Centurean2’s Weblog

BRIAN GERRISH…..WAKE UP CALL…12-12-09

February 9, 2010 · 7 Comments

DON’T LET FABIANS, TELL YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT- WITHOUT IT LIES TYRANNY!

TO HEAR FULL SET- GO TO YOU TUBE- PLACE IN NAME- BRIAN GERRISH THEN 12-12-09 1-7

FORCED ADOPTION- ETC COVERED- NICE EARNER.
HARMANS INTERESTS’ HARRIET THAT IS!
NICE LADY- NOT.

→ 7 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

We’re living in broken Britain, say most voters_ Thanks To LIBLABCONS!!

February 9, 2010 · Leave a Comment

From The Times February 9, 2010

We’re living in broken Britain, say most voters

(Richard Pohle/The Times)
A closed down shop on a high street in south London: voters are increasingly pessimistic about the state of modern Britain
Peter Riddell

257 Comments
Recommend? (119)

Voters are deeply pessimistic about the state of Britain today, believing that society is broken and heading in the wrong direction, a Populus poll for The Times has found.

Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.

But worries over the pace of social change and dislocation are balanced by the belief that life will get better, according to the survey undertaken at the weekend.

It suggests that 70 per cent believe that society is now broken, echoing a Conservative campaign theme of the past two years, while 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change.

256th BRITISH SOLDIER KILLED_AFGHANISTAN…PIPELINE WAR!

February 9, 2010 · 1 Comment

Zbigniew Brzezinski…… SPILLING BRITISH BLOOD FOR THIS EVIL FIEND!!

YESTERDAY A BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT WAS KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN- CLEARING THE ROAD- BEFORE MORE TROOPS ARE SENT TO DIE!!

TOO LATE TO ASK QUESTION’S WHEN THE SOLDIER’S ARE DEAD!

WHAT RELATIONSHIP HAS BRITAIN WITH Zbigniew Brzezinski?

REST IN PEACE SOLDIER…GODBLESS!

BRITAIN’S FABIAN’S SOAKED IN BLOOD!!

YUGOSLAVIA-IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN- NO SERB- NO IRAQI- NO AFGHNI- EVER ATTACKED BRITAIN!!

In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.” But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. [Guardian]

IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL!

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University of Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which will be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and south.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

1998 Unocal Statement:
Suspension of activities related to proposed
natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan

As a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region, Unocal, which serves as the development manager for the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan.

From the 1998 Congressional Record.
Emphasis added to text.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

Next we would like to hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation. You may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html

FABIAN’S SOAKED IN THE BLOOD OF DEAD SOLDIER’S!!!

YES-COMRADE BROWNSKI- THAT MEAN’S YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Censored By Facebook! SIOE Stop Islamisation Of Europe_ WHY?

February 9, 2010 · 4 Comments

SEPTEMBER 2009- BEAR IN MIND THE SIOE PROTEST AGAINST THE BUILDING OF THE MEGA MOSQUE HAD BEEN CANCELLED- NO SIOE WERE PRESENT- NO BNP- NO EDL!!

One thing people in England who oppose Islamisation no longer have is an excuse not to do something.

So English people take your pick and do something.

People from persecuted minorities who are anxious about the growth of Islam and establishment of Sharia in Europe, please support SIOE. Join SIOE or start your own action group to peacefully protest as SIOE does.

The pressure must be continuous and must come from a broad swathe of people.

1. Stop Islamisation Of Europe – SIOE

SIOE, does not accept the notion of moderate Muslims.

This makes SIOE different to all other anti-Islamist groups who only oppose Islamist “extremists”.

SIOE seeks to stop Islam and Sharia Law, and denounces Nazism, communism, totalitarianism and racism. SIOE encourages communities persecuted by Islamic regimes, or by Muslim minorities in for example Thailand, to explain their plight because the mainstream media censor news about Islamic persecution and oppression.

SIOE holds peaceful demonstrations across Europe at locations such as the EU Parliament and other parliamentary buildings, town squares, supermarkets and wherever it considers Islamisation is encroaching on European culture, traditions, politics and laws.

SIOE has been campaigning since 2007. It provides a voice for minority communities oppressed and persecuted by Muslims across the world. It has support from such communities because of its fierce and consistent anti-racist policy and its banning of political parties from its events.

People from all adult age groups join SIOE’s demonstrations.

http://sioeengland.wordpress.com/

Our opponents constantly condemn SIOE for not recognizing the difference between Muslim moderates and extremists. Muslim moderates are not protecting Copts in Egypt or Hindus in Malaysia. Muslim moderates are not protecting Jews in Muslim countries. Muslim moderates voted into power Recep Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, after he’d been imprisoned for reading the Islamic poem about minarets being bayonets, that inspired SIOE’s cartoon advertising its “Stop Islamisation” demonstration in Harrow on 13th December.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/press-release.html

Stephen Gash of SOIE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe) answers our critics here:
People, and especially Jews please read this and then come to the demonstration. Ask yourselves who is deceiving you? The most dangerous lie is a half-truth and the CST’s articles about SIOE are full of half-truths.

SIOE has never made a secret of its hardline views on Islam and Muslims. SIOE considers that the talk about “moderate”, “political”, “radical” and “extreme” Islam is long passed. SIOE blames so-called “moderate” Muslims for the problems the non-Islamic world is now facing and has been arguing for a “gloves-off” debate about the place, if any, of Islam within democracy without success. SIOE agrees with the vast majority of Muslim clerics in Islamic countries that Islam and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Our ruling politicians and violent self-styled “anti-fascist” activists have quashed all debate about Islam and we are now suffering the consequences. Our arguments may be seen on our site and we leave people to decide – after they have done the research. We say this because the Western media, certain groups and especially politicians lie about the threat of Islam or at the very least censor what is going on.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/sioa/

YOU MUST SEE THIS VIDEO- PROPAGANDA THAT EVEN A CHILD COULD SEE THROUGH…NOTICE – HOW THE PHOTO OF GRIFFIN IS HELD ONTO- WITH NO EXPLANTION WHY IT’S THERE AT ALL!

There are many controversial individuals and groups on Facebook including Islamists, supporters of terrorism, Nazis, and even terrorists themselves, etc. People having these views and worse remain on Facebook but those having anti-jihad perspectives apparently are now targets for account removal. How can this be explained?

It is understood that because of the reach of Facebook and its large user community the Facebook “world” is another theater in the current culture wars and in the existential war that is Islamic jihad against the non-Muslim (kafir) civilizations of the West. In the war of ideas that is ongoing in public and behind the scenes (with much dissemination of opinion and information on the internet) there are vigorous, important, and fascinating debates that occur on Facebook pages hourly.

Facebook is a platform used for educating the people about the threat that Islam and its warfare poses for our country and the entire West. Kendra is particularly adept at online debate and had thousands of Facebook friends following her posts and discussions prior to the removal of her account without warning or explanation.

We have seen in recent events in Europe and the United States that the message about the truth of Islam and its doctrine of jihad and intolerance is making its way from scholarly fringes to a wider audience. The message involves an acceptance of the fact that political correctness and multiculturalism are empty and false notions that are impediments to knowledge and understanding.

Political correctness and multiculturalism require the adherent of these corrupt philosophies to jettison thousands of years of human and civilizational history and experience so that a fairly recent post-modernist utopian concept of how the world and humanity function can be accepted. These false concepts must be destroyed so that the truth can be discussed openly and understood.

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/a-facebook-controversy/

SHOULD BRITISH PEOPLE BE LEFT IN TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE HIJRA- OR SHOULD GROUPS LIKE SIOE BE ENCOURAGED TO DO- WHAT OUR MEDIA AND POLITICAL CLASS ARE ABSOLUTELY FROZEN WITH FEAR OR WORSE COLLUSION- REFUSE TO DO?

Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration
By Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi
ANM Publishers, 2009
139 pp., $14.95

Within the past few decades, mosques have increasingly dotted the landscapes of American and European cities and towns, with mega mosques often overshadowing adjacent, centuries-old churches in predominantly Christian regions. Islamic schools or academies and a host of Muslim organizations have become omnipresent across the West.

Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans have made countless accommodations to Muslim demands. They have included footbaths; high-decibel, five-times-daily calls to prayer; segregated male-female gym and swimming pool hours; halal food; workplace dispensations for handling pork products and for female head and face coverings; and special, public prayer rooms. Also, shari’ah-compliant financial transactions, the expunging of offensive likenesses of Mohammed or imagined depictions of Arabic characters that connote “Allah,” official swearings-in on Korans in place of customary Bibles, the neutralizing of official descriptive language about Islamists and the jihad, the revision of so-called offensive content in movies and television programs, the removal of representations of pigs from the public sphere, and many other acculturations to Muslim entreaties have all been made in the service of respecting Muslim religious beliefs and practices.

To those in Western democracies, these accommodating actions appear, on the surface, to be little more than harmless civil gestures, respecting the needs of a growing religion in their midst and welcoming a new addition to their proud, multicultural tradition. Many Westerners pat themselves on the back for their liberal bent, their tolerance and their open-mindedness.

Little do they realize that this strategic pattern of demands is part of an insidious, 1,400-year-old proscription for Muslims that originates in the Koran and the Sunnah, the deeds of Mohammed. It is the Hijra or doctrine of immigration. Modeled by Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina, this immigration is not to a romanticized melting pot wherein newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and freely offer their talents and loyalty to benefit their new homeland. This is immigration for Islamic expansionism employing ethnic separatism to gain special status and privileges within the host country. Hijra is immigration designed to subvert and subdue non-Muslim societies and pave the way for eventual, total Islamization.

In their compelling book, “Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,” authors Sam Solomon, a former professor of shari’ah law and convert to Christianity, and Elias Al Maqdisi, an expert on Islamic teachings, explain the migration of Muslims to the Dar-al-Harb, the “land of war,” as a religious edict with a basis in Islamic doctrine. They delineate the step-by-step process of this 1,400-year-old strategy of conquest. It is a transitional strategy which they characterize as the most important step in spreading Islam and preparing for jihad. From their carefully delineated treatise on Hijra, it is clear that migration in concert with military conquest comprise the bookends of Islamic expansionism.

Solomon and Al Maqdisi review the phases of the Hijra and its juristic or legal basis in Islamic doctrine. Under the cover of taquiya or deception, the step-by-step methodology of the migration process is designed to subdue, then, subjugate the host culture, culminating in implementation of shari’ah law.

The beginning phase of Islamization usually includes activities pivotal to building a physical presence. It consists of public calls to prayer; founding of schools, libraries and research centers; and the teaching of Arabic — actions that appear to be reasonable and respectable infrastructure requirements necessary to support the presence of a faith. At this point in the Hijra, it is permissible for Muslims to engage in haram, or forbidden actions, out of necessity to establish and empower the umma or Muslim community. Koranic rules such as the prohibition against friendships with infidels are suspended while the objectives of future Islamization are systematically put into place. In its initial phase, the Hijra passes scrutiny by the West whose citizens erroneously view the migration as mainly economic — a pilgrimage for a better life.

Solomon and Maqdisi examine the comprehensive strategy that begins with the establishment of the umma or Muslim community. The mosque becomes the locus of power, a strategic base and the center of all activities. They explain how in this embryonic phase, a top priority is the scouting for new arrivals to expand and empower the existing Muslim community. Muslim leaders offer solicitous assistance and helpful suggestions for schools, housing, mosque worship, halal markets and other services to ingratiate themselves with new arrivals and bring them into the local Muslim community.

Once the consolidation of the Muslim community occurs under the radar, the purposeful fight for special status and shari’ah follows. As dictated by the Koran and Sunnah, segregation from non-Muslims is a natural outcome of the advancement of the Hijra.

Visible changes begin to be apparent as the Muslim population achieves more of a critical mass. Over time, the dress code, often beginning with a hijab in segregated enclaves and moving toward the complete covering of a neqab in the public sphere, separates Muslim women from men and from non-Muslim women. Eventually, as the host population becomes familiarized with what they believe to be the requirements of religious piety, demands are made for segregation at public facilities, in the workplace and at schools and universities. Requests for halal food, shari’ah-compliant financial transactions and the addition of Muslim holidays to public calendars further elevate the Muslim

REFUSE ANY OF THE DEMANDS- OUT COMES THE RACIST CARD- WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH RACE AS MUSLIM OR ISLAM!

As the intensity of the hijra advances, the appearance of open ghettos or Muslim-only regions occurs. These are areas where non-Muslims are essentially prohibited and where, if they enter, they actually may be physically threatened. Such no-go zones, where even non-Muslim community workers are unwelcome, exist throughout Europe today. Remarkably, Muslim movements are never restricted; they venture freely anywhere in the host country.

As Solomon and Maqdisi point out, the Hijra is a comprehensive and direct political attempt to undermine the culture and values of the host country and replace them with Islam and shari’ah. It is an insidious migration seeking transformation of the culture, behaviors, customs, rules and laws of a host society to spread Islam and establish an Islamic state. The stages of the Hijra are very much evident in varying degrees in all Western societies today. Ironically, our open democratic societies with constitutionally mandated freedoms of speech, religion and assembly have facilitated this march toward the very demise of our way of life.

“Modern Day Trojan Horse” should be required reading for all citizens of Western democracies who urgently need to understand the Hijra and the threat it represents. The book sounds the alarm for the cautious evaluation of what may appear to be innocent religious practice in our midst but has sinister motives to transform our societies forever

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_hijra.html

WE MUST ASSUME POLITICIANS ARE COLLUDING IN THIS- WHEN WE CONSIDER WHAT THE EUMED WILL BRING!
WHEN OUR MEDIA AND JOURNALIST’S ARE FORBIDDEN FROM TELLING THE TRUTH- TO SLANT NEWS- BY ORDER’S FROM THE EU!!

