Nu kom sprogfejlen frem igen i DR 1´s TV-nyheder kl. 21 tirsdag ¾. Den vokser sig snart fast.
Det latinske ord virus hedder ikke vira i flertal. Virus hedder virus også i flertal.
(Hvis det hed vira, kunne man forledes til at tro, at det hed virum i ental. Men Virum ligger nord for København).
april 03, 2007
Tysklands udemokratiske CDU
Hodjas blog http://hodja.wordpress.com/ gør opmærksom på en sag i Køln:
I München satte Bayerns regering en stopper for tanken om en stormoské i september 2006.
Med den begrundelse, at en sådan ville udgøre et fremmedlegeme i bybilledet og kunne betyde en trussel mod den den sociale boligfred blandt borgerne.
I Køln gjorde man sig forhåbninger om en lignende afgørelse. Protestbevægelsen ”Pro-Köln” har indsamlet 20.000 underskrifter med ”Nein zur Kölner Gross-Moschee”, men overborgmester Fritz Schramma har nægtet at tage imod underskrifterne. Dem kan de aflevere på kontoret for klager, d.v.s. dér hvor enkeltpersoner eller smågrupper af borgere kan indlevere anmodninger om lokalbus, gågængerovergange, indvalideskilte o.l.
Det var altså nærmest en overlegen hån mod den tyske forfatning og mod de borgere, der havde vist tillid til demokratiet og den borgmester, de havde valgt. Og det til trods for, at overborgmesteren er fra partiet Tysklands Kristelige demokratiske Union (CDU). Partiet kalder sig også Tyskland EU-parti. Det falder bedre i hak, for EU har jo allerede i årevis vist, at de hælder til diktaturet og ikke har meget med demokrati at gøre. Netop derfor har de jo siden det højlydte NEJ til EU-forfatningsforslaget udtalt, at der fremover burde være mere åbenhed og mere demokrati. Desuden er folk, der kalder sig kristne eller kristelige ofte fantastisk godtroende.
Gud bevares, det er da smukt at vise tillid til sine medmennesker, men det fører ofte til ulykker ikke bare for de godtroende selv, men for mange andre.
På CDU´s partidag den 26. marts tog de moskésagen op. Unionschef Walter Reinarz og Fraktionsformand Winrich Granitzka partiet tog skarp afstand fra gruppen ”Nej til Stormoské”, som de kaldte højreextremistisk og erklærede, at hvis nogen i partiet holdt med denne borgergruppe, så ville de exludere dem af partiet. Jörg Uckermann, den lokale partiformand i bydelen Ehrenfelder Ortsverband, hvor moskéen skulle placeres, havde tidligere erklæret sig imod moskébyggeriet, men turde åbenbart ikke stå fast på sin mening ved truslen om excludering og bakkede til en mindre farlig position: det var den arkitektoniske udformning, som var ham imod.
Bløddyr.
I München satte Bayerns regering en stopper for tanken om en stormoské i september 2006.
Med den begrundelse, at en sådan ville udgøre et fremmedlegeme i bybilledet og kunne betyde en trussel mod den den sociale boligfred blandt borgerne.
I Køln gjorde man sig forhåbninger om en lignende afgørelse. Protestbevægelsen ”Pro-Köln” har indsamlet 20.000 underskrifter med ”Nein zur Kölner Gross-Moschee”, men overborgmester Fritz Schramma har nægtet at tage imod underskrifterne. Dem kan de aflevere på kontoret for klager, d.v.s. dér hvor enkeltpersoner eller smågrupper af borgere kan indlevere anmodninger om lokalbus, gågængerovergange, indvalideskilte o.l.
Det var altså nærmest en overlegen hån mod den tyske forfatning og mod de borgere, der havde vist tillid til demokratiet og den borgmester, de havde valgt. Og det til trods for, at overborgmesteren er fra partiet Tysklands Kristelige demokratiske Union (CDU). Partiet kalder sig også Tyskland EU-parti. Det falder bedre i hak, for EU har jo allerede i årevis vist, at de hælder til diktaturet og ikke har meget med demokrati at gøre. Netop derfor har de jo siden det højlydte NEJ til EU-forfatningsforslaget udtalt, at der fremover burde være mere åbenhed og mere demokrati. Desuden er folk, der kalder sig kristne eller kristelige ofte fantastisk godtroende.
Gud bevares, det er da smukt at vise tillid til sine medmennesker, men det fører ofte til ulykker ikke bare for de godtroende selv, men for mange andre.
På CDU´s partidag den 26. marts tog de moskésagen op. Unionschef Walter Reinarz og Fraktionsformand Winrich Granitzka partiet tog skarp afstand fra gruppen ”Nej til Stormoské”, som de kaldte højreextremistisk og erklærede, at hvis nogen i partiet holdt med denne borgergruppe, så ville de exludere dem af partiet. Jörg Uckermann, den lokale partiformand i bydelen Ehrenfelder Ortsverband, hvor moskéen skulle placeres, havde tidligere erklæret sig imod moskébyggeriet, men turde åbenbart ikke stå fast på sin mening ved truslen om excludering og bakkede til en mindre farlig position: det var den arkitektoniske udformning, som var ham imod.
Bløddyr.
april 02, 2007
Særlige menneskerettigeheder godtaget
FN´s Råd for Menneskelige Rettigheder vedtog i sidste uge med én stemmes overvægt et forbud mod at kritisere islam.
Forbudet indebærer således fuld godtagelse af islams ideologi og fremfærd i diverse lande. Det vil sige, at menneskerettighederne nu accepterer
1) omskærelse af pigebørn
2) tvangsægteskaber
3) Stening af kvinder for utroskab
4) Ægtemandens tugt og vold mod konen
5) Voldtægt af konen eller af andre
6) Indespærring af konen
7) Polygami
8) Vold mod børnene
9) Æresdrab
10) Merværdi af mænd ved arv og vidnesbyrd for retten
11) At hugge hænderne af tyveknægte
12) Mishandling og vold mod mennesker af anden religiøs opfattelse såsom piskning, korsfæstelse og mord
13) Henrettelse af frafaldne muslimer
14) Dhimmibegrebet
15) Ren/uren begrebet (=apartheid-system)
16) Etc. etc. etc.
De 24 lande, der stemte for var til stor del islamiske og/eller diktatoriske: Algeriet, Azerbajdzjan. Bahrain, Bangladesh, Kamerun, Kina, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesien, Jordanien, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexiko, Marocko, Pakistan, Filippinerne, Rusland, Saudiarabien, Senegal, Sydafrika, Sri Lanka og Tunesien.
De 14, der stemte imod var: Canada, Tjekiet, Finland, Frankrig, Tyskland, Guatemala, Japan, Holland, Polen, Sydkorea, Rumänien, Schweiz, Ukraine og Storbritanien.
9 lande stemte ikke: Argentina, Brasilien, Equador, Ghana, Indien, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay og Zambia.
Kilde: den svenske avis ”Världen i dag” 2.4.07
Forbudet indebærer således fuld godtagelse af islams ideologi og fremfærd i diverse lande. Det vil sige, at menneskerettighederne nu accepterer
1) omskærelse af pigebørn
2) tvangsægteskaber
3) Stening af kvinder for utroskab
4) Ægtemandens tugt og vold mod konen
5) Voldtægt af konen eller af andre
6) Indespærring af konen
7) Polygami
8) Vold mod børnene
9) Æresdrab
10) Merværdi af mænd ved arv og vidnesbyrd for retten
11) At hugge hænderne af tyveknægte
12) Mishandling og vold mod mennesker af anden religiøs opfattelse såsom piskning, korsfæstelse og mord
13) Henrettelse af frafaldne muslimer
14) Dhimmibegrebet
15) Ren/uren begrebet (=apartheid-system)
16) Etc. etc. etc.
