Those who call for common sense in immigration are following an honourable tradition of conserving our homogeneity going back at least as far as Queen Elizabeth1 who expelled “the Blackamors” in 1602.
In this fine British tradition Sir Winston Churchill attempted to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. He also wanted the Conservative Party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White”. (1)
The multi-racial idealists ignored warning signs of what mass immigration would lead to when there was plenty of evidence. The Race battles of 1919 in Glasgow in January, in South Shields in January and February, in London in April, and in Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry and Newport in June were not the first.
There had been racial battles in 1870s and 1911 in Cardiff with the Chinese community. In 1919 there were five deaths and serious injuries, whole areas cordoned off by the police and hundreds taken into protective custody. The Times reported the Cardiff battle:
“Racial riots of a grave character occurred at Cardiff during the early hours of yesterday morning. The trouble seems to have broken out simultaneously in several adjacent parts of the city about midnight. A young man named Harold Smart walked up to a constable and complained that a coloured man had cut his throat”
The constable took him to hospital but he died on arrival. This culminated in crowds of whites and blacks facing and baiting each one another. Six Arabs were charged including firing a revolver. It appears the riot grew out of white men objecting to coloured men consorting with white women.
One-Worlder Lord Milner wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd “On the Repatriation of Coloured Men.” ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…”
When Empire Windrush brought immigrants here in 1948 there were race battles: Liverpool again, between 31 July and 2 August, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 involving immigrants from seafaring backgrounds but the idealists ignored them. The Times reported the Liverpool battle as about 50 persons ”mostly coloured appeared in court after. ..”a gang of negros stoned several white men who were walking peacefully. They were armed with bottles, swords, daggers, iron bars, coshes and axes. The white men hopelessly outnumbered ran away. A Negro club appeared to have been the headquarters of the coloured men, and police officers were stoned and had bottles thrown at them from club windows as they tried to disperse the crowd.”(2)
Despite “the risks involved” they continued with the policy of free entry for immigrants. They kept no records of numbers entering, apparently because the immigrants were, as Commonwealth citizens, British subjects, nor did they give practical support, leaving it to local councils and voluntary organizations. Throughout the 50.s many delegations from local councils of areas effected went to 10, Downing Street, to ask for practical help and funds. On the 21st of November 1952 the Town Clerk of Brixton asked for regulation of immigration.
Churchill first discussed immigration in Cabinet on 25th November 1952 when he asked in Cabinet if the Post Office employed large numbers of “coloured workers”. “If so, there was some risk social problems would be created.” They were from India, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Mauritius, West Indies, Ceylon, British Guiana and Malaya.
The postmaster General was asked to report on it. He explained: “...the Post Offices main unions raised no objections to their employment at basic grades.” He added,” If it is felt that coloured workers should not be allowed to obtain employment in this country, I should have thought the proper course would be to deny them entry to the country.”
Churchill asked his staff to find out about problems in Lambeth, Brixton and Cardiff. B.G.Smallman, PS, to the Colonial Secretary, producing a paper on “The Coloured Population of the UK". This estimated the numbers to be 40-50,000 which included about 6,000 students. (3)
Historian Andrew Roberts wrote that The Commonwealth Relations Office worried that with restrictions “ there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home, worried that they should not give the impression that Commonwealth citizens from India, Pakistan and Ceylon would be less favourably treated than those from the Dominions otherwise there could be retaliation.
In private interviews Roberts shows the decadence of those around Churchill: “A Minister closely involved in the decision-making process, ‘ In fact…we were just stalling and hoping for the best’… One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries, ‘at that time it seemed a very good idea to get bus conductors and stuff’ … a junior minister, ‘it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station’.’’(4 )
On the 27th of June 1953 Sir Winston suffered a stroke that left him paralysed down the left side. After that, he told Butler, “I feel like an aeroplane at the end of its flight , in the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing.”(5) Interviewed by Andrew Roberts his Foreign Affairs Personal Secretary Anthony Montague- Brown recalled that he was “simply too tired to deal with the immigration problem. He could concentrate on a few big issues at a time- like the Russians -and the rest of the time he could only give a steer and not see it through.” (6) I
In November 1952 His Private Secretary, Sir John Colville noted, "He is getting tired and visibly ageing. He finds it hard to compose a speech and ideas no longer flow. (7)
Cabinet set up an Inter Departmental Committee to look into preventing an increase in the number. It reported its findings in December 1953. This Inter Departmental Committee comprised Ministry of Labour and National Service, the National Assistance Board, the Colonial Office and Chief Constables from areas where immigrants were settling.
The Home Secretary was to ask the Inter Departmental Committee, which was chaired by the Home Office, to look into preventing an increase in the number coming for employment. There is a note to R.J.Guppy of the Home Office in The Prime Ministers papers notifying him that Churchill had seen the report in that day's Daily Telegraph "about what is termed an influx of West Indians. He is considering bringing the matter before the Cabinet and would like to have a report from the Home Secretary about it." (8)
January 1954 Home Secretary Maxwell Fyfe reported on the findings of the “Working party on the Social and Economic Problems Arising from the Growing Influx into the United Kingdom of Coloured Workers”. He stated “the unskilled workers who form the majority are difficult to place because on the whole they are physically unsuited to heavy manual work…”(9)
For those familiar with the debate over the veracity of Enoch Powell’s claim in his Rivers Of Blood speech that an elderly white lady was being driven from her home, of the several news cuttings in the Prime Ministers papers is one from The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954 where a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss.Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
“In Paddington hundreds of houses have been rented or bought by coloured people since the war. Statements are being taken from 2,000 residents who protested to the borough council against “the ever-increasing practice of selling to coloured people houses in which there are already white tenants.” Mr.George O’Connell, a member of the council said to me that a committee formed in the borough would sift through evidence provided by the residents. He hoped shortly to discuss the problem with Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Home Secretary.”...We are not so much concerned about the effect on values of neighbouring properties as on the white tenants who are forced out by them.”
