In light of the acute political crisis triggered by the “no” of the Ireland, the European “barons” seek to overturn the popular vote of the Irish people to reanimate the European “mini-treaty”.
The French president Nicolas Sarkozy declared the Irish should be given another opportunity to rethink their decision. That is, they should vote and vote again until they choose the right decision.
Others, notably Angela Merkel, think the “no” of a “tiny and insignificant” country like Ireland should not mess up their big plans for Europe.
Note that the only European country that decided to deliver the decision to the people is Ireland. All the other countries restricted the ratification of the treaty, to the parliament.
From the start, they were pissed off at the decision of Ireland to let the people ratify or not, the new European super state constitution.
After the “no” of France and Holland, the European political elite, lost their faith in democracy. So they decided that the great euro-schemes should be left to the wisdom of the euro-bureaucrats, because the people are just stupid to understand.
And of course, the Irish are also stupid to say “no”.
My question is, instead of playing around with the European citizens, why don’t they just sit and ask themselves, why they don’t agree with us?
Maybe Europe peoples don’t want a big European super state? Maybe the French, the Italians, the Dutch, or the British don’t want to lose their national identity to a non-existent European one?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
On Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia
While I haven’t read Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia” yet, I have been exposed to her theory throughout the last years, particularly while reading conservative blogs and e-magazines.
The core of the theory of “Eurabia” is, according to wikipedia: A neologism that denotes a scenario where Europe allies itself to and eventually merges with the Arab world.
According to what I read, Bat Ye’or believes that the EU or the EEC as it was then known, led by the French, sought to form an alliance with the Mediterranean Arab countries, with the aim to create a geo-political counterforce to oppose the political hegemony of the United States.
The first steps were as follow:
- To facilitate the settlement of Arab citizens from the southern Mediterranean basin, into European countries.
- To allow the implementation of Mosques and Islamic centres in Europe.
- European support to Palestinians.
- European opposition to Israel.
- European access to the Arab markets.
- European access to cheap oil from the middle-east.
- Arab alignment with Europe in their anti-American policies.
Now, to be sincere, it does sound like a big conspiracy.
First let’s begin with the Muslim immigration grand conspiracy.
Europe, after the WWII, had a deficit of young men for the heavy reconstruction works. They needed workers so they could rebuild their war-destroyed countries and economies. The temporary solution was to import foreign guest-workers (note that in the beginning, they were considered guest workers and not immigrants. They were expected to return one day to their home-countries, which in itself destroy the grand Muslim immigration conspiracy). Where to seek these guest-workers? Naturally, in the colonies and ex-colonies. It happened that the nearest colonies of France were in North-Africa. So tens of thousands of Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians were imported to work in construction, factories and mines. Britain chose to import them from its former-colonies in the subcontinent and east-Indies. Belgium, from the Congo. Etc…
In France, it’s until late 70’s, that the “guest workers”, gained the right to bring their families. In Germany, it’s only in the 90’s that the Turks were given the right to apply for citizenship. The Muslims had it a lot harder in Europe than, let’s say, the Mexicans who started to flock to the US after in the 70’s. We don’t talk however about a Mexico-America conspiracy.
Now as to the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it’s self evident that after the oil-crisis of 1973, European countries, sought to assure their supply of oil, and prevent another crisis that could hit hard their economies. So they created a friendship dialogue with the arab-league. One of those wishy-washy conferences and summets Europeans are famous for. Just like Zapatero’s Alliance of Civilizations or the last euro-African summet in Portugal (btw, is there a euroafrica conspiracy out there?). Conferences, dialogues and chit chat, with no real substance or compromise, just for the publicity and to look kind, tolerant and sensitive, unlike the “imperialistic and warlike” United states. (However when it comes to substance, the US send dozens of times more aid to Africa than the whole European Union). That’s how I see this whole mess of Euro-Arab dialogue. Europeans are not stupid, and unlike Americans (who actually do have idealistic aims in the world), they only seek their own interests. And the cheapest way to do it is this kind of folkloric shows. They never seek compromise. Now if Bat Ye’or thinks there is a real compromise behind the Euro-Arab Dialogue, she must provide hard facts and undisputable evidence, and not ignore clues that point to the other way.