De 24 lande, der stemte for var til stor del islamiske og/eller diktatoriske: Algeriet, Azerbajdzjan. Bahrain, Bangladesh, Kamerun, Kina, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesien, Jordanien, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexiko, Marocko, Pakistan, Filippinerne, Rusland, Saudiarabien, Senegal, Sydafrika, Sri Lanka og Tunesien.
De 14, der stemte imod var: Canada, Tjekiet, Finland, Frankrig, Tyskland, Guatemala, Japan, Holland, Polen, Sydkorea, Rumänien, Schweiz, Ukraine og Storbritanien.
9 lande stemte ikke: Argentina, Brasilien, Equador, Ghana, Indien, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay og Zambia.
Kilde: den svenske avis ”Världen i dag” 2.4.07
Ligesom gidselhenretninger
Apropos Agantyrs udmærkede blog om "Dhimmitude", som jeg af teknisk ukyndighed dsværre ikke kan forsyne med nedenstående kommentar på hans egen blog http://angantyr.blogspot.com/2007/04/klassisk-dhimmitude.html:
Er vi blevet forhårdede og ligeglade uberørte over for landbrugsdyrenes lidelser, hvad enten det drejer sig om grisetransporter eller halalslagtning? Myndighederne gav efter over for islamisk halalslagtning. De undskyldte sig med, at dyrene blev bedøvet lige inden de fik halsen skåret over, så blodet langsomt kunne løbe af. Men denne eftergivenhed virker også som en stiltiende accept af hjemmeslagtning, hvor der ikke er tale om bedøvelse. (Samme fremgangsmåde som fra muslimsk henretning af gidsler!). Har nogen hørt om at hjemmeslagtere er blevet anmeldt for dyreplageri og straffet efter loven?
Ikke nok med de umiddelbare lidelser, men slagteriernes halalslagtning indebærer også betaling til imamen, der fremfører en bøn til Allah. Pengene betales naturligvis af kunderne, og beløbet, som i Danmark årligt opgår til millioner af kroner, bruges til fremme af islamiseringen af vort land.
Er vi blevet forhårdede og ligeglade uberørte over for landbrugsdyrenes lidelser, hvad enten det drejer sig om grisetransporter eller halalslagtning? Myndighederne gav efter over for islamisk halalslagtning. De undskyldte sig med, at dyrene blev bedøvet lige inden de fik halsen skåret over, så blodet langsomt kunne løbe af. Men denne eftergivenhed virker også som en stiltiende accept af hjemmeslagtning, hvor der ikke er tale om bedøvelse. (Samme fremgangsmåde som fra muslimsk henretning af gidsler!). Har nogen hørt om at hjemmeslagtere er blevet anmeldt for dyreplageri og straffet efter loven?
Ikke nok med de umiddelbare lidelser, men slagteriernes halalslagtning indebærer også betaling til imamen, der fremfører en bøn til Allah. Pengene betales naturligvis af kunderne, og beløbet, som i Danmark årligt opgår til millioner af kroner, bruges til fremme af islamiseringen af vort land.
april 01, 2007
Mest simple og dyriske krigsmetode
Bær hijab eller bliv voldtaget! Siger Mostafa Chendid, der afløste afdøde Abu Laban som imam i København. ”Når en kvinde svanser af sted, så frister det mændene”, siger Mostafa
Hans undskyldning og forsvar for så grove forbrydelser som voldtægt er ganske uansvarlige, da de jo - hans stilling i betragtning - nærmest er en opfordring til overfald på vore kvinder. Han burde omgående sendes hjem til det land, han kommer fra og forbydes indrejse.
Afdelingslæge, Katrine Sidenius fra Rigshospitalets Center for Voldtægtsofre, har tidligere forklaret, at det mere end noget gælder en magtdemonstration og kvindeforagt, når mere end én mand deltager i en voldtægt eller et voldtægtsforsøg. Og det har vist sig at være tilfældet i hver 6. overfald ifølge en rapport fra nævnte Center for Voldtægtsofre. Centeret har kortlagt i alt 1100 henvendelser, og i 16 procent af henvendelserne var der mere end én gerningsmand. Disse deltager aktivt eller hjælper med. Der er tale om dyb kvindeforagt, og det handler om at demonstrere magt og ydmyge kvinder.
Voldtægt er den mest simple og dyriske krigsmetode, mennesket kan gøre sig skyldig til, og islamister fører jo krig mod os ”vantro” i det, de kalder ”Krigens Hus”, d.v.s. det geografiske område, som endnu ikke har kapituleret og overgivet sig til islam.
Kurven for voldtægter er stærkt stigende både i Danmark og i Sverige. Det ligner et bevidst mønster, en opfordring eller aftale, et våben som hver mand har ved hånden.
Vore landes naive og eftergivende regeringer mægter ikke at beskytte deres borgere, hverken børn, mænd eller kvinder. Sidstnævnte kan ikke færdes trygt på gaderne, men risikerer voldtægter af bindegale mandfolk fra pøbelagtigt rakkerpak.
Ovennævnte imam er ikke værdig at bo i vort land. Smid ham ud!
Hans undskyldning og forsvar for så grove forbrydelser som voldtægt er ganske uansvarlige, da de jo - hans stilling i betragtning - nærmest er en opfordring til overfald på vore kvinder. Han burde omgående sendes hjem til det land, han kommer fra og forbydes indrejse.
Afdelingslæge, Katrine Sidenius fra Rigshospitalets Center for Voldtægtsofre, har tidligere forklaret, at det mere end noget gælder en magtdemonstration og kvindeforagt, når mere end én mand deltager i en voldtægt eller et voldtægtsforsøg. Og det har vist sig at være tilfældet i hver 6. overfald ifølge en rapport fra nævnte Center for Voldtægtsofre. Centeret har kortlagt i alt 1100 henvendelser, og i 16 procent af henvendelserne var der mere end én gerningsmand. Disse deltager aktivt eller hjælper med. Der er tale om dyb kvindeforagt, og det handler om at demonstrere magt og ydmyge kvinder.
Voldtægt er den mest simple og dyriske krigsmetode, mennesket kan gøre sig skyldig til, og islamister fører jo krig mod os ”vantro” i det, de kalder ”Krigens Hus”, d.v.s. det geografiske område, som endnu ikke har kapituleret og overgivet sig til islam.
Kurven for voldtægter er stærkt stigende både i Danmark og i Sverige. Det ligner et bevidst mønster, en opfordring eller aftale, et våben som hver mand har ved hånden.
Vore landes naive og eftergivende regeringer mægter ikke at beskytte deres borgere, hverken børn, mænd eller kvinder. Sidstnævnte kan ikke færdes trygt på gaderne, men risikerer voldtægter af bindegale mandfolk fra pøbelagtigt rakkerpak.
Ovennævnte imam er ikke værdig at bo i vort land. Smid ham ud!
marts 31, 2007
Mere om Estonia-forliset
Den tyske journalist Jutta Rabe ignorerede den ”gravfred”, som myndighederne i Sverige og andre Østersølande havde lyst over ulykkesstedet, og foretog dykninger ved vraget trods forbudet. De mange fortielser og mørkelægninger omkring haveriet pegede på, at myndighederne havde noget i klemme. Hvorfor skulle man ellers foreslå at begrave vraget under cement?
