duty.  We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior.  You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

     Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted].  And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems.  Fifty four million!  And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.  

     Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves  'Arabs'.  Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics.  Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy.  All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

      The same as the Irish.  When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people.  They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

     Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe.  They likewise, because their king took the faith -- Talmudic faith -- they had no choice.  Just the same as in Spain:  If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic.  If not, you had to get out of Spain.  So everybody -- they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!  

      Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."

     Now, could there be a bigger lie than that?  Could there be a bigger lie than that? 

     And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough.  You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white.  And nobody could blame you.

     Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.  Because after two wars fought in Europe -- World War I and World War II -- if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for?  Did they have to -- like you flush the toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did they  have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?

     I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you.  But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not.  It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me.  I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die... like they died in Korea.  Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world.  For what?  

     To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years?  Is that why the United States must go to war?  Because the Democratic Party wants New York State -- the electoral vote?  Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?  

     In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists.  And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes.  Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy.  I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy.  I think he's a great man.  I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him.  And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows.  He's playing with the enemy.  Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish.  Let 'em out and pull 'em in.  Let 'em out and pull 'em in.  But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.  

     But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate -- not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy.  And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen".  I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

     Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do.  But I don't think it's necessary to do that.  You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.

     But. . . I want to tell you one more thing.  You talk about... "Oh, the Jews.  Why the Jews?  Christianity.  Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion".  But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of them!  This is not hearsay.  I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser.  I'm here to give you facts.

     When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre.  In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months  shall be null and void.

     The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

     And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".

     How much can you depend on their loyalty?  You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

     And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.  You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge.  Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this.  Tomorrow's going to be a long day.  

     Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it."  Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you.  And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement.  And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them -- I paid cash, not credit -- what happened?  My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement".  So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.

     So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic.  I don't know whether I can get him over here.  So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

     Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications.  I say it without any reservations.  And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" -- he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year -- if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires.  Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".  

     Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could.  I'm not as flush as I was.  I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection.  Don't worry.  I see five people getting up to leave.  (laughter)

     I haven't got the money that I used to spend.  I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out.  Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally.  So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job".  So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them.  Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel.  I suppose we've all reached that at times.

     I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League.  I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line.  But Mr. McGinley is working.  He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever.  And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.  

    So I just want to tell you this.  All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'."   The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it.  The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer.  That all has strategy.  They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to.  And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie.  In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.    

     How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows.  And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know.  But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message.  And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around.  Plow that field.  Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.

    [Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going.  He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials.  He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]  

Freedman:  All right, I'll comment on that.  This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt.  In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea.  Judea was a province of the Roman Empire.  Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius.  Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.  

     Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'.  Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages.  Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist.  Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean.  I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.  

     In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English.  There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read?  It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages.  Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English.  But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.  

     There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence.  There was no Judea.  People had long ago forgotten that.  So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew".  At the time, there was no printing press.

     Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here.  If you want I can read them to you.  I will.  That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ',  then ' giu ',  then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '.    Julius Caesar is ' Iul '   because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ',   then ' ieuu ',  then ' ieuy ',  then ' iwe ',  then ' iow ',  then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on.  Then ' ieue ',  then ' iue ',  then ' ive ',  and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '.  Jew.  

     All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin.  Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe -- there was no such word as Jew.  There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu'  -- Jew.  A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.  

     So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it.   Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous.  I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that.  I'd like to know the text.  

    Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews.  What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you.  They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism.  There was no such thing as Judaism.  Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible].  No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism.  It didn't exist.   They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.  

     Just like 'anti-Semitic'.  The Arab is a Semite.  And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites.  The only Semites in the world are the Arabs.  There isn't one Jew who's a Semite.  They're all Turkothean Mongoloids.  The Eastern european Jews.  So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction.  I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma'am.  Well... I can answer that.  First of all, your first premise is wrong.  Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong.  Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation;  that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.  

     But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony.  In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot.  A civil war.  

     The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell.  We should give up Kol Nidre?  That gives us our grip on our people.  We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell.  We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out.  That gives us our grip on our people".  So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

    Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race.  Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who -- on behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these Zionists.  

     And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it.  The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief.  That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'?  or a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?  

     So the same disunity is among the Jews.  And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it.  That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

------------------------------------------------

[Question inaudible]  Freedman:  You know why?  Because if they don't, they're decked up.  They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.  

     In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building.  And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name.  Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star".  BLACKMAIL.  I don't know what else you can call it.

     Then what do they do?  They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible.  So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax.  So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make up.  

