The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
After reading the nightmarish statements by British Prime Minister Brown regarding his globalist ideology, I got inspired to write a post. I’m always told I write good essays, but perhaps a bit too long, so here’s a quick one of less than one thousand words, which is my definition of a haiku.
The European Union is an empire.
No, really. José Manuel Barroso, the leader of the European Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for half a billion people, which is just now negotiating the surrender of an entire continent to the Islamic world, has stated in public that the EU is an empire.Before you start laughing, think about it for a minute. Maybe we think it’s ridiculous to see the EU as an empire, but Barroso’s statement clearly shows that many people in leading positions do think like this. It would make sense to remember that all empires in human history have been created through war. The Romans didn’t create the largest empire in the world by being fluffy little bunnies, and neither did Genghis Khan.
If the EU is an empire, that means a war is being waged against somebody. And it is: A cultural and demographic war waged by mass immigration against the indigenous people of an entire continent — Europe. Whereas empires are normally created by waging a war against other peoples, the EU is the first empire in history created by allowing other peoples to wage a war against your own.
A couple of older posts on the issue:
- - - - - - - - -
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch constitution referendum talking to Dutch papers ahead of a visit to The Hague later this week. “Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable,” he said, asking “every member state” considering a referendum to “think twice,” according to Het Financieele Dagblad. Mr Barroso in his previous job as Portuguese prime minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country — but since then his thinking has changed, he indicated. “I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?” the commission chief asked according to De Volkskrant.
Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes that in every EU member state at present the majority of laws come from Brussels. Why do national politicians and representatives accept this situation? He suggests a plausible explanation:
“At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country. Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does. “National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.”
EU ministers see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making. By participating in the EU, they can also free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. According to Coughlan, “the great bulk of European laws are never debated at council of minister level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down amongst the civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are attached to the commission.” EU integration represents “a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.” This process is now sucking the reality of power from “traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact. They still keep their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed.”
My interpretation: The European Union — or the Eurabian Empire if you will — is a naked power grab by the elites in order to dismantle the nations there are supposed to serve. Instead of being mere servants of the people in smaller countries, they aspire to become members of an unaccountable elite ruling a vast empire as they see fit. This is why they continue to promote mass immigration as if nothing has happened even if people get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered in their own cities. They simply don’t care. They are cynical generals on a warpath. Ordinary citizens are simply cannon fodder, pawns to be sacrificed in the conquest of their glorious, new empire. Mass immigration is used to crush all nation states simultaneously so that the natives have no real alternatives to flee to, and no countries can come to the aid of others against the advancing Islamization.
30 comments:
Yes, this was short by your standards, but still excellent. The EU is very, very bad. If they at least opposed Islamization, I maybe would be a little less against them, but they are helping Islamization along, which is definitely not a good thing.
Incurable optimist that I am :), I see a silver lining around this dark cloud. If the Eurocrats hope to retain power, then they must stop Islamization at some point. They'll want enough Muslims to create enough disorder to justify their totalitarian police state, but not enough Muslims to institute sharia and replace them with ayatollahs. So, eventually, they'll need to halt the increase in the Muslim population. It would be amusing to watch from a safe distance while they try, if the same thing weren't happening here in America.
The text of Bugger Brown's speech is even more appalling that the cited article suggests:
Brown Speech at JFK Library, Boston
I especially enjoyed the part where Brown stresses the shared moral understanding of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists.
Folks, the forces afoot in the world today are going to culminate in a cataclysm unprecedented in human history.
I'd humbly ask those concerned with the survival of Western Civilization to consider with whom America has allied herself in the past so as to defeat otherwise indomitable foes.
This fight - and there will be a Fight - is not going to be fought according to Marquis of Queensbury rules.
That is, not if we plan to survive.
Bonne chance, mes amis....
Very interesting, or strange, that MORE people are not alarmed at the entire stucture of the EU.
The entire 'takeover' of Europe by a few political elites, now based in Brussels, seems like a distant fairy tale until one really looks at what has happened and what is happening inside Europe and across the Turkish-Mid East corridor....
lay all the facts out and it begins to look more and more like a coordinated and well thought out effort to lull the Europeans to sleep with wealth, health, happiness and the ideals of Multiculturalims and the promises of a Grand Europe contolling the world markets once again....but all it points towards is Eurabia and Sharia and Muslims dominating every European country in the next 50-100 years.
