Britain, the country that still rules America (see my 13th edition), is being betrayed by the same forces that are betraying every other country, the Illuminati...and the VATICAN. But no mention of the Illuminati or the Vatican exists in this two-part expose that deals with Britain. Why?
Both Tony Blair and John Major are members of the Bilderbergs, that relatively secret organization that is a cover for the Illuminati. John Major was disengenuous when he said what he said in the first part of this message. Too, he is a member of the Carlyle Group, that organization whose members also include George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Tony Blair changed his stripes when he visited the Bilderbergs, which enabled him to get elected; he is, therefore, accountable to them, not the British people. In my 13th edition, too, you who decide to read it, will see what Tony Blair wanted to do last year. Fortunately, his popularity is so low that he was not able to carry it out. If I may make a prediction, however, the next PM of Britain will carry out adopting the euro. Just you wait and see. These are all puppets of these other more sinister forces, which I have already mentioned in the first paragraph. They control all the parties, so it doesn't matter who wins. They win; the British people lose. Also no mention of the Queen herself, who is a cousin to George W. Bush. She's part of the Merovingian line of the Illuminati, or 13th family of the 13 families. She could prevent this, but she's part of the problem. Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net Click on the icon that says Magazine. Password for 2006: message -----Original Message----- >From: norgesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Aug 25, 2006 10:00 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [cia-drugs] EU Dictatorship Exposed 2 of 2 > >continued from part 1 of EU Dictatorship Exposed > > > >Justice for All > > > >The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is located in Luxembourg and is based on >the American Supreme Court blueprint. It was largely the inspiration of one >of the founders of the EU, Jean Monnet, and his friend and confidante, US >Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter. > > > >ï¿½ No appeal is available in the ECJ. Its decisions are absolute. > > > >ï¿½ The all-male judge teams are both unelected and unaccountable under >EU law. They are free to do whatever they please and there is no legal >comeback. Further, the judges are not required to have any judicial >experience whatsoever. Most do not. > > > >ï¿½ The kernel of the ECJ?s power is derived from the Treaty of Rome, >Article 249. The wording is deliberately generalised, enabling Brussels to >extend the widest possible interpretations to these, and other clauses of the >Treaty: ?A regulation shall have general application [what does ?general? >mean?] It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all >Member States?? > > > >ï¿½ Thus the European Court of Justice has been given powers ?with no >restriction? over the member states. This effectively places British >citizens under the control of a foreign power and is intended to remove >forever Britain?s right to govern herself. This represents the abandonment >of our nation. Any British politician currently allowing this, or who has >participated in orchestrating these efforts in the past, has committed treason >under the Treason Act of 1795 and the Treason Felony Act of 1848. > > > >ï¿½ National parliaments are now mere rubber stamps for all the >legislation pouring out of Brussels. Legally elected British MPs can turn >back none of it. > > > >ï¿½ The EU is abolishing trial by jury under the new European corpus >juris system being introduced in Britain. Once the system is in place, an >indicted individual will have to prove his innocence against the combined >machinery of the state. > > > >ï¿½ The European Union is abolishing havaeas corpus, the supreme >British legal safeguard which declares ?no imprisonment without fair trial?, >instituted under Article 39 of Magna Carta, 1215. > >ï¿½ Under British law, a law enforcement officer or the public >prosecutor must place evidence before a court within 24 hours of a citizen?s >arrest, detailing the charges being brought against them. > > > >ï¿½ Unpaid lay magistrates, representing the people and drawn from the >people themselves, are being replaced after more than 600 years. They >currently hear over 90% of criminal cases. The new EU-wide justice system >will be enforced by inquisitorial courts (no injury). > > > >ï¿½ British judges are already imposing European law upon British >citizens. Take the ?metric martyr? episode in 2001, when a market trader was >convicted for selling a pound of bananas weighed using British imperial >measures (pounds and ounces). British District Judge Morgan, in passing >judgment upon the unfortunate grocer, stated that the British were now living >under ?new constitutional powers?. > > > >ï¿½ Compare this with Edward Heath?s comment on the same treaty which >gave Judge Morgan these powers: ?There is no question of Britain losing >essential national sovereignty?? > > > >ï¿½ British police will henceforth report to Brussels and be immune >from prosecution. > > > >ï¿½ The ECJ has already granted powers to Europol to intercept mail and >e-mails with the excuse that it is fighting the drug menace, money laundering >and the ?War on Terror?. The latter can naturally be extended to include >actions against those who do not support the EU. Under new legislation, >actions pursued by those who disagree with the EU can be labelled seditious, >treasonous and even blasphemous. > > > >ï¿½ The ECJ is removing the ?double jeopardy? safeguard. For >centuries, British law has held that if a person is found not guilty of >committing a crime, he cannot be tried again for the same offence. >Henceforth, under corpus juris law, the ECJ has given itself the ?right? to >come back at an individual time and again with the same charge, using all its >considerable ?legal? apparati, until it secures the required conviction. >Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, has already given prosecutors the >right to appeal against not-guilty verdicts handed down by jurors. > >ï¿½ A British citizen will henceforth be liable to summary arrest and >extradition to a foreign country without any evidence being presented to a >court. No prima facie evidence will be presented either to the court or its >victim to support such charges. > > > >ï¿½ In the EU?s apparent attempt to combat football hooliganism, the >legal framework already exists to arrest a person even on suspicion that they >may have committed, or might in the future commit a crime. > > > >ï¿½ Under ECJ law, past offences committed by the accused will be raked >up against him and used to justify why he committed the crime for which he is >accused. Under British law, this is illegal. Such information on prior >convictions is only made available to the court after the verdict, in order to >secure a fair trial. > > > >ï¿½ Under Article 8 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, members of the new >federal ?Europol? are ?immune from legal process of any kind for acts >performed?in the exercise of their official functions.? Thus, no Europol >officer can be charged or brought to trial for false imprisonment, violence >against a suspect, the destruction or seizure of private property, or >harassment of any individual. > > > >ï¿½ Europol has been given powers to operate anywhere within the >Eurozone, including Britain, with complete impunity. They have the power of >summary arrest and extradition, in spite of current British laws, which >specifically prohibit such actions. Under the power of international treaty, >British law is superseded by European law. > > > >ï¿½ Ironically, or perhaps not, Europol?s centre of operations, housing >300-400 officers at present, is located in the old Gestapo headquarters >building in the Hague. Plans are well underway to expand this force to many >thousands more, all to be armed and granted unfettered access to all regions >of the EU. Europol has been run by a former German police officer, Jorgen >Storbeck, since its inception in 1994. > > > >ï¿½ Britain?s representation of Europol is quartered with the National >Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) at its HQ London. > >ï¿½ Europol has been amassing computer records on hundreds of thousands >of European citizens. None of this information is ever made public. >Europol has the power, under EU law, to instruct British police authorities to >investigate anyone in Britain the EU deems a danger to law and order. > > > >EU Justice ? No Checks and Balances > > > >Any British government endorsing the above measures, as successive British >administrations have done, is signing away freedoms guaranteed to the British >people in perpetuity. Such actions have paved the way for a once democratic >Britain to be handed over to a new European-wide, potentially totalitarian >regime run by Britain?s former enemies. The Blair government has been >instrumental, via Home Secretary Jack Straw, in accelerating this process, and >then convincing the public it is all being done in their best interests. > > > >An entity like the European Union, which has gone to great lengths to remove >all public scrutiny of its affairs, all media reporting of its forum meetings >and which has expeditiously granted lifetime immunity from prosecution to all >its personnel and officers for their future actions, what can any government >possibly want with such powers? Can such an entity not reasonably be expected >in the future to exercise this awesome might and do bad things to its citizens >knowing it will be able to get away with it? History repeatedly shows that >these are the same powers all totalitarian regimes grant themselves before >going to war with their own people and those of other countries. > > > >This process may still be reversed by a unified and angry response from >millions of Britons, clamouring for Britain to reject her EU membership and >regain her independence, and compelling her government to take the >appropriate, official action. Time is running out as more statutory >instruments are prepared in order to force Britain to remain in the EU. > > > >Gone Fishing > > > >By Greg Lance-Watkins - www.SilentMajority.co.uk > > > >Two examples of the way the European Union has dealt disastrously with >Britain will illustrate the methods used to destroy countless British lives. >In this chapter, researcher Greg Lance-Watkins summaries the EU assault on the >British fishing industry: > > > >ï¿½ Unbeknown to the British electorate, Prime Minister Edward Heath >made a deal with the EEC and gave away British sovereignty of its territorial >fishing waters. Up to that point ?fishing? had not been included in any >treaties (it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Rome) but was later added at >Maastricht (Articles 38-47). EU officials were astounded when Heath >unilaterally gave British fishing away with no preconditions. > > > >ï¿½ British territorial waters are now ?a shared European Union? >resource, and that means everything in them too. This has given Brussels the >right to allocate quotas to different member states who can now fish in >British waters. > > > >ï¿½ Due to the predictably harsh EU quotas imposed upon Britain?s >fishing industry, millions of tons of fish, all dead but accidentally caught, >are required (under EU law) to be thrown back into the sea. EU law means >that more fish are thrown back by British boats than are actually landed, for >fear of incurring fines for over-fishing. This is the result of the European >Union?s conservation policy, which can cost lobster fishermen also, if they >land a creature that is even one millimetre too small. Fines of up to >ï¿½50,000 can be levied against larger trawlers landing even one box over >quota. > > > >ï¿½ Thousands of boat boardings and inspections are carried out each >year by EU representatives to ensure that the