Tony Blair conceded defeat some time ago for any proper British-Israelite response to Nazi-Muslim provocations. It appears the British, like the foolish Israelis, look to the German-EU to save them and then stab them in the back.
Europe to Take Out Iran for Jerusalem
God Save Us From Islam and Europe!
Ehud Olmert Playing with German Fire
Death to the American, British & Jewish Peoples?
EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Kosovo - A Cautionary Tale
March 25, 2007
Ruth King
It looks increasingly probable that Kosovo will gain its independence from Serbia, an outcome that should be of serious concern to Israel and its supporters. Ariel Sharon, to his credit, heard the alarm bells during the American bombing of Serbia in 1999, when he warned American Jewish leaders: "If Israel supports the type of action that's going on in Kosovo, it risks becoming the next victim. Brutal intervention must not be legitimized as a way to try to impose a solution in regional conflicts." And, it is no coincidence, as journalist Julia Gorin reminds us, that during the bombing of Serbia on behalf of Moslem Albanians in 1999 Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Sultan, commander of the allied Saudi troops during the first Gulf War, called on the US to do the same against Israel on behalf of Palestinians.
The fate of Jews and Serbs, which has intersected in the past, is doing so again. The jihadist effort to expunge Jews from Palestine mirrors the Moslem goal of incorporating Kosovo into a “greater Moslem Albania” while expelling Christian Serbs.
When Serbia became independent of Byzantine rule in the 12th century, its economic, cultural, social and religious institutions were among the most advanced in Europe. Serbia functioned as a bridge between Greco-Byzantine civilization and the developing Western Renaissance. The center of the Serbian Orthodox Church was in Kosovo where churches, monasteries and monastic communities were established. A form of census in 1330, the “Decani Charter,” detailed the list of chartered villages and households, of which only two percent were Albanian.
The Ottomans invaded Serbia in 1389 and consolidated their rule in 1459, propelling major parts of the Balkan peninsula and adjacent southeast Europe into a Koran-dictated Dark Ages. While a significant proportion of Serbian and Croatian nobility converted to Islam to escape the harsh conditions imposed on non-Moslems, most Serbian peasants clung to their Christian faith. Historian G. Richard Jansen reports: “Serbs and Jews became dhimmis subject to the dhimma or protection offered to Christians and Jews in newly Islamized lands in exchange for their lives.
Similarly Bat Ye’or, in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide writes: “For the Orthodox Serbs… this same period [the centuries of Moslem rule] is considered one of massacre, pillage, slavery, deportation, and the exile of Christian populations. In their eyes it was a regime which found its justification in the usurpation of their land and denial of their rights....In their wars of emancipation-and, later, of liberation—the Orthodox Serbs found that their bitterest adversaries were their Muslim compatriots attached to their religious privileges and their domination over the humiliated Christians.”
In spite of forced migrations and oppression, like their Jewish counterparts, and unlike other Balkan nations, Serbs maintained their cultural and religious ties to their faith and shrines in Kosovo which, reinforcing the parallel, they called their Jerusalem. It was the Serbs who first mounted, in 1804 and 1813, insurgencies which spread through the region, culminating in the 1912 Balkan War which essentially eliminated the Ottomans from the Balkans.
Early in the twentieth century Serbian Christians were roughly two-thirds of the population of Kosovo, Moslem Albanians one-third. During World War I (triggered by the assassination in Serbia of the Austrian arch-duke) Serbs held off the Austrians for more than a year, before they were overwhelmed. Almost 800,000 Serbs perished, a fourth of the population. With full Serb support, the peace treaties of 1919-1920 established a state with the name "The Kingdom of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs." The awkward name was shortly changed to Yugoslavia with Kosovo an integral part of Serbia. At roughly the same time, the Balfour Declaration promised the Jews a restored homeland in Palestine which included what became the present day kingdom of Jordan.
From then on Kosovo’s population underwent sharp population shifts. During World War II, when Yugoslav Serbs refused to join a Nazi “community of nations,” an angry Hitler ordered the destruction of Yugoslavia. Following the Yugoslav army’s capitulation in 1941, Serbia was divided by the Nazis between the Italians and the Bulgarians, who encouraged armed gangs of pro-Nazi ethnic Albanians to attack the Serbs and to torch, destroy and desecrate ancient churches and shrines. The Moslem Albanians, who surprised their mentors with their barbarity and zeal for atrocities, were rewarded when parts of Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia were annexed to “Greater Albania.”
In 1943 the Nazis formed the 21st SS "Skanderbeg" division of Moslem Albanian volunteers to perform an “ethnic cleansing” (of Jews and Serbs) in Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of Serbs were sent to a Croatian death camp and as noted by Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) Skanderbeg played a major role in the Holocaust, rounding up Jews who were subsequently sent to Bergen-Belsen and various death camps. A Kosovar Moslem, Bedri Pejani, was appointed by the Nazis to rule occupied Kosovo. He promptly announced a plan to create a Great Islamic State in the region with the blessings of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini. The Grand Mufti, who had led a jihad in Palestine, escaped capture by fleeing to German-occupied Europe where, from Sarajevo he urged the Nazis not to flag in their destruction of the Jews. Needless to say the Serbian Christian population dwindled under this onslaught and the proportion of Albanian Moslems surged. By the end of World War II, Yugoslav deaths totaled more than a million, roughly half of them Serbs.
Although the province was restored to Yugoslavia after the war, the population balance in Kosovo did not shift in favor of Serbia. Tito, aiming for leadership of a wider Balkan alliance, did not allow Serbs who fled from their homes during the war to return. He did not enforce border controls and many thousands of Albanians infiltrated through the porous borders. (Like the Moslems in areas adjacent to Palestine in the interwar years, they were attracted by the superior economic conditions.) Seeking to pacify the restive Moslems, in 1974 Tito offered the province political, cultural, economic and juridical “autonomy,” along with large subsidies for agricultural and other projects, which merely had the effect of prompting a further influx of Moslems from across the border. For example, a new university was established in Pristina, with faculty from the University of Belgrade commuting by air.
All this did not pacify the restive Moslems who as early as 1960 demanded independence for Kosovo. There were intermittent riots which escalated and an emergent Kosovo Liberation Army gave as its stated goal “an ethnic greater Albania” to include portions of Macedonia and Montenegro, parts of southern Serbia and an “ethnically pure” (read Moslem-only) Kosovo.
In 1979 Menachem Begin, hectored by Jimmy Carter whose predilection for the Arab cause is well known, also offered the rioting Arabs of Judea and Samaria “autonomy” with the same disastrous results. As Henry Kissinger has noted, “autonomy” is a euphemism for independence.
Initially, the media reported the situation in Kosovo fairly. For example, in July 1982 The New York Times noted: "Serbs have been harassed by Albanians and have packed up and left the region. The Albanian nationalists have a two-point platform, first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then to merge with Albania for a greater Albania. Some 57,000 Serbs have left Kosovo in the last decade.” Five years later, in 1987, the Times was still reporting the persecution of Serbs within Kosovo. "Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, wells poisoned, crops burned, Slavic boys knifed. Young Albanians have been told to rape Serbian girls…. Officials in Belgrade view the ethnic Albanian challenge as imperiling the foundations of the multinational experiment called federal Yugoslavia….Ethnic Albanians already control almost every phase of life in the autonomous province of Kosovo, including the police, judiciary, civil service, schools, and factories."
Milosevic rose to power with the promise of reversing this intolerable situation, restoring peace and Yugoslav control in Kosovo. But now international perception of the crisis turned against Serbia as Milosevic abolished the “autonomy” of Kosovo in 1989. There were arrests and house searches of Kosovar Albanians. And then the media went into a frenzy of accusations against the Serbs, much as it has against Israel and with similar distortions. The media depicted the armed, violent and jihadist Moslem Albanians as “unarmed civilians” despite the fact they called themselves an army and perpetrated assaults, bombings, murder of civilians and targeted assassinations of Albanians loyal to Serbia. President Clinton outrageously referred to a “holocaust” perpetrated by Serbia and compared the Moslems of Kosovo to the Jews—this, even though the Serbs had behaved well toward the Jews during the real Holocaust and Clinton himself was pressing Israel’s Jews to accept the “peace partnership” of Arafat, a brutal terrorist far worse than Milosevic, admittedly a dictator and a Communist thug.
