The Resurgence of National Pride and the Future of Europe

Stolen From Gates of Vienna

Below is the text of the speech given by Geert Wilders in Los Angeles today.

Speech by Geert Wilders
Los Angeles, June 9, 2013

Dear friends, thank you for inviting me to Los Angeles. I always like coming to the United States. There are many things that I admire Americans for. One of them is that they are unashamedly patriotic.

The American Freedom Association has asked me to speak to you about the future of Europe.

Europe is in a terrible state. Bit by bit, European countries are losing their national sovereignty. The economy is in shambles. Islamic immigrants riot and terrorize the many locals. And when people’s throats are slit in the streets, while the murderers shout “Allahu Akbar,” the authorities appease the killers and declare that Islam has nothing to do with it.

Europeans feel that the gap between them en those who rule them is growing. Many no longer feel represented by their politicians. There is a complete disconnect between the people that truly rule Europe and the people that live in it.

The blame lies to a large extent with the European Union and the weak leadership within the European countries which have signed away their national sovereignty. The EU cannot be compared to the United States. Europe is a continent of many different nations with their own identities, traditions and languages. The EU is a supranational organization, but its leaders aim to turn it into a state. To this end they are destroying the wealth, identity and freedoms of the existing nation-states of Europe.

Before I elaborate, let us take a closer look at the terrible mistake that Europe made.

Following the Second World War, Europe’s leaders mistakenly thought that patriotism was the cause of the war.

All over Europe, not just in Germany, but everywhere, they equated the defense of national identity with extremism.

Politicians told the electorate that the nation state was dangerous.

On the rooftops of Europe’s parliaments and official buildings, they flew the EU flag next to the national flag, as if the nation is nothing but a province of a Pan-European empire.

On the number plates of European cars, they put the EU flag instead of the national flag, thereby forcing people to drive around with the symbol of their subjection.

They signed away their national interests for the goal of so-called Europeanization.

Such policies could never have been possible if the ruling elite had not fallen for the ideology of cultural and moral relativism. Patriotism, which is a virtue, came to be seen as a vice.

Today, the citizens of Europe are reaping the bitter harvest of this arrogance, this refusal to stand by the ancient nations of Europe, the mothers of modern democracy, the guardians of our liberty.

• The EU stands for everything that is wrong in Europe.
• It is a gigantic undemocratic transnational monster.
• It issues legislation permeated with cultural relativism.
• It meddles in the everyday lives of millions of people.
• It has opened Europe’s borders to uncontrolled mass immigration, mostly from Islamic countries.
• And it has deprived Europe’s parliaments of a huge amount of their legislative powers.

GE CEO Immelt Praises Communist Chinese Government

Here is Jeffrey Immelt, the man placed in charge of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, praising the communist form of government in China.

BEN BAKER / REDUX

"State-run communism may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.  They have five-year plans..." (link to video)

GE is looking at exporting more jobs and now nuclear technology to China:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is supporting a bid by General Electric to export jobs and nuclear technology to China by seeking assurances from Beijing that it will not steal or transfer valuable reactor technology, the Free Beacon has learned." (Washington Free Beacon)

And here is some of GE's behavior during World War II...supporting the Nazi government in Germany (obviously Immelt was not in charge, but it demonstrates how big business can work against the national security interests of your own nation):

"In 1946 General Electric was fined by the US government owing to its nefarious wartime activities. In partnership with Krupp, a German manufacturing firm, General Electric deliberately and artificially raised the price of tungsten carbide, a material that was vital for machining metals necessary for the war effort. Though only fined $36,000 in total, General Electric made around $1.5 million out of this scam in 1936 alone, hampering the war effort and increasing the cost of defeating the Nazis. GE also bought shares in Siemens before war broke out, making them complicit in the use of slave labor to build the very same gas chambers where many of the stricken laborers met their end." (Business Pundit)

I guess my point here is this: do people like Immelt have the best interests of the American people in mind?  Should they be placed in positions to have influence over the "jobs and competitiveness" of America?  Should they be allowed to export nuclear technology to our adversaries?  I would argue no, absolutely not.

--Against All Enemies

Link to video

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Hayek on Policies that Foster Monopolies

We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become. —Benito Mussolini

What follows is F.A. Hayek commenting on how, in most cases, governmental economic policy creates the conditions for monopolies to form.  He then goes on to explain how centralized planning cannot conceivably understand and reasonably control all the variables in a complex economy.  Only in a free market system of competition can a complex economic system function effectively.

"Of the various arguments employed to demonstrate the inevitability of planning, the one most frequently heard is that technological changes have made competition impossible in a constantly increasing number of fields and that the only choice left to us is between control of production by private monopolies and direction by the government. This belief derives mainly from the Marxist doctrine of the “concentration of industry...” 