     They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax.  Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government.  So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland?  And you say, "Oh, well.  The poor Jews.  They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives".  They've never been persecuted for their religion.  And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me.  Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.  

     Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England?  King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds.  For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew.  But do you know why they were driven out?  Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money.  In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.  

     So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed.  And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders.  So the king finally said -- and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library.  When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders.  Edward the First.  And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.  

     But it got worse and worse.  So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders.  If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir".  That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out.  There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.  

     When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did.  He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland.  So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion.  It has never happened.  It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Yes, sir.  Well, they say most of those things themselves.  It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it.  Most of those things they say themselves.  But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.  

     When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object.  The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

     When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia -- who they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"  

     And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is.  So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland.  And every word of it is true... they say it themselves.  I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing:  When they have money they become tyrants.  And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.  They're only barbarians.  They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

     What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did?  The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that.  There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that.  When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

     There was no need for that.  But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution.  One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got".  It would pay you to read that.  

     You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement.  And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement.  Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he.  And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Well, I can't advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this.  You can start what I call an endless chain.  If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement:  Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself.  Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this.  He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

 "For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th".  "Israel is here to stay.  It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party.  The White House must take the lead.  American intervention.  We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.  I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".

     Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression?  Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that?  Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.  Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans were disarmed -- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo.  What would the United States say?

     Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves?  Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other.  Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

     Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas.  they declared themselves a sovereign state.  Leave them there.  You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada.  Settle somewhere else".  

     Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes?  So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations -- fifteen times in the last twelve years -- called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms".    

[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]


 

 

Introduction to Israel
By Jackie Patru
What IS this all about? First we should attempt to determine what a Jew is, or isn't. Is a Jew a person who embraces a particular religion known as Judaism? Or, is it a Semitic person who traces his/her bloodline to the ancient tribe of Judah? Or is it both? Actually, it is neither. Their Biblical territory? The WORLD.

A Jewish Defector Warns AmericaUpdated
BENJAMIN FREEDMAN SPEAKS. In 1961, at the Willard Hotel, Mr. Freedman warned of the cabal laying plans for WWIII, and the genocide being committed by Israel on the Palestinian people figured heavily then as now. This is a repost, taken verbatim from the taped version of the speech.

The Zionist State (Harbinger of WWIII)
By Douglas Reed
A microscopic look behind the scenes at the manipulations, threats, bribes and murders committed in order to secure the vote by the United Nations, mandating the 'state' of Israel as a homeland for the so-called Jews. A gruesome picture of the bloody terror in Palestine that began simultaneously with the UN mandate. This a MUST READ, even for those who believe they know the facts.

Rothschild-Israeli Connection
 Baron Edmond James (Avrahim Binyamin) de Rothschild (1845-1934) is known as the "Father of the Settlement" (Avi ha-Yishuv). The Independence Day coin is dedicated to the memory of Rothschild and marks the centenary of his first projects in Israel.

The Kol Nidre
The first and most important prayer of the Talmudist (Jewish) Holiday. "All vows , obligations, oaths, and anathemas. . . from this Day of Atonement until the next. . . we do repent.. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths."

Purim: What's It All About?
 G.W.Bush announced 'his' decision to sack Iraq on Purim Eve, March 17th, 2003. WHY? Why Purim Eve? It was not his plan, it was the plan of his advisors/handlers. On CNN that evening, a boxed quote told the viewers, it was "A Time Of Our Choosing." Whose choosing? Read this about Purim -- the Feast of Lots, and you will KNOW who chose the time for the massacre in Iraq. "On Purim, the Jews reaffirm their allegiance to Judaism -- and reach new spiritual heights. But then come masquerades, parodies, and serious drinking and feasting." Celebrating the death of their named 'enemies'.

Samuel Untermeyer's Speech
 A transcript of Samuel Untermyer's speech made on WABC, declaring a 'holy war' by the Jews against Germany, and appealing to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports and all merchants who have German-made items in their establishments. The entire speech was published in the New York times on the morning following the broadcast (August 7th, 1933) which was mentioned by Benjamin Freedman in his talk before a group of patriots.

The ProtocolsUpdated
A chapter from the Controversy of Zion, by Douglas Reed
"Uncanny knowledge, therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier: 'Ever since that time' (the French Revolution) 'we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another... By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness'."