The right was as vehement as the left in demanding action. In September 1998 such luminaries of the right as John Bolton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz joined such far leftists as Morton Halperin in a petition to President Clinton demanding that he not only stop “the carnage in Kosovo” but use “massive Western pressure” to obtain “a new political status for Kosovo.”
In March of 1999, the United States drew up a document, the “Rambouillet Agreement” which was, as Madeleine Albright boasted later, an absolute ultimatum to Serbia. It was a demand for Serbia to withdraw from Kosovo in favor of a NATO occupying force, something that no sovereign nation could or should accept. Incredibly, as The New York Times of April 8, 1999 reported, Milosevic accepted the entire package with the exception of NATO occupation of Yugoslavia itself. He wanted the troops to be under UN command. Dan Goure, then Deputy Director of the Center for Security and International Studies and a Pentagon official under the first President Bush said, "Rambouillet was not a negotiation, it was a setup, a lynch party." All this was in direct contravention of previously stated U.S. policy which declared that no national minority had the right to form a new state on other state territories…a policy which still guides the U.S. government in respect to recognizing Taiwan’s independence.
An interesting provision of the so-called “negotiations” demanded that the Serb army and police forces withdraw and a new Kosovar police force be formed to include members of the Kosovo Liberation Party, which was supposed to disarm. Sound familiar?
What happened subsequently is better known. In 1999 in concert with NATO, the Clinton administration commenced a 78 day bombing of Serbia. This action met with almost no objection in the West, hailed not only by liberal politicians and the media but by Margaret Thatcher, The Wall Street Journal and assorted conservative pundits and politicians.
To sum up: the demand for Kosovo's independence led to KLA terrorism which led to repression and expulsion of Albanians by Serbian military and police, which led to the assault by the United States and NATO. While the brutality of the Milosevic regime was indeed a complicating factor, he is long gone, but the KLA continues its assault on Serbs, on their churches, priests, homes, even on civilians sitting in cafes, this under the nose of the U.S. and UN troops which have now occupied Kosovo for eight years. Never mind that the State Department in 1998 listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating (as Interpol’s assistant director for Criminal Intelligence Ralph Mutschke reminded Congress in December 2000) “that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden.”
Media and politicians alike, vastly indignant over Milosevic’s behavior, turn a blind eye. Speaking of Kosovo’s major city Pristina, where 40,000 Serbs lived before the UN took over (and where only 100 live now) Senator Joseph Biden, presidential aspirant and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared proudly that Kosovo was a “victory for Moslem democracy” and “Pristina is one of the rare Moslem cities in the world where the U.S. is not only respected but adored.” (Indeed there is a street named for Madeleine Albright, who played an especially scurvy role in ramping up pressure against the Serbs). Similarly the media takes notice of Kosovo only to berate the Serbs for failing to acquiesce speedily and gracefully to the loss of their “Jerusalem.”
Western leaders are blind to the danger to themselves in the principle they are establishing, namely that recent illegal immigrants from another state have the right to declare independence over territory long recognized as part of a different sovereign state whose inhabitants they have ruthlessly forced to flee.
The United States, the EU and the vast majority of UN member states, now pushing strongly to establish Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, are also establishing a terrible precedent in flouting the very international law under which the UN’s occupation of Kosovo rests. UN Security Council Resolution 1244, drafted to end the NATO bombing, specifically reaffirmed that Kosovo belongs to Serbia. Detaching Kosovo from Serbia against Serbia’s will is to violate the UN Charter. Serbian President Vojislav Kostunica reports that “when we mention the need for legality, some of these officials [UN, EU, U.S.] become exasperated, even agitated. They respond with various comments to the effect that we should not be bound by ’mere’ legality.” (The UN’s ambassador to the “negotiations” with President Kostunica is former Finnish president Martii Ahtisaari, a close associate of George Soros and the openly pro-Albanian Soros-funded International Crisis Group.)
Finally, there is an additional peril for the West here. The “two state solution” which aims to strip Israel of its ancient Jewish heartland, and the demand for Serbia to surrender Kosovo, the locus of its Serbian Orthodox faith, both advance the cause of resurgent Islam and worldwide jihad. To quote Bat Ye’or again: “In 1991, before the conflict erupted, the English edition of [Moslem Bosnian President] Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration (1970) specifically stated: ‘There can be neither peace nor coexistence between Arabia, the cradle of Islam and non-Islamic social and political institutions.’" And he concluded: “The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one.”
In Congressional testimony, our intelligence agencies have now disclosed that there are 16 terror training camps and arms depots in Kosovo. Julia Gorin warns: “Even conservatives, who support the war on terror and the war in Iraq, have a blind spot and an apathy when it comes to the Balkans, as well as to the fact that a lot of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere are connected to the Balkans.” Gorin notes wryly that when America needs to burnish its credentials among Moslems, it gloats about intervention on behalf of Moslems in Bosnia and Kosovo – and, of course, demands a solution to the “Palestine” problem. While Israel is not threatened with bombing by US/NATO forces, economic sanctions and threats will be enough to squeeze Israel into surrender.
Statesmen, commentators and pundits who urge solutions and negotiations both in Serbia and "Palestine" brush all historical claims off the table. They simply ignore the geographical facts of the Palestine Mandate where the Hashemites obtained over 82% of the land assigned as the Jewish National Home. They ignore the ancient and religious ties of the Jewish people to Palestine. They ignore the migrations of Arabs to Jewish towns in what Mark Twain called "The Wasteland". They ignore the strategic danger of a jihadist state in Palestine. With respect to Serbia, the “solution groupies” show the same disregard for historical and religious ties and sovereignty; the same indifference to the enforced migrations and immigrations which created an ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo; and the same blindness to the dangers of a jihadist “greater Albania” anxious to incorporate Kosovo into a Balkan caliphate.
And so Kosovo may become independent. Welcome to a new Moslem jihadist state, which will no doubt eagerly await the exchange of ambassadors with a jihadist Moslem state in Judea and Samaria.
OUTPOST
*********
*********
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Kosovo and Jerusalem
U.S. Selective War on Terrorism to Backfire
The Rising Beast—Germany’s Conquest of the Balkans
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Kosovo and Jerusalem
U.S. Selective War on Terrorism to Backfire
The Rising Beast—Germany’s Conquest of the Balkans
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Germany in Prophecy!
After the fall of Assyria by Babylon, what happened to the Assyrians? This nation seems to have vanished from History? Or did they? The Bible plainly says that Assyria will play a vital role in this end time. What happened to them?
Hometown Jihad: The Return of Salah Sultan
Hometown Jihad: The Return of Salah Sultan
By Patrick Poole
One year later, my neighbor reappears as the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. political analyst. More>
Death to America: Our Lack of Will?
Stop Welfare for "Palestinian" Terrorists!
Muslims Reject Moses and Jesus for Mohammad
President Bush Rewards Terrorism!
Stop Welfare for "Palestinian" Terrorists!
Muslims Reject Moses and Jesus for Mohammad
President Bush Rewards Terrorism!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Israel drives Jews away
Where else but in Israel could thousands of Jews be forcibly removed from their homes and their property and businesses looted by sworn Arab enemies with covert world approval? Where else but in Israel could Jewish holy sites be utterly vandalized, destroyed and occupied by Muslims like Joseph's Tomb? Where else but in Israel would Jews be violently forbidden to pray or read the Bible at a holy site, even Judaism's most holy site - the Temple Mount - with successive governments rewarding terrorist threats and punishing innocent Jews against both secular and religious law? Why the woeful neglect and abominable apathy of Jews and Israelis that enables such deplorable conditions to continue?
Israel's Betrayal of the Jews
Don't Expel Jews from Gaza!
No wonder so many Jews turn their backs on the Jewish Homeland and prefer their self-imposed exile. What a horrible situation, a desecration of God's holy name, when the state of Jews (it's not a Jewish state) drives Jews away and treat so many Jews worse than the goyim did - worse because Jews shouldn't treat anybody the way the Israeli government has, especially fellow Jews.
Israel's Betrayal of the Jews
Don't Expel Jews from Gaza!
No wonder so many Jews turn their backs on the Jewish Homeland and prefer their self-imposed exile. What a horrible situation, a desecration of God's holy name, when the state of Jews (it's not a Jewish state) drives Jews away and treat so many Jews worse than the goyim did - worse because Jews shouldn't treat anybody the way the Israeli government has, especially fellow Jews.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Did only Jews return from Babylon?