The conclusions that the advantage of large-scale production must lead inevitably to the abolition of competition cannot be accepted. It should be noted, moreover, that monopoly is frequently the product of factors other than the lower costs of greater size. It is attained through collusive agreement and promoted by public policies. When these agreements are invalidated and when these policies are reversed, competitive conditions can be restored....” 

In [Germany] especially, which came to be regarded as the model country typifying the necessary evolution of capitalism, the growth of cartels and syndicates has since 1878 been systematically fostered by deliberate policy. Not only the instrument of protection but direct inducements and ultimately compulsion were used by the governments to further the creation of monopolies for the regulation of prices and sales.... 

That [in Germany] the suppression of competition was a matter of deliberate policy, that it was undertaken in the service of the ideal which we now call planning, there can be no doubt. In the progressive advance toward a completely planned society the Germans, and all the people who are imitating their example, are merely following the course which nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly Germans, have mapped out for them.  The intellectual history of the last sixty or eighty years is indeed a perfect illustration of the truth that in social evolution nothing is inevitable but thinking makes it so....

What they generally suggest is that the increasing difficulty of obtaining a coherent picture of the complete economic process makes it indispensable that things should be coordinated by some central agency if social life is not to dissolve in chaos....

...it is the very complexity of the division of labor under modern conditions which makes competition the only method by which such coordination can be adequately brought about. There would be no difficulty about efficient control or planning were conditions so simple that a single person or board could effectively survey all the relevant facts. It is only as the factors which have to be taken into account become so numerous that it is impossible to gain a synoptic view of them that decentralization becomes imperative. But, once decentralization is necessary, the problem of coordination arises—a coordination which leaves the separate agencies free to adjust their activities to the facts which only they can know and yet brings about a mutual adjustment of their respective plans. As decentralization has become necessary because nobody can consciously balance all the considerations bearing on the decisions of so many individuals, the coordination can clearly be effected not by “conscious control” but only by arrangements which convey to each agent the information he must possess in order effectively to adjust his decisions to those of others."

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom (p. 91-95). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Hayek on Communism and Fascism

The following four paragraphs are parts of F.A. Hayek's discussion of fascism and communism as observed in Russia and Germany around the time of World War II.

While “progressives” in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must have been somewhat shaken by such testimonies as that of Max Eastman, Lenin’s old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that “instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, antidemocratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,” and that it is “better described as superfascist”; and when we find the same author recognizing that “Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalization and collectivization which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society,” his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.

...W. H. Chamberlin, who in twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that “socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of utopias.”

...And Walter Lippmann has arrived at the conviction that “the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs. Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity. That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.”

...“The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism,” writes Peter Drucker, “has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.”

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom (pp. 78-80). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Rapid Islamification of Germany

As Radical Islam Mobilizes in Germany We Must Understand Why America is so Vulnerable.

Here’s an excerpt from a thought-provoking article by an elitist lefty who can’t help using the overused phrase “right-wing xenophobes” even when he has to admit that increasing numbers of left-wing xenophiles also fear this rapid Muslim take over in Germany.

As you read this excerpt please note that Germany already has 163 existing traditional mosques and there is now planned construction for 180 more mosques – many planned for areas with little Islamic population.

Here the excerpt from Not in My Backyard, Say an Increasing Number of Germans: (Bold highlights and comments added by me)

The planned construction of over 180 mosques in Germany is mobilizing right-wing xenophobes but also an increasing number of leftist critics. They fear the Muslim places of worship will facilitate the establishment of a completely parallel society. . . .

This burgeoning sentiment against mosques has no doubt been strengthened by the Islamist murders and suicide attacks that have also afflicted European cities in recent years. Some Muslims like Imran Sagir, director of a property development company specializing in mosques, say they can understand German citizens' fears. When you hear on the news about crimes committed in the name of Islam," he says, "who can blame people who don't want a mosque in the neighborhood?"

Wolfgang Huber, the head of Germany's Protestant Church and bishop for the states of Berlin and Brandenburg, names what he sees as one important cause for the increasing unease. He says there is an "obviously large-scale initiative" on the part of Islamic organizations to show their presence in as high-profile a way as possible and in as many places as possible. No fewer than 184 new mosques, some with domes and minarets, are currently being built or planned throughout Germany. That's considerably more than the 163 existing traditional mosques (along with around 2,600 prayer rooms mostly hidden within secular buildings). . .

And that appears to be only the start of an expected wider European mosque-building boom. One organization alone — Ahmadiyya, a movement seen as an outsider community within Islam that the respected German weekly Die Zeit described as "something like the Jehovah's Witnesses among Muslims" — has introduced a "100 mosque plan" for Germany. Currently 25 percent of these projects have been completed. . . .