Israel: The Jewel-Box of the World
ISRAEL - THE ARTIFICIAL 'NATION/STATE' IS THE WEALTHIEST 'NATION' IN THE WORLD! READ: Message To Israel: May 1971: "See how this central piece of land, that is given the preeminence over all other land by God is, 'The Jewel Box of the World'. . . They [minerals in the dead sea] are estimated to have a total market value of about $1700 billion [$1.7 trillion] which is far more than the total wealth of the United States. . . This means that the Dead Sea will be a perpetual source of wealth to the nation that controls it."

The Cost of "Occupied" Israel to the American People
By Richard Curtiss
"Put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis had received from the U.S. government by October 31, 1997, cost American taxpayers $23,241 per Israeli. That's $116,205 for every Israeli family of five."

The Finest Senate Money Can Buy
By Uri Avenim, member of Israeli Knesset
"One thing, however, is quite clear: Israel is not the 51st state of the United States of America, as some would like to think; rather, the US Congress is one of the occupied areas of Israel."

Israeli Lobby Slips Anti-Israel Speech Bill Through U.S. House of Representatives
This bill was introduced some time ago by Rick Santorum, 'Christian' Senator from Penna. The original bill would withhold 'federal funds' from a college that allowed ANY criticism of Israel. WHO controls the U.S. Congress?

Oscar Levy, a Jew, Admits His People's Error
"We (Jews) have erred, my friend; we have most grievously erred. And if there was truth in our error 3,000, 2,000, nay, 100 years ago, there is now nothing but falseness and madness... a madness that will produce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy. There has been no progress, least of all moral progress. . . And it is just our Morality, which has prohibited all real progress, and -- what is worse -- which even stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours."

Disraeli's "Coningsby' - An Excerpt
(London, 1844)
"And at the moment, in spite of centuries, or tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated, but of the living Hebrew intellect."

The Ship Wreckers
By George Lincoln Rockwell
"... in spite of all the fronts and cover-ups, there is one sure way of knowing who is the real boss anyplace."

Israel-Backed Firm Buys U.N. Plaza
Capital Real Estate, a New York-based company backed by Israeli shekels is now in contract to buy the glamorous green glass U.N. Plaza from the United Nations Development Corp. for approximately $161 million.

Israeli Extremists and Christian Fundamentalists - The Alliance
By Grace Halsell
"By the time my book came out those "crazies" were on the front page of every American newspaper and on every news channel. we are seeing how the Christian Zionists, motivated by religious beliefs, are working hand in glove with politically motivated, militant Jewish Zionists around the world."

A Lobby to Reckon With: Pro-Israel Christian Zionists
 BBC Broadcast and transcript.
America's new Christian Zionists lobbying for Israel. "From this we see that the engine driving the U.S. and Israel into an all out world conflagration is -- along with the money from the Jewish PACs which control the U.S. Congress -- the Christian Zionists. Judeo-Christian wasn't quite 'Jewish' enough. What an oxymoron, and what a spit-in-the-face of Jesus." Jackie Patru

Israel Wants U.S. to Pressure Syria
Associated Press: In remarks published Monday, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Israel has "a long list of issues we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians, and it would be best done through the Americans."

Greater Israel: What Does It Really Mean?
The U.S. led war on Iraq... and eventually many other Muslim nations may be part of an Israeli plan to let others die for the goal of its expansion into Greater Israel. Extremist Zionist sympathizers in Bush's administration are the perpetrators of this scheme to have American military men and women die for Israel. See the arguments for this claim. Webmaster's note: This document is lengthy and is full of maps and other images. Please allow extra time for loading.

American Murdered by Israeli Soldier
Hoffman Wire: "Rachel Corrie, 23, is the American woman who was killed by an Israeli soldier operating a giant, D-9 armored bulldozer (paid for with your tax dollars). Congress, the president and the war-Zionist media are all silent. Imagine if she had been killed by an Iraqi!"

Rachel Corrie's E-mails Home
The Guardian - UK: "23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent the Israeli army destroying homes in the Gaza Strip. In a remarkable series of emails to her family, she explained why she was risking her life."

Four Eye-witnesses Describe the Murder of Rachel Corrie
"Her faced showed she was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed. . . They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They waited over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I believed they would stop but they never did."

Rachael Corrie's Memorial Service Disrupted by Israeli Army The Guardian - UK: "Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday."

Rachael Corrie's mom speaks up and out
. . . about the Israeli genocide on Palestinians: "Friday, approximately twenty [Israeli] military vehicles surrounded the ISM (International Solidarity Movement) media office, seized ISM computers and video equipment, pillaged files and photos, broke equipment and damaged office space. Three females in the office (one from Human Rights Watch, a Palestinian volunteer, and an American volunteer) were taken away."