Throughout the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, lists of names of those who returned are given and they are all from the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.
We see however from verse 1-Chronicles 9:3 that there were people from other Tribes there. This is explained best by Nachmanides (Book of Redemption, chapter one)...
Kosovo goes the way of Czechoslovakia?
Serbia and Russia react differently to Kosovo independence plan ***********************
27.03.2007 - 17:44 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Serbia has firmly rejected an EU and US-backed UN plan to give "supervised independence" to Kosovo in late May, with the Serb prime minister calling for a "historic" Russian veto. But Russia appears to be mellowing its previously tough stance on accepting an imposed solution on the UN-run Serb province.
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Kosovo and Jerusalem
U.S. Selective War on Terrorism to Backfire
The Rising Beast—Germany’s Conquest of the Balkans
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Kosovo and Jerusalem
U.S. Selective War on Terrorism to Backfire
The Rising Beast—Germany’s Conquest of the Balkans
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Monday, March 26, 2007
EU weakens own identity by ignoring Christianity, warns Pope
EU weakens own identity by ignoring Christianity, warns Pope
26.03.2007 - 09:29 CET
EUOBSERVER / ROME - Pope Benedict XVI has criticised EU leaders for ignoring Christianity in their reflections over the union's 50th birthday and warned about demographic trends that put Europe's future at risk.
EUOBSERVER / ROME - Pope Benedict XVI has criticised EU leaders for ignoring Christianity in their reflections over the union's 50th birthday and warned about demographic trends that put Europe's future at risk.
***************************
As a Frenchman, who wisely voted against the EU Constitution, brought to my attention:
"Ben veng'a il mal sé ben mi porta" from the Medici period....Welcome Evil if it brings me Good (a close translation).
The lesser of two evils is still evil. When Europe reverts to the bloody Roman Catholic Cross against the Muslim Crescent (bad moon rising) - which they will when their back is against the wall - they'll think they've found a savior but will get enslaved to its Babylonish system instead. Europeans will exchange the Muslims for the MARK.
Europe's Bitter Roots
Germany to Take the EU Bull by the Horns
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Herbert W. Armstrong Was Ahead of His Time!
The Intelligence Summit Misses the Mark: the German-Jesuit Threat to World Peace
EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews
Will the Atlantic Times Address the German threat?
Bavarian Pope to Pump Life into EU Body
Europe Swings Both Ways
Bible Prophecy States EU to Form Core Group
Is a World Dictator About to Appear?
Bavarian Pope to Sweep Europe Off Its Feet?
Europe to Take Out Iran for Jerusalem
Europe Misses the Mark - Will It Return as the Sign of the Cross?
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Catholic Europe in Vogue?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Bird flu: Europe to slaughter Israel!
Deuteronomy 28:15
15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you...
Israel has been suffering from the "bird flu" for years, as a consequence of NATIONAL SIN (Daniel 9:11). Now it's coming to its conclusion since the Israeli people have rejected Kahane (the biblical ideals he represented) for Arafat and his Amalekite heirs: Israel is about to be slaughtered, having been sold out to EU interests by chickens, doves, turkeys and hawks (who prey upon their own people - not against Arab enemies).
The bloody vulture Shimon Peres must be caged, quarantined at least, since his unclean kind - symptoms of Israel's disease - have unleashed this sickness upon the Jewish homeland.
The Israeli sins are coming home to roost and the treacherous leaders who have prostituted themselves, who have sold out Israel, who imagine themselves immune from the EU plague, will soon suffer and die for it too.
Isaiah 28:14-15
14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15 You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood our hiding place."
Will the Israelis undergo a cleansing coup and experience a heartfelt NATIONAL REPENTANCE? Will the Jews get rid of the filth in their lives and cull the foul leaders that pollute the nest and imperil the land? Will the Israelis insist upon Europe's new crusade to bring them to their knees and encourage them to clean up their act?
2 Chronicles 7:14
14 ...If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
| David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer in Ohio and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall. With a focus on the Middle East and Jerusalem, his analytical articles help others improve their understanding of that troubled region. Check out the Beyond Babylon blog. |
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Abolish the European Union
Time to Abolish the EU?
Abolish The European Union
Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 5, 2002
AMERICANS SUFFER FROM A CURIOUS DELUSION:
Reading their newspapers and perusing their atlases, they continue to believe that such geographical entities as France, England, Italy and Germany are nations. But in fact they are, or more accurately are rapidly becoming, mere provinces of the Holy Belgian Empire: the European Union (EU). This empire has been getting continually more malignant for years without attracting significant conservative opposition on this side of the Atlantic. But American conservatives should realize that it represents the European manifestation of the odious ideology of globalism, or the liquidation of nations. It should therefore be abolished forthwith.
The EU seems to have a unique talent for bringing out the worst in its member states. It is like the universal alloy of medieval alchemy: a mixture of all metals that turns out to have the liabilities of each and the virtues of none. Each of its member states has its own dishonorable reasons for participating in it.
For example, one motivating factor behind the ongoing attempt of the EU to become a superstate is the colossal unresolved guilt felt by Germany about her Nazi past. Germans would very much like to abolish Germany as a nation and declare themselves citizens of "Europe" so that their consciences wouldn’t have to bear the burden of being Germans. After having tried to liquidate the other nations of Europe by the sword twice in one century, they are now trying it a third time to weasel out of their well-deserved guilt over the first two. It is an utter scandal that nations like Britain, France, and soon Poland, which sacrificed millions of lives fighting German aggression, are being asked to liquidate their nationhood to expiate German crimes.
Another motivating factor behind the EU is the determination of French bureaucrats to rule Europe. France, because of her history, the structure of her government, and her educational system, produces the most ambitious bureaucrats in the world. Her tradition of dirigisme or state-directed capitalism is precisely suited to present world economic conditions, in which competitive pressures make expanding socialism impossible but the inexorable will of the state to grow has not gone away. They are convinced that the expanded powers of the EU will by nature fall into their lap, the Germans being too shy about asserting their power, the British not being statist by instinct, the Italians being too disorganized, and everyone else being too small.
Those Italians who like the EU like it because it absolves them of the need to get their own national act together and fix the most chaotic government and economy in Europe. Rather than fixing their own budget deficits to save the ever-falling lira, they adopt the euro. Rather than fixing their own government, they prefer to sign away their sovereignty and with it, the ability of future generations of Italians to be masters of their own political destiny. The idea of an Italy governed in all essentials by foreigners in Brussels doesn’t seem to scare them or bother their national pride at all.
Other nations, like Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, have knuckled under to the EU essentially on a basis of bribery. They have been paid billions in subsidies to support obsolescent farming sectors in exchange for compliant votes to expand EU powers. It is a classic case, writ large, of the old warning about selling one’s freedom in exchange for welfare.
The other openly admitted motivation for the EU is to create a political entity large enough to blunt "American hegemony." Given that it is US hegemony over Europe since WWII that has given the continent the greatest peace and prosperity it has known in the 20th century, this is for a start monumentally ungrateful. Given that Europe cannot even deal with local crises like the wars of the Yugoslav succession without American help, it is pathetic. Despite all talk of a common foreign policy, the minute bullets start to fly, pronouncements of European unity vanish and the member states go their separate ways. And what wonderful geopolitical agenda does Europe intend to pursue once it stands tall next to America? What terrible harm at our hands does it propose to rectify? No one has answered this question because frankly, the motivation here is pure ego, leavened only by the cynicism that passes for political sophistication in Europe. Fortunately, Europe is unlikely to ever match American military power, since it cannot afford to match our defense budget and maintain its bloated welfare states. This is not even to mention our 40-year technological head start; the European armies, with the limited exception of the Americanized but very small British military, are perfectly nice 1960s-era militaries, a joke compared to our Star Wars forces. All of Europe put together cannot field a single state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.