Der udstedtes arrestordre mod Jutta Rabe i de lande, som havde underskrevet ”gravfreden”, men den udløb 2006, og her i marts var Rabe så på besøg i Sverige. Hun har navnene på 6 højt ansatte militærfolk fra Estland, Finland og Tyskland, som har bekræftet over for hende, at russisk militærmateriel befandt sig i to lastbiler om bord på Estonia på ulykkesnatten. Det er tidligere kommet frem, at man havde lignende transporter den 14. september og den 20. september - altså kort før Estonias havari 1994. Man har hævdet, at der selve den skæbnesvangre nat ikke var tale om transport af militærmateriel, men Jutta Rabe mener, det er løgn.
En expertgruppe, der er nedsat af Estlands regering, skal udarbejde ny rapport til oktober 2007. Den arbejder under ledelse af rigsadvokaten Margus Kurm, som også har navnene på de 6 ovennævnte militærfolk. Nævner han dem ikke, vil Jutta Rabe offentliggøre dem, siger hun og forventer, at nogen vil blive anklaget i forbindelse med havariet.
Kilde: TT
Der udstedtes arrestordre mod Jutta Rabe i de lande, som havde underskrevet ”gravfreden”, men den udløb 2006, og her i marts var Rabe så på besøg i Sverige. Hun har navnene på 6 højt ansatte militærfolk fra Estland, Finland og Tyskland, som har bekræftet over for hende, at russisk militærmateriel befandt sig i to lastbiler om bord på Estonia på ulykkesnatten. Det er tidligere kommet frem, at man havde lignende transporter den 14. september og den 20. september - altså kort før Estonias havari 1994. Man har hævdet, at der selve den skæbnesvangre nat ikke var tale om transport af militærmateriel, men Jutta Rabe mener, det er løgn.
En expertgruppe, der er nedsat af Estlands regering, skal udarbejde ny rapport til oktober 2007. Den arbejder under ledelse af rigsadvokaten Margus Kurm, som også har navnene på de 6 ovennævnte militærfolk. Nævner han dem ikke, vil Jutta Rabe offentliggøre dem, siger hun og forventer, at nogen vil blive anklaget i forbindelse med havariet.
Kilde: TT
Som i børnenes sanglege
Bloggen Veritas Universalis omtaler det vanvittige projekt, som EU tidligere har luftet, nemlig at lave lister med ord, vi alle burde undgå for ikke at krænke de følsomme og let krænkelige individer, som har slået sig ned i vort naboskab uden at kunne tåle mosten.
Det viser sig, at EU virkelig har lavet sådanne ordlister…
Sverige, som blandt alle EU´s lydstater synes at være duksen, har allerede i 2004 kunnet fremvise en håndbog med råd om, hvad man må sige og ikke sige. Det var Tjänstemännens Central Organisation (TCO), som lavede en folder under titlen ”Ord, som taggar” (”Ord, der flænser”).
Det omtaltes i det svenske ”Metro” 28.2.2004. Blandt de grimme ord, der skal undgås nævnes: ”indvandrere, adoptivbarn, farvet, race, arabisk udseende, sort, neger” m.m.
Et læserbrev gør tykt nar af al denne idioti: man må skrive alle leksika og ordbøger om, lovbøgerne m.m., og det bliver lidt vanskelig at føre almindelige samtaler…
I børnehaverne kender man jo godt sanglege, hvor man ved bestemte ord, tier stille og måske gør et tegn med hænderne i stedet for. Det bliver vel noget i den retning som bliver fremtidens politisk korrekte sprog…
Det viser sig, at EU virkelig har lavet sådanne ordlister…
Sverige, som blandt alle EU´s lydstater synes at være duksen, har allerede i 2004 kunnet fremvise en håndbog med råd om, hvad man må sige og ikke sige. Det var Tjänstemännens Central Organisation (TCO), som lavede en folder under titlen ”Ord, som taggar” (”Ord, der flænser”).
Det omtaltes i det svenske ”Metro” 28.2.2004. Blandt de grimme ord, der skal undgås nævnes: ”indvandrere, adoptivbarn, farvet, race, arabisk udseende, sort, neger” m.m.
Et læserbrev gør tykt nar af al denne idioti: man må skrive alle leksika og ordbøger om, lovbøgerne m.m., og det bliver lidt vanskelig at føre almindelige samtaler…
I børnehaverne kender man jo godt sanglege, hvor man ved bestemte ord, tier stille og måske gør et tegn med hænderne i stedet for. Det bliver vel noget i den retning som bliver fremtidens politisk korrekte sprog…
marts 30, 2007
"Jävla politiker"
Avisen ”Världen idag”, som ofte har vist, at den tør sige mere end andre, tager igen fat på ”Estonia”-havariet natten mellem 28. og 29. september 1994. Ulykken blev hurtigt mørkelagt af den svenske regering, hvilket gav anledning til mange gisninger og historier, men også et stigende pres på de svenske myndigheder om grundigere undersøgelser. Estlands regering har påtalt Sveriges fortielser og tågesløring.
Nu viser det sig, at en søofficér, Emil Svensson, som var med i regeringen Bildts sikkerhedspolitiske analysegruppe, allerede få timer efter ulykken kunne fortælle Bildt, at ulykken efter al sandsynlighed skyldtes, at der måtte være opstået et stort hul under vandlinjen, eftersom så meget vand kunne fosse ind så hurtigt og vælte færgen. Men hvad der havde forårsaget hullet vidste man ikke. Måske et sammenstød med en u-båd eller noget andet. Søfartsnævnet og dets mest kyndige søsikkerhedsexpert meddelte Carl Bildt straks efter haveriet, at ulykken ikke kunne skyldes, at bovvisiret skulle være faldet af, sådan som Bildt havde for sig. Bildt blev vred over denne oplysning og blev ved med historien om bovvisiret...
Få timer efter ulykken fulgte ovennævnte søofficer med Bildt til Åbo for at mødes med Finlands og Estlands statsministre angående haveriet. I Åbo fremførte Bild, at det var tydeligt, at bovvisiret havde revet sig løs, og han fortsatte med denne ”information”. Han ignorerede dermed både regeringens søfartsexpertise og Søfartsnævnets søsikkerhedsdirektør Bengt-Erik Stenmark.
Stenmark gik imidlertid i massemedierne imod Carl Bilds katastrofeteori, og det kom til at koste ham hans stilling. Han blev på ydmygende vis tvunget til at gå af.
Hvorfor blev Carl Bild vred over, at søofficer Emil Svensson forkastede hans teori og hvorfor blev søsikkerhedsdirektør Stenmark fyret?
Carl Bild må have vidst - (hvad der først langt senere er kommet frem ved pres mod den svenske regering) -, at færgen flere gange illegalt havde transporteret militærtekniske hemmeligheder…
Efter 12 års forlöb synes vi at nærme os sandheden noget, men når vi helt frem?
Nu viser det sig, at en søofficér, Emil Svensson, som var med i regeringen Bildts sikkerhedspolitiske analysegruppe, allerede få timer efter ulykken kunne fortælle Bildt, at ulykken efter al sandsynlighed skyldtes, at der måtte være opstået et stort hul under vandlinjen, eftersom så meget vand kunne fosse ind så hurtigt og vælte færgen. Men hvad der havde forårsaget hullet vidste man ikke. Måske et sammenstød med en u-båd eller noget andet. Søfartsnævnet og dets mest kyndige søsikkerhedsexpert meddelte Carl Bildt straks efter haveriet, at ulykken ikke kunne skyldes, at bovvisiret skulle være faldet af, sådan som Bildt havde for sig. Bildt blev vred over denne oplysning og blev ved med historien om bovvisiret...