This combination of:
1. Weak European governments that allowed the formation of the EU to take place....
2. Low birth rates among Europeans compared to the immigrant populations...
3. open immigration policies across Europe.....
4. the 'lie' of Multi-culturalism and the lasting guilt of WWII across Europe...
5. the spread of Islam while, at the same time, Christianity fades across Europe...
6. the massive influx of Petro-Dollars to the mid-east to finance the spread of Islam across Europe and the globe...
all of the above could be dealt with at different times throughout history if they had emerged one or two at a time, but all at once these are occuring...and creating a perfect recipe for the fall of Western Civilization and the rise of Islam across much of Europe.
I am still shocked many in the 'EU' are simply allowing this to even take shape let alone take place.....
Cabinboy: That speech is one of the scariest things I've seen in my entire life. This is one of the leaders of the "free world," which will soon cease to be free, saying openly that we should abandon our borders and our national sovereignty in favor of a world run by the United Nations, at a time when sharia is being established at the UN and Muslims are in the process of flooding our countries.
We need to give this beast a name. Let's call it "Globalism." The Multiculturalists and cultural Marxists are bad enough, but what is so dangerous about the ideology of Globalism is that it seems to be shared by many people even in the so-called "right-wing" parties, albeit for different reasons. The Western world is being run by madmen, and they are going to plunge us into what could became the deadliest war in human history. It truly is the very physical survival of our civilization that is at stake here.
On reading this article my initial thought was:
"So in the last Forty years, and throughout the creation of this Marxist super state, where abouts have the political "Right" of Europe, disappeared too in this vast period of time?
It just won't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, that they have been scathing in their opposition to this E.U. monstrosity, throughout the entire period, but have been able to do NOTHING about any part of the burgeoning process what-so-ever.
They most certainly have not!!!
And if the European left have been able to "hoodwink" their opponents into believing that this was no more than a "trade agreement between Member States", well how stupid are they? - and more to the point, - Couldn't WE have done a better job ourselves?
So we have been Voting/paying them for what exactly?
The reality of the situation must be: that the "European Right" have been far more in favor of this "Evil Empire" than they will ever, and have ever, admitted too.
I have little doubt that both money and power have played their own insidious part, but have the majority of Conservative thinking politicians, always been so selfish, indeed, self gratifying, to put private gains, before National interests?
I really do despair!!
I read the whole speech and Gordon Brown is mad! Absolutely insane!
Where will we get the money for this? Where will we get the volunteers for his world army? Is he crazy? We could be 100 times richer and we still couldn't afford to make all the poor on earth rich, end carbon emissions, enforce world peace--this is the same prime minister pulling out of Iraq! He can't create peace in a single country, his whole army couldn't even take care of the single city of Basra, but he's sure he can create world peace with enough American blood and treasure. Thanks Brown, it's clear we're all in this together.
News flash Brown! Some people are too irresponsible to avoid AIDS. Some people are too stupid to get educated. Some people don't want to endlessly go back to school while competing with $2 a day wages overseas. Some people don't want to give up their dictatorships or corruption or drug money. Some people don't want to become Unitarians or Bha'i (the only religion apparently acceptable anymore under Brown's global new deal), some people don't want 70% taxes, some people don't want the unelected, unaccountable, uncaring UN to decide their nation's fate, some people don't share your 'common values' and 'moral sense' you insist on, and 75% of your own British people voted against you three days ago! So crawl back into your hole and to hell with you, tyrant of all tyrants. The sheer arrogance!
Well, just some info about "José Manuel Barroso" that people at GoV may be interested:
His name is José Manuel Durão Barroso.
José is the most common male name in Portugal, like "Joe" in America or such. Manuel is just the second most common name. Durão means "hard" in every meanings you can imanige.
When he was Portuguese P.M. he was known as Durão Barroso, Barroso's Hard (stick). Barroso being a famous "redneck" name.
Now something about his dirty past. In hiw youth, he was a Trotskysy, and then he joined the "Right wing" mainstream in Portugal, leading wich he became Prime Minister.
Actually, this "Portuguese Conservative Party", the PSD (Social Democrat Party), must be the only mainstream right wing party in Europe accepting young Trotskysts.