The other great aim of EU supporters is that it be their last chance to salvage the statist, over-regulated, socialistic economic policies that have been pushed to the wall by the worldwide free-market revival of the ‘80s and ‘90s. It is no accident that the movement to turn the EU from a free-trade area to a superstate rose with this free-market revival. Their essential premise is that these failed policies will work if the political unit of their operation is large enough. Naturally, this is absurd: the Soviet Union had nearly 300 million people and couldn’t make socialism work. The justification for this claim is the idea that there is no real superiority to free-market policies and that these policies have only been offering them competition because they are embodied in the United States, which uses its vast size to bully other nations into adopting them. (I have discussed the tendency of the world’s losers to see their self-inflicted problems as caused by America in another article.) So if the EU is large enough, it will be able to sustain these discredited ideas by hiding behind a protectionist shield. They will of course eventually discover that this won’t work, that mistakes are mistakes regardless of scale, but the attempt could doom a generation of Europeans to continuing economic sclerosis.
Some examples of the dirigiste economic policies of EU nations:
High taxes on everything from incomes to retail goods. High social charges on employers. Legally-entrenched labor union power. Laws against firing people, which just cause employers not to hire them in the first place. Massive subsidies for obsolescent industries like agriculture and steel. Cozy cartels to restrict competition and divide up markets. Massive government intervention in business decisions. Outright government ownership of sectors of the economy. Anti-business cultural attitudes. Protectionism against American and Asian goods.
There is no meaningful doubt that the nations of the EU pay a high price for its dirigiste practices. For the last decade, the EU’s unemployment rate has averaged roughly double that of the United States. Since 1980, the US has created 30 million new private-sector jobs; the European Union a net of zero. (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis).
Fortunately one of the saving graces of Europe has traditionally been competition between governments. For example, the most economically free nation in Europe (thanks to Margaret Thatcher, not the current Labor government) is currently Britain, which has been attracting investment away from more regulated economies in Europe as a result. The French fume about this and call it "social dumping." British workers call it an unemployment rate far below that of France. The EU would like to end this ability of nations to compete by having lighter tax burdens. It would like to "harmonize," as it says in its inimitably dishonest eurobabble, tax rates across nations. It also raises taxes simply by having a budget, which taxpayers of the member states ultimately finance.
Like every undesirable thing in politics, the EU has its own characteristic varieties of sophistry that are used to justify it. The key piece of sophistic reasoning used to justify the European Union is the claim that opposition to the political construct that is the EU constitutes opposition to the existential fact that is Europe. Anyone who opposes expansion of the powers of the EU is tarred as "anti-Europe," which has become an epithet exceeded only by "racist" in its ability to both mean nothing and brand its victim a pariah. But Europeans have been benefiting from their relations with other European countries for millennia without the benefit of this superstate. It is entirely possible, indeed desirable, to be pro-Europe and anti-EU.
Another EU sophism: the benefits of free trade within the EU require its existence. False: all they require is the absence of tariffs between the member states, as the old Common Market, predecessor of the EU, used to provide. The European Union uses the promise of free trade as a tool to bribe the nations to its East to submit to its political control. I am not Polish, but it makes me want to cry to see this proud, nationalistic nation, which has suffered so many cruel affronts to its independence in its history, being prepared for subjugation to Brussels, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic. All the preposterous claims about the economic benefits of membership in the EU crumble on contact with the fact that some of Europe’s most successful economies, like Norway and Switzerland, are outside it, and one of the most successful countries inside the EU, Britain, has the least degree of economic submission to it, having not adopted its currency, the euro.
The lies spouted in favor of the euro are a rich topic in their own right. The fundamental premise underlying the euro is the same bald empirical falsehood that underlies most EU thinking: bigger is better. When it comes to economics, one can compare the success of the currencies of Russia and Singapore, or Brazil and Switzerland, and come to one’s own conclusions. Supposedly, having a common currency is necessary to weld the individual economies of Europe into one big economy. Naturally, since the euro is backed by the sagging over-regulated economies of Continental Europe, it has been sinking relative to the dollar and the pound since it was established. It was issued in 1999 at a value of $1.17; it is now trading at 94 and has been lower. This loss in value is not an abstraction: it has wiped billions off of the value of pension funds, especially German ones, which used to be denominated in the rock-solid mark. Britain, which remains outside the euro, has less inflation, less unemployment, and more growth, than the average of those nations within it. And the euro does not promote foreign investment: in 1999, Britain attracted a grossly disproportionate 40% of all US and Asian investment into the EU.
However smoothly its spokesmen would deny it in public while admitting it in private, the EU is a threat to the national sovereignty of its member states. Sovereignty sounds like an abstraction, but in fact it refers to the ultimate ability of a nation to control its own destiny rather than being dictated to by others. For example, EU laws override the laws made by the parliaments of the member states. This means that the entire body of English common law, for example, a treasury of liberty, which has grown up over nearly a thousand years, is now disposable. The British parliament cannot legislate for its own people without the permission of bureaucrats in Brussels.
The EU is exceptionally dishonest in how it goes about coercing its member states. Its fundamental modus operandi is what has been called "union by stealth," namely the surrender of national sovereignty to the new superstate so gradually that the electorates of the member nations don’t notice until it is too late. Stealth combines with the narcotization of European electorates by bloated welfare states to make this possible. It is the same tactic of "progressive" revolutionaries that we have seen in America: push through fundamental changes not by arguing that they are good, but by pretending that they don’t matter. It is government by anesthesia. The politicians responsible have consistently lied about the nature of the changes they have made. It is well understood that the EU could never survive real democratic debate. Claude Cheysson, the former French Foreign Secretary who subsequently became one of France's European Commissioners, famously observed that the superstate-building Maastricht Treaty could only have been constructed "in the absence of democracy."
Politicians as a class love the EU. It gives them the ability to wield power through insider wheeler-dealing, without the accountability of pesky national electorates or judiciaries.
Leftists especially appreciate its ability to impose laws that would never be passed by their national legislature. The EU is governed by an unelected Commission; the "European Parliament" is an inert joke. The issue is usually fudged by resorting to the kind of technical discussion of the structures of government, rife with meaningless phrases like "pooled sovereignty," that have come to be known as eurobabble, but the blunt fact is, the EU has no democratic legitimacy. The legal basis for the imposition of its laws on its member states is only a series of treaties that they have signed, starting with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The treaty that contained the fundamental basis for surrender of sovereignty was that of 1972, but this was not given its full force until the treaties of Maastrich of 1993 and Amsterdam in 1997. The fundamental problem with these treaties, as a matter of basic sound political philosophy, is that they surrender or alienate the right of self-government of the nations that sign them. Our Declaration of Independence rightly observes that the right to self-government is "unalienable;" i.e. that no government elected by the people can abolish that right or surrender it to someone else, for the fundamental reason that no government owns the right to self government, but merely holds it in trust temporarily for its owners, the people It follows that the treaties that form the basis for the EU are fundamentally invalid on philosophical grounds and the EU superstate should be considered an illegitimate government against which patriots have a right to rebel.
The EU is a mortal threat to the civil liberties of those who live under it. It is currently trying to impose on those member states, like Britain, whose citizens currently have a right to trial-by-jury, a legal system known as Corpus Juris - a judicial system under which Trial by Jury and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty will be abolished. The EU is trying to extend the preposterously strict and anti-free speech hate crimes laws of Germany, a product of that nation’s unique and horrifying history, to all the other nations. It would like to make such acts as "disparaging" another religion illegal. Magazines like this one are probably already in violation of the law in some member states and could soon be illegal in the whole Union. Thank God, I must say, we are Americans. Almost needless to say, like all other non-democratic governments the EU has no respect whatsoever for gun rights. It is trying to impose a requirement that communications providers snoop on their customers’ communications and store them indefinitely for police use. It is trying to abolish Europe’s network of extradition laws. It is trying to create a central register of "troublemakers" called the Schengen Information Registry which will be used to deny demonstrators freedom of movement between member states.
The fundamental form of the political order that the EU is trying to impose can be described as soft totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism shares with the various forms of "hard" totalitarianism that have been tried (fascism, nazism, communism) the aspiration of total government control over the life of its citizens. But soft totalitarianism does this by means of bribery (i.e. the welfare state) and bureaucracy, rather than by means of concentration camps and the knock on the door at 3 AM. Those who would scoff at this, I challenge to name one thing that the EU is not trying to regulate. This is an entity that regulates how curved a banana can be.
The bureaucracy of the EU has a well-earned reputation for heavy-handedness, arrogance, incompetence, and deafness to the public. The European Commission is seriously corrupt. So much so, in fact, that in the Spring of 1999 the entire commission had to resign due to corruption charges. After this, of course, many of them kept on working for the EU in other posts. The Brussels headquarters has become a feather bed for the unelectable political cronies of all the member states.
