THE ORWELLIAN COMMISSION IN CAHOOTS WITH FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE, AND MICROSOFT

Free-speech

The Orwellian European Commission is in cahoots with the social media to stop hate speech, an important form of free speech. The Commission has been itching to shut down free speech in the Parliament and now they’re attacking social media. We have already seen Facebook and Google policing freedom posts.

The Ministry of Truth, Minitrue, is the propaganda ministry in charge of hate speech. Minitrue is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its namesake. It is responsible for any necessary falsification of events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, Minitrue manufactures truth in the Newspeak sense of the word.

The Orwellian Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft today unveil a code of conduct that includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hate speech online in Europe. The definition of illegal online content is based on the Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia which criminalises the public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Vĕra Jourová, Minitrue Commissioner, said: The Internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech. The Code of Conduct against illegal online hate speech, agreed with IT companies today, will ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has no place online. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

By signing this Orwellian code of conduct, the IT companies commit to tackling quickly and efficiently illegal hate speech online. This will include the establishment of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that a majority of illegal content is assessed and, where necessary, removed within 24 hours. IT companies will strengthen their partnerships with civil society organisations who are the main actors in flagging content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The Orwellian partnership will also support civil society organisations in delivering effective anti-hate campaigns to countering hateful rhetoric online.

The IT Companies and the Orwellian European Commission agree to assess the public commitments in this code of conduct on a regular basis, including their impact. They also agree to further discuss how to promote transparency and encourage counter and alternative narratives. To this end, regular meetings will take place and a preliminary assessment will be reported to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016. For more information, see full press release and Code of Conduct online.

Orwellian Juncker, took part in the 40th anniversary celebrations of the European People’s Party (EPP). In his speech Orwellian Juncker outlined some of the urgent challenges facing the EU, warned of the dangers of populism, and recalled the EPP’s contribution to Orwellian European integration. “We should not pursue simplistic populism,”said the Orwellian President. “Those who do will become populists themselves and only the originals will be elected.” On the refugee crisis, Orwellian President Juncker called for solidarity: The question of refugees and the refugee crisis is a major challenge for everybody, but especially for Christian Democrats true to their values. Solidarity towards refugees goes hand in hand with our understanding of humanity and of Europe. We must therefore once again prove – on the basis of rules to be established and without excluding anybody – that the EU is also steeped in solidarity when it comes to the refugee issue.

On 1-2 June, Miniluv Commissioner Avramopoulos and Minitrue Commissioner Jourová will participate on behalf of the Commission in the EU-US Ministerial meeting on Justice and Home Affairs, taking place in Amsterdam. The EU-US Ministerial on Justice and Home Affairs is held twice a year with the aim of promoting Trans-Atlantic cooperation in the fight against terrorism and transnational crime and strengthening the rights of citizens in this context. Participants will also include the Netherlands EU Council Presidency and the incoming Slovak EU Council Presidency, the European External Action Service and a number of European agencies.

The United States will be represented by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. Commissioner Jourová and Attorney-General Lynch are set to sign the EU-US Data Protection Umbrella Agreement, which will enhance the data protection rights of individuals when their personal data is collected for law enforcement purposes, and thereby ensure legal certainty for swift and efficient cooperation in the fight against crime, including terrorism.

The EU and the US will also review the functioning of the 2010 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that ensures effective criminal justice cooperation across the Atlantic, as well as recent legislative developments in combatting money laundering and terrorism financing. They will also discuss migration and asylum and will exchange views on their respective visa policies, on information sharing in the context of security, on counterterrorism and the fight against transnational organised crime. 

Free speech includes hate speech. Hate speech accusation is a contemporary example of the Orwellian newspeak promoted by Minitrue, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.

The right to free speech includes the right to offend. Offensiveness is intrinsically valuable in the marketplace of ideas because it enables self-actualization and the freedom of association, among other important interests. Not only does the right to be offensive secure the livelihood of our favorite comedians, it protects scientific and medical researchers in their quest to push the limits of human knowledge into fields once considered taboo and enables one religion’s heretic to become another’s prophet. And should a member of a third faith, or no faith at all, wish to define himself as an iconoclast by mocking, degrading, or insulting a prophet—that too, is protected by the First Amendment.

There’s no offensiveness exception to the First Amendment and it would be insulting for the Supreme Court to allow government to tell us what’s offensive. Those who are offended shouldn’t have a veto over free expression and putative offenders should be judged in the court of public opinion.

Free speech is a fundamental good, necessary for democratic life and for the development of other liberties. Kleptocrats view speech as a luxury rather than as a necessity, or at least as merely one right among others, and not a particularly important one. Speech from this perspective needs to be restrained not as an exception but as the norm.

The answer to whether religious and cultural sensibilities should ever limit free expression depends upon which of these ways we think of free speech. For those who look upon free speech as a fundamental good, no degree of cultural or religious discomfort can be reason for censorship. There is no free speech without the ability to offend religious and cultural sensibilities.

The European Court of Human Rights has stressed on numerous occasions that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of society, and this includes the expression of ideas which offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Samuel Adams pointed out it does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

For socialists for whom free speech is more a luxury than a necessity, censorship is a vital tool in maintaining social peace and order. The key argument made in defense of the idea of censorship to protect cultural and religious sensibilities is that speech must necessarily be less free in a plural society. In such a society, so the argument runs, we need to police public discourse about different cultures and beliefs both to minimize friction and to protect the dignity of individuals, particularly from minority communities. As socialists put it, if people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each other’s fundamental beliefs to criticism.

It is precisely because we do live in a plural society that we need the fullest extension possible of free speech. In such societies it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And they should be openly resolved, rather than suppressed in the name of pseudorespect or pseudotolerance.