Also, "Barroso's Hard" abandoned his responsabilities as Prime Minister of Portugal to become the President of the European Union's Comission.
He nominated the mayor of the capital city to be the unelected Prime Minister. That man was Santana Lopes, a well known "playboy" and failed politician.
Santana Lopes's time as head of the government is recorded by humorists as "the golden period" when everyday there was a new great joke from the then Prime Minister('s incompetence).
Santana Lopes's was eventually fired by our President and then stated:
"I was betrayed. I was like a new born baby stabbed by his own family when the baby most needed protection"
Hilarious...
Fjordman, as I said before in another post, the New World Order is a combination of both fascism and Marxism. Fascist economically, and Marxist culturally. Tony Blair aka Future President of Europe, was the consummate practioner of it, and the British people, unfortunately, have been the hardest-suffering of those affected by it. But we ALL are affected by it.
I am no fan of the EU, and even less of Islamic immigration. But it seems like the REAL elephant in the room is ethnic Europeans' failure to breed. Why are birth rates in Europe so low? Truth be told, Muslim birthrates in Europe are not that high from a global perspective; they just seem high because Europeans' birthrates are unbelievably low. If Europeans would just have more kids, they would blunt the proportional growth of the Muslim population considerably.
Seriously, why is it unfashionable for European couples to have two kids? Every effort should be made to promote having larger families. Even if there were zero immigration, Europeans' lack of children would be leading to seriously harmful long-term effect. A society whose population is declining is not a healthy one.
Re the Gordon Brown speech:
Finally, the mask drops. The ultimate goal is World Government and the abolition of the nation-state. Anyone who denies that fact now is willfully blind. We can see the trend clearly in both Europe and in North America.
I'm convinced that the totalitarian left believes that they can use Muslims as useful idiots who can be purged when the time comes.
James - just a guess but I'd say their reluctance to have kids is the same as that of Lefties in the US. The problem with Europe is that there are far more Lefties than here in the US so while they decline in population we at least remain stable, assuming the effects of immigration are netted out.
The EU superstate presents Europeans with the same problem we are facing here as the federal government usurps more and more power from the states, lack of accountability and disconnect, even disregard for, from the voters. The further removed an elected official is form those that elected him or her the less they are compelled to represent the interests of their constituents. This reminds me of Paul Belien's recent essay on localism. We have to do what we can to return power to the states.
I sometimes daydream of a day when the residents of Alaska will have had enough meddling in their oil patch by Liberal elites who inhabit our coasts and state their declaration to secede from the Union. I'd move there in a heartbeat.
I find myself researching secession more often these days because of the hard divide between the socialist Left and the liberty and freedom loving Right. I don't know that our differences are reconcilable. How do you compromise between statist socialism and free market capitalistic democracy? I don't think it's possible.
comment
"Finally, the mask drops. The ultimate goal is World Government and the abolition of the nation-state."
This goal is remarkably compatible with the establishment of the Caliphate. Indeed, it is scary how compatible Marxism and Islam are, and how the Marxists of the EU (which is most the the politicians, whether they're public about being Marxists or not) can't see the threat of Islam because they only see how it helps advance global Marxism.
James:
This issue of reproduction has been discussed by, amongst others, me a number of threads back. I think it´s a combination of several reasons but one of them is a question of economy.
In the european societies of today the costs associated with starting, or expanding, a family is too high to be affordable even for people with good jobs. At the same time we also have to pay for the (expanding)families of people on welfare wich are in many cases immigrant families.
These immigrant families are more or less invited because "we need to increase our population due to low birth rates". Kind of a circular reasoning, isn´t it?
Let´s face it. Fjordman is right in his assumptions and we have a governing elite that is actively and on purpose fighting their own people and tries to exchange it for something else.
Well, to be honest there is one nominative "Empire" like the EU - the Holy Roman Empire, a loose confederation of mostly German states in the Middle Ages. The idea is mostly the same, but the EU is the far more sinister of the two.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . . ."
European nations have long since passed the point of no return. Their governments cannot be reformed. The chickenzzzzzzzz have come home to roost."
I don't read anything in Brown's Harvard speech other than the standard Liberal Establishment one-worldism, which is the real cause for alarm.