law on fishing is being upheld. > > > >ï¿½ By 2004, the fishing fleets of other nations within the EU will be >able to work right up to the shore, with Britain?s traditional 6- mile and >12-mile limits due to be abolished. The quotas allocated by the Common >Fisheries Policy of the EU mean that Spanish trawlers are allowed to fish cod >in the Irish Sea while British trawlers are forbidden from putting to sea at >all. > > > >ï¿½ Although Maastricht was not signed until 1992 (in which Britain?s >surrender of her fishing waters was formally acknowledged), foreign fishing >fleets were using Britain?s waters for many years prior to that time. > > > >ï¿½ Britain was allowed to fish only between 10% and 15% of her own >stocks until 1st January 2003, when even this was cut back further. The >whole British fishing industry, on land and sea, has thus been effectively >destroyed. The quota system was brought into effect to accommodate the >Spanish fishing fleet which had more boats than all the rest of the EU put >together, but no good fishing grounds. > > > >ï¿½ This law is being rigidly enforced with British waters, and is fast >becoming a major pollution factor as well as helping to destroy remaining >fishing stocks. The previous EU arrangement gives Britain control up to six >miles offshore and part control up to twelve miles. This arrangement ended >in 2002, and from 1st January 2003, EU boats have been able to fish right up >to Britain?s shores. (EU Regulation 3760/92). > > > >ï¿½ The British government was forced to pay over ï¿½100 million in >damages to Spain for preventing their fishermen from fishing British >territorial waters. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the >British Merchant Shipping Act of 1988, passed by legally elected Members of >the British Parliament to protect British fisheries, was illegal and contrary >to EU law. > > > >ï¿½ EU fisheries policy has been such a success that as of November >2002, British waters have become so depleted of cod fishing grounds in the >North Sea, the Irish Sea and the north coast of Scotland. > > > >ï¿½ Total number of British fishing livelihoods wrecked as a result of >EU interference: 1 million. > > > > > > > >Gone Farming > > > >By Greg Lance-Watkins > > > >How the European Union has destroyed British farming: > > > >ï¿½ Britain came under the EEC?s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after >Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome. Under the CAP?s ?Community >Preference?, Britain must purchase any goods from EU countries first, and not >from her former trading partners or Commonwealth. Thus Britain is forced at >inflated prices to purchase, for example, some of France?s huge surpluses, >while French farmers are compensated through the Common Agricultural Policy, a >part of which Britain funds, to grow food no-one wants. > >ï¿½ The CAP?s agricultural interference and draconian regulation has >thus deliberately despaired and wrecked the British farming industry. Food >prices have been drastically affected as the more expensive food Britain is >compelled to buy from Europe, rather than from her cheaper Commonwealth >sources, finds its way into the supermarket and corner store. UK Government >estimates in 1998 put the unnecessary and unjustified increase in British food >prices at over ï¿½6.5 billion. > > > >ï¿½ Britain keeps pouring billions of good money after bad by >continuing to fund her share of the CAP, knowing full well that nothing but >more British agricultural hardship will come from it. The CAP represents >European cronyism and protectionism of the worst order. > > > >ï¿½ Today some British farmers are bing paid to do nothing with their >own land. Those who are still farming actively in Britain are compelled to >conform to asinine EU regulation that has drastically driven up their >operating costs. Little wonder that British farming has taken such a beating >in the past twenty years as the full terms of the CAP have begun to cut in. > > > >ï¿½ Other colossal increases in costs affecting farming include EU >inspections of meat facilities and withdrawal of previous subsidies to British >farmers which are then given to farmers in France, Spain and Greece for >farming tobacco. > > > >ï¿½ The Common Agricultural Policy currently consumes over half the >EU?s total income. It is also responsible for a major part of the >legislation flowing out of Europe. Even by the end of 1996, 8,956 farming >laws had already been passed. > > > >ï¿½ By signing up to the CAP in 1972, the British effectively lost >control of up to 90% of their land mass (the area currently related to >agriculture), as well as handing over total control of all our farming >practices to Brussels. As with fishing, this has resulted in the downfall of >the farming industry due to the following: > > > > > > 1. Over-production within the EU brought about by liberal subsidies. > > > >2. Britain being flooded with food imports, against which the British >government finds itself powerless to protect the British farmers, due to EU >rules. > > > >3. Prices (to farmers, not consumers) have tumbled and thousands of >farmers are now facing ruin. Again (because of EU regulations) there is >nothing the British government can do in the way of financial help or a policy >of protection. > > > >4. Milk quotas were brought in to level out production across the EU. >British farmers were more efficient and productive than their Continental >counterparts and so had to be restricted. Britain is now forced to import >20% of its milk needs from France, whilst British farmers pour milk down the >drain and steadily go bankrupt. > > > >5. An over-abundance of EU legislation is stifling whole sections of >the industry into extinction. Pig, sheep and cattle farmers, as well as the >industries that depend on them (packaging, slaughtering, etc.) are all being >forced to close. For example: > > > >6. Since 1990, slaughterhouses in Britain have diminished in number >from 1,400 to 400 due to EU regulations on ?cleanliness?. > > > >7. Farmers have been, and are continuing to be paid for doing nothing >with their land (the policy of ?set-aside?). The richer the land, the more >subsidy the farmer receives for not farming it. This policy is the >land-based version of the de-commissioning of Britain?s fishing fleets. > > > >ï¿½ The deliberate run-down of the British farming industry is taking >place and, because of it, British farmers can no longer feed the citizens of >these islands. This places the country at the mercy of the EU and foreign >imports. > > > >ï¿½ The following is an indication of government (EU) policy: On 3rd >May 2000, the Government Rural White Paper ? 