[1] Gaddafi: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. The number of indigenous Europeans is falling drastically. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent.”

[2] Amr Khaled: “The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans don’t. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making.”

[3] Yusuf al-Qaradawi: “his means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice… Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.” And “This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice – once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens.”

[4] Tariq Ramadan:

Q: (..) At some point Muslims may be in the majority. I think in one sentence: How safe is multiculturalism with the people who entered Europe under the banner of multiculturalism?

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/01/25/fear-of-a-coming-eurabia-birth-rates-immigration-and-conversion-as-weapon/

SOUNDING THE ALARM IN 2006- STILL NOT A WHISPER IN BRITAIN FROM WESTMINSTER OF WHERE YOU’RE HEADING!

Open letter to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen

from Anders Bruun Laursen

Anders Bruun Laursen
June 27. 2006

To the Prime Minister

Allow me the following three questions:

Question 1: Why have you, our politicians, and the media told us nothing about the Euromediterranean Project, which has been in existence for more than 10 years now?

Nevertheless, you did partake of the 10-year jubilee of that tabu-like league on November 28. 2006, knowing that the EU has promised the 4 fundamental freedoms of the EU, i.e. also free movement of people, to the citizens of 9 Muslim countries and integration in the inner market of the EU. Knowing that according to recent newspaper analyses this means, that 20-25% of the Turks want to immigrate to Europe. And knowing that the Project means a flooding of Europe by people which will drown our identity

Question 2: Why is our 1000-year-old identity, religion and culture to be removed and replaced by islam?
Right now the foreign ministerial ‘Danish Center of Culture and Development’ (DCCD) is undermining by means of school textbook revisions, manipulations of journalism and journalists, media, managing arts, comprehensive exchange programs, thus dismantling our religion and culture, which are called ’stereotypes and prejudices’.

Instead we are to have muslim culture and religion: A giant youth festival called ‘Images of the Middle East’ is being prepared to be held in the period 12.08. – 20.09.2006. (And it was held).

The DCCD has made a cooperation agreement with ISESCO, whose purpose is to expand islamic way of thinking and living to the whole world. This charter as well a the UNESCO Culture Convention from October 20. 2005 and the Anna Lindh Foundation simply counterwork Muslim integration here

Question 3: Do you believe, that the credibility of your government and confidence in the undemocratic EU will grow, as we ‘grassroots’ spread knowledge about the Euromediterranean/Euro-Arabian project?
Do you not think it is about time for you and your government to start informing us thoroughly about the Euromediterranean Project and its propaganda machinery?

E-Mail Answers from the Danish Prime Minister – Aug. 29.2006:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen
‘Let me begin by correcting the misunderstanding that the work to create a free-trade area with the southern neighbours of the EU is identical with EU-membership (which was not indicated in my questions [Remark Anders Bruun]). It is not. The EU negotiates free-trade and cooperation agreements with countries in the whole world – in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and many other places .

This does not imply the prospect of EU-membership – but is greatly advantageous to The EU and the countries the EU makes the agreements with. Obviously, in the EU we have a special interest in securing stability, democracy and economic development in our neighbourhood areas like North Africa and the Middle East.

At the Euromediterranean Conference of Foreign Ministers in Naples on Dec. 2.-3.2003 the principal goals for the Mediterranean cooperation were reiterated from the original Barcelona Declaration of 1995.

One of these goals is to establish a free-trade area in the Mediterranean region in 2010 for the participants of the Euromediterranean cooperation. The goal of establishing a free-trade area implies that the southern members of the cooperation can obtain gradual integration into the expanded European internal market and the possibility of ultimately reaching the EUs four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people – in exchange for tangible political and economic reforms.

Accordingly, it is evident that the mutual opening of markets between the EU and the southern partner countries is used as a stimulus to secure dynamics in the endeavours to develop democracy and market economy.

The political goal of a free-trade area in 2010 does not imply that the southern partners will automatically gain access to the internal market and free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The depth and tempo of access to the internal market will depend on the actual accomplishment of economic and political reforms of the individual southern Mediterranean countries. This will be settled by individual agreements with individual countries. These agreements will have to be approved by the EU Council of Ministers’.

Yours sincerely,

Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

——————————————————————————–

So, the Danish Prime Minister confirmed the catastrophe, nay treason, awaiting Europe from 2010.

By the way, all my statements can be verified – most of them on EU-homepages!

As my questions remained unanswered, I asked once more for specific answers.

Lene Espersen
Justice Minister Denmark
In an e-mail from September 12. 2006 the secretary of the Prime Minister answered:

‘As for your questions about the Mediterranean cooperation, the Prime Minister has nothing to add to his response from Aug. 29. 2006. The Prime Minister has been informed about your views’.

I asked similar questions to the Danish Minister of Justice [Lene Espersen] – adding information about the self regulation concerning the freedom of speech imposed on our media by the EU on May 22. 2006 in Vienna. Furthermore I added a question about what she intends to do in order to reestablish our Constitution, which has thereby been made invalid.

On March 21. 2007 the secretary of the Minister of Justice answered:

‘Your considerations concerning § 77 of the Constitution gives no reason for comments’!

We are to be kept ignorant about our free movement towards Euromediterranean, later global and sharia dictatorship

Anders Bruun Laursen – Homepage: Euro-med.dk (English – Deutsch – Dansk)

http://balder.org/avisartikler/Open-Letter-To-Danish-Prime-Minister-Anders-Fogh-Rasmussen.php

EXPANSIONISM…

V: 13 July 2008, The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, based on the Barcelona Declaration was declared in Paris.
Heads of State and Government reiterated the complete rejection of attempts to associate any religion or culture with terrorism.
Participants: The EU + “partner” countries concerned: Algeria; Egypt; Israel; Jordan; Lebanon; Mauritania; Monaco;Morocco; Palestinian Authority; Syria; Tunisia. Croatia and Turkey, negotiating candidate countries to the EU: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro.

The Arab League shall be invited to the meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean, in pursuance of its participation in the Barcelona Process.
Refrain from developing military capacity beyond their legitimate defence requirements/ EU about to establish a 6o.ooo man expeditionary force for world foci!!!
respect for all religions and beliefs
promote legal immigration in the interest of all parties concerned – combat illegal immigration – by legalizing illegal immigration!! In 2004 650.000 immigrants to the EU were refused, just 164.000 returned from the EU.
Independent of enlargement policy.
increase the potential of regional integration and cohesion … .
governance on an equal footing between partners.
The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is driven in all its aspects by the principle of (secret agreements without or knowledge) consensus. State and Government summit meetings every 2 years. Annual Foreign Ministers´conferences will review progress.
Funding: private sector participation; contributions from the EU budget and all partners; contributions from other countries, international financial institutions and regional entities; the Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership Facility (FEMIP); the ENPI Euro-Med envelope, the Neighbourhood Investment Facility
The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly will be the legitimate parliamentary expression of the Union for the Mediterranean (What legitimacy?)50% parlamentarians from the EU, 50% from the “partner” countries.
The Anna Lindh Foundation for the Dialogue between cultures stands for the cultural dimension.
One of the 2 co-presidents will be from the EU and the other from the Mediterranean partner countries.

Projects
Purification of the Mediterranean Sea, and inland highways, development of Motorways of the Sea, and modernization of the trans-European Maghreb trains will increase the flow and the free movement of people and goods. The Gibraltar Tunnel is expected to be finished in 2025. Civil Protection: Alternative energy, the Mediterranean Solar Plan. Higher Education and Research, Euro-Mediterranean University (Slovenia).

VI: Morocco close to EU-similar membership. EU Press Release October 13, 2008: Gradual integration of Morocco into a number of EU sectoral policies, and development of intercultural exchanges.
material support.
EU-Morocco agreement mechanism at high ministerial level,
Morocco may be present in the wings of certain EU Council ministerial or working group meetings, crisis management, etc.
closer relations between the European Parliament and the Moroccan Chamber of Representatives, professional, economic and social councils and between Morocco and the Council of Europe.

The EU-Morocco Action Plan is also interesting
“Enlargement of the European Union, which came into force on 1 May 2004, has led to profound changes in the political, geographical, economic and social situation in the EU allowing to consolidate and deepen relations with its neighbors to the east and south.” No one told us about that danger at the time of the enlargement!
Halal Institute Bankimg (Spain and London)
visa facilitation in line with EU law;
Development of transport and connection to the trans-European transport network liberalize establishment and foreign investment, trade and services, capital: (Arab capital can now easier buy our media and banks).
Free movement of persons, particularly workers and the coordination of social security.
Information campaigns in Morocco on legal migration opportunities in the EU (including family reunification, equal treatment and integration of immigrants)
Promoting language learning and disseminate Moroccan culture in Europe.

In 2002, the current EU Commissioner Louis Michel told the Belgian Parliament that the EU would include Northern Africa and the Middle East. Barroso described the EU as an empirewhose laws shall extend beyond the borders of Europe.

http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/08/thursday-13-august-2009-centurean2s.html

NOW ONE MUST ASK- WHEN A GROUP THAT IS WARNING OF IMPENDING DOOM IS CENSORED FROM FACEBOOK WHICH HAS THE ABILITY TO REACH MILLIONS- WHAT CONCLUSIONS ARE WE FORCED TO REACH?

Censorship on facebook
Posted by Sitemaster on February 7, 2010

Is facebook controlled by muslims?

The worst terrorists and terrorist supporters are allowed on facebook but SIOE and SIOA leaders are thrown off facebook for no reason.
Anders Gravers leader of SIAD and SIOE organiser, Stephen Gash leader of SIOE England and SIOE organiser, Pavel SIOE leader Bulgaria, Kendra leader of Stop islamisation of America and Harald SIAD member and SIOE admin are all banned from facebook without any reason or explanation.
The leader of Jewish Internet Defense Force is also banned from facebook.
For more information read the article below.
This entry was posted on February 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow

SIOE Stop Islamisation Of Europe
Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/censorship-on-facebook/

WE ARE BEING LEAD BY TRAITORS- TO A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH- ISLAMISATION OF OUR COUNTRY AND CONTINENT!!

CONCERN FOR YOUR CHILDREN IF NOTHING ELSE- SHOULD BE UPPERMOST IN YOUR MIND- FOR EXAMPLES’ ALL THATS’ NEEDED IS- TO LOOK AROUND THE WORLD AT MUSLIM COUNTRIES!

OBEYING CULTURAL MARXISM – POLITICAL CORRECTNESS- WILL TAKE YOU TO HELL WITHOUT A RETURN TICKET!!

→ 4 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Evil Spirit of 5 US Presidents – And Biggest Threat to World Peace_ NEEDED SAYING!!

February 9, 2010 · 1 Comment

WHENEVER A SOLDIER IS KILLED- THINK OF THIS EVIL TURD!!
WHENEVER COMRADE BROWNSKI SPEAKS OF TALIBAN COMING TO THE STREETS OF BRITAIN- THINK OF THIS EVIL TURD!
WHENEVER YOU THINK OBAMA IS SOME KIND OF SAINT- THINK OF THIS EVIL TURD- YOUR LIFE IS IN HIS HANDS!!

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Evil Spirit of 5 US Presidents – And Biggest Threat to World Peace

Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

Summary: There is a man who is more dangerous to mankind than any other living person today. His name is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a CFR-member , Arch-Trilateral Commissionist, Bilderberger. He has been the evil spirit behind 5 US presidents, including Obama – and he is obsessed with but one thought: The US is to dominate a communist one world state. For that purpose, he sees Eurasia as his grand chessboard, where the battle is to be won. Like any chessplayer, he starts by occupupying the centre of the chessboard, Central Asia. He wants peace there, friendly arrangements, in particular with China, if possible, so that he can pursue the goal of his obsession, i.e the purpose of the Trilateral Commission created by him and David Rockefeller: To create a world state by fusing a coming North American Union, at which he is working through the CSIS, the Union for the Mediterranean – and a Far East block which is now being created. His aim is a communist one world state where Russia, which he hates, is subdued by being split into 3 republics in a loose confederation – and if that is not possible – then ultimately even by WW III. He and David Rockefeller are behind the fusion of world religions for peace in the world state. In stead he collaborates with Al Gore and Gorbachev to promote the environmental Gaia religion. In the Agenda 21 state people in the technetronic era will be totally controlled and via artificial intelligence (brain chipping) become posthuman robots. He has worked on selling US infrastructure like harbours, outsourcing US jobs, giving the Panama Canal to the Chinese, selling illegal weapons to the Soviet, Iran, Iraq, Libya. He nurtured the Taliban and Al Qaida and ignored Islamic fundamentalism. Advised by Zbigniew and his son, Ian, Obama is now encircling Russia and China, which has not been so cooperative as wanted by Zbigniew, with anti-ballistic missiles which can also be used to inactivate Russian and Chinese satellites, so as to hinder retaliation after a US first strike against the nuclear arsenals of those countries. Russia knows and is preparing for the possibility of having to deliver a preemptive attack – according to the chief of the Russian Joint Staff, Yuri Baluyevsky. These considerations are probably being accentuated by the fact that Russia can hardly afford a fresh weapons race. However, Brzezinski does not believe in Russia´s capacity to strike!

Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
See this video: Brzezinski is the promotor of a Communist Obama who is for a social change in the US and to end the Iraq war and redefines security.
I have previously written about him and his vision for the world: “The Grand Chessboard”. Zbigniew Brzezinski has been called Obama´s Rasputin.