It's the quasi-Marxist position that every problem is, when boiled down, a matter of economics; that the solution is for the richer countries to dump lots more money into the financial Bermuda Triangles of the Third World.
This view ignores differences in racial IQs, which make some parts of the world dysfunctional no matter how much aid they get. It fails to take account of the supersized birth rates and overpopulation in the most needy areas, which quickly wipe out any gains from better technology airlifted in. It ignores the totalitarian and aggressive nature of the Muslim politico-religious system.
Brown promotes the fantasy of supra-national organizations as the answer to all conflict. That, too, is liberal boilerplate. The only way that they can stop conflict, though, is by suppressing the interests of everyone but the multi-national ruling class.
Other than a few unexceptionable generalizations, there is nothing in Brown's speech that I would defend. But he is not the problem. The ideology of globalism and the Liberal Establishment's control of the media and educational institutions is what we are up against.
[quote: James]
"..But it seems like the REAL elephant in the room is ethnic Europeans' failure to breed. Why are birth rates in Europe so low?.."
This whole fertility thing i.m.o. is the typical red harengus in the pond when Islamization is concerned. Stop/reverse colonization from Islamic countries and all of this near-cataclysmic babybreeding stuff takes on quite another dimension.
Of course it might become a problem in some countries, when technology remains stuck at yesterday's level; when "we" want to pretend that our economy must be tailored to the needs of the baby-boom generation and when it is assumed that that generation cannot look after itself, and so on.
It is the typical argument of bankers/politicians: "if we want to keep our economy at the current level..(whatever that means)," and then something about the State regulating personal affairs, like the choice to have kiddies, as if we where heading to some kind of Spartan Neo-polis. That's what worries me most of all: the State invading the space that traditionally belonged to the family.
Again, in the debate about ongoing Islamization, the emphasis on demographic growth that all to easily descends into some kind of
doom-o-graphic scaremongering, runs the risk of side-tracking the issue of Islamization.
To answer James' question from a Dutch perspective:
Postponing the first child is the main reason for lower fertility rates in the Netherlands. Some religious zealots already have identified this statistic as a clear sign of "immorality" and "hedonism" or whatever. Some commenters (on Brussels Journal e.g.) even go so far as to describe it - not always without gusto - as a veritable and "typically European" cult of death, but most demographers ascribe it to the simple fact that more women have a chance to follow a higher education and work for a few years before their first one (of 1.75) is born.
I don't know if James has ever visited Holland, but it is among the most densely populated places on earth. It would truly be a blessing if the NL population would kindly drop by a few million. This was the opinion of many sensible people in the past, and I don't mean Club of Rome scaremongers. But now, thnx to political correctness, one is immediately branded a racist just by suggesting that Holland might be a bit overcrowded (something the late Queen Juliana already mentioned circa 1970).
Of course these breed-for-the-nation folks have added the beforementioned banker's "argument", that we must multiply like rabbits to "maintain our current economy". So that's the baby-boomer argument, used by bankers, telling us to pay for their numbers and early pension; breed for economy's sake; or face mass immigration.
While all we have to do is stop Muslim immigration and outlaw Islam as far as possible as a criminal organization. No elephant in sight really, just a lot of camels ;-)
Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Sagunto
Repost after correcting link error
Here is another example of the ‘lords and masters’ of the EU commissioner taking over a country. The only thing missing is a Quranic citation to justify their actions. Does this mean Italy has been demoted to just another neighborhood? Sovereignty is rapidly becoming an historical concept.
EU sues Italy over rubbish crisis
“A mountain of uncollected waste in Naples has prompted the EU to announce it is taking Italy to court.
More than 1,000 tonnes of rubbish is rotting on the city's streets, and the EU argues not enough has been done to get rid of it.
"The Commission is not convinced that this issue will be solved quickly enough," said an EU official.
Italy could face a heavy fine if the European Court of Justice decides that Rome has infringed EU laws on waste.
At the weekend, firefighters put out about 30 fires lit by residents unable to tolerate the smell from the rubbish - a smell made worse by recent warm weather.
The BBC's Rome correspondent Christian Fraser says temperatures soared in Naples over the May holiday and people set the waste alight out of concern that the approaching summer heat would bring a growing risk of disease.