7th report of the Environment >Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Vol. 1 ? contained the following >opening paragraph: ?The role of rural England as the food provider for the >nation is no longer an essential one.? > > > >ï¿½ Beef: In a typical move which openly flouted EU law, the French >government maintained an illegal 3-year ban on British beef, even though >Brussels had ruled that the product was safe. The continued blockade was >imposed by France?s previous, beleaguered socialist government in an attempt >to appease the powerful French farming lobby and its consumers. The illegal >ban is thought to have cost British farmers a staggering ï¿½600 million in >lost exports, not to mention tainting the reputation of British beef globally, >resulting in 40 other countries currently maintaining blockades of their own >against us. Under EU law, France could have amassed a potential fine of up to >ï¿½100 million for disobeying a direct order from the EU to lift her illegal >ban. France is unlikely to pay a cent however as she is one of the two tails >that wags the EU dog. > > > >The Great Deception Behind the Rebate Row > > > >By Christopher Booker (January 2006) > > > >Tony Blair was quite right to point out that, without the UK rebate, Britain >would be the largest net contributor to the EU budget, paying 15 times more >than France. It was precisely this imbalance which prompted Margaret >Thatcher to fight for the rebate. It was never properly explained, however, >why this ridiculous anomaly arose in the first place. > > > >One of many remarkable episodes which Richard North and I were able to bring >to light in our book, The Great deception, just republished in a new updated >edition, was the bizarre story behind the setting up of the Common >Agricultural Policy in the 1960?s. This was triggered off by the crisis >facing France, through the runaway bill she was paying to subsidise French >farmers for producing food nobody wanted. > > > >President de Gaulle was terrified that this would bankrupt the French state, >provoking social collapse. The French therefore cunningly devised a CAP to >get other countries to buy their surplus food and foot their subsidy bill. >The real reason why de Gaulle twice vetoed British entry was that it was vital >first to get these arrangements agreed. Otherwise Britain could have >sabotaged a system deliberately designed to benefit France, from which >Britain, because she imported, but with a smaller farming sector, she would >also get fewer subsidies. > > > >Only in 1969 did France get her way, at which point she needed Britain in and >Edward Heath accepted the absurd arrangement. Within a decade, with the CAP >then taking up 90 per cent of the entire budget, Britain would become the >biggest contributor. > >Hence Mrs Thatcher?s fight for her rebate. But even this was only a partial >solution, because Britain?s farmers have continued to receive dramatically >small subsidies than their competitors, contributing to the crisis which in >recent years has brought much of British agriculture to its knees. > > > >Thus are we still living with the problems created by that French stitch-up of >40 years ago, for reasons now almost lost in the mists of time. For the full >story refer to The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive?, >published by Continuum at ï¿½9.99. > > > >The Sunday Telegraph, 4th December 2005 > > > >Blair Will Pay for his Betrayal in Brussels > > > >When it comes to international negotiations, possession is nine tenths of the >law. A country may be under any amount of pressure, but as long as it is >profiting from the status quo, it has nothing to fear from a breakdown. It is >instructive then to compare the behaviour of the EU at the Hong Kong trade >talks with that of the United Kingdom at the Brussels summit. > > > >In Hong Kong, the EU represented by its Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, >was determined not to open its markets to developing countries. Its stance >was wrong-headed and ethically indefensible. > > > >Euro-protectionism drives up prices, erodes Europe?s competitiveness and >causes much poverty in the Third World. But despite the pleas of the >southern hemisphere nations, and despite a general American initiative to cut >tariffs, Brussels remained intransigent, secure in the knowledge that no deal >would mean a default to the existing situation. > > > >Britain?s position in Brussels was even stronger. No mechanism existed to >reduce the British rebate without Tony Blair?s agreement. Here, a failure to >reach terms would mean not a continuation of the status quo, but something >even more attractive: a drying up of the budget. > > > >Britain ? which, for almost the entire period of its membership, has been one >of only two countries to make any net payment to the EU ? would thus have been >spared its annual tribute of ï¿½12 billion, and might have used these savings >to (for example) give us all a two thirds cut in council tax. > > > >Why, then, was Mr Blair so determined to find an accommodation? Why did he >climb down from his own position that there would be no reduction in the >rebate without a commensurate dismantling of the CAP? Because his >Europeanism has never really been based on a computation of Britain?s national >interest. > > > >For him, being pro-EU is about being a modern internationalist, not about >securing specific