As I said I never read the book, but from the right-wing blogs and online magazines, that support her theory, the facts presented seem to be based on mere claims, and the premise of this whole conspiracy appears to be this unfamous Euro-Arb Dialogue.
Neverthless, her Eurabian theories, don’t dismiss her other works on dhimmitude. She experienced it herself in his country, Egypt, and that’s why I believe, she should have stayed focused on subjects she’s better acquainted with..
The core of the theory of “Eurabia” is, according to wikipedia: A neologism that denotes a scenario where Europe allies itself to and eventually merges with the Arab world.
According to what I read, Bat Ye’or believes that the EU or the EEC as it was then known, led by the French, sought to form an alliance with the Mediterranean Arab countries, with the aim to create a geo-political counterforce to oppose the political hegemony of the United States.
The first steps were as follow:
- To facilitate the settlement of Arab citizens from the southern Mediterranean basin, into European countries.
- To allow the implementation of Mosques and Islamic centres in Europe.
- European support to Palestinians.
- European opposition to Israel.
- European access to the Arab markets.
- European access to cheap oil from the middle-east.
- Arab alignment with Europe in their anti-American policies.
Now, to be sincere, it does sound like a big conspiracy.
First let’s begin with the Muslim immigration grand conspiracy.
Europe, after the WWII, had a deficit of young men for the heavy reconstruction works. They needed workers so they could rebuild their war-destroyed countries and economies. The temporary solution was to import foreign guest-workers (note that in the beginning, they were considered guest workers and not immigrants. They were expected to return one day to their home-countries, which in itself destroy the grand Muslim immigration conspiracy). Where to seek these guest-workers? Naturally, in the colonies and ex-colonies. It happened that the nearest colonies of France were in North-Africa. So tens of thousands of Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians were imported to work in construction, factories and mines. Britain chose to import them from its former-colonies in the subcontinent and east-Indies. Belgium, from the Congo. Etc…
In France, it’s until late 70’s, that the “guest workers”, gained the right to bring their families. In Germany, it’s only in the 90’s that the Turks were given the right to apply for citizenship. The Muslims had it a lot harder in Europe than, let’s say, the Mexicans who started to flock to the US after in the 70’s. We don’t talk however about a Mexico-America conspiracy.
Now as to the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it’s self evident that after the oil-crisis of 1973, European countries, sought to assure their supply of oil, and prevent another crisis that could hit hard their economies. So they created a friendship dialogue with the arab-league. One of those wishy-washy conferences and summets Europeans are famous for. Just like Zapatero’s Alliance of Civilizations or the last euro-African summet in Portugal (btw, is there a euroafrica conspiracy out there?). Conferences, dialogues and chit chat, with no real substance or compromise, just for the publicity and to look kind, tolerant and sensitive, unlike the “imperialistic and warlike” United states. (However when it comes to substance, the US send dozens of times more aid to Africa than the whole European Union). That’s how I see this whole mess of Euro-Arab dialogue. Europeans are not stupid, and unlike Americans (who actually do have idealistic aims in the world), they only seek their own interests. And the cheapest way to do it is this kind of folkloric shows. They never seek compromise. Now if Bat Ye’or thinks there is a real compromise behind the Euro-Arab Dialogue, she must provide hard facts and undisputable evidence, and not ignore clues that point to the other way.
As I said I never read the book, but from the right-wing blogs and online magazines, that support her theory, the facts presented seem to be based on mere claims, and the premise of this whole conspiracy appears to be this unfamous Euro-Arb Dialogue.