The names of some of the newly built mosques aren't exaclty in harmony with the reassuring "Islam is peace" slogan. Religious scholar Ursula Spuler-Stegemann at Germany's University of Marburg, among others, criticizes the fact that mosques are named after warlords like Fatih Sultan Mehmet, conqueror of Constantinople. "That can only be an agenda," she believes. "These Muslims don't just want to show their presence here, but also to strengthen and expand it." . . .

In the case of the controversy over the mosque planned for Cologne's Ehrenfeld neighborhood, the right-wing Pro protesters have indeed been pushed into the margins. Their complaints have been drowned out by more high-profile statements coming from prominent leftists and liberals including German Jewish journalist Ralph Giordano, women's rights activist Alice Schwarzer and investigative reporter Günter Wallraff, who have all spoken out against the mosque. Representatives of Germany's large churches have increasingly added their voices to the criticism as well. The "dishonest dialogue" with Islam described in SPIEGEL's pages in December 2001 — in which church representatives simply ignored scandalous and unbearable aspects like persecution of Christians, discrimination against women, toleration of terror and "honor" killings for the sake of harmony — is now a thing of the past.

(Excuse me. I just had to jump in here. For the sake of harmony??? Isn’t that exactly what the Christian Left is promoting in America today???)

In place of the "fairy tale that we're all 'children of Abraham'," in the words of Leggewie, the churches are now making an effort not to entangle themselves in finding contrived common ground with Islam. Instead they are trying to find areas in which they differ — and this applies particularly to the construction of mosques. . . .

(You’d think some rational lefty xenophiles in America might take note! Ok ,forget rational. They really do see their leaders flying on the backs of Unicorns.)

In Berlin the local Ahmadiyya congregation, just 200 members strong, is pushing construction of a mosque at a cost of around €1 million ($1.6 million) in Berlin's suburban Heinersdorf district, which is home to a paucity of Muslims. Feeling left out of the process by local politicians, furious residents quickly began to gather at numerous, often overflowing and sometimes tumultuous protest meetings. "No to the mosque" or, as in the time around the fall of the Berlin Wall in this former East German district, "We are the people." They demanded that their quiet neighborhood not be allowed to be transformed into a "second Kreuzberg," a reference to a downtown Berlin neighborhood known for its massive Turkish immigrant population. "Why?" one of the speakers asked, drawing applause, "Why would you build a mosque in an area where no Muslims live?" . . .

(Obvious Answer: To intimidate, overtake, and finally to convert or kill the Infidels.)

In Islam expert Leggewie's opinion, mosques are "definitely not churches." He says they can be better described as multipurpose buildings. In the same way, Islam itself is "not just a religion," emphasizes Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a Green Party politician and long-term representative for multicultural affairs in Frankfurt. It is "also a theocratic vision," in which politics and belief are inseparably bound and "democracy and human rights are subordinate and conditional values." Islamic associations are not officially recognized religious communities, points out Necla Kelek, a Germany-based sociologist and feminist of Turkish descent. Granting building permits for mosques, she says, is "not a question of freedom of religion but a political question." She says Germany's laws governing construction and associations are ill-equipped for dealing with the issue. . .

(America take note! This isn’t just about religious freedom. It’s about what constitutes a religion – which has never been defined in the American constitution. Does our American Constitution, which offers blanket and unquestioning protection of religious freedom, create the very means by which the destruction of American sovereignty can be accomplished? Please read Why America Must Define Religion.)

Even DITIB, the comparatively moderate organization behind the mosque project in Cologne, arouses mistrust. DITIB is the long arm of a religious institution in secular Turkey. "What will most likely happen," ask the residents of Cologne who take part in the protests, "if the feared Islamization of Turkey happens? Will DITIB bring it over here?"

Cologne's Archbishop Joachim Meisner is already warning people about of areas in Germany "where sharia law is increasingly spreading." In the case of DITIB, this warning might be premature or simply inaccurate. At the same time, however, the association is remotely controlled from Ankara and has a reputation for being more concerned with helping to maintain the identity of Turkish immigrants than with helping them integrate in their new homes. . . .

Source: http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=337112

After reading the above you might get a wistful smile when you read the fawning Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, and chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, as he hopefully describes the words of King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, explaining how we must achieve religious cooperation . . .

Note: Note: Xenophilia – “A disorder involving inordinate attraction to that which is foreign, even to the detriment of one’s own person, family, or nation.”

Xenophile – A person who has an inordinate attraction to that which is foreign, even to the detriment of one’s person, family, or nation.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: Islam,Islamification,Germany,Xenophobes,Xenophiles,mosques,Rabbi Michael Lerner,King Abdullah

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Cao's Blog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Democrat=Socialist, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.