If the British public ever paused to take notice of anything other than the X-Factor, this week’s Soap operas or the latest developments in the unappetising saga of Tiger and the three skanks, (UPDATE: Make that eleven skanks) they might notice that some very troubling events are taking place amongst our allies across the channel, and indeed elsewhere.
The first of these relates to the aftermath of the recent referendum in Switzerland, where 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favour of a proposal banning the building of Islamic minarets. The result confounded pollsters, who had predicted the proposal would be defeated, and who were clearly put out that the Swiss people had seen through their efforts to influence the result.
The result shows why politicians are so reluctant to allow the public to vote on specific issues, instead of the carefully selected handful of innocuous, crowd pleasing but meaningless promises which make up the average election manifesto. No British government has permitted a referendum in the last 34 years, and the Swiss minaret vote will have convinced them of what they will have seen as the “wisdom” of that position.
Predictably the result has caused outraged amongst the ranks of the perpetually offended and the professional surrender monkeys in international politics, the media and at the head of the Christian churches. In the midst of the inevitable cries of “racism”, accusations of intolerance and the usual and, as they always are, unsubstantiated claims about increased attacks on mosques, the occasional notes of calm common sense have provided some relief. One example being the entertaining letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. After the usual 'shocked' and outraged letters on religious tolerance the reply in the letters page was a very brief one-liner. The writer simply asked whether some spokesperson from the Saudi and Iranian embassies would be so kind as to explain their nation's policy regarding building regulations for synagogues and churches, and detail how they have been implemented over the past two decades and how many have been built.
However, there have also been some very sinister noises amongst the squeaking, baying and clucking of the usual suspects. Amnesty International for one have declared that the referendum result is illegal and will have to be overturned either by the Swiss Supreme court or by the European Court of Human Rights . Meanwhile voices from within that bastion of ethical democracy the United Nations, have been making similar statements, whilst another paragon of Human rights, Turkey, has been calling on the Swiss government to “correct” the result.
Let us be clear about this, those voices are not talking about some new law passed by a government which infringes some international law, they are talking about an overwhelming democratic vote by a sovereign people. By suggesting that a national plebiscite can be corrected, or overturned by their institutions if it does not produce the desired result, demonstrates the contempt with which such people view democracy.
Of course, we have seen this before with the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where it appeared the government were prepared to keep forcing the public to vote until they got the answer “right”. Prior to that, the previous votes cast by both the French and the Dutch were effectively disregarded when the EU leaders merely changed the word Constitution to Lisbon Treaty and carried on regardless.
However, even with that travesty, nobody actually went so far as to suggest that there was a court higher than the democratic vote of a sovereign nation which could overturn their will. Ironically this solution was first muted by an organisation allegedly dedicated to the opposition of tyranny, however, like most left wing lobby groups Amnesty International are very selective as to the tyrannies they oppose and those they are happy to snuggle up with.
That the high ranking individuals within the United Nations, not to mention the EU would appear to take a similar view suggests that their self proclaimed passionate dedication to the right of self determination extends only to certain nations in selected continents. One would have to also ask that if Switzerland is in contravention of international law how can Saudi Arabia which entirely bans the building of churches, synagogues and temples possibly not be?
If this result were overturned by a court or international body, rather than by a further referendum, this would be an outrageous and very dangerous precedent, as it would signify the end of democracy and of national self determination in any meaningful way. What next? Regime change by tribunal?
However, we have to ask to what extent this has already come to pass, a devastating analysis by Prof, Anthony Coughlan in Monday’s Brussels Journal describes in chilling detail what the Lisbon Treaty, which Prof. Coughlan describes as “a constitutional revolution by stealth” has actually brought about. I strongly recommend that you read Anthony Coughlan’s powerful article, and I would like to thank Mister Fox for bringing it to my attention.
I recently had an e-mail exchange with regular and highly valued commentator and good friend Dr D, in which I expressed a positive view of Europe. I am certainly less antagonistic to Europe than many of my contemporaries. I am British, I blog from Britain and will vote for the BNP, however, I believe it is equally vital that we seek to preserve and protect the native European race, both in Europe and their descendants in such places as North America, Australia, New Zealand and of course South Africa. To a spectacularly overwhelming degree most things good and worthwhile came from Europe, that is not to say that we are better than anyone else, but we are a great people, and a people who are worth saving.
I believe it is essential for the European peoples to form strong alliances between ourselves and adopt a unified approach to a common and very serious threat. In this respect I am delighted that the BNP have formed alliances with other nationalist groups as we have interests and needs in common, we share a common Christian heritage and culture and we most surely face a common danger.
