Friday, March 12, 2010

What “Equality” Means in the European Union

I’d like to write a rant about this, but I depleted my stocks of bile and invective on Charles Krauthammer, and have to wait awhile until the reservoir fills up again.

Just read this article from NIS News, and supply your own rage and bile:

White Policemen Resign Due to Discrimination

THE HAGUE, 12/03/10 — At least 10 highly-placed police officers have resigned from their corps in recent years because they were told that only women and immigrants could be promoted, one of them has said in Algemeen Dagblad newspaper yesterday.

The officer, Marc Jacobs, was a high-level officer in the Leeuwarden corps. He said in the newspaper yesterday that he was told by the corps leadership: “You can apply until you are blue in the face, but it will still be a woman or an immigrant.” He resigned. “As a man, I do not have a ghost of a chance.”
- - - - - - - - -
Jacobs says other white male officers are also unable to attain top jobs, despite their qualifications. High-level officers in Friesland, Zeeland, Noord-Holland, Gelderland, Utrecht and Amsterdam corps have already sought their path elsewhere, he says.

The Council of Corps Chiefs confirms that the ‘diversity policy’ of Labour’s (PvdA) Home Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst is leading to the departure of white officers, though the body is declining to give numbers.

The discrimination against white male officers has been the official line of police and government policy since 2005.

Notice that the anti-white-male discrimination in the Netherlands is official. In the USA the same kind of thing is an open secret. We make sure to disguise it a bit, pretending it’s something else just to keep up appearances.


Hat tip: TB.

15 comments:

linbetwin said...

What's that got to do with the EU? You said it yourself it happens in the US. Should all states secede because of this? I'm sure it happens in Norway and Switzerland, too, and they're not members of the EU. While I don't like the Brussels Eurocracy, I don't think the EU is a bad idea. It just needs to be reformed, taken over by a new breed of politicians. Eurocrats are no worse than the politicians and bureaucrats in Paris, London, Helsinki of Bucharest. (OK, those in Bucharest are much worse.) It's easy to blame Brussels for all the evils that you can't be bothered to solve at the national level, just as it's easy for GOP governors to criticize Obama for the stimulus and then take the money with both hands.

I don't want to go back to the days of European wars. One of the reasons I am suspicious of people like Wilders is that they will reawaken nationalism - and we know what that did for Europe in the 20th century alone.

Why can't there be a European nationalism, Europeanism, Continentalism...? Do you think that individual states are better equipped to fight against Islamization? Not to mention that national economies cannot compete on their own with the likes of China.

Thorkell the Tall said...

Those who fear war will always be the first to fall when it comes.

Linbetwin, I understand you desire not to see another European war. The last two were horrible and to face a third on the same scale is something that has driving far to many people to do everything they can to avoid conflict.

However, if we let fear rule our lives we cannot truly live. Are you saying it is alright to discriminate against Europeans, and Men, so that we never have to face another bloody war?

European Continental-ism means the complete and total eradication of ethnic and tribal identities that have stood for thousands of years. You ask people to turn away from their ancestors, their heritage, to give up everything that defines who they are and where they've come from, just so you don't have to see another war.

But war will always exist.

It is more than possible for Individual states to have the power to fight of Islam, because they've done it in the past. Look at the old British Empire. It held territories all over the world, and controlled them for over a century. All that, from a tiny little island.

Imagine the power if all the states of Europe were to remember who they were and where they came from, join together not as a single Continent or a Union, but Individuals, to face Islam. Imagine the power of the Normans, the British, the Vikings, the Germans, The Franks, and so on, filled with ancestral power and identity.

How could they not win?

Sean O'Brian said...

linbetwin,

Eurocrats are no worse than the politicians and bureaucrats in Paris, London... It's easy to blame Brussels for all the evils that you can't be bothered to solve at the national level.

Ah, but if the blame for our problems at national level can be passed on to Brussels then national polticians can take advantage of this themselves. One of the 'benefits' of supranational government is the way it removes, or at least obscures, accountability.

A blog entry by Peter Hitchens, Where does the EU get its power from?, explains this phenomenon:

"Mr Davies is perfectly correct in saying that the British government and civil service gold-plate EU laws and regulations, because they like them so much and see them as opportunities to do what they wanted to do before. Also on occasion ministers like to claim that the EU is forcing them to do things they wish to do anyway (a very important reason why British politicians, unwilling to reveal or take responsibility for their own real aims, support EU membership so strongly. The Strasbourg Human Rights Court, a non-EU body, often performs the same function, 'forcing' British governments to do things they wanted to do anyway, but couldn't get past the voters. The Strasbourg Court has no power in Britain, except the power the British government wants to give it)."