There should be no mystery why the EU is the way it is: most continental European states have no indigenous traditions of democracy. What democracy they have was imposed at the point of American bayonets. Or if they do have a democratic tradition, it is one of unstable, ineffective democracies that destroy themselves. Since one of the fundamental requirements of a viable democracy is the rule of law, it comes as no surprise that the EU is utterly lacking in this quality. It compiles governing statutes that run to thousands of pages, and then casually flouts them for brazen political reasons. For example, it established elaborate convergence criteria for national debt levels of member states being admitted to the European Monetary Union (an institutional arrangement that led the way to the euro) and then ignored them in order to get Germany, Belgium and Italy in. And the supposed independence of the European Central Bank crumbled when the French government demanded a special say over things.
The cultural agenda of the EU is to liquidate the sense of national identity in its member states and replace it with enthusiasm for "Europe." But not Europe as a meaningful pan-European culture in its own right, Europe as a bloodless bureaucratic construct. As a result, emotional attachment to this new superstate is weak. The EU's own surveys show that only a tiny minority (5%) of the EU's inhabitants consider themselves essentially "European" in identity, 85% instead viewing their nation as their sole or principal affiliation. As the EU survey ruefully admits, "a sense of sharing a common identity does not appear to have become more widespread over the years."
Tony Blair, whom Margaret Thatcher rightly described as animated by "a doomed ambition to rule Europe," would like to be the first president of a united Europe. In pursuit of this ambition, he has, to be perfectly blunt, become the greatest traitor in the history of Britain, selling out to foreigners contemptuous of Britain’s blood-bought political values not just her secrets or her interests but her very sovereignty. He has almost certainly made a private deal with the rest of the EU to be given this post in exchange for eventually submitting Britain to the euro. Margaret Thatcher’s greatest regret, she has said, is that she allowed the EU to acquire too much power. Americans should consider the threat to Britain as a threat to themselves, as the EU, with its incoherent but lethally mischievous foreign policy, is a threat to the special relationship between America and its most loyal ally. The European Union, by funding the Palestinian Authority, has directly and knowingly financed terrorism. Its member states continue to trade with Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and other nations implicated in the support of terror.
It is a distinct possibility that, in the long run, the EU will not be content with governing only Europe. Because of its lack of respect for, or foundation in, real concrete European identity, it is quite capable of redefining itself at some point to embrace the nations at its fringe, like North Africa, and then amorphously expanding to include them. Naturally, anyone who opposes this will be labeled a racist. The EU is quite plausibly the nucleus of an aspiring soft-totalitarian world state; it is in fact far more likely to fulfil this role than the justly-despised UN. I apologize if this sounds alarmist, but history clearly teaches us to think ahead to the logical implications of things that are just beginning.
Fortunately, there are signs that Europe is awakening to the monster in its midst. A number of right-wing politicians like Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (closest American equivalent: Ross Perot) are actively fighting to curb the EU. Poll evidence regularly indicates that a narrow majority of British voters now favors outright withdrawal from the European Union under certain circumstances and 60% favor leaving the EU if the alternative is joining the euro. A majority of citizens in eight of the European Union's 15 member states are dissatisfied with the way the EU is progressing towards closer unity. Unfortunately, the welfare machine constructed to narcotize European electorates after WWII produces a far more passive electorate than in the US, far more used to being fed faits accomplis by their political masters so long as the public teat keeps giving.
So what’s the solution to the EU? Simply disband it. Let the nations of Western and Central Europe engage in free trade with one another. That’s it. For once, a complex problem has a simple solution.
Abolish The European Union
Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 5, 2002
AMERICANS SUFFER FROM A CURIOUS DELUSION:
Reading their newspapers and perusing their atlases, they continue to believe that such geographical entities as France, England, Italy and Germany are nations. But in fact they are, or more accurately are rapidly becoming, mere provinces of the Holy Belgian Empire: the European Union (EU). This empire has been getting continually more malignant for years without attracting significant conservative opposition on this side of the Atlantic. But American conservatives should realize that it represents the European manifestation of the odious ideology of globalism, or the liquidation of nations. It should therefore be abolished forthwith.
The EU seems to have a unique talent for bringing out the worst in its member states. It is like the universal alloy of medieval alchemy: a mixture of all metals that turns out to have the liabilities of each and the virtues of none. Each of its member states has its own dishonorable reasons for participating in it.
For example, one motivating factor behind the ongoing attempt of the EU to become a superstate is the colossal unresolved guilt felt by Germany about her Nazi past. Germans would very much like to abolish Germany as a nation and declare themselves citizens of "Europe" so that their consciences wouldn’t have to bear the burden of being Germans. After having tried to liquidate the other nations of Europe by the sword twice in one century, they are now trying it a third time to weasel out of their well-deserved guilt over the first two. It is an utter scandal that nations like Britain, France, and soon Poland, which sacrificed millions of lives fighting German aggression, are being asked to liquidate their nationhood to expiate German crimes.
Another motivating factor behind the EU is the determination of French bureaucrats to rule Europe. France, because of her history, the structure of her government, and her educational system, produces the most ambitious bureaucrats in the world. Her tradition of dirigisme or state-directed capitalism is precisely suited to present world economic conditions, in which competitive pressures make expanding socialism impossible but the inexorable will of the state to grow has not gone away. They are convinced that the expanded powers of the EU will by nature fall into their lap, the Germans being too shy about asserting their power, the British not being statist by instinct, the Italians being too disorganized, and everyone else being too small.
Those Italians who like the EU like it because it absolves them of the need to get their own national act together and fix the most chaotic government and economy in Europe. Rather than fixing their own budget deficits to save the ever-falling lira, they adopt the euro. Rather than fixing their own government, they prefer to sign away their sovereignty and with it, the ability of future generations of Italians to be masters of their own political destiny. The idea of an Italy governed in all essentials by foreigners in Brussels doesn’t seem to scare them or bother their national pride at all.
Other nations, like Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, have knuckled under to the EU essentially on a basis of bribery. They have been paid billions in subsidies to support obsolescent farming sectors in exchange for compliant votes to expand EU powers. It is a classic case, writ large, of the old warning about selling one’s freedom in exchange for welfare.
The other openly admitted motivation for the EU is to create a political entity large enough to blunt "American hegemony." Given that it is US hegemony over Europe since WWII that has given the continent the greatest peace and prosperity it has known in the 20th century, this is for a start monumentally ungrateful. Given that Europe cannot even deal with local crises like the wars of the Yugoslav succession without American help, it is pathetic. Despite all talk of a common foreign policy, the minute bullets start to fly, pronouncements of European unity vanish and the member states go their separate ways. And what wonderful geopolitical agenda does Europe intend to pursue once it stands tall next to America? What terrible harm at our hands does it propose to rectify? No one has answered this question because frankly, the motivation here is pure ego, leavened only by the cynicism that passes for political sophistication in Europe. Fortunately, Europe is unlikely to ever match American military power, since it cannot afford to match our defense budget and maintain its bloated welfare states. This is not even to mention our 40-year technological head start; the European armies, with the limited exception of the Americanized but very small British military, are perfectly nice 1960s-era militaries, a joke compared to our Star Wars forces. All of Europe put together cannot field a single state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.
The other great aim of EU supporters is that it be their last chance to salvage the statist, over-regulated, socialistic economic policies that have been pushed to the wall by the worldwide free-market revival of the ‘80s and ‘90s. It is no accident that the movement to turn the EU from a free-trade area to a superstate rose with this free-market revival. Their essential premise is that these failed policies will work if the political unit of their operation is large enough. Naturally, this is absurd: the Soviet Union had nearly 300 million people and couldn’t make socialism work. The justification for this claim is the idea that there is no real superiority to free-market policies and that these policies have only been offering them competition because they are embodied in the United States, which uses its vast size to bully other nations into adopting them. (I have discussed the tendency of the world’s losers to see their self-inflicted problems as caused by America in another article.) So if the EU is large enough, it will be able to sustain these discredited ideas by hiding behind a protectionist shield. They will of course eventually discover that this won’t work, that mistakes are mistakes regardless of scale, but the attempt could doom a generation of Europeans to continuing economic sclerosis.