Italy's newly elected Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has promised to tackle the crisis that has troubled the Campania region around Naples since 1994. ...”
EU CZARS
The birthrate omong etnic european women are MUCH lower than you think. The 1.75 INCLUDES the numerous children of muslim immigrants , who EVEN after 3 generations in europe mostly go on breeding like they did in somalia or whatever.
Etnic europeans have birthrates from 1.15 to 1.5.
Nobody has ever explained this completely; most " explanations" are actualy EXCUSES on a personal level , for not doing "the right thing" , which is ofcourse to have atleast 2 children.
Let's call the underlying cause the "X-syndrome"
My feeling is, that the same X-syndrome is the cause behind
Multiculturalism
Defeatism
Passifism
Obsession with legal legitimity
lack of selfrespect
denial of own cultural heritage
desintegration of generational bonds
AND low birthrate.
While it is perhabs beyond us to realy understand the X-syndrome, it might be much easyer to find an effective medicine.
You dont have to understand the complete workings of a pocketcalculator in order to fix the most frequent problems it might develop ( like exchanging the battery!)
Sadly , it might be true that an advanced culture like the european ,wil start to disintegrate when the STRUGLLE FOR SURVIVAL in all of its forms are remooved.
If that is true,then we know at least one effective medecine :
WAR !
After a major war birthrates always goes berserk.
Europe has ,in the last 1000 years, had a major war every generation.
A european who denies the value of martial virtues ,is denying the best parts of his own personality.
Hopefully,our muslim friends are going suply us with the solution to this tragic situation in a short time...
New World Order? A monstruosity! It's a pitty that such honourable people, the Portuguese, have the name of their Town, Lisbon, on a shameful treaty.
[quote= Ole]
"..The birthrate omong etnic european women are MUCH lower than you think. The 1.75 INCLUDES the numerous children of muslim immigrants , who EVEN after 3 generations in europe mostly go on breeding like they did in somalia or whatever.
Etnic europeans have birthrates from 1.15 to 1.5. .."
Nonsense.
I referred to the Dutch situation and I have current statistics at my disposal. Indigenous Dutch women have a TFR of 1.71 (in 2006), so your first as well as your last remark is incorrect. Your comment about "3rd generation breeding" is simply absurd, concerning demographic statistics in the Netherlands, because the second generation muslim women are just only beginning to show some reliable stats, considering they are still relatively young and could get more children. We have no fertility data about any "third generation" because by and large they are still children themselves.
Trends are showing a sharp decline in TFR's when you compare between 1st and 2nd generation mothers among Moroccan and Turkish women. The TFR is now 3.1 for first generation Moroccan and 2,5 for first gen. Turkish women. Indications for 2nd gen are that their TFR's are between that of the indigenous Dutch women and that of the 1st generation. It is clear that these 2nd gen. muslim women are having less children and that they postpone having the first child. Prognoses are that eventually Moroccan and Turkish women will have TFR's of 2.0, so that would be slightly below the "magic" 2.1 figure.
Kind reg's from Amsterdam
Sag.
Baron:
"They are cynical generals on a warpath."
Let me lay some cynicism on ya.
"This is why they continue to promote mass immigration as if nothing has happened even if people get blown up, raped, mugged and murdered in their own cities."
The immigration of low-wage immigrants who are not only enouraged not to assimilate by state-approved ghettoization, but also to inflict their alien cultural norms on the native populations with the force of law and in the name of PC multiculturalism.
Don't you see? Europe, or more pointedly, the masters of Europe,(and I'm not including their political flunktionairies here), realized that they need to have "new Jews".
To maintain their hierarchy, they are desperately in need of a despised pan-European minority...and unlike the last time, the Muslim immigrants are unlikely to leave behind an "anne Frank" of their own.
And here's one way the other shoe will drop...and why:
"... so that the natives have no real alternatives to flee to, and no countries can come to the aid of others against the advancing Islamization."
When that realization reaches a popular critical mass, they will send in their "Man on Horseback", who will direct the EU-sanctioned Counter-Jihad from Brussels.
And this will establish the popular legitimacy of the EU apparat.
One other thing about empires...they were all founded on a heap of decayed corpses.
