Anarchists and frightened police face off in London

March 26th, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Economics, Europe, european union, Free market, Socialism 6 Comments »

Bobbies learn spoiled kids are holy terrors 

by Don Hank

The UK newspaper Daily Mail reported today on a riot by anarchists in the UK, which broke out as part of an anti-cuts demonstration. They number in the thousands, have done a lot of damage and have also scared the beejeebers out of the police, who have become accustomed to fear over years of facing Muslim demonstrations against Western values (which make Muslims uncomfortable and never seem to quite go away no matter how many Europeans they terrorize in an effort to gently convert them–or else).

While many Americans still believe that the main source of economic benefits is a combination of work, ingenuity and risk taking, along with simple notions of supply and demand (commonly known as free market principles—once believed extinct until live specimens were recently found in China), Europeans have been taught since about the end of WW II that the government is where all money, jobs and benefits come from. Some of them also reportedly believe government is where babies come from and where people go when they die.

They pray thusly: Our Government, who art in heaven, give us this day our dole of bread, lest we blast your stuff to kingdom come. For mine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen and to the barricades.

Sadly, the anarchists featured in the Daily Mail story are protesting something that practically no longer exists: capitalism.

Today’s Western economy is based on a system that can charitably be called corporatism, or, if you are mean, fascism, which has replaced the free market system so gradually that most have not noticed and don’t even know it is there.

We can all agree that the present system is impoverishing us and eliminating the middle class, while enriching the oligarchs.

However, since it is a hybrid between corrupt Big Government (essentially socialism) and corrupt business interests, conservatives (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the Big Government side of it, which is corrupt — while socialists / anarchists (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the capitalist side of it, which is corrupt.

It’s like the 4 blind men and the elephant. There aren’t enough people yet who see the system for the many-tentacled hybrid that it is, and herein lies the tragic inability to solve the problem. Indeed, if you don’t understand what you are up against, then it is hard to fight effectively. A friend of mine has likened problem solving of this sort to buttoning a shirt: If you start wrong at the top, you wind up wrong at the bottom.

Many, including the above-referenced anarchists, believe all of their problems can be solved by a government willing to cooperate with their hedonistic whims. That’s because not nearly enough understand that the EU is a dictatorship that looks out only for its own interests (as elegantly explained by Sonya Porter) and has been controlling the corrupt government side of the economy (by teaching young people fairly tales about climate change and social justice), while most of the capitalists have joined forces with this same government and together they have a jolly good time robbing all of us poor blokes down at the bottom of the food chain.

If young people can be made to understand this, then, once they outgrow their Pampers, they can help us rebuild the West, now that we have all managed to muck it up.

So what do you say? Let’s teach them.

That should work a lot better than sending teams of frightened bobbies after them.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

How Europe can restore its freedom

March 15th, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Christian, Culture Wars, Europe, european union 1 Comment »

Europe: Restore Christianity, restore freedom

 by Don Hank

 Christians in Europe are under direct attack. Many are losing their employment for speaking out, just as they did in the Soviet Union. And yet, despite the extreme hard times for Christians in Europe, the direct targeting of Christians and the demonization of their faith has an unintended consequence for the Ruling Class (Oligarchy) that represses them, and this could eventually unravel the progress they have made so far:

It raises nagging questions in everyone’s mind:

–Who is this Jesus Christ that makes the most powerful men in the world fear Him so?

–What is it about the Bible that makes it so fearsome to the Oligarchs who normally rely on the stealth (Fabian) approach to win hearts and minds of the public to its side?

If this book is really so fearsome that they must drop their stealthy approach and directly ban Christian or Biblical speech, then that blows their cover and reveals their agenda in a way that leaves them exposed and naked.

For them to do such a thing means that they perceive something in the message of that book.

Europe has slumbered for decades through a massive power grab on the part of the Ruling Class in national governments (what is left of them) and has largely sided with this class, despite the abuse it has heaped on them by robbing them of national governments and shoving EU law down their throats.

In one area in particular, the people have agreed to a large extent with their masters, namely, in regard to Christianity.