Giving of offense is not just inevitable, but also important. Any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply-held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: “You can’t say that!” is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. The notion that it is wrong to offend cultural or religious sensibilities suggests that certain beliefs are so important that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted or caricatured or even questioned.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority. The right to subject each other’s fundamental beliefs to criticism is the bedrock of an open, diverse society, and the basis of promoting justice and liberties in such societies. Once we give up such a right we constrain our ability to challenge those in power, and therefore to challenge injustice. We should never allow religious and cultural sensibilities to limit our ability to challenge power and authority.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution provides a baseline level of protection for speakers who choose to communicate their messages to the world anonymously or pseudonymously. Investigating agencies cannot force email services to disclose the identities of their customers.

In a free speech we must be able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers. Free speech defends the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachments by kleptocrats. Free speech requires and creates open diverse media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.  Free speech allows no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.

There’s no real threat to free speech from private entities.  It’s only through the middle man of the state, either a court or a government inquisitor, that can actually shut you down. A private person could take you to a defamation court. He could engage in lawfare against you, but again that’s using the tools of the state. And if you just simply fixed those laws of the state, you’re protected from them.  Public entities are the real threat, both through restrictive laws, such as the defamation law, and government agencies. Your government is your worst enemy!

Lese-majeste laws are incompatible with freedom of expression. A head of state must be willing to accept criticism, especially if it is in the public interest. The freedom to criticize kleptocrats should be fiercely protected to ensure accountability and to foster political debate. As citizens, we can only make the right political choices if we have access to information.

Privacy is dead. Get over it.  So long as we buy tabloids or visit those scandal-mongering websites, we encourage their misbehavior. If we disapprove in principle of such revelations, but read them with avid interest, we are hypocrites. Protesting readers’ emails say no-no -no, but their mouse clicks say yes-yes-yes!

What happens in free speech does not just depend on what governments, courts, or regulators do. It also depends on what we do. We can refuse to buy those papers, visit those websites, and feed intrusive social media. We can tighten our privacy settings, and demand better ones. Even in a world transformed and opened up by new technologies of communication, a degree of privacy remains not only an important limit on but also a condition for freedom of expression.

Freedom is fundamental to prosperity. Those who cherish freedom most are often those who have not always enjoyed it. Thus the souls whose lives were blighted by Communist totalitarianism often rejoice at the simplest pleasures, even many years after the evils of the system were unraveled across Europe. Their joy in being able to travel has been hugely enhanced by that core Western value – freedom. Unfortunately, just as the European Union appears to have forgotten how to create prosperity, so, too, it seems to have gone somewhat patchy on the notion of freedom.

The latest developments on censorship expand upon the core carping of the politically correct – a group whose senses of humor, irony and objectivity were obviously removed when doctors meant to go for their tonsils during childhood.

The latest political insanity comes from meddlesome Brussels bigots and their judicial cousins at the European Court of Justice, or the statist loonies of Luxembourg, who upheld the utterly stupid right to be forgotten.

If a person isn’t free to say something stupid or ill-considered, he has no free speech rights. If one can be arrested for hate speech for saying something known to be true, there is no sense in which one can say there is free speech. In this emerging post-modern narrative, free speech becomes a mockery.

Constitutional rights have historically been defined as rights inherent in the person that exist before the state and ahead of the state. If Constitutional rights have to be restricted, then by whom, against who, and for what purpose? This novel constitutional standard has the effect of reducing the limits of dissent to what those with power would be willing to tolerate. This inverts the definition of tolerance to that which the powerful will tolerate — it becomes Orwellian. Don’t narratives concerning restricting Constitutional rights reflect facially neutral attempts to invert the very idea of rights into privileges granted by the state?

When directing hate speech strategies at politicians, doesn’t this give those in power the unlimited power to silence dissent by undermining the democratic process and, in the process, disenfranchising those in the population who would then become alienated — especially if the attacks on them are based on little more than stigmatization based on stereotypes by, among other things, calling them haters?

In EU, there seems to be an emerging tyranny of facially neutral narratives driven by ill-defined terms purposefully directed at the suppression of the very freedoms and liberties they superficially insist they promote. We recommend that EU and Member States rethink the Hate Speech narrative they seek to adopt that has the effect of undermining the very rights they claim to promote.

If we aren’t free to say what we believe, to express whatever emotion we like, including hate, and to hate whom we choose, then we aren’t free at all. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Free speech is not divisible, and abhorrent ideas cannot somehow be disqualified from free speech protection. You either have free speech or you don’t. The right to free speech does not contain within it any prescription as to what the content of that speech will consist of. Such prescription goes against the whole meaning of the word free.

Free speech is a prerequisite for progressive ideas, but we must be clear that it will inevitably be put to use by those with ideas that appall us. It is incumbent upon us to contest ideas that appall us in the court of public opinion, rather than calling upon the state or private censor to suppress them.

Hate speech does not pose a clear, present, and imminent danger to society. The clear and present danger exception to the principle of free speech has been manipulated to various ends, but as originally conceived by the American Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, it refers to those exceptional circumstances where rational individuals can be said to be compelled to act in a certain way. In Holmes Jr’s classic example – ‘a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic’ – rational individuals are compelled to act by immediate fear for their safety. In the vast majority of instances, however, the responsibility for an act lies with the individual who committed it, not with the individual who instructed the actor to do it.

There is a clear distinction between what people say and think on the one hand, and what they do on the other. It’s not possible to have an equitable system of law without this basic assumption. Nonetheless, a growing number of people dispute the distinction. Increasingly, it is assumed that speech can be directly harmful to its audience, that speech can compel its audience to act, and that speech is equivalent to any abuses that it describes and depicts.