Patrick Briley 16 Sept. 2008: The following is very weird – and one wonders that one man has had so much influence on world affairs. Much of it is confirmed by Wikipedia.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor. Brzezenski was the national security advisor for President Carter from 1977 to 1981. In 1988 he endorsed HW Bush for President and was Co-Chair of the HW Bush national security advisory task force. From 1987 to 1989 he also served on the HW Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright was a student of Brzezenski´s. GW Bush Secretary of State, Condi Rice (also a former national security advisor), who studied under Albright’s father, shares many of the same world government views with Brzezinski and Albright.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is an advocate of socialist world government, a goal he has promoted as a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to “guide policy makers” and as a speaker at former Soviet Premier and Communist Mikhail Gorbachev’s first World Forum. This State of the World Forum had interesting partners. Brzezinski is an architect of creating regions of global governance from independent nations to achieve world government. The CSIS issues the North American Integration Monitor, which hopes for a North American Union (NAU).

The proposals for global taxes by Obama have come with the recommendations of Zbigniew Brzezinski to pay for globalization and world government. Obama has proposed a global poverty tax in a US Senate bill. The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and “carbon footprints” from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body.

Left: Obama´s puppeteers, the Trilateral Commissionists, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller.

Obama, Brzezinski and Al Gore have worked closely with Communist backed environmental fronts led by Gorbachev (proponent of Earth Charter, author of Manifesto for Earth), to promote the falsehood of significant global climate change due to manmade sources of greenhouse gases to scare the world and the US into paying such a global tax to “save the planet.”
Obama’s longstanding ties with Communist, Marxist and Islamic terror mentors in the US have been well documented in the US and world press. What many do not know but need to know is that Zbigniew Brzezinski represents another one of these Islamic terror, socialistic, world government and Marxist mentors of Obama´s.

Brzezinski openly praises Marxism in his book Between Two Ages published in 1970 – in which he desribes man´s behaviour and mind to be totally controlled, people having artificial intelligence (brain chipping) in a “technetronic” dictatorship. Incidentally Brzezenski’s father was an ambassador to Russia from Poland during Stalin’s reign and Zbigniew worked to protect and defend some East German intelligence agents of Stasi some of whose former members later worked to enable the 9/11 hijackers and other Islamic terrorists (Hamburg cell of Atta, Alshehhi and Jarrah – hardly correct). Brzezinski has dual US and Polish citizenship.

Council on Foreign Relations member, Bilderberger, Zbigniew Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission (TC) with David Rockefeller in 1973 and was its first director. Brzezinski selected Jimmy Carter as a member while Carter was the governor of Georgia and before Carter became US President. TC is the primary organization managing the goals of globalization toachieve world government via manipulations of economies, politics and religions of nations around the world including the US.

According to Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Brzezinski, as TC director, advocated, in a 1973 memo, establishing means for social control over the world populations by deliberate “economic and political destabilization” so that later the debt leash could be used to “strangle a rebellious nation into submission (to global governance).”

The TC, Rice and Brzezenski have actively promoted illegal immigration and non-enforcement of US immigration laws to advance the NAU. They have promoted foreign control of the US by facilitating the sell off of US infrastructure and companies to foreign governments including those from the EU, China, Russia and Islamic terror nations.

Brzezinski, Rice, the TC and their socialist friends have intentionally helped destabilize the US economy by devaluating the US dollar through the sending of US jobs overseas.They are trying to control the US energy economy via the Climate Change Control bills and to prevent US energy independence (which would stop the devaluation of the dollar) by calling for curtailing and drastically controlling production of oil. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s contrived leash is not limited just to money and capital; it includes controlling populations, and nations by controlling their jobs, their immigration, their food, their water, their energy, their politicians and governments, and their religions.

The world government socialists like Brzezinski and Obama are promoting a “new order of religions,” an amalgamation of religions to unify and control populations and nations. They are including in their new order umbrella of religions Islamic aspirations for a world caliphate, Communitarianistic and New Age beliefs, the Gaia (“mother” Earth) religion of environmentalists exploited by the Communists, by Al Gore (the tree hugger) and by those who worship the created rather than the Creator.

Brzezinski worked with Republican globalists like Kissinger and US Senator Henry Bellmon (OK) to give the Panama Canal away ultimately for Communist Chinese control (Carter-Torrijos Treaties). Under Carter, Brzezinski was responsible for the severing of direct US recogniton of Taiwan as an independent nation and recognizing only Communist China.

As soon as Carter became President Brzezinski started to illegally manipulate the export control list to enable advanced US computer, military (guidance systems), energy (nuclear; coal, oil shale, tar sands conversion and synthetic fuels) technologies to be transferred and sold by US companies (such as Control Data, GE and Union Carbide) to the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan!

On February 2, 1979, Brzezinski wrote a memo to Carter falsely claiming that Islamic fundamentalism was not an imminent threat and would not gain prominence in the Middle East. Brzezinski was the architect of the formation of US CIA and Saudi training and funding for the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda terrorists camps. Brzezinski, along with Clinton’s NSC advisor Anthony Lake, John McCain, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, was a proponent of using the Saudis and CIA to directly fund the AlQaeda and Iranian arming and training in and outside the US of Islamic terrrorists from Albania, Kosvo and Bosnia to kick out the Serbs and Croats. Some of these same terrorists became the 9/11 hijackers?? Carter and Bzezinski are and have been “diplomats at large” along with Boren for Hamas terrorists in the Middle East and US as reflected in Obama’s pro-Islamic foreign policies.

Zeit Kritiker: Brzezinski is Obama´s puppeteer.
Even during the tenure of G.W. Bush, Brzezinski took over key sectors of the U.S. government. Since then, the danger of a confrontation between the United States with Russia, China, Sudan, Pakistan and more recently with Iran and Yemen has highly increased.The aggression of the U.S. toward Iran, ultimately aims at a confrontation with Russia and China.

“The Grand Chessborad” dissipates any doubt: The US is to dominate all Eurasia. Then American high finance would in effect be in control of 70 percent of the oil and gas reserves – in order to secure American primacy for a long time. With Obama as a puppet of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller see this goal within reach.

Moscow is well aware of this situation, the fear of Brzezinski’s finger on the nuclear button does not leave Russia inactive: The Chief of the Russian General Staff, Yury Baluyevsky announced in January 2008, “Russia would revise its nuclear doctrine, so that a nuclear first strike in certain situations would be possible.” (WG Tarpley, Barack Obama – How a U.S. President is Made p. 166).
Brzezinski and his followers are so obsessed with America as the sole superpower that they are willing to take the risk of World War III. That should be clear to everyone.

Brzezinski´s Grand Chessboard: Eurasia
Brzezinski: A Geostrategy for Eurasia Foreign Affairs September/October 1997. Article read here: A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard.

Brzezinski wants understanding with China – and wants to weaken Russia by splitting her into 3 republics.
Any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence. America must be careful not to alienate Turkey. America should use its influence in Europe to encourage Turkey’s eventual admission to the EU. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate U.S.-Iranian hostility. The core of the new transcontinental security framework could be a standing committee composed of the major Eurasian powers, with America, Europe, China, Japan, a confederated Russia, and India collectively addressing critical issues for Eurasia’s stability.
Comment: This is the idea of the Trilateral Commission founded by Brzezinski and David Rockefeller

Brzezinki´s legacy
Trend 26 Jan. 2009 Brzezinski told Polish Radio that there are no other options than aggression when dealing with Moscow, speaking of the anti-missile shield.
Global Research 3 Febr. 2010 With or without Brzezinski´s advise, Obama is now provoking both Russia, China and Iran by sale of of sophisticated ground-to-air missiles to Poland, various weaponry for Taiwan and anti-missile defence systems to 4 Gulf States. A fresh provokation against Russia was reported on 5 Febr. by the EUObserver: The US will set up its anti missile shield (against Iran?) in Romania and in the Black Sea
Global Res. 5 Febr. 2010: These same Army Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) systems are going to be deployed in Taiwan as the U.S. continues its military encirclement of China. U.S. PAC-3 systems have already been deployed in Japan and South Korea. News that the U.S. is about to deploy a PAC-3 missile battery in Poland led Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, to recently state: “Do they really think that we will calmly watch the location of a rocket system, at a distance of 60 km from Kaliningrad?”

The official authorization of Patriot transfers to Taiwan – the missiles are produced by Raytheon Company headquartered in Massachusetts, whose former vice president of Government Operations and Strategy William Lynn is now Obama’s Deputy Secretary of Defense – resulted in China’s vice foreign minister, He Yafei, saying “We believe this move endangers China’s national security.”The strategy is clear. Surround Russia and China with mobile “missile defense” systems whose job is to take out their retaliatory capability after a U.S. first-strike against their nuclear weapons. All this means one thing – an extended arms race with Russia and China which will mean huge profits for the weapons industry. And Brzezinski? Global Res. 15 Aug. 2008 Obama’s foreign policy team in addition to father Zbigniew Brzezinski, includes Brzezinski’s son, Ian Brzezinski, current US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. Ian Brzezinski is a devout backer of US missile defense policy, as well as Kosovo independence and NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia.

The Brzezinskis. Ian Brzezinski left. They are a mortal danger to the world.

Comment
Bzrezinski´s big idea is the necessity for the USA to dominate the world. He will do so by means of his child, the Trilateral Commission´s, aim, i.e. fusioning a North American Union, which he is creating through the CSIS, the Union for the Mediterranean and an East Asian bloc, which is being constructed.
US domination of Eurasia is a must. Therefore, US is now occupying the centre of the chessboard, Central Asia – at any cost, even World War III. And he might have it soon in case Russia and China are unable to participate in a new armament race.

He underestimates Russia as a nuclear power capable of delivering a first strike catastrophically. Unauthorized Obama biographer, Webster Tarpley, says on this video that Bzrezinski will spare Iran and use the US forces in a war against Russia!! Here Tarpley tells about Brzezinski admitting on French TV, that he lured the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the world: “Nonsense” says Brzezinski. He is willing to use any means to provoke war with Russia, which he hates. Here is a view that supports him: AG Friedensforschung der Universität Kassel: “What course of events would history take if American and european geo-politicians – without taking the new diestribution of power into consideration – would, in fact, stick to the plan of primacy in Eurasia? In this case a clash between different great powers would occur – wheter as a cold or a hot war.” This may be what US Vice-President, Joe Biden, and Colin Powell meant. In fact, after the Georgian-Russian war, Brzezinski did see Russia as a military hindrance to US Dominance in Eurasia – video.

http://euro-med.dk/?p=13551

EASY ACCESS LINK-COMMENT SECTION!

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized

An Interview With Al-Qaeda Members- CBN News- In LONDON ENGLAND!!

February 8, 2010 · 5 Comments

BRITISH TROOPS GETTING KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN- WE’RE TOLD TO FIGHT AL-QAEDA RIGHT?
FFS-THEN WHY ARE AL-QAEDA STILL FREELY ROAMING LONDON STREETS- BRITISH GOVERNMENT SCARED OR WHAT?

Thursday, February 04, 2010

An Interview With British Al Qaeda Members
by Baron Bodissey

Erick Stakelbeck of CBN managed to chat with some representatives of Al Qaeda (including the notorious Anjem Choudary) when he was in London. His interview with them is set to air next Tuesday on CBN, according to this press release:

CBN Terrorism Correspondent Erick Stakelbeck Sits Down in London With Al-Qaeda Linked Terrorists

Segment Featuring These Alarming Interviews To Air On The 700 Club On Tuesday, Feb. 9

WASHINGTON DC (February 4, 2010) — With our highest government officials warning of another likely terror attack in the USA over the next three to six months, CBN terrorism correspondent Erick Stakelbeck traveled to London to interview several Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in order to get a window into Al Qaeda’s mindset. Despite several of these men being wanted by authorities in the United States, they are actually living in London as free men.

“Some of the most wanted men in the free world are walking the streets of London with the full knowledge of the British government,” says Stakelbeck. “London is a major hub for terrorists.”

Stakelbeck sat down and interviewed several men with either known ties to Al-Qaeda or suspected ties, including:

An hour-long interview with a Saudi national named Saad Al Faqih, an Al-Qaeda linked Islamic “scholar” who was designated by the US State Department and the UN as a Global Terrorist in ‘04. The interview was conducted in his living room in London, sipping tea. In the interview Faqih said he believes “More confrontation is coming between the West and the Muslim world, with terrorist attacks even bigger than in 2001.”

An hour-long interview with a Libyan named Noman Benotman, a former confidante of Bin Laden and Zawahiri but now condemns Al Qaeda. Benotman knows the organization from the inside and met with Bin Laden face to face as recently as 2000. He told Stakelbeck, “There is nothing that excites Bin Laden more than killing innocent civilians. The more American women and children that are killed, the happier Bin Laden is. It’s an obsession with him.”
- – - – - – - – -

A 1-hour interview with the most infamous Islamic radical in the UK, Anjem Choudary of Al-Muhajiroun. Choudary, the pro-jihad mouthpiece who has been called Britain’s most hated man, told Stakelbeck terrorism isn’t a threat, just a “reality check.” He also said, “I think that the British government is sitting on a tinderbox. You know, full of dynamite. And they have the matches in their hand and they’re being very flippant. They’re not dealing with it properly. It could all blow up in their face and it could be a very vicious situation.”

An interview with Yasser Al Sirri. He was an associate of Al-Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and is strongly linked to Al Qaeda’s hierarchy. He was sentenced to death in absentia in Egypt in ‘93 and now has asylum in London. Stakelbeck’s interview was the first time he will ever appear on American television.