gains for his country. This is, of course, the worst >possible frame of mind in which to enter negotiations. > > > >More to the point, though, Mr Blair has failed in his own terms. A generous >internationalist might indeed believe that Britain ought to give money to >needier countries. But the EU budget is not a mechanism for doing so. Its >largest per capita beneficiary is Luxembourg. By failing to secure CAP >reform, Mr Blair has, in fact, done immense damage to the world?s truly >deserving states. > > > >Make no mistake: the sums of money involved are immense - ï¿½7 billion, the >amount Mr Blair has handed away, is roughly the entire police budget for >England and Wales. At the last election, Mr Blair claimed Tory plans for a >ï¿½4 billion tax reduction would mean savage cuts in public services. Never >again will he be able to level such an accusation. > > > >From now on, every time they are asked where they would find the money for tax >cuts, the Tories can reasonably reply: from Brussels. Mr Blair has betrayed >his word and his electorate. His budget surrender will be hung, >albatross-like, around his neck and invoked every time he raises taxes. > > > >The Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2005 > > > >Vitamins > > > >There is a mass-migration of income from the medicine and pharmaceutical >industries into the huge diversity of companies comprising what is known as >the ?alternative health industry? has not gone unnoticed by the >powers-that-be. Today, British and Continental citizens are finding that new >legislation from Brussels is seeking either to ban or strictly limit the >availability of a wide range of traditional remedies and supplements that have >been used by the public for decades, and in some cases centuries, for their >well-being. Something sinister called Codex Alimentarius is casting its Big >Brother shadow across the Eurozone. Americans and other world populations >are looking on with apprehension as they know they are next! > > > >The EU Supplements Directives > > > >There is a European move to regulate the alternative health industry?s >supplements. > > > >On 12th March 2002, the European Parliament voted and passed regulations which >limit the public availability and upper intakes of hundreds of nutrients to >ridiculously low levels ? in certain cases, 1/50th or even less >of what many nutritional doctors recommend as therapeutic doses. > > > >Like Germany and France, many are now facing the prospect of not just severe >censure in the amounts of these nutrients they can take, but what they can buy >at all. For, hidden within the Trojan Horse ?harmonisation? proposals used to >justify entering the launch codes against the alternative health industry, the >realisation is dawning that anything not on the EU positive list of ?accepted? >supplements is now in for an outright ban. Manufacturers who wished to field >anything ?new? will be required to spend millions proving benefit through >exhaustive ?drug testing? ? a state of affairs guaranteed to bankrupt even the >most stalwart of the green corporations. > > > >For 13 years, European pharmaceutical conglomerates have been contemplating a >standardised market for vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements. Various >attempts to harmonise the industry have met with a huge and sustained >opposition, not least from the UK and its vitamin consumers. In January >2000, the Brussels Commission, during one of those rare, brief periods in >which it was not being found guilty of fraud and accounting corruption, table >a White Paper on Food Safety. A later document, 500PC0222 (what monster >invents that kind of archiving system?), concluded that a wide disparity >existed on alternative medicine dosages, and proposed legislation to correct >the imbalance. In France and Germany, for instance, no products containing >more than one times the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) may be sold without >a drug licence. > > > >And this is a problem. Vitamin C?s RDA is 40-60mg. Yet the therapeutic >dosage of C begins at 500mg and goes up beyond 10,000mg. So if you wish to >treat yourself with mega doses of C complex for your cancer, best visit B & Q >and buy up a wheelbarrow in readiness to haul all those expensive, tiny >vitamin pills back to base-camp. > > > >Opposition is to No Avail > > > >Most UK Members of the Euro Parliament (MEPs) voted against the food >supplements and herbal initiatives, which nevertheless passed. In spite of >some 400 million pieces of mail, e-mails, faxes and sky writings thrown at >Brussels vociferously protesting this attack on human rights, along with the >predictable media black-out, the legislation was approved with no House debate >at the usual tornado velocity, with 383 MEPs in favour and 139 against. >Considerable resources had been expended by the pharmaceutical industry to >lobby members for their vote. The public?s outrage was ignored. > > > >Where are we Now? > > > >There is an intervening period currently occurring which is designed to allow >member states to pass laws aligning themselves with the new directives, which >also strictly limit the availability of herbal medicines. Products >formulated with ingredients not on the EU?s parsimonious list of approved >substances will not comply with the directives and will be banned after 1st >June 2005. Upper safe limits have been arbitrarily allocated to such a >conservative list of nutrients, over which supplement dosage will be >regulated, that the vast majority of other, more specialised nutrients not >included on the list will be effectively cleared from the shelves of most UK, >Dutch and Irish health stores, along with even the common stuff, such as >vitamins C and B6, which are always sold in potencies exceeding the EU mandate. > > > >Unless a concerted effort is made en masse by the affronted citizenry to pull >Britain out of the European Union, the Euro juggernaut will have its way >again. A few short years from now, the Darth Vader vitamin police will >screech up outside