Some examples of the dirigiste economic policies of EU nations:
High taxes on everything from incomes to retail goods. High social charges on employers. Legally-entrenched labor union power. Laws against firing people, which just cause employers not to hire them in the first place. Massive subsidies for obsolescent industries like agriculture and steel. Cozy cartels to restrict competition and divide up markets. Massive government intervention in business decisions. Outright government ownership of sectors of the economy. Anti-business cultural attitudes. Protectionism against American and Asian goods.
There is no meaningful doubt that the nations of the EU pay a high price for its dirigiste practices. For the last decade, the EU’s unemployment rate has averaged roughly double that of the United States. Since 1980, the US has created 30 million new private-sector jobs; the European Union a net of zero. (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis).
Fortunately one of the saving graces of Europe has traditionally been competition between governments. For example, the most economically free nation in Europe (thanks to Margaret Thatcher, not the current Labor government) is currently Britain, which has been attracting investment away from more regulated economies in Europe as a result. The French fume about this and call it "social dumping." British workers call it an unemployment rate far below that of France. The EU would like to end this ability of nations to compete by having lighter tax burdens. It would like to "harmonize," as it says in its inimitably dishonest eurobabble, tax rates across nations. It also raises taxes simply by having a budget, which taxpayers of the member states ultimately finance.
Like every undesirable thing in politics, the EU has its own characteristic varieties of sophistry that are used to justify it. The key piece of sophistic reasoning used to justify the European Union is the claim that opposition to the political construct that is the EU constitutes opposition to the existential fact that is Europe. Anyone who opposes expansion of the powers of the EU is tarred as "anti-Europe," which has become an epithet exceeded only by "racist" in its ability to both mean nothing and brand its victim a pariah. But Europeans have been benefiting from their relations with other European countries for millennia without the benefit of this superstate. It is entirely possible, indeed desirable, to be pro-Europe and anti-EU.
Another EU sophism: the benefits of free trade within the EU require its existence. False: all they require is the absence of tariffs between the member states, as the old Common Market, predecessor of the EU, used to provide. The European Union uses the promise of free trade as a tool to bribe the nations to its East to submit to its political control. I am not Polish, but it makes me want to cry to see this proud, nationalistic nation, which has suffered so many cruel affronts to its independence in its history, being prepared for subjugation to Brussels, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic. All the preposterous claims about the economic benefits of membership in the EU crumble on contact with the fact that some of Europe’s most successful economies, like Norway and Switzerland, are outside it, and one of the most successful countries inside the EU, Britain, has the least degree of economic submission to it, having not adopted its currency, the euro.
The lies spouted in favor of the euro are a rich topic in their own right. The fundamental premise underlying the euro is the same bald empirical falsehood that underlies most EU thinking: bigger is better. When it comes to economics, one can compare the success of the currencies of Russia and Singapore, or Brazil and Switzerland, and come to one’s own conclusions. Supposedly, having a common currency is necessary to weld the individual economies of Europe into one big economy. Naturally, since the euro is backed by the sagging over-regulated economies of Continental Europe, it has been sinking relative to the dollar and the pound since it was established. It was issued in 1999 at a value of $1.17; it is now trading at 94 and has been lower. This loss in value is not an abstraction: it has wiped billions off of the value of pension funds, especially German ones, which used to be denominated in the rock-solid mark. Britain, which remains outside the euro, has less inflation, less unemployment, and more growth, than the average of those nations within it. And the euro does not promote foreign investment: in 1999, Britain attracted a grossly disproportionate 40% of all US and Asian investment into the EU.
However smoothly its spokesmen would deny it in public while admitting it in private, the EU is a threat to the national sovereignty of its member states. Sovereignty sounds like an abstraction, but in fact it refers to the ultimate ability of a nation to control its own destiny rather than being dictated to by others. For example, EU laws override the laws made by the parliaments of the member states. This means that the entire body of English common law, for example, a treasury of liberty, which has grown up over nearly a thousand years, is now disposable. The British parliament cannot legislate for its own people without the permission of bureaucrats in Brussels.
The EU is exceptionally dishonest in how it goes about coercing its member states. Its fundamental modus operandi is what has been called "union by stealth," namely the surrender of national sovereignty to the new superstate so gradually that the electorates of the member nations don’t notice until it is too late. Stealth combines with the narcotization of European electorates by bloated welfare states to make this possible. It is the same tactic of "progressive" revolutionaries that we have seen in America: push through fundamental changes not by arguing that they are good, but by pretending that they don’t matter. It is government by anesthesia. The politicians responsible have consistently lied about the nature of the changes they have made. It is well understood that the EU could never survive real democratic debate. Claude Cheysson, the former French Foreign Secretary who subsequently became one of France's European Commissioners, famously observed that the superstate-building Maastricht Treaty could only have been constructed "in the absence of democracy."
Politicians as a class love the EU. It gives them the ability to wield power through insider wheeler-dealing, without the accountability of pesky national electorates or judiciaries.
Leftists especially appreciate its ability to impose laws that would never be passed by their national legislature. The EU is governed by an unelected Commission; the "European Parliament" is an inert joke. The issue is usually fudged by resorting to the kind of technical discussion of the structures of government, rife with meaningless phrases like "pooled sovereignty," that have come to be known as eurobabble, but the blunt fact is, the EU has no democratic legitimacy. The legal basis for the imposition of its laws on its member states is only a series of treaties that they have signed, starting with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The treaty that contained the fundamental basis for surrender of sovereignty was that of 1972, but this was not given its full force until the treaties of Maastrich of 1993 and Amsterdam in 1997. The fundamental problem with these treaties, as a matter of basic sound political philosophy, is that they surrender or alienate the right of self-government of the nations that sign them. Our Declaration of Independence rightly observes that the right to self-government is "unalienable;" i.e. that no government elected by the people can abolish that right or surrender it to someone else, for the fundamental reason that no government owns the right to self government, but merely holds it in trust temporarily for its owners, the people It follows that the treaties that form the basis for the EU are fundamentally invalid on philosophical grounds and the EU superstate should be considered an illegitimate government against which patriots have a right to rebel.
The EU is a mortal threat to the civil liberties of those who live under it. It is currently trying to impose on those member states, like Britain, whose citizens currently have a right to trial-by-jury, a legal system known as Corpus Juris - a judicial system under which Trial by Jury and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty will be abolished. The EU is trying to extend the preposterously strict and anti-free speech hate crimes laws of Germany, a product of that nation’s unique and horrifying history, to all the other nations. It would like to make such acts as "disparaging" another religion illegal. Magazines like this one are probably already in violation of the law in some member states and could soon be illegal in the whole Union. Thank God, I must say, we are Americans. Almost needless to say, like all other non-democratic governments the EU has no respect whatsoever for gun rights. It is trying to impose a requirement that communications providers snoop on their customers’ communications and store them indefinitely for police use. It is trying to abolish Europe’s network of extradition laws. It is trying to create a central register of "troublemakers" called the Schengen Information Registry which will be used to deny demonstrators freedom of movement between member states.
The fundamental form of the political order that the EU is trying to impose can be described as soft totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism shares with the various forms of "hard" totalitarianism that have been tried (fascism, nazism, communism) the aspiration of total government control over the life of its citizens. But soft totalitarianism does this by means of bribery (i.e. the welfare state) and bureaucracy, rather than by means of concentration camps and the knock on the door at 3 AM. Those who would scoff at this, I challenge to name one thing that the EU is not trying to regulate. This is an entity that regulates how curved a banana can be.
The bureaucracy of the EU has a well-earned reputation for heavy-handedness, arrogance, incompetence, and deafness to the public. The European Commission is seriously corrupt. So much so, in fact, that in the Spring of 1999 the entire commission had to resign due to corruption charges. After this, of course, many of them kept on working for the EU in other posts. The Brussels headquarters has become a feather bed for the unelectable political cronies of all the member states.
There should be no mystery why the EU is the way it is: most continental European states have no indigenous traditions of democracy. What democracy they have was imposed at the point of American bayonets. Or if they do have a democratic tradition, it is one of unstable, ineffective democracies that destroy themselves. Since one of the fundamental requirements of a viable democracy is the rule of law, it comes as no surprise that the EU is utterly lacking in this quality. It compiles governing statutes that run to thousands of pages, and then casually flouts them for brazen political reasons. For example, it established elaborate convergence criteria for national debt levels of member states being admitted to the European Monetary Union (an institutional arrangement that led the way to the euro) and then ignored them in order to get Germany, Belgium and Italy in. And the supposed independence of the European Central Bank crumbled when the French government demanded a special say over things.