Neverthless, her Eurabian theories, don’t dismiss her other works on dhimmitude. She experienced it herself in his country, Egypt, and that’s why I believe, she should have stayed focused on subjects she’s better acquainted with..
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Genocide Denial by Fjordman
Some people find it hard to distinguish between the right, and the wrong. They’re driven by ideology; everything is seen through an ideological lens. And ideology just like faith, can cripple common sense and blind people. In his latest ranting, the anonymous essayist called Fjordman, justifies the Bosnian genocide.
He said: “the Balkan wars were far more complex than we are led to believe by the political establishment”.
Big claims need big proofs. So how does Fjordman justify his stance on such a grave issue (We’re talking here about genocide)?
History of Islam, Islamic bloody expansion, Ottoman imperialism, Dhimmitude and bla bla bla.
To cut a long story short, since the Bosnians are Muslims (albeit nominal Muslims), we should side with Milosovic and the Serbs who committed the ethnic cleansing.
Like in all his essays, he quotes many authors even when they speak about a different issue, and under every citation he gives his own conclusion, even if it has nothing to do with the quotation above it.
Fjordman is without any doubt, a very articulate writer, but when it comes to thinking, he’s an intellectual midget.
To make such big claims you need cogent evidence and conclusive proofs. You need to make use of coherent reasoning and not disordered babble and fatuous claptrap.
Unfortunately Fjordman, lacks the intellectual baggage, and probably, the academic background to conform to the standards of argument, sceptical scrutiny, inference, analytic thinking and the control of the outcome of comparison.
The Bosnian genocide and the Srebrenica massacre are well documented facts. The ethnic motivation behind this genocide is also a well proven fact.
There may have been some Bosnian leaders with Islamist sympathies; it is also true that many Arab Jihadists joined the Bosnians to fight against the Serbs. But all the mentioned before, cannot justify Fjordman’s apologia of the Genocide against the Bosnians. We should remind that the victims were not Jihadists, but innocent civilians, whose only crime was to be from the wrong ethnic group.
Genocide is genocide, whether it’s the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan genocide, or the Bosnian genocide. Attempting to defend a genocide is simply, morally wrong, and intellectually disgusting.
Fjordman who already showed his sympathies to the theories of White Nationalists in his Jared Taylorish rant titled “White Masochism”, displays to us here his moral corruption and squalid insight.
Robert Spencer should pick carefully the people he wants to associate with.
He said: “the Balkan wars were far more complex than we are led to believe by the political establishment”.
Big claims need big proofs. So how does Fjordman justify his stance on such a grave issue (We’re talking here about genocide)?History of Islam, Islamic bloody expansion, Ottoman imperialism, Dhimmitude and bla bla bla.
To cut a long story short, since the Bosnians are Muslims (albeit nominal Muslims), we should side with Milosovic and the Serbs who committed the ethnic cleansing.
Like in all his essays, he quotes many authors even when they speak about a different issue, and under every citation he gives his own conclusion, even if it has nothing to do with the quotation above it.
Fjordman is without any doubt, a very articulate writer, but when it comes to thinking, he’s an intellectual midget.
To make such big claims you need cogent evidence and conclusive proofs. You need to make use of coherent reasoning and not disordered babble and fatuous claptrap.
Unfortunately Fjordman, lacks the intellectual baggage, and probably, the academic background to conform to the standards of argument, sceptical scrutiny, inference, analytic thinking and the control of the outcome of comparison.
The Bosnian genocide and the Srebrenica massacre are well documented facts. The ethnic motivation behind this genocide is also a well proven fact.
There may have been some Bosnian leaders with Islamist sympathies; it is also true that many Arab Jihadists joined the Bosnians to fight against the Serbs. But all the mentioned before, cannot justify Fjordman’s apologia of the Genocide against the Bosnians. We should remind that the victims were not Jihadists, but innocent civilians, whose only crime was to be from the wrong ethnic group.Genocide is genocide, whether it’s the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan genocide, or the Bosnian genocide. Attempting to defend a genocide is simply, morally wrong, and intellectually disgusting.