Israel - The Secret Arsenal of the Jewish State
MSNBC Interactive: "Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear weapons status, its secret arsenal is an open secret that Israeli policy makers don't go out of their way to deny." Look at the dots on this map! 2 Air Bases, 7 Strategic Weapons Plants and 3 Missile Facilities! It appears that no nation should have WMDs except U.S., U.K and Israel.

Israeli Professor: 'We Could Destroy All European Capitals'
"We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under." [It's called The Samson Option, folks.]

What Christians Don't Know About Israel
By Grace Halsell
“We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.” —Israeli journalist, Arieh Shavit

Jewish Calendar for Soldiers and Sailors
Actual calendar, showing Bush family heritage.

Tell a Joke, Go to Jail
"In Hungary, the democratically-elected Parliament just last week passed a law stipulating a two-year prison term for 'someone who publicly insults a Jew'. What's more, if the insult amounts to an expression of 'hatred', the sentence goes up to three years! Fortunately, at the last moment, Hungary's President declined to sign the bill. It will be back, just like the American Federal hate-crime legislation kept coming back until it was passed recently.

Israel's Mossad
 Black Ops and False Flags. Summary - MUST SEE! You WILL believe!

New Order > From the President of the United States
 Jewish American Heritage Month, 2006
For our visitors who haven't read "Jewish Persecution", go to Chapters 12 and 18 if you would like to see the influence these people have had in the past -- early, early settling America, including the not-so-spontaneous American Revolution. A tough, bitter pill to swallow. -Jackie


Related Link:
 www.come-and-hear.com
(Links outside of sweetliberty.org)
Come-and-Hear is: "A secular and pragmatic view of Talmud law as it advances into American law and society." Read: "America Under the Talmud: Will It Work for US? by Carol A. Valentine — Each essay is amply documented by hotlinks to the Talmud and other Rabbinical/Judaic sources. Learn what Talmud law says about: Religious Freedom; Atrocities & Just War; Animal Sacrifice and Blood Ritual; The Death Penalty; Marriage & Divorce; Sexual Fulfillment; Pederasty and Homosexuality; Polygamy; The Special Place of Gentiles" Also features is: "The Babylonian Talmud — A searchable hypertext version of the Jews' College (London) translation of the Babylonian Talmud, published through Soncino Press between 1935 and 1948: Tractates Sanhedrin, Berakoth, Shabbath, Yebamoth, Kethuboth, Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah, Gittin, Baba Kamma, Baba Mezi'a, Baba Bathra, Abodah Zarah, Horayoth, Niddah, and Tohoroth. This was the first complete English translation, produced by the most authoritative Judaic scholars in the world. It is the gold standard of English Talmuds, but chances are you won't find it in your local public library."
“W


 

Back to Israel main page | America's New War or War on Americans? | Issues Index | CDR Home

 

NOVEMBER-2017

H.F.1388
 
 

EU QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

There are over 1000 Bulletins on the EU in our

BULLETIN FILE and EU FILE

 CLICK FOR TOP TOPICS

JUNE -2009

1]     EUROFACTS -   THE REALITY BEHIND THE EU

2]     WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE EU ?

3]     THE TRUTH OF A FEDERAL EUROPE-PARTS1-4

4]     THE 1701 ACT OF SETTLEMENT-WHY IT SHOULD  CONCERN YOU!

5[      THE BRITISH LEGACY -CANADA-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND

6]      COMMONWEALTH REALMS VERSUS THE NEW CONSTITUTION  OF EUROPE

7]     OUR BASIC LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS SURRENDERED TO A FOREIGN POWER

8]      MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN

9]       OUR QUEEN AND EU CONSTITUTION

10]    VALERY GISCARD'ESTAING -WHY HE IS CALLED X

11]    THE ROTTEN HEART OF EUROPE by BERNARD CONNOLLY

12]   'I SAY WE MUST NOT JOIN EUROPE'-FIELD MARSHALL MONTGOMERY-(1962)

13]    PREVIOUS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SAYS WE MUST RETAIN OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

14]    THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE  LAW OF ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES.

15]    A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION - CONSPIRATORS NAMED (1993)

 WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTINENT

17]    COST of EU to UK-£4.8billion = 40 DISTRICT HOSPITALS-EQUIPPED -_STAFFED-AND FUNDED.

18]    WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON ABOUT THE EURO.