Få timer efter ulykken fulgte ovennævnte søofficer med Bildt til Åbo for at mødes med Finlands og Estlands statsministre angående haveriet. I Åbo fremførte Bild, at det var tydeligt, at bovvisiret havde revet sig løs, og han fortsatte med denne ”information”. Han ignorerede dermed både regeringens søfartsexpertise og Søfartsnævnets søsikkerhedsdirektør Bengt-Erik Stenmark.
Stenmark gik imidlertid i massemedierne imod Carl Bilds katastrofeteori, og det kom til at koste ham hans stilling. Han blev på ydmygende vis tvunget til at gå af.
Hvorfor blev Carl Bild vred over, at søofficer Emil Svensson forkastede hans teori og hvorfor blev søsikkerhedsdirektør Stenmark fyret?
Carl Bild må have vidst - (hvad der først langt senere er kommet frem ved pres mod den svenske regering) -, at færgen flere gange illegalt havde transporteret militærtekniske hemmeligheder…
Efter 12 års forlöb synes vi at nærme os sandheden noget, men når vi helt frem?
Fri muslimsk indvandring
”Fri muslimsk Indvandring”. Et chockerende budskab for mange!
Men det er faktisk, hvad der allerede er aftalt mellem EU og alle de islamiske Middelhavslande fra Tyrkiet og avet om til Marokko. Kun aftalen med Syrien halter lidt bagefter. Associationsaftalerne er det håndgribelige resultat af den såkaldte Barcelonaproces, hvis forhandlinger - uden EU-befolkningernes vidende - tog fart for 12 år siden. Man har fra EU´s side gjort alt for at mørkelægge sine gerninger, da man jo givetvis ikke er blind for den tiltagende opposition imod forhandlingerne med Tyrkiet. Endog selve ”processen” har skiftet navn og kalder sig nu ”Anna Lindh Fonden”. Skal det borge for retsind og ærlighed? Organisationens tilholdssted ligger i det muslimske Ægypten, og dets propaganda taler sit tydelige sprog om, at de europæiske befolkninger skal ”genopdrages” i islamisk ånd, så de kan integreres i de muslimske lande.
Men det er faktisk, hvad der allerede er aftalt mellem EU og alle de islamiske Middelhavslande fra Tyrkiet og avet om til Marokko. Kun aftalen med Syrien halter lidt bagefter. Associationsaftalerne er det håndgribelige resultat af den såkaldte Barcelonaproces, hvis forhandlinger - uden EU-befolkningernes vidende - tog fart for 12 år siden. Man har fra EU´s side gjort alt for at mørkelægge sine gerninger, da man jo givetvis ikke er blind for den tiltagende opposition imod forhandlingerne med Tyrkiet. Endog selve ”processen” har skiftet navn og kalder sig nu ”Anna Lindh Fonden”. Skal det borge for retsind og ærlighed? Organisationens tilholdssted ligger i det muslimske Ægypten, og dets propaganda taler sit tydelige sprog om, at de europæiske befolkninger skal ”genopdrages” i islamisk ånd, så de kan integreres i de muslimske lande.
marts 29, 2007
EU er ingen garanti for fred!
Kasper Elbjørn skrev i går (28/3) på bloggen Cepos, at EU-kommissionens formand, Jose Barroso i anledning af EU´s 50-årsdag havde indstillet Helmut Kohl til Nobels fredspris for hans indsats for genforeningen af det gennemskårne Tyskland og en sammenslutning af Europas lande til en slags Europas forenede stater.
Elbjørn henviser til teksten i den nedstemte forfatningstraktat: at ”vi” med den Europæiske Union har besluttet at dele en fredelig fremtid, der bygger på fælles værdier i ”en stadig tættere sammenslutning”.
Men sandheden er den, at ”vi” (befolkningerne i Europa) aldrig har besluttet noget som helst angående EU på demokratisk vis, d.v.s. efter grundig information og åben debat. Tvært imod har ”man” (magthaverne) fortiet og/eller fordrejet deres politiske spil og løgnagtigt benægtet de tiltag, man har tilladt sig.
Uden befolkningernes sanktion åbnede EU for folkevandringen fra de islamiske lande og lod Europa islamisere for tilsammen med de arabiske og osmanniske lande og de nordafrikanske stater at skabe storstaten Eurabia.
Det turde være yderst tvivlsomt om dette projekt på nogen måde skulle bidrage til en ”fredelig fremtid”. Alt tyder på det modsatte, når vi ser på den fremfærd, som ”fredens religion” har demonstreret i Mellemøsten og andre steder.
Det er naivt at tro, at Europas folkeslag vil finde sig i underkastelse under islam.
Elbjørn henviser til teksten i den nedstemte forfatningstraktat: at ”vi” med den Europæiske Union har besluttet at dele en fredelig fremtid, der bygger på fælles værdier i ”en stadig tættere sammenslutning”.
Men sandheden er den, at ”vi” (befolkningerne i Europa) aldrig har besluttet noget som helst angående EU på demokratisk vis, d.v.s. efter grundig information og åben debat. Tvært imod har ”man” (magthaverne) fortiet og/eller fordrejet deres politiske spil og løgnagtigt benægtet de tiltag, man har tilladt sig.
Uden befolkningernes sanktion åbnede EU for folkevandringen fra de islamiske lande og lod Europa islamisere for tilsammen med de arabiske og osmanniske lande og de nordafrikanske stater at skabe storstaten Eurabia.
Det turde være yderst tvivlsomt om dette projekt på nogen måde skulle bidrage til en ”fredelig fremtid”. Alt tyder på det modsatte, når vi ser på den fremfærd, som ”fredens religion” har demonstreret i Mellemøsten og andre steder.
Det er naivt at tro, at Europas folkeslag vil finde sig i underkastelse under islam.
marts 28, 2007
Ytringsfrihed før og nu
Selvom det var en ganske almindelig hverdag, var Forfatterforeningens lokaler i Tordenskjolds Gård på Christianshavn stopfyldt med forventningsfulde gæster, da Danmarks første journalistpris for ytringsfrihed skulle uddeles. Helle Merete Brix fra Trykkefrihedsselskabet bød velkommen og fortalte kort om formålet med denne af selskabet oprettede Sappho-pris.
Helle Storhaug, som står bag den kendte hjemmeside ”HRS, Human Rights Service” i Norge - holdt tale for Flemming Rose, som havde holdt stand, da Mellemøsten gik amok og brændte flag og ambassader. De krævede Nordens grundlovssikrede ytringsfrihed sat på porten og journalistens og tegnernes hoveder på et fad, og bakkedes op af ”danske” islam-medløbere. Hun sluttede af med de ord, som Theo van Goghs mor skal have udtalt ved sønnens begravelse: Ytringsfrihed er ikke for bange mennesker.
Se Snaphanen http://dansk-svensk.blogspot.com/
Vi har været så forvænt med ytringsfrihed, at vi slet ikke rigtigt fattede, hvad der skete ved ”Muhammedkrisen”. Med vantro og forbløffelse så vi både privatpersoner, handelsfirmaer og myndigheder såvel på hjemmeplan som i EU blive svage i koderne. Og da vore skoler forlængst har ignoreret historieundervisningen, er der måske ikke så mange, der husker, at også det lille Danmark har haft enevælde. På Chr. Den Femtes tid kunne satire mod kongehuset føre til at man blev dømt fra ære, liv og gods!