Fjordman who already showed his sympathies to the theories of White Nationalists in his Jared Taylorish rant titled “White Masochism”, displays to us here his moral corruption and squalid insight.
Robert Spencer should pick carefully the people he wants to associate with.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Venezuela's caudillo meets for the fourth time his comrade Iran's Hitler.
The attention skunk Chavez is at it again. After failing miserably to rally Arab countries to his revolutionary anti-American cause, he's now decided to pay a little visit (for the 4th time) to his holocaust-denying woman-hating no-gays-in-Iran friend, AhMadInejad, the Führer of Iran, probably to come up with another mischievous plot, to "overthrow the Empire".
Well, who would you want him to hang with? ....Birds of the Same Feather Flock Together.
Well, who would you want him to hang with? ....Birds of the Same Feather Flock Together.
Venezuela's Chavez comes to Tehran to further boost ties with Iran
The Associated Press
Published: November 19, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his fourth trip to Iran in two years on Monday, state media reported, as the two countries sought to strengthen ties while their leaders exhort the international community to resist U.S. policies.
Chavez, who arrived in Tehran from Saudi Arabia where he attended the weekend's OPEC summit, is expected to discuss various political and economic issues with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
Chavez was accompanied by a string of top Venezuelan officials for the hours-long visit, including the foreign, industry, oil and communication ministers, as well as the mayor of Caracas, the country's capital.
Ahmadinejad also attended the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries summit in Riyadh.
During the gathering, the two firebrand leaders echoed one another, blaming U.S. President George W. Bush's policies for the decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries, and challenging Saudi Arabia's reluctance to mention weak dollar concerns in the summit's final declaration.
Ahmadinejad claimed OPEC's member countries want to convert their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper."
Chavez said the dollar was in free-fall and that its "empire" must end, and proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies excluding the dollar.
But the two were unable to generate support from enough in the 13-member cartel — many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.
Tehran is in a bitter standoff with Washington over its nuclear program, which the U.S. fears is a cover for a weapons program but which Iran insists is peaceful.
Meanwhile, the U.S. accuses Chavez of being a threat to stability in Latin America, while the Venezuelan leader is constantly criticizing U.S. "imperialism" under Bush. Chavez has also defended Iran's nuclear ambitions, dismissing Washington's concerns that Tehran is secretly trying to develop atomic weapons.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said Sunday the two leaders would sign economic deals and memorandums of understanding in economic fields, and an agreement on small and medium enterprises.
In July, the two countries broke ground to start building a jointly owned petrochemical complex in Iran, with 51 percent of it in Iranian ownership and 49 percent to be owned by Venezuela. The two also began construction of a second petrochemical complex in Venezuela, at a total combined cost of US$1.4 billion (€956 million). No details on the ventures have been disclosed.
The two nations believe their petrochemical partnership will help Iran access markets in Latin America and Venezuela would get access to energy markets in Asia, especially India.
During Chavez's previous visit in July, the two countries signed some 20 economic and trade agreements. Since 2001, they have signed over 180 trade agreements, worth more than US$20 billion (€15 billion) in potential investment, according to IRNA.
Iran has partnered with Venezuela on several industrial projects in the South American nation, including the production of cars, tractors and plastic goods
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/19/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Venezula.php
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Hidden Face Of The Vlaams Belang (1/8) (2/8) (3/8)
An excellent Belgian Documentary on the shady and disturbing past and present of the Vlaams Belang.
I subtitled the video so those who can't understand French and/or Dutch, could have an idea about the party, Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna and others, want us to support.
(1/8)
(2/8)
(3/8)
I subtitled the video so those who can't understand French and/or Dutch, could have an idea about the party, Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna and others, want us to support.
(1/8)
(2/8)
(3/8)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