The Ruling Class throughout Europe has put out the message that Christianity is largely responsible for Hitler’s rise to power, for example.

Yet recent research shows that it was in fact the erosion of biblical viewpoint that contributed most to preparing the hearts and minds of Germans to accept the Folkish propaganda that helped popularize the notion of Germans as the super race.

The popular anti-Christianity is passed off as a natural grassroots phenomenon. It is not. It is the result of a clever propaganda campaign that has led to the subjugation of the peoples of Europe.

German language version of the above-linked article:

http://laiglesforum.com/hitler-war-kein-christ

Christian Concern:

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35&id=4b63b2a8d4&e=34c28f0543

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

How the EU parliament works

February 9th, 2011 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Europe, european union 8 Comments »

The EU is the progressives’ dream. It is headed by the unelected European Commission, which is the only body entitled to propose legislation. Further, the public at large and their elected MEPs (Members of European Parliament) are thereby shut out of all meaningful decision making. The Commission does not consult with the voters but only with interest groups, and the details are ironed out by committees, which could be referred to as technocrats.

The national governments (called “local”) are obliged to adopt – or harmonize – EU legislation, so they are puppets of the regime.

We see the outlines of this system in our American “democracy,” where interest groups rule over the majority and the majority likes it or lumps it.

What you read here presumably is what a North American Union would look like. You will recall that in the latter days of his administration, GW Bush — whose father chattered a lot about the New World Order — was in fact toying with just such a supranational scheme, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership. A secret meeting held in Canada would have laid the groundwork for implementation of the scheme. Fortunately, the plot was outed and the plan was scrapped — temporarily or permanently, who knows?

Some GOP “moderates” now want to draft Jeb Bush for president in 2012.

Don Hank

 Quote:

“Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.”

Sonya Jay Porter is an Englishwoman, a free-lance writer and a member of the UK Independence Party which is working to get Britain out of a political alliance with the European Union.   In the article below she tells us why.

HOW THE EU PARLIAMENT WORKS

                                      …And it’s not like Britain’s

by Sonya Jay Porter

Many people throughout Europe and the rest of the world still think that the parliament of the European Union is democratic.

Compared to that in Britain, It isn’t.

To begin with, the Members of the European parliament (MEPs) are not elected as in Britain, on a ‘first past the post’ system but by a multi-member type of proportional representation.  There is currently a total of 732 seats in the EU parliament and these are allocated to each member state on the basis of population, Germany having the largest number and Luxembourg the fewest.  Britain now has 72 seats, or about 9.8% of the total. Once elected, MEPs then sit, not in national blocks but in seven Europe-wide political groups.  As stated in the EU’s Guide to its Institution (2005), ‘between them, they represent all views on European integration, from the strongly pro-federalist to the openly Eurosceptic’.  You will notice the use of the word ‘openly’.  But so far, so democratic.

It is important to realise that unlike the British Parliament (which we know by its place-name as ’Westminster’), the European parliament does not consist of a proposing Chamber, such as the House of Commons, and a scrutinizing Chamber like the House of Lords.  

Decision-making at European Union level involves various European institutions, in particular:

The European Commission

The European Parliament

The Council of the European Union

According to The Guide, The European Commission, which now consists of 27 members, is independent of national governments and its job is solely to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole.   The Commission alone is responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation which it then presents to the Council and the parliament and it is here that democracy begins to falter, for the Commissioners are not elected but appointed. 

A new Commission is set up every five years within six months of the parliamentary elections and it is the member state Governments which agree together who is to be the new Commission President.  The President then, in discussions with the member state Governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission who will all have held political positions in their own countries but are neither MEPs (Members of Parliament) nor have been elected to this position by the populations of the EU member states.

It is the Commission alone which is responsible for drafting proposals for new European legislation.  Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.