Det var Struensee, der i 1770 indførte trykkefriheden, for derefter selv at blive udsat for en ren storm af tilsvining. Da man huggede hånd og hoved af ham, strøg man mange af hans love, og trykkefriheden blev indskrænket , idet regeringens politik ikke måtte diskuteres i pressen.
Flere andre tiltag ramte ytrings- og trykkefriheden. Således blev en oversættelse af Goethes ”Werther” forbudt og P.A.Heibergs ”Ordener hænger man på idioter” førte til nye angreb på friheden og censur af visse forfattere og fra 1814 af aviserne. Sidenhen af Dr. Dampe og Grundtvig. Redaktøren af det national liberale ugeblad ”Fædrelandet” mistede sin professorstilling ved Køben-havns Universitet.
Da der i 1835 afleveredes en omfattende trykkefrihedsadresse til Frederik den Sjette, var det, at kongen udtalte: ”Vi alene vide”, men kun en måneds tid efter oprettedes ”Selskabet for Trykkefrihedens rette Brug”, som udgav skriftet ”Dansk Folkeblad” indtil 1848.
Så var grundloven på trapperne og blev til virkelighed 1849 den 5. juni (datoen for grevinde Danners søns fødselsdag!).
”Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde på ny indføres”. Tag vare på grundlovens bestemmelse! Den er grundlag for al demokrati og angribes voldsomt af den islamiske autoritære ideologi og dens sympatisører.
Helle Storhaug, som står bag den kendte hjemmeside ”HRS, Human Rights Service” i Norge - holdt tale for Flemming Rose, som havde holdt stand, da Mellemøsten gik amok og brændte flag og ambassader. De krævede Nordens grundlovssikrede ytringsfrihed sat på porten og journalistens og tegnernes hoveder på et fad, og bakkedes op af ”danske” islam-medløbere. Hun sluttede af med de ord, som Theo van Goghs mor skal have udtalt ved sønnens begravelse: Ytringsfrihed er ikke for bange mennesker.
Se Snaphanen http://dansk-svensk.blogspot.com/
Vi har været så forvænt med ytringsfrihed, at vi slet ikke rigtigt fattede, hvad der skete ved ”Muhammedkrisen”. Med vantro og forbløffelse så vi både privatpersoner, handelsfirmaer og myndigheder såvel på hjemmeplan som i EU blive svage i koderne. Og da vore skoler forlængst har ignoreret historieundervisningen, er der måske ikke så mange, der husker, at også det lille Danmark har haft enevælde. På Chr. Den Femtes tid kunne satire mod kongehuset føre til at man blev dømt fra ære, liv og gods!
Det var Struensee, der i 1770 indførte trykkefriheden, for derefter selv at blive udsat for en ren storm af tilsvining. Da man huggede hånd og hoved af ham, strøg man mange af hans love, og trykkefriheden blev indskrænket , idet regeringens politik ikke måtte diskuteres i pressen.
Flere andre tiltag ramte ytrings- og trykkefriheden. Således blev en oversættelse af Goethes ”Werther” forbudt og P.A.Heibergs ”Ordener hænger man på idioter” førte til nye angreb på friheden og censur af visse forfattere og fra 1814 af aviserne. Sidenhen af Dr. Dampe og Grundtvig. Redaktøren af det national liberale ugeblad ”Fædrelandet” mistede sin professorstilling ved Køben-havns Universitet.
Da der i 1835 afleveredes en omfattende trykkefrihedsadresse til Frederik den Sjette, var det, at kongen udtalte: ”Vi alene vide”, men kun en måneds tid efter oprettedes ”Selskabet for Trykkefrihedens rette Brug”, som udgav skriftet ”Dansk Folkeblad” indtil 1848.
Så var grundloven på trapperne og blev til virkelighed 1849 den 5. juni (datoen for grevinde Danners søns fødselsdag!).
”Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde på ny indføres”. Tag vare på grundlovens bestemmelse! Den er grundlag for al demokrati og angribes voldsomt af den islamiske autoritære ideologi og dens sympatisører.
marts 26, 2007
Hvad koster den importerede analfabetisme?
Dårlige læsekundskaber er dyrt for samfundet. Det viser en britisk rapport: Samfundets omkostninger for en ikke læsekyndig person beløber sig til ca. 750.000 svenske kroner inden for de 37 første leveår på grund af arbejdsløshed, dårligt helbred og kriminalitet.
Kilde: Svensk Biblioteksforenings blad ”bif” nr. 1, 2007.
Det skal nok blive til noget med EU´s import af fremmede analfabeter! Dhimmierne betaler!
Der er lige udkommet en kort redegørelse for de hemmeligholdte EU-aftaler med 10 asiatiske og nordafrikanske lande. De skal have fri muslimsk indvandring i Europa med garanteret respekt for islam. Mere om det senere.
Kilde: Svensk Biblioteksforenings blad ”bif” nr. 1, 2007.
Det skal nok blive til noget med EU´s import af fremmede analfabeter! Dhimmierne betaler!
Der er lige udkommet en kort redegørelse for de hemmeligholdte EU-aftaler med 10 asiatiske og nordafrikanske lande. De skal have fri muslimsk indvandring i Europa med garanteret respekt for islam. Mere om det senere.
marts 25, 2007
Fogh vinkler den!
Med jubel i Berlin fortsætter EU-politikerne vejen ind i den projekterede diktatoriske enhedsstat.
På TV-nyhederne 25/3 hørte man statsminister Fogh Rasmussen vinkle den tidligere afgørelse om det fallerede EU-grundlovsforslag. Der var to befolkninger, der havde stemt NEJ, hed det.
De EU-borgere, der ikke har fulgt med i sagens gang, kan ved sådan vinkling nemt få den opfattelse, at det KUN var to befolkninger! Fogh ”glemte” at sige, at flere staters regeringer overhovedet ikke spurgte befolkningerne, men - ganske udemokratisk - afgjorde sagen alene! I flere lande lød der ønske om at få lov at stemme, men det blev afvist af angst for et Nej fra befolkningernes side. I Danmark nåede man ikke til afstemning, idet konstititionsforslaget faldt inden vi nåede frem til den lovede afstemning efteråret 2005. Det følte den danske regering sig tilsyneladende lettet over!
Som vi allerede har set masser af exempler på i tidligere afgørelser, bliver EU ved med de samme krav, indtil de får et JA. Derfor skal det afviste konstitutionsforslag op af skuffen igen og nogle ord rettes…
Og det skal gå hurtigt, så oppositionen ikke når at samle sig og debatterne ikke begynder at gløde.
Helst endnu inden året 2007 er slut!
Den gamle Anti-EU organisation, Junibevægelsen, synes på sit årsmøde 25.3.07 at bakke lidt tilbage fra tidligere standpunkter, men påtalte dog tre punkter, og det var netop de tre punkter, som alle modstandere af EU har gjort opmærksom på om og om igen: manglende demokrati og åbenhed, endnu ingen afvikling af landbrugsstøtten og manglende oprydning i økonomisk uhæderlighed.
På TV-nyhederne 25/3 hørte man statsminister Fogh Rasmussen vinkle den tidligere afgørelse om det fallerede EU-grundlovsforslag. Der var to befolkninger, der havde stemt NEJ, hed det.
De EU-borgere, der ikke har fulgt med i sagens gang, kan ved sådan vinkling nemt få den opfattelse, at det KUN var to befolkninger! Fogh ”glemte” at sige, at flere staters regeringer overhovedet ikke spurgte befolkningerne, men - ganske udemokratisk - afgjorde sagen alene! I flere lande lød der ønske om at få lov at stemme, men det blev afvist af angst for et Nej fra befolkningernes side. I Danmark nåede man ikke til afstemning, idet konstititionsforslaget faldt inden vi nåede frem til den lovede afstemning efteråret 2005. Det følte den danske regering sig tilsyneladende lettet over!