Stakelbeck will televise portions of these interviews during a CBN News segment on The 700 Club on Tuesday, February 9th. Check local listings for airtime and channel.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CONTACT:
Chris Roslan
DRC Inc. Public Relations
(212) 966-4600
chris@drcpublicrelations.com

When the online version of the program appears, we’ll post it here. Stay tuned.

LINK IN COMMENT SECTION….GATES OF VIENNA

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/censorship-on-facebook/

CENSORSHIP IN BRITAIN- GETTING TO BE AN HABIT!!

LINK IN COMMENT SECTION- PASS ON!!

→ 5 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

DOVER PORT TO BE SOLD OFF- TO FRENCH…Fabian Comrade Brownski- Sell Scotland Prick!!

February 8, 2010 · 16 Comments

WHEN THE WEST FOLLOWS THE PAEDOPHILE JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES’ FABIAN ECONOMICS- DON’T BE SURPRISED WHEN ALL GOES TIT’S UP!!
GARY GLITTER ISN’T ALLOWED RADIO AIRTIME TO SING- RIGHTLY SO!
HOW COME ALL OUR FINANCES ARE RISKED BY A CHILD BUGGERING FIEND- JUST BECAUSE OF HIS FABIAN FASCIST’S BELIEFS’?

Sunday, 7 February 2010
Dover Port to be sold to the French

This is not an Aprils Fools joke.

This is how low our nation has fallen.

White Cliffs of Dover to be sold to the French to help reduce Government’s debt

By Vanessa Allen
Last updated at 7:47 PM on 07th February 201

For generations the White Cliffs of Dover have stood as a symbol of indomitable British pride.

But now Dover is up for sale and the leading bidder has been revealed to be an age-old enemy – France.

The Port of Dover is one of a string of publicly owned assets which have been earmarked for privatisation as the Government battles with a record £830billion of national debt.
Royal Naval vessel HMS Kent passes by the White Cliffs of Dover. The port is up for sale and the leading bidder is the owner of French port Calais

Royal Naval vessel HMS Kent passes by the White Cliffs of Dover. The port is up for sale and the leading bidder is the owner of French port Calais

Its advisers have recommended selling Dover to France as ‘a very logical move’, but the plan has prompted outrage.

Conservative Party prospective MP for Dover Charles Elphicke said: ‘In trying to sell off our port and the White Cliffs, it’s clear Gordon Brown has no sense of the history of our nation or the pride of our town.

‘How dare he consider selling it all off to the French? Dover is the English border. We stood proud in defending our nation in times past.

‘We are the nation’s front line. The people of Dover have a clear message for him – hands off our port, hands off the English border, hands off the White Cliffs.’

A sale of the Port of Dover, Europe’s busiest ferry port, could net up to £350million for the Treasury.
port

Asset: Dover port could soon be sold by the Government to help reduce the budget deficit

It would be expected to sell for around £500million, after its harbour board applied to the Transport Secretary for voluntary privatisation last month.

The sale is anticipated to be rubber-stamped and the leading bidder has emerged as Nord-pas-de-Calais regional council, which also owns the port of Calais.

The Government is being advised by merchant bank NM Rothschild, and a source at the investment bank told the News of the World: ‘This is an exciting sale.

‘Selling Dover to Calais is a very logical move as that is where most of the business is directed.’

The sale of Dover to France would be a bizarre reversal of fortune in Anglo-French relations.
gerry

Broker: Gerry Grimstone, chairman of Standard Life, is advising the Government on the possible sale of Dover port

Calais was besieged by the English and captured by Edward III in 1347, and the occupation lasted for more than two centuries.

From 1536, the town sent MPs to Parliament but the French recaptured the town from the English in 1558.

The two towns are only 21 miles apart and separated by the Strait of Dover, one of the world’s busiest shipping areas.

The Port of Dover, the largest British port still in the public sector, made an operating profit of £15.1million in 2008.

It is a ‘trust port’, meaning all revenues are reinvested into it, and it is now seeking £400million to expand, as it anticipates a doubling in freight traffic by 2040.

Chief Executive Bob Goldfield said: ‘The time is right for the voluntary privatisation of Dover.

‘We want to invest around £400million on a second terminal and need to invest in the existing terminal, but are unable to because of public sector borrowing constraints.

‘We want to throw off the shackles to enable us to invest in the future.’

The Dover Harbour Board, which oversees the port’s operation, denied it had been put under political pressure to privatise.

The port and the Channel rail link are said to be the vanguard of the Prime Minister’s £16billion privatisation plans.

He wants to halve Britain’s budget deficit in four years and has earmarked a series of publicly owned assets for injections of private capital.

The list also includes the Post Office, the M25 Dartford toll crossing over the Thames and the student loans book, and the Government’s stake in uranium processor Urenco.

The scheme has been overseen by Standard Life chairman Gerry Grimstone, a key architect of the Thatcher Government’s privatisation of firms like BT in the 1980s.

It targets £3billion from asset sales and £13billion from selling Government property.

The rest of Britain’s major maritime ports were sold off in the 1991 Ports Act, but Dover was missed out because of uncertainty over its future because of the construction of the Channel Tunnel.

The privatisation plans have run into local opposition. Gwyn Prosser, the town’s Labour MP, warned of a potential loss of jobs. The port’s workforce has shrunk by 60 per cent over the past eight years, with 200 jobs lost last year.

Mr Prosser said: ‘This is a strategic asset and we must be careful about the import of foreign capital.

‘What we’re concerned about is who will be the new owner. They could be foreign investors or competition from across the Channel in France.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249194/Dover-symbol-British-sovereignty-sold-French-help-reduce-debt.html#ixzz0et1Kxb3C

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2010/02/dover-port-to-be-sold-to-french.html

Brown wont bother about selling dover. But I bet he would if Edinburgh was put up for sale. Its a case now of the rulers of the UK (The scots) not giving a toss for the english. William Wallace may have lost to Longshanks but by the left these sods are evening the job up
- Michael Birt, Banglamung, Thailand, 8/2/2010 12:55

What is wrong with this country, did not thousands of people give their lives to stop our wonderful little country falling into the wrong hands, so what do we do now sell it off to the highest bidder.

Do we not care as a nation anymore, perhaps your grandfathers and mothers or family gave their life so we could live free.

Selling parts of britain is not right, think of all those who died to save this country.!!!!!
- Mo Reilly, Boston, England, 8/2/2010 12:53

Somebody please tell me: is there anything worth left to sell in this country???
- Zoe, London, 8/2/2010 12:53

Britain has been sold down the river anyway by the Government, so this is not news or a surprise is it??

Disgusting and unforgivable of the people in charge, who got the UK into the mess in the first place. Words fail me, really.

Watch the euro get closer now.
- Chris, Spain, 8/2/2010 12:52
FOR SURE- AFTER ALL HE SOLD OUR GOLD AND BOUGHT EUROS’- INVESTED OUR GOLD IN A FOREIGN STATE THEN SAYS- OUR COUNTRY!
Gordon Brown would sell his grandmother given the chance to make a few euros to squander.

How dare he sell off one of our nations historic landmarks and to the French of all people. He wouldn’t be so quick to sell off a Scottish piece of history!

Have some pride in your nation you traitor. We, the British public, do not want to be owned by foreigners and nor do we want to be overtaken by them.
- JF, London, 8/2/2010 12:5

Vic UKIP Dover. I am sure you are sincere but for goodness sake get your work
vetted before you post it. As a candidate with an ambition to help run Britain your post must be flawless, yours isn’t. You are standing against people who will make mincemeat of you if you can’t get the basics right. If you are playing to win you can’t afford another post like that one.
- Michael, Sydney Australia, 8/2/2010 12:49

Here we go again: P&O owner of ports and ships ended up in foreign hands; Cadbury in foreign hands, much of English/Welsh water companies in foreign hands:much of Scotland is now in foreign hands: High…d Sp…g bottled water in foreign hands (we are daft enough to buy OUR water in bottles, we felt the rain falling

…now the Port of Dover appears to be heading for foreign hands.

Who needs armies to overrun the UK…it can be bought too easily.

We have a Government without any idea about heritage or ways of repelling foreign buyers. Potential Goverment after election will possibly be just as bad.
- John, Pitlochry, 8/2/2010 12:48

My grandparents fought alongside, shoulder to soldier with british soldiers to keep the commonwealth free from dictators.

Mr Brown is is shameless and I would not be too surprised if he sold everything he could to anyone, and this includes Iran. Importantly, I dod not just blame mr Brown but blame those that refuse to kick him out of office just because they want to keep their well paid jobs and massive perks.
- Bal singh, kent. England, 8/2/2010 12:48
Click to rate Rating 8Report abuse
Well EDF energy is wholly owned by the French. I’m thinking how they’d rename Dover, maybe ‘Le Dove’? Half the port can be for their warships. Now when they buy up the water companies they’ll effective own most of the UK’s infrastructure. What’s next, London maybe that could be renamed Paris2? LOL

Michael
- Michael L, London, UK, 8/2/2010 12:46

Even though the Tories popularity is sliding southwards, this hare-brained initiative is not doing Labour any favours at all. I still think Labour is hell bent in committing political suicide.

What’s the betting that the constituency of Dover and the surrounding constituencies end up in the hands of the UKIP or LibDems as a punishment to Brown and a warning to Cameron not to follow though with the sell off?
- Mark, Hertfordshire, 8/2/2010 12:43

I would like to ask the people who vote for Labour, where is the money going to come from, to pay for everything, like XBOX, HEATING, ELECTRICITY, POLL TAX, TV LICENSE, FREE EVERYTHING ELSE, after your beloved party have squandered more money on your behalf, just to vote for them. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN, WHEN THE MONEY RUNS OUT????????
- C.A.Hodson, Malaysia, 8/2/2010 12:41 WHAT MAKES YOU THINK, LABOUR VOTERS THINK? AFTER ALL FOR YEARS THEY VOTED LABOUR AND GOT FABIANS!!

blinkered, west midlands, 8/2/2010 12:29

Yes, and you’re going to have high interest rates again soon, thanks to the idiot Brown printing £200 billion.

It must never be forgotten that the tories spent most of the 80s trying their best to clear up the disasterous mess left by the labour govt in 1979. By 1997 they had cleared the budget debt and Blair actually inherited a budget surplus on winning the election. By 2001 the incompetent Brown had manged to spend the surplus and was already putting us in debt. He then went on a mad spending and borrowing binge in the 2000s and that is why we are where we are! None of this is Thatcher’s fault – it can all be laid clearly at the door of Brown. This is why they tell so many lies – to try and cover up the utter financial mess they have caused yet again!
- Tom W, London, 8/2/2010 12:40

- Richard, Alicante, Spain, 8/2/2010 11:42
Thanks Richard, and I can sympathise with you I truly can. We have worked hard all our lives only to have a Labour government wreck it every step of the way in
————–
To all labourites on this message board.

Thatcher NEVER sold our assets to foreign companies. This started with Blair in 1997. Thatcher sold our utilites to US the people of this country. It has been labour who have been selling everything (including utilites) to foreign companies. Most european countries do NOT allow their utilities to be owned by foreign companies.
- Tom W, London 8/2/2010 11:59

Well said Tom, people will read your comment but I don’t think it will sink in with some, but you are absolutely right.

This government would sell anything and everything, even their own granny.
- Yvonne, West Midlands, 8/2/2010 12:40

THERE WON’T NEED TO BE MONEY FOR DEFENCE- FABIAN COMMUNIST COMRADE BROWNSKI WILL JUST SWAP THE UNION FLAG FOR A WHITE SHEET AND SURRENDER!!

SHOUTING RACIST- JUST COULDN’T HACK IT- BOTH ARE ETHNICS’

Controversial Met chief Ali Dizaei found GUILTY of perverting the course of justice
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:13 PM on 08th February 2010

Britain’s most senior black police officer was found guilty today of threatening and falsely arresting a man in a petty row over money.
Commander Ali Dizaei, 47, was convicted of misconduct and perverting the course of justice at London’s Southwark Crown Court.

A jury found he attacked Iraqi Waad al-Baghdadi, 24, before arresting and attempting to frame him.

Guilty: Ali Dizaei arrives at Southwark Crown Court with his wife Shy this morning
The court heard how the two men met by chance in the Persian Yas restaurant, run by Dizaei’s friend Sohrab Eshragi, in Hammersmith Road, west London, on July 18, 2008.

Mr al-Baghdadi approached Dizaei and asked for £600 he believed he was owed for building a personal website.

There was a confrontation and Dizaei, who earlier attended a New Scotland Yard ceremony for new recruits, arrested Mr al-Baghdadi in a side street.

The jury heard two 999 calls, one by the younger man complaining about his treatment, the other by Dizaei asking for ‘urgent assistance’.

Peter Wright QC said when colleagues arrived Dizaei falsely claimed he had been threatened and stabbed with the metal mouthpiece of a shisha pipe.

The prosecutor said the officer was guilty of a ‘wholesale abuse of power’ motivated by self-interest and pride.

A police doctor concluded two red marks on the officer’s torso were probably self-inflicted but a forensic scientist representing Dizaei disagreed.

Mr al-Baghdadi was held overnight but no charges were brought against him. He later made a formal complaint which sparked an independent inquiry into Dizaei’s actions.

In his defence, Dizaei had said he was a frontline officer simply doing his duty when he saw a man breaking the law.

He fiercely denied impropriety and dismissed claims he challenged the Iraqi to a fist fight in the street as ‘complete and utter nonsense’.

Dizaei said he feared he was being targeted by his own colleagues because of his championing of ethnic minority officers. The trial began on January 11.
CCTV still of Waad al-Baghdadi (striped jumper) inside the Yas restaurant before Ali Dizaei challenged him to a street fight over £600 he said he owed him
Flashpoint: Dizaei is seen arriving at the restaurant where he then confronted al-Baghdadi
The corruption convictions will almost certainly spell the end of the Iranian officer’s controversial 24-year career.