your vitamin shack and clear your shelves of the designated >?contraband? nutrients. And there won?t be a thing you will be able to do >about it. > > > >Strategies > > > >Many alternative health organisations are blanching at the thought of losing >significant revenues over this new legislation to the drug industry and their >huge retail conglomerates, and have formed alliances to ?fight the Food >Supplements Directive?. However, they do so in woeful ignorance of the simple >fat that, with the European Union, they are no longer operating on a >democratic, accountable field. Their mistake, and this is the crucial point >being missed, is that they are confusing Brussels with people who actually >care about what the public think. > > > >Brussels do not care about your supplements! Brussels are closing loopholes, >working to standardise everything across Europe, and responding to corporate >lobbying and plain paper envelopes from the drug industry in their usual way, >all the while ruling their new fiefdom from behind closed doors. The public >are not considered. > > > >Brussels do not recognise that you even have a right to complain. This is >the new system taking over Europe as well as Britain. There is nothing you >can do about any of this through what you perceive as traditional >parliamentary channels. They simply don?t exist any more. Your politicians >have been too cowardly to tell you that this is now the state of affairs >governing Britain. > > > >Uneasy Bedfellows ? The Great Immigration Disaster > > > >Today, Britain is being successfully invaded for the third time in its 1,000 >year history. The first time, it was William of Normandy who invaded our >southern shores and ended up running the country after King Harold was struck >in the eye with a French arrow at the ill-fated Battle of Hastings in 1066. >The second occasion was when the Americans invaded us in a friendly way prior >to the Allies launching Operation Overlord (D-Day) against the Nazis on 6th >June 1944. > > > >These days, Britain is being invaded with ?asylum seekers?, most of which are >not political refugees fleeing tyranny in their own countries at all, but >economic migrants seeking to better their lives by choosing a new country in >which to live. And guess which is their first country of choice? Not >Germany, not France, nor Italy or Greece but Britain! > > > >The United states has the Mexican immigrant problem in her south west corner. >Australians are trying to hold the Indonesians at bay to the north. New >Zealanders have the Pacific Islanders and citizens of other south-east Asian >nations trying to get in. This is economic migration. > > > >Into this mix we stir the concerted plan by global socialism striving for its >New World Order to homogenise national populations in order to dilute the >hated national identity and thus marginalise the appeal of the nation state. >Mass, unchecked immigration is the perfect weapon to accomplish this. The >nation, like the family, is believed by the socialist today to be the root >cause of all wars and woes respectively, which is why socialism is always >working tirelessly to kill off both. Actually, while nationalism has >certainly been one of the reasons war has broken out in the past, it is not >the main reason. The chief motivation that triggers a country to go to war >is actually the belief that it can get away with it. > > > >Nations provide a check and balance system against government abuse and >tyranny. Truly democratic nations are the largest social unit that can still >be directly controlled by the majority of their inhabitants. When one nation >gets too big for its boots, others can band together and sort out the renegade >country. Refugees fleeing the tyranny can also hope to find sanctuary in >another land. Nazi Germany and Japan were brought to account during the last >war by this check and balance system, although the cost was ugly and extremely >high. A world containing a democracy of independent nations still provides >for this control system to operate effectively if someone gets out of line. > > > >But set up a global government structure not answerable to its peoples, or >even a continental federation like the EU, place all the power into the hands >of a few, unelected, unaccountable committees, and the check and balance >system is lost. One of course lives in the hope that such a mega-government >will be benevolent. But it it isn?t? What can you do about it now? Where >will you flee? Who will bring the tyranny to account? > > > >Our neighbours on the mainland have suffered enough at the hands of their >extremists and ideologists. No countries deserve peace and a chance to rid >themselves of their power-hungry political cliques more than France, Austria, >Germany and Italy. It is for this reason that the European Union poses the >greatest danger to European and hence world peace, not just because it is run >by a group of fifth-rate, financially corrupt nest-featherers, but because >there is no accountability to the public. This is especially true with >Britain, where the safety net has been removed just as we are about to be >persuaded to take our own one-way, high-wire walk into European integration. >The European Union has already shown itself capable of: > > > >ï¿½ Corruption on a Herculean scale. > >ï¿½ Removing its citizens? human rights if it so chooses. > >ï¿½ Ignoring mass protests of its citizens over the measures it >introduces. > >ï¿½ Imprisoning people for periods without fair trial. > >ï¿½ Equipping the state with all the instruments of repression. > >ï¿½ Rendering immunity from prosecution to all its officials. > > > >Open Door > > > >From 1950 to 1990, the total population of Caribbean and Asian immigrants in >Britain went from around 80,000 to a little over 3 million, mostly >concentrated in the south-east of the country and the major cities. Since the >early 1990?s, the immigrant population, comprising both legal entrants and >those sneaking in, has exploded exponentially. Figures released by the Home >Office