19]     200 MORE REASONS TO WHY TO REJECT THE EURO AND THE EU

20]    100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT1          100 REASONS TO LEAVE THE EU-PT2

21]    THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

22]    UK CONTRIBUTION TO BRUSSELS: BIG INCREASE IN 2005

23]   EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE

24]    BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENTS SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL

25]    FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENTS BY PAYOUTS

26]    SIGNS OF AN EU POLICE STATE

27]    NINETY-NINE COUNTRIES HAVE FREE TRADE WITH THE EU-WITHOUT PAYING A CENT TO BRUSSELS.

28]    IT IS TIME TO CONSIDER OURSELVES-IN A COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

29]   BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU AS UN SHOW BEST AREA FOR EXPANSION WILL BE USA/ANGLO-SAXON SPHERE

30]    WAVE GOODBYE TO THE EU AND MAKE EUROPE A BETTER PLACE   

31]    LORD STODDART PINS DOWN BLAIR GOVERNMENT ON COST OF EU -JUNE 2007.

32]    BRITISH VOTERS MUST GET A SAY ON NEW EU TREATY-[JUNE-2007] -NOT MUCH LUCK HERE!

33]    ALMOST 50% OF EU BUDGET SPENT ON CAP FATCATS

34]    SO WHY DON'T WE LEAVE THE EU

35]    WHY BRITISH BUSINESS IS TURNING AGAINST THE EU

36]    BRITISH CONSTITUTION-IDENTITY AND VALUES

37]    MODERN DILEMA IN POLITICS-TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUM.

38]    LETTER FROM LORD KILMUIR TO TED HEATH WITH TRUE FACTS OF EU

39]  

 

 

 INTERVIEW WITH RUSSIAN DISSIDENT WHO WARNED OF EU DICTATORSHIP

40]   The Truth About A Federal Europe - Part I

41]   Cost of EU to UK - £4,811 million in 2003= 40 District Hospitals equipped and staffed and funded.

42]  CAN THE 1972 ACCESSION TREATY TO THE EU BE REPEALED?

43]  Neil Kinnock in glover - but failed to stop the Shadow of graft over EU’s £68bn spending.

44]  Now the EU wants a single Foreign Office to replace Nation-States Embassies.

45]   How the EU takes over Nation-States.

46]  A Fabian Europhile of 1947 supported Independent Nation-States and the Rule of Law

47]     The New European Constitution - Part 1

48]  12-Point Summary of EU Constitution continued - Part 2

49]  The New European Constitution - Part 1

50]  An Englishman’s checklist to how Pro-EU faction in ALL Parties is overturning our Ancient Constitution.

51]   Britain takes over as biggest contributor to the EU Budget

52]  Neil Kinnock sacked honest Auditor because of refusal to sign off questionable EU Accounts.

53]    General De Gaulle acclaims British national institutions back in 1960.

54]    Brussels scams can let an MEP fiddle £60,000 a year.

55]  The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 1

56]    The European Constitution - Questions and Answers - A Plain Man’s Guide - Part 2

57]    Europe and a conspiracy of Silence.

58]    Ninety-nine countries will soon have Free Trade with EU -without paying a cent to Brussels.

59]   Britain must leave the EU as UN show best area for expansion will be USA-Anglo.Saxon sphere.

60]  82 million Germans have no say as MP’s back EU Constitution.

61]    The EU big brother policy reaches back over two millennium.

62]     Europe: It’s the modern version of the white man’s burden.

63]    E U COUNCIL OF MINISTERS.

64]    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

65]    German - Nazi - Geopolitical Centre established in Madrid in 1943 by Heinrich Himmler.

66]     What were the Dark Actors Playing Games, which the patriot Dr David Kelly referred?

67]    DEMOCRACY IS A DIALECTICAL FARCE BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES CALL THE SHOTS NOT SO-CALLED DEMOCRACIES.

68]    Britain Can Leave EU Unilaterally And Cease Payment Says Queen’s Counsel.

69]     EU WHISTLEBLOWERS EXPOSE BILLIONS OF EURO FRAUD BUT NOTHING IS DONE.

70]     NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

71]      WHY NO TREATY LIMITING EU POWERS

72]     THE E.U.’S VERY OWN AESOPIAN LANGUAGE.

73]    WHAT IF ENGLAND HADN'T JOINED THE EU

74]    67% WANT POWERS RETURNED FROM EU

75]   WILL IRELAND SAVE EUROPE FROM ITSELF?

76]   WHY EU REGIONAL POLICY WILL DESTROY THE NATION STATE

77]     EMPIRES HAVE GONE AND MOST PEOPLE LIVE IN NATION STATES.