Churchill’s Private Secretary Montague-Brown to Civil Servant Johnston 2/11/1954 on an article in the Telegraph of 19 Oct in which the Jamaican Minister of Labour said he would not attempt to stop mass immigration. The P.M. thinks this should be brought up in Cabinet.
It is important to note that Commonwealth citizens had the right of entry to the UK and the same rights as British citizens when here. The difference is few came until after the Second war. The British Nationality Act of 1948 did not give them that right but codified it.
This point is made in the following example from the Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks released to the public in August 2007. These are the handwritten notes of Cabinet Meetings. They record that on 3 February 1954 under the item 'Coloured Workers', Sir Winston stated ‘Problems which will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.'
Florence Horsbrugh, Minister of Education and MP for Manchester( Moss Side), added: 'Already becoming serious in Manchester.' David Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of control. He said: 'There is a case on merits for exclude. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long tradition that. British Subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.' He added: 'The colonial. populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington & other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take a more Liberal view.'
Churchill intervened: 'Question . is whether it is politically wise to allow public feeling to develop a little more before taking action.' Adding that it would be 'fatal' to let the situation develop too far Mr.Churchill conclud: 'Would like also to study possibility of "quota" - no. not to be exceeded.'
Another referred to an "increasing evil" and principles "laid down 200 yrs. ago are not applicable to-day. See dangers of colour discriminn. But other [Dominions] control entry of B. subjects. Cd. we present action as coming into line...& securing uniformity?"
Mr.Churchill said the question was whether it might be wise "to allow public feeling to develop a little more - before takg. action...May be wise to wait...But it wd. be fatal to let it develop too far." (11)
In March 1954 Maxwell Fyfe told Cabinet, “that large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area…the result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation”.
In a Cabinet memorandum of 8 March Maxwell Fyfe feared “serious difficulties involved in contemplating action which would undoubtedly land the Government in some political controversy.”
In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase. (12)
The discussion that Harold Macmillan referred to in his diary entry for January 20th 1955: "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan! Can be substantiated by the Cabinet notebooks for 20th January 1955. This is a transcript:
Coloured Immigrants.
P.M. Need for decision before long.
Anthony Eden. Before Commonwealth P.M. mtg.
Henry Hopkinson. Osborne M.P. is thinking of introducg. Bill under 10 min. rule.
Lloyd George . Depn. y’day from B’ham. No objn. to them as workers. But qua housing. Figures are impressive.
Viscount Swinton. Might consider Cttee. on social aspects, alone.
A.E. Might be useful – to re-inforce action we decide to take.
P.M. Not in favour. Better to introduce Bill. May find we cd. get it thro’. At least we shd. have shown our view.
Marquess of Salisbury. Urgent.
H.H. Movement is starting now in favour of immign. from Barbados.
[Exit H.H. (11)
Just before he gave up the Premiership in 1955 Mr. Churchill told Spectator owner and editor Ian Gilmour that immigration "is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice". (12)
If Sir Winston had been well we would not know be suffering the gun killings and knivings or Muslim bombings of our people.
Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks covering this period CAB 195/13 was released at the beginning of February 2008. The papers of British Prime Ministers are classified under PREM. PREM 11/824 covers Churchill’s premiership. It has Information requested by the Prime Minister on immigration of coloured workers to the UK and their employment in the Civil Service; deportation of British subjects; powers of Colonial Governments; employment of Jamaicans in the UK 1952-1955
1 Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224. Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382.
2 …” ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996). The discussions on immigration are classified as our “racism” and usually by Marxist academics who blame us”whites” for any difficulties. See also
British Immigration Policy Since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain, By Ian R. G. Spencer. (Routledge. 1997)
3 Thee are held at the National Archive. CC100(52)8(cabinet Conclusions on 25/11/1952, CAB 128/25; The Post Master General’s report and the Chancellor being asked to restrict entry to the Civil Service is in CC106(52), 8/12/1952, CAB 128
4 Eminent Churchillians, Andrew Roberts. (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson) 1994,
5 R.A.Butler,”The Art of the Possible, (London. Hamish Hamilton),1971, p173.
6 ibid Eminent Churchillians.
7 Sir John Colville.(London. Stoughton Ltd )1985.The Fringes of Power. P654
8 Daily Telegraph 29/1/54 "Cities Concerned at Influx of West Indians."
9 CAB124/1191 Report of the Working Party on Coloured People Seeking Employment in the United Kingdom. 17th December 1953.
10 Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks. The eleventh Notebook (CAB 195/11) (released August 2007) covers the period 3.12.52 - 26.2.54.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/05/race.past
11 Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks. The Notebook covering 20th January 1955 CAB 195/13 was released at the beginning of February 2008.
ibid Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane.2006) p 224. Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382.
12 Inside Right. Sir Ian Gilmour (Quartet.1977)
Monday, 23 March 2009
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
David Cameron and The United Front Against Whites
David Cameron and The United Front Against Whites
On the Tommy Boyd's talk Radio show of 17 February Weyman Bennett described David Cameron as a supporter of the Marxist UAF! Are the Conservatives still the patriotic party or a Con that pretends to support the nation but when in power carry on with the work of the Labour Party? Bennet accused the BNP of violence but at 2008 Red White Blue, 33 arrests were recorded - including left wing thugs throwing rocks at children and elderly people. Yet no members or supporters of the BNP were arrested. What is Cameron doing with people like that if he is a Tory?
The Daily Mail of 22 January reported his speaking to think tank Demos which is The Progressive Conservatism Project developing policies and ideas that are radical. Conservatives are now pursuing progressive goals which were once left-wing like social justice, social mobility and an end to poverty. How, they ask, can these be achieved through ‘conservative’ means? They are turning the Conservative party into a neo-Marxist outfit like Nulab!
cameron said his party wants to abolish child poverty and increase social mobility. The four aims of 'progressive Conservatism' are - a fair society, a green environment, safety for citizens and equal opportunity... 'Yes, they are ends that we share with people in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and right across the mainstream political spectrum. But no, we do not agree about how best to achieve those ends.”(1)
What people fail to understand is that the Conservative Party is no longer conservative. They should be done under Advertising Standards laws or change their name. They are another aspect of PC ideology Party. You cannot "change" the fundamental tenets of Conservatism but you can become something else behind the name. In 1991 the party got rid of the remaining traditionalists when it purged the Monday Club to make it another vehicle of neo-Marxism, PC and to serve the Globalists agenda.