show that just under 30,000 illegal immigrants claimed asylum in a >three-month period in the summer of 2002. Nine out of ten had their cases >thrown out, yet only 3,565 were subsequently deported. > > > >The mass, unchecked immigration sanctioned by the present and past British >governments has deeply offended the British. Needless to say, the immigration >issue is hardly about ?racism?, ?xenophobia?, or ?populism?, except when these >labels justifiably apply to politically correct liberalists who seek to stifle >the honest outrage of the majority. Nobody is saying that there shouldn?t be >any immigrants. The reason the British are so upset is because they were >simply never asked who they wanted to come to live with them?.and how many. > > > >Immigration is ever the hot issue it always was. Even to discuss the problem >is to invite a torrent of hate-filled abuse and cries of ?racist!? and ?Nazi!? >from the socialist nation-wreckers. This of course is their intention: to >keep free speech suppressed, all the while allowing their damaging, dangerous >policies to proceed unimpugned. One such shameful issue has been the >catastrophic failure of our political class to admit the disaster of Britain?s >immigration policy. > > > >ï¿½ According to government sources, genuine asylum seekers fleeing >political persecution make up a mere 3% of those attempting to get into >Britain. The vast majority are illegal economic immigrants. People are >attempting to enter Britain in such numbers because they see the real chance >of a prosperous future for themselves here. > > > >ï¿½ The government mechanism for curbing immigration and ensuring only >valid cases are passed appears to have completely broken down. Very few >asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down at the time of writing >are actually being deported. Many are either just released into the community >or disappear into British society. > >ï¿½ British taxpayers are having to foot the expense of providing >camps, healthcare, social security, education and housing for tens of >thousands of economic migrants every month! > > > >ï¿½ Under new government guidelines, four-star hotels and holiday camps >are being set aside to house illegal immigrants. > > > >ï¿½ Asylum seekers have also been benefiting from hand-outs from the >politically correct National Lottery Community Fund. In 2001, illegal >immigrants received a staggering ï¿½20 million to the outrage of other groups, >such as the Victims of Crime Trust, who were passed over. Clive Elliott of >the VCT called for a boycott of the Lottery, remonstrating: ?I accuse the >Community Fund of being biased and prejudiced and even exhibiting >institutionalised racism when choosing its priorities.? > > > >ï¿½ Today, one in 20 of London?s population is either an ?asylum >seeker? or a refugee. > > > >ï¿½ Asylum applications can involve long and expensive legal processes, >again paid for by the British taxpayer. > > > >ï¿½ Unchecked illegal immigration provides easy opportunity for >terrorists to enter Britain undetected. One refugee leader, Dr Mohammed >Sekkoum, believes that at least 100 Algerians who are known terrorists in >their own country have entered and are living secretly in Britain. > > > >ï¿½ Communities in south-eastern England have found themselves >literally overrun by illegal immigrants. > > > >ï¿½ It appears that Britain has lost control of her own borders. > > > >ï¿½ The white population of Britain is reproducing itself far more >slowly than the immigrant populations, with the inevitable effect of changing >the racial mix of the country. > > > >ï¿½ Illegal immigration allows a nation state?s identify to be diluted >as other cultures homogenise with the domestic population. > > > >ï¿½ Illegal immigration provides more justification for EU state >interference and control. > >ï¿½ Publicising illegal immigration will more likely cause the >acceptance by the public of EU security measures, such as the introduction of >a continent-wide ID card, which the citizenry normally would not tolerate. >Will Europe once again hear: ?Your papers, please?? > > > >ï¿½ Cultural diversity has historically caused deep-seated and >long-term problems with stability and control, as we have seen with Northern >Ireland, Africa, Yugoslavia and Britain and many other examples throughout >history. Yet ?multiculturalism? still remains the weapon of choice for EU >socialists for four main reasons: > > > >1. It wrecks a nation?s national identity and customs; > > > >2. It improves socialism?s standing with the immigrants who will >henceforth vote for their benefactors; > > > >3. It creates problems which can only be solved with the state taking >on more powers, e.g. the issuance of ID cards and other security measures; > > > >4. No indigenous citizen is able to complain about the effects of this >?unchecked? immigration for fear of being labelled a ?racist?. > > > >ï¿½ In ancient times, when the Assyrian empire invaded a nation, it >would deport the indigenous population and settle foreign peoples into the >conquered land, such as with the Samaritans into northern Israel. This >sweeping measure prevented the germination of nationalist resistance movements >among the conquered race. > >ï¿½ In 1998, the EU set up a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and >Xenophobia in Vienna. Neither ?crime? was defined, leaving each open to wide >interpretation, one of the EU?s favourite tactics. > > > >ï¿½ While unacceptable ?racist? views are deplored by most, a free >society must allow freedom of speech, however objectionable. Otherwise, who >determines what is acceptable to think about and say, and what isn?t? The EU? > > > >Are the British Racist? > > > >A cataclysmic weapon has been deployed against Britain in the form of mass, >unchecked immigration, coupled with the drafting of new legislation which will >actually make it illegal to voice your opposition to EU policies of the day. > > > >But are the British who speak up about such matters ?racist? or ?xenophobic?, >or are they not