Why can't there be a European nationalism, Europeanism, Continentalism...?

There can't be a European nationalism because Europe isn't a nation and can't/won't ever become one. An ideological substitute, "Europeanism" or whatever you want to call it, won't work because it can't even begin to compete with national loyalties. The referendum results of the previous decade have shown that the peoples of Europe can't be relied upon to give their full support to "Europe" even in times of prosperity and peace.

The real test of allegiance to the European Union is whether or not its peoples would be prepared to fight for it. If the very reason people cite for joining the EU is the tradeoff of no more wars - a lasting peace - that already in itself suggests a strong no.

Plato explains why an oligarchy cannot defend itself: "In all probablity they [the oligarchs] will be unable to carry on a war because they are forced either to arm the people - who they fear worse than the enemy - or if they don't do this, to prove themselves even in their fighting to be truly a government of the few." -- Book XIII, The Republic

So how is the EU protected from danger? NATO, i.e. the US, protects the EU from outside invasion (except through immigration) while simultaneously providing a trans-national cohesion that would otherwise be very difficult for the EU to create. Internal policing can be done by mix-and-match: German gendarmes get sent to Greece, maybe Italian soldiers to Romania etc.

Sean O'Brian said...

I don't want to go back to the days of European wars. One of the reasons I am suspicious of people like Wilders is that they will reawaken nationalism

The only European power-struggle since 1945 was that between the USSR and the West which NATO prevented from turning into an all-out war. The EU, as the main engine of Islamisation, has created the conditions for a Continent-wide war on a huge scale.

Other than unilateral nuclear disarmament, there's nothing more they could have done in the way of sowing the seeds for future war and destruction than the mass importation of millions of hostile Muslim aliens.

There is also the distinct possibility that recriminations arising in the wake of the collapse of the EU, causing the explosive reassertion of ultra-nationalism, will lead to the resumption of conventional European wars. This old interview with Vladimir Bukovsky from the Brussels Journal touches on this possibility, Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship:

VB: According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.


Do you think that individual states are better equipped to fight against Islamization?

Yes, not least because making movement and immigration inside the Schengen Area an exclusive EU competence has made serious immigration restrictionism all but impossible. Admission into one country is to have the free run of them all. What's needed is strictly defined borders for every separate European country. We need to go back to being properly functioning nation-states.

In the case of a large war European countries will naturally ally with each other - no economic, monetary, political union is necessary for that. Ordinary people will only agree to fight for kith and kin anyhow.

Robin Shadowes said...

That is exactly what the evil elites aims at, stealing our nationality and cultural heritage. There will be nomore swedes, danes, french, germans or whatever only europeans. The problem is that the general PC MC masses has been so brainwashed into buying this concept that they have willingly coming to accept it. Yippie! No more borders! How splendid! Now we are truly europeans! No more horrible wars like WWI & II! These fools think there will be everlasting peace and milk and honey! What they fail to realize is that most white people are going to be exterminated and replaced with third worlders. The remaining surviving white are going to be enslaved as working labor like bees or ants in a hive! The genocide is necessary only because they need to get us down to more managable numbers. When that has been achieved they will have everything under perfect control. The populace will be chipped so they can follow every step we make. There will be public cameras everywhere. There are even rumours about secret technology that can send voices into your skull! And even worse, technology that can even read your mind! Thought crimes would become reality. Orwell would spin in his grave! Who wants to live in such a nightmare??

Homophobic Horse said...

linbetwin simple but ignorant drivel is what makes the EU acceptable to millions.

The EU exists to destroy the nations of Europe by supplanting their governments, it does this with regulation, masses upon masses of it, be it "free market" or "environmentalist". The EU sincerely believes that doing this will prevent war on the continent--they are wrong, where immigration is concerned it makes it more likely--but I expect when the tumult begins the EU apologists will gain a fantasy satisfaction from crushing the autochthonous irredentism and thereby "restoring" the "peace".

"One of the reasons I am suspicious of people like Wilders is that they will reawaken nationalism - and we know what that did for Europe in the 20th century alone."

Firstly what do you even mean by nationalism? There are as many nationalism's as there are nations, even in Germany today a tabloid newspaper can run an editorial blaming the Greeks for their own financial problems and recommending that they get up earlier and work harder. Which is a form of nationalism, and to some it would also be form of Nazism but they are obviously mad.

Secondly the golden age of nationalism and national independence struggles was the 19th century, but you don't know that.

Thirdly on the specific empirical point of Geert Wilders reawakening the spirit of war, has Wilders ever promised to invade a neighbouring country?