What do traditional Conservatives believe? American Conservative Robert Nisbet (1966): "The ethos of Conservatism is tradition…...defence of social tradition and emphasis on the values of community, kinship, hierarchy, authority, and religion; add also Conservatism’s premonition of social chaos surmounted by absolute power once individuals have become wrenched from the context of these values by the forces of liberalism and radicalism. The Conservatives began with the reality of the institutional order as they found it, the order bequeathed by history".
The sense of belonging to a people and a putting their interests first was shown by Indian PM, Mrs Gandhi’s, 'Indianisation' policies commenced about 1962 in which Europeans were asked to leave their posts on the basis of race; the the Africanisation policies of Robert Mugabe, are cruel and brutal and, even though they can not run their society, they see it as theirs and want to do it for themselves; the Africanisation policies of the ANC are racist but multi-racialists and anti-racists support racist policies if they are against “white people”! There was the expulsion of over 10 million Europeans between 1945 and 1948 on the basis of their race and nationality.
Indigenous Indians are given preference in India - in fact we wouldn't be allowed in and if we did wouldn't be eligible for anything. Every country puts the interests of its own first, but our establishment want to see the indigenous British dispossessed in their own country. Why don't the elites just admit they hate us and want to destroy us?
In September(2008) , in a speech to the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown called on the nations of the world to ensure that our era becomes the century of the global community.
He swore to a “make a reality of the vision of a global society in which we create global civic institutions that turn words of friendship into bonds of human solidarity.
David Cameron is also a servant of the global elites pushing for globalism. During his visit to Rwanda last summer, while there was severe flooding in his Whitney, Oxfordshire constituency, he showed which people he supported: ˜There is no domestic or foreign any more. In this world today, we are all in it together.”
There is no difference, one word that has been driving me nuts has been the word ‘Global’, every time Gordon Brown opens his mouth the word ‘Global’ comes out over and over again, Cameron is no different, here is a quote from Cameron in 2007 taken from an article ‘Cameron sets out vision for EU’
In his speech, Mr Cameron said the priorities should be the "three Gs" of globalisation, global warming and global poverty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6421215.stm
They all use the same language and concepts and most of his main ideological concerns are the same as the other elites and as Brown has shown a main part of the globalist vision is the creation of a new corporate and political network which would operate beyond nations. The Utopians believed that harmony could be made on earth not heaven by world government. H. G. Wells, the science fiction writer and socialist philosopher, was an advocate of a “permanent world congress” and specialised international agencies which would end the nation state. Patriotism, he believed, was “mere flag-waving with no constructive duties”. Now the dreamers are in power and doing it through deceit and manipulation.
Cameron visited Bolton on Monday 5th January 2009 and addressed a more than 1,000 leading members of the Asian community, at the Reebok Stadium. Cameron ignored the indigenous populatiion. He announced: “We have hitherto been able to rise to the challenge and sustain our coherence and unity. We have done so through a combination of a steadfast faith in our institutions and values, such as freedom under the rule of law, pluralism and tolerance….and because society – not only the majority community but the minority community too – were prepared to stand together as one. There is no reason to think we cannot do the same today.” But he knows that under the EU “Rule of Law” and the other values he cited like “our institutions” are being scrapped. Very hypocritical!
The one-sided view of racism which ignores the horrendous crimes our people are subjected to including the routine raping of our little girls by older Muslim gangs is typical of the caste: “ First, a concerted attack on racism and soft bigotry. You can't even start to talk about a truly integrated society while people are suffering racist insults and abuse, as many still are in our country on a daily basis. We must also be careful about the language we use. No Muslim I've ever met is offended by Christmas, or supports its replacement with 'Winterval'. But many Muslims I've talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' to describe the terrorist threat we face today”(2) like Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith’s call to describe Muslim terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.”
British politics are run by utopians, optimists and Romantic Idealists since WWII - look at the practical consequences. Utopians brought millions of immigrants to make our lives better and, still say it – Cameron is one of them. There is also cheap labour for commerce.
In his 2007 conference speech Cameron spoke without notes, to suggest they were deeply felt beliefs yet he was clearly reciting a script, which said nothing. He asked the audience, “What do I believe?” and answered, “I am by nature an optimist.” We assume his answer meant, “ Everything will turn out well in the end.”
Like other “Caste” elites he has no sense of duty or honour - his political career comes first. Small differences aside the Libs, Labs, and Cons, have the same ideology and Cameron in the speech signalled that he belongs: “I think our diverse and multi-racial society is a huge benefit for Britain.” Anything less and his career is over.
He joined in the Persecution of Prince Harry demonstrating that the non-Conservatives will not defend our people's norms nor the monarchy as traditionally, but are the same as the other mainstream parties, the intellectual and cultural elites, commerce and the media - attacking our traditions and ways to prepare us for utopia. Like all Utopians Cameron is an optimist about the ultimate conclusion of British society in a multi-racial, one-world. Prime Ministers don’t question dominant state- ideology - they slot into it.
Like the others he says what he has to to get elected not what is needed to save the country. The common features of this ilk are Political correctness, ambition and cowardice which prevents them addressing the real problems affecting us. They try to convince us that if we also fantasise that things will turn out well, they will. But things only work out well when done well.
Optimists can’t solve problems that optimists have created. They thought the multiracial society would work because they thought it would. Even though their utopia is a nightmare, they will not face it but make us scapegoats when anything goes wrong by using the all-purpose pejorative “racism” which only whites can be.
The media puff him up as they did with Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Politicians are always pictured in mid-flow, with a finger raised as authority figures when really they are weak and inadequate. The Daily Telegraph said the speech: “…explained in detail his vision of how to change Britain.” It did no such thing.