However, the European Council is the EU’s main decision-making body with its first duty being to pass European laws, in many cases, but not all, jointly with the European parliament.   In some fields, the Council alone legislates but has to consult parliament.   The Council, which consists of ministers from the member states, will discuss, behind closed doors and away from the media, the proposals put forward by the Commission.   Which ministers attend which meetings depends on what subjects are on the agenda.  For instance, Environment Ministers will attend a meeting on the environment and Finance Ministers will attend a meeting on financial matters.   If then agreed, the proposal may then be put to the chamber of the European parliament.

And it is in the European parliament that democracy really breaks down.

Before being voted on, the proposals will go to various Committees of MEPs for possible amendment after which the chamber will be given perhaps 24 hours’ notice of the coming vote in which to study these amended proposals.  Discussion will also take place as to who will speak for each group and for how long on which measure.   At this stage in Westminster, there would be an active debate in the House of Commons, often taking a considerable time, but in the European parliament speaking time is allocated amongst the Parliamentary Groups on the basis of size, and most MEPs will get around just one minute to speak.  Nor are these are not what would be recognised in the British Parliament as debates but just short talks, mainly designed for the media.

After these speeches come the votes.  But once again, although a proposal can be won or lost on 51% of those voting, the method of counting votes is quite different from that at Westminster.  No ‘ayes to the right’ and ‘noes to the left’.   Instead, most votes go through merely on a show of hands.  Bearing in mind that scores of proposals and their amendments can be brought forward for voting on in one day, and that there are nearly 800 possible voters, it is not surprising that there can be some spectacular mistakes.   The UK Independence Party, which sits with the European Freedom and Democracy Group, has formally requested that all votes be taken electronically but this was refused by the parliamentary authorities. In spite of this, should any vote be lost, this is not the end of the matter.   It then goes to ‘Conciliation’, after which in most cases, the proposal goes through into EU law.

In Britain these EU laws (known as either directives or regulations) go through Parliament in the sense that committees have a short debate where they are asked to ‘take note’ of a particular directive or regulation.   Note that there is no option to reject them and although there is a vote on ‘taking note’, this is academic since unless we have an appropriate veto, Britain has no choice but to accept these EU laws which now comprise some 84% of all British legislation.

Which means that whatever the unelected European Commission puts forward as a proposal will become law in Britain and the other EU states because there is virtually no way of stopping it.  And that means the countries of the European Union are ruled not by democracy but by a form of dictatorship known as an oligarchy, dictatorship not by one but by a group.  

But a dictatorship none the less.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Supranationalism leads to war

November 11th, 2010 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Global governance, History, International 6 Comments »

by Don Hank

Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, is still propagating an ancient myth, the house of cards on which the EU’s acceptance by the masses is based. He recently trotted out the old platitude once more:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egotism, egotism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to war.

If Europeans ever see through this thinly veiled propaganda, they will throw off the yoke of the EU – including the failed “Euro Zone” – that binds and gradually impoverishes them. More and more Europeans are waking up to the fact that, at variance with Rompuy’s pronouncement, neither fear nor egotism, nor nationalism lead to war.

Far from egotism, it is in fact a selfless obedience to ideals expressed by ambitious men portraying themselves as solicitous of their subjects that leads young men to put their lives on the line in battle.

Further, it is not fear but rather misplaced trust that leads to war. Neville Chamberlain foolishly trusted Hitler, signing a non-aggression pact and telling his countrymen not to fear Hitler.

And it was trust in the Soviet Union that led Churchill and FDR to entrust the administration of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, in turn leading to the Cold War and the military occupation of those nations and to violent invasions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union had adopted as its slogan: “Proletarians of the world unite!” (they did not say “proletarians of Russia”) and as its anthem the stirring antithesis of a national anthem titled “L’Internationale.”  

American nationalist Ronald Reagan played the key role in ending this warlike foreign domination.

As for nationalism, if the French revolutionaries had been nationalists, they would not have chosen a young Corsican to lead them.