However, as far as the EU is concerned it is becoming very clear that what has been created is a malevolent leviathan which does not have the true welfare of the European peoples at its heart. Indeed, in the way that it is now formed, and most evidently in its approach to immigration, it is clear that its aim is to minimise and maybe even destroy the very concept of a European nation state.
Do its aims in fact go well beyond even that? It is telling to note the recent comments by our recently appointed president the disarmingly Yoderish Herman Van Rompuy in which he compared decisions taken at the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen as the first evidence of world government in action. I am not clear as to whether he was referring to the fact that various African states have just voted that we should give them lots of money, but if he was, that would not come as a huge surprise to many of those reading here.
I am not going to enter into discussion on climate change, as the comments it would generate would overwhelm the points I am seeking to make. However, right or wrong the issue has the potential to be misused to serve a political agenda as well as an environmental one.
What better way than to use the treat of potential global catastrophe, real or imagined, to achieve global aims in the same way that international migration has been used for the same purpose in recent decades?
Some may feel that I attribute to much importance to this matter. It is true that what has happened this week is a minor detail in an ongoing struggle, however its outcome may be very significant indeed. Switzerland is an independent democratic nation, it is not part of the European megalodon yet its people have acted in a manner which the forces currently governing our planet do not approve of, and it is being made clear that this will not be tolerated, it remains to be seen what will be done about that.
If the Swiss vote stands it is a huge achievement for democracy, independence and national sovereignty. If it does not stand, then it is further evidence that those things which all nations once held dear, democracy, nation, people and indeed our very freedom is at greater risk now than it has ever been in our history. Will our people put their Ipods down long enough to notice though?
_____________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox
The first of these relates to the aftermath of the recent referendum in Switzerland, where 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favour of a proposal banning the building of Islamic minarets. The result confounded pollsters, who had predicted the proposal would be defeated, and who were clearly put out that the Swiss people had seen through their efforts to influence the result.
The result shows why politicians are so reluctant to allow the public to vote on specific issues, instead of the carefully selected handful of innocuous, crowd pleasing but meaningless promises which make up the average election manifesto. No British government has permitted a referendum in the last 34 years, and the Swiss minaret vote will have convinced them of what they will have seen as the “wisdom” of that position.
Predictably the result has caused outraged amongst the ranks of the perpetually offended and the professional surrender monkeys in international politics, the media and at the head of the Christian churches. In the midst of the inevitable cries of “racism”, accusations of intolerance and the usual and, as they always are, unsubstantiated claims about increased attacks on mosques, the occasional notes of calm common sense have provided some relief. One example being the entertaining letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. After the usual 'shocked' and outraged letters on religious tolerance the reply in the letters page was a very brief one-liner. The writer simply asked whether some spokesperson from the Saudi and Iranian embassies would be so kind as to explain their nation's policy regarding building regulations for synagogues and churches, and detail how they have been implemented over the past two decades and how many have been built.
However, there have also been some very sinister noises amongst the squeaking, baying and clucking of the usual suspects. Amnesty International for one have declared that the referendum result is illegal and will have to be overturned either by the Swiss Supreme court or by the European Court of Human Rights . Meanwhile voices from within that bastion of ethical democracy the United Nations, have been making similar statements, whilst another paragon of Human rights, Turkey, has been calling on the Swiss government to “correct” the result.
Let us be clear about this, those voices are not talking about some new law passed by a government which infringes some international law, they are talking about an overwhelming democratic vote by a sovereign people. By suggesting that a national plebiscite can be corrected, or overturned by their institutions if it does not produce the desired result, demonstrates the contempt with which such people view democracy.
Of course, we have seen this before with the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where it appeared the government were prepared to keep forcing the public to vote until they got the answer “right”. Prior to that, the previous votes cast by both the French and the Dutch were effectively disregarded when the EU leaders merely changed the word Constitution to Lisbon Treaty and carried on regardless.
However, even with that travesty, nobody actually went so far as to suggest that there was a court higher than the democratic vote of a sovereign nation which could overturn their will. Ironically this solution was first muted by an organisation allegedly dedicated to the opposition of tyranny, however, like most left wing lobby groups Amnesty International are very selective as to the tyrannies they oppose and those they are happy to snuggle up with.
That the high ranking individuals within the United Nations, not to mention the EU would appear to take a similar view suggests that their self proclaimed passionate dedication to the right of self determination extends only to certain nations in selected continents. One would have to also ask that if Switzerland is in contravention of international law how can Saudi Arabia which entirely bans the building of churches, synagogues and temples possibly not be?