Som vi allerede har set masser af exempler på i tidligere afgørelser, bliver EU ved med de samme krav, indtil de får et JA. Derfor skal det afviste konstitutionsforslag op af skuffen igen og nogle ord rettes…
Og det skal gå hurtigt, så oppositionen ikke når at samle sig og debatterne ikke begynder at gløde.
Helst endnu inden året 2007 er slut!
Den gamle Anti-EU organisation, Junibevægelsen, synes på sit årsmøde 25.3.07 at bakke lidt tilbage fra tidligere standpunkter, men påtalte dog tre punkter, og det var netop de tre punkter, som alle modstandere af EU har gjort opmærksom på om og om igen: manglende demokrati og åbenhed, endnu ingen afvikling af landbrugsstøtten og manglende oprydning i økonomisk uhæderlighed.
marts 23, 2007
Why the EU needs to be destroyed, and soon!
Med henblik på Romtraktatens 50-årsdag gengives her "Gates of Vienna"s opfordring til at gøre det af med det diktatoriske EU. Det er lidt langt, men kan jo downloades til senere brug.
Why the EU Needs to be Destroyed, and Soon
by Baron Bodissey
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. He has published another essay today related to this one (at Brussels Journal): Is the Nation State Obsolete?
I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind%
The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age.I’m really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country, in my view. We need to recapture this, or Europe is finished.In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.“I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.”Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien’s question whether the member countries of the EU didn’t join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. “No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.”In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents “show very clearly” that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home” “Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.”“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals.” From 1985 onwards, “the Soviets came to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.”In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing is supposed to have stated that: “Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Eastern European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.” As Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. “How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?”Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book of hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected.” “The Constitution will have to be given its second chance.” He said the French people voted No out of an “error of judgement” and “ignorance”, and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.” “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.” Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. “People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake,” he said on a possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye’or, is “just a conspiracy theory” should read these statements by Giscard d’Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working for decades, indeed from the very beginning.From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.” Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for years, at least from the 1920s, had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.” In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North calls the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public.In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.” As one of the signers put it: “We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.” According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.” “Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. “Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone.” “Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?” He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. “The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous.” “It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo,” which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas, has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. “When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.” “It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.” “Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays. But the so-called “tan ban” was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels with washing instructions. But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don’t have the labels. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy clothes.These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, “Eurabian” federal ideology promoting Multiculturalism, denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level as “xenophobes” and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as “racists.” A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as “Islamic terrorism.”EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.” Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected”. Such steps could materialize through various mechanisms, “and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN”, he said. He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that “I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, vowing “to reach out… to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.” Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used by Mr Solana as “shocking.” Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself later was trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech codes apparently did not strike him.Journalist Nidra Poller, commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands. “The Euro-Mediterranean “Dialogue” is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism… that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of “Dialogue,” what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word “Constitution”?”Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and England and the Need for Nations, warns that: “We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the British and the Italians to say ‘we’ and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited sovereignty and law.” “The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it.”Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, “increased the EU’s democratic deficit.” He warned that “The EU has continued – at an accelerated speed – to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities.” Mr Klaus also stressed that the nation-state “is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).”According to Vladimir Bukovksy, “the most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse.” “I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.” “I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.”Richard North writes that “If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes.” In the book he co-authored with Christopher Booker, the authors conclude: “Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato’s Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those countries who knew how to ‘work the system’, among whom the Irish and the Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with some “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if “stability” means a steady course towards Eurabia, I’ll take some instability any day. I can’t see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.Some would hope that we could “reform” the EU, keep the “positive” aspects of it and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ. I was naïve, too, once, and thought there were positive aspects to the EU. There aren’t, or not nearly enough to keep any of it.The EU is all bath water, no baby.Which is why, as Bukovksy says, “the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas.”The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy, Brutus and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante were alive today, he’d probably make some room for Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his Eurabian cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound together by some vague references to a “shared Greek heritage.” Instead, they are creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of Rome.Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union.Baron Bodissey 6/05/2006 07:05:00 PM
Why the EU Needs to be Destroyed, and Soon
by Baron Bodissey
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. He has published another essay today related to this one (at Brussels Journal): Is the Nation State Obsolete?
I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind%
The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age.I’m really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country, in my view. We need to recapture this, or Europe is finished.In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.“I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.”Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien’s question whether the member countries of the EU didn’t join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. “No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.”In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents “show very clearly” that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home” “Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.”“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals.” From 1985 onwards, “the Soviets came to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.”In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing is supposed to have stated that: “Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Eastern European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.” As Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. “How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?”Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book of hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected.” “The Constitution will have to be given its second chance.” He said the French people voted No out of an “error of judgement” and “ignorance”, and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.” “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.” Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. “People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake,” he said on a possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye’or, is “just a conspiracy theory” should read these statements by Giscard d’Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working for decades, indeed from the very beginning.From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.” Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for years, at least from the 1920s, had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.” In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North calls the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public.In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.” As one of the signers put it: “We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.” According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.” “Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. “Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone.” “Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?” He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. “The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous.” “It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo,” which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas, has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. “When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.” “It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.” “Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays. But the so-called “tan ban” was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels with washing instructions. But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don’t have the labels. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy clothes.These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, “Eurabian” federal ideology promoting Multiculturalism, denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level as “xenophobes” and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as “racists.” A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as “Islamic terrorism.”EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.” Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected”. Such steps could materialize through various mechanisms, “and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN”, he said. He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that “I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, vowing “to reach out… to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.” Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used by Mr Solana as “shocking.” Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself later was trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech codes apparently did not strike him.Journalist Nidra Poller, commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands. “The Euro-Mediterranean “Dialogue” is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism… that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of “Dialogue,” what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word “Constitution”?”Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and England and the Need for Nations, warns that: “We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the British and the Italians to say ‘we’ and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited sovereignty and law.” “The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it.”Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, “increased the EU’s democratic deficit.” He warned that “The EU has continued – at an accelerated speed – to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities.” Mr Klaus also stressed that the nation-state “is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).”According to Vladimir Bukovksy, “the most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse.” “I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.” “I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.”Richard North writes that “If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes.” In the book he co-authored with Christopher Booker, the authors conclude: “Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato’s Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those countries who knew how to ‘work the system’, among whom the Irish and the Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with some “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if “stability” means a steady course towards Eurabia, I’ll take some instability any day. I can’t see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.Some would hope that we could “reform” the EU, keep the “positive” aspects of it and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ. I was naïve, too, once, and thought there were positive aspects to the EU. There aren’t, or not nearly enough to keep any of it.The EU is all bath water, no baby.Which is why, as Bukovksy says, “the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas.”The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy, Brutus and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante were alive today, he’d probably make some room for Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his Eurabian cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound together by some vague references to a “shared Greek heritage.” Instead, they are creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of Rome.Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union.Baron Bodissey 6/05/2006 07:05:00 PM
marts 22, 2007
Om få dage vil EU fejre 50-årsdagen for Romtraktaten
I syden har man fra Romerrigets tid haft en anden form for jura og et andet syn - ikke bare på kvinders rettigheder, men overhovedet på befolkningerne. De skulle styres og makke ret. EU føler sig nu så stærk i sit absolutte styre, at de stadig oftere lader os forstå, at deres styre står over alt andet, skønt det ikke er valgt af folket! De folkevalgte er kun rådgivende - det vil sige marionetdukker. De politiske retsforfølgelser af EU-modstandere og islammodstandere har hjemmel i EUMC´s overvågningskontor, som står for en sand meningsterror.