Further, if Bonaparte had been a nationalist, as he was in his youth when he hated the French, it would never have occurred to him to lead that nation. Nor would he have married an Austrian woman. The fact is, the truly nationalistic French were the pre-revolution French whose loyalty was to the Bourbons – a family whom the young Bonaparte hated. It was not until Napoleon saw the French overthrow their nobility that he cast his lot with the revolution and helped them defeat the rest of Europe – not in the name of France but in the name of the revolution, which he saw as an international — and specifically, a supranational – ideal, which had in fact been shaped by not only French but also German, Italian, American and British thinkers.

For the French themselves, it was also this revolutionary idea, a longing for a borderless Europe united by the revolution, that united them around Napoleon and lured them into the most deadly wars mankind had ever known.

Far from causing the Napoleonic wars, the nationalists of the day – the Prussians, the Russians, the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Italians and the British – each individually solicitous of their own individual nations’ safety and welfare – resisted Bonaparte, ended the wars and made Europe safe once more.

Ah, but what about Hitler, you say?

If WW II had been between Hitler on the one hand and the Allies on the other, a case could have been made for nationalism as the primary motive for the war. However, except for Germany, none of the Axis powers or collaborators – from the Japanese to the Mufti and Franco to the Italians – was fighting to further the cause of the Vaterland. None of the nations that sympathized with Hitler (including Russia at the beginning of Hitler’s reign) would ever have agreed to adopt German customs, teach German in their schools and subjugate their people to the German government.

The war Europeans see brewing with Islam on their streets is born of the same old borderless, supranationalist ideology, with EU zealots ramming unlimited immigration down their throats to enforce it. The war that many foresee occurring between Americans and millions of illegal immigrants including a disproportionate number of violent criminals and drug lords, is another example of violence ascribed to the top-down assertion of a supranational ideal that is antithetical to nationalism.

Today’s main enemy is in fact anti-nationalism, or what the Germans teasingly call Multikulti, which is warping our cultures, values and Western civilization itself and bringing Westerners into increasingly violent conflict with their Islamic “guests” who refuse to integrate.

The startling fact of the matter is that, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary from Western media, universities, churches and schools (and in Europe, from officialdom), nationalism itself has never led to a single major modern war. If the Germans had been more nationalistic, they would never have let an Austrian take over their country. It was a lack of confidence in their true roots in the form of Christianity (the pernicious belief that Christianity causes wars) — that misled Germany. Since the 1800s, German theologians had taught a perverted gospel teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German mercenary. Today, there is a pervasive myth that Christianity – which in fact opposed Soviet aggression and Hitler’s violence – causes wars. Anti-Christian propaganda was actually heavily involved in the major conflicts of the 20th century.

Clearly, far from nationalism, the seeds from which the very deadliest of modern wars sprang are the ideology of supranationalism, i.e., the foisting of a one-world government on a grassroots who reject the idea, and the eradication of traditional Christian values and beliefs in favor of Marxist dogma.

The story of modern war is the story of supranationalist tyrants invading the territory of peaceful nationalists. The European grassroots witnessed this history with their own eyes.

When will they learn to interpret it with those same eyes, and not through the eyes of elitist tyrants with an obvious agenda?

This just in from a reader (looks like “Multikulti” is on its way out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o&feature=player_embedded

And half of UK citizens want out of the EU:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210804/Why-I-believe-it-is-time-for-Britain-to-get-out-of-the-EU

Further reading:

http://laiglesforum.com/european-court-imposes-immorality-on-russia/1973.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/does-europe-have-a-future/1297.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/uk-elites-want-to-muzzle-christians/1177.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/the-eu-wants-unlimited-fines-for-christian-speech/928.htm

http://laiglesforum.com/nationalists-international/584.htm

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The rotten fruits of the “carbon credit” scam

February 23rd, 2010 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Climate change, Environment, Europe, european union, Global governance, International 11 Comments »

The notion of “global warming” has been used to introduce perhaps the biggest tax in history, and one of the avenues for this tax was so-called “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits.”