If this result were overturned by a court or international body, rather than by a further referendum, this would be an outrageous and very dangerous precedent, as it would signify the end of democracy and of national self determination in any meaningful way. What next? Regime change by tribunal?
However, we have to ask to what extent this has already come to pass, a devastating analysis by Prof, Anthony Coughlan in Monday’s Brussels Journal describes in chilling detail what the Lisbon Treaty, which Prof. Coughlan describes as “a constitutional revolution by stealth” has actually brought about. I strongly recommend that you read Anthony Coughlan’s powerful article, and I would like to thank Mister Fox for bringing it to my attention.
I recently had an e-mail exchange with regular and highly valued commentator and good friend Dr D, in which I expressed a positive view of Europe. I am certainly less antagonistic to Europe than many of my contemporaries. I am British, I blog from Britain and will vote for the BNP, however, I believe it is equally vital that we seek to preserve and protect the native European race, both in Europe and their descendants in such places as North America, Australia, New Zealand and of course South Africa. To a spectacularly overwhelming degree most things good and worthwhile came from Europe, that is not to say that we are better than anyone else, but we are a great people, and a people who are worth saving.
I believe it is essential for the European peoples to form strong alliances between ourselves and adopt a unified approach to a common and very serious threat. In this respect I am delighted that the BNP have formed alliances with other nationalist groups as we have interests and needs in common, we share a common Christian heritage and culture and we most surely face a common danger.
However, as far as the EU is concerned it is becoming very clear that what has been created is a malevolent leviathan which does not have the true welfare of the European peoples at its heart. Indeed, in the way that it is now formed, and most evidently in its approach to immigration, it is clear that its aim is to minimise and maybe even destroy the very concept of a European nation state.
Do its aims in fact go well beyond even that? It is telling to note the recent comments by our recently appointed president the disarmingly Yoderish Herman Van Rompuy in which he compared decisions taken at the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen as the first evidence of world government in action. I am not clear as to whether he was referring to the fact that various African states have just voted that we should give them lots of money, but if he was, that would not come as a huge surprise to many of those reading here.
I am not going to enter into discussion on climate change, as the comments it would generate would overwhelm the points I am seeking to make. However, right or wrong the issue has the potential to be misused to serve a political agenda as well as an environmental one.
What better way than to use the treat of potential global catastrophe, real or imagined, to achieve global aims in the same way that international migration has been used for the same purpose in recent decades?
Some may feel that I attribute to much importance to this matter. It is true that what has happened this week is a minor detail in an ongoing struggle, however its outcome may be very significant indeed. Switzerland is an independent democratic nation, it is not part of the European megalodon yet its people have acted in a manner which the forces currently governing our planet do not approve of, and it is being made clear that this will not be tolerated, it remains to be seen what will be done about that.
If the Swiss vote stands it is a huge achievement for democracy, independence and national sovereignty. If it does not stand, then it is further evidence that those things which all nations once held dear, democracy, nation, people and indeed our very freedom is at greater risk now than it has ever been in our history. Will our people put their Ipods down long enough to notice though?
_____________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox
7 comments:
Hi Sarah
I think you're right to consider this a very important matter. It may yet turn out to be a key moment in European history. The moment when deocracy fought back or was lost, maybe for ever. The huge forces ranged against the Swiss make it look like impossible odds though the Italians seem to be about to propose something similar. It's all the more sinister as Switzerland is neutral and not part of the EU.
I think Europeans must stand united but the first step must be to leave the EU. Not just us, all members but it does not look likely the way things currently are. There will only
be a bleak future for all Europeans with all they propose for us. Fjordman has some very good ideas for the future of our race.
As always multiculturism is seen as only suitable for western nations and as such Islamic countries are not 'required' to accomodate alien religeons and cultures, but what's new?
I wonder how many of our people won't bother to vote in the election because 'I'm a celebrity' is on TV. Apathy and rubbish telly could cost us all dear.
Slightly away from this subject what do you think of UKIP and Lord Pearson's new approach to Islam and immigration?
I was quite impressed with Lord Pearson following what he said about Islam, and his support for Geert Wilders.
However, I am less impressed with some of the things he has said since he became the leader of UKIP. For instance in a Channel 4 interview he said that there are not too many immigrants in Britain.
I suppose he now has to be careful what he says, but that was just ridiculous.
The funding (and purpose) of mosques (with minarets) has a dimension upon which we should be clear.