If the corpses are Muslims, well, those who would be Euroimperialists would gain some real advantages from that, since this would likely mean decades of warfare with the Arab world.
And as Orwell informed us, war isn't meant to be won, it's meant to be continuous.
Sagunto
You may BELIEVE that you have the current dutch statistics at your disposal. I used to believe the same thing about the danish statistics,until somebody on the net (LILIPUT INFORMATION) pointed out to me how painted by political correctness they had become. I don't (yet) know anything about the Dutch statistics ,but I know a LOT abou the danish ones.
Let me give you anexample :
In danish statistics a "DANE" (in opposition to an "IMMIGRANT" ,is defined as somebody thas has at least one parent who was born in Denmark,so all children of 2.gen. immigrants ,includin ones who brought a "fresh" wife from their homeland,are counted as "danish" children.
From another angle: if the AVERAGE fertility is 1.75 , the native duthch one can not possibly be 1,71 unless there are less than 3.9 % third world immigrants,which is NOT the case.
And by the way, don't use the word NONSENSE so easily, unless you are interrested in a mud-slinging contest.
@ole,
The other angle is not necessary, 'cause the figure 1.75 was not the average; it was from another year than the more recent 1.71 figure (2006) from the study I used. The 1.71 is about "autochtone moeders" , i.e. mothers of whom 2 parents were born in the Netherlands. This figure is about mothers and, as I said already, children of 2nd gen muslims are nowhere near motherhood themselves so they are not included in this figure. This is not a study about "Dutch" versus "Immigrants", but about native mothers, first gen. Moroccan mothers, second gen. Moroccan mothers, same for the Turkish, Surinam, Dutch Antilles, Polish, fmr Soviet Union, China et cetera. Pretty detailed and split up. I used the word nonsense because the 1.71 (or 1.75) figure doesn't "include children of muslim immigrants", for that would be the children of 1st and 2nd gen muslim mothers, who thus contribute to the separate TFR's of 1st and 2nd gen muslim mothers, NOT that of Dutch native mothers in the study.
When you talk about the "ones who brought a "fresh" wife from their homeland", then you're talking about men. But the fresh wife from the homeland would have both parents born in that homeland. Even pertaining to the Danish situation, that's a nonsensical statement concerning your argument. This wife, when she becomes mother in the Netherlands, would certainly not fall in the TFR category of "Dutch autochtoon". But also the 2nd gen mother, even when she would have one native Dutch parent, would not contribute to the TFR of the "Dutch autochtones" (native Dutch).
Again, your argument is not about the Dutch situation of which you indeed don't seem to know anything. It's about the Danish (of which I don't know anything). It seems however that - as you describe it - the Danish research uses a different definition of "Danish", compared to the definition used for a Dutch native mother.
Your argument would however apply to the Dutch sit. as soon as the 3rd gen of muslim women (aged 15-49) has had children (which is currently not the case) leading to reliable TFR's, provided that both their 2nd gen. parents were born in the Netherlands. In other words, I do see the point you're trying to make.
So relax, this is not about "mud-slinging", and when you don't write nonsensical things about Dutch demographics I won't say so. But when you do, well, then you do. Nothing to get too worked up about.
Sag.
Sagunto
I'me sure that you can read and understand the statistical information in the way it's SUPPOSED to be done.
Just remember ,that the source of these "facts" are the same people that are trying to sell us "the religion of peace" and insists on calling muslim terrorists anything but what they are.
For me that means that they live in a DISTORTED variation of reality.
So why should we expect them to manufacture objective truth in the politicly sensitive area of population statistics?
These statistics should be considered seriously distorted till prooved otherwise.
In Denmark the government says that there are 300,000 muslims, while some independant studies ,among them SIAD ,have reached 650,000.
Who should we believe ? they are all VERY professional .It might take a lifetime of detectivework to reach an objective conclution.
I personally choose to believe the 650,000 , till prooved beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise
We must first know the enemy fully before we can even begin to fight!
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3521brit_roots_bloomberg.html
Mayor Bloomberg Fabian.
Tony Blair, a member of the Fabian Soceity:
This is the stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, former headquarters of the Fabian Society. It was designed by George Bernard Shaw and depicts Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers to "REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART'S DESIRE," a line from Omar Khayyam. Note the wolf in sheep's clothing in the Fabian crest above the globe. The window is now on display at the London School of Economics (LSE), which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb.