It was the same script we get from all establishment politicians - changing this and changing that, but they never make a real point like what they are going to change - what into what, why and how? Our inadequate leaders haven’t got it and hope something will turn up.
What they call change is more of the same in a different guise. They mean repackaging. They’ve set us on this course and they’re determined to see it through, and there will be no change until establishment liars, cowards, and parasites have been replaced by people for whom self interest is not the prime motivating factor.
Like Obama’s inaugural speech Cameron’s vision to the conference had no substance: “We need change for the long term, hope for our country and optimism for the next generation…”. Merely buzz-words - “…change …long term …hope …our country …optimism …next generation,” but no ‘detailed’ explanation of the vision that the Telegraph praised. The only thing he stated with certainty was that he supports mass immigration: “I think this country has benefited immeasurably from immigration”. If immigration isn’t the problem, what is? He enlightened us: “I want to tell you what's wrong with our country and I want to explain what I am going to do to put it right “ …if we really want to tackle crime, if we really want to make our society stronger then you have got to make families stronger and society more responsible …we must make our country safer and greener and give people more freedom and control of their lives…” …families …stronger …responsible …our country …safer …greener …freedom” - more buzz-words without meaning. The population does not see society through the same ideology and have to be browbeaten by moral lectures and coralled by totalitarian laws and a politicised police. Few indeed share his view that immigration has benefitted Britain ‘immeasurably’ and most people were they not frightened of being persecuted by the state and “free” would say so.
What he really means is that he wants people to be free to say what the “caste” want them to say, and to have control over their lives so that the “caste” can manage them in the way they want to. His knee jerk response to faux pas of Patrick Mercer and Nigel Hastilow show what this “freedom” means - persecution of dissidents.
A new kind of Tory? In his 68 minute long conference speech ostensibly about British society he didn’t refer to our Christian traditions or the threat that Islam poses to them. He is on the other side. He interpreted the worries over immigration as concern about the effect it has on services, education, health, housing, and ignored the more important effect it is having on British culture and the dispossession of ethnic Britons.
Then he enthused about what he thinks important – persuading ethnic groups to become Tories. He told the audience they must, “…get out amongst Britain's ethnic minority communities and find the brightest, the best and the most talented and get them in.”
One of “...the brightest, the best and the most talented” members of “…the ethnics ” is Baroness Warsi. He was so impressed by Warsi that he wanted her on board at any price. And when she failed to make it and lost to Labour’s Shahid Malik in the 2005 general election he had her made a Baroness to encourage other Asians. She became minister responsible for ‘cohesion’.
We’re in safe hands. He told the conference, “I am proud that I can stand here with the first Muslim woman of a Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet in Sayeeda Warsi who will be a great talent for our party and our country.” Baroness Warsi is a former immigration lawyer. She was involved with Operation Black Vote and the left wing pro-immigration Joseph Rowntree Trust. Last year she was co-author of a report that made the case for allowing refused asylum seekers to enter the economy.
She is his Lord Ahmed who Blair appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at the House of Lords, where Jermas launched into a fundamentalist Muslims tirade against Zionists. This fawning on immigrants presents us as weak and afraid of them which is what emboldened Ahmed to threaten to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to stop Geert Wilders entering The Palace of Westminster!(3) Jacqui smityh, Home secretary banned Wilders!
In May 2007 Cameron stayed with a Muslim family in Birmingham and wrote in the Observer of 13th may 2007: “Last week, I spent two days staying with Abdullah and Shahida Rehman and their family in Birmingham. The experience has strengthened my conviction about the right way to build a more cohesive Britain... by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign.” Cameron’s argument that otherwise peaceful Muslims can be persuaded to embrace terrorism by the mere association of the words ‘Islamist’ and ‘threat’ is either absurd or the ultimate in unintentional truths.
He uses us whites as scapegoats: “Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear.” It’s our fault, again. I should have guessed.
He revealed the establishment agenda to deculture as well as dispossess us: “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” (4)To help shift society in this direction Cameron set up the Conservative Muslim Forum, a sort of Tory equivalent of the National Black Police Association, which ‘advises’ the Conservative Party on how best to assimulate us to Muslims. The CMF wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give full recognition to the “…massive contribution (sic) that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation".and the “caste” is introducing the same agenda into our schools and teaching our children to see 7/7 through the eyes of the bombers! This is teaching our children to submit to Islam and to cover the terrorists in glory. (5)
Recently, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari head of the Muslim Council of Britain was calling for Britain to adopt Islamic customs and labelling us a Nazis for daring to question the infinite benefits of Islam. Good old Tory values! Conservative Cameron concludes that British society is collapsing because it’s not sufficiently Asian: “We have a responsibility to change to accommodate immigrants so they fit in”. He’s made this perfectly clear which is why the Conservative Muslim Forum and the Muslim Council of Britain are emboldened to demand that Britain change to take account of their ways and laud their achievements.
Cameron's false Conservatives like Labour are increasing the influence of Islam on this country. Lets end by reminding ourselves what a traditional Tory is: On May 24 1929, Stanley Baldwin, three times Prime Minister, said :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”.
(1) http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/documents/DavidCameronSpeech2.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/13/comment.communities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6421215.stm
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....o-Muslim s.html
(3)http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/....liberty-central
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/13/race.immigrationpolicy
(5) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat....t-1627062.ht ml
://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/07/race.world
On the Tommy Boyd's talk Radio show of 17 February Weyman Bennett described David Cameron as a supporter of the Marxist UAF! Are the Conservatives still the patriotic party or a Con that pretends to support the nation but when in power carry on with the work of the Labour Party? Bennet accused the BNP of violence but at 2008 Red White Blue, 33 arrests were recorded - including left wing thugs throwing rocks at children and elderly people. Yet no members or supporters of the BNP were arrested. What is Cameron doing with people like that if he is a Tory?