The practice of Islam in Europe has maintained a certain ethnic nature. Through the funding of mosques, states of origin have been able to preserve channels of influence over religious behavior. The maintenance of bonds with Muslims established in Europe has presented Arab regimes with numerous advantages. Through the funding of mosques, associations and the selection of those persons responsible for indoctrination, the Arab states sought to create pressure conduits that could serve their interests on the diplomatic sphere.
In parallel, the lack of means to self-finance themselves has forced various organizations to seek for foreign funding, genially available from states wishing to maintain their sphere of influence over Muslim communities established in Europe. Algeria, for example, has maintained a powerful mechanism of ideological control through the Paris Mosque.
Muslims states (inc Turkey) see their 'fellow citizens abroad' as parts of their societies and not belonging to the host country.
Erdogan's speech in Cologne in 2008 makes this quite clear.
Hypocrisy is the watchword.
The 'anger' in the Moslem world is directed at European 'racists' and is instrumentalised to legitimize their own regimes marked by a deficit in all human and political rights.
The Swiss have said 'no' in a democratic referendum and as the people are sovereign, that is that.
International bodies can only bluster.
A minaret is a religious symbol in a public place and was it not the Strasbourg Court which ruled against the 'crucifix' in Italy a mere six weeks ago as a 'symbol' in a public place.
International law leaves a state to define and interpret human rights in any case. In Switzerland the people are sovereign; the court of final instance.
Don't kid yourselves, the people of Britain will not put down their iPods, nor will they put down their latest issue of Heat. Celebrity is the new religion and dictates what people, say think or do. It's no coincidence that the current rage in celeb land is to adopt pets.. I mean children of different ethnicities. T.V. has become a very useful tool for the enemies of the white man. How dare you even suggest they should turn the t.v. off to do some good.
Apathy is abound the world over, and will be for a long time to come, until it is too late.
The idea of a sovereign nation is anathema to the people pushing for world government, or even its little brothers, the EU and the North American Union. Switzerland has asserted it sovereignty, and the rest of Europe is taking it badly because they are all caught in the EU net. The people of the other nations of Europe should see this as beacon of hope; if the Swiss can still be sovereign, their nations can be also. It is time for all to push back. Of course, that requires a bit of spine, and turning off the TV.
Amnesty International is simply a Leftist front, a scam. Surely they try to free prisoners, but not all prisoners should be freed. Many prisoners are in jail for very good reasons, and AI is indiscriminate as to whom they try to get freed. Further, it is really not their business to meddle in the judicial affairs of sovereign nations; that is presumption of the highest order. I have known a few AI folks, and they exuded an air of moral superiority that was just vile! For AI to declare the Swiss referendum illegal is a prime example of this sort of thing; who do they think they are?
The central issue is SOVEREIGNTY. It has been determined to be contrary to world peace, but I would argue that it is the very basis of world peace. If people are not allowed to decide their own affairs, but rather are compelled to live under laws made far away, this always breeds resentment. People have always wanted to be free to run their own affairs, and the only peace that a world government can bring is the heavy handed peace of oppression.
As a Swiss expatriate living in the US the outcome of the vote was very very good news to me. I am very fortunate to have the possibility to cast my vote in local, state, and federal elections that take place in Switzerland and this particular vote was extremely important.
Islam, radical & "moderate", is on a world wide advance and attack and I wouldn't want to see Switzerland plastered with minarets when I go back there for vacation or even move back there permanently.
The vote was something European political leaders do not like to see: the people making their own decisions and not buying into what the elitist, left-wing-caving-to-islam political class wants. That's why many many people in Europe envy what happened in Switzerland because they have lost the right to determine the fate of their own countries by letting some ragtag politicians in Brussels decide.
Switzerland is an independent and sovereign state. It is (thank God!) not part of the EU and so I don't give a flying **** what some EU ministers request the Swiss government should do. And requests from a breeding ground for islamofascists, also called Turkey, I couldn't care even less about - and many many of my fellow Swiss citizens see it just like that!
By the way, there are many mosques in Switzerland and so muslims are not discriminated against. They can practice their religion more or less any which way they want (minus sharia law, of course) and a minaret is not something absolutely needed to practice their religion!
We are a few years on from this original news in Switzerland, and today I read that Tony Blair would be 'deeply worried', should Britain leave the EU.
Multitudes of Brits are of course, feeling betrayed and abandoned by their politicians, and yes, increasingly silenced.
It has become clear to many that Zion is as much, if not more, a worry, than Moslems and their mosques.
Nevertheless, I am intrigued with whether the people of Switzerland prevailed in their vote, or whether they too, have been forced to swallow the Packaged Lies of the elitist few.
Post a Comment