Dizaei, who has been suspended on full pay since September 2008, is now likely to be sacked from the Metropolitan Police for gross misconduct.

He emerged unscathed from a series of earlier inquiries, including a multimillion-pound undercover operation examining claims of corruption, fraud and dishonesty.

But an attempt to frame a young businessman who pestered him for payment over a website exposed him as a bully and a liar who abused his position.

The jury heard the two men met by chance in the Persian Yas restaurant, run by Dizaei’s friend Sohrab Eshragi, in Hammersmith Road, west London, on July 18 2008.

Mr al-Baghdadi, 24, approached Dizaei and asked for £600 he was owed for building a website showcasing his career, press interviews and speeches.

This angered Dizaei, who had just eaten a meal with his wife after attending a ceremony at New Scotland Yard for new recruits.

The officer confronted the younger man in a nearby sidestreet where a scuffle took place and Mr al-Baghdadi was roughly arrested and handcuffed.

Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said Dizaei told Mr al-Baghdadi he would ‘f*** up your life’ and had “10 witnesses” who would back him up.

In one of two 999 calls Dizaei asked an operator for ‘urgent assistance’ before starting to arrest Mr al-Baghdadi.

When officers arrived, Dizaei handed them the metal mouthpiece of a shisha pipe, held on Mr al-Baghdadi’s key ring, and claimed he had been stabbed with it.

But a doctor at Hammersmith police station concluded that two red marks on the officer’s torso were probably self-inflicted and did not match the pipe.

Yas restaurant in Kensington High Street where the argument took place
Dizaei told colleagues he had been attacked, leaving Mr al-Baghdadi in custody for 24 hours and ultimately facing prosecution.

When Mr al-Baghdadi was told he would not face any charge, he complained about his treatment and Dizaei’s web of deceit slowly unravelled.

Mr Wright said the officer was guilty of a ‘wholesale abuse of power’ motivated by self-interest and pride.

He said Dizaei tried to get the case dropped when he realised inconsistencies in his account had been uncovered by detectives.

Giving evidence, Mr al-Baghdadi compared Dizaei to bloodthirsty movie gangster Tony Montana, a character played by Al Pacino in the 1983 film Scarface.

He said many people were scared of the Metropolitan Police officer because of his status in the Iranian community.

The jury also heard that Dizaei rarely paid for his meals and left his unmarked car on a double yellow line while at the restaurant.

In his defence, Dizaei said he feared he was being targeted by his own colleagues because of his role as president of the National Black Police Association.

The senior officer represented Tarique Ghaffur as he threatened to sue former commissioner Sir Ian Blair for discrimination and bullying.

Dizaei said he suspected he was being followed, that his phone was tapped and that
he might be attacked.

But the jury rejected his claim that the way complaints against him were handled could lead to a ‘miscarriage of justice’ and convicted him of both counts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249382/Controversial-Met-chief-Ali-Dizaei-GUILTY-perverting-course-justice.html#ixzz0ex4Mnddf

RAPING WOMEN MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH VOTES!!

Tory MP claims ”barbaric and medieval” views about women have been imported into Britain

A Tory MP accused some communities of importing ”barbaric and medieval” views about women into Britain while discussing the sentencing of an Asian teenager for rape.

Published: 3:24PM GMT 28 Jan 2010

David Davies, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, has called for the Attorney General to review the three-year term imposed on Balal Khan, 14.

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live on Wednesday the Monmouth MP said the case raised a ”wider question”.

‘What is it about this young man’s upbringing, what about his community or his parental upbringing, that led him to think that women are second-class people whose rights can be trampled over like this?” he said.

”That is a very interesting question. And, you know, there are some sensitive issues here, but there do seem to be some people in some communities who don’t respect women’s rights at all and who – if I may say, without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion – who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women and that is something that also needs to be addressed.”

The Conservative Party distanced itself from Mr Davies’s comments.

A spokesman said: ”These comments do not reflect the views of the party in any way.”

Khan was sentenced to three years in a young offenders institution at Stoke Crown Court after admitting raping and robbing a 20-year-old woman.

Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, said: ”I am appalled at this Conservative MP’s indiscriminate attack on whole communities in our tolerant society.

”This sort of inflammatory language from a leading Welsh Tory does nothing to help hardworking people in difficult times.

”We are trying to get along together the best we can – David Davies should be ashamed of himself.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7093843/Tory-MP-claims-barbaric-and-medieval-views-about-women-have-been-imported-into-Britain.html

EXPLAIN- FOR WHAT YOU DIM BASTARD- SOUTH AFRICAN ARSEHOLE!

GET ALONG TOGETHER- THAT MEANS ALLOWING RAPES DOES IT?

THE TORY PARTY IS NO BETTER- NO WONDER GIRLS OF 12 AND 13 IN THE NORTH THAT ARE RAPED AND DRUGGED UP- WHEN THE ELITE SEEM TO BE COLLUDING IN THIS CRIME!

MAKES IT CLEAR WHERE THE FABIANS INTERESTS ARE ON RAPE- LETS HOPE THEY GET A DOSE!!

TAKING THE PISS AS USUAL!

I travel to Egypt a lot and there is not this kind of ‘praying’ problem there – you see, if you don’t actually work – you don’t get paid!
- DaveMac, Northallerton, 8/2/2010 12:22

It’s clear that people like this are pushing to see how far they can go. Sadly they are learning that the answer to that question is more or less as far as they want to.

Unfortunately we don’t have strong enough leaders – either in the public or private sectors – to draw a sensible line, so this story is going to run and run.

Until it’s too late.
- nomadscot, home again, sort of, 8/2/2010 12:12

IN ACTUAL FACT- ALSO TELLS US THAT THERE ARE FAR MORE HERE THAN IS ADMITTED TO- A CERTAIN NUMBER MUST BE REACHED BEFORE CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE TAKEN!!!

Passengers left stunned after Muslim bus driver pulls over and begins praying in the aisle
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 12:13 PM on 08th February 2010

Comments (81)

The driver pulled over in his No.24 bus and began to pray in front of bemused passengers
A Muslim bus driver stunned passengers when he pulled over and started praying in the aisle – with the engine still running.

The driver parked without warning then rolled out a fluorescent jacket as an improvised prayer mat.
He took off his shoes, knelt down facing Mecca, and began to chant.

The prayer session held up the bus for more than five minutes with no-one able to get on or off.

Passenger Gayle Griffiths complained to Transport for London about the bizarre incident on the No.24 bus in Gospel Oak, north London, this week.
Mother-of-one Miss Griffiths, 33, of Camden, north-west London, had boarded the bus a few minutes earlier on her way home from work.
She says that she even feared at the time that the driver might be a fanatic planning to blow up the bus.

She said: ‘I have done the journey a million times before but I was in a hurry to get home to pick my little girl up from school.
‘We had just picked up and let off people at a bus stop and moved off again when the driver stopped the bus very suddenly.

‘He got out of his cab, leaving the engine running, and walked towards the middle exit door.

‘He laid out a fluorescent jacket on the floor and I thought that somebody must have been sick and he was covering it up.

‘I didn’t really think much of it.

‘But then he took off his shoes and began praying. I was gobsmacked and quite bewildered.’
Miss Griffiths said the bus driver didn’t give the passengers any explanation as to what he was doing.

‘He hadn’t addressed the passengers at all,’ she said. ‘I didn’t say anything and nor did anyone else. I thought it would all be over in 30 seconds but it went on for over five minutes.

Passenger: Gayle Griffiths
‘It even went through my mind that this might be some sort of terrorist attack with the bus blown up because I had heard that suicide bombers prayed before attacks.

‘As the engine was running anyone could also have got in the cab and driven off with a bus full of passengers.

‘He was also blocking the exit, so if something had happened we would not have been able to get off.

‘Everyone was looking round in a mix of shock and amazement. It was truly bizarre, ludicrous and aggravating.

‘We are delayed often enough as it is in London.

‘We live in a multi-cultural society but there is a time and a place for prayer and the middle of a journey with a busload of passengers is not it.’
Transport for London said it had apologised to all the passengers for the delay to their journey and said all Muslim drivers are being reminded that they should pray during statutory rest periods rather than hold up services.
A TfL spokesman said: ‘A route 24 bus was delayed following a decision by the driver to stop the bus to pray.

‘The bus company, London General, has had a word with the driver as this is not something that should be happening.
‘TfL apologises to passengers for any inconvenience this may have caused them.

‘We understand that there is some flexibility in the Muslim faith as to the times of day that drivers can pray.

‘TfL and the individual bus operating companies acknowledge and value the diversity of their staff.

‘As diverse employers, TfL and the bus operators provide suitable prayer or quiet rooms at garages and other key locations for staff who wish to practise their faith.

‘We have asked London General to remind drivers who have a requirement to pray to use these facilities during their rest periods.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249335/Bus-delayed-Muslim-driver-pulls-pray-aisle.html#ixzz0ex9VNixr

PASSENGERS WOULD GO NUTS HERE- HE’D BE LEFT PRAYING WITHOUT A BUS TO GET BACK INTO!

PRINTING BENEFIT CLAIMS MONEY- IMMIGRANTS NEED YOUR TAXES- IT’S OK- YOU CAN REPAY BY HIGHER TAXATION- AFTER THE ELECTION!!
WITHOUT A JOB -COULD BE TOUGH- ALL NEW JOBS GO TO NON BRITISH- FABIANS WANT IT THAT WAY!!
WAGES FROZEN- JUST AS PRICES RISE AGAIN= TROUBLE!!

I’m glad your pleased by their courage, perhaps you’d like to give them a job and a home in YOUR country!
- Chris Carr, Southampton, 08/2/2010 13:27

The French MP for Calais has praised the ‘courage’ of migrants who trek thousands of miles across Europe to sneak illegally into Britain.

Would he praise them so highly if they wanted to sneak illegally into France and stay there?
- why-oh-why, UK, 08/2/2010 13:26

If this idiot feels like this then he should let them stay at his house free of charge with meals thrown in?
- Rude Boy, Bedford, 08/2/2010 13:24

TRIAL RUNS FOR EUMED- WAIT WHILE IT REALLY KICKS IN.

Controversial French MP praises ‘courage’ of migrants illegally headed for Britain
By Ian Sparks
Last updated at 1:19 PM on 08th February 2010
Comments (3) Add to My Stories Controversial: Jack Lang has demanded urgent humanitarian aid for migrants in Calais

The French MP for Calais has praised the ‘courage’ of migrants who trek thousands of miles across Europe to sneak illegally into Britain.

Former culture minister Jack Lang also called for urgent humanitarian aid for the ’starving’ illegal immigrants massed in the northern French port.

The controversial remarks by one of France’s most prominent elder statesmen will anger senior government ministers who have vowed to make Calais watertight to migrants.

His comments come after around 100 British-bound immigrants were ejected from a controversial new hostel in the town dubbed Sangatte II.

Scores of anti-riot police removed the migrants from the disused warehouse on a street called England Square after they barricaded themselves inside on Saturday.

The sprawling 2,000 sq ft hangar had been rented by local charities SOS and No Border in defiance of a French ban on giving shelter to illegal immigrants in town.

After the migrants were ejected on Sunday afternoon, all were then freed to make fresh attempts to reach Britain.

Now local MP Mr Lang has demanded they and the hundreds more migrants sleeping rough in Calais are given urgent humanitarian aid.

He said: ‘Of course I am opposed to building another Sangatte, but I am in favour of a plan of humanitarian action after this mass evacuation on Sunday.

‘I do not understand the government’s attitude. These are human beings and they are starving hungry.

‘In most cases, the migrants are young people, often with good qualifications, and courageous for what they have endured to get to Calais.
More…Riot police fight with migrants at Sangatte II

‘Why don’t we offer job training opportunities for all of them that say they wish to remain in France?’

Immigration minister Eric Besson vowed last year to make Calais ‘watertight’ to migrants who arrive there hoping to sneak aboard ferries and lorries to Britain.

And Calais mayor Natacha Bouchart has said she believes Britain should open its borders to allow the migrants in.

Squalor: Hundreds of migrants have been sleeping rough in Calais

But despite their pledges to seal off the English Channel to migrants, they continue to flood into the town.

This weekend’s drama comes three months after police flattened a woodland shanty town known as the Jungle, arresting 278 British-bound migrants.

They were also released after judges ruled their human rights had been abused.

Two weeks ago, 120 Kurdish migrants were arrested on a beach in Corsica. But after being taken to mainland France they were freed also on human rights grounds and many were said to have started heading to Calais.

In December, a ruling by France’s highest court could now make it illegal for France to deport any British-bound migrant who lodges a claim to remain in France.

France’s Conseil d’Etat decided the right to claim asylum was a ‘fundamental freedom’ – even for migrants who come to France with the sole intention of reaching Britain.

It means migrants will be free to flood into Calais without fear of arrest and deportation if they formally apply to live in France.

France has also come under fire for not deporting enough mainly Afghan migrants on two joint Anglo-French forced repatriation flights to Kabul.

On the first flight in October, France put only three illegal migrants on the plane, while Britain packed 23 on board.

Of the estimated 1,000 migrants currently in Calais, up to 50 a week are thought to be crossing the Channel illegally, with more migrants arriving in the town to replace them every day.

More are also arriving on a daily basis in other ports on the northern French coast that have ferry links to Britain, like Dunkirk, Ouistreham and Cherbourg.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1249372/Controversial-French-MP-Jack-Lang-praises-courage-migrants-headed-Britain.html#ixzz0exCPDJQM

IMPORTING BENEFIT CLAIMERS- MAKES SENSE- ONLY IF YOU HATE BRITS!!