Agency resides in human beings, not in the information that human beings disseminate. Speech has consequences only if its audience chooses to give it consequences.

It is not speech in itself that makes things happen, but the estimation in which human beings hold speech. And if people hold ideas that you disagree with in high estimation, then you’ve got a problem that you’re never going to solve by trying to stop those ideas from being expressed. The only way you’re going to solve this problem is by persuading people of your own point of view. This process is conventionally known as political debate. And those who use hate speech regulation to suppress ideas they disagree with do themselves and their arguments a disservice, by opting out of a proper political debate.

You can see quite clearly the corrosive effect of angst over hate speech in recent elections, such as the French presidential elections held and the European Parliament elections held earlier this year. The response by mainstream political parties, to the perceived threat of far-right parties, was to suggest that the main reason why people should vote is to keep the far right out. The idea is that if you don’t vote, then you’re automatically giving the far right a helping hand – a kind of electoral blackmail. This sends out an even more dangerous message than the bigoted rubbish put about by the far right. If the best reason you can give people to vote for you is to keep the other lot out, then that’s a tacit admission that you don’t actually have any ideas worth voting for.

It’s also the case that when politicians focus their attention and their policies upon the problem of hate speech and hate crimes, their concerns become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By constantly flagging up the problems of hatred and prejudice between people of different races, colors, or creeds, you encourage people to view their grievances in those terms. A vivid illustration of this was provided by the riots and violent clashes that occurred in the UK, in northern mill towns of Oldham, Bradford and Burnley.

The conventional view was that these incidents were stoked by the far right, but there is actually evidence to suggest that the racial tensions in these towns owed more to the blanket coverage and policing of hate speech and hate crimes. The police in these areas were so keen to demonstrate their commitment to dealing with hate, that they treated crimes committed by whites against Asians as racially motivated, even when they were not reported as such. It’s not so much that these towns had a greater problem with racism than other towns in the UK, but rather that in these towns, the authorities made racism into a higher-profile issue – with explosive consequences.

It’s important to make a distinction between forms of prejudice such as racism, on the one hand; and emotions such as hate, on the other – discussions about hate speech and hate crimes tend to muddle these two things. Racism is a wrongheaded prejudice that deserves to be contested, whereas hatred is not objectionable in itself – it’s simply an emotion, and it can be an entirely legitimate and appropriate emotion at that.

Society’s bad guys and extremists don’t have a monopoly on hate – hate is something that most of us experience at one time or another, and is as necessary and valid an emotion as love. Even David Blunkett, the UK’s home secretary and the country’s principal architect of initiatives against hate speech and hate crimes, has admitted that when he heard that the notorious serial killer Harold Shipman had committed suicide in prison, his first reaction was: ‘Is it too early to open a bottle?’ All credit to Blunkett for being honest about his reaction, but it’s frustrating that he doesn’t seem to make the connection with his own authoritarian policies, which would deny us the freedom to experience and express sentiments such as this.

Ultimately, the very idea that we might regulate hate speech and prosecute hate crimes is authoritarian, because it presumes to judge people’s private, internal thoughts, rather than their public, external actions. There are already adequate laws in place in most countries that prohibit intimidation, assault and damage to property. By creating the special categories of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ to supplement these, and presuming to judge people’s motivations for action rather than their actions alone, all you’ve done is reinvented what the author George Orwell called thoughtcrime. 

In Orwell’s classic novel 1984, thoughtcrime is the crime of thinking criminal thoughts, the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Hatred is permitted, indeed is mandatory, in Orwell’s dystopia, so long as it is directed against enemies of the state. But any heretical thought brings with it the prospect of grave punishment.

It is difficult to completely outlaw rebellious thoughts, so long as we are talking about thoughts and words rather than actions, nobody can be compelled not to hate. But Orwell demonstrates how, through the policing of language and by forcing people to carefully consider every aspect of their behavior, orthodoxy can be sustained and heresy ruthlessly suppressed. No hard evidence is necessary to hold someone guilty of thought crime in 1984 – as with hate speech and hate crime today, the authorities have unlimited latitude to interpret your words and actions as being motivated by the wrong sentiments.

The preoccupation with language and etiquette of those who object to hate speech, and the significance they ascribe to words, are reminiscent of the strategies employed in 1984 to reduce people’s capacity to think prohibited thoughts. As one character says in the novel, ‘in the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it’.

The human instinct to question received wisdom and resist restrictions upon thought is, ultimately and thankfully, irrepressible. But inasmuch as it can be repressed, the authorities must encourage a form of willful ignorance that Orwell calls crimestop – the principal means of preventing oneself from committing thougtcrime. In Orwell’s words: ‘Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments…and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

Labelling speech that we disagree with hate speech, and seeking to prohibit it instead of taking up the challenge of disputing it, can only lead to a world in which we resort to protective stupidity to prevent the spread of objectionable ideas. Apart from anything else, this gives those objectionable ideas a credibility that they often don’t deserve, by entitling them to assume the righteousness of combating authoritarian regulation. Better to debate those we disagree with head-on, than make them martyrs to censorship.

ODYSSEY OF CAITLYN JENNER


Caitlyn Jenner Candis Cayne Relationship Split
Second Coming of Christ - Pablo Stanley

Caitlyn Jenner has not been keeping up with her blonde bombshell Candis Cayne! Jenner is seriously thinking of becoming a man again!  What a case!  She now tries to find God in different places, to get a divine enlightenment.

Cayne, 44, says: When we are not shooting the show we don’t see each other as much. We both have very busy lives! I was in Cuba for two weeks and she was in New York presenting Diane Sawyer with the GLAAD Award, so we haven’t really been around each other recently. But Caitlyn is happier now than she’s ever been. That’s what she told me. We are not together! We are only friends. We are really good friends. I am helping her along her journey. That is not just for television. I wish that I had people around me that were wise in the transition process. And so I am sure she is thankful for that. I just want to be support for her. We shall see. Neither of us are sure yet. I think I would be up for it though.

Caitlyn Jenner Kate Bornstein Scientology Scandal Exposed

Caitlyn Jenner visited the Church of Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles. The transgender advocate visited the controversial church learning that friend and I Am Cait co-star Kate Bornstein hasn’t seen her daughter, Jessica Baxter, since leaving the religion in the 80’s.

Bornstein, known as Al Bernstein before her transition, was shocked after Jenner enthusiastically showed her support. Kate was just sort of surprised that after the subject of Scientology came up and she told everybody about her daughter, Caitlyn followed up with her and says: Hey, what’s going on with that?

When she heard that Jessica was in L.A., Caitlyn said, ‘Let’s go see her!’ and Kate kind of had to explain to her that if you go to Scientology and you kind of poke at them, they have a way coming back at you. Caitlyn was like ‘Eh, let’s do it!’ So one could tell by talking to Kate that she was just really moved that Caitlyn was this supportive and gung-ho.

Once they arrived at the church headquarters, the reality stars waltzed into the lobby and demanded to see Bernstein’s daughter. Phone calls were going all over the place and David Miscavige was immediately notified.

They decided to leave after about an hour of waiting. But most shocking of all, Jenner was dumbfounded that no one in the center seemed to know who she was!

Jenner walked into the front lobby of Scientology’s Org and no one recognized her! Kate said that that really confused her – she’s not used to that. She’s used walking into a place like that, says, ‘I want to see so and so’ and then like immediately being taken to that person. So the fact there were these four people behind the counter, none of whom knew who she was, Caitlyn was really kind of surprised.

Her history with the religion has been a rocky one for years. Even before becoming a reality star on I Am Cait, she was an outspoken critic. But initially, it had its attractions. Bornstein, 68, joined the church after learning about the theory of thetans, these immortal, spiritual beings that Scientologists believe live inside them.

What really intrigued her about it was that all those countless lives you’ve led have been in both men and women. So Kate was really turned on by this idea that a thetan itself is sort of genderless, which is sort of how Al felt. Al Bornstein was struggling with this feeling that she wasn’t really a man, so she really liked that.

But Bornstein eventually became disillusioned and left the church. She recently said: I still use Scientology as a guiding light for how not to live my life.

When she left the church, Molly [her wife at the time] and Jessica broke off with her – this was before Al transitioned to Kate.

“Scientology splits up families, and that’s what happened to us,” Bornstein explained. “I left — she was 9. I was considered [by the church] a suppressive person. No one who is in good standing in the institutionalized Church of Scientology is to speak with you. I have not been able to talk with my daughter for some 30 years now. You know, when you get old, you want to leave something. You want to say, ‘Hi, I’ve always loved you.’”

God delusion is a paranormal neurosis of hoi polloi, a magnificent tool to fool the voters towards your direction.  Faith is retarded thinking, opposite of reason.

Sigmund Freud regarded God as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure; religion, necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favor of reason and science. Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind: neurosis, with its compulsive behavior, is an individual religiosity, and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a universal obsessional neurosis.

Albert Einstein said: The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this. I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

Relusion is the paranormal religion delusion. The reluded person is ignorant to science and fact and convinced that the holy scriptures of their religion are fact. The church tries to relude its members. Most of reluded people are victims of childhood indoctrination.

Religion is a system of wishful paranormal illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion. Religion’s eleventh commandment is Thou shalt not question.

People maintain core beliefs about what they feel they absolutely must do, paranormal claims of conscience.  There are no good reasons for the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious claims. The current status quo is predicated on a fundamental inequality.  Namely, your claim of conscience counts if it is based in religion. My claim of conscience doesn’t count if it is not based in religion. That is a pernicious and indefensible inequality in the existing legal regime.

A theist believes in a paranormal supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them or even think about doing them.

A deist, too, believes in a paranormal supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.

Deists differ from theists in that their paranormal God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.

Bible and Quran are the most disgusting violent fictions.  Whereas Christians rarely read the Bible, Muslims read the Quran frequently and many of them have memorized most verses.  That’s why Muslims are much more violent than Christians.  All Christians I know never read the Old Testament of the Bible.  If they did, they would freak out from the huge violence.

Francis promotes the one world religion nonsense, equating Bible and Quran! Both books are silly fictions of a bloody deranged God, but Allah is much worse than the Christian God. The Bible and Quran are the two most barbaric fictions ever put together, full of hate, misogyny, stupidity, racism, and genocide.

The God of the Bible and Quran is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

If the petitioner is praying to a god which is omnipotent and all-knowing, it would be presumptuous for the petitioner to believe they understand the grand scheme of things sufficiently to pray for what is best. The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right.

Prayer may relieve theists of the need to take active measures to address issues around them. If they really wanted to do something useful, they could devote their prayer time and energy to some pressing project that they can do something about. Some theists rely on prayers instead of seeking medical treatment for family members for easily curable conditions which later result in death.

Clergy know perfectly well that prayer is not intended to gratify the theist. So that, every time they accept a donation in return for some petition, they are accepting a gross negation of their faith. Clergy also reinforce religious hoaxes in order to bewilder theists with multiple prayers and donations.

ROYAL SPIN CANNOT SAVE CHARLES

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visit Ireland

Charles and Camilla visited Ireland to counterbalance negative publicity of his paedophilia. Camilla asks for divorce now! The junket began in the stunning town of Donegal, where Charles toured Donegal Castle and heard about the history of the Irish town during a walkabout in The Diamond, Donegal’s Town Square. The Royal couple were welcomed to the town by local musicians and Irish dancers, who performed outside the castle.

During the tour of The Diamond, Charles and Camilla met crowds of well-wishers before heading to McGettigan & Sons Craft Butchers, who have been trading in Donegal since 1952. Founder Michael McGettigan’s sons, Donegal since 1952. Founder Michael McGettigan’s sons, Ernan and Diarmiud McGettigan, now run the shop.

The butchers’ Irish sourced hickory and maple sausage has won international awards for quality, flavor and originality, and Their Royal Highnesses were invited to try some of the sausage during the visit.

Next, it was a short journey for Charles and Camilla to Magee of Donegal’s Tweed Factory. This clothing manufacturer and retailer is best known for its traditional tweed, but also manufactures items from linen, wool and other materials.

Charles toured the factory floor, escorted by CEO of Magee’s, Lynn Temple, and met staff who were working on fabrics and garments. Magee’s celebrates its 150th anniversary this year.

Before departing the factory, Charles and Camilla were presented with a beautiful gift of traditional tweed.

Arriving in the town of Letterkenny, Their Royal Highnesses attended a civic reception at the Letterkenny Institute of Technology, which was attended by council officials and business leaders. Following the reception, Charles toured an exhibition at the Institute and heard more about the Business, Engineering, Science and Tourism projects taking place there from students.

Addressing guests at the reception, Charles said: We are particularly happy to come to Donegal, a place of dramatic and beautiful scenery, of music and story-telling, of myth, legend and the Irish language, and a place, of course, where the link between Man and the land is still so well understood. It is also a place of innovation and creativity, as the work of this Institute shows.

Camilla meanwhile was visiting Ballyraine National School to hear about The Pushkin Trust projects taking place there. The Pushkin Trust aims to engage children, their parents and educators across Ireland and Northern Ireland in the common bond of creativity. During the visit to the school, Her Royal Highness met pupils who were reading, performing and gardening.

The Duchess is a strong supporter of literacy and is Patron of a number of literacy charities. Charles and Camilla then reunited for a visit to Glebe House, where Charles viewed a selection of works by Derek Hill, His paedophile Royal Highness’s former artistic mentor. Derek Hill lived at Glebe House for nearly 30 years. He painted many portraits during his lifetime, including two of The paedophile Prince of Wales.

The last stop for Their Royal Highnesses in Ireland was Glenveagh Castle, which is located in the beautiful Glenveagh National Park. Surrounded by the Derryveagh Mountains, the park is one of six National Parks in Ireland. Their Royal Highnesses toured the gardens, heard about the conservation programs Glenveagh is currently involved in, and experienced the stunning view across the Lough.

Prince Charles’ secret gay life has been blown wide open by shocking photos of the paedophile royal in a sizzling lip-lock with his toy boy beau! The explosive pictures dash any chance Charles had to sit on Britain’s throne!  Queen Elizabeth is stunned by the images and is now more determined than ever to make her favorite grandchild, Prince William, her heir.

Butler Paul Burrell has videos describing sexual encounters between Prince Charles and boys. Prince William’s father isn’t Prince Charles, but King Juan Carlos of Spain. Prince Harry is the son of James Hewitt.

George Anthony Smith was a former footman and valet in the Royal Household of Prince Charles. Smith was raped by Michael Fawcett, a favored servant of Prince Charles, and Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales, who protected him.

Prince William will be the next King! Queen Elizabeth, has already ordered senior courtiers to make the lavish preparations for the coronation!

Paedophilia was considered normal in Ancient Greece.  Most Athenians were paedophiles, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Paedophiles were very useful in mentoring and helping children.  Today, many clergy and celebrities, such as Prince Charles and Woody Allen, are paedophiles. Modern medicine points out that if a child seduces a paedophile, there is nothing wrong about it.

Scientists are working on a cure for paedophilia. The trial involves a drug that disrupts testosterone. Forcing or persuading children to have sex is one of the worst things a person can do to them. Sexual abuse causes serious emotional and physical harm, and can ruin a child’s capacity to have healthy relationships as an adult. However, we mustn’t confuse all sexual abuse of children with paedophilia.

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children but they may, or may not, act on their urges. In fact, most of the people who abuse children are not paedophiles. People who offend against children are mostly men who are obsessed with sex and are looking for a sexual outlet, regardless of the age of the victim. These abusers will seek out any possible opportunity for sexual satisfaction and sadly children are often vulnerable and easy prey.

Many researchers think that paedophilia is a sexual orientation (like heterosexuality), rather than a psychosexual disorder or illness. Regardless of which it is, it’s very difficult for people to live with. Discovering at puberty that your sexual preference is for children, is usually a terrifying and depressing realization.

Although testosterone disrupting drugs can help sex offenders control their urges, they may not be a cure for paedophilia. Most people who offend against children are not paedophiles. Most paedophiles are perfectly capable of controlling themselves and understand the damage that will be done to children by sexual abuse. We need to stop panicking about paedophiles, and focus our efforts on offering treatment and help to anyone struggling with their sexual urges. That’s what will help our children grow up safely.

ERDOGAN PLANS TO EXPORT MANY MILLIONS OF TURKS TO EU


 

Schizophrenic wanker Sultan Erdoğan wants Turks to multiply fast in order to Islamize EU! Erdoğan’s remarks against the employment of birth control methods by Muslim families have drawn rebukes from local rights groups and health associations, voicing concern about the negative effects of abandoning birth control.

“The most natural right of women in Turkey, which is a democratic country, is reproductive rights. This encompasses a woman being able to choose when she wants children, and how many,” the Turkish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (TJOD) said in a statement, underlining that they were compelled to make a statement after Erdoğan’s remarks against birth control in Muslim countries.

“I am saying this clearly, we will increase our posterity and reproduce generations. As for population planning or birth control, no Muslim family can engage in such a mentality. We will follow the road that my God and dear Prophet [Muhammad] say,” the corrupt terrorist president said in an address to TÜRGEV mafia of his son on May 30.

The TJOD slammed these statements as violations of women’s rights, adding that birth control methods must not be abandoned.

“Involuntary pregnancies result in unwanted abortions,” it said.

“When there is no birth control, there will be a rise in involuntary pregnancies and this will cause a rise in abortions. If abortions also become illegal, maternal mortality will increase because people will resort to what we call ‘under the counter’ methods,” it added, expressing alarm that illegal abortions may emerge as a risky birth control mechanism.

Turkish Women’s Union head Sema Kendirci also criticized Erdoğan’s remarks, stressing that the constitution defines family planning as among the duties of the state.

“Article 41 of the constitution defines the teaching and application of family planning as a duty. Who on earth could have the right to pressure families into having more children than they can provide for?” Kendirci told us.

She also criticized corrupt terrorist Erdoğan’s mention of Islam as a yardstick, saying it must only be up to a family to decide whether they will or will not employ birth control.

“There is no way we can approve discussing this issue based on a religious perspective,” Kendirci told us.
Erdoğan’s remarks are in line with his long-term policy of encouraging at least three children per family, while describing abortion as murder and railing against Caesarean sections.

Women’s rights activists and lawyers have criticized the corrupt terrorist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which was led by corrupt terrorist Erdoğan as prime minister from 2003 until he was elected to the presidency in August 2014, for the increasingly conservative and authoritarian political culture they say it is fostering, especially against women.

I am now 71 years old, and I had a vasectomy when I was only 25 years old.  I have never regretted it. The birthrate in Occident is at the lowest in recorded history. From 2000 to present, the fertility rate declined 20%.  Childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups. A quarter of Occidental women end their childbearing years maternity-free.   

The decision to have a child or not is a private one, but it takes place in Occident, in a culture that often equates womanhood with motherhood. Any discussion about the struggle to reconcile womanhood with modernity tends to begin and end with one subject: parenting.

What to expect when no one’s expecting?  It reduces the number of consumers and taxpayers, but it increases the quality of life. Persons who choose not to become parents are finding new paths of acceptance. As their ranks rise, so do positive attitudes about leading a life in which having it all doesn’t mean having a baby.

Stupid legislatures have passed stupid anti-abortion resolutions, asking the public to decide whether the state constitution should define life as beginning at conception! The stupid resolutions mainly state the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and defended.

Pro-choice activists criticize the new anti-abortion laws, arguing that they violate the US Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortions until the fetus is considered viable, at around 22-24 weeks into a pregnancy.  Treating humans as livestock, stupid legislators, who introduced the stupid personhood resolutions, point out that the main purpose of them is to be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

90% of people agree on the abortion of embryo, and 60% agree on the abortion of fetus. Embryo refers to the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.  Fetus refers to the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Ayn Rand points out the capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials, and it is his mind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values. 

The mere fact that man has the capacity to kill, does not mean that it is his duty to become a murderer; in the same way, the mere fact that man has the capacity to procreate, does not mean that it is his duty to commit spiritual suicide by making procreation his primary goal and turning himself into livestock.

To an animal, the rearing of its young is a matter of temporary cycles. To man, it is a lifelong responsibility, a grave responsibility that must not be undertaken causelessly, thoughtlessly or accidentally. 

In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the right of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one which, in today’s public clamor on the subject, few, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happiness, the right not to be regarded as the means to any end.

Rand notes the task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty, human beings are not livestock. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. 

The human construct is open to wide interpretation. The dogma that life begins at conception is an utterly false assertion on its face because spermatozoa and ova cells are vibrantly alive long before they meet. Life most assuredly does not begin at conception. There are no discontinuities here as life just persists and inexorably continues and matures.

CHANGE LESSONS FROM PHARMA AND MED TECH

http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Healthcare%20Systems%20and%20Services/Our%20Insights/Change%20lessons%20from%20pharma%20and%20med%20tech/Change-lessons-1536x1536-500offset_Standard.ashx?mw=1536&car=72:35&cq=50&tco=500
By Gayane Gyurjyan, Shail Thaker, and Carla Zwaanstra
 

Industry leaders emphasize the importance of four management practices in a transformation.

Few industries are facing as much external change as pharmaceuticals and medical products, whether it be sustained global demand and the need for drugs and devices, accelerating cost pressures on health systems, growing complexity in emerging markets, or the disruptive effect of new technologies in therapy and care provision.

Pharma and medical-device companies need to respond, yet we know many companies struggle to pull off the sort of root-and-branch transformation that would enable them to thrive in this turbulent environment. In fact, our research has shown that only one in five healthcare transformations truly succeeds, an even more dismal outcome than the one in four across industries as a whole.1

In recent interviews we conducted with four senior executives who have been through a transformation, all emphasized the significance of instilling purpose and meaning, as well as the crucial importance of communication. More specifically, their comments add weight to detailed findings from our research that four practices, when done well, materially increase the odds of transformation success: communicating openly, leading by example, engaging employees, and creating an environment of continuous improvement.

Communicating openly

When senior managers talk to employees regularly about how a transformation is going, the whole company is more likely to maintain a sense of direction—something that has declined dramatically in the healthcare industry over the past few years.2 Companies that lack a clear sense of direction run the risk of change fatigue and may see their transformation burn out before it can take off.

“If you’re an employee, you may not know how your leaders feel, but when your chairman stands up in public to support your company’s direction, it’s very visible,” said Pascal Soriot, the executive director and chief executive officer of AstraZeneca, stressing the importance of open communication as the company evolved. “The whole leadership team communicated extensively inside the company, and a few went outside to communicate, too.”

Leading by example

Even the best-designed transformation program is unlikely to rally the organization behind it unless leaders behave in a way they want others to emulate. And that doesn’t apply to senior executives alone. Middle managers in commercial, research and development, operations, and other areas need to be equally visible as role models: a sales manager, a lab manager, or a plant supervisor can make all the difference. Indeed, one top 15 pharma company found its frontline transformation had no impact on customer experience until it took the time to prepare district managers—through the introduction of champion academies and other skill-building efforts—to lead by example.

Many CEOs understand intuitively the importance of role modeling. “You have to get out there and deliver your message in person. Some things can’t be delegated,” said Vincent Forlenza of Becton Dickinson. “I put a lot of energy into onboarding new people and supporting them when they are trying to change a region, say, or rethink our innovation process.”

Engaging employees

Most leaders recognize that employee engagement is central to the success of a transformation—and to business performance in general. “To mobilize everybody, we had to work on involvement, engagement, and communication,” said Jane Griffiths, group chairman of Janssen in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. “After five minutes, I would have thought, ‘Well, everybody must get this now, let’s move on,’ but clearly that’s not how it works. If anyone asked me for advice, I would say, ‘Don’t overestimate how much people take on board. In fact, underestimate it so that you go over the top a bit more.’” Maintaining a constant stream of communication about a company’s programs and vision is critical.

Fostering continuous improvement

A transformation is not an end in itself. To sustain the momentum of change, especially in today’s volatile environment, companies need to plan for continuous improvement. In practical terms, that requires a culture of scrutinizing daily work and finding ways to do it better. Explaining what that means for his business, André Wyss, president of Novartis Business Services, said: “We continuously have to examine the technology, tools, and services we offer in order to find ways of making them even faster, more flexible, more consistent, and more cost efficient.”


Change fatigue has become a reality for many companies in the sector, with changes in the stakeholder landscape, pipeline renewal, a wave of mergers and acquisitions, and other restructuring efforts. But we believe further transformations are required, and companies must learn to apply these four simple practices at scale. Our interviews provide inspiration and, more generally, suggest how other leaders can turn adversity to advantage and shape their organizations for an uncertain future.

WE MUST VOTE LEAVE TO PROTECT OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACY FROM FURTHER EU INTEGRATION

Chris Grayling: We must Vote Leave to protect our sovereignty and democracy from further EU integration

 

By Chris Grayling

For the past few weeks you have been hearing regularly from the Remain campaign about how they believe we should stay in a “reformed” European Union.

This morning I want to set out for you the reasons that they are right about the fact that the European Union is going to reform, but how the inevitable reform that is coming our way is very different to what they are claiming.

The Remain campaign keep challenging us about what they call the risks of leaving the European Union. This morning I want to set out for you in detail the risks of staying in, and what lies ahead of us if this country votes to remain in the EU on June 23rd.

And I want to stress very clearly to the people of this country that on June 23rd they are not voting on staying in, or leaving the EU as it is today. They are voting for or against being part of the EU as it must become over the next decade. And that new look EU will be very different.

The seminal moment for the European Union came seventeen years ago with the creation of the single currency. In my view the countries that joined the euro created the economic equivalent of the San Andreas fault. They tried to create a single economy in a geographic area where there was no single government, no common culture or commonality of performance, and where the traditional escape valves when things went wrong in underperforming nations simply disappeared.

So the countries of Southern Europe ran up massive deficits, leading the life of Riley off the back of a strong currency, whereas in the past the drachma and the lire would have fallen sharply on the exchange markets, forcing those countries back to a degree of rectitude. At its simplest, the Greeks didn’t pay their taxes, retired at 55 and hoped someone else would pay the bill. And in the end they did – the Germans, the European Central Bank, and the IMF stepped in to prevent an all-out collapse.

But you can’t go on doing that. In a single currency area, if things look doubtful, the wealthy transfer all their money to safe havens in places like Frankfurt. The run on local banks brings them down, and the resulting collapse affects all. So no rescue is not an option.

That’s where the Eurozone finds itself now. And it cannot carry on that way. They’ve managed to stabilise things once, but it’s hard to see how they could withstand another major shock.

But there’s no easy solution either. You can’t just kick a country out of the Eurozone without creating that massive collapse either. If Greece had been forced out of the Euro, it would have been left with a devalued currency, unable to afford to pay its Euro-denominated debts. It would have defaulted and left massive losses across the continent.

So the inevitable future is beginning to take shape. As my former Government colleague, the former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague once said, the Euro is like a burning building with no exits.

They have to make it work.

And that means political union. There is no other way. There has to be a single Government structure for the Eurozone. There has to be a United States of the Eurozone.

The plans are already taking shape. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, her deputy Wolfgang Schauble, the Italian Finance Minister, the French President Francois Hollande, the Speakers of the biggest Eurozone Parliaments, the Presidents of the big EU institutions have all called for political union.

It’s not idle chatter. It’s become a recurring theme of speeches, articles and interviews across the European Union.

Political Union means, according to Hollande, a Eurozone Parliament, a common budget and a common cabinet. Inevitably it means giving up independent nation status. “It’s not an excess of Europe but a shortage of it that threatens us,” he’s said.

Angela Merkel has said: “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy,”

“And we need most of all a political union – that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control,” she added.

Last summer the Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan called for a common budget and a common unemployment insurance scheme, perhaps even an elected eurozone parliament alongside the existing European Parliament and a euro zone finance minister.