I suppose what linbetwin has displayed to us is the fatuous nightmare that lurks in the mind of deracinated and misguided EU denizens and apologists.

linbetwin said...

Thorkell said:

Imagine the power of the Normans, the British, the Vikings, the Germans, The Franks, and so on, filled with ancestral power and identity.

Imagine the Vikings pillaging the shores of civilized Europe, a danger to Christianity, more cruel than the Saracens. Where are they now, these Vikings? That's right, they inhabit probably the most civilized part of Europe, they were assimilated into the vastly superior dominant culture.

What about the British? Are they even a nation or is it just another recent political construct, only a few centuries older than the EU?

What about the Normans? Even nations are too big for you now? Should we tear France up into tribal regions, like Afghanistan? The Normans, the Bretons, the Franks and so on?

Aren't all European nations formed from the union of ancient tribes? How many invasions did it take for this famed British nation to take shape? A few centuries ago there was no British people, 1500 years ago, there was no English people. Maybe you can prove how Britain was formed through peaceful negotiations, like the EU.

What I'm trying to say is that nations change, they fear newcomers, then they assimilate them.

I want immigration to stop while we can assimilate them, while tensions are manageable. But I don't hate Muslims and I don't think Islam can't conquer the West. I hate Islam and their backward culture, I hate PC and MC. And I'm not fond of some anachronistically nationalist views posted here either.

And why can't Europe be (something like) a nation? Is India a nation? Do you have any idea how many languages they speak in India? Do you know that an Indian can experience multiple culture shocks just by traveling from one end of the country to the other?

linbetwin said...

I meant to say "I don't think Islam CAN conquer Europe."

Robert Marchenoir said...

The theory that EU prevents war between its members is bonkers. It might have been true for a few years just after WWII. But the historical effect of that has waned long ago. Hitler is dead, folks.

On the other hand, look at the potential for violent conflict between member states that the EU has created. Look no further than the present Greek crisis. Relations between Germany and Greece have turned ugly because of the monetary union, not in spite of it.

Suggestions, by Germans, that the Greek should "sell a few islands to Germany" if it wants to be bailed out by the EU are exactly the sort of media outbursts you get between countries ready to go to war between each other. The Greeks are reciprocating with Nazi smears.

How's that for "preventing wars" ?

What is the effect of allowing, because of the EU religion, large numbers of poor Romanians in wealthy member states, who then proceed to beg and steal in massive numbers ? Does not that create resentment between countries, which could easily morph into the nasty, war-mongering variety of nationalism that Europeists so despise ?

I'm fed up with the old canard of "nationalism" fostering wars. You could as well say that wealth is fostering theft, that sex is fostering rape, or that life is fostering death.

This piece of ready-made thinking is supposed to refer to a very tiny part of human history : a few years between 1939 and 1945.

And the underlying assumptions are false : Nazism and Fascism were arguably a distortion of nationalism. However, Communism, which was responsible for the Cold War, was a form of... internationalism. That does not quite fit into the picture, does it ?

Besides, how about all the positive things that nationalism has brought ? French Leftists (and a large portion of the Right) constantly demonise nationalism, with the implicit reference to WWII. However, they constantly praise "the values of the French Republic", which was a nationalistic movement if there ever was one.

The double standards of these people are really showing.

linbetwin said...

Ceauşescu was a very nationalist communist. He went as far as to downplay our Roman ancestry so as to show that we have nothing to do with the Capitalist West. The USSR was also a nationalist and imperialist state, despite all their propaganda. But hey, people who haven't lived under Communism have the right to talk about it too.

So you think there's going to be war between Germany and Greece ? Oooh, so scary! And then Iceland will attack the UK and the Netherlands over IceSave. Pure Armageddon!

By the way, can Belgians be nationalistic? Farage says Belgium's not even a country. As opposed to the United Kingdon of Great Britain (aka England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland whose independence he upholds. Shouldn't there be English/Welsh/Scottish/Cornish/Manx Independence Parties?

And why is it that the European nations can't form a Union on their contintent and yet, once they cross the Atlantic, they can form countries and even peoples (the American, Canadian people) ?

I am not offended by your remarks about Romanian beggars and criminals and I would not reciprocate even if I knew what country you are from. I have heard Geert Widlers say that Romania and Bulgaria should be booted out of the EU. If the EU is such an Orwellian nightmare, why won't he pull HIS country out of it? Believe me, he won't. People like him and Farage are only against the system until they get to run it or at least be very influential. If you think Obama's voters are disappointed with him, wait until Wilders gets to be PM.

maggieTh said...