AIN’T THAT TRUE COMRADE BROWNSKI- FABIANS GRADUAL CHANGE WILL LEAD TO THE END OF BRITAIN!

SCUM!!

→ 16 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Liberalism and the Search for the Ground: Another Visit with Eric Voegelin – Totalitarianism Now Official!

February 8, 2010 · 1 Comment

Liberalism and the Search for the Ground: Another Visit with Eric Voegelin
By Thomas F. Bertonneau
Created 2010-02-07 16:14
The Geert Wilders trial in the Netherlands reminds us how much the Western elites, those who currently control the society and wish to use their authority to alter and reconstitute the established order, have parted company with longstanding Western traditions. The mutation of classical liberalism into contemporary politically correct totalitarianism is not surprising, however, since liberalism began as the cautious younger sibling of the revolutionary spirit that found its emblem in the destruction of the Bourbons and the declaration of equality, fraternity, and liberty as the new mandatory themes of human order. Quite apart from the fact of their vain abstraction, those slogans implied from the beginning implacable hostility to custom and habit. The new republican-type nation-states that followed the model of France arose, as had the French Republic, through the violent disestablishment of the smaller, ethnic polities that characterized the long period of feudalism. Insofar as Western Society still exhibits coherency, much of that coherency derives from the period before the emergence of the modern republics. Western society is what it is, therefore, because it stands in a continuum of vital experience and articulate symbolization stemming from those oddly matched wellsprings, Greek philosophy and Hebrew morality, in their unlikely, long-term cultural dialectic as mediated by a thousand years of many local manifestations of Gothic Christianity.

Western society, including North American society, is, then, positively something, a “this” and not a “that,” whose plasticity, while ample, nevertheless falls short of the limitless and whose viability if not mortality corresponds to those limits. A successful attempt to “change” this society, such as the one currently being organized by Barack Hussein Obama and his political minions, will be indistinguishable from a successful attempt to destroy the society. We must not think that the recent electoral development in Massachusetts alters the long-range plan of the Obama regime. The consequence of “transforming America” (or any other Western nation) will not be the utopian dream world of the regnant radical usurpation, which remains unrealizable; it will simply be destruction in and for itself: Widespread misery compounded in equal parts of manipulative tyranny through bureaucratic regulation and the hedonistic chaos of entitlement-driven demands. Governments will exploit carefully created divisions to squelch dissent through “hate-speech” laws and programs of so-called anti-discrimination.

One important problem that stands in the way of our coming to grips with the current crisis – or with the current phase of the extended crisis – is the inadequacy of our vocabulary. Voegelin stands ready to serve us, for one reason, because he made it an important part of his task to set definitions straight and clear up obscurities that, in the centuries since the Eighteenth, have progressively muddied public discourse. I propose, in what follows, to summarize and comment on two of Voegelin’s independent essays from the 1960s – “Liberalism and Its History” (written 1960; published 1974) and “In Search of the Ground” (1965), the last originating as a lecture delivered in Montreal.

I. That “change,” alternatively “progress,” of the activist variety, as advocated by radicals, actually means destruction and that the identity of the two locutions goes largely unnoticed are two facts that together adequately characterize the delusional state of our contemporary politics. The term “liberal,” like the term “change,” lends itself rather more to mendacious abuse than to just employment, especially when adopted as a label by the Left, which likes to hide its havoc-making program of transforming the un-transformable beneath the “L-word’s” ointment-like blandness. That the term “liberal” had long since devolved into something meaningless or misleading struck Voegelin already in the 1960s as a hindrance to transparent discourse. A philosopher particularly of history, Voegelin naturally addressed the term in respect of its specific temporal origin and its subsequent varying usage in modern political oratory. Voegelin remarks right away, in “Liberalism and its History,” that as distinct items of discourse both “liberal” and “Liberalism” emerged quite recently and contingently in a locus little suspected by their current users.

“The word liberal,” as Voegelin notes, “appears for the first time in the second decade of the nineteenth century when a party of the Spanish Cortes of 1812 called itself the Liberales.” These Spanish liberals, constitutionalists who opposed restoration of the monarchy, welcomed the abolition of stultifying class-differences and the diminution of clerical influence on their national polity; their cause sprang from Napoleon’s peninsular campaigns, some effects of which they wished to preserve, and Napoleon’s campaigns sprang in turn from the French Revolution and its imperial metamorphosis. In Voegelin’s observation, “Liberalism is a political movement in the context of the surrounding Western revolutionary movement”; and then again “the new attitude is so tightly bound up with the attitudes it opposes that the entire complex of attitudes becomes a unity of meaning that overshadows each of its elements.”

In Spain, as elsewhere in Europe, Liberalism came to denominate a political position that endorsed selected results of revolution while disdaining – or at any rate claiming to disdain – the violent means utilized by the Jacobin insurrectionists in attaining them. Because the year 1789, the year of the Bastille, represented not the last but merely the first in an indefinite succession of revolutionary waves, the immediately post-revolutionary Liberalism, as instantiated for example by the Spanish Liberales, swiftly found itself surpassed by new pitches of revolutionary radicalism. Some self-denominating liberals, unwilling to ape the ever-more-stringent attitude of the rising revolutionary demand, became conservatives: they endorsed the abolition of monarchy; they preferred a constitutional order and representative institutions to despotic ones, but they resisted a violent attack on habit and custom and they increasingly understood themselves as not Socialists or Communists or atheist-crusaders against Christian doctrine, but rather as the resistance to these movements.

Some of these classical liberals continued indeed to call themselves liberals, while others, more carefully attuned to the relation between language and the existing political situation, began to use the term “conservative.” Other people, also calling themselves liberals, nevertheless used the term to denote something quite different from what men of cautious, constitutionally democratic outlook meant by the same gloss.

In France, Charles Comte, not a relation of Auguste Comte but, like his namesake, a man of the Left, used his periodical Globe to make manifest his agenda of la révolution permanente. This “permanent revolution” would bring about radical social change, not through direct upheaval and insurrection, as in active revolution, but rather through “peaceful change.” Voegelin writes: “The idea of peaceful change – a policy of timely adaptation to the social situation that, in the age of the industrial revolution, changes very quickly – has become today a constant in all shades of liberalism.”

When we examine the present scene in the United States, we discover just this conceit in the rhetoric of the sitting Democrat-dominated federal government. Vehement commitment to “progress” (“change we can believe in,” as Obama’s electoral slogan put it) differs hardly at all, perhaps only in a few small degrees, from vehement commitment to “permanent revolution,” quite as Leon Trotsky understood when he revived Comte’s coinage in his new Bolshevik context. Voegelin writes: “The radical revolutionary must make the revolution into a permanent condition… for as soon as a plateau of stabilization is permitted, the revolution is over.”

This is again precisely what even a cursory glance at American politics since, say, Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, will reveal. The “New Deal” itself steeply ratcheted up its radicalism until checked, temporarily, by the Supreme Court; and no Democrat regime has ever been satisfied with the FDR or the LBJ “Great-Society” status quo. Predictably, the Obama regime can take no satisfaction in merely stewarding the socialist achievements of the Clinton and Bush II regimes, but must proceed grossly and imprudently to abolish the market economy and replace it with a Marx-inspired centrally-planned economy and to increase governmental disruption of continuity in all non-elite-sanctioned habit and custom – in both agendas as fully and as rapidly as possible.

Wherever sympathizers of these agendas control institutions, they endeavor to bring about the same indefinitely deferred goal of radical reconstruction – in fact, deconstruction and annihilation – within the domains defined by their offices. Voegelin observes, as he does frequently elsewhere, that consummation of the process remains forever beyond possibility. The aspirants can never reach their utopian goal “because [utopia] requires the transformation of human nature.” The would-be alchemical-political transformers of human nature claim their schemes to be rational, as though that implied their full justification, but, as Voegelin writes, “man is not only rational but much else besides.” Ultimately, the liberal-revolutionary utopia requires that those who have grabbed power imitate the original act of creation, by which the God, in whom they disclaim belief, established nature, and human nature, in the first place.

Since none of the radical reformers is God, they all lack the superhuman potency requisite to the deed, but with a superbia so pronounced that none will admit it.

In the foregoing observation, we come to an essential point of Voegelin’s thinking, namely that political radicalism is fundamentally religious and apocalyptic – and at the same time extraordinarily anti-spiritual and resentful – or what Voegelin calls “gnostic.” That “everlasting peace” or utopia “might be achieved through a constant process of reform,” falls, for Voegelin, in the category of “gnostic-utopian” dementia. The original Gnostics appeared in the centuries of Late Antiquity in sharp reaction to Philosophical Judaism, Platonism, and Christianity, which share among other traits the tenet that the world is God’s creation and that, as such, it must be good, whether life entails sorrows or not; the sorrows being part of the reality, they must have justification at some level. The Gnostic, unable to square his existence with reality, experiences his disappointments as a colossal broken promise or as a conspiratorial betrayal. His mentality is one of world-hatred and world-rejection rather than reconciliation with nature and faith.

Typically, Late-Antique Gnosticism emphasized the imagery of destructive transformation in the most apocalyptic passages of Scripture and related literature while interpreting the story in Genesis as presenting a false or secondary creation that usurped an original creation in which men and women suffered no sorrows, but lived as Adam and Eve lived, bound to no tilth, in Paradise. The Gnostics sought to restore the supposed original creation, which, in their imagery – and in their practice – entailed the destruction of existing reality. For example, Gnostics eschewed procreation, on the principle that offspring merely added to the grossness of the world.

The Late-Antique Gnostics claimed that their knowledge of these matters belonged uniquely to them and elevated them to elite status; gnosis means “knowledge,” a type of knowledge not based on experience but vouchsafed to the knower exclusively and in a manner theosophical. Voegelin’s argument for a continuity of Gnostic rebellion from the Classical to the modern world involves a complicated genealogy based on recondite documents, but one can see in the array of shared traits a similarity, at least, between ancient religious and modern political ideology. Both erect social structures based on a principle of doctrinal fidelity, as distinct from competency or merit; both prohibit questions and demand non-deviation; both are anti-historical, directing great ire against custom and tradition; both seek an impossible restructuring of existence, which, if it were to succeed, would amount to the destruction of existence; both, pitting themselves in tension with reality, tend to impatient irritation – and both, on the justifying basis of such impatience, show a tolerance of brute force as an instrument of transformation.

What about the content of Liberalism? Voegelin argues, in “Liberalism and its History,” that politically, liberals, like revolutionaries, want the leveling of society (egalitarianism) and despise institutions even as they establish and defend institutions of their own. “Economically,” writes Voegelin, “liberalism means the repeal of limits to free economic activity.” We note, however, that liberals can come to claim that it is the market itself, rather than regulation, which impedes free economic activity (Obama adviser Cass Sunstein argues just this); thus originally, liberals were free-market advocates, but nowadays they favor a type of corporatism, which imposes itself, sphinx-like, on the free market. In religious terms, Voegelin characterizes Liberalism as “anti-clerical,” bent on repudiating “revelation and dogma as sources of truth”; liberal doctrine “discards spiritual substance and becomes secularistic and ideological.”

Liberalism’s “scientific position” consists largely in “the assumption of the autonomy of immanent human reason as the source of knowledge.” Thus, “Liberals speak of free research [only] in the sense of liberation from ‘authorities.’”

II. Voegelin felt considerable unease about the label “conservative,” which he preferred that his friends not settle on him. In “Liberalism and Its History,” Voegelin addresses this discomfort with the term through a pair of ironic attributions. “Raymond Aron,” Voegelin writes, “answered the question about his political attitude by saying he was a liberal, that is, a conservative.” And respecting Friedrich von Hayek: “He is a liberal, that is, a conservative with respect to socialism, Communism, or any other variant of the phase of revolution that has overtaken liberalism.” The ambiguity stems from the fact that in both Europe and North America, earlier and later, “the old liberals shifted toward the right and became conservative, occasionally with distinctly Christian overtones.” The Left, meanwhile, true to its logic as a movement, has, wherever it exists, shifted through increasing degrees of radicalism, as illustrated perfectly by the trajectory of the Democrat Party from Roosevelt II to Obama.

Yet if those who stand in opposition to the radicals were not adequately described as conservatives, as Voegelin strongly implies is the case, how then would one describe them? Or how, in this connection, is one to describe the current “Red-Blue” division in American politics?

Voegelin’s answer to such questions involves his identification of the radical-revolutionary mentality with Gnosticism, that is, with baroque, reality-denying doctrines, sprung from acute anxiety about existence, that bespeak the cause in the fashion of an unquestionable Koranic pronouncement, deviation from which constitutes a punishable offense. (Think: political correctness.) The opposite of Leftwing doctrinaire-ism, as we might call it, is not, however, some antithetical second doctrinaire-ism, equally baroque and locked in Manichaean agon with the first; it is what, in Voegelin’s discourse of the 1950s and 60s, goes by the name, among variants, of openness to existence. The Montreal lecture, “In Search of the Ground,” later appearing as an essay, offers one of the clearest expressions in Voegelin’s massive authorship of this concept.

An element in existence to which the mature individual maintains his “openness” is the cumulus of historic “differentiations in consciousness,” Voegelin’s term from Order and History. The phrase is not obscure: it refers to the fact that the prevailing knowledge of the world in any given cultural continuum – that of the West, for example – sometimes deepens and becomes richer through an individual insight; a “Leap in Being” can happen, as in Western thought when it jumped from mythic to philosophic ideas of existence. By example, in Hesiod’s Theogony, an early Greek myth-poem, Earth emerges from Chaos and the earliest Gods apart from Mother Earth, including Sky, spring from Her; and the procreative acts of all the early divinities then give rise to the later, increasingly anthropomorphic generations of gods, the Titans and Olympians.