Selvom præsten Margrethe Auken brugte sin pinsesøndagsprædiken kort før folkeafstemningen om EF-medlemsskabet i 1972 til at tordne mod romerne, stemte danskerne sig med åben pande ind i diktaturet uden i tide at se konsekvenserne.
Romtraktaten blev udtænkt af katolikker og er underskrevet på jomfru Marias bebudelsesdag den 25. marts 1957.
”Allerede fra de første forberedelser til Romtraktaten argumenterede Jean Monnet ihærdigt for at nationalstaterne skulle overlade magt til en gradvis opbygning af en enhed og en samling af den effektive buraukratiske elite i Europas lande, så at man skabte et kraftfelt, hvor en union ikke længere kunne stoppes. Overgivningen af magt skulle begynde med relativt kontroversielle økonomiske funktioner og stålproduktionen for på den måde at mindske uroen for at den nationale suverænitet blev nedbrudt. Man skulle se til at magten ikke skulle kunne føres tilbage igen. Dette garanteredes gennem traktatdoktrinen ”acquis communitaire”, som sikrede, at al magt, som overførtes til EU´s samfundsinstitutioner, gjordes til permanent EU-lov, mens man samtidigt strøg den i medlemslandenes nationale lovsamlinger.”
”I det ny Europa er magt og ansvar tydeligt adskilt. Selv der, hvor der findes formelt offentligt ansvar, er det ikke lovfæstet.”
(fra Connollys bog ”The rotten Heart of Europe” (”Europas rådne hjerte”), 1995).
Selvom præsten Margrethe Auken brugte sin pinsesøndagsprædiken kort før folkeafstemningen om EF-medlemsskabet i 1972 til at tordne mod romerne, stemte danskerne sig med åben pande ind i diktaturet uden i tide at se konsekvenserne.
Romtraktaten blev udtænkt af katolikker og er underskrevet på jomfru Marias bebudelsesdag den 25. marts 1957.
”Allerede fra de første forberedelser til Romtraktaten argumenterede Jean Monnet ihærdigt for at nationalstaterne skulle overlade magt til en gradvis opbygning af en enhed og en samling af den effektive buraukratiske elite i Europas lande, så at man skabte et kraftfelt, hvor en union ikke længere kunne stoppes. Overgivningen af magt skulle begynde med relativt kontroversielle økonomiske funktioner og stålproduktionen for på den måde at mindske uroen for at den nationale suverænitet blev nedbrudt. Man skulle se til at magten ikke skulle kunne føres tilbage igen. Dette garanteredes gennem traktatdoktrinen ”acquis communitaire”, som sikrede, at al magt, som overførtes til EU´s samfundsinstitutioner, gjordes til permanent EU-lov, mens man samtidigt strøg den i medlemslandenes nationale lovsamlinger.”
”I det ny Europa er magt og ansvar tydeligt adskilt. Selv der, hvor der findes formelt offentligt ansvar, er det ikke lovfæstet.”
(fra Connollys bog ”The rotten Heart of Europe” (”Europas rådne hjerte”), 1995).
marts 21, 2007
Fra "Gates of Vienna"
Med henblik på Romtraktatens 50-årsdag gengives her "Gates of Vienna"s opfordring til at gøre det af med det diktatoriske EU. Det er lidt langt, men kan jo downloades til senere brug.
Why the EU Needs to be Destroyed, and Soon
by Baron Bodissey
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. He has published another essay today related to this one (at Brussels Journal): Is the Nation State Obsolete?
I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind%
Why the EU Needs to be Destroyed, and Soon
by Baron Bodissey
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. He has published another essay today related to this one (at Brussels Journal): Is the Nation State Obsolete?
I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind%
EU-lotteriet
Rigtig mange føler sig utrygge ved den diktatoriske magt i Bryssel, som jo har bestemt, at EU-love i stort og småt, fra krumme agurker til ytringsfrihed, skal stå over de nationale vasalstaters egne love. Nu sidst ser vi, at EU efter flere alvorlige advarsler - eller om man vil trusler - mod de nordiske lande kræver, at vore love om lotteri og spil ændres, så andre EU lande kan komme ind på det givtige marked og tilbyde deres spil og gevinster i Norden. Vore nordiske love skulle ellers beskytte befolkningerne mod det tiltagende spilleri og dermed beslægtet ludomani med risiko for fallitter og familieulykker og unødige udgifter for staten.
Hvordan har EU egentlig fået narret befolkningerne til at opgive deres selvbestemmelsesret og selvværd i alle henseender?
Tror befolkningerne i deres naivitet, at de har en effektiv repræsentant og talsmand i EU, når de har stemt en kandidat ind i parlamentet?
Det har de ikke, for det er ikke tilladt nogen parlamentariker i EU´s Babelstårn at tænke på sit eget land, men udelukkende på organisationen EU (sic!).
Til trods for, at befolkningerne i Frankrig og Holland højt og tydeligt stemte NEJ til en fælles grundlov for EU-landene, d.v.s. for en EU-enhedsstat, ignorerer EU-politikkerne det og fortsætter ad den samme blindgyde. Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel, der i øjeblikket sidder inde med EU-formandsskabet synes at have arvet noget af tanken om ”Das dritte Reich” og nærer stadig samme naive tro på et storrige under en af alle godtagen konstitution.
Hun vil hale den fejlslagne og nedstemte konstitution frem igen og hun vil tale sig varm for den, når hun om få dage den 25. marts vil fejre Romtraktatens 50-årsdag!
Og om muligt vil hun få den gennemtrumfet.
Hvordan har EU egentlig fået narret befolkningerne til at opgive deres selvbestemmelsesret og selvværd i alle henseender?
Tror befolkningerne i deres naivitet, at de har en effektiv repræsentant og talsmand i EU, når de har stemt en kandidat ind i parlamentet?
Det har de ikke, for det er ikke tilladt nogen parlamentariker i EU´s Babelstårn at tænke på sit eget land, men udelukkende på organisationen EU (sic!).
Til trods for, at befolkningerne i Frankrig og Holland højt og tydeligt stemte NEJ til en fælles grundlov for EU-landene, d.v.s. for en EU-enhedsstat, ignorerer EU-politikkerne det og fortsætter ad den samme blindgyde. Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel, der i øjeblikket sidder inde med EU-formandsskabet synes at have arvet noget af tanken om ”Das dritte Reich” og nærer stadig samme naive tro på et storrige under en af alle godtagen konstitution.
Hun vil hale den fejlslagne og nedstemte konstitution frem igen og hun vil tale sig varm for den, når hun om få dage den 25. marts vil fejre Romtraktatens 50-årsdag!
Og om muligt vil hun få den gennemtrumfet.
marts 20, 2007
Bandeoverfald på elever i skole
Mandag den 19. marts ved 1-tiden brød en ungdomsbande på omkring 20 mand ind i Nikolaj gymnasieskole, tæt ved Kärnan i Helsingborg, og overfaldt eleverne midt i undervisningen med slag og spark. Nogle af dem måtte bagefter på hospitalet. Også elever fra den nærliggende Tycho Braheskole, som havde lektioner på Nikolajskolen, blev involveret i spektaklerne, som fortsatte på skolens kantine. Selvom politistationen ligger ret nær ved, og 3 politipatruljer - efter sigende - kom hurtigt til stede var banden allerede over alle bjerge.