The cultural agenda of the EU is to liquidate the sense of national identity in its member states and replace it with enthusiasm for "Europe." But not Europe as a meaningful pan-European culture in its own right, Europe as a bloodless bureaucratic construct. As a result, emotional attachment to this new superstate is weak. The EU's own surveys show that only a tiny minority (5%) of the EU's inhabitants consider themselves essentially "European" in identity, 85% instead viewing their nation as their sole or principal affiliation. As the EU survey ruefully admits, "a sense of sharing a common identity does not appear to have become more widespread over the years."
Tony Blair, whom Margaret Thatcher rightly described as animated by "a doomed ambition to rule Europe," would like to be the first president of a united Europe. In pursuit of this ambition, he has, to be perfectly blunt, become the greatest traitor in the history of Britain, selling out to foreigners contemptuous of Britain’s blood-bought political values not just her secrets or her interests but her very sovereignty. He has almost certainly made a private deal with the rest of the EU to be given this post in exchange for eventually submitting Britain to the euro. Margaret Thatcher’s greatest regret, she has said, is that she allowed the EU to acquire too much power. Americans should consider the threat to Britain as a threat to themselves, as the EU, with its incoherent but lethally mischievous foreign policy, is a threat to the special relationship between America and its most loyal ally. The European Union, by funding the Palestinian Authority, has directly and knowingly financed terrorism. Its member states continue to trade with Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and other nations implicated in the support of terror.
It is a distinct possibility that, in the long run, the EU will not be content with governing only Europe. Because of its lack of respect for, or foundation in, real concrete European identity, it is quite capable of redefining itself at some point to embrace the nations at its fringe, like North Africa, and then amorphously expanding to include them. Naturally, anyone who opposes this will be labeled a racist. The EU is quite plausibly the nucleus of an aspiring soft-totalitarian world state; it is in fact far more likely to fulfil this role than the justly-despised UN. I apologize if this sounds alarmist, but history clearly teaches us to think ahead to the logical implications of things that are just beginning.
Fortunately, there are signs that Europe is awakening to the monster in its midst. A number of right-wing politicians like Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (closest American equivalent: Ross Perot) are actively fighting to curb the EU. Poll evidence regularly indicates that a narrow majority of British voters now favors outright withdrawal from the European Union under certain circumstances and 60% favor leaving the EU if the alternative is joining the euro. A majority of citizens in eight of the European Union's 15 member states are dissatisfied with the way the EU is progressing towards closer unity. Unfortunately, the welfare machine constructed to narcotize European electorates after WWII produces a far more passive electorate than in the US, far more used to being fed faits accomplis by their political masters so long as the public teat keeps giving.
So what’s the solution to the EU? Simply disband it. Let the nations of Western and Central Europe engage in free trade with one another. That’s it. For once, a complex problem has a simple solution.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Stormfront strikes out!
Folks on Stormfront (and the like) are often the other extreme of those self-hating whites who pander to minorities and pat themselves on the back for what a good non-racist they are, failing to see that their double standards and unearned credit given to minorities IS in fact racist.
Too many folks on Stormfront give all self-respecting white people a bad name, sad to say. So close, yet so far away.
David Ben-Ariel Faces the Aryan Nations
Aryan Nations to be Deported by Germany!
Friday, March 23, 2007
Germany's Merkel calls for EU army
According to the German press, Angela Merkel has called for an EU army. “We must move closer to a European army,” she told the Bild Zeitung. She went on to say, “The European Commission would become more capable of acting, within clearly defined competencies.”
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Right on Rosemary Righter!
Righter: The EU needs to drop "its childishly defensive attitude to the US"
Rosemary Righter argues in the Times that the EU "is America 's pampered godchild," and that the EU could not have been realised without "America 's unflinching strategic and financial support for European recovery, and for the idea of European unity." Righter goes on, "At the age of 50, the EU should at last be able to shed its childishly defensive attitude to the US. So, even, should France . For only by pooling the skills and talents of Europe and America, will the European Union achieve its true international potential."
Germany's Fourth Reich aka "the European Union" will only acknowledge Americans as useful idiots.
Herbert W. Armstrong was right: a German-dominated Europe (under strong Jesuit influence) will wreak havoc on the world playing God.
God save us all!
Europe's Bitter Roots
Germany to Take the EU Bull by the Horns
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Herbert W. Armstrong Was Ahead of His Time!
The Intelligence Summit Misses the Mark: the German-Jesuit Threat to World Peace
EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews
Will the Atlantic Times Address the German threat?
Bavarian Pope to Pump Life into EU Body
Europe Swings Both Ways
Bible Prophecy States EU to Form Core Group
Is a World Dictator About to Appear?
Bavarian Pope to Sweep Europe Off Its Feet?
Europe to Take Out Iran for Jerusalem
Europe Misses the Mark - Will It Return as the Sign of the Cross?
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Catholic Europe in Vogue?
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Landmark dates for the European Union
Landmark dates for the European Union
21.03.2007 - 09:23 CET| By Honor Mahony
After World War II – French economist Jean Monnet develops his plans to ease tensions between France and Germany as they square up over control of the steel-and coal-rich Ruhr region.
21.03.2007 - 09:23 CET| By Honor Mahony
After World War II – French economist Jean Monnet develops his plans to ease tensions between France and Germany as they square up over control of the steel-and coal-rich Ruhr region.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
A European moment
A European moment
Beyond Babylon ^ | 03-20-07 | Wolfgang Ischinger
For traditional European Atlanticists, it does not make for pleasant viewing to see US leadership damaged and questioned. But expectations are low today regarding its ability to lead the international community. In the face of a US credibility crisis, some look to Europe to take the initiative and fill the vacuum. Can 2007 be a "European moment"?
Beyond Babylon ^ | 03-20-07 | Wolfgang Ischinger
For traditional European Atlanticists, it does not make for pleasant viewing to see US leadership damaged and questioned. But expectations are low today regarding its ability to lead the international community. In the face of a US credibility crisis, some look to Europe to take the initiative and fill the vacuum. Can 2007 be a "European moment"?
*******************
Herbert W. Armstrong warned us for years that a German-dominated Europe would brutally betray us. We can see such a German attitude displayed by Wolfgang Ischinger, basically ordering the United States to step aside so the German-EU jackboot can stomp Jerusalem and occupy Israel. As many Euro-skeptics know, the "European Union" is being forged into Germany's Fourth Reich.
Will the Bavarian pope soon promote the European man of the moment as the savior of the world?
Will the Bavarian pope soon promote the European man of the moment as the savior of the world?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Big Brother Europe
Big Brother Europe
The Weekend FT reported that the Commission is proposing that the EU’s new criminal biometric database be restricted only to serious crimes such as terrorism, organised crime or murder. UPI and the Contractor picked up on Open Europe’s comments that the database could represent “the start of Big Brother Europe.”
Antonio and Jorge “tie the knot” in Mexico City
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Will Jews ever learn?
I just read in the March issue of The Atlantic Times that American Jews of German origin "founded all the major private institutions, both in the United States and Germany, devoted to German-American understanding: the American Council on Germany in New York City; the Atlantik-Brucke originally in Hamburg, then in Bonn and Berlin; the German Marshall Fund and the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, both in Washington, and the Aspen Institute and the American Academy, both in Berlin" ("German Name, Jewish Family" by Robert G. Livingston).
When will they ever learn?
Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?
Germany Behind the Mask: Monster or Marshmallow?
The Secret Nazis Covet the Temple Mount
The Intelligence Summit Misses the Mark: the German-Jesuit Threat to World Peace
Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World
Bavarian Pope Entrusts Germany To Lead Europe, Others Wary Of The Grand Inquisitor
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Israel must remove the Arab threat
From Israel National News:
GSS: Israeli-Arabs are Existential Danger to Israel
GSS: Israeli-Arabs are Existential Danger to Israel
(13/03/2007)
**********
**********
Meir Kahane warned about this years ago and his political party Kach was banned as "racist" when all he was being was a REALIST. Are the GSS racist?