At the opening of the trial against Geert Wilders, the police built a "wall" of four police officers against demonstrators. Of these three two were demonstratively Mohammedanians and one woman. This is a shameful, because the police is of course subject to neutrality and has yet spoken in this case against Wilders. This I have depicted myself and posted it in my blog.

maggieTh

maggieTh said...

Which is the 14th pic from above (sorry).

rebelliousvanilla said...

linbetwin, the difference in between the Bucharest politicians and the European ones is that the former are self-interest thieves, while the latter are traitors. I believe that for the former, some harsh jail sentences are in order, but for treason the death penalty is a light punishment. The EU is a bad idea if it is more than a free market in which goods can travel freely. The further away the decision and taxation goes from the poeple that they affect, the worse the governance will be. Actually the EU defies any principles of proper governance. And Europeans can't be a nation simply because they're not the same people. A nation is a group of people with the same perceived ancestry, ethnic group and culture. It's not just some construct.

If I was an American, I would want my state to secede because the federal government disrespects its original intent and it is destructive to its own citizens.

Also, nationalism doesn't imply isolation nor imperialism. Ceausescu didn't give a crap about the Romanian people, just like Hitler didn't really care about the German people. By the way, the richest country on Earth is Singapore having the highest reserves per capita in the world. It's merely the size of a few Bucharests. China is a national economy and if Europeans wouldn't be socialistic idiots, we could compete with it.

And as it's quoted on this blog, the number of immigrants is already too big to assimilate. Basically with a halt on immigration, if the current birth rate differentials stay like this, there will be less ethnic Dutch than Muslims in the generation born in 60 years. Just like in our countries we don't need immigration to become a minority compared to the gypsies by the end of this century because they have 2.5 times higher fertility rates. I guess all those jokes about natiunea inlocuitoare in loc de natiunea colocuitoare were just bittersweet things.

Zenster said...

Sean O'Brian: Plato explains why an oligarchy cannot defend itself: "In all probablity they [the oligarchs] will be unable to carry on a war because they are forced either to arm the people - who they fear worse than the enemy - or if they don't do this, to prove themselves even in their fighting to be truly a government of the few." -- Book XIII, The Republic

Le bingo! Even a cursory study of traditions and history related to European gun control laws, be they ancient or modern, will reveal this underlying fear of a well-armed citizenry.

The EU's unwritten policy that "only women and immigrants could be promoted" demonstrates just how much their policy of disarming the populace is informed by this phobia.

If there is one individual who embodies the virtues of free thought and independent decision-making it is the "Pale Male" of Judeo-Christian descent. It is exactly this threat to their autocracy that the EU and its Politically Correct Multicultural minions are most vigorously seeking to exterminate.

bartholomewscross said...

linbetwin wrote,

"Vikings pillaging the shores of civilized Europe, a danger to Christianity, more cruel than the Saracens. Where are they now, these Vikings? That's right, they inhabit probably the most civilized part of Europe, they were assimilated into the vastly superior dominant culture."

So, the Vikings were more cruel than the Saracens, but it was the Vikings and not the Saracens who were assimilated. Any theories on that, linbetwin?

"What about the British? Are they even a nation...?"

I'm sure you've seen this genetic map (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html). Sure, the British could devolve back into the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh or they could stay the British; genetically, it wouldn't make much difference. Culturally, it wouldn't be earth-shattering either (that's a funny correlation, culture and genes, when you think about it). But, then, what exactly does that have to do with, say, Pakistan?

"What about the Normans? Even nations are too big for you now"

What are you talking about? Do you mean to say that it's either every village for itself or else we must accept the European Super State? Why? Mankind has organized along national lines for millenia (ever read the Old Testament?). I don't see why now in the 21st century, it's suddenly New World Order or bust.

"A few centuries ago there was no British people, 1500 years ago, there was no English people."

No, that's false. There was no United Kingdom, but the genetic map I cited above hasn't just popped into existence since the Act of Union. I realize that none of us is a geneticist, but come on.

"What I'm trying to say is that nations change, they fear newcomers, then they assimilate them."

No, actually nations fight them and repel them or they go out of existence. Ever met an Etruscan? Ever wonder why not?

"And why can't Europe be (something like) a nation? Is India a nation? Do you have any idea how many languages they speak in India?"

Just curious, here: have you ever actually been to India? Is that the sort of place you really want Europe to become?

Why is it that liberals think they can just change this or tinker with that and nothing will change? Europe will be just like it's always been but with no rude border guards!

Not quite. In the real world, our actions matter. When you mess around with this or screw up that, it matters When you mess with people's lives, you screw up their future. For all of us.