Den kom rimeligvis fra Landskrona. Og overfaldet hang formodentlig sammen med en festival, man havde holdt om søndagen på det store forlystelsessted ”Sundspärlan”. Også dér opstod der slagsmål og tilkaldtes politi.
Landskrona og Helsingborg har tidligere haft mange bekymringer og har i en periode måtte lukke flere skoler.
Den kom rimeligvis fra Landskrona. Og overfaldet hang formodentlig sammen med en festival, man havde holdt om søndagen på det store forlystelsessted ”Sundspärlan”. Også dér opstod der slagsmål og tilkaldtes politi.
Landskrona og Helsingborg har tidligere haft mange bekymringer og har i en periode måtte lukke flere skoler.
Ufatteligt
at kendte mennesker inden for underholdningsbranchen lever i den grad i deres egen feterede og forkælede verden, at de er ganske uvidende om, hvad der foregår i samfundet. Det kommer tilsyneladende bag på dem, at de selv eller deres afkom kan blive overfaldet af fremmede bander. Fornylig var det Peter Mygind, der ikke passede på sin søn Julius og nu skuespiller Paw Henriksen.
Rimeligvis er de begge læsere af Politiken, hvor man skal se over med galskaben, søge dialog og bygge broer...
Rimeligvis er de begge læsere af Politiken, hvor man skal se over med galskaben, søge dialog og bygge broer...
Herrefolk og nidstang
Jeg ser på Anna Lyttigers blog, at herrefolket kræver en moské på Island, og at nogen - i hvert fald i tankerne - har rejst nidstangen. Måtte den bare gavne!
Middelhavets muhamedanske pirater holdt sig ikke til Middelhavsområdet. De nåede vidt omkring på deres togter, og således hændte det, at 3 sørøverskibe fra Algeriet i 1627 kom helt op til Vestmannaøerne eller Vespenø som det kaldtes dengang. De gjorde Strandhugst på Heimaø. De huggede folk ned, plyndrede husene, brændte kirken af og bortførte 240 fanger. Yderligere andre fik de med fra Islands Kyst. Man kan kun gisne om, hvad der er overgået mændene og de lyshårede kvinder i hænderne på disse rå barbarer, som - deres tro tro - ikke havde nogen medfølelse, men kun foragt for disse vantro ”skøger”.
De danske myndigheder på Island reagerede ikke, og hvad skulle de også have stillet op mod en horde vilde arabere? Nede i det fjerne Danmark regerede Chr. 4, og han havde sandelig meget alvorligere ting at tænke på, for landet standede i våde. Chr. 4 kunne ikke klare den 30-årskrig, han så ubetænksomt havde kastet sig ud i trods rigsrådets modstand. Feltherrerne Wallensteins og Tillys lejetropper trængte hærgende og plyndrende op gennem Jylland.
37 af de ialt 380 bortslæbte Islændinge var så heldige at blive løskøbt og kom til København 1636 efter 8 års slaveri. Islændingen Hallgrimur Pjetursson, der var discipel på Vor Frue Skole, fik den opgave at undervise de hjemvendte i kristendom. Det kan vel hænde, at de ikke længere kunne remse Luthers Katekismus op, men trosmæssigt set kan de vel næppe frivilligt være faldne for en religion, der havde behandlet dem så umenneskeligt.
En af dem hed Gudridur Simonsdottir. Hun var gift, da hun blev bortført og havde ikke ringeste anelse om sin mands skæbne. Hallgrimur forelskede sig i hende, og hun i ham, og han fulgte hende næste sommer til Island, hvor hun kort efter ankomsten fødte ham et barn. Da det nu viste sig, at hendes mand var død under hendes fravær, giftede hun sig med Hallgrimur, og takket været biskop Brynjolf Sveinsson på Skalholt fik han et lille præstekald. Han blev snart kendt som Islands psalmedigter. Særlig yndede blev hans passionspsalmer, som - måske gennem hans egne lidelser - fik en særlig dybde. Hans datter, Steinunn, døde i en ung alder, og selv blev han ramt af spedalskhed. Til minde om ham har man i moderne tid bygget en himmelstræbende kirke i Reykjavik. Hallgrimskirkens tre store klokker er opkaldt efter ham, hans kone Gudridur og hans datter, Steinunn. De runger i ørerne på de turister, der har besteget tårnet for at spejde ud over havet. Der er ingen sørøvere at se. Erik den Rødes søn, Leif Eriksson, står vagt foran kirken, en staut høvding forrest i skibsstævnen. Islændingene er stolte af deres land og deres historie. Og det er nok det mest gedigne værn mod fremmede anmassende kulturer. Måtte Islændingene gå fri for barbarerne.
Middelhavets muhamedanske pirater holdt sig ikke til Middelhavsområdet. De nåede vidt omkring på deres togter, og således hændte det, at 3 sørøverskibe fra Algeriet i 1627 kom helt op til Vestmannaøerne eller Vespenø som det kaldtes dengang. De gjorde Strandhugst på Heimaø. De huggede folk ned, plyndrede husene, brændte kirken af og bortførte 240 fanger. Yderligere andre fik de med fra Islands Kyst. Man kan kun gisne om, hvad der er overgået mændene og de lyshårede kvinder i hænderne på disse rå barbarer, som - deres tro tro - ikke havde nogen medfølelse, men kun foragt for disse vantro ”skøger”.
De danske myndigheder på Island reagerede ikke, og hvad skulle de også have stillet op mod en horde vilde arabere? Nede i det fjerne Danmark regerede Chr. 4, og han havde sandelig meget alvorligere ting at tænke på, for landet standede i våde. Chr. 4 kunne ikke klare den 30-årskrig, han så ubetænksomt havde kastet sig ud i trods rigsrådets modstand. Feltherrerne Wallensteins og Tillys lejetropper trængte hærgende og plyndrende op gennem Jylland.
37 af de ialt 380 bortslæbte Islændinge var så heldige at blive løskøbt og kom til København 1636 efter 8 års slaveri. Islændingen Hallgrimur Pjetursson, der var discipel på Vor Frue Skole, fik den opgave at undervise de hjemvendte i kristendom. Det kan vel hænde, at de ikke længere kunne remse Luthers Katekismus op, men trosmæssigt set kan de vel næppe frivilligt være faldne for en religion, der havde behandlet dem så umenneskeligt.
En af dem hed Gudridur Simonsdottir. Hun var gift, da hun blev bortført og havde ikke ringeste anelse om sin mands skæbne. Hallgrimur forelskede sig i hende, og hun i ham, og han fulgte hende næste sommer til Island, hvor hun kort efter ankomsten fødte ham et barn. Da det nu viste sig, at hendes mand var død under hendes fravær, giftede hun sig med Hallgrimur, og takket været biskop Brynjolf Sveinsson på Skalholt fik han et lille præstekald. Han blev snart kendt som Islands psalmedigter. Særlig yndede blev hans passionspsalmer, som - måske gennem hans egne lidelser - fik en særlig dybde. Hans datter, Steinunn, døde i en ung alder, og selv blev han ramt af spedalskhed. Til minde om ham har man i moderne tid bygget en himmelstræbende kirke i Reykjavik. Hallgrimskirkens tre store klokker er opkaldt efter ham, hans kone Gudridur og hans datter, Steinunn. De runger i ørerne på de turister, der har besteget tårnet for at spejde ud over havet. Der er ingen sørøvere at se. Erik den Rødes søn, Leif Eriksson, står vagt foran kirken, en staut høvding forrest i skibsstævnen. Islændingene er stolte af deres land og deres historie. Og det er nok det mest gedigne værn mod fremmede anmassende kulturer. Måtte Islændingene gå fri for barbarerne.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)