Fortunately, the American people have not completely fallen for this scam as yet. But the UK, which has long labored under the heavy hand of two essentially foreign governments — their “own” out-of-touch ”leaders” and the EU — has had little choice. Almost none of the elected leaders in the UK there are in touch with the people, who are increasingly aware that they are being scammed on a grand scale. (While serving as the head of state, Tony Blair was also the head of the Fabian Socitey, whose avowed purpose is to undermine democracy and introduce Marxism — Karl Marx’s sister was one of the founders).

Now please pay attention: America now faces the same choices as they once did: either we go it alone as the exceptional nation we have been or we take that same turn into oblivion and let the “elites” take us over. So far we have done a terrible job of maintaining our sovereignty and our representative government. Many “conservatives” and even the somewhat more enlightened Tea Party people have fallen for the RINO neocon scam in MA, where Scott Brown was presented as a “conservative”. CPAC portrayed Scott, Mitt Romney and other RINOs the same way, although, to the credit of the attendees, in a poll taken by CPAC, Romney lost to Ron Paul — a sign that the leadership of groups like this is no longer calling the shots.  A McCain loss in his Senate campaign in Arizona would be a further sign that even without any higher-up leadership, the grassroots can now make up its own mind.

Our heads are very slowly emerging from the sand, but there are a lot of GOP die-hards out there who keep longing for the “good old days” of the globalist, open-borders GW Bush administration. They haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The press release appearing below is one of the most amazing but likewise, one if the saddest, pieces  of news Laigle’s Forum has ever received from an independent source.

It is in fact the fulfillment of what WND’s Jerome Corsi had foreseen and written about earlier (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118953). It shows not only the extent of the criminal activity of the world elites but also the extent to which they will go to hush up their activities.

The sender, the assistant to Nigel Farage, founder of the UK Independent Party (UKIP), one of the most outspoken voices in Europe and a man who has consistently opposed the European Union dictatorship — even from his position as a Member of Parliament in the EU, sent out the press release immediately after dictating it, showing the outrageous consequences of “carbon credits.”

To sum it up, 1 billion pounds sterling  in carbon credits were given to an Indian-owned UK steelworks so that the plant could be closed down — ostensibly to save the world from the emissions caused by this plant — leaving 1,700 workers jobless. And here is the rub: in Robin-Hood fashion, the cool billion of UK taxpayer money will be invested in steel plants in India, where no one believes in the “carbon offset” schemes and where the emissions will continue unabated, with nothing of the stated goal being accomplished.  The net result is an enormous transfer of wealth by Fabian-style stealth from a “rich” (but soon to be poor if the elites have their way) country to a developing country. I hope you understand that the end game of the elites is to “spread the wealth around” as Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet or anything else. It is like Chicago-style power politics on a world scale.

It is vitally important for us to be aware that all globalists and globablist organizations (like the CFR) want only to spread the wealth, Marxist style. They do not want prosperity for you or your children and, as evidenced hereinbelow, they could care less about the environment or “global warming.”  And here is the smoking gun in Mr. Nigel Farage’s press release, as dictated to his secretary.

Don Hank

Sir

Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesborough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (“mothballed” is the euphemism)  It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.  By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

There’s more.  The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP’s leader in the EU’s “parliament”, Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC’s “Question-Time” programme, from Middlesborough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the “Question-Time” panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week’s Sunday Express, has also been “pulled”.

 Yours etc

 

On another note, please let us know what you think of the below-linked post “Enjoy the internet while you can.” For example, is there anything offensive in the way it is written? Please let us know either by sending us a note at zoilandon@msn.com or by adding a comment at the bottom of this latest post “The rotten fruits of…”

Thank you!

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/enjoy-the-internet-while-you-can/

Further reading 

Climate change hoax:

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/10/1181/

http://laiglesforum.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-takes-hit-take-action-on-dod-pro-homo-policy/

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/11/30/the-real-climate-conference-in-copenhagen/

European Union as dictatorship:

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/03/25/government-by-deception/

http://laiglesforum.com/europe-a-dictatorship/

Freedom threatened:

http://laiglesforum.com/2009/08/31/816/

http://laiglesforum.com/2008/11/26/america-in-full-suicide-mode/

AddThis Social Bookmark Button