In Hesiod’s view of existence, the world has no “beyond,” but everything that is, including the gods, is contained within the world. Call that the cosmic or mythic view of existence, as Voegelin does. In it, all causes are immanent, the question why is this so in any particular case being answerable invariably through reference to something else in the world, either mortal or immortal.

With the Hebrew Prophets and the Greek Philosophers, however, a key “differentiation” occurs: Instead of plural “intra-cosmic gods” the most sensitive and articulate men now commonly intuit one God who not only stands transcendentally beyond the world but also stands to the world as Cause or Creator, as in Genesis or Plato’s Timaeus. This one God, moreover, is identical with the principle that distinguishes human from animal existence – namely reason, but not the degraded, immanent, instrumental reason of Eighteenth-Century Illuminisme and Le culte de la Raison. This God is, for Heraclitus and the Gospels alike, the Logos, and for Plato and Aristotle, Nous, another term that passes into Christian usage.

It would be pointless to argue whether the Logos or Nous intuited by the philosophers and theologians “exists,” for the intuition itself is a fact of reality and therefore part of the fabric of existence in consequence of the philosophers and theologians originally having had it, having codified it, and having seen it accepted as the kernel of a new view of life and the world; had the intuition not been shared by others at the time and continuously thereafter for millennia, no alteration in the fabric of existence would have occurred, nor, be it said, has any subsequent differentiation occurred. That last clause is important because self-denominating modern thinkers, since the Eighteenth Century, have claimed repeatedly to overturn the Platonic-Jewish-Christian dispensation, which they denigrate, not seeing the irony, under the pejorative term of myth.

But, as Voegelin remarks, the theory of causality of the modern thinkers curiously resembles the “intra-cosmic” thinking of the pre-philosophical myth-poets. Ask Marx or Darwin why is this so in any particular case and he can only refer the questioner to “the mode of production” or to “random selection and the survival of the fittest” – in other words, to something else in the world.

Modern thinking actually shrinks back from the boldness of Classical thinking, most probably, as Voegelin argues, because awareness of the transcendent God, who constitutes an “ultimate ground” of existence, creates an unprecedented “tension toward the ground.” In this manner, “The experience of the tension toward transcendent Being is the experiential basis for all analysis [of values and purposes.]”

Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment doctrines, like Gnostic doctrines, represent a frightened and petulant reaction against the discovery that reality possesses an inalterable structure originating in a cause outside itself and that values and purposes, in their hierarchy, have therefore an objective quality that limits the range of rationally justifiable actions. The “immanent reason” so beloved of materialists is, as Voegelin remarks, “empty of content,” so that, to establish at least the appearance of rational discourse, he who spurns reality faces the desperate task “of filling up reason from various immanent sources.” Voegelin writes: “You find, therefore, as an example of the meaning of reason, the profit motive in the economic sense… or striving for power in competition… or [in] productive relations [that] produce all the so-called superstructure of culture in society.”

The variety of these “misplacements of the ground” remains limited, however, so much so that the extent of their variety already reached its completion in the period between the French Revolution and The Communist Manifesto. Nevertheless “the power of ideologies” is that “they last a long while, because there is a vested interest in them.”

Precisely because of human nature, there is always a “vested interest,” as Voegelin says, in easy theories over difficult ones, in theories of irresponsibility over ones of self-reliance, and in theories of the magical malleability of reality over ones of created, that is to say fixed, nature. Late-Antique Manichaeism and medieval alchemy dealt in grand ideas; contemporary Obama-type liberalism deals in paltry ones. (Think: Faust on the one hand and “Cash for Clunkers” on the other.) Despite the difference of imaginative scale, both react against the fact of natural limitation revealed in the intuition of the transcendent Being and both employ ideological “misplacements of the ground” for sneaky rhetorical purposes. The racial pseudo-theology of Reverend Wright’s Chicago congregation, in which Obama maintained his membership for twenty years, stands as a case in point.

Voegelin – who, of course, could have had no inkling of Wright or Obama – nevertheless describes the Wright-Obama race-ideology to the proverbial t. Wanting a narcotic replacement for the tension-generating “ultimate ground,” one could “look to race relations” and assert that, “people belong to this or that race and that makes for their general intellectual makeup; that is the cause, the ultimate ground, and will determine the whole course of history.” It is worth saying that Voegelin’s description is ample enough that it can take in Alfred Rosenberg and Frantz Fanon as well as Wright and Obama.

Voegelin writes that the transcendent vision in fact prevents such “misplacements of the ground”: “If the nature of man is to be found in his openness toward a divine Ground, you cannot at the same time see the nature of man in having certain kinds of passions or in having a certain race or pigmentation or something like that.” Openness toward existence and orientation to the Divine, on the other hand, removes certain problems that the genuine philosopher is obliged to solve. Voegelin observes that Plato and Aristotle, for example, both directly addressed the analytical problem that any contingent “end” that a person might identify can become a “means” by adjusting the context – and so on indefinitely.

How does one rein in the indefinite regress? Let us stipulate that man’s highest value is reason, while leaving the term undefined. When a man wants to build a building, in Voegelin’s example, he must “coordinate [his] means to that end… and if that is done adequately we say [he] has proceeded rationally.” Even so, “in a theoretical examination of the problem we cannot be satisfied with the simple coordination of means to end because every end can be conceived into a means by asking, for instance, ‘For what purpose have we built this building?’” When finally, Voegelin writes, we want to know in certainty whether we act rationally we can only determine the answer based on measuring actions against “an ultimate purpose.”

III. In the aftermath of the Montreal lecture that gave rise to “In Search of the Ground,” one of Voegelin’s auditors asked this question: “Is it possible that a synthesis of all the current theories on the structure and operation of the human psyche could produce a new concept of the nature of man? And would this not produce a new ideology?” Voegelin responded: “The nature of man is in principle known. You can’t produce by new insights a new nature of man. The nature of man is openness to transcendence.” The questioner returned: “If the nature of man is known, it doesn’t seem to be known well enough to be controlled.”

Voegelin responded again: “You can’t control openness toward transcendence, because that’s controlled by God.” And a bit further on, after the questioner has solicited the topic of “proof,” Voegelin says: “It has nothing to do with proof. Either openness is a reality and then you can’t prove it – you can’t prove reality; you can only point to it – or it isn’t. Well it is. We know – we have the documents of the experiences… Plato… Saint Augustine… the thornbush episode in Exodus.”

Voegelin’s examiner reveals the attitude – the anti-philosophical, repellently infantile attitude – of the Gnostic crusader, not least in a desire for control. Implicit in his question is the self-contradictory assumption that the nature of something can be changed. But what else, pray tell, is revealed in the assumption, lying at the basis of all radical political action, that a society, which also possesses a nature and is limited in its malleability by that nature, can be changed? This is not to assert that there is no discernible history of social development or that any given society continues to exist only insofar as it refuses to permit any internal alteration whatsoever. People tend, however, to exaggerate the extent of change.

I would argue, for example, that the abolition of slavery in the United States, while it abruptly and positively altered the condition of the ex-slaves, altered the larger society hardly at all, since only a tiny minority had ever owned human chattels; nor later on did the repeal of “Jim Crow” make much of a difference for the larger society even though it altered social conditions somewhat for American blacks in Democrat-dominated regions of the nation where anti-black feeling ran high.

In a slightly different way, Voegelin cites the case of Utah, when it petitioned for admission to the Union. The Union stipulated its condition: Membership in the federal polity or polygamy, one or the other for the Mormons, not both. The larger society would not assimilate change of that sort or the precedent it would set.

The limits of change for any society are much smaller than liberal or radical or Gnostic zeal ever admits. To be reconcilable with the society, such change as occurs must reflect a spontaneous consensus, because coercive change, as I have already argued, is tantamount only to annihilation. In the Eighth Century BC, Hellenic society was happy with the symbolism of the “intra-cosmic gods” and the world they implied; by the Fourth Century AD, Mediterranean humanity, by a long-gestating like-mindedness, found the old “intra-cosmic gods” no longer convincing or meaningful and began to reorient itself, either through Alexandrian Judaism and its offshoots, or through Neo-Platonism, or through Gospel Christianity to the later-emerging transcendent Divinity.

As country custom and as household ritual and as semi-comic superstition, the “intra-cosmic gods” lived on and they survive, attenuated in their potency, even to this day. As the image of divinity, wistfully, they perished, a new image replacing them that offered to its recipients a richer understanding of existence. That image, representing the discovery of a new depth in reality, has stood in place in the West for two thousand years.

It follows that sensible people should behave with extraordinary circumspection where it concerns cavalier, wishful, or resentful programs of “change” because, as Voegelin so poignantly shows in his essays, radical “change” based on passions is definitely not the “progress” that it claims itself to be: It is not the “Leap in Being” but the frightened, dangerous opposite – a lapse into primitive thinking and myth.

Opposition to “change” for the sake of change, and to “change” as goalless indefinite regress, which is what the vaunted “progress” really is, will likely take the name of Conservatism, the very label that Voegelin wanted not to descend on him as the sign of his political identity. Voegelin knew that words, like ideas, have consequences. Under this admonition, a number of cautionary remarks can be made about the word “Conservatism” and what it implies. For one thing, as soon as one posits Conservatism, one has created an inevitable verbal artifact – Conservatism versus Liberalism – that is structurally Manichaean. This should give us pause. Manichaean, dualistic structures are a characteristic Gnostic appurtenance, which philosophers should avoid.

I recall here my earlier argument that the opposition to ideological doctrine cannot be another ideological doctrine, for that would be ideological rivalry without meaning rather than engagement in debate for the sake of truth. It would be other than the dignified quest, as, to use Voegelin’s essay-title, “In Search of the Ground.”

What the organized Right-leaning opposition to the Party of Destruction does is, finally, more important than what it calls itself even though words have meanings and usages signify something. I am encouraged, slightly, by the way in which spontaneous demonstrations of popular ire against overweening big-government schemes – like “bailouts” and socialized medical insurance – have surprised and actually checked the dictatorial bullying of the Obama regime. When an amateur journalist-reporter, FOX News Channel’s Glenn Beck, publicized the curriculum vitae and words of Obama adviser Van Jones, a nutty Marxist-racialist, it led to the first departure-under-outside-pressure of an Obama appointee. It is a sign of the times that actual investigative reporting is now done by someone like Beck, who previously was little other than a radio-comedian whose main shtick consisted in making prank telephone calls to predictably dimwitted people in a recurring feature called “Jeopretardy.”

Far from being offended, currently one of the most offensive words in the political jargon, by the silently mouthed “That is not true” – uttered by Supreme Court Justice Alito when President Obama gratuitously insulted the court during his State of the Union Address – I take heart in it because Obama’s disrespect was rooted in a falsehood and Robert’s quiet but visible contradiction was rooted in truth. There should be a good deal more clear articulation of the fact that the deconstructors of society have doctrines, false doctrines galore, and that we, by contrast, have an interest in truth, to the objectivity of which we remain open.

Cultic doctrines kill freedom; they demand its immolation in the sacrificial flames of their causes. Truth and free will – truth and freedom – by contrast require and nourish one another. We must vigorously remind our friends and neighbors of these facts.

Source URL:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/430

War against demagogues.
Submitted by 4Symbols on Mon, 2010-02-08 07:24.
Note how everyone has to believe in global warming, believe in multiculturalism and worship which ever demagogues the neo liberal disciples of death pontificate and celebrate.

This is not a war of political ideologies this a war against a false religion.

In hoc signo vinces

Eric Voegelin
Submitted by retired on Mon, 2010-02-08 07:11.
I agree completely with the author & would like to add some insights
1)The extreme statists are in fact doomed to failure because,as doctrinaire ideologues,they are mediocrities who lack the scope of thought needed to govern,once in power.If they were free thinkers & creative leaders they would not be followers of dogmatic ideology.As a result their regimes always degenerate into futility.
2)Once their rule reaches the stage of futility their only means of retaining power is brute force.In the case of Obama & the Democrats now in power this will not be the case;the police & the military in America despise the leadership in Washington & will not overthrow the Constitution for them!
3)Many fear that Obama Will become an American version of Hitler or Stalin.It is my opinion that if things get that far out of control he will end as a North American Salvador Allende.
4)The only hope that Obama’s “soft Socialism” had was to seize power gradually,in small increments,without the public knowing what was happening.This plan has been made impossible by the advent of the internet & the bloggers,as well as talk radio & Foxnews.The Democrats cannot control the the flow of information coming out of these sources.This information,largely negative to the Democrats,is having a huge impact on the voting public.It is of utmost importance to any dictatorial regime to control all information reaching the public!

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized

The EUs Horrible Honeymoon….

February 8, 2010 · 3 Comments

CHRISTENED THE PIGS- PORTUGAL-ITALY-GREECE AND SPAIN.

The EU’s Horrible Honeymoon

By Paul Belien
Created 2010-02-08 12:42

Last week, Barack Obama snubbed the Europeans by refusing to attend next May’s European Union summit in Madrid. The Europeans are very upset. But that is not the worst of their problems, and neither is the looming bankruptcy of Greece. Analysts fear that Spain might sink the euro, the EU’s common currency, and with the euro also the dreams of greater political integration.