Former Israeli Parliament member and rabbi Meir Kahane also warned that according to Torah, if Israel didn't expel their enemies they would be expelled.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Knock out Shimon Peres from the race
IsraelNationalNews.com
MK Avital Running for Knesset - at Expense of Shimon Peres
In other Knesset news, Labor MK Avital Collette has formally announced her candidacy for the Presidency of Israel. Her speech today was laced with veiled criticism of her former mentor, Shimon Peres, who is likely to run for the job himself.
Avital said that Peres "betrayed" the Labor Party when he quit it last year to join Kadima, and that Israel needs a President who can "serve a full term" - a jab at Peres' age, 84. She further said that she does not view the Presidency as a "consolation prize;" many have said that Peres deserves to be President in light of all he has done for the country and because of the many elections he has lost.
MK Ruby Rivlin of the Likud is also running for President. The secret-ballot election will be held among the 120 Knesset Members in July.
********************************************************
Both Avital Collette and Ruby Rivlin can knock out Shimon Peres from the presidential race. How? By simply asking a few questions about Shimon Peres' role in Rabin's assassination and his collaboration with the Vatican against Jerusalem.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Shimon Peres Charged with the Murder of Yitzhak Rabin?
Shimon Peres Charged with the Murder of Yitzhak Rabin?
Shimon Peres charged with the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by the Justice for Rabin Coalition
April 27, 2006/ 30 Nisan 5766 B.H.
We, the undersigned, leaders of major Jewish groups and organizations, hereby sorrowfully acknowledge our lack of leadership in pursuit of justice for slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
We deeply regret standing idly by the blood of our brother Yitzhak Rabin, especially after the initial shock of his assassination wore off and gaping holes were exposed in the corrupt conclusions of the Shamgar Commission that we refused to believe. However, we are now convinced the Shamgar Commission represents nothing more than the official Israeli government cover-up of the Yitzhak Rabin assassination, orchestrated by the Israeli oligarchy outed by Forbes Israel, who were just following their Euro-Nazi orders, specifically Shimon Peres, as part of their plan to sell out Israel to foreign interests.
We grieve that Mrs. Leah Rabin did not live to hear and witness us echo her call to REOPEN THE RABIN FILE. Her plea fell on deaf ears. We will make sure that our demands cannot be ignored or neglected. We sincerely apologize to the family of Yitzhak Rabin and to the nation of Israel, the Jewish homeland, but trust we can go forward with zeal and determination to right these wrongs, reassured by the words of the Prophet Isaiah: “Zion shall be redeemed with justice.”
In that holy spirit, and in the spirit of Elijah the advocate for Naboth against Ahab and Jezebel,
1) We demand the Israeli government to REOPEN THE RABIN FILE to an independent, international commission as proposed by the highly respectable, Jerusalem-based Root and Branch Association. There are more than enough valid reasons for this, including "new evidence" and recent comments by Atty. Penina Guy, the prosecutor in Yigal Amir's trial in early 1996, who questioned why Amir wasn't killed immediately after he began shooting: “It's still a mystery to me how he managed to shoot three bullets and at the same time even approach Rabin, and, according to the ballistic evidence, actually touch Rabin's jacket for the third bullet..." which the Kempler video of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination proves impossible and Yigal Amir denies.
2) We call upon the Israeli and world media (such as Dateline, 20/20, Nightline) to BROADCAST THE KEMPLER VIDEO and focus on this reopened cold case of Rabin's murder (that refuses to rest until justice is served), in what Israeli political analyst Joel Bainerman predicts will become “the biggest scandal in Israeli history, “and dare to ask the hard questions and address the legitimate concerns that beg their attention (that has too long been denied), including from such “friends” of Yitzhak Rabin as Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as give long overdue credit to Israeli author Barry Chamish for leading the way in this investigation.
3) ARREST SHIMON PERES FOR THE MURDER OF YITZHAK RABIN. As WorldNetDaily reported, five thoroughly researched books charge the General Security Services of Israel (Shabak) organized Rabin's murder and three of the books contend that Shimon Peres was the mastermind of the assassination.
"All in all," notes Bainerman, "the case against Peres is circumstantial, but the weight of the evidence is impressive enough to start legal proceedings against him."
Let justice be served and the truth be known that Israel may be free to survive and thrive.
For Zion's Sake,
The Justice for Rabin Coalition
Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of major American Jewish Organizations
Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, Founder & President, The Israel Project
Morton A. Klein, National President, Zionist Organization of America
Paul S. Miller, President, American Jewish Congress
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director & chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
Ofer Gutman, North American Representative of World Zionist Organization
Josh Block AIPAC Director of Media Affairs
E. Robert Goodkind, President, The American Jewish Committee
****************************
An Important Notice:
I'm grieved to report that The Justice for Rabin Coalition, including the sample press release above - "Shimon Peres charged with the murder of Yitzhak Rabin" - unfortunately is not yet a reality, but clearly represents what self-respecting Jewish leaders and organizations would do if they truly loved their fellow Jews and Eretz Yisrael a fraction of what they profess to.
May this "press release" serve as an opportunity for serious soul-searching, for teshuva, or as an indictment against those who fail to act and will be held responsible for the blood of klal Yisrael before the Throne of Heaven. Life and death are set before you. May G-d bless us all to CHOOSE LIFE.
David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall. With a focus on the Middle East and Jerusalem, his analytical articles help others improve their understanding of that troubled region. Check out the Beyond Babylon blog.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Is Gerald Flurry right or wrong about Jerusalem?
Gerald Flurry, editor-in-chief of The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine believes the Arabs will seize East Jerusalem in the next Arab-Israeli war. According to Mr. Flurry, such an action will lead to European intervention that will occupy the entire city of Jerusalem.
However, from what I can see and read in the Bible, EUROPE will brutally betray Jerusalem, capture the whole city and expel half of its inhabitants - undoubtedly Jews from East Jerusalem. What do you think?
Jerusalem's Fall, Division and Liberation
Connie Fogal falls for Nazi-Muslim propaganda
I wholeheartedly supported the CanadianActionParty.com against the treacherous North American Union (NAU) and deceitful Security and Prosperity Agreement (SPP) and publicized the issue with the article Connie Fogal sets the record straight about the SPP.
However, now in response to their self-defeating Press Release: CAP/PAC supports call for boycott and sanctions against Israel's Apartheid like practices - I've written Connie Fogal:
Tue, 6 Mar 2007
Dear Connie,
It grieves me that you have fallen victim to Nazi-Muslim propaganda, and like too many other NAIVE Westerners just don't get it when it comes to the myth of Palestine and their propaganda. You have chosen to side with primitive Muslims over Westernized Jews. You will see that you've made the WRONG CHOICE.
Please remove me from your mailing list as I am a Bible believer, a Christian Zionist, and will not join forces with those destined to fail.
Christian Zionists believe and support the fulfillment of the many prophecies that foretold the restoration of Jews from all over the world to the Promised Land of Israel. Christian Zionists oppose those who would seek to undermine or destroy the Jewish Homeland for the myth of Palestine that is against the Word and Will of God.
It also appears you're stretching CAP from its original purpose to oppose NAU/SPP and are getting distracted and diluted by 9/11(not that it doesn't deserve investigation) and now this garbage, losing any credibility you might have gained.
Sincerely,
David Ben-Ariel
Check out Beyond Babylon @
Abu Mazen - Holocaust Denier and Temple Denier
"[The Israelis] claim that 2000 years ago they had a Temple . I challenge the claim that this is so. But even if it is so, we do not accept [Israeli claims on the Temple Mount ] it." - Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), August 25, 2000 (He is also a Holocaust-denier - some "peace partner").
Thursday, March 08, 2007
A Warning For America From South Africa
January 2005
By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)
People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).
Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.
America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.
Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.
But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.
That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.
Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."
Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.
The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.
Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.
It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.
White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.
We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.
The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."
Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.
From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.
A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.
In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.
What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?
Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.
In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.
In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.
What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?
Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.
Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.
In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.
When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.
Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.
What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.
Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.
Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.
To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.
Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.
And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.
They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.
They know what to do. Do you?
**************************
Black Racists Slaughter Whites in South Africa - Where's the Outrage?
May 1: Illegal Immigration Day Defused!
Race Matters
Martin Luther King Day?
Black Mark on Toledo
Black to Africa (Facing the Crisis in Black America)
Diversity Demands: Segregate Now!
Chocolate Continent Awaits the Great Black Return!
David Ben-Ariel is a Christian-Zionist writer and author of Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall. Check out the Beyond Babylon blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