78 THE FINAL BETRAYAL- WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 2008 

79]    WHY THE QUEEN MUST STAND UP TO BLAIR-NOW BROWN-SHE DIDN'T - BUT SOLD US TO THE EU80] 

80]     Almost everything ,which is precious in our civilisation, has come from small States

81]     THE EU BIG BROTHER POLICY REACHES BACK OVER TWO MILLENNIUM

82]     THE EURO A DOOMED CURRENCY

83]      GERMANY AS STRONG MAN OF EUROPE

84]     BRITAIN AND EUROPE-THE CULTURE OF DECEIT

85]     NAZI INTERNATIONAL IN 2007

86]     A BETTER WAY FORWARD TOGETHER IN EUROPE-OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNIOn

87]      A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND

88]     TO CONTROL OUR COURTS AND BORDERS IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL EUROSCEPTIC STRATEGY.
89]     BLACK OPERATIONS AND TRICKERY BIND UK TO EU
90]     HITLER-HAUSHOFER AND GEORGE KENNON-PENTAGON PLANS IDENTICAL
91]     Oh Boyo - Family on Brussels gravy train cost TAXPAYER £34 million and RISING!
92]     NAZI TRAITOR EDWARD HEATH LEFT £5 MILLION TO HIS OWN CHARITY-HIS HOME.

93]      WHY DID THEY WANT BRITAIN IN EUROPE -  IN 1963
94]       Lies and The Betrayal of Britain
95]        Be Warned - The lies of 1975 still haunt us
96]      THe Strange Case of the Werner Report
97]      1972 EU Communities Act
98]        Further 200 Reasons why to Reject the Euro and E
99]      New elite threatens EU project admits Lib-Dem Peer
100]     The secretive Bilderberger Group will destroy True Democracy
101]     BBC EUROPHILE BIAS-UPDATE-by LORD PEARSON

102]     How ‘a good European’ turned into a eurosceptic whistle-blower

103]     HITLER'S PRECEDENT PROVIDED THE MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION-1930-2007
104]     IF Gordon Brown forces this EU TREATY on us, you can kiss goodbye to DEMOCRACY  -HE DID!
105]     FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE THE FUTURE OF WORLD TRADE
106]     Twelve Mighty Reasons why you must say 'No' to the EU

107]     How much does it cost the UK in the EU
108]     THE FREEDOM TAKING EU MONSTER MAY YET FALL
109]      IF MONETARY UNION GOES-EUROPEAN PROJECT IS UNDERMINED
110]      THE MAKING OF LONDONISTAN
111]      YOU CAN'T SEPARATE POLITICS AND MORALS
112]      IRAQ SOCIETY DESCENDING INTO CIVIL WAR BETWEEN SUNNIS - SHI-ITES AND KURDS
113]         TONY BLAIR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND
 

www.eutruth.org.uk

  

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM JUNE-2009

H. F .11 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!
 
A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003CLICK HERE
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/
Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967  DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

 YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

 THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

 SITSSHOW.BLOGSPOT.COM
(Jeff )RENCE.COM  TRUTHCONTROL.COM/  

WHATDOESIT MEAN.COM

 

 

 HUMANS ARE FREE

CLIMATE CHANGE A HOAX-TRUMP KNOWS IT-NOW YOU KNOW IT!

The Rothschilds.
 
LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

 HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 
UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 
 A MATTER OF FACT!

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years. To call our DEPARTURE from the EU  a DIVORCE is a PERVERSION of the FACTS!  - A MARRIAGE if we are to call it THAT is INVALID if its DOCUMENTATION is  FALSE or obtained by BRIBERY and /or FRAUD.

  NO-MARRIAGE-NO CONTRACT-NO COMPENSATION

FOR THE EU TO EXPECT A GOLDEN HANDSHAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO REWARD THEM FOR THE WICKED; ATROCIOUS; DREADFUL; INFAMOUS; OUTRAGEOUS; PERVERSE; SINISTER; VILLAINOUS; EVIL; CONDUCT OF MANY POLITICIANS WITHIN THE EU, SOME AS MENTIONED BELOW.

*

 

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH  RIGHTS  and LIBERTIES . Possibly the reason could be that there would be a REVOLUTION if the PEOPLE knew the TRUE FACTS?

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR

TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charcol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

WHERE corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them - and that he did all this on behalf of a

FOREIGN POWER.

which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

H.F.1335/1-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU
 
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

THIS IS:

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2017

 

GO TO:

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2017

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2017

DECEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2017

-2019