"The window was subsequently stolen from the house in 1978," says LSE's archivist, Sue Donnelly. "It surfaced in Phoenix, Arizona, soon after, but then disappeared again until it suddenly resurfaced at a sale at Sotheby's in July 2005." The window was purchased by the Webb Memorial Trust and now is on loan to the LSE where it is displayed in the schools Shaw Library. In April of 2006, the window was officially unvieled by a ceremony attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is a member of the Fabian Society. [1]
The Fabians originally were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objective without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the Communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their movement. The three most prominent leaders in the early days were Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. [2] A stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England is especially enlightening. Across the top appears the last line from Omar Khayyam:
Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart's desire!
Beneath the line Remould it nearer to the heart's desire, the mural depicts Shaw and Webb striking the earth with hammers. Across the bottom, the masses kneel in worship of a stack of books advocating the theories of socialism. Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as "the new machiavellians." The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears Between Shaw and Webb. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing!
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=214895
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/db076.htm
1907, Rauschenbusch met with the leaders of Fabian socialism in England, Sidney Webb and Beatrice Potter Webb. Unlike impatient Marxist revolutionaries, the methodical Fabians emphasized peaceful transformation through propaganda and infiltration of universities, seminaries and churches.
Through the years, this socialist movement grew to include Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells (who wrote Open Conspiracy), Sinclair Lewis, Theosophical leader Annie Besant, and the Communist leader Harry Dexter White who worked with Alger Hiss to establish the United Nations.[10] It spread through Western nations -- thanks, in part, to liberal churches that preached its message as if backed by the authority of God.
Fabian Socialism is a "mixture" of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism
all bundled together.
However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle.
The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists
take your house by directly sending in the "secret police" to knock your
front door down Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly
by "gradually" taking your individual rights away, by "gradually" increasing
property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can't pay them, they send
in their regional "council tax inspectors" to take your house away
but the end result is the same.
British PM Tony Blair and President George Bush Junior's globalist
"war on terror" is a classic Fabian Socialist strategy.
The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the
statement: "The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism
the abolition of private property etc." (of course this does not apply to
the elect oligarchy at the top who end up owning the lot!).
Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defense of
Bolshevism. It was entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.
In April 1952 the Webbs were exposed before a US Senate Committee on
the Judiciary when Soviet Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer,
stated that the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet
Foreign Office.
Appropriately, the defiant coat of arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned
by author/playwright co-founder George Bernard Shaw) today (now archived)
is a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Until recently it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed)
in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey. (see enclosures)
Today the Fabian Society is among other things the intellectual wing of
the British Labour Party.
Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was
Chairman of the Fabian Society.
Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200
Fabian MP's in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost
entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw,
David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan
Milburn and Clare Short.
Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.
They are resident in all parties and sit on all important select committees,
commissions and organizations allied to the government.
A good web-site on the subject is: www.lindsayjenkins.com/
The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union.
German-born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since
1997, and member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,
was one of two House of Commons' Representatives on the European Convention
and a member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for
Europe.
In her book, The Making of Europe's Constitution , published in December 2003
by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes:
"In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the
Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.
Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir
John Kerr, his deputy and the press officer.
Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office,
conducted the proceedings inside the Presidium and in the plenary sessions
of the Convention with deft diplomatic skill as might be expected from
someone who John Major called 'Machiavelli' in his autobiography.
The best description of his talents I heard was: 'When Kerr comes up to
you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?'
On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace
used by the Belgian foreign minister. It was at one of the dinners at Val
Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members
of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public
presentation.
We were not allowed to take the documents away with us.
Just precisely who drafted the skeleton, and when, is still unclear to me,
but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d'Estaing and
Sir John Kerr over the summer.
There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for
changes to be made."
Today the Labour Parties in both New Zealand and Australia are closely
affiliated to the Fabian Society in London.
http://www.smeems.net/fam/gov/loc/64AAPCN7.htm
FABIANS NOW DOMINATE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT!
EXPLAINS WHY THE THREE PARTIES SOUND.ACT AND LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME!
George Bernard Shaw [Fabian] 1936
Within 100 years Islam should rule England nay Europe.
Post a Comment