The Daily Mail of 22 January reported his speaking to think tank Demos which is The Progressive Conservatism Project developing policies and ideas that are radical. Conservatives are now pursuing progressive goals which were once left-wing like social justice, social mobility and an end to poverty. How, they ask, can these be achieved through ‘conservative’ means? They are turning the Conservative party into a neo-Marxist outfit like Nulab!
cameron said his party wants to abolish child poverty and increase social mobility. The four aims of 'progressive Conservatism' are - a fair society, a green environment, safety for citizens and equal opportunity... 'Yes, they are ends that we share with people in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and right across the mainstream political spectrum. But no, we do not agree about how best to achieve those ends.”(1)
What people fail to understand is that the Conservative Party is no longer conservative. They should be done under Advertising Standards laws or change their name. They are another aspect of PC ideology Party. You cannot "change" the fundamental tenets of Conservatism but you can become something else behind the name. In 1991 the party got rid of the remaining traditionalists when it purged the Monday Club to make it another vehicle of neo-Marxism, PC and to serve the Globalists agenda.
What do traditional Conservatives believe? American Conservative Robert Nisbet (1966): "The ethos of Conservatism is tradition…...defence of social tradition and emphasis on the values of community, kinship, hierarchy, authority, and religion; add also Conservatism’s premonition of social chaos surmounted by absolute power once individuals have become wrenched from the context of these values by the forces of liberalism and radicalism. The Conservatives began with the reality of the institutional order as they found it, the order bequeathed by history".
The sense of belonging to a people and a putting their interests first was shown by Indian PM, Mrs Gandhi’s, 'Indianisation' policies commenced about 1962 in which Europeans were asked to leave their posts on the basis of race; the the Africanisation policies of Robert Mugabe, are cruel and brutal and, even though they can not run their society, they see it as theirs and want to do it for themselves; the Africanisation policies of the ANC are racist but multi-racialists and anti-racists support racist policies if they are against “white people”! There was the expulsion of over 10 million Europeans between 1945 and 1948 on the basis of their race and nationality.
Indigenous Indians are given preference in India - in fact we wouldn't be allowed in and if we did wouldn't be eligible for anything. Every country puts the interests of its own first, but our establishment want to see the indigenous British dispossessed in their own country. Why don't the elites just admit they hate us and want to destroy us?
In September(2008) , in a speech to the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown called on the nations of the world to ensure that our era becomes the century of the global community.
He swore to a “make a reality of the vision of a global society in which we create global civic institutions that turn words of friendship into bonds of human solidarity.
David Cameron is also a servant of the global elites pushing for globalism. During his visit to Rwanda last summer, while there was severe flooding in his Whitney, Oxfordshire constituency, he showed which people he supported: ˜There is no domestic or foreign any more. In this world today, we are all in it together.”
There is no difference, one word that has been driving me nuts has been the word ‘Global’, every time Gordon Brown opens his mouth the word ‘Global’ comes out over and over again, Cameron is no different, here is a quote from Cameron in 2007 taken from an article ‘Cameron sets out vision for EU’
In his speech, Mr Cameron said the priorities should be the "three Gs" of globalisation, global warming and global poverty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6421215.stm
They all use the same language and concepts and most of his main ideological concerns are the same as the other elites and as Brown has shown a main part of the globalist vision is the creation of a new corporate and political network which would operate beyond nations. The Utopians believed that harmony could be made on earth not heaven by world government. H. G. Wells, the science fiction writer and socialist philosopher, was an advocate of a “permanent world congress” and specialised international agencies which would end the nation state. Patriotism, he believed, was “mere flag-waving with no constructive duties”. Now the dreamers are in power and doing it through deceit and manipulation.
Cameron visited Bolton on Monday 5th January 2009 and addressed a more than 1,000 leading members of the Asian community, at the Reebok Stadium. Cameron ignored the indigenous populatiion. He announced: “We have hitherto been able to rise to the challenge and sustain our coherence and unity. We have done so through a combination of a steadfast faith in our institutions and values, such as freedom under the rule of law, pluralism and tolerance….and because society – not only the majority community but the minority community too – were prepared to stand together as one. There is no reason to think we cannot do the same today.” But he knows that under the EU “Rule of Law” and the other values he cited like “our institutions” are being scrapped. Very hypocritical!
The one-sided view of racism which ignores the horrendous crimes our people are subjected to including the routine raping of our little girls by older Muslim gangs is typical of the caste: “ First, a concerted attack on racism and soft bigotry. You can't even start to talk about a truly integrated society while people are suffering racist insults and abuse, as many still are in our country on a daily basis. We must also be careful about the language we use. No Muslim I've ever met is offended by Christmas, or supports its replacement with 'Winterval'. But many Muslims I've talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' to describe the terrorist threat we face today”(2) like Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith’s call to describe Muslim terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.”
British politics are run by utopians, optimists and Romantic Idealists since WWII - look at the practical consequences. Utopians brought millions of immigrants to make our lives better and, still say it – Cameron is one of them. There is also cheap labour for commerce.
In his 2007 conference speech Cameron spoke without notes, to suggest they were deeply felt beliefs yet he was clearly reciting a script, which said nothing. He asked the audience, “What do I believe?” and answered, “I am by nature an optimist.” We assume his answer meant, “ Everything will turn out well in the end.”
Like other “Caste” elites he has no sense of duty or honour - his political career comes first. Small differences aside the Libs, Labs, and Cons, have the same ideology and Cameron in the speech signalled that he belongs: “I think our diverse and multi-racial society is a huge benefit for Britain.” Anything less and his career is over.
He joined in the Persecution of Prince Harry demonstrating that the non-Conservatives will not defend our people's norms nor the monarchy as traditionally, but are the same as the other mainstream parties, the intellectual and cultural elites, commerce and the media - attacking our traditions and ways to prepare us for utopia. Like all Utopians Cameron is an optimist about the ultimate conclusion of British society in a multi-racial, one-world. Prime Ministers don’t question dominant state- ideology - they slot into it.
Like the others he says what he has to to get elected not what is needed to save the country. The common features of this ilk are Political correctness, ambition and cowardice which prevents them addressing the real problems affecting us. They try to convince us that if we also fantasise that things will turn out well, they will. But things only work out well when done well.
Optimists can’t solve problems that optimists have created. They thought the multiracial society would work because they thought it would. Even though their utopia is a nightmare, they will not face it but make us scapegoats when anything goes wrong by using the all-purpose pejorative “racism” which only whites can be.
The media puff him up as they did with Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Politicians are always pictured in mid-flow, with a finger raised as authority figures when really they are weak and inadequate. The Daily Telegraph said the speech: “…explained in detail his vision of how to change Britain.” It did no such thing.
It was the same script we get from all establishment politicians - changing this and changing that, but they never make a real point like what they are going to change - what into what, why and how? Our inadequate leaders haven’t got it and hope something will turn up.
What they call change is more of the same in a different guise. They mean repackaging. They’ve set us on this course and they’re determined to see it through, and there will be no change until establishment liars, cowards, and parasites have been replaced by people for whom self interest is not the prime motivating factor.
Like Obama’s inaugural speech Cameron’s vision to the conference had no substance: “We need change for the long term, hope for our country and optimism for the next generation…”. Merely buzz-words - “…change …long term …hope …our country …optimism …next generation,” but no ‘detailed’ explanation of the vision that the Telegraph praised. The only thing he stated with certainty was that he supports mass immigration: “I think this country has benefited immeasurably from immigration”. If immigration isn’t the problem, what is? He enlightened us: “I want to tell you what's wrong with our country and I want to explain what I am going to do to put it right “ …if we really want to tackle crime, if we really want to make our society stronger then you have got to make families stronger and society more responsible …we must make our country safer and greener and give people more freedom and control of their lives…” …families …stronger …responsible …our country …safer …greener …freedom” - more buzz-words without meaning. The population does not see society through the same ideology and have to be browbeaten by moral lectures and coralled by totalitarian laws and a politicised police. Few indeed share his view that immigration has benefitted Britain ‘immeasurably’ and most people were they not frightened of being persecuted by the state and “free” would say so.
What he really means is that he wants people to be free to say what the “caste” want them to say, and to have control over their lives so that the “caste” can manage them in the way they want to. His knee jerk response to faux pas of Patrick Mercer and Nigel Hastilow show what this “freedom” means - persecution of dissidents.
A new kind of Tory? In his 68 minute long conference speech ostensibly about British society he didn’t refer to our Christian traditions or the threat that Islam poses to them. He is on the other side. He interpreted the worries over immigration as concern about the effect it has on services, education, health, housing, and ignored the more important effect it is having on British culture and the dispossession of ethnic Britons.
Then he enthused about what he thinks important – persuading ethnic groups to become Tories. He told the audience they must, “…get out amongst Britain's ethnic minority communities and find the brightest, the best and the most talented and get them in.”
One of “...the brightest, the best and the most talented” members of “…the ethnics ” is Baroness Warsi. He was so impressed by Warsi that he wanted her on board at any price. And when she failed to make it and lost to Labour’s Shahid Malik in the 2005 general election he had her made a Baroness to encourage other Asians. She became minister responsible for ‘cohesion’.
We’re in safe hands. He told the conference, “I am proud that I can stand here with the first Muslim woman of a Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet in Sayeeda Warsi who will be a great talent for our party and our country.” Baroness Warsi is a former immigration lawyer. She was involved with Operation Black Vote and the left wing pro-immigration Joseph Rowntree Trust. Last year she was co-author of a report that made the case for allowing refused asylum seekers to enter the economy.
She is his Lord Ahmed who Blair appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.
In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at the House of Lords, where Jermas launched into a fundamentalist Muslims tirade against Zionists. This fawning on immigrants presents us as weak and afraid of them which is what emboldened Ahmed to threaten to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to stop Geert Wilders entering The Palace of Westminster!(3) Jacqui smityh, Home secretary banned Wilders!
In May 2007 Cameron stayed with a Muslim family in Birmingham and wrote in the Observer of 13th may 2007: “Last week, I spent two days staying with Abdullah and Shahida Rehman and their family in Birmingham. The experience has strengthened my conviction about the right way to build a more cohesive Britain... by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign.” Cameron’s argument that otherwise peaceful Muslims can be persuaded to embrace terrorism by the mere association of the words ‘Islamist’ and ‘threat’ is either absurd or the ultimate in unintentional truths.
He uses us whites as scapegoats: “Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear - values which we should all hold dear.” It’s our fault, again. I should have guessed.
He revealed the establishment agenda to deculture as well as dispossess us: “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” (4)To help shift society in this direction Cameron set up the Conservative Muslim Forum, a sort of Tory equivalent of the National Black Police Association, which ‘advises’ the Conservative Party on how best to assimulate us to Muslims. The CMF wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give full recognition to the “…massive contribution (sic) that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation".and the “caste” is introducing the same agenda into our schools and teaching our children to see 7/7 through the eyes of the bombers! This is teaching our children to submit to Islam and to cover the terrorists in glory. (5)
Recently, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari head of the Muslim Council of Britain was calling for Britain to adopt Islamic customs and labelling us a Nazis for daring to question the infinite benefits of Islam. Good old Tory values! Conservative Cameron concludes that British society is collapsing because it’s not sufficiently Asian: “We have a responsibility to change to accommodate immigrants so they fit in”. He’s made this perfectly clear which is why the Conservative Muslim Forum and the Muslim Council of Britain are emboldened to demand that Britain change to take account of their ways and laud their achievements.
Cameron's false Conservatives like Labour are increasing the influence of Islam on this country. Lets end by reminding ourselves what a traditional Tory is: On May 24 1929, Stanley Baldwin, three times Prime Minister, said :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”.
(1) http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/documents/DavidCameronSpeech2.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/13/comment.communities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6421215.stm
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....o-Muslim s.html
(3)http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/....liberty-central
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/13/race.immigrationpolicy
(5) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat....t-1627062.ht ml
://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/07/race.world
Eurabian Night Falls Across Europe
Eurabian Night Falls Across Europe
This is an attempt to show how secret EU laws will oppress us as well as comments on this from Vladimir Bukovsky and then showing new developments to bring North Africa into the EU. It touches on Brown and Mandelson offering influence over our banking to the Saudis. Its long but there is so much to be exposed. I want a debate about who is controlling or taking over banking because it seems to me behind the Sovietisation of Europe is a surrender to Islam. There are many citations in the text as I hopes others will read the original documents and get this thing properly exposed.
In an interview given to French magazine Café Babel,in November 2008, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass Immigration and how they are trying to destroy Europe.(1)
The first three documents held in the national Archive expose the hidden agenda of bringing us under control in the EU totalitarian state. The law of treason was repealed but in fact we have been betrayed. When Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960, his report noted that Hallstein emphasised that joining the EEC was not just a matter of adopting a common tariff but an introduction to a new statehood. It would be necessary, insisted Hallstein, for any new entrant to accept the principle that the EU was to evolve into something much deeper “some form of federal state”.
See PRO/FO/371/150369
In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, Pierre Werner develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union... going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.” The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management - fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies - were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade.
See PRO/FCO/30?789
Heath lied to the British people. In the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971, he stated:” There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty”. In a Television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
The move to the Lisbon Treaty began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist extremist, called for a European constitution which was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”
Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members governments.. The Constitution was signed in Rome in 2004. This was resisted but Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text. This came out in October 2007 and was an old style “amending treaty” rather than a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of
cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols are impassable. It was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification.
We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this not the original treaty.
The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it should be ratified by all 27 countries. Sarkozy, told the European Parliament in July 2008:”Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have another referendum - and another and another until they win!
The House of Lords didn't amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.
Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on July 21st that the rejection had not finished he treaty as it should have done in law”We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU and the politicians and media know it.
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, revealed the import:” Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007. He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for he EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
Then European Court of Justice was modeled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”
This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising ut of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union. In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty, MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: ”Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”
Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that:” The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007:” In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way ...the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”
Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007:” They haven’t changed the substance- 90 per cent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is also in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto :” We will put the
European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote. The EU elites are deceiving European people.
The articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty. Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.
Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.
Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.
Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.
Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.
Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.
We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers on other4 EU states if their economies are not as sound\as ours.
Article 62(1)(a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders - uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.
Article63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.
That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by article Article46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.
The foregoing show the methods of EU internal control of the European peoples which is based on the Soviet union which was exposed by Valdimir Bukovsky who spent 12 years in Soviet labour camps and psychiatric units. He told the Brussels Journal: “In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home. (2)
“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev
that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”
The theme of the feral state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within
15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”
On 20 February 2009 Czech President Vaclav Klaus likened supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. Addressing th European parliament, Klaus said: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition... Here (in the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”
The articles concerning immigration cited earlier show that this is now out of our hands when Muslims marched through our streets chanting support for Hamas, Hizb ut Tahrir recruit on campuses for the Jihad against Europe, a Muslim peer threatens mass intimidation of Parliament with impunity, but Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament is refused entery to address the British Parliament on the threat to the west. The Home Secretary who banned Wilders told the News of the World on 13/04/2008 that security forces are investigating thirty terror plots which threaten Britain: "We now face a threat level that is severe. It's actually growing. "There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots... Since the beginning of 2007, there have been 57 people convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty—so this is not some figment of the imagination. It is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to"- but banned Wilders! (3)
The Muslim bias was seen in the Gaza demos - the police on pro-Hamas marches confiscated Israeli flags because it would provoke violence, while Muslim demonstrators were allowed to chant about gassing Jews. http://www.vimeo.com/2832052
Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union... It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. .. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.”
On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded
the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001... “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance” But Muslims are exempt.
Bukovsky added: “Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.”
In The Eurabia Code(4) Fjordman reveals a level that is becoming clearer: “What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. ... in 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.
Fjordman says:” EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union"(5) or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel”
This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is
drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean." Notice how they tie this explicitly to the Eurabian Barcelona Process described by Bat Ye'or. “ (6)
Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country." (7)
This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.”
What was thought of as Jewish banking is being taken over by Saudis. Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask them to fund our faltering economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West. The Saudi regime is behind Islamisation of the West. It is Saudi’s Wahhabi form of Islam which, together with the Shi’ites in Iran, aims to make Islam dominant in the world. Saudi money has financed the spread of Wahhabi mosques, preachers and educational institutions in this country promoting holy war and converting thousands of British Muslims
Saudi Wahhabism seeks to conquer the West through a pincer movement comprising violence on the one hand and cultural infiltration on the other and our Prime Minister is colluding with them. Mandelson stated the Saudis and other Gulf states would be given more influence in global institutions. Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance. Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism. (8)
The elites showed their submission to Saudi ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped: ‘British lives on British streets’ would be at risk, as explained by former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!
(3088)
(1) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3600
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/78180/50million-invited-to-Europe
www.allbusiness.com/government/international-organizations/9561710-1.html
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/mtissage-now-its-obligation.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3764
http ://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=144640
michel-on-immigration-and-development-irak-withdrawal-european-commission-2007-work-programme
(2)http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3blackcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rejwZ-k4H4&feature=related
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew....-President.html
(3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5718039.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....Parliament.html
(4) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
(5) http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/s..../article-170976
http://www.france24.com/en/20080711-unio....zy-north-africa
http://www.eldr.eu/en/newsletter/2006/11....-work-programme
http://www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/raportti20.pdf
http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html
http://www.euromedinfo.eu/site.168.news.en.5088.html
(6) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfK9SqHSaccC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Eurabian+Barcelona+Process&source=bl&ots=bm0Bp_51Rg&sig=wlvM5C-geHqbDCkZJLV387mreFs&hl=en&ei=VbGgSaWgFuTGjAeT3s3JCw&sa=X&oi =book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
(7) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127247
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/129
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.co....-terrorism.html
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.co....-secretary.html
(8) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat....t-1627062.ht ml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hq21s
http://thelambethwalk.blogspot.com/
This is an attempt to show how secret EU laws will oppress us as well as comments on this from Vladimir Bukovsky and then showing new developments to bring North Africa into the EU. It touches on Brown and Mandelson offering influence over our banking to the Saudis. Its long but there is so much to be exposed. I want a debate about who is controlling or taking over banking because it seems to me behind the Sovietisation of Europe is a surrender to Islam. There are many citations in the text as I hopes others will read the original documents and get this thing properly exposed.
In an interview given to French magazine Café Babel,in November 2008, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass Immigration and how they are trying to destroy Europe.(1)
The first three documents held in the national Archive expose the hidden agenda of bringing us under control in the EU totalitarian state. The law of treason was repealed but in fact we have been betrayed. When Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960, his report noted that Hallstein emphasised that joining the EEC was not just a matter of adopting a common tariff but an introduction to a new statehood. It would be necessary, insisted Hallstein, for any new entrant to accept the principle that the EU was to evolve into something much deeper “some form of federal state”.
See PRO/FO/371/150369
In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, Pierre Werner develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union... going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.” The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management - fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies - were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade.
See PRO/FCO/30?789
Heath lied to the British people. In the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971, he stated:” There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty”. In a Television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
The move to the Lisbon Treaty began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist extremist, called for a European constitution which was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”
Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members governments.. The Constitution was signed in Rome in 2004. This was resisted but Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text. This came out in October 2007 and was an old style “amending treaty” rather than a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of
cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols are impassable. It was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification.
We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this not the original treaty.
The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it should be ratified by all 27 countries. Sarkozy, told the European Parliament in July 2008:”Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have another referendum - and another and another until they win!
The House of Lords didn't amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.
Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on July 21st that the rejection had not finished he treaty as it should have done in law”We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU and the politicians and media know it.
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, revealed the import:” Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007. He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for he EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
Then European Court of Justice was modeled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”
This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising ut of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union. In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty, MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: ”Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”
Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that:” The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007:” In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way ...the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”
Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007:” They haven’t changed the substance- 90 per cent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is also in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto :” We will put the
European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote. The EU elites are deceiving European people.
The articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty. Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.
Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.
Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.
Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.
Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.
Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.
We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers on other4 EU states if their economies are not as sound\as ours.
Article 62(1)(a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders - uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.
Article63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.
That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by article Article46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.
The foregoing show the methods of EU internal control of the European peoples which is based on the Soviet union which was exposed by Valdimir Bukovsky who spent 12 years in Soviet labour camps and psychiatric units. He told the Brussels Journal: “In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home. (2)
“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev
that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”
The theme of the feral state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within
15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”
On 20 February 2009 Czech President Vaclav Klaus likened supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. Addressing th European parliament, Klaus said: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition... Here (in the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”
The articles concerning immigration cited earlier show that this is now out of our hands when Muslims marched through our streets chanting support for Hamas, Hizb ut Tahrir recruit on campuses for the Jihad against Europe, a Muslim peer threatens mass intimidation of Parliament with impunity, but Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament is refused entery to address the British Parliament on the threat to the west. The Home Secretary who banned Wilders told the News of the World on 13/04/2008 that security forces are investigating thirty terror plots which threaten Britain: "We now face a threat level that is severe. It's actually growing. "There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots... Since the beginning of 2007, there have been 57 people convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty—so this is not some figment of the imagination. It is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to"- but banned Wilders! (3)
The Muslim bias was seen in the Gaza demos - the police on pro-Hamas marches confiscated Israeli flags because it would provoke violence, while Muslim demonstrators were allowed to chant about gassing Jews. http://www.vimeo.com/2832052
Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union... It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. .. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.”
On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded
the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001... “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance” But Muslims are exempt.
Bukovsky added: “Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.”
In The Eurabia Code(4) Fjordman reveals a level that is becoming clearer: “What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. ... in 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.
Fjordman says:” EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union"(5) or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel”
This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is
drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean." Notice how they tie this explicitly to the Eurabian Barcelona Process described by Bat Ye'or. “ (6)
Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country." (7)
This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.”
What was thought of as Jewish banking is being taken over by Saudis. Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask them to fund our faltering economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West. The Saudi regime is behind Islamisation of the West. It is Saudi’s Wahhabi form of Islam which, together with the Shi’ites in Iran, aims to make Islam dominant in the world. Saudi money has financed the spread of Wahhabi mosques, preachers and educational institutions in this country promoting holy war and converting thousands of British Muslims
Saudi Wahhabism seeks to conquer the West through a pincer movement comprising violence on the one hand and cultural infiltration on the other and our Prime Minister is colluding with them. Mandelson stated the Saudis and other Gulf states would be given more influence in global institutions. Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance. Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism. (8)
The elites showed their submission to Saudi ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped: ‘British lives on British streets’ would be at risk, as explained by former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!
(3088)
(1) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3600
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/78180/50million-invited-to-Europe
www.allbusiness.com/government/international-organizations/9561710-1.html
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/mtissage-now-its-obligation.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3764
http ://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=144640
michel-on-immigration-and-development-irak-withdrawal-european-commission-2007-work-programme
(2)http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3blackcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rejwZ-k4H4&feature=related
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew....-President.html
(3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5718039.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....Parliament.html
(4) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
(5) http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/s..../article-170976
http://www.france24.com/en/20080711-unio....zy-north-africa
http://www.eldr.eu/en/newsletter/2006/11....-work-programme
http://www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/raportti20.pdf
http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html
http://www.euromedinfo.eu/site.168.news.en.5088.html
(6) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfK9SqHSaccC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Eurabian+Barcelona+Process&source=bl&ots=bm0Bp_51Rg&sig=wlvM5C-geHqbDCkZJLV387mreFs&hl=en&ei=VbGgSaWgFuTGjAeT3s3JCw&sa=X&oi =book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
(7) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127247
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/129
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.co....-terrorism.html
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.co....-secretary.html
(8) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat....t-1627062.ht ml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hq21s
http://thelambethwalk.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