justified in feeling apprehensive and nervous about what is >going on around them? The future may yet see Islamic fundamentalism take to >the streets in Britain to propagate its own violence, since radical Islam, by >its own admission, refuses to assimilate into Britain?s new secular society, >let alone the previous Christian one. This may already have begun to happen. > > > >Logging on to You > > > >After the forthcoming ?enlargement? of the EU in May 2004, the aim is >eventually to have all 450 million inhabitants registered on the central >Europol database with an ?entitlement? (read ?identity?) card, fingerprints, >DNA-typing and dozens of fields of information on political and sexual >preferences, arrest records, tax data, religious beliefs and other demographic >denominators. Misbehaviour by any individual will incur a withdrawal of >?entitlements? (privileges granted by the state) and the full machinery of the >state?s oppressive law enforcement apparatus being arrayed against them. > > > >Another problem is that terrorists can gain access to Britain relatively >easily in order to wreak havoc on soft targets, as we almost saw with the >ricin episode in North London. Such terrorist events, while grotesque and >macabre to the public, in fact greatly serve the ends of the socialist >architects. Another high-profile terrorism shooting, for instance, provokes >the usual round of gun-control legislation, further disarming law-abiding >citizens, while at the same time ensuring that the police become more heavily >armed and the serious weaponry is left in the hands of hardened criminals and >troublemakers. > > > >Old Soviet > > > >Anatoly Golytsin, a Kremlin staffer, defected from the USSR in 1984 and >published his book, New Lies for Old. In it, Golytsin described how, a few >years into the future, a series of political events would occur in Russia >which would lead the world to believe that Communism had collapsed. This in >fact happened with the breaking up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The West was >indeed lulled to sleep, according to Golytsin, trusting that the Cold War was >over. Meanwhile, was a more powerful and better organised regime forming >beneath Western nations in Europe after decades of careful planning and >execution? > > > >The political left in Britain endorses any move that contributes towards the >break-up of the state and its acceleration into their utopia of either a >pan-European super state or global federation. Reckless immigration, along >the lines we are seeing today, appears to be deliberately encourage, through >inaction, by the government of the day, even as it was by previous >administrations, regardless of party politics. > > > >Britain ? a Cultural War-Zone > > > >The woman in the street and the man on the Clapham omnibus, born during the >1920?s into a Britain of deference, respect and long-established British >values, have both received a rude awakening. The Britain they once admired >and loved has ceased to exist. > > > >There was once a Britain where citizens regarded themselves as having the >highest ideals of decency and justice. But the character of today?s Britons, >occupying the same place on the globe as their empirical predecessors, would >be as alien to those old adversaries Gladstone and Disraeli as the dark side >of the moon. > > > >To the old soldiers, sailors and airmen of World War II, the country they >loved and fought for is unrecognisable to them today, and so are the >inhabitants. Forbidden by law to say anything about what is going on around >them, they choke on the ?multiculturalism? and ?cultural diversity? gags that >have been stuffed in their mouths. Bitter resentment and anger seethe in >their hearts that no one asked them whether they wanted all the changes the >socialists forced upon them anyway. They came from an era when everyone >seemed to care. Today, how shocked they are to find that it is they are >viewed as the enemies of ?tolerance? and ?progress?. > > > >While millions of the silent majority resent what has happened and seek a >lawful, political solution from one of their major political parties, not one >speaks for them. The Big Three, New Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal >Democrats, are all pushing for the death of Britain. New Labour waved the >Union Jack at the Queen?s Jubilee, while chortling inwardly at its coming >demise. The soft and vacillating Conservative right rubberstamps a >multiculturalism it secretly hates, grinning sheepishly up at the British >Tower of Babel which hideously offends it, just to appear relevant with the >trendy modernizers of Blair?s Third Way?. > > > >Are the British institutionally racist? Well if we are, you?d be hard put to >explain why British army and civilian personnel went native in India. Africa >and a hundred places in between during the empire years, even as they do >today. Millions of Brits over the centuries have married foreign spouses, >incorporated foreign cuisine and adopted foreign ways and brought all those >great foreign words into our tremendously versatile language. > > > >Today the huge contributions the British have made to the world are still >venerated in South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, America, New >Zealand and a hundred other countries. Certainly not much of an indication >that the British culture is at war with the natives. In fact, name another >empire that has ever withdrawn from its power and still enjoys the kind of >relationship we do with most of our former colonies today? > > > >So Britain is to get the destiny she deserves. Lenin is to have his day. The >state is God. Multiculturalism and political correctness became the new faith >and morality for Britain round about the time the nation realised it had lost >God in the mud somewhere between the guilt of Passchendaele and the shame of >the Anglican Lambeth Conferences. > > > >http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/page/page/3780258.htm Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/