Then the Five Presidents Report, produced by the Presidents of the European Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the Central Bank and the Eurogroup started to set out what would happen in much more detail and with a clear timeline over the next ten years, aiming to complete the work by 2025. The report is very broad ranging and all-encompassing.

“Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union that ensures each economy has the structural features to prosper within the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing with the private sector. This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union 5 Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation. And finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening. All four Unions depend on each other.”

It’s a view shared in many of the national parliaments of the Eurozone. Last September the Speakers of the Parliaments of Italy, German, France and Luxembourg combined to agree a vision statement for the future of the Eurozone and the EU. It called for a rapid progress of integration, and a broad ranging one at that. They recommended that….

“The on‐going integration process should not be limited to the field of economic and fiscal matters, or to the internal market and to agricultural policy. It should include all matters pertaining to the European ideal ‐ social and cultural affairs as well as foreign, security and defence policy. “

Now each time I talk about this renewed drive towards integration in this campaign, those on the Remain side tell me it will never happen, that there is no political support for it, that it is just a scare story, and in any case we won’t be affected.

Well let me tell them how wrong they are.

The process is already under way. And we will be affected whether we like it or not.

The Commission in Brussels is now embarking on a process that will lead to much deeper integration than we have even seen before now. Don’t believe me? Then listen to the man driving this next stage of change. Jean Claude Juncker. In his so-called State of the Union Speech last autumn.

“As part of these efforts, I will want to develop a European pillar of social rights, which takes account of the changing realities of Europe’s societies and the world of work. And which can serve as a compass for the renewed convergence within the euro area.

This European pillar of social rights should complement what we have already jointly achieved when it comes to the protection of workers in the EU. I will expect social partners to play a central role in this process. I believe we do well to start with this initiative within the euro area, while allowing other EU Member States to join in if they want to do so.”

Fine, so it only applies to the Euro member states. So we aren’t affected. Are we? Well actually we are…

The Social Pillar consultation was launched in Brussels in February. It’s clear where it is designed to end up.

“The pillar of social rights should be a self-standing reference document, of a legal nature, setting out key principles and values shared at EU level.”, it says.

And the Commission has set out the areas covered by the process.  

Among these are many areas where we already have protection or would want better protection in the UK.

They include:

  • A right to minimum pay;
  • Minimum measures to ensure awareness of rights and access to justice;
  • Access to lifelong learning and skills; and
  • Access to basic social services, including health care.

Let me make clear that I do not want to see social rights and protections diminished if we vote to leave the EU.

The point however is whether it is for the EU or for the people of the United Kingdom to control our rights and protections.

If we vote to remain in the EU then it would be EU rules that would determine our minimum wage, EU rules that would say how our pensions work, it would be EU rules to govern our skills system and even EU rules that would tell us how health services should work.

But that’s the Ever Closer Union that we are supposed no longer to be part of.

And this package is only for the Eurozone.

So what’s the problem.

Well Ladies and Gentlemen, the problem is this.

We have an opt-out from the Euro.

We have an opt-out from the Schengen Area

We have an opt-out from some Justice and Home Affairs measures.

But on everything else we have no opt out. We are subject to every law introduced by the EU and in the Eurozone.

On banking and financial services.

On business regulation.

And on EU social policy, on the so-called Social Europe, we have no opt out.

So we have a new list of EU social policies which will deepen integration across the Eurozone. But these will be EU laws passed in the normal way. There is no other method of doing so right now. And we have no opt-out from them.

Many of these measures will be things we already do well; some may be measures we would want in the UK.  The point is that it should be up to us to control what happens to the NHS, to workers’ rights and to social protection and control over these areas should not lie with Brussels.

So when there are new EU rules on pensions, skills and health, they will apply to us too. It means the EU starting to set the rules for our NHS. With no opt-out. And millions more people able to access our free at the point of delivery service as countries like Albania, Serbia and then Turkey join the EU.

And this is why we are not at all exempt from Ever Closer Union. Because the nuts and bolts of integration will come from new EU laws passed under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty itself is a huge part of the problem.

It is vaguely worded, and gives both the Commission and the European Court of Justice free rein to expand their brief and take over competences from the member states.

It’s already happened. Under the Treaty individual countries are supposed to be responsible for social security. But the European Court decided that the free movement rights of the European Citizen were more important, and now the EU controls more and more aspects of our benefit system. A treaty we signed in good faith is being rewritten by a Court whose president made a speech saying the job of the European Commission is to resist Euroscepticism.  

So what happens now then?

Well, nothing until after June 23rd. We know the Commission is on its best behaviour right now. Everyone in Brussels is under strict instructions not to rock the boat. Frankly I am surprised that they have even started the consultation on the Social Pillar now.

But the decision to delay anything controversial in Brussels until after our referendum is an open secret there. Legislation is being held back. The budget is being held back. The EU institutions are in lock down until the British decision is done and dusted.

But if we vote to remain, the plans move full steam ahead.

And just remember. This is not a political flight of fancy. They have no choice. The Eurozone cannot be confident of its survival unless they follow down this road. It was the Italian Finance Minister last year who said a move “straight towards political union” is the only way to ensure the survival of the common currency.

And Britain? What happens to us?

Our influence will diminish.

Our sovereignty will diminish.

Our ability to look after our own national interest will diminish.

There will be no “reformed European Union”, British style.

Instead we will be subject to most of the integration that the Eurozone is poised to embark upon whether we like it or not. We will have little or no say in what they decide is necessary to pursue their goal of political union.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is not for us.

I want us to live in an independent sovereign country. I want us to take back control of our democracy.

If we all want that, there is no alternative for us. On June 23rd we have to Vote Leave.