At this point Europe is not even halfway its 100-day political “honeymoon” since the Treaty of Lisbon, which transformed the EU into a state in its own right, came into force. So far the honeymoon has been a nightmare. Since the beginning of the year, the EU’s currency, the euro, is on the brink of collapse; Greece has been placed under EU financial supervision to prevent it from going bankrupt. Now U.S. President Barack Obama has announced that he will not attend next May’s EU summit in Madrid. It was to have been Obama’s first visit to post-Lisbon Europe – the consecration of the new political order.

Washington informed Brussels last week that Obama is not coming because it is not clear who is his European counterpart. Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force on January 1st, Europe has its own President, Herman Van Rompuy. This former Belgian politician chairs the European Council, the assembly of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. However, there is also José Manuel Barroso, a former Portuguese politician, who is the president of the European Commission, which is the EU’s executive body. And there is José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, who is hosting the Madrid meeting and as such co-chairs the summit meeting of the EU heads of government with Mr. Van Rompuy.

Messrs. Van Rompuy, Barroso and Zapatero all want to be the first to shake Mr. Obama’s hand and receive the deep bow which the American President is in the habit of making to foreign leaders. Because of the embarrassing intra-European squabble about who should have the honor, Obama has declined the invitation until the Europeans have figured out which of them is the most important.

Obama’s decision has come as an unexpected blow to the European leadership. It has upset them so much that they are considering postponing the summit to the autumn. Meanwhile, they have begun quarreling about who is to blame for the present debacle. The Europeans generally agree that the vainglorious Zapatero is mostly to blame, but others are damaged more. “The Spanish have made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” a senior EU official said.

Although Obama’s snub hurts Europe’s pride, the euro’s monetary problems are far more serious. They not only affect Europe’s finances and economy, but may also tear down the political EU framework. When the European Commission placed Athens under EU supervision last week, Greece was almost bankrupt. Brussels has forced the Greek government to present a plan to drastically reduce its budget deficit from 13% to 3% by the end of 2012. The plan will cost the Greeks blood, sweat and tears. It includes a freeze on civil service wages and the postponement of retirement. Brussels has invoked new EU powers under Article 121 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allow it to reshape the structure of Greece’s pensions, healthcare, labor market and private commerce.

“The envisaged correction of the deficit is feasible but subject to risks,” says EU Commission President Barroso – an understatement. The Commission fears a backlash from the Greek unions, who might organize strikes and bring down the Greek government. Trade unions in other countries are nervous, too. They warn that it is unacceptable that the European Commission intervenes in setting national wages.

The EU’s Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia declared that the Greek targets will be enforced strongly and that, if necessary, even more draconian measures will be taken. “Every time we see or perceive slippages, we will ask for additional measures to correct these slippages. Never before have we established so detailed and tough a system of surveillance,” Almunia said. He has demanded quarterly updates on progress towards reduction targets, as well as a first report on 16 March. “This is the first time,” he said, “we have established such an intense and quasi-permanent system of monitoring.”

Much is at stake. In the coming weeks, the strength of the euro will depend on whether the markets believe that the government in Athens is strong enough to implement the reforms or trust that the other eurozone countries will bail out the Greeks. This year the eurozone governments have already borrowed a record €110bn from the markets, thereby forcing up the cost of borrowing for countries with the weakest public finances, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy.

Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz warns that the plan to slash Greece’s budget deficit could end up stifling the country’s economic growth. He said that the whole eurozone should share responsibility for the Greek situation. This view is not shared by other economists. Otmar Issing, a German economist and a founding member of the European Central Bank (ECB), points out that successive Greek governments have falsified the Greek budget figures for years, in an attempt to deceive Brussels and the eurozone monetary authorities, such as the ECB. What is happening today is the result of “years of violating rules, cheating on figures, financing consumption, public and private by huge debts – this is a way which has to be stopped,” Issing told the BBC. “Any sign that help might come, would undermine the efforts which are needed to reform the Greek economy.”

For political reasons, too, a bailout would be counterproductive. “German and French taxpayers cannot pay for Greece,” Rainer Brüderle, Germany’s Economy Minister, said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. A bailout would mean that the taxpayers in one country are liable for the failures and mistakes of a government in another country. This will not be accepted in countries such as Germany, who will have to foot the bulk of the bill. Axel Weber, President of the German Bundesbank and a member of the ECB Executive Board, told the German financial paper Boersen Zeitung: “Politically, it would not be possible to tell voters that one country is being helped out so that it can avoid the painful savings that other countries have made.”

Bailing out the Greeks will lead to a surge of anti-EU feelings in other countries. The alternative is to allow Greece to default on its debts. This, too, would have devastating consequences for the euro and affect all the countries in the eurozone. Hence, there seems to be only one way out: Greece must leave the eurozone. Legally, however, a country cannot be thrown out of the eurozone. Nevertheless, the British economist John Kay wrote in the influential German financial newspaper Handelsblatt that “if there is political will, it [i.e. throwing the Greeks out] might happen. Bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers would solve the technical difficulties. Central bankers cannot afford not to have an emergency plan for that.”

Even if the situation in Greece can be stabilized, the EU’s nightmare is far from over. The next eurozone dominos that might fall are Portugal and Spain. Portugal’s deficit reached 9.3% of GDP last year, Spain’s 11.4%.

Greece and Portugal are small countries. No matter what happens, they will not break the euro, writes Wolfgang Münchau, the associate editor of the Financial Times. The Greek situation may even be considered as something of a joke. “European farce descends into Greek tragedy” and “Spartan solutions from Brussels will be fought by Athens” are two titles of recent articles by Münchau. However, Spain, the eurozone’s fourth-largest economy, is another kettle of fish. “The clear and present danger to the eurozone is Spain,” says Münchau. “Spain, like Greece, has suffered from an extreme loss of competitiveness during a period in which it relied on a housing bubble to generate prosperity. While the Greek government is at least beginning to recognise the need for reform, perhaps too late, Spain’s political establishment remains in denial,” he writes.

His pessimism is shared by Professor Nouriel Roubini of the Stern School of Business at New York University. He says that Spain poses a looming and serious threat to the future of the eurozone. “If Greece goes under, that’s a problem for the eurozone. If Spain goes under, it’s a disaster,” he told the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos

If Brussels puts Madrid under EU supervision or forces Spain out of the euro, the repercussions for Zapatero will be worse than missing a photo-op with his political hero, Barack Obama. However, in this matter, too, the man who is to blame most for the debacle, is not the one who will suffer most harm from it. It is unlikely that the euro can survive a Spanish catastrophe. It looks as if 2010, which should have been the year of its triumph, is going to be an annus horribilis for the EU.

——————————————————————————–

Source URL:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4310

→ 3 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

A Dutch Politician. A Sharia-Compliant Court. Assassination by Trial

February 8, 2010 · 5 Comments

A Dutch Politician. A Sharia-Compliant Court. Assassination by Trial

By A. Millar
Created 2010-02-05 10:46

A few years ago Britain’s Channel 4 TV broadcast a documentary exposing a number of hate preachers. These were shown variously praising Osama bin Laden, denouncing non-Muslims, or “kuffar,” calling women “deficient,” and inciting violence, including the murder of Jews and homosexuals. Much of what was said, and broadcast in Undercover Mosque, was patently illegal under British law. Instead of acting against the preachers, the police filed a complaint against the filmmakers, who they accused of taking things “out of context” – it’s just that easy to do, when imams call for murder, apparently.

The filmmakers were later vindicated. But the message had been sent loud and clear: Shine a light on the growth of radical Islam, expose the extremists, and you – not they – will be prosecuted.

Britain’s police weren’t the only ones to defend the fanatics. Equally surreal, when he interviewed David Henshaw, the producer of the documentary, MP George Galloway refused to even mention the Koran by name, even though it was he who introduced it in defense of the hate preachers. When Henshaw brought up preachers inciting the murder of gays, exposed in Undercover Mosque, Galloway barked [video]:

“Were they calling for killing or were they referring to a text – a remarkably similar text to that that you would find in the Old Testament.”

Which one? Galloway wouldn’t say, but continued: “The mere reading of the Old Testament [or “a remarkably similar text”] would be to make a pronouncement about the impermissibility of homosexuality, for example.” Galloway’s point, of course, was that that would be hate speech, at least, that is, if it wasn’t now protected speech in Britain and continental Europe.

Ironically, if Galloway had have used the word “Koran,” while suggesting that “the mere reading” of it might inspire the kind of hate on display in Undercover Mosque, he himself might well have stepped over the line into the realm of hate crime. Galloway, though, a friend of Islamic extremists everywhere, is perfectly happy to use this kind of Newspeak. And plenty of mainstream British and European politicians are only slightly less craven.

Dutch parliamentarian, and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders is one of those who is not. As you can imagine, this gets him into all kinds of trouble, from media trashing to death threats. This week he was back in court in Amsterdam to answer charges of violating articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code, which prohibit “inciting hatred” or “discrimination” against anyone because of their religion, race, gender, etc., and carry up to a two-year prison sentence.

Wilders has repeated ad nauseam that he has nothing against Muslims, but only against the ideology of Islam, and in the pre-hearing, once again reiterated that he was not “out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.”

The transformation of Amsterdam from the world’s most liberal city to one where gays are now frequently attacked, is just one of the aspects of “Islamization” that Wilders has a problem with. And for this, the court apparently has a problem with Wilders. His statement, “Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation,” is included in the summons, despite the fact that the rise in the number of attacks on gays, perpetrated largely by Moroccan youths, is well known to the Dutch, and has been widely reported, not least of all by Radio Netherlands and American author Bruce Bawer.

The summons also documents Wilders statements against Islam, including his call to ban the Koran, which he has described as a “fascist book.” Whatever one thinks of Wilders’ position here – and I’m no fan of banning – it’s worth remarking that his accusations are in line with Galloway’s defense of Islam, i.e., that “the mere reading” of the Koran – or “text,” to use the euphemism – should, or would, be a hate crime. If so, we might wonder why that would be protected speech under Dutch or any other law, while criticizing or even condemning it means running the risk of being dragged into court?

Then there’s the summons’ scene-by-scene breakdown of Wilders’ 17-minute movie Fitna. Similar to Undercover Mosque, Fitna is largely a compilation of documentary footage – again of hate preachers inciting violence against non-Muslims, Jews, and so on, as well as scenes of actual violence committed by Islamic militants and terrorists, and extracts of the Koran.

The suras shown in writing throughout the film are those such as surah 8, verse 60 (“Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies”) which are used by Islamic militants to justify, and indeed to inspire, terrorist attacks and other atrocities.

This is obvious to anyone who has spent even a few hours perusing extremist Muslim chat rooms (including those run by and for those living in the West), has the slightest knowledge of al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks, or has read the Hamas charter, which so neatly sums up the Jihadist’s raison d’etre in article eight:

“Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Because of the death threats he received for claiming that Islam was a violent, intolerant religion, Wilders has been forced to have 24-hour protection, and to sleep each night in a different location, including occasionally in prison cells. When he visited Britain recently to meet with Lord Pearson, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), inside the House of Lords, extremists gathered outside with placards proclaiming “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment – sharia is coming.” In an interview with the press [video] one protestor even said that they were there to “warn him,” and that, “obviously he knows that in Islam the punishment for the one who insults the prophet is capital punishment, and he should take lessons from people like Theo van Gogh.”

Van Gogh was the Dutch filmmaker behind Submission [video], a movie critical of Islam’s treatment of women, released in 2004 and starring Aayan Hirsi Ali. He was murdered later in the year by Islamist Mohammed Bouyeri, who shot him eight times, slit his throat, and pinned a letter, threatening Hirsi Ali, to his chest with a dagger. She left for the US. Wilders carried on, with protection.

Wilders has so far escaped “Islamic punishment,” yet he is now forced to answer to a court in a supposedly liberal democracy for criticizing Islam. The court itself seems determined to stack the deck against Wilders, allowing him only three of the 18 witnesses he had requested.

The Dutch authorities, however, like those of other European states, appear almost to have sided with the terrorists and extremists – not merely over non-Muslims, but over moderate and reformists Muslims as well. As Salim Mansur said in the Toronto Sun, “the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has conceded space to the Islamists by accommodating, in practical terms, their demand for acceptance of Shariah (Islamic law) within secular society.” Filip Dewinter, a leader of the Flemish political party Vlaams Belang put it rather more pithily, calling the trial, “an assassination attempt on a democratic party” – and, by extension, on democracy itself.

——————————————————————————–

Source URL:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4303

→ 5 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Centurean2’s Weblog

BRIAN GERRISH…..WAKE UP CALL…12-12-09

February 9, 2010 · 7 Comments

We’re living in broken Britain, say most voters_ Thanks To LIBLABCONS!!

February 9, 2010 · Leave a Comment

256th BRITISH SOLDIER KILLED_AFGHANISTAN…PIPELINE WAR!

February 9, 2010 · 1 Comment

Censored By Facebook! SIOE Stop Islamisation Of Europe_ WHY?

February 9, 2010 · 4 Comments

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Evil Spirit of 5 US Presidents – And Biggest Threat to World Peace_ NEEDED SAYING!!

February 9, 2010 · 1 Comment

An Interview With Al-Qaeda Members- CBN News- In LONDON ENGLAND!!

February 8, 2010 · 5 Comments

DOVER PORT TO BE SOLD OFF- TO FRENCH…Fabian Comrade Brownski- Sell Scotland Prick!!

February 8, 2010 · 16 Comments

Liberalism and the Search for the Ground: Another Visit with Eric Voegelin – Totalitarianism Now Official!

February 8, 2010 · 1 Comment

The EUs Horrible Honeymoon….

February 8, 2010 · 3 Comments

A Dutch Politician. A Sharia-Compliant Court. Assassination by Trial

February 8, 2010 · 5 Comments

Search It!

Recent Entries

Links