Continued from Why we MUST leave the European Union! – Part one.
As I said in the first section in this series, there is a lot more to the Brexit debate than just should we have our laws made in the UK or in Brussels?
The European experiment is steeped through with spiritual or occult overtones and with the ideas of those who are opposed to God’s plan for people to live in nations.
Europa on the Bull.
You will see a woman on a bull, all over the place around EU building and products. She is outside the Council of Ministers building in Brussels, outside the rear entrance of the European Parliament Building in Strasbourg and on coins and banknotes and stamps.
So who is this woman? Why is she on a bull? What does she have to do with the EU?
In the Greek myth, [When I talk about Greek myths, there may be more truth to it than you might want to believe]. In the Greek myth, their top god Zeus became infatuated by Europa, a Phoenician princess. He changed himself into a white bull and enticed her onto his back. Once she had sat upon him, he swam to Crete with her. In Crete, he changed back into his human form and raped her.
[You do not see many leftist or liberals protesting the constant reminder of misogyny and rape that is celebrated all over the European project, do you?]
So the story that is celebrated as part of the very identity of the European project, is the unwilling abduction and sexual assault by a rutting, unscrupulous deity of a young woman.
Quite what we are to take from this symbolism we can only guess at. But probably what we are being shown is, that the plan is to lead Europe against her better judgment, and by stealth and deception away until she is beyong help. Then when we are entirely in the power of Zuse, we will be shown that we are in a helpless situation, and Europe will be raped.
The elite of the world want to rape the people of the world. They think of you as no more than a cow to be milked and then taken to the butcher. Like Europa, are the people of Europe being lied to about the purpose of the trip and the eventual destination?
So who is Zeus?
Genesis chapter six tell us that, “When men began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives of all which they chose.”
Traditionally the Ben Eloha or ‘sons of God’ numbered several hundred, and they descended to Earth on Mount Harmon. Significantly this was a sacred place to both the Canaanites and the Hebrews who invaded their land. In later times shrines to the gods Baal, Zeus, Helios and Pan and the goddess Astarte were built on its slopes.
Zeus is either one of these demi-gods or spirit creations of God, or, he is one of the offspring of these minor gods and the women of earth.
By placing Europa on the Bull all over the European Union, the Eurocrats are secretly telling us something, (how can you secretly tell someone something? But I think you know what I mean). They are telling us about the destination and purpose of the EU. They are doing so right out in the open, but so that most will never see until it is too late.
The Brexit process is a big problem to them. David Cameron gambled that he could offer a referendum, that would commit us irrevocably into a deeper Europe. I believe by now we would have been involved with a European Army and on our way to an irrevocable union. But God, in his mercy is giving us an opportunity to get ourselves out of this snare.
We must pray for our government and seek that God will completely free us from the Globalist plot to ensnare us in Europe.
We could go further into this symbolism, and look at the Woman on the Beast of Revelation chapter 17, but we shall leave it here for now.
More to come later.
There is a lot more to the Brexit debate than just should we have our laws made in the UK or in Brussels?
The European experiment is steeped through with spiritual or occult overtones and with the ideas of those who are opposed to God’s plan for people to live in nations.
We hope to be covering this in our podcast this weekend. look for The Red Pill Report in your podcast app or find us on itunes or here on the podcast page.
EU Parliament Building.
The EU Parliament building is pretty obviously intended to look like or is modelled after the biblical tower of babel. Or perhaps more accurately is modelled after Pieter Brueghel the Elder’s painting “The Tower of Babel” (1563).
Though modernist in style, the parliament building is recognisably intended to represent the unfinished Tower of Bable. This is further supported by things like the famous Council of Europe poster depicting the EU Parliament building in the proses of being finished by the people of Europe. The test on the poster, “Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice.” Here a very strong connection is made not only to the image of the Tower of Bable in Brueghel’s painting, but also to the record of the Tower of Bable as recorded in the Bible.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” Genesis 11:4,5,9 (KJV)
As a side note: The stars on the Council of Europe poster are in the shape of the Sigil of Baphomet, (upside down tall or slim star,) the official insignia of the Church of Satan. Trademarked and copyrighted by the Church of Satan. The Sigil of Baphomet first appeared on the cover of The Satanic Mass LP in 1968 and later on the cover of The Satanic Bible in 1969.
The EU Parliament is, (in my mind), a statement about the intentions of the European Union. They are about opposing God’s intention that mankind should live in nations.
Individual, sovereign nations give checks and balances to the globe. No one nation, no one dictator, can become too powerful or too destructive. No one philosophy, or political or economic theory, no one social organisation, can become too powerful or pervasive.
Not every nation will kill the Jews, not every nation will oppress the church, or accept an Islamic social order. No one nation will indoctrinate its children with this or that philosophy.
In many ways, this is also why we should not have a national curriculum or a monoculture in farming. Diversity protects the health of the whole.
It is considered by many that the unfinished look of the EU parliament building is also meant to represent the unfinished work of Nimrod. That we too should be building a name for ourselves in defiance of God.
Europe, or rather the European Union is one of the building blocks of the loose group of peoples that are often called Globalist, or the New World Order, or the world elite.
People with a general goal of, bringing the whole world under a gradually introduced tyranny, the elimination of the worship of God, and the dependence on the state.
I should be able to give you more, but time is running out and I must get on with other things.
Next time hopefully Europa on the Bull.
Continued here, Why we MUST leave the European Union! – Part two.
A recent survey by The Royal Institute of International Affairs, (commonly known as Chatham House), Asked more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement, ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.’
The results of the survey suggest that UKIP, Trump and many of the conservative, national parties throughout Europe, are more in line with the views of their populations that the liberal media would like you to believe. These views are not extremist, but the norm.
The results show that across all ten of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.
25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed but on average 55% were opposed to more immigration from Muslim majority countries.
Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.
For several reasons I do not believe that this is because we are racist.
First, Islam is not a race. Nor is Islam really a religion either, or at least not just a religion. Islam is a total system of life and contains within itself a particular social system, judicial system, and political system which includes geo-political aspirations – the conquest and administration of territory. Islam is a political ideology with the goal of taking over the world. Very often a violent political ideology.
This ideology is incompatible with Christianity, Liberal Western Democracy, and our European legal system. Despite what we are often told, and despite the use that Islam makes of democracy and our courts, Islam teaches that Western laws and Western democracy is from man and is not acceptable. The only law that Islam recognises is Sharia, and the only form of government is an Islamic theocracy.
This is not to say that many, many Muslims are not nice people. They are. They are hospitable, nice, law abiding citizens. But Islam requires that a country be moved from liberal western democracy to an Islamic theocracy, with Sharia as its law.
Even in European countries where Islam is a minority, the thin end of the wedge of Sharia is firmly being put into place with many Sharia courts hearing cases each week.
It is not that the people of Europe are racist, it is that Europeans do not want to live under the religious dictatorship of Islamic mullers enforcing Sharia law upon us.
A few examples of laws under Sharia:
- Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
- Criticising or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
- Criticising Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
- Criticising or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
- A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
- A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
- A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
- A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
Secondly, as a Christian, I do not believe that we have different races.
“[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” (Acts 17:26)
We are all members of the human race. We are different nations, but one race.
It is possible that we are ethnocentric, but why is that a sin? If I want to be with people who live by the standards that I live by, who have similar values, that does not make me evil. Just human.
Nor are Europeans or Americans evil if they do not want to live under Islam or Sharia. There is not one Muslim majority country that I want to move to. You may be ok living there as a protected western worker or a diplomat or the like, but to live there as a Christian, or a woman. No thanks.
Demographic challenge facing Europe.
Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography; Associate Fellow, Department of Social Policy and Intervention at the University of Oxford predicts that:-
- Foreigners and non-white Britons living in the UK are expected to make up a quarter of the UK population by 2025
- Foreigners and non-white Britons living in the UK will double by 2040 and reaching one-third of the UK population.
- White Britons ‘will be in minority by 2066.
People who are worried about this are not filled with hate, they are filled with concern.
Unfortunately, I am still not free to work at The Red Pill Report full time yet, so I have not been able to see very much of the debate during the second reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. However, I was able to listen to a little of it, mostly while doing the washing up.
I by no means support all that my MP says or does, but I was very pleased with the speech of Oliver Letwin. It was one of very few I heard that appeared to make sense. I am sure there were many other good speeches, but not while I was listening.
So many of the speakers, members of parliament, were just ignorant of the facts around the subject. For example, during the few minutes that I was able to listen to the debate, several MP spoke of the terrible time that EU migrants in their continuances that are apparently suffering terribly not knowing if they are about to be thrown out of the UK. However, on the 17th of January 2017, just two weeks ago, Theresa May in her Brexit vision speech said, “We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states.”
So why, when they are upset at the small amount of time given to debate the ‘European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, are so many MP’s demanding what they have already been told the government is determined to give them?
Having said that, let us rejoice that MPs voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way.
But the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled. However, the bill was passed and passes on to the community stage of its scrutiny.
Wow, what an amazing speech?
Who would have believed a few years ago that we would see such an amazing move to repatriate the power of our parliament.
On the whole, I believe that we should be thanking God for the clarity and clear approach that Theresa May has set forward and that despite her starting out on the ‘remain’ side of the argument, that she is now setting out such a clear and pro-UK-independence vision for Brexit. Full text here
If you have not see the full speech I highly recommend it Video below and full text here.
I have a few comment after this video.
“The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life.” Yes, we do not want to be controlled by European bureaucrat that we can not elect or sack.
“It was a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination…” The first step in restoring our nation to any form of morality has to be to gain control of our national sovereignty.
“We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship.” Yes, trade, not control.
“Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.” Great!
“This will give the country maximum certainty as we leave the EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as they did before. And it will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate.” Humm, not very keen on the move of a great many EU laws into UK law, but probably there is not an easy alternative.
“So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country.” GREAT!
“… we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.” Good.
“But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.” Great.
“Since joining the EU, trade as a percentage of GDP has broadly stagnated in the UK. That is why it is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.” Very good.
“That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.” Again good.
“I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” VERY good.
On the whole, this was a great speech and I am very encouraged that we are moving in the right direction. However, I have a few concerns.
“we chose to build a truly Global Britain.” I would have preferred something like “Britain, trading globally.” Let us hope that, that is what she meant. “Global Britain” is mentioned ten times and the word ‘Global’ 15 times. Let us pray that this is a view to global trade, not globalism.
“It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed.” Not sure why? Squabbling nations would not be good, but nor may a powerful body with a vision for ever closer union etc.
“… to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.” Let us whole again that this is with a view to trade, not globalism.
“And it is why, as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.” As above, not a great idea, but there may be little practical alternative. At least we can then start to modify or get rid of these laws as appropriate.
The Twelve Points
- Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU.
- Control of our own laws. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
- Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
- Deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland.
- Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.
Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU.
- We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.
- Protect workers’ rights. Not only will the government protect the rights of workers set out in European legislation, we will build on them.
- Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
- New trade agreements with other countries. It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.
- The best place for science and innovation. We will welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives.
- Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.
- A smooth, orderly Brexit. We believe a phased process of implementation will be in the interests of Britain, the EU institutions and member states.
Indiscriminate collection of emails is illegal, EU court rules in response to challenge originally brought by David Davis.
Now I have a problem here. I am NOT in favour of the European Union, nor of us being under the European court of justice. Having said that… I am not in favour of the government collecting all of our emails and browsing data either.
OK, if I had the choice I would say, ‘let us get out of the EU, then we can tackle our government’s problems, but while we are still in the EU, I guess I am happy for us to make the best use we can of its powers.
The EU’s highest court has ruled that “General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal. This judgment will undoubtedly trigger further challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper’s charter.
The European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg’s decision implies that only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime – including terrorism – is justified, should be allowed.
This is one small step forward, but we really need to bring this before the Lord, seeking his preservation of our freedom.
The problem with laws that are so loosely written as the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is that they suffer from creep. We were originally told that the UK’s abortion laws would only lead to a handful of emergency abortions each year, but now there are now nearly 200,000 abortions in the UK and the acceptance of abortions as normal has spread almost right across the world. In Sep 2005 an 82-year-old Labour Party member was roughly thrown out of the party conference for heckling Jack Straw. When he tried to re-enter the secure zone, he was stopped by a police officer citing the Terrorism Act.
There can be many good arguments made for the Investigatory Powers Act, the need to combat terrorism or child trafficking being just two. But it will not stop there. In the end, it will, unless checked, end up stopping the